Divergent Trends in Accredited Forestry Programs in the United States ...

education & communication

Divergent Trends in Accredited Forestry Programs in the United States: Implications for Research and Education

ABSTRACT

Kevin L. O’Hara and Carol L. Redelsheimer Undergraduate forestry programs in the United States have been accredited by the Society of American Foresters since 1935. Over the subsequent 75 years, the list of accredited undergraduate programs has grown, but several of the original programs have recently dropped their forestry programs or their accreditation. When forestry programs were first accredited in the United States, they were all housed in larger research universities. In recent decades, there has been a contraction of forestry programs at universities with a strong research/doctoral education emphasis and an expansion at other universities and colleges in programs with little or no research/doctoral education. This trend is also apparent if the number of graduates by current Carnegie classification is compared from 1935 to 1960 with 2010. These trends raise important questions regarding forestry education at a time when many are calling for more broadly trained foresters that can understand and apply emerging science and management trends. If this trend continues, it might result in more narrowly trained foresters and shortages of researchers and teachers with professional training. For a profession that prides itself on advancing the “science, education, technology, and practice of forestry,” these trends suggest a future where the science becomes increasingly separated from the practice. Keywords: professional forestry education, Carnegie classification, technical forestry education, forest science, accreditation

P

rograms in professional forestry were first accredited by the Society of American Foresters (SAF) in 1935. In that year, a total of 14 graduate and undergraduate forestry programs received accreditation. Accreditation was designed to ensure minimum standards of programs offering professional forestry education among a rapidly growing number of forestry programs. These standards included qualifi-

cations of faculty, financial support, library resources, field instruction, and others (Graves and Guise 1932, Dana and Johnson 1963). Today, accreditation remains a peerreview process to ensure a threshold quality of forestry education and that programs have integral processes for ongoing internal review and improvement. In the decades that followed the initial accreditation, the total number of accredited programs increased

initially but has been fairly constant since about 1970. In 2010, 47 undergraduate and 8 masters programs held full or candidate SAF accreditation. Five 2-year forest technology programs held a new SAF accreditation that was initiated in 2009. Since the initiation of forestry education in the United States, there has been debate about the relative merits of different education models and between those advocating a practical or technical approach versus an approach based on science and sound academics (Skok 1996, Miller and Lewis 1999, de Steiguer et al. 2008). The first forestry program was the New York State College of Forestry at Cornell University, which began as a 4-year program in 1898 leading to a Bachelor of Forestry. At about the same time, the Biltmore Forest School started in North Carolina offering a 1-year program focused on a field-oriented overview. A third model was first represented by the 2-year Master of Forestry degree program that began in 1900 at Yale University. It provided a forestry education to students with a bachelor’s degree in the arts or sciences (Graves and Guise 1932, Dana and Johnson 1963, Miller and Lewis 1999). These three models are still in place today, although the 1-year

Received September 6, 2011; accepted February 6, 2012; published online March 22, 2012; http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/jof.11-070. Kevin L. O’Hara ([email protected]) is professor of silviculture, University of California–Berkeley, Department of Environmental Science and Policy, and Management, 137 Mulford Hall, No. 3114, Berkeley, CA 94720-3114. Carol L. Redelsheimer ([email protected]) is director of Science and Education, Society of American Foresters, 5400 Grosvenor Lane, Bethesda, MD 20814-2198. The authors are indebted to the many programs that shared data and particularly to Bob Richardson of FAEIS for assembling 2010 data. Presubmission reviews of the article were provided by Michael Goergen, John Helms, and Rick Standiford. The authors also appreciate three anonymous reviews and the Associate Editor’s assistance in the Journal of Forestry review process. Copyright © 2012 by the Society of American Foresters. Journal of Forestry • June 2012

201

Table 1. Carnegie Foundation Classification (2010) for universities that have historically had SAF accredited programs.

