Posted on 05/22/2009 6:48:18 AM PDT by Antoninus
As disgusting and disgraceful as Father Jenkins and the board of Notre Dame have been over the whole Obama commencement speech fiasco, it now seems clear that this invitation is part of a larger trend among dissidents within Catholic academia in America.
Fordham University, a Jesuit institution in New York is hosting pro-abortion mayor Michael Bloomberg.
St. Joseph's University, another Jesuit university in Philadelphia, is hosting pro-abortion media talking-head Chris Matthews.
Yet another Jesuit institution, Georgetown Law School, is honoring pro-abortion vice-president Joe Biden.
What does all this mean? According to the NCR article linked above, it means that certain American "Catholic" universities:
...have declared in the bluntest terms possible that they, and not the American bishops, are the arbiters of what is acceptable conduct for an institution that calls itself a Catholic university. And as a consequence, the administrations .... don’t appear amenable even to any self-examination of their actions, let alone to any correction undertaken by the Church hierarchy.I have a one-word term for what these institutions are doing: schism.
There is no other word for it when Catholic institutions fail to obey the clear instructions of their bishops--and by extension, the Pope. The American Catholic bishops have been dancing around this issue for so long that the heads of these Catholic-in-name-only institutions now feel strong enough to come out and issue a challenge in the open. They have thrown down the gauntlet and spit in the faces of the bishops.
I urge the bishops to pick up the gauntlet.
Take up the challenge by immediately stripping the offending universities of their Catholic identities.
Now, more than ever, it is necessary that we have "truth in advertising." The souls of young Catholics are at stake here and we can no longer allow these charlatans to continue educating young Catholics in the materialist liberation theology/Culture of Death heresy in the guise of authentic Catholicism. If they want to continue to preach it--fine. But let them do so outside of the Church!
The dissident left in the Catholic Church knows that it has lost. Time is not on their side. They have no vocations. Indeed, who would give their lives for such a pathetic milquetoast philosophy that attempts to water down and obfuscate the authentic Truth? Practically all the vocations in recent years are of young, orthodox Catholics, inspired by the Pope, who will continue revitalize the Church into the future.
But the aging and discredited dissidents are still in power in many important spheres and in order to solidify their eroding support among believing Catholics, they are hitching themselves to popular political leaders and the 'cultural catholic' support that comes with them. But because politicians are such unreliable allies who are popular one day, despised the next, the bishops should move to accelerate this process by calling their bluff and de-certifying the offending institutions. They don't behave or believe as Catholics anymore so why should they be allowed to maintain their Catholic identity?
Also, in my opinion, the Jesuit order ought to be suppressed--again. This time, for the right reasons. They have become political slaves and partisans of the Culture of Death.
Your Eminence, pick up the gauntlet!
Does the endowment at Georgetown, Notre Dame, etc., belong to the institution or the Church?
I don’t know if it is still true but I was told that Georgetown had a Muslim on its board. What the hell is a Muslim doing on the board of a “Catholic” university?
I suspect the author hasn’t been paying attention to Catholic universities. This isn’t a recent trend. Several decades ago at least this boat had already sailed.
I agree. Enough in this case is more than enough. They ceased being Catholic institutions long ago. Make it official.
Of course, the sleeping CINO majority in this country will still want the prestige of a ND or Georgetown education for their kids so it's going to be an uphill battle but it must be started. My daughter will be a freshman at Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina in the Fall. From what I can see, it appears to talk the talk but I'll be watching closely to see if it walks the walk.
To each individual university, which technically speaking, are not in any way owned or directly controlled by the Church.
“Faithful Catholics also have a role to play, here. While we're waiting for the bishops to read the riot act (rrrriiight!) we need to make sure that these apostate schools do not get to educate our kids,...”
In principle, I agree. In practice, this is painfully difficult, at least for some. I know a large, very devout, very orthodox homeschooling family. One of daughters is entering her senior year of high school, homeschooled. These very good, extremely bright, wonderful, energetic, interesting teenager is engaged in their college search.
Notre Dame is high on her list. Why? Well, she's a very bright young lady. She scored 234 on her PSAT (240 is the highest achievable score). She's fluent in English, German, French, and gets by well in Latin. The bottom line is that most of the Catholic colleges out there just aren't up to snuff academically for this young lady, especially those colleges that get bandied about as “orthodox” Catholic colleges.
