Core Review FAQs

The workgroup has 18 members. Each undergraduate degree-granting unit has a faculty representative (the College of Arts & Sciences has four: two from humanities; one from social sciences; one from natural/applied sciences). There are also representatives from Faculty Council, university libraries, academic advising and an undergraduate student. The Provost selected these names from nominations given to him from the head of each unit. 

The workgroup has two distinct charges, each associated with one of the two phases of review process. 

First, the Provost has asked the workgroup to assess the current core curriculum and determine whether it provides a uniquely Loyola experience and whether it meets the needs of our students for the years to come. At the conclusion of this first phase of the process, the workgroup will be submitting a report to the Provost that answers these questions. The report will indicate whether revisions to the core might be desirable. 

Second, if revisions to the core are desirable, Provost will ask the workgroup to propose several models of how the core might be revised to better meet the needs of our students. At the conclusion of this second phase of the process, the workgroup will be submitting a report to the Provost that describes the strengths and weaknesses of each proposed model and which, if any, are recommended for implementation. 

The workgroup is tasked with listening to the university community, assessing what they find, and providing summaries for consideration by the President, the Provost, deans, and other academic leaders. The workgroup does not have decision-making authority related to the core curriculum. 

Although we are using the phrase core curriculum review, the review includes an assessment of all university requirements. College-level requirements are not included in the workgroup’s review. Therefore, we are including: the 16 required courses distributed across 10 core areas; University 101/201; engaged learning; and writing intensive courses. Other requirements, such as foreign language, which is not required for all Loyola undergraduate students, will not be considered as part of this review. 

The workgroup will present the report from phase 1 by the middle of March 2026. If the second phase is needed, the workgroup will present several models by the end of September 2026. Any revisions to the core would be approved by February 2027. The fall 2028 cohort of Loyola undergraduates would be the first cohort students to use a revised core curriculum. 

The workgroup has created many ways in which faculty, academic advisors, students, and other stakeholders can share their thoughts on the core. 

Students will be able to complete a survey and will be invited to sign up for focus groups. Academic advisors will be able to complete a survey and will be invited to sign up for focus groups. Faculty will be able to complete a survey, sign up for focus groups, or participate in one of six town halls. There will be focus groups with several other stakeholder groups. All of these opportunities will be communicated through the appropriate channels for each of these groups. If you have any questions or haven’t heard about these opportunities, please contact Fr. Michael Rozier, SJ, (mrozier@luc.edu), who is chairing the workgroup and can share details with you. 

The workgroup will use a variety of information for its recommendations. This includes the feedback it receives from surveys, focus groups, interviews, and town halls. In addition, the workgroup will review core curricula at other institutions, the past two years of data evaluating our current core curriculum, accreditation requirements for some of our programs that may create constraints on the core, information on incoming students as to how much of the core is typically completed before arrival at Loyola, waivers specific to majors/minors, syllabi of core classes, and other data that help answer the charge given to the workgroup by the Provost. 

To be clear, we do not know whether the core will be changed and, if it is, how it will be changed. At the same time, there is an understandable concern from those departments that teach a large number of core classes regarding what would happen if the distribution of courses changes in a revised core. 

Without more details, it is impossible to say exactly what would happen to any particular department. However, if we have a core revision, students will continue taking courses in the current core through May of 2031. This gives us a considerable timeframe to figure out how best to distribute faculty resources. Importantly, the total number of credit hours taught (~120 credit hours / undergraduate student) will not change. Therefore, we will still need the same total number of faculty to deliver our overall curriculum. It is possible, though, that the distribution of those faculty will shift based on new curricular needs. 

The current core curriculum was implemented in 2012. It is a best practice of any university to routinely review the core curriculum and consider any revisions that might be necessary. Many things – in the characteristics of students, in academia, in the world around us – have changed since 2012 that may warrant consideration as to how the university delivers a core that best serves our students in the present moment. 

The goal of this review is quite simple – to ensure that our students are well prepared to thrive in their lives after Loyola. Our core is perhaps the most fundamental way in which this is achieved which means we must ensure it is designed to best serve students for years to come. 

The program array review and core curriculum review are distinct processes and one should not influence the other. The program array review is designed to ensure all academic programs we offer at Loyola are as strong as possible. This will mean eliminating some programs, modifying some programs, and investing in others. The core curriculum review is designed to ensure we are providing all undergraduate students a uniquely Loyola academic experience. It is possible that departments could be affected by both the program array review and the core curriculum review, but the recommendations of one review process should not influence the recommendations of the other review process.