Koukal, D.R.

English

epublications@Marquette

Conversations on Jesuit Higher EducationVolume 39 Article 212-1-2011The Dishonesty of "Cores Lite": The Battle for aTruly Common CoreD.R. KoukalFollow this and additional works at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/conversationsRecommended CitationKoukal, D.R. (2011) "The Dishonesty of "Cores Lite": The Battle for a Truly Common Core," Conversations on Jesuit Higher Education:Vol. 39, Article 21.Available at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/conversations/vol39/iss1/21As a scarred veteran of afive year attempt torevise the core curricu-lum at the Universityof Detroit Mercy, Ifound the Fall 2010“Core Wars” issue ofConversations a veryworthwhile read. However, I wassurprised at the omission of onemajor field of battle that centersaround the following question: howto balance the programmatic require-ments of professional schools with arobust core in the arts and sciences? In my view, this question hasbedeviled our efforts to revise the coreat UDM, and I can’t imagine that it hasnot also challenged other Jesuit uni-versities — especially since a goodmany of these universities have at leastone (and often many) professionalschools. In what follows, I want toexplore the contours of this conflict,lay out exactly what is at stake forJesuit education in this struggle, and toconclude with some suggestions thatmight ease these tensions in the serv-ice of retrieving a truly common corewhile still respecting the various con-straints under which many profession-al schools must labor.If Jesuit education was strictlyabout narrow vocational training,peace would reign over the land.However, the vast literature on Jesuiteducation makes it crystal clear thatany undergraduate who attends aJesuit university has every right toexpect that his or her “whole per-son” will be educated. I understand this to mean that nomatter the major chosen by anyundergraduate, his or her horizonswill be broadened by a core curricu-lum which brings students into mean-ingful contact with scholars from thehumanities as well as from the naturaland human sciences, so that these stu-dents may have a fuller sense of theintellectual, social, ethical and spiritu-al complexities of the world. On the other hand, the momenta Jesuit undergraduate chooses amajor, the “broadening” function ofthe core comes into conflict with the“narrowing” function demanded byspecialization, which is required sothe student may achieve competencein a specific field. This conflict is intensified byprofessional programs that mustmeet stringent accreditation require-ments, and is exacerbated further byprograms that are credit hour-inten-sive. This, in turn, puts pressure onthe number of credit hours requiredfor graduation, as well as the numberof electives allowed by various pro-grams. Professional schools have toput much effort into navigating thesevarious demands, and so their admin-istrators are understandably reluctantto make programmatic adjustmentsthat could accommodate a strongercore. Furthermore, in an increasinglycorporatized academia, the relativelymajor-poor humanities are perceivedas “getting in the way” of the “rev-enue-producing” professional schools.The net result of all this is that greatpressure is put on the core to shrink,or to at least not grow in size. A good number of Jesuit schoolshave dealt with this pressure is byembracing multiple core curricula.As part of our committee’s work atUDM, we surveyed the cores of theJesuit institutions most similar to us insize and programming. What wefound is that all of these schools —including UDM — have a definitive“university core” that is front-and-center and loudly touted as beingcentral to each institution’s mission.But upon digging just a little deeperinto these school’s websites, we dis-covered that each professionalschool within these institutions has its own “derivative” core tailoredto their own programmatic needs.This dishonest practice severely The Dishonesty of “Cores Lite”The Battle for a Truly Common Core By D. R. KoukalConversations 53Talking BackA “dishonest practice”The humanities are seen as “gettingin the way”1Koukal: The Dishonesty of "Cores Lite": The Battle for a Truly Common CorPublished by e-Publications@Marquette, 2011undermines any claim that a com-mon general education is fundamen-tal to any of these institutions. The picture grows even moredisturbing when one delves into thedetails of these various “cores lite.”One strategy employed by someschools is to simply waive universitycore requirements for their majors.For example, at one university, engi-neering, biology, chemistry and bio-chemistry students are simplyexempted from