When I started my doctoral program in 1999, either Gary Emmert or Jerry Farris, I have forgotten which but I am PRETTY SURE one of them told us that the early environmental science programs back in the 1970s were sort-of poor-man's chemistry degrees. (Could have been someone else). They often emphasized water treatment and were generally not very rigorous. A modern environmental science program is extremely demanding because you have to juggle the extra coursework and still get your research done. The modern programs are heavily laden in science but also laden in those other areas (economics and policy). So, Wayne's observation may be pretty accurate if it was the kind of thing I was told about. I'ld argue that a modern environmental science program is harder to complete than either a comparable biology, chemistry, policy or economics program. However, an environmental science graduate will not have as in-depth of an education in all of these as the person specializing in one of thes areas. However, a typical EVS graduate will usually have a concentration in one of enviornmental biology, env. chem, env. econ, env. policy, etc. and essentially that is their primary specialty. For example, I earned my doctorate in EVS but my primary education is in biology. However, most of us can communicate across disciplines allowing us to effectively manage groups of people with wide differences in specialty.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote: > Ecolog: > > I may be quite out of date here (I fervently hope so), but in the early > days (1970's and '80's?) when universities first started cranking out Ph.D's > in "environmental management" or some such label, I got the impression that > biology/ecology had created a population of monsters on the order of MBA's. > These were nice people, devoted to saving the earth. The trouble was, they > had such a poor (if any) understanding of biology/ecology fundamentals > (though I'm certain--though I never checked the curriculum--that they must > have passed basic courses) that one couldn't communicate with them about, > say, basic physiology, capillarity, or even habitat structure and species > interactions. > > My sample size may be too small, but as I can't recall a single exception > (though that's probably due to my poor memory), it could be that my worst > fears had some validity. These nice folks had important jobs in the > consulting industry and in government, and had tremendous power, which they > wielded with absolute authority. > > Please tell me that this is no longer the case, or that I was wrong, wrong, > wrong in my assessment and my experiences were all a bad dream. > > WT > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "malcolm McCallum" < > [email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 7:36 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] academia vs consultancies vs govt - dual degree > programs > > > Arkansas State's Environmental Sciences PHD program was originally >> designed >> with the intention to train people for consultant and Govt jobs. I'm not >> sure if it still has that focus or not because it has been well 6-7 years >> since I looked at the program. >> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Nathan Brouwer <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Regarding cross-training in ecology and policy, I know that the >>> University >>> of Washington school of forestry offers a dual masters degree in >>> conjunction >>> with the university's public policy school. Are these programs very >>> common, >>> though? >>> >>> There have been several op-ed pieces in Conservation Biology over the >>> years >>> that have called for this type of training. eg >>> >>> Training Idiot Savants: The Lack of Human Dimensions in Conservation >>> Biology Author(s): Susan K. Jacobson and Mallory D. McDuff 1998 >>> Cannon, J. R., J. M. Dietz, and L. A. Dietz. 1996. Training conservation >>> biologists in human interaction skills. Conservation Bi-ology >>> 10:1277-1282. >>> Jacobson, S. K. 1990. Graduate education in conservation biology. >>> Conservation Biol-ogy 4:431-440. >>> >>> From: Lee Davis <[email protected]> >>> Date: March 6, 2011 7:47:35 AM PST >>> Subject: academia vs consultancies vs govt >>> Reply-To: Lee Davis <[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> I think a major point that isn't being addressed here is that many >>> professors who have focused solely on research and may have had little >>> contact with regulation, on the ground conservation and management >>> agencies/organizations often fail to understand the importance of >>> training >>> in NEPA, conservation easements, environmental economics, etc. as an >>> important and needed addition to training in research methods. >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Malcolm L. McCallum >> Managing Editor, >> Herpetological Conservation and Biology >> >> "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - >> Allan >> Nation >> >> 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert >> 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, >> and pollution. >> 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction >> MAY help restore populations. >> 2022: Soylent Green is People! >> >> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any >> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may >> contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized >> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not >> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and >> destroy all copies of the original message. >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3487 - Release Date: 03/07/11 >> >> -- Malcolm L. McCallum Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan Nation 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
