Dear ECOLOGers, A little more than a year ago, we sent a short survey on quantitative training targeted at early-career ecologists, which many of you kindly answered. We now have summed up the results in a preprint which you can read and comment here: https://peerj.com/preprints/53/, DOI:10.7287/peerj.preprints.53v1
The survey demonstrates a widespread lack of quantitative training (which resonates well with the fact that most postdoc offers on ECOLOG specifically ask for quantitative skills...). The magnitude of the phenomenon was surprising: 3/4 of the respondents are dissatisfied with their understanding of models, and nearly all suggest to introduce more courses in quantitative disciplines. Many argue also that we should improve the connection of math/stats/programming to ecological or more generally biological questions. Have a look. We tried a few journals to publish (and are still searching), but the primary goal of this survey being to inform our colleagues, we decided to make it available first as a PeerJ preprint. It has a DOI, so you can cite it if you need to. Again, many thanks to all, Fred Barraquand for the INNGE-network (www.innge.net) Note: Those who have followed the debate after E.O. Wilson's piece in the Wall Street Journal (an overview of the heated arguments that ensued here: http://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2013/04/07/e-o-wilson-vs-math/) will remark that in stark contrast to Wilson, the great majority of young scientists pragmatically think that math skills are best acquired well before tenure!