the social sciencerequirement in the university core.Another strategy is to “flood” a dis-tributive part of the university corewith a programmatic requirementthat squeezes out other core options.For instance, at one school, businessstudents are required to take threeeconomics courses at the expense ofpossible core courses in psychology,sociology or political science. A thirdstrategy is to waive disciplinary com-petencies. This is seen most often inthe way many professional programssatisfy an institution’s ethics require-ment. Here, as often as not, coursesnarrowly concerned with profession-al standards are passed off as cours-es in general ethics, and are taughtnot by ethicists, but by practitionerswith at best a layperson’s grasp ofethical theory. Yet another strategy is to compelstudents to fulfill core requirementsby taking courses relating only totheir major field of study. For exam-ple, at another school, under a uni-versity core element titled“Contemporary Social Problems,”where one might expect all studentsto engage encompassing matters ofsocial justice like poverty and racism,I found that some undergraduates areinstead required to take classes like“Recent Advances in BiochemistryRelated to Social Issues” and “TheProfessional World of Work.” Finally,and closer to home, one of my profes-sional colleagues cavalierly told methat in her college, if a core-requiredcourse stood between a student andgraduation, it was not unusual for thecourse to be waived. This is a far fromexhaustive list of examples, but it issufficient to make this general point:all of these practices subvert thebroadening function of the generaleducation promised by the Jesuits,and as a consequence turn out stu-dents who are less “well rounded”than others — in some cases, consid-erably less so. If Jesuit education istruly about educating not only profes-sionals but also persons, these prac-tices raise at least two uncomfortablequestions. First, why are some stu-dents at Jesuit universities regarded asless worthy of having their whole per-son educated? And second, if theseare standard practices at our universi-ties, then why should our parents paysignificantly more for their children’scollege education when virtually thesame education can be had at a con-siderably lower cost at the local tech-nical school? These questions cut tothe very essence of the Jesuit educa-tional tradition.The first step in attempting to rem-edy this situation is to reaffirm thatboth professional and general educa-tion are equally important in Jesuit uni-versities, and that on the grounds ofacademic excellence the integrity ofeach must be respected. What followsfrom this is that the requirements ofprofessional programs do not automat-ically trump the requirements of astrong core for every undergraduate.Indeed, since professional accredita-tion is tied to curricular content ratherthan the number of credit hours in aprogram, there is potentially more“wiggle room” within professional pro-grams to accommodate a strong andtruly common core than is typicallyadmitted. This, in turn, would requirethe chief academic officers of our uni-versities to bring the deans of everyacademic unit to the table in order tofacilitate the implementation of a com-mon core, once the faculty responsiblefor teaching the core have created it.I suspect that many will consider acommon core to be impossible toachieve in our now Balkanized institu-tions, but my scrutiny of these multiplecores has revealed to me that manyJesuit universities are closer to a com-mon core than is often imagined. I doconcede the difficulty of this task, but Ibelieve that with good faith and thespirit of compromise, creativity, andmost importantly, a fixed and resolutefocus on the Jesuit educational mission,it can be achieved. The grim alterna-tive, in my view, is the continued slowerosion of the unique contribution theJesuits have made to higher educationover the last four and a half centuries,with the sad result that for a goodmany of our students, their educationwill be Jesuit in name only.  ■54 ConversationsTalking BackThese practices subvert the purpose ofJesuit education.D. R. Koukal is associate professorof philosophy and co-director ofthe honors program at theUniversity of Detroit Mercy.2Conversations on Jesuit Higher Education, Vol. 39, Iss. 1 [2011], Art. 21http://epublications.marquette.edu/conversations/vol39/iss1/21

The Dishonesty of  Cores Lite : The Battle for a Truly Common Core

https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1640&amp;context=conversations

The Dishonesty of Cores Lite : The Battle for a Truly Common Core

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

epublications@Marquette