<p>I think that there are some important distinctions between the core and great books models that are being overlooked. My understanding is that a student at reed or chicago will take some humanities classes focusing on the western tradition and will have to fulfill requirements in other fields (traditional math, science, language classes etc). At St. John’s, while we are also required to take, for instance, math each year, our tutorials are more concerned with the philosophy of math than core classes required at chicago or reed. So while we are aiming to understand Euclid, Cartesian mathematics, etc. we are also concerned with addressing questions of epistemology and other themes we deal with in the program. Likewise, when we read Bacon’s moral philosophy in seminar, we might explore the ways in which it is an outgrowth of the baconian method we’re dealing with in lab. In this sense, it seems that a gb program is slightly more interdisciplinary than the collection of classes that constitutes a core curriculum at another school. </p>
<p>Also, just to echo what was already said, the great books approach is absolutely as concerned with honing a certain set of skills as it is with the books themselves. Along with receiving a broad survey of the history of western thought, the program teaches students the importance of free inquiry, persistent questioning, liberality, and measured skepticism.</p>
<p>I really believe a school like Hampshire or Brown accomplishes the same end as a school like St. John’s. Both breeds of schools attract a similar cross section of adventurous students who are looking for a nontraditional education.</p>