Anne: At the risk of stating the obvious: It depends on what kind of job you want. This is part of the inherent problem of "ecology" - the term includes lots of different kinds of work, contexts, value sets, etc.
If you are interested in working for a consulting firm or a regulatory agency, doing environmental impact assessment and that kind of stuff, then being certified in WD would be beneficial - which is why it is listed in the job qualifications. If you are interested in other kinds of "ecology" jobs, such as scientific research (especially developing and testing generalizable theory, leading to peer-reviewed publications), then WD would not necessarily be useful at all. So, if you want to be more competitive for the kinds of jobs that include WD, then it would be a good investment to get trained. (Especially if you already have other fundamental skills, such as a BS degree, experience in field ecology / environmental sciences, a decent GPA, good references, etc. Without those fundamentals, you may not be competitive for jobs, even with some training in WD.) As an aside, I would think that a $1000 training in WD might get you further than a similar "short course" in GIS. good luck! John P. John D. Perrine, PhD Assistant Professor / Associate Curator of Mammals Biological Sciences Department California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407-0401 On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:59:48 -0500, Anne Stine <[email protected]> wrote: >Hello Ecologgers, > >I am hoping that you can weigh in on my question. > >As a young ecologist, I am working to acquire the maximal number of >resume-bolstering skills before joining the job market. I check out the >listings periodically to assess the most requested job qualifications, and >I generally see the previously mentioned GIS and stats. I also see "Wetland >Delineation". I'll have the chance to get certified this spring, and I'd >like some feedback on whether it's worth it before I spend the ~$1000. > >What's your opinion? Would wetland delineation certification make me a >significantly stronger job candidate? > > >-Anne >=========================================================================