She'd much prefer to go to a Catholic school, in that she thinks she'd like to major in moral theology. Moral theology or philosophy programs at secular schools aren't going to pay much mind to the great tradition of Catholic moral theology. But Notre Dame has an outstanding moral theology program, and it is based in the tradition of Catholic moral theology. As well, her father knows folks in Notre Dame's philosophy and theology departments. The theology department, he says, is still mostly populated by folks from the Dark Side, but the darkest of these are also the oldest, and they are slowly but surely being replaced by younger, much more Catholic and orthodox professors. The philosophy department (and someone studying moral theology is going to take a lot of philosophy) is now mostly populated by academically excellent, Catholic and orthodox faculty. At least in the opinion of the young lady's father, who has good reason to know what he's talking about.
All things being equal, Notre Dame would be an outstanding choice for the young lady.
There is the fear that one’s children might lose their Catholic faith at a place like Notre Dame, but that risk is likely not much greater than if they went to a secular institution. Our children must leave our homes eventually, and all we can do is to do our best in transmitting the faith to them, and making them aware of the snares of the devil that they may encounter. This young woman's very devout, very knowledgeable parents have done an excellent job in bringing her up in her Catholic faith. She is a fierce, and brilliant, defender of the faith already. Although I generally worry about kids raised Catholic at places like Notre Dame, I worry a lot less about this one.
And she's the sort that will play a small part in re-Catholicizing a place like Notre Dame.
Yet, what Notre Dame has done is an abomination, and demands a response, well deserves to lose the support of the Catholic laity.
So, what would you advise this young lady?
sitetest
This stuff kills me...what can be done?
The way you've framed the argument, there's only one possible answer, right? Go to ND.
ND's moral theology department is head and shoulders above those of other Catholic colleges, no other "orthodox" Catholic college is up to snuff academically, Daddy knows the professors and she's an outstanding individual who's unlikely to lose her faith there. And even if there are some bad eggs, they're all old and won't be there much longer.
That's a slam dunk on your part and dumbass me is left with a headache as the ball zooms through the basket and hits me on the head.
Great job.
I guess there are other points that could be raised such as whether one would want to consider wider ND issues apart from one's own personal educational goals when choosing a school, whether ND is really as great and other schools as poor as you allege or whether she's in any way typical of the average ND freshman but I concede the hole.
Pick up your ball and move to the next tee.
“I guess there are other points that could be raised such as whether one would want to consider wider ND issues apart from one’s own personal educational goals when choosing a school,...”
That was kinda the question, marshmallow.
How does it all balance out?
You presented, in the abstract, the case that folks should shun Notre Dame. In the abstract, I agree.
Now here is a case that's NOT in the abstract.
How should we apply our abstract principles to this real, concrete case?
When I was asked by the mom, my initial reaction was to say that the young lady should look elsewhere, as Notre Dame is not fit to enjoy the support of this family. But in the time since I gave that nearly-instinctual reaction, I've been troubled by my own answer, and I don't really know what I would say if asked again.
I wasn't trying to set you up. I was trying to get folks to actually walk with me on this one, showing that there are clashing issues here, and maybe assisting me in thinking them out more clearly.
It's not academic (no pun intended) to me. We're very close to this family, and they will have to make these choices a number of times over the coming years. My own older son is finishing his freshman year in high school and is already starting to look at colleges, so this will get even more personal for me in the coming years.
It's nice to espouse great sounding abstract principles, but unless we figure out how these principles apply to concrete circumstances, we're as much windbags as all the bishops.
sitetest
ND is a very good school, Fordham and Georgetown are also excellent choices. The Jesuit educational experience is exceptional. There are plenty of practicing and believing Catholics at all three schools and the clergy is there to support them. Yes, there is debate...open, sometimes freewheeling, and sometimes uncomfortable. A young adult with strong faith can find this stimulating and even faith strengthening
The individual universities control their endowments
Were Jstalin, Iamin, and Hchiminh already taken?
Did you learn the adulation of murderous communists from the Jesuits, or was that all on your own?
You very neatly sealed off that possible exit route in your initial post by assuring me that theology at ND was excellent and greatly superior to that available in other more "orthodox" colleges. IOW, were she to choose another, perhaps more sincerely Catholic college than ND, her education would suffer. When the argument is thus framed, the ground rules have been set, so to speak and I'm left with a first and twenty at my own five yard line.
From my facetious response, you probably gathered that I'm not wholly sold on that line of thinking.
Rather than get into an argument on the merits of theology at ND versus other Catholic colleges, I simply passed on the matter.
Agree entirely.
In my experience, far, far more damage is done to the faith of our young by giving them a twisted version of Catholicism in CINO schools, than is done to their faith in secular schools.
How do like Steubenville? Christendom? Thomas Aquinas?
No good?
What a surprise.
The Jesuit educational experience is exceptional.
The Jesuit educational experience was exceptional and in rare, extraordinary circumstances, still is.
