Core classes as a problem

Jack Howard


Stanley Fish thinks that “all courses listed as courses in composition teach grammar and rhetoric and nothing else.” In this example, the English class he refers to has very little writing requirements in its curriculum. This gross miss-representation of what an English class should be prompts his broad all-encompassing response. A less extreme example of Fish’s views would be that courses such as “science history” should not receive science credit because the class itself has very minimal scientific principles. Fish believes that if a core class is supposed to file under a specific subject (English, science, or mathematics) then it should be highly focused on specifically that subject with view deviations. While Fish brings up a valid point, he takes it too far.

The proper class curriculum should be, as Fish argues, focused on the main points of a subject. An English class SHOULD focus on writing and reading comprehension. The problem is, if the class is too centralized on the core of English, the class will become boring and uninteresting. A class with spirited discussion of the topics of a class’s writing would be much more interesting than the writing alone. A math class would have all the required and fundamental concepts, but would also incorporate some current events or modern day problems to help keep students interested in an otherwise dry subject.

Going back to what Fish said, there would still have to be a careful balance of interesting additions and core curriculum. The ideal situation would be a class where students learn the required concepts in an engaging environment.