Carnegie classification Doctorate-granting universities

Abbreviation

Carnegie description

RU/VH

Research universities with very high research activity

RU/H

Research universities with high research activity

Masters universities

DRU Master’s/L

Doctoral/research universities Large masters colleges and universities Medium masters colleges and universities Smaller masters colleges and universities

Baccalaureate colleges

Master’s/M Master’s/S Bac/diverse

Universities and colleges with SAF accredited programs (past and present) Arizona, California, Colorado State, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa State, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina State, Ohio State, Oregon State, Pennsylvania State, Purdue, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Virginia Tech., Washington, Washington State, and Wisconsin Alaska-Fairbanks, Auburn, Clemson, Idaho, Maine, Louisiana Tech., Michigan Tech., Mississippi State, Montana, Nevada-Reno, New Hampshire, Northern Arizona, Oklahoma State, Rutgers, Southern Illinois, Utah State, Vermont, and West Virginia SUNY–ESF Alabama A&M, Cal Poly SLO, New Mexico Highlands, and Stephen F. Austin Humboldt State and Wisconsin-Stevens Point Arkansas–Monticello Paul Smith’s

All universities are classified by their 2011 Carnegie classification. Current university names are used; some programs were initially established under slightly different names (e.g., Pennsylvania State College became Pennsylvania State University).

Biltmore program has been replaced by 2-year Associate of Applied Science (AAS) degrees. It might also be argued that the “ranger schools” represented a fourth model because these programs were of several weeks to months in duration and focused on technical aspects of forestry (Dana and Johnson 1963, p 191). In our analysis, we generally viewed these as part of the technology programs because the original model is no longer used. In this article, we focus on the 4-year programs leading to a bachelor’s degree in forestry; these programs have traditionally been the primary source of professional foresters in the United States. Several trends in forestry education for undergraduate programs holding SAF accreditation are examined that suggest this group of programs is evolving into two distinct groups, one with a stronger science emphasis than the other. Our objectives are to document current trends and to discuss possible explanations and the implications of these trends for the future of forestry and forestry education in the United States.

Methods Our analysis used SAF accreditation as the basis for inclusion of forestry programs leading to a baccalaureate degree. This standard has been in existence since 1935 and, although specific accreditation requirements have evolved, it forms a consistent standard for grouping undergraduate programs offer202

Journal of Forestry • June 2012

ing professional forestry education in the United States. Our analysis also includes programs with “candidate” accreditation status, which indicates a program has achieved initial recognition and is progressing toward accreditation. Inclusion of candidate programs in our analysis is consistent with the SAF Certified Forester program, which accepts degrees from programs with candidate status toward certification. Accreditation reports have been a standard product of the SAF accreditation committee since 1935. We used the initial report in 1935 and the decadal reports from 1940 to 2010 that listed the existing SAF accredited undergraduate programs. Additionally, we use SAF accreditation reports that show numbers of graduates from forestry programs from 1935 through 1960 (Guise 1936, 1940, 1950, Marckworth 1961) and 2010 data from the Food and Agriculture Education Information System (FAEIS, 2011) to show trends in numbers of graduates. Missing data in the 2010 FAEIS reports were obtained by direct requests to individual programs. Data on number of graduates were not available from 1970 to 2000. The second standard we used was the current rating in 2010 of the research/doctoral education activity of universities and colleges using the Carnegie Foundation “Basic Classification.” The Carnegie classification (Carnegie Foundation 2010) separates universities in the United States by

their research activity and doctoral education productivity into several classes: “doctorate-granting,” “master’s colleges and universities,” and baccalaureate colleges (Table 1). Although the Carnegie Classification includes many classes of universities, colleges, and community colleges, we only discuss those classes that include universities or colleges with SAF accredited baccalaureate forestry programs. Our application of 2010 Carnegie classes to data from previous decades is to focus our analysis on current types of universities with accredited forestry programs.