There are plenty of practicing and believing Catholics at all three schools and the clergy is there to support them.
That is not the question.
The issue is how many of the above come out compared to how many went in. Is the number greater or lower?
How are clergy like Drinan and McBrien, faculty with tenure, going to "help" Catholic students?
Yes, there is debate...open, sometimes freewheeling, and sometimes uncomfortable. A young adult with strong faith can find this stimulating and even faith strengthening.
And what of those whose faith is not strong? How many non-Catholics feel moved to join the Church as a result of their experience at these schools?
“Don't go unless she gets a full ride. We've got to stop feeding the beast.”
That's a reasonable thought.
“And even then, I'd have serious qualms. I'd much prefer to see a young woman like this go to a truly Catholic place like Franciscan University of Steubenville than Notre Dame.”
I don't think that Steubenville is on their radar, and frankly, I don't blame them. It just isn't a top-notch institution, academically.
“Notre Dame appears to be now what Boston College was when I went there (and still is). A place where young Catholics go to lose their faith.”
Indeed. That's a big fear for all of us. But I think that one's approach is everything. When I went to Catholic, I wasn't prepared for the rank heresy of many of my professors and teachers. Many made persuasive cases for positions like: the Eucharist is primarily a symbol of Christ's presence in the community; baptism is principally about welcoming a child into the human community of believers (rather than all that nasty stuff about washing away Original Sin and all that medieval stuff); obviously, women should be ordained; the sacerdotal priesthood is a mirage; there is likely no survival of the person as an individual after death (Yup! Actually taught at The Catholic University of America in the late 1970s/early 1980s); the Resurrection was a psychological event in the minds and the hearts of the apostles and disciples.
I remember thinking, is this now genuine Catholic teaching? Perhaps I should give up my “naive,” rather dogmatic and literal beliefs.
But I guess when they got to that last one, I just sort of vomited up the whole spiel. I could not get out of my mind what St. Paul said about if there is no Resurrection, then Christ did not rise from the dead, and if Christ did not rise from the dead, then we are the most pitiable people on earth.
But the reason why my faith (such as it was at that time) was so imperiled was that NO ONE TOLD ME THAT MANY OF MY PROFESSORS AND TEACHERS WERE FORMAL HERETICS. Once I figured that out for myself, it just wasn't so tough to hold onto a more authentic Catholic faith. Once ol’ Dr. Lowe (full professor of Catholic theology with a mandatum from the Vatican itself to teach Catholic theology, including courses leading to pontifical degrees) denied the Resurrection as truly and really happening physically and in history (but also more than physically, and in eternity), I was free.
With the right attitude - the attitude of a spy or guerrilla or sabateur behind enemy lines, knowing that some or even many of my teachers would lie to me, and knowing that I had to evaluate the truth of everything taught against the authoritative teaching of the Church - my faith not only ceased eroding, but began a very long journey from being intermittently in contact with the magisterial teaching of the Church to finally full and complete submission of the will and intellect to whatever the Church teaches authoritatively.
My view is that as a father, I need to inculcate that approach in my sons, no matter WHERE they go to school, no matter WHERE they go in their lives.
And I've tried to do that. We homeschooled our older guy through 8th grade, but this year, he's been at a local Catholic high school. Although the school is generally orthodox, there are a fair share of folks whose orthodoxy is questionable. And I've seen my own son's reaction, which ranges from quietly holding such teachers in contempt to openly questioning them in public settings in ways that make their faces turn beet red.
I question whether, if he attended a school like Notre Dame, that he would be particularly susceptible to the loss of his Catholic faith. I also know that students like him bolster the faith of other students. Which, in turn, makes the school more genuinely Catholic than it otherwise might have been.
“I knew a young woman who went to BC as a theology major and came out a lesbian and a worshiper of Venus (literally). This, despite the fact that BC keeps professors like Peter Kreeft on staff.”
I don't know much about BC. I know that I'm told that Notre Dame has become markedly more orthodox in critical departments in recent years. I've been told that whereas ten or so years ago, both the philosophy and theology departments were rank dens of heretical iniquity, now the philosophy department has improved sufficiently to actually earn the title of a Catholic school of philosophy, and the theology department, though substantially worse off than the philosophy folks, is also making steady progress back toward authentic Catholicism.
“Institutions like Notre Dame won't be re-Catholicized by students. If it happens at all, it will come, by the grace of God, from the top down.”
I think that this isn't an either/or type of thing. Certainly, God's grace undergirds it all. But my own view is that a place like Notre Dame needs three things: an administration that desires to be genuinely Catholic; a renewal of its faculty; and to attract more devout Catholic students. All three things work together with the grace of God. To some degree, I think that this is what has happened at Catholic over the last few decades. The institution is markedly more Catholic than when I went there.
