J. HIMANKA
The Handbook sets further goals in each discipline. Within
the humanities, for example, the first objective is to enable
students “to gain an understanding of the distinctive qualities
and experiences of being human” (p. 13). The Handbook then
gives seven other objectives and turns to key themes. The sec-
tion of key themes first lists traditional fields of study in the
humanities: language, history, literature, visual and performing
arts, and philosophy. The curriculum however sets up a differ-
ent, interdisciplinary list of key themes: The Creative Arts;
Historical Awareness: Past and Present; Language, Communi-
cation and Society; Mind-Body-Spirit and Ethics and Society.
Students who have reached these goals will have a better
understanding of what they are doing and will be more respon-
sible global citizens. How are the students, then, to reach these
goals?
We cannot go into details of the 180 pages long Common
Core Curriculum Student Handbook 2013-2014 here, but we
can take a quick look at what kind of programmes and courses
the curriculum offers. There are 157 courses to choose from. I
will pick up a few examples. The courses are divided into four
areas of inquiry: 1) Science and Technological Literacy, 2)
Humanities, 3) Global Issues and 4) China: Culture, State and
Society. Let us select one course of each of these areas: Our
Place in the Universe (Science), The Last Dance: Understand-
ing Death and Dying (Humanities); Understanding Financial
Crisis and The Political Economy of Growth and Poverty in the
World (Global Issues) and People, Propaganda and Profit: Un-
derstanding Media in China (China).
At first glance, the programme and goals of the Common
Core Curriculum seem very ambitious, almost too ambitious to
be achieved. However, when one studies the details and sees
how carefully the whole curriculum is planned, its goals appear
more and more realistic.
Conclusion
I started with a concerned philosophical comment on setting
aims in higher education. MacIntyre’s example of Long-Term
Capital Management is a good illustration of the problem. The
main idea of this hedge fund was to use the latest scientific
model and hire highly educated academic staff. They even had
two Nobel prize winners in their team. The fund failed misera-
bly, and analyses afterwards had shown quite convincingly that
the main problem was the too narrow education of those who
were in charge (Kolman, 1999; Lewis, 1999; Lowenstein,
2000). If the executives of the fund had graduated from the
Common Core Curriculum, the catastrophe would probably
never have happened. They would have taken the course on
Understanding Financial Crises and seen beforehand what
might happen.
Philosophers suggest that we should take care of a wide
enough curriculum at the university level. Our graduates should
have enough wisdom to know what they are doing and the kind
of education in which they understand themselves as responsi-
ble citizens. The aims of Stanford Education take us a long way
in that direction, but if the Common Core Curriculum really
works in practice, it could take us all the way. That remains to
be seen.
According to the old Platonic educational ideal, we should
align our education with the ideal society. It follows that if we
want our society to be a well functioning democracy, we should
educate our students to be good and responsible citizens in that
type of society. And if we want to have a well functioning soci-
ety that covers the whole humanity on Earth, we should teach
our students to be global citizens. But what are we to teach to
our students in order to reach these goals? How are we to
evaluate whether students have developed “a sense of personal
and social responsibility” and indeed have a “broad capacity to
empathy” as the Aims of Stanford Education states?
The Common Core Curriculum gives some answers to these
extremely difficult questions. The course titled The Last Dance:
Understanding Death and Dying, for example, states that on
completing the course a student will be able to “appraise the
impact of death and loss in societal level” (p. 86). It would be a
good thing to be able to do this if one is responsible for deci-
sions that might cause deaths. And perhaps those who are re-
sponsible for current economic crises would have made differ-
ent decisions if they had taken a course on Economic Global-
ization. In other words, if they had known what they were do-
ing, they would have realized that their actions could cause 50
million people to lose their jobs world-wide (ILO, 2010). In
addition, they should have been responsible enough to see that
these risks would count more than their own personal success.
Furthermore, the organization that chooses the executives
should value people who know what they are doing. In the pre-
sent situation that seems to be a utopian scenario (cf. Lewis,
1989). But within democratic control in a society where citizens
can tell the difference between those who know what they are
doing and those who do not, we would enjoy the benefits of
good education. The Common Core Curriculum does offer
some elements that seem to point to that direction, where the
results of good education are not only successful graduates, but
also a better society or even a better world.
REFERENCES
Aristotle. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/
Himanka (2012). The University as a community of selves, Johan Vil-
helm Snellman’s “On Academic Studies”. Higher Education, 64,
517-528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9508-5
Heidegger, M. (2005). Phänomenologische interpretationen ausge-
wählter abhandlungen des aristoteles zur ontologie und logik. Frank-
fulrt am Main: Vit torio Klostermann.
University of Hong Kong (2013). Common Core Curriculum, Student
Handbook 2013-2014.
http://commoncore.hku.hk/files/cc13-lowres.pdf
ILO (2010). Global employment trends.
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_elm/---t
rends/documents/publication/wcms_120471.pdf
Kolman, J. (1999).
http://www.derivativesstrategy.com/magazine/archive/1999/0499fea
1.asp
Lewis, M. (1989). Liar’s poker, rising through the wreckage on Wall
Street. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Lewis, M. (1999). How the eggheads cracked. New York Times, 24
January1999.
Lindenberger, H. (1990). On the sacrality of reading lists: The western
culture debate at Stanford University.
http://www.pbs.org/shattering/lindenberger.html
Lowenstein, R. (2000). When genius failed, the rise and fall of long-
term capital manageme nt. New York: Random House.
MacIntyre, A. (2009). The very idea of a university: Aristotle, Newman,
and Us. British Journal of Educational Studies, 4, 347-362.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2009.00443.x
Newman, J. H. (1852). The idea of university. London: Longmans,
Green, and Co.
Nussbaum, M. C., (2010). Nor for profit, why democracy needs the
Open Access 103