Results The number of accredited undergraduate forestry programs increased steadily from 1935 until reaching an all-time high with 49 accredited and candidate programs about 1980 (Figure 1). In recent decades, several universities have either ended their undergraduate forestry programs or dropped their SAF accreditation. For example, the University of Michigan, the University of Washington, and Washington State University have terminated their undergraduate forestry programs. The loss of these programs has generally been offset by the initiation or accreditation of new programs. For example, New Mexico Highlands, Paul Smith’s College, and Alabama A&M have gained SAF accreditation or candidate status since 2000. The net change in total programs been minor because of a reduction in pro-

Number of accredited programs

60

50

RU/VH RU/H DRU Master's/L

40

Master's/M Master's/S

30

Bac/Diverse

20

10

0 1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Year

Figure 1. Number of SAF accredited and candidate undergraduate forestry programs in the United States by Carnegie class from 1935 to 2010. Carnegie classes are defined in Table 1.

Discussion Divergent Trends These results indicate a strong shift in forestry education in the United States. Although the earliest forestry programs were established at large universities with evolving research foci, in recent decades the increase in the number of accredited forestry programs and the number of graduates has primarily occurred at universities and colleges with less research emphasis. Additionally, many of the original universities have seen enrollment declines or have dropped their forestry programs, particularly in recent years. This is coincident with a general decline in forestry enrollment in the United 120

Percent of forestry graduates

grams at institutions with a Carnegie classification of very high or high research productivity/doctoral education (research universities with very high research activity [RU/VH], research universities with high research activity [RU/H], and doctoral/research universities [DRU]) and an increase in the number of programs at institutions with a Carnegie classification of masters or baccalaureate (Master’s/x or Bac/x; Figure 1). For example, of the five programs accredited since 1990, only one—Alaska-Fairbanks—was at a doctorate-granting university (Table 1). Data for numbers of graduates are more tenuous because these records are scarce in recent years or are of uneven quality. SAF often published these numbers for the first several decades of the accreditation program (Guise 1936, 1940, 1950, Marckworth 1961). However, trends in numbers of graduates amplify the trends in accredited programs (Figure 2). Many of the more recently accredited programs have large graduating classes whereas many of the older programs are relatively small. This is particularly apparent in states with multiple forestry programs (Table 2). This corresponds to a national shift in numbers of forestry graduates to universities with Carnegie master’s or baccalaureate classifications versus research/ doctoral education classifications. For example, in 1960, 100% of forestry graduates were from Carnegie doctorate-granting universities. In 2010, this figure was 72.0%. In 1960, 72.3% of graduates were from programs at RU/VH universities compared with 36.2% in 2010.

States (Sharik and Lillieholm 2010). An increasing proportion of this enrollment and the number of graduates are from programs at institutions with Carnegie classifications of Master’s/x or Bac/x (Table 2). In the 2010 data, approximately 30% of forestry graduates were from universities and colleges with no PhD programs. However, because SAF accreditation does not rank programs, all graduates receive a degree with the same accreditation. The effect of Carnegie-classified RU/VH universities dropping their forestry programs or experiencing forestry enrollment drops and an increase in number of and enrollment in programs at Carnegieclassified Master’s/x or Bac/x universities is to split the undergraduate model of forestry education into two models: one at universities with a strong research/doctoral education focus and the other at universities or colleges with smaller, or no, research/doctoral education programs. The range in knowledge and preparedness of graduate foresters from any institution is so great that the differences between graduates from all institutions may not be significant—and an analysis of this is beyond our scope. However, these trends raise a number of interesting issues for forestry education and professional forestry in the United States. On one hand, there are demands that recent forestry graduates be better prepared to understand science and be better prepared to apply research findings in ecosystem-level assessments and management actions (Sample et al. 1999). At the same time, we are produc-

100

277

996

2039

848

912

1935

1940

1950

1960

2010

80

RU/VH RU/H DRU Master's/L Master's/M Master's/S Bac/Diverse

60

40

20

0

Year

Figure 2. Percent of graduates from SAF accredited and candidate forestry programs by year and Carnegie class. Total graduates each year are shown above each bar. Carnegie classes are defined in Table 1. Journal of Forestry • June 2012

203

ing an increasing proportion of BS-level graduates from institutions with a lower, if any, research emphasis.

Table 2. Numbers of 2010 graduates from states with multiple forestry programs.