Now, some will say, well, the administration at Notre Dame is terribly non-Catholic. I don't really agree with that. My understanding from folks who know him is that Fr. Jenkins is personally orthodox, and is also committed to making incremental changes over time to make Notre Dame more authentically Catholic.
However, I'm also told that he's a compromiser, a trimmer. My view is that he shows poor judgment. I'm told that he was presented with the choice of the anti-Christ Obama as a fait accompli, and that although he is personally orthodox, he is weak in this sort of thing, and acceded to the committee that came up with the selection. The reaction of Catholics, bishops and laity, apparently blind-sided him. By that point, the thought of disinviting the anti-Christ Obama was just too confrontational a choice for him to make. So, he tried to make the best of a very bad situation by presenting lame justifications for what, in hindsight, he might not have gone along with if he'd have known beforehand the reaction he would get.
I guess that a critical question is whether one feels that Notre Dame is already beyond hope, beyond reclamation.
If it is, then the ability to justify sending one's son or daughter there becomes much more difficult. If it is still salvageable, then the question is, in my own mind, much more complicated.
I have no personal, first-hand knowledge of the school. From a distance, it looks beyond hope to me. But I trust my friends, and their take is much better informed, as they actually know many of the players - the faculty, the administration, etc. - and they are yet hopeful.
sitetest
It would be nice if the debate were actually open and freewheeling. In the dens of iniquity (as Catholic was back in the 1970s and early 1980s), that wasn't the case.
The liberal, unCatholic orthodoxy was presented as fact, genuine Catholic teaching, when presented at all, was presented as the naive mythology of a prior, more juvenile age. And the enforcement of the party line was just this side of stalinist.
When I challenged ol’ Dr. Lowe [full professor of Catholic theology, mandatum from the Vatican, licensed to teach authoritative Catholic theology, even in courses leading to pontifical degrees] about the Resurrection, he wasn't happy. He said that the Resurrection was a psychological event in the hearts and the minds of the apostles and disciples. So, I asked him, when after the Resurrection, Jesus was cooking fish for the apostles on the shore of the Sea of Gallilee, what did passersby see? Fish levitating in the air?
Well, ol’ Dr. Lowe turned a bright and deep shade of red, and said that we'd discuss that question another time. Which we didn't. But I did get a C in the class, the only C that I got throughout my undergraduate career.
So much for open and freewheeling debate.
sitetest
I'm not sure we disagree.
I do think that a faux Catholic school is more dangerous to the faith than an openly secular school, usually. But what I said was that a faux Catholic college or university is not much worse generally than a typical secular school.
sitetest
“From my facetious response, you probably gathered that I'm not wholly sold on that line of thinking.”
Well, from my own perspective, I don't see any Catholic colleges or universities that are both highly orthodox and that have the academic stature of Notre Dame. If you know of some, I'd be happy to listen. There are some other Catholic institutions that are very, very good academically, but they're places like Georgetown, Fordham and the like.
These are schools with excellent academic reputations, and I suspect, not without some justification. But they too suffer from many of the same flaws from which Notre Dame suffers.
But truthfully, I'd be more than willing to toss aside my own judgments of the academic merits of various Catholic colleges. I'm not an expert. However, my friends are such experts, and it is more difficult to set aside their views.
“I simply passed on the matter.”
Sorry to hear that. I'd have appreciated your input, even that which challenged my premises.
sitetest
Well I wish you and your friends all the best at ND. You won't be seeing me there. My daughter will be at the academically bereft Belmont Abbey.
As for "my own perspective", if it comes to a choice between "academic stature" and orthodoxy, I choose the latter. The former is hopelessly over-hyped and a poor substitute for authentic Catholicism.
This from someone whose entire life is spent in academia.
If you know of some, I'd be happy to listen.
It sounds like you've already drunk the ND Kool-Aid provided by your "expert" friends.
There are some other Catholic institutions that are very, very good academically, but they're places like Georgetown, Fordham and the like.
LOL..........those aren't Catholic!
If you want a good academic institution, try Duke, Princeton or Stanford. You won't have to kid yourself that your kids are receiving a "Catholic" education, either.
Tell her that any school will work for the bachelors. The University of Dallas is a decent school. If she wants to be a scholar, she needs to be exploring the outstanding graduate programs.
Hey sitetest, my sister, homeschooled all her life, gradutated ND in 2008. It is a very Catholic environment in many ways. Every dorm has a mass every day. You can go there and keep your faith. My sister did.
