A student's guide to the core curriculum

by Mark C. Henrie

College students today have tremendous freedom to choose the courses they will take. With such freedom, however, students face a pressing How can they choose well? Which courses convey the core of an authentic liberal arts education, transmitting our civilizational inheritance, and which courses are merely passing fads? From the smorgasbord of electives available, how can students achieve a coherent understanding of their world and their place in history? In a series of penetrating essays, explains the value of a traditional core of studies in Western civilization and then surveys eight courses available in most American universities which may be taken as electives to acquire such an education. This guide puts “the best” within reach of every student.

Genres: Education, Philosophy, Classics, Nonfiction

Unknown Binding

First published January 1, 2000

Reviews

[Grant Robertson · Rating 5 out of 5]

The problem I faced in post-secondary education was that many of my professors were more inclined to teach me what to think rather than how to think. The bulk of my education was thus a de-education.

Mark Henrie addresses how to get the most out of college by addressing a wide range of courses from subjects in the humanities that are quintessential. Nowhere does Henrie suggest the reader to be a traditionalist but rather to become acquainted properly with his or her's tradition.

I highly recommend this guide for anyone who hungers for truth and is largely dissatisfied with the de-education they received or are receiving in college.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I started reading this book, I thought that the author was going to comment on some of the fashionable fads for common core [1] that exist in contemporary education, but to my surprise and pleasure, this subject was completely ignored and the author instead discussed a different but often neglected aspect of the core curriculum that is at the base of classical education.  In light of that, I appreciated that this book was an intriguing and worthwhile effort to encourage students to acquire through their electives (if they have electives--some majors are rather lacking in them) the sort of education that was once provided in the basic core education of the university.  Given that few universities are interested in providing a solid classical education--if educators even acknowledge such a thing or its lengthy and worthwhile pedigree--this book and others like it to yeoman's work in helping a student acquire the knowledge to do that task for themselves.  If one cannot depend on others, at least one can do something worthwhile for oneself, after all, and this book is all about improving the capacity for self-discipline and personal responsibility for its readers.

After a lengthy introduction in which the author discusses the history of the core curriculum and its present absence, the author then presents eight chapters that deal with different courses that students should take to encourage their knowledge of classical education and their ability to understand the context of culture and history better.  From the classics department the author urges the reader to take a course in classical literature in translation, a course that is worthwhile, and which ought to inspire a lifelong love of reading ancient books.  The author then moves on to recommend that the reader take an introductory course in ancient philosophy, another way for the reader to become aware of Plato and Aristotle and a great many more obscure philosophers who will provide years of worthwhile reading and writing and intellectual conversation.  From the religion department the author suggests two classics:  The Bible and Christian Thought before 1500.  From the English department the author recommends a course on Shakespeare, which ought to inspire more lifelong reading.  Finally, from the history department, the author recommends courses on US history before 1865 and nineteenth century European intellectual history, both of which are essential to understanding ourselves and our contemporary times.  At the end of the book the author recommends ten courses more:  A course on the Old Testament from the religion department, courses on Roman history and the history of science from the history department, a course on the Divine Comedy from comparative literature, an introductory course to modern philosophy, a course in constitutional interpretation from the political science department, a course on the history of economic thought, a course on the English novel, a course on Renaissance art history, and a course on music appreciation, all of which sound like delightful electives, and all given in the course of a beautiful and worthwhile book of about 100 pages in length.

In doing such work to promote a solid core curriculum among its readers, this book does what many good books do, and that is inspire further reading and further learning.  Even for those who are past the age of going to college and are paying off their college loans (however slowly!), this book encourages its readers to think about what makes someone a well-rounded and well-learned person.  Knowledge of history provides one with context, knowledge of philosophy hones our ability to reason, appreciation for art and music give us cultural outlets and an appreciation for civilization, and knowledge of religion helps us gain a base in biblical faith leading both to salvation and a better life here on earth.  To be sure, not everyone needs to be an expert in such matters who is capable of writing books on these subjects, but we would be far better served if many people had at least a basic enough understanding of these issues to understand when someone was not addressing the realities of logic, history, morality, and economic law effectively.

[1] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...

[Joseph Wetterling · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a good addition to a liberal arts education, whether you're currently a college student or trying to make up for lost time. In addition to the class suggestions, the author makes additional reading suggestions that someone past their undergrad days could use to get instruction on the liberal subjects.

[Natalie · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this before embarking on my undergraduate career. One of the best books ever to guide my choices. I completed most of its selections (though rather by chance I think). Do you know a terribly bright student embarking into college? Get them this to challenge and shape their courses.

[Melani · Rating 3 out of 5]

I wish I had read this before I went to college.

[Christina · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent book. I wish I had read it before college. The introduction especially should be required reading for high school students.