Implications for Research American forestry education must continue to produce professional foresters with the understanding of research and research findings, as well as the preparation to apply these findings to evolving natural resource management problems. University research should also continue to serve an important role in addressing applied natural resource problems. As a science-based profession, both the public and the private sectors rely on university research as well as the researchers that trained at research universities. The nonresearch universities are also dependent on the research-oriented universities to produce faculty with advanced degrees. The McIntire-Stennis program was established in 1962 to stimulate forestry research with an emphasis on training future forestry researchers (Westveld 1963, Bullard et al. 2011). However, funding for this program has declined in inflation-adjusted value and this funding is increasingly shared among greater numbers of research stations and universities (Bullard et al. 2011). The causes of these trends involve a variety of interacting factors. At one level, large research universities are moving away from applied natural resource fields in a form of retrenchment to allocate resources to other disciplines. These trends may not be unique to forestry but are also occurring with related disciplines such as agriculture, wildlife management, range management, and others (National Research Council 2009, Wolter et al. 2011). There may also be a negative stigma associated with applied natural resource education in large research universities where these disciplines are often poorly understood (Sharik and Frisk 2011). Additionally, faculties at these universities are evaluated by peers in other departments where more fundamental research is encouraged and where applied research is viewed as less prestigious. It is also difficult to generalize about this diverse group of large research universities because many, but not all, have a traditional land grant college obligation that would seem to ensure a strong applied natural resource research focus. Nevertheless, in recent years one land grant university, Washington State, made decisions to close its accredited forestry program. These problems are not unique to the United States be-

Alabama

204


State

California Illinois Louisiana Michigan New York Texas Wisconsin

Program

Carnegie class

2010 Graduates

Alabama A&M Auburn Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Humboldt State California-Berkeley Illinois–Urbana–Champaign Southern Illinois Louisiana State Louisiana Tech Michigan State Michigan Tech Paul Smith’s College SUNY-ESF S.F. Austin Texas A&M Wisconsin–Madison Wisconsin–Stevens Point

Master’s/L RU/H Master’s/L Master’s/M RU/VH RU/VH RU/H RU/VH RU/H RU/VH RU/H Bac/Diverse DRU Master’s/L RU/VH RU/VH Master’s/M

8 25 40 25 8 5 35 6 5 5 19 25 10 33 5 6 113

Carnegie classes are defined in Table 1.

cause the long-standing forestry program at Oxford University, England, has closed, and the program at the University of Toronto is closing. Changing University and Population Demographics Many of the original accredited forestry programs were in the primary universities in their state, which were situated in urban environments. As these urban areas have grown, they have become more removed from forests and less attractive for traditional forestry education. For example, the Universities of Wisconsin, Minnesota, California, Washington, and Illinois were all established in what became large urban areas. The understanding and appreciation for forestry in these universities is more difficult than in more rural settings, even though forestry may be described as having become more about people than about the forests. At the same time, state university systems have expanded to create satellite campuses in smaller communities. Forestry programs based in smaller communities such as Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, Wisconsin–Stevens Point, or Humboldt State University in Arcata, California, may be perceived as more desirable places for students to study forestry than in the more urban communities. Another possible explanation is that the calls for forestry graduates prepared to understand and apply research are not matched by the demands from employers. Perhaps the increasing regulatory environment in which we practice forestry requires less thinking and more of simply following es-

tablished rules and guidelines. The research focus may not be important if management is so tightly constrained by regulations that few options exist for applying science. The larger trend in forestry of moving toward simple stand structures and plantation management systems in the decades after World War II (O’Hara et al. 1994) required foresters with a thorough grounding in technical forestry skills. But current trends emphasize a greater diversity of objectives and a greater suite of abilities on the part of foresters. This is also an international trend in forestry (Leslie et al. 2006) that emphasizes the need for broadly educated foresters with a strong grounding in science. The use of current Carnegie classes in our analysis masks the manner in which these colleges and universities have grown and evolved over this time period and may suggest the programs with current Carnegie MS/x and Bac/x classifications will not also grow over time and develop a stronger research or graduate education focus. The current Carnegie Basic Classification is a measure of a university’s research/doctoral education productivity. Few universities could have met the current Carnegie RU/VH and RU/H requirements in the 1930s and 1940s and many current PhDgranting universities did not offer PhDs at that time. However, although the measures have evolved, in recent decades it is still largely the same universities providing the research/doctoral education focus in their respective states and no new forestry programs at Carnegie-classified RU/VH universities have become accredited since the