But, in retrospect, although my sister would never say, I think it was too hard, too many fights for the right thing. Not that it isn’t important to stand up and fight for what’s right, the Vagina Monologues were moved off campus this year, and there are successes. I just don’t think that a person at the age of 18 is ready for the day in day out battles.
So, as someone who watched a strong Catholic homeschooled gal head off to ND and graduate still fully Catholic, I would tell this family, DON’T. DO NOT SEND YOUR DAUGHTER. Send her somewhere where she can focus on the intellectual life, not somewhere where she has to fight the fights the faculty won’t. There are plenty of intellectually rigorous school out there. TAC is certainly one. My parents sent their last child to Hillsdale instead of ND. She has more in common values-wise there, than at ND.
Here’s a truly Catholic school with a good reputation.....
http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/news/pressroom/inthenews/other/princeton_review07.html
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/items/10448
My oldest son just graduated from there last weekend and my daughter will be starting at TAC as a freshman this fall. It is a wonderful campus and the new chapel is truly a thing of beauty. I didn’t realize that the Princeton Review had it rated above Harvard.
Here’s a question about “prestige” - how much of it is due to the amount of research going on rather than the quality of the teaching? A big red flag for me is the amount of grant money and the size of the endowment in figuring any sort of ranking. That says zilch about the quality of the education - Catholic institution or no.
Haven't I heard this sort of line somewhere before?
Ah, that's right.
"Personally, I'm not in favor of abortion, but.........."
It's the same excuse which rolls off the lips of CINO politicians who facilitate abortion.
It's about as convincing here as it is coming from them.
Being personally orthodox will have certain consequences for the way one acts in the face of circumstances which test one's beliefs and one's faith. In Jenkins' case, I have to say that for a man who is supposedly "personally orthodox" and therefore in complete disagreement with Obama's abortion stance, he did an excellent job of hiding it. If his obvious delight at the presence of Obama (as witnessed by his behavior on the podium) was feigned, I have to say it was academy award material. A finer acting performance I have never seen.
Jenkins' behavior throughout the entire fiasco was appalling and if he is indeed personally orthodox he won't be for much longer if he continues to behave in such an obsequious manner in the face of the anti-life movement.
“Well I wish you and your friends all the best at ND. You won't be seeing me there. My daughter will be at the academically bereft Belmont Abbey.”
There is a bit of a distance between “academically berert,” and “academic leader.”
”As for ‘my own perspective’, if it comes to a choice between ‘academic stature’ and orthodoxy, I choose the latter. The former is hopelessly over-hyped and a poor substitute for authentic Catholicism.”
“Academic stature” can be over-hyped, but there is a difference between Princeton and Prince George's County Community College. The failure to recognize or admit the differences between different schools is willful ignorance or spite.
“This from someone whose entire life is spent in academia.”
I haven't spent my life in academia (thank goodness), which is why I value the opinions of those who have, and are also devout and orthodox Catholics.
“It sounds like you've already drunk the ND Kool-Aid provided by your ‘expert’ friends.”
Indeed, my “expert” friends have spent their lives in academia. The father of the young lady is a tenured professor of philosophy in a school with an increasingly orthodox philosophy faculty (but not Notre Dame). In that he sees this stuff much more up close and personally, I'm inclined to accept his judgments as more authoritative than my own.
“LOL..........those aren't Catholic!”
That's quite what I'm driving at. Too bad you seem to have missed it.
“If you want a good academic institution, try Duke, Princeton or Stanford.”
If one’s interest is Catholic moral philosophy and theology, one is not likely to receive anything at all from these schools.
By the way, it's too bad that the attempt at open conversation has now declined to talking about the drinking of kool-aid. You are clearly an inappropriate correspondent. You may have the last jab at me in your next reply, if you so wish, but I won't reply back to you again. Ever.
After you take your last potshot, if you so wish, please be so kind as to never post to me again. Thank you.
sitetest
“Tell her that any school will work for the bachelors.”
I can't say that I agree with that. Even in my own limited experience, when I was in grad school the first time, I could see that there had been qualitative differences between the programs of the schools from which my fellow classmates came. Some programs were clearly superior to others. And sometimes, markedly so.
“The University of Dallas is a decent school.”
Yes. It is a decent school.
“If she wants to be a scholar, she needs to be exploring the outstanding graduate programs.”
One step at a time. ;-) She's only finishing her junior year of high school.
sitetest
Although your recommendation is against Notre Dame, your post really argues for it.
