In my four years as an undergraduate at the University of Minnesota, I spent significant time and effort seeking opportunities outside my discipline of study, and have found the most valuable experiences at the intersection of disciplines. This is the intention behind the Liberal Education curriculum, and it is one that I believe should adapt and change as our world changes.
The mission of our University’s current liberal education is “to investigate the world from new perspectives, learn new ways of thinking that will be useful in many areas of life and grow as an active citizen and lifelong learner.” As I come to the end of my time at this institution, I reflect on this mission.
The importance of the ability to consider various perspectives and integrate them is becoming increasingly evident in the world we live in. As graduates, we want to be able to enter the world feeling confident in our preparation. Is the Liberal Education curriculum that was put in place in the ‘90s and only minimally revised in 2010 preparing us for the world as it stands now, over 25 years later?
The Core Curriculum proposal stands on the idea that multidisciplinarity does not have to be a handful of separate experiences that we expect students to synthesize on their own, without any guidance. I took a history class, a math class and every other requirement in the current Liberal Education curriculum, but I had to synthesize their perspectives on my own. Sure, I can solve a calculus problem by hand, but how does that relate to my education as a future therapist? I may have mastered “Mathematical Thinking” as it stands for my Lib Ed transcript, but how do I apply that as useful preparation for my future career?
The intentionality of the Core Curriculum proposal is what stands out to me as distinct from the current Lib Ed model. This is most evident in the creation of the Multidisciplinary Synthesis course. This is a three-credit course meant to be taken at the end of the Core Curriculum track. But don’t worry! Both curriculums have the same amount of credits and the ability to transfer credits.
This project-based course would allow students to devote time and effort to synthesizing the various disciplines and ways of thinking they have explored throughout the years. Sure, students can spend time on their own to do that, but we want our curriculum to work for our students as it stands, and not with the expectation of a spontaneous lightbulb moment for more than 39,000 individual people. Students pay an inordinate amount of money and time for the credits they take to graduate, and I believe those credits should do everything they can to work for the student taking them.
Some faculty have expressed concerns about who will teach the synthesis courses, but my concern as a student is that this necessary change to a 25-year-old curriculum is getting overlooked for concern about details that can be fleshed out as soon as this change is implemented.
The world cannot wait for a new generation of leaders to emerge, so we cannot spend years deliberating over insignificant details that are solvable. I know plenty of soon-to-be-graduates looking for jobs who would be willing to facilitate a synthesis course or two. (I’m partly joking, but perhaps it’s worth considering.)
I ask that the Faculty Senate reconsider the proposed Core Curriculum.
Students are excited about this proposal, and I believe that we should be involved in this conversation. If you have concerns about the details of implementation, do not let that overshadow the incredible role this proposal, ideologically, could play in the lives of the students who pass through our University.
If you, as the Faculty Senate, want to truly value the student experience, ask for our views. Ask us about our experience in these courses. I think you’ll find that most students want to extract meaning from our education, and we want our University to support us in doing so.
Kelsey is graduating this May from the College of Liberal Arts and is the current College of Liberal Arts Student Board President.
another prof
May 15, 2025 at 12:23 pm
The faculty at UMN possess the relevant expertise and experience when it comes to curriculum. A majority of its representative body – the Faculty Senate – determined that there were issues of disciplinary rigor and pedagogical feasibility with the proposed Common Core curriculum (to say nothing of various unpersuasive points in the arguments presented for it) and opted not to adopt it. Our current Liberal Education curriculum is robust and flexible, and many faculty concluded that a strong case was not made for doing away with it.
a prof
May 10, 2025 at 11:29 am
“upper admin” refers to outgoing Provost Cronson, who startled everyone with her multiple inappropriate interventions on faculty process, one being LE reform. Cronson’s interventions have been harmful to us all, particularly students, that’s why I made that comment. The staff of the CC2025 cmte are not upper admin, imho, and it’s clear from all the work that cmte did that you care very much. Cronson, on the other hand, has shown she has little to no respect for faculty; that means she lacks of care for our students.
I take issue with the suggestion that faculty don’t focus on student learning or don’t truly care about the student experience. It’s sad to have the author of this OpEd use this space to throw darts over her shoulder as she walks out the door. Graduates and their families should be celebrating accomplishments, not blaming instructors for never having found their lightbulb moment.
CC2025 cmte members could have been more communicative with faculty, specifically, when faculty asked multiple times to see hard data re: student support for LE reform. Having letters from student leadership is not enough when we as instructors ask our own students what they think of CC 2025 and none of them have even heard of it.
Despite very hard work, thoughtful work, the CC2025 versions of LE reforms were not versions faculty could get on board with for multiple good reasons. No offense, let’s keep trying, let’s keep having this conversation. And please, let’s stop, forever, suggesting that instructors here don’t care about students.
Katie Russell
May 8, 2025 at 2:19 pm
Thank you, Kelsey, for sharing your and your peers’ enthusiasm for the proposed curriculum. I am confused by the previous commenter’s startling remark about “upper admin.” I staffed the Core Curriculum 2025 committee from its charge in 2022 and can attest that this process was driven by faculty with extensive consultation with faculty across the University, as well as students (over 100 consultation meetings). Student support was made clear with letters of support from groups representing students (USG and the CLA Student Board). Administration focused on how they could support implementation of the faculty proposal, should it have been approved by faculty governance. Cynicism and suspicion cannot drive a University as great as this one. Rather, the committee demonstrated how powerfully a focus on student learning can lead our institution to transformative educational opportunities for students.
a prof
May 7, 2025 at 11:36 am
Congratulations to Kelsey and all graduates!
Faculty have been asking for hard data re: student feedback on CC2025 literally for years. That data has yet to be produced.
It’s tough to hear an outgoing senior and student leader suggest their instructors don’t truly care about the student experience. Teachers and advisors here, in particular the people who have been involved in this conversation, care deeply about students. I don’t think you can say the same for upper admin. May your future employers treat you better.