[DA · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mark Henrie's A Student's Guide to the Core Curriculum is a book that complements Joseph Schall's A Student's Guide to Liberal Learning, which is unsurprising as they are both published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, an organization focused on promoting the study of "traditional" liberal arts curriculum (with a distinctly American and Christian bent). However, it only offers a brief defense of why liberal learning is important in its 23-page introduction. The rest of the book is more of a reference guide for aspiring students of the liberal arts - the actual "core curriculum," providing lists of authors to read, both primary and secondary, together with very brief introductions on what each general subject are is "about." I shall quickly review the reference guide section first, before spending the rest of this "review" focusing on the interesting issues that are raised in the brief introduction.

In the reference guide section, Henrie asserts that a proper liberal education is predicated on a "core curriculum" with a foundation of eight broad areas: classical literature (Ancient Greek and Roman), ancient philosophy, the Bible, Christian thought before 1500, modern political theory, Shakespeare, pre-Civil War American history, and 19th century European intellectual History (Hegel, Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche). One can immediately sense the strong bias - where is the cultural diversity? - but Henrie has already argued openly that a liberal education should be an introduction to the great ideas of Western civilization. In that sense, I cannot disagree with him. Henrie's inclusion of American history may seem only relevant to Americans, but his argument for is that America is a living example of a utopian experiment based on founding principles that reflect major Western beliefs about society, morality, and philosophy. Thus, it is instructive to learn about this history and reflect on whether the experiment was an intellectual success. For a non-American like me, this is a fascinating insight into a possible origin of the conservative meme that America is "the greatest country in the world." Rather than dismissing it as patriotic propaganda, I'm actually inclined to investigate this theory for myself in the future. Lastly, Henrie also includes a last chapter on "Ten More Courses," consisting of other areas of a typical liberal arts education, such as early modern philosophy, art and music history, and notably, history of science. I would argue that science deserves a more prominent role in the core curriculum for today's age, especially since those who choose a liberal education should know how to respond to people who dismiss them as scientifically illiterate. Rather than only history of science, there should be a class which more rigorously introduces non-science majors to common scientific modes of thinking. This is a topic which I plan to expand more in the future.

Henrie's discussion of the core curriculum is also influenced by a distinctly Christian bent, especially his section on the Bible. He does include some lip service for non-believers (such as recommending C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity "to see what the fuss is all about"), but other than that he dislikes the study of Christianity as a religion, as it focuses on its social, anthropological, and historical aspects compared to engaging its ideas directly. This is in line with his general disapproval (mentioned in the introduction) of college education as merely giving instruments for students to analyze knowledge with, rather than actual knowledge or wisdom. To Henrie, such an approach produces only "clever animals" with no knowledge of their own. This is a very radical belief in this era: for example, in my personal experience with education it has been repeatedly emphasized that "spoonfeeding facts" is inferior to "teaching critical thinking." This is similar to Schall's essay on liberal learning, which also asserts the importance of "finding the truth." (Another point of agreement: Henrie echos Schall in saying that a liberal education focused on the Great Books has the danger of reducing Western thought to a series of endless questions with no answers.) Certainly, for a Christian it is a crucial activity to study their own religion and the Bible in this revelational style. Even for non-believers, it is important to attempt to momentarily engage with religious ideas from the perspective of a genuine believer, so that a nuanced and humane understanding can be achieved, instead of a simplistic one that reduces them to only outdated modes of thinking. I think Christians should do the same when studying other religions.

This section also offers many suggestions on which secondary books and commentaries to read while reading the primary sources. Overall, I think it's a great and useful guide. If one is offended by the idea that these Western-centric ideas should be the core curriculum, they can simply read it as a guide to "Western thought," similar to a guide on postmodern thought or early modern philosophy or anything else.

Now we shall return to discussing some of the issues raised in Henrie's introduction.

Henrie's discussion of the importance of a liberal education begins by recapping Cardinal John Henry Newman's Idea of a University, in which he bemoans the shift in the goal of American higher education that occurred in the second half of the 19th century, from making "civilized men" to making "scientific men," who are professionals trained to do only one job well. The reason for this shift was that "scientific men" would be of greater use to society as a whole. This is an idea that has been surging strongly in the last decade or so - witness the regular mocking of English, philosophy, and humanities degrees as being a waste of money. From a practical standpoint, a "scientific" economically benefits the student more, especially since so many American college students must take out large loans to pay for their education. Being mired in debt for the sake of a degree whose main benefit is intangible is an impractical step for many people. But Newman, and by extension Henrie, objects that first, the price to pay for practicality is "mutilation" of an individual's mind. We shall discuss this more in depth later. The second objection is that specialists tend to overestimate their general intellectual capabilities outside of their own narrow discipline.