The problem with Thomas Aquinas College is that it has a rather rigid, narrow curriculum. One receives a bachelors in liberal arts. The curriculum is identical for each person. I believe that it is similar to a "great books" curriculum. I'm familiar with colleges like this, since when I was getting ready to go to college, lo these very many years ago, I was very much interested in St. Johns in Annapolis, MD. If that's what one wants, that's really great. If not, it's not necessarily a good fit.
“I just don’t think that a person at the age of 18 is ready for the day in day out battles.”
I think that it varies by person.
sitetest
“My feeling is that nearly any school can be top-notch academically so long as you're dealing with a gifted, highly motivated student.”
I agree that one can get a lot out of a school if one works at it and has the natural talent. Nonetheless, it seems to be an absurd argument to say that the academic quality of a school doesn't make any significant difference.
In the final analysis, one may have to sacrifice academic quality for other reasons. This happens all the time. But in my own view, it's important to own up to reality, that one may be selecting a school that isn't as good academically, that isn't as good a fit academically, for reasons other than academics. I guess that may be the crux of the whole question.
“You know, to be quite honest, the heretical profs would worry me less than the hedonistic atmosphere on campus. As a student, the professors were a challenge to me. I loved nothing more than handing in papers that threw their garbage right back in their faces. But what very nearly ruined my Faith at BC was the environment. It was the near occasion of sin all day, every day.”
That's interesting that you should say that about BC. My friend took one of his advanced degrees there (I don't remember whether it was his masters or doctoral degree). I'll have to ask him whether his experience was similar to yours. Although, he was a bit older, and I think that he was already married.
“Based on his paean to the god Obama last Sunday, I simply can not believe that.”
It's certainly not something that's evident to my own eyes. But those who know him better than me say this. Perhaps it's wishful thinking on the part of those who say it.
But remember that Cardinal Law was also a personally orthodox prelate. And an execrable one at the same time. Not every good and devout Catholic is up to every tough job in the Church and her institutions.
sitetest
Newman once wrote that if he had to choose between a college with no students and one with no “professors,” that he would choose the former. What makes Harvard or Yale superior to other schools is the quality of students who attend. I have often hard from graduates of these schools that the quality of under graduate instruction is not first-rate, because so many professors think of their places as sinecures. They just don’t like to teach young people, so they turn instruction over to surrogates. Even the surrogates tend to look down on the undergraduates. Where students gain is the interplay with other students and the personal friendships they make. Kids gain a great deal when they meet kids whose personal gifts are complementary to their own. Networking is a great thing.
From what I gather, monasteries have a similar experiences. A devout and holy place in one generation is corrupted by the time of the third. What is needed, as the popes has said, is a reform of the reform. In the end, however, people matter more than ideas. Rather truth is a living thing that works through truthful persons.
“What makes Harvard or Yale superior to other schools is the quality of students who attend.”
Well, that's assuming one thinks that Harvard or Yale are superior. For my money, I think that perhaps Princeton is the best of the Ivies. I have no first-hand experience with either Harvard or Yale, but my impression is that the Ivies in general, and these two schools in particular, or more akin to factory farms than schools.
“I have often hard from graduates of these schools that the quality of under graduate instruction is not first-rate, because so many professors think of their places as sinecures.”
That's true. And for folks like me, it's hard to tell which schools with outstanding reputations have good undergrad teachers, and which don't. But for my friends, it's a little less difficult, since they know some of these folks in some of these places.
“Where students gain is the interplay with other students and the personal friendships they make.”
I don't think it's either/or. I know that in my original field, my undergraduate institution had a better reputation than many, and it was well-deserved. When I first went to grad school, I could see that there was a difference between what I got from my teachers at my undergrad school and what others got at theirs.
Sometimes academic repuations, at least in particular fields, are deserved.
sitetest
“A devout and holy place in one generation is corrupted by the time of the third.”
And may be a holy place again by the fifth. ;-)
I've gotten to the point where I give most Catholic institutions a “bye” if they were screwed up in the 1970s into the 1980s.
My high school was only nominally Catholic when I attended in the 1970s. But it was a bad patch for a lot of schools. My son attends there now, and although it's far from perfect, it is a much more robustly, forthrightly Catholic school.
This was also my experience at Catholic. Not too orthodox then. Much more orthodox now.
And the thing is, other Catholic schools might get turned around, too. And that's a question - is Notre Dame salvageable? Or is it beyond hope?
I see stuff like what happened May 17, and I'm inclined to say it's beyond repair. But then I talk to folks who know more than me, and they assure me that that's not the case.
sitetest
It is going to be different according to subject-matter. Schools nowadays have nothing to hold them together like the old classics’ tradition. John Dewey’s philssophy had a huge impact not only on the public schools but on higher education, but instrumentalism/pragmatism is really not a unifying school of thought.
