Crank core?

It’s the end of February already, and Spring Break is less than a week away. No, I’m not going to give you tips on how to avoid a hot, Caribbean STD, nor am I going sentimental as the days run away from the class of 2008.

As I listened to lips flap at the FUSA debates last Tuesday, it was as if someone had hit the mute button. Not once was this topic, constantly discussed on campus, broached: The core requirements and the faculty’s approach to instruction within these classes.

While I am not wholly against a package of general classes that all students are required to take, it has become quite evident to me that Fairfield’s idea of cura personalis is more misguided than the organizational name Colleges Against Cancer.

Fairfield strives to mold students into worldly, well-rounded leaders, which should come as no surprise. However, Fairfield’s mission statement is not congruent with the actual system in place.

“Fairfield University values each of its students as an individual with unique abilities and potentials, and it respects the personal and academic freedom of all its members,” as stated in the University handbook.

There should be a disclaimer next to this statement, saying ” … unless your sentiments differ from that of the University.”

In actuality, Fairfield is creating a generation of students who have less initiative than the administration and FUSA combined. Fairfield requires students to complete 20 core courses over four years; this severely hampers the already limited ability of students to get the classes they want. Outside of Loyola in Maryland, Fairfield boasts more required classes than any other Jesuit university.

In a 2005 issue of Fairfield Now, goals of the core are listed by Barbara D. Kiernan, director of University publications: “Fairfield’s core curriculum embodies the principal tenets of Jesuit liberal arts education: open-mindedness, respect for human dignity, formation in values and attention to the religious dimension of life.”

If students are forced to take classes just for the sake of saying that they are well-rounded, then the core is not serving the students. Instead, it has become just another selling point to potential students, simply furthering the University’s façade.

Some professors have egos that could fill the Quick Center; others are more oblivious than students crossing the street. However, a disconnect exists between information and implementation concerning core classes.

I do not doubt that every teacher at Fairfield has sterling credentials. I do contest that they are capable of relating their vast knowledge to students who have very little practical use for subjects such as philosophy.

There is no “how to” book on relating to students; professors in the core have the two-tiered responsibility of teaching students who, generally, are not majoring in the particular subject, while finding a way to keep them interested in a subject that they probably assume they will never think about again.

Maybe overzealous core teachers are what keep Fairfield’s grade inflation in moderate check. It is a shame, however, to hear that professors in the same department, teaching the same subject, can give out such drastically different grades on similar subject matter.

History professor William Abbott, however, said he does not feel as if separate standards exist for major and non-major students in core classes.

“In my experience, there is no difference of standards at the core level; the standard is simply that expected of core students,” he said. “When I teach History 30, I often find that the top scorer is not a history major, or even a humanities major.”

Are the classes that hard at Fairfield that the students should really be complaining? Not nearly. Should the core be done away with? Not entirely.

Students need to be given the flexibility to choose. Forced learning, hiding behind supposed Jesuit ideals, in a place where few would ever be confused with a Jesuit, is detrimental to the student body and its education as a whole.