I have to admit that the entire biological sciences major would be better considered a college, and the ecology-evolution sequence and the moleucular sequences be considered alternate majors. Ecology and cell are now so divergent that it is difficult to imagine most aspects as more related than ecology is with earth science or genetics is with chemistry!
On Sat, August 18, 2007 11:17 pm, Wayne Tyson wrote: > What if ecology was recognized for the fundamental science that it > is, and was taught starting with the nature of life and its > interactions in space and time, and that process was allowed to > proceed naturally? Would not one find that the relevant principles > of physics, chemistry, mathematics, communication, etc. would fall > into place as needed? > > This idea may be, I'll admit, politically naive, but why is it > considered naive by the academic priesthood? > > These three questions are serious ones, and are intended in no way to > be rhetorical. (Well, the "priesthood" crack is, but I couldn't resist.) > > WT > > At 11:18 AM 8/18/2007, yasmin lucero wrote: >>I've long thought that one of the problems with undergraduate Ecology >>programs is that our students spend too much time in other departments. >> We >>don't spend enough time learning why physics, chem, econ, etc. are useful >> in >>ecology. >> >>For starters, I would like to see a year of physics replaced with a year >> of >>"physical ecology" or something similar. I believe the main reason for >> the >>physics course is learn to apply our math skills and to learn mechanics. >> A >>physical ecology course could teach mechanics in the context of >> biomechanics >>problems. But, it would eschew the normal physics emphasis on QED, >> particle >>physics and cosmology in favor of more emphasis on material science, >>acoustics and some basic fluid mechanics. >> >>Cheers, >>Yasmin >> >>On 8/17/07, Sarah Hurteau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > Loren, >> > I am a recent graduate from a masters program that does just that. It >> is >> > officially call "Environmental Sciences and Policy" but the premise is >> > that students who graduate from this program are better suited to >> > address these sorts of issues. A way to bridge the gap in >> communication >> > between scientists and policy makers or community members or land >> > managers. My background is in the natural sciences, but there are >> others >> > in the program who are more focused on social sciences. A fellow grad >> > student searched other universities that had similar programs and >> there >> > were <20, but it seem that this idea is growing. I don't think I will >> > ever make the switch to conducting social science research, but it has >> > been interesting to learn how to view the ecological research from a >> > completely different perspective, which I think will help those of us >> > wanting to work in conservation biology. >> > >> > In this light, I doubt I will need the 3-4 semesters of chemistry or >> > year of physics I had to take as an undergrad. Statistics or >> > experimental design would have been much more useful! You could make >> > those more advanced classes elective, so for those people who are >> > interested in water chemistry, or similar topics, they can follow that >> > course. >> > >> > Sarah >> > >> > LOREN BYRNE wrote: >> > > This question about undergrad requirements for ecology programs >> prompts >> > me to throw out to the community a general question that I have >> pondered for >> > years: >> > > Given the increasingly recognized importance of integrating the >> social >> > sciences into ecology for topics such as ecosystem services, urban >> ecology, >> > etc., is it time to begin shifting our ecology education paradigm >> toward >> > inclusion of "non-traditional" courses as suggested correlative >> courses, if >> > not requirements, in ecology curricula, i.e., courses in sociology, >> > economics and maybe even communications? >> > > Many might argue (legitimately so in my opinion) that such social >> > science courses could be more important and beneficial for >> students who want >> > to go into conservation biology or environmental management fields >> than the >> > standard "full year of chemistry and physics." >> > > >> > > cheers >> > > Loren >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > ----- Original Message ----- >> > > From: Jonathan Horton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > > Date: Thursday, August 16, 2007 2:26 pm >> > > Subject: courses required for graduate ecology programs >> > > >> > > >> > >> Colleagues, >> > >> >> > >> We are considering revising our course curriculum for our B.S. >> > >> Biology >> > >> degree with a concentration in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. >> > >> Many >> > >> of us feel that more training in statistics and experimental design >> > >> will >> > >> be beneficial to our graduates seeking professional positions and >> > >> entry >> > >> into research-based graduate programs. Our current requirements >> > >> are as >> > >> follows: >> > >> >> > >> 1. A core curriculum (16 hours) required of all Biology majors that >> > >> includes introductory Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cellular >> > >> and >> > >> Molecular Biology, Botany and Zoology >> > >> 2. Chemistry (Introductory I and II with lab, Organic I and either >> > >> Biochemistry with a lab or Organic II with a lab >> > >> 3. Two semesters of Physics >> > >> 4. Calculus and one semester of introductory statistics >> > >> 5. And many upper level biology courses >> > >> >> > >> With our general education requirements (we are a public Liberal >> > >> Arts >> > >> College), this makes it a full 4 to 4.5 year schedule for >> graduation. >> > >> >> > >> We are discussing cutting back on the amount of chemistry (through >> > >> Organic I) and Physics (only 1 semester) and instead having our >> > >> students >> > >> take additional courses in Statistics (Linear Regression and Anova) >> > >> and >> > >> experimental design and analysis. >> > >> >> > >> My questions to the group is this: What are the entrance >> > >> requirements >> > >> to ecology graduate programs in terms of course work? Which would >> > >> better prepare students for a research-based graduate program or >> > >> professional position, additional chemistry and physics or >> > >> additional >> > >> statistical training. >> > >> >> > >> We would not want to limit our graduates chances of entering a >> > >> graduate >> > >> program by failing to meet entrance requirements in terms of >> > >> supplemental science coursework. Please provide your thoughts. >> > >> >> > >> Feel free to answer off the list. >> > >> >> > >> Thanks, >> > >> >> > >> Jonathan >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> ************************* >> > >> Jonathan Horton Ph.D. >> > >> Department of Biology >> > >> One University Heights >> > >> UNC-Asheville CPO#2440 >> > >> Asheville, NC 28804 >> > >> Phone: (828)232-5152 >> > >> Fax: (828)251-6623 >> > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> ************************* >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Sarah Hurteau >> > Senior Research Specialist >> > >> > Forest ERA >> > Northern Arizona University >> > PO Box 5694 >> > Flagstaff, AZ 86011 >> > Office: (928) 523-4730 >> > Fax: (928) 523-7423 >> > >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > www.forestera.nau.edu >> > > Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor of Biology Editor Herpetological Conservationa and Biology [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