Good Gawd! You have to be joking. Did Obama send you to post here?
The fact is, you can’t be a well educated person without a strong foundation. Absolutely the curriculum at TAC is not for everyone, but it is an ideal program for most anyone, especially lawyers, doctors and teachers. Not to mention the astounding number of vocations the school produces.
But you are overlooking the most powerful aspect of college life, it’s not in the classroom. Campus life, inpacted most of all by the student body, is the most powerful influence on a college campus. It’s the people around you 24/7 and what an 18 year old is exposed to and expected to tolerate and accept and ND is vastly different than at many of the smaller Catholic colleges. It’s what led my dad to decide that he could not in good conscience send another child to ND. Not because of what happened in the classroom, but what happened outside.
Yes, it does vary person by person, who can handle what and at what age. But as a highschool teacher, I can tell there are precious few 18 year olds who can handle the pressure and the attacks. And Satan will find how to attack you. Not that he won’t on any school campus, but some colleges give him better opprotunities than others. And maybe a particular 18 year old could handle the pressures, but why subject her to that? When there are opprotunities to be well educated while not under duress.
To me it’s like the choice to homeschool. Maybe my children could hold their own in school, but I get one shot. I’m not going to risk it.
If you would like to hear more about my sister’s experience at ND, since she sounds so much like the gal you are talking about, I would be happy to FReepmail you. My sister was strong enough, she kept the faith, but the price was steep, too steep in my opinion.
About twenty years ago I knew a jag officer whop was a graduate of Notre Dame law school. He was pro-life and did not keep it a secret. The rest of the class would laugh at some of his objections to the abortion cases. He said he finally shut them up by going back to Harry Blackmun’s opinion and making them defend it. They couldn’t because legally it is a pile of crap. They, however, brushed that off, pointing out that the Earl Warren’s opinion in “Brown” is even worse. Boiled down: despite Clarence Manion’s influence, most professors are positivists who think of constitutional law as a branch of politics.
If you're talking about "academic leader" in terms of undergrad education, it's a myth. "Academic stature", in my field at least (science) has zero to do with undergraduate education. It has to do with the number and value of research grants obtained, the number and profile of publications produced and the number of awards obtained by faculty and their profile on things like journal editorial boards. Most research faculty are not fond of undergraduate teaching and that is a huge understatement. They regard it as a wretched drain on their time. Grad students are are different story as they are potential research material and therefore cheap labor.
Furthermore, when it come to undergrad teaching, you're just as likely to find excellent classroom teaching in a small, low profile college as you are in a large college with "academic stature." In fact, I'd go so far as to say more likely. You'll get better tuition in a class of 20-30 students with a professor who actually cares than you will in a large auditorium of 300 students with a distant figure up the front talking to himself.
Finally, when it comes to undergrad teaching, they mostly all use the same textbooks and reference material, don't they? In the end it comes down to class size and the attitude of the professor.
“Academic stature” can be over-hyped, but there is a difference between Princeton and Prince George's County Community College. The failure to recognize or admit the differences between different schools is willful ignorance or spite.
See above.
If you want to be taught undergrad biology or chemistry, there's probably not much difference. Seriously. The caliber of students will be far higher at Princeton as another poster has already mentioned but the teaching might actually be better at the community college. That's not a piece of information that many people who shell out big bucks for education want to hear but it's true. You're paying for the name of the college.
Now if your aim is post-graduate education and research, then of course it's a no-brainer. If you want to be on the cutting edge of research and work with fine minds you go to Princeton. However, for explaining standard texts and regular course material, it's swings and roundabouts.
By the way, it's too bad that the attempt at open conversation has now declined to talking about the drinking of kool-aid. You are clearly an inappropriate correspondent. You may have the last jab at me in your next reply, if you so wish, but I won't reply back to you again. Ever. After you take your last potshot, if you so wish, please be so kind as to never post to me again. Thank you.
Happy to oblige. It's unfortunate that you've taken it all personally and are prone to pout. I'm not having a jab at you. I do not accept that Jenkins is "personally orthodox" and neither does anyone else with any critical faculties who's witnessed his behavior over the last few weeks. Nor do I accept you definition of "academic stature" and its relevance to undergraduate teaching nor that there are no alternatives to ND when it comes to undergraduate Catholic theology.
If your "expert" friends have already given you the inside dope on ND and you're satisfied that it is reliable and sound, why come here with an attitude of "I seek only information"? This has not been an attempt at "open conversation". Several posters have told you essentially the same as I have and you have consistently defended both ND and Jenkins.