I agree with the first objection. The last few decades have seen science and scientists rise to the forefront of public recognition and respect. Many scientists write popular books which go beyond explaining their own subject area - instead, they like to pontificate on social and religious issues as well. The New Atheist movement, started by Richard Dawkins publishing The God Delusion over 10 years ago, is a prime example of this, where a few militantly atheist authors with scientific backgrounds (Dawkins, Sam Harris, Victor Stenger, Jerry Coyne) attempt to use scientific acumen to settle theological and philosophical questions. (There are also several philosophers, usually with a focus on cognitive science, such as Daniel Dennett.) The result is predictably disappointing and embarrassing, partially because none of these were properly trained in careful philosophical argumentation, but more significantly because their perception of the superiority of their scientific background made them too arrogant to seriously consult all the previous material that had been written on these subjects for centuries. Thus we witness an empty declaration from Stephen Hawking that "philosophy is dead," which makes as much sense as a postmodernist declaring in the 1990s that science has little objective value. In this sense, I completely agree with Henrie - scientists need to be aware of their limitations. (One should also be aware though, that the vast majority of scientists are not as hubristic as Dawkins or Hawking.)

This brings us back to Newman's first objection. Is a purely scientific education so bad that the student's mind can be fairly described as "multilated"? This point of view is the one which C.P. Snow mentions in his famous essay The Two Cultures - if you don't know math or science, you can openly claim ignorance and be tolerated for it, but if you claim you don't know Shakespeare or history, then you are viewed as an uncivilized person. (It's interesting to note that the reverse increasingly applies today, as very few people outside of those previleged enough to attend an expensive liberal arts college or Ivy League university know anything about the humanities.) In fact, Henrie's general outlook throughout the book seems to be not only that getting an education in one subject is inferior to getting a liberal education, but that getting an education in one scientific subject is especially bad. This is seen from him mentioning that Newman fulfilled part of his desires for a liberal education by studying classics at Oxford. It's unclear why Henrie thinks so. I suspect that it's because a purely scientific education does not engage much with what is traditionally construed to be civilization, and by extension, humanity, whereas the goal of liberal education is to produce "civilized men." A scientific education does not engage at all with morality or ideas on how a society should function or be governed. They study abstract (math), inanimate (physics), or mindless (biology) objects, and the overall goal is to be able to make sense ofthe behaviors of these objects into a series of easily understandable laws. In contrast, a history major might also be focused narrowly on their subject area, but it is much more difficult to study history without studying humans and how they lived, thought, and behaved.

The flaw in this argument is that scientific thinking has progressed way beyond simple systematic cataloguing of observations of natural objects. The magnitude, sophistication, and diversity of the scientific knowledge which has been accumulated over the years is such that scientists have been forced to develop new ways of reasoning to engage with the evidence. Witness the amazing shift of mindset that occurred when special relativity became accepted as a verified theory of physics - there is no such thing as absolute space and time anymore! The increasing sophistication of experimental techniques have also led to shifts in what can be considered empirical evidence for a theory. Apart from these conceptual advances, it's simply the case that understanding some scientific theories (such as quantum mechanics) requires one to be able to think about the physical world in sophisticated and complex mathematical terms, bridging the abstract and the real worlds. It is thus unfair to reduce scientific learning to being a form of mechanistic or robotic learning that can be accomplished without profound challenges to one's mind. More importantly, the increasing ubiquity of technology based on these modes of thinking have made scientific knowledge increasingly crucial for all, not just scientists. Thus, a student solely exposed to science does have an incomplete education, but their minds cannot be said to be mutilated - they are simply only accustomed to using one manner of reasoning, one that humanities majors almost never use.

It is true, though, that the mind-blowing shifts of perspective and reasoning present by the sciences is rarely explicitly acknowledged even in science classes, although I believe that any serious science student eventually gets unconsciously initiated to them as they study more and more advanced topics. The unconscious part is unfortunate, and that is why I think it's very fulfilling for scientists to take a step back and study the "big picture," including philosophy and history of science, to understand where scientific thinking is situated in the context of history and how scientific thinking evolved in the first place. A prime example is how the initial resistance to the heliocentric ideas of Copernicus (and later Galileo) was not due to simple religious reasons, but because of the inadequacy of the evidence for heliocentrism at the time. In fact, the few astronomers who "refused to look into Galileo's telescope" were not just being stubborned - the idea of admitting an observation through a telescope as scientific evidence was also new. However, science is rarely presented as such in regular science classes - the impression seems to be that certain ideas were just "better" from the beginning. (An entertaining popular retelling on the whole evolution of thought from geocentrism to heliocentrism is on the blog of science fiction author Michael Flynn, http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/t...)

