Last words on the core

by John F. Crosby

Just one last word in my discussion with Mark Fischer on the core curriculum. I think it will be my last, because I do not see much to disagree with in his letter to me in the last issue of the Concourse. In fact I agree with him when he says that in trying to improve the core curriculum we need not disparage what has gone before. In my original piece on the core I was making a point of looking for the deficiencies of the core, just as a doctor at a medical exam is looking for signs of sickness. But it is undoubtedly the case that a great deal of serious learning has taken place within the core; what Mark Fischer tells of himself is surely true of others.

I would just say that the core can be made better. It can be revised to give our students more fundamentals and more first principles; it can do better in conveying to them a sense of the unity of all knowledge; it can give them more of the direction that I hear so many of them asking for; it can initiate them more effectively into the heritage of Christian culture. It is clear from our discussion that Mark Fischer and I agree about such potential for growth and improvement.

We will surely also agree on this: it is certainly no disparagement of the present core to say that it, after all the dramatic changes that have occurred in the University and in the student body in the 22 years since the core was established, can now be revised and adapted so as to serve our students better.

John F. Crosby, Professor and Chair of Philosophy

issue cover

Related articles:

Same issue

Same topic: core curriculum

I,1 Shouldn’t we have a real core curriculum at Franciscan University?, John F. Crosby I,2 What is a ‘real’ Catholic education?, Kathleen van Schaijik I,2 Core curriculum (1), R.J. Convery I,2 Core curriculum (2), Jim Fox I,3 Core curriculum (3), Katherine Kemmis I,4 Core curriculum and anti-intellectualism, Adam Tate I,5 Core curriculum and critical thinking, Joseph A. Loizzo I,6 Core curriculum (4), Regis Martin I,7 Making ‘the connection’: A Steubenville education, Regina Schmiedicke I,7 A defense of a diversified core, Mark Fischer II,1 In reply to Mark Fischer’s defense of the present core curriculum, John F. Crosby II,2 More on the curriculum debate, Mark Fischer IV,4 What liberal educators may not omit, Regis Martin IV,5 Dr. Martin does it again, Joanna K. M. Bratten IV,5 FUS needs to get more practical about education, Peter Cole IV,5 Why non-liberal majors need a liberal core, Susan C. Fischer IV,6 The real purpose of liberal education, Ben Brown IV,7 The will and the intellect are inseparable, Martha L. Blandford IV,7 Preparing students to compete in the global economy, Peter Cole IV,7 Education not limited to the mind, Susan C. Fischer IV,7 According to the Tradition, education aims beyond the intellect, Matthew Fish V,1 More on the aim of education: Ben Brown replies to his critics, Ben Brown V,2 Preparing FUS graduates for the modern world, Jason Negri V,3 Liberal arts and professional programs: a reply to Jason Negri, Ben Brown V,3 Let’s improve our stats, Sofia Genato V,3 The ideal of perfecting the mind is timeless, Michael Houser V,3 Cultivating the intellect, Anne Schmiesing V,5 The eternally practical liberal arts, Timothy J. Williams V,5 Computers and liberal learning, Ben Brown V,6 Liberal arts with professional training: the best of both worlds, Thomas E. Kelly V,7 Education is not primarily about preparing to evangelize in the workplace, Ben Brown V,7 The God gap in the workplaces of the world, Peter Cole V,8 Arrogant idealism, Jason Negri IV,7 Newman, education and context, Kathleen van Schaijik

Same author