Learning from past mistakes can make any person stronger. This is also true of developing future core requirements, according to Dr. James Wunsch, professor of political science and international relations.

Wunsch was a part of this process and has four suggestions for any future task force that may approach the topic.

First: limit to courses admitted.

Wunsch said last time, no cap was set and he believes this contributed to a “sprawling” core with too many requirements. It also limited ingenuity and creativity in the creation of courses because so many classes were included.

Second: exclude departmentalism.

“The people have to be committed to working for the college and not for their departments,” Wunsch said. Last time, certain departments gained the upper hand and were able to dictate that the core include more of their classes, he said.

Third: Include the six College Learning Outcomes.

These include communicating clearly, thinking critically, connecting topics in different fields, understanding of the Jesuit values, reasoning ethically and understanding a larger role in the world.

Fourth: The task force needs leadership.

“Most of all, the task force needs a very strong chairperson who is truly committed to assuring college learning outcomes as a criteria for having courses in and rooting out any departmentalism, simply refusing to allow that into the proceedings.”

Wunsch thinks if these four measures are heeded, a good core will follow.

“I believe the core was too large then and it’s too large now. It doesn’t allow students enough time for electives,” Wunsch said. “The core is also, today, too focused at the 100 and 200 level. We need to get more courses and, if they’re upper level, more choices for students.”

With the possibility of the Arts & Sciences core requirements changing in the next few years, how it came to be might provide some tips to make any future core better.

It was implemented in the early 1990s after a four-and-a-half year process during which a dean-appointed task force was divided into four subcommittees. These subcommittees then researched possible revisions to the then-current core. Part of this process also involved open forums where the faculty could comment on the ideas being suggested.

After the task force put together its suggestions, members of the College Executive Committee, now called the Faculty Senate, had to vote yes or no on the core. The core passed and was implemented.