Changes in core curriculum will have effects...

Any serious change to the existing core will have significant effects. One of the best things a revision committee can do is try to think systematically about these effects. Here’s a partial illustrative list, emerging from recent discussions (and in no order of significance):

(1) Faculty recruitment. Hypothesis: Greater emphasis on real “core” courses, broad interdisciplinary courses taught by tenure-track faculty, has drawback that many new Ph.D.’s, emerging from the cocoons of 5-6 years in their discipline, may not be attracted to the prospect of teaching a broad interdisciplinary core.
(2) Department majors and faculty lines. Hypothesis: Smaller and perennially less popular Departments recruit from students obligated to sample their courses, and without the obligation few students may become majors.
(3) Double majoring. Hypothesis: In today’s credentialed society, students value the diploma-enhancing double major. A more onerous Core (in terms of coursework) imperils double majoring and may reduce attractiveness of the University.
(4) Transfer students. Hypothesis: If a core is guided by learning outcomes, a Core risks being undermined if transfer students can obtain credit for Core work when other colleges offer similar sounding coursework that nevertheless may not have the same rigor and depth of a Santa Clara core course.
(5) Length of study on campus. Hypothesis: A lighter Core may induce students to graduate even earlier, with financial implications for the University.

The hypotheses enumerated above are worth investigating; but they do not preclude there being other hypotheses (polar opposites, even) than may be just a likely. To reiterate, evidence-based research is necessary in sorting out some of the less likely or less substantial hypotheses from those that do find validation in the experiences of a broad sample of universities.