Dean Robert Lueger and Natalie German, Arts & Sciences senior and president of the Arts & Sciences Student Senate, spoke to a sparse audience of students and faculty on Tuesday, Nov. 18.

Few paid attention to this “fireside” chat. Less than 25 students attended. Yet Lueger and German touched on the future of our university’s academic soul: the core.

As it stands now, the Arts & Sciences core curriculum is a bulk of classes – Lueger deemed it a “sacred cow” – that attempts to instill five learning outcomes. While the concept of a standardized education is an important goal, the core reflects faculty turf wars to get more students into classes of certain departments.

During this semester, the Faculty Senate began the seriously needed process of reviewing the core curriculum. Now the college is moving closer to a more fluid and modernized core that efficiently takes into account the academic needs of the students and the goals of the university without departmental politics.

Lueger and German said it will take two years to thoroughly amend the core, but the Faculty Senate is gathering ideas on how to proceed.

While the committee has been investigating Jesuit universities and other peer institutions, they also should consider a curriculum structure that already exists in the College of Arts & Sciences.

The Creighton Honors Program offers a unique template for a successful core revision.

The curriculum in the Honors Program revolves around three foundational courses that introduce student to the Jesuit intellectual tradition. Students must also take a total of 72 credits, including undergraduate research and sources and methods classes.

It may seem burdensome, but the Honors’ core allows for more flexibility and personalization. In the traditional core, there are specific classes that fulfill theology credits or English credits, however, the Honors Program curriculum allows a variety of classes to fulfill these recommended guidelines.

This flexibility should be instituted in the revised core, so classes in students’ majors start to count toward the required categories. For example, a History and Criticism of Cinema class may qualify for a category B credit, cultures, ideas and civilizations.

In addition, flexibility will decrease the need for adjunct faculty members to teach these core classes.

If we believe the five learning outcomes are the backbone of the college’s education, the most experienced faculty should teach these classes. However, since 1,000 freshmen need one specific class, these departments rely on adjunct faculty to meet the demand.

If more interdepartmental classes fulfill the core’s guidelines, then less adjunct professors will be needed to teach classes such as Introduction to Philosophy and Rhetoric and Composition.

The Arts & Sciences core can become more manageable to students while still preserving the academic goals of our institution. The fundamental learning outcomes of the core do not need to be changed, but the college needs to reconsider how a student realizes these outcomes.

The Faculty and Student Senates are on the right track when they released a survey to students so we can suggest what works and what doesn’t. They should continue this process by allowing students to achieve their academic goals through a more personal path.

The core needs flexibility. The sacred cow of the College of Arts & Sciences has been out to pasture for too long.