More generally, it is also useful for everyone to go out and explore all the different areas of knowledge in order to make sense of the super-big picture, of how everything fits together. That is precisely what I am attempting to do with this ongoing project to read the Great Books and obtain a liberal education even after I've graduated from college. Thus, while Henrie's sentiments might be useful for me in fulfilling the more humanities side of a liberal education, my own personal outlook encompasses way more than just that.

[Rod Zinkel · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author goes over eight courses that are essential to a liberal education, more specifically a Western liberal arts education. He gives broad, brief overviews of major works for each course. From the works that he cites, I would say this is something of a conservative approach, upholding the traditional Western canon, and addressing contemporary approaches like postmodernism as alternatives, but not better alternatives. The eight essential courses are: 1. Classics: Greek and Roman literature. 2. Philosophy: Plato and Aristotle. 3. Religion: The Bible. 4. Religion: Christian Thought Before 1500. 5. Political Science. 6. English: Shakespeare. 7. History: U.S. History. 8. History: 19th Century European Intellectual History.

[Carm · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really important book that provides insights into liberal arts and sciences mindset and why core curriculum is a relevant topic even in modern times.

[Ilib4kids · Rating 3 out of 5]

ILL CD 378.012 HEN
My review -- christian based curriculum.

The Idea of a University by John Henry Newman

Intercollegiate Studies Institute www.isi.org
http://www.collegeguide.org/
Choosing the Right College 2014-15: The Inside Scoop on Elite Schools and Outstanding Lesser-Known Institutions by John Zmirak (isi book)
want to read
Before and After Socrates by Francis MacDonald Cornford (always in print, 112 pages)
Aristotle for Everybody by Mortimer J. Adler (extremely accessible, a good place to start)
ISI Guides to the Major Disciplines (history, economics .....more)

Western Civ. vs. The Great books (Great Books curriculum)

Indispensable aids:
1. a true teacher
2. a true intellectual friendship
3. the cirriculum

p15 The history and texts must be understood as aids pointing beyond themselves to the true object of our interest- the truth of things.
p6
Newman...more pointedly, addressing the English proponents of the "scientific" style of higher education then beginning to flourish in the German Universities --Wissenschaft. p5
Newman ... to discover the true telos of higher education....Rather, there is a human end, a non-instrumental end, to higher education-an end that is valued for its own sake. For Newman, the goal of a university education is always "enlargement of mind", or "illumination", or "philosophy". He gropes in his text for a term that may be predicated to the mind in the same way in which "health" is predicated to the body. The end of liberal education is the health of the mind. And just as with bodies health is achieved through exercised all the parts, so Newman claims, the health of intellect is achieved through the broadest education possible.
....Newman insisted that a true understanding of the whole could be achieved only through a broad and balanced approach to the whole.
...Newman's arguments for broad studies are radically different from the arguments of those who champion pedagogic diversity today. The telos of each program differs, and this has concrete effects on curriculum. For broad studies, in Newman, undertaken as part of a disciplined effort to come to view of the whole. Learning proceeds with the assumption that there is a unity to all knowledge, and that there is truth out there to be found. The mind is opened by the variety of studies so that will at length close upon an ordered view of the whole that is as capacious and as rigorous as possible."The only is true enlargement of mind which is the power of viewing many things at once as one whole," he writes. When this philosophical habit of mind is development, "it makes every thing in some sort lead to every thing else," for a pattern or an order may thereby be discern in the cosmos and in man's historical experience.

see my blog for books recommended in this guide book.

[Peter · Rating 3 out of 5]

One of my fellow teachers left this on my desk over the summer. I loaded in my IPOD and listened while I walked and exercised. Henrie takes a classicist/ conservative point of view of the typical college curriculum and reading lists. He is (rightly) critical of modern feminist \ Marxist \ textual academics who have abandoned the writer and the text for modern linguistic gymnastics, mashing the text into their small boxes of interpretation. He provides alternative reading lists so students can rightly inoculate themselves against such narrow interpretations.

[Kyle Tucker · Rating 3 out of 5]

Henrie critiques contemporary approaches to liberal education, particularly postmodern thought. He posits that education ought to pursue “health of the mind” and truth, that students should approach education seeking answers rather than assuming the great questions are unsolvable. In addition to his argument, Henrie also provides a great list of reading materials, several of which I’ve read. I wish I had read this prior to my college years, but better late than never.

[Reader2007 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Loved the intro.

[Jonathan]

None

[Seth · Rating 5 out of 5]

Henrie's erudition is broad and awesome. He handles with care subjects as far ranging as history, literature, and science and so on. He provides a good bibliography at the end of each chapter.

[Quentin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wish that I would have had this in my undergraduate days, but thankfully I have been doing this correctly myself since that time.