I compared two Catholic schools when looking at universities for my recently graduated son, ND and Franciscan Steubenville. ND was much much better academically. IMO academics is the reason to choose a university and campus culture the next. He graduated with his conservative Catholicism intact which is normal for ND students because there are many conservative Catholics there. A kid with weak catechesis or one a parent doesn’t trust might be better off at Franciscan.
“It is going to be different according to subject-matter.”
That's exactly true. Although many schools enjoy generally good reputations, it's important to match up the school to the field of study. My older son would like to double-major in classics and engineering. Tough to find a school that really does both well.
But this fact is crucial to the question for this young lady. Notre Dame really is a very good school academically for the disciplines in which she is interested.
And notwithstanding that some have suggested that educational quality may not vary much from undergrad institution to undergrad institution, my own personal experience showed me otherwise. But hey, who should I believe, some folks who claim to have “been in academia for many years,” or my own lyin’ eyes? LOL.
sitetest
It's a little difficult to make sense from this:
“Absolutely the curriculum at TAC is not for everyone, but it is an ideal program for most anyone,...”
Well, is it not for everyone, or is it ideal for most anyone? The two seem a little contradictory.
Myself, I think that “Great Books” curricula are great, but I just don't think that they're for everyone by any stretch of the imagination.
Thomas Aquinas College just isn't for most folks.
“But you are overlooking the most powerful aspect of college life, it’s not in the classroom. Campus life, inpacted most of all by the student body, is the most powerful influence on a college campus. It’s the people around you 24/7 and what an 18 year old is exposed to and expected to tolerate and accept and ND is vastly different than at many of the smaller Catholic colleges.”
I understand, but my own experience suggests that it's not a decisive isssue. I went to Catholic at a time when drunken debauchery was the order of the day. And you know what happens when lots of moderately attracive, young, strong men & women (many coming out of all-boys and all-girls high schools) come together in drunken stupors.
I remember going down to the campus the first few Friday nights for the parties. The beer trucks pulled up (this is was when 18 was the legal drinking age for beer and wine) and the taps would flow, and within a half hour, 45 minutes tops, the first aroma of drunken vomit would arise from the bushes.
I was really astonished at how much folks drank! Not how I was raised! We drank at home, and from very early ages (I had my first sip of beer at age four), but we were taught moderation! We were taught that folks who routinely get drunk are..., well,... immature, flawed.
I went to three of these weekend parties, three Fridays in a row, drank a total of six beers between all three parties, and decided, hey, this really isn't for me. Someone might upchuck on me, and then I'll be very unhappy.
I'd go to the Rat (an on-campus restaurant and bar) fairly frequently and see old friends (a lot of the folks who came to Catholic with me from high school spent a lot of class time drinking in the Rat), but I just never got into the whole drunkenness-as-a-state-of-being sort of thing. I did my own thing, hung out with my own small circle. I saw, I observed all the debauchery, but never felt much compulsion to join in the “fun.”
I spent a lot of time on campus, but mostly in class and at work. And there wasn't too much debauchery during classes or at work.
“To me it’s like the choice to homeschool.”
We are homeschoolers. My older son homeschooled through 8th grade, and my younger son is completing 7th grade at home. And part of the reason was to shield them from a lot of the “socialization” of regular schools. My older son is now at a private Catholic high school for 9th grade. He is certainly much more exposed to some of the grittier things in life than he was when he was home. But he takes it in stride, and successfully deals with a variety of folks.
Part of the reason to homeschool is to prepare one’s children for interaction with the wider world. I hope and pray that we've done a good job. But as the child grows into a young adult, it's necessary to help introduce him into the wider world where he will likely spend the rest of his life.
sitetest
Thanks for your response.
“IMO academics is the reason to choose a university and campus culture the next.”
That's how it always seemed to me. Campus “culture” didn't factor at all into my own decision as to where to go. I applied to schools with good reputations in my chosen field of study, and went to the best school that offered me a really good scholarship. I guess I was naive. LOL.
The larger question, though, is to what degree should it influence the decision on where to go the fact that Notre Dame has repudiated the Catholic Church?
To me, it's clear that given the circumstances of this young lady, Notre Dame should be very much in the running.
But she is a devout Catholic woman, and her family to are all devout Catholics. Notre Dame, by its persistence in having the anti-Christ Obama come receive an honorary doctorate in law, has declared war on the Holy Catholic Church.
To what degree should this play a role in the decision whether or not to attend Notre Dame? Someone up above said that we shouldn't support schools like Notre Dame by sending our children. In principle, I agree. But how should that play out practically?
That's really the question, not whether or not Notre Dame is right for every graduating high school Catholic student. Not whether the campus culture is too pagan. Not whether a devout young Catholic will find resistance to his faith during his college career.
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.