Perennialism and essentialism are necessary in curriculum design/development. Perrenialism in a sense that the learners should have strong foundation of the time tested truths and basic sciences that will be the cornerstone and building blocks of their learning process. Example, in the health sciences or medicine: the normal anatomy, histology, physiology, biochemistry. having a strong foundation of these basic sciences, these basic sciences, being universal and timeless will make acquisition of knowledge and understanding of other medical subjects easier. knowing the "normal" will pave the way in understanding the "abnormal" so that we can do something about the abnormal. Understandably, learning these time tested truths (example Biochemistry) cannot do away completely from a perrenialist approach/ teacher-centered approach. In current medical practice, the trend is evidence-based medicine and treatment guidelines are available that we can follow in managing our patients, however, we know that guidelines are just guidelines. having strong foundational knowledge equips us in "doing away" and breaking-off from these guidelines during times when patients do not respond as expected from the guideline-based/evidence-based management, and thus, the management of patients will rely on our knowledge of pathophysiology pharmacology etc. Esssentialism, another teacher-centered approach focuses on the core knowledge and skills. These two philosophies, being teacher-centered, are associated with the terms "old", "traditional" thus may connote a negative undertone in today's word. But the "old" and "traditional" having endured the test of time speaks of something. And thus, in modifying a curriculum I still believe that these "traditional philosophies" be considered. Identify, pick-up and capitalize on their strengths and use it in a way to complement the modern student-centered approach. It will be up to us to make these "traditional" approaches flexible and adaptable in the current times.