1970s. The 50-year gap in data for graduates (Figure 2) is another shortcoming of this analysis and an unfortunate lost opportunity for the profession. However, although trends during this period are unknown, it is unlikely they differed significantly from those in Figure 1. Limiting our analysis to SAF accredited programs also implies a sudden increase in forestry programs between 1960 and 1970 (Figure 1). However, many of the programs that were accredited in the 1960s existed long before this date; e.g., de Steiguer et al. (2008) noted 15 unaccredited programs in 1959. Models for Professional Forestry Education Forestry faculties have also changed by adding faculty in nonprofessional forestry specializations. This is necessary to provide the breadth in natural resources education to meet complex management issues and is representative of the major changes in forestry education in recent decades. Duncan et al. (1989) documented this trend more than 20 years ago with increasing proportions of forestry faculty without a professional forestry education. Although this diversity is important, there also remains a need for a critical mass of faculty with connections to the applied aspects of forestry. This may be the first stage of eventually combining forestry programs with related departments into larger units covering broader areas of environmental science or natural resource management. As foresters with professional forestry backgrounds become minorities in their departments, the control of professional forestry education falls under the control of nonforestry faculty who may or may not be interested in maintaining these programs. These programs may also lose visibility when they are housed in departments of environmental studies, natural resources, or environmental sciences. Separate but related trends include the recent accreditation of educational programs in forest technology at colleges that offer 2-year AAS degrees in Forestry Technology and some expansion in Master of Forestry or related programs. SAF began to accredit technology programs in 2009; in 2011 there were 10 programs with accredited AAS programs in forest technology. Before 2009 all these programs had a recognized status— used to convey acceptance of a program’s self-assessment that it meets a basic level of quality—with SAF. Many universities continue to offer the

third model or the Master of Forestry (MF) or similar programs (e.g., Master of Forest Science [MFS] at Yale University, or Master of Natural Resources at Virginia Tech or Idaho). Some of the MF or MFS programs hold SAF accreditation, but not all. With the variety of professional masters and science masters (e.g., Master of Science) degree programs that can provide forest science education in forestry, it is difficult to see trends. One interesting recent development is the closing of the University of Washington’s long-running undergraduate forestry program and the development of a new SAF accredited MF program coupled to the creation of a broader undergraduate degree in natural resources. Greater numbers of these professional forestry masters graduates would tend to run counter to the trends discussed here because these students would be well prepared to advance forest science in professional settings. There have been many suggestions for masters degrees as minimal professional requirements for foresters dating back to Graves and Guise’s book in 1932 (also see Dana and Johnson 1963, Duncan et al. 1989, Coufal 1999, Sample et al. 1999). Although the expansion of AAS and master’s programs support the divergent trend hypothesis, we limited our analysis to the baccalaureate programs because of the fluidity of the AAS area and the small number and high variability in masters programs. Questions for Future Consideration There can be no question that foresters are being asked to do more and the future holds additional challenges. There are geographic information systems, a wide range in decision-support tools, complex social interactions, and climate change, among others. Managing forests is becoming more complex. But do the perceptions of university administrators match the reality of future forestry challenges? Is the future a vertical hierarchical system where foresters work on the ground— on the bottom—and provide the data that others use to model, plan, and make decisions? Or will foresters be involved in all levels of forest decisionmaking? The latter is the more conventional view of foresters in the future world. But these two future views involve different education models. Will forestry continue to produce foresters prepared to occupy all levels of the hierarchy? Or will a two-level forestry education system develop where some undergraduate foresters are trained to serve in technical roles and others in decisionmak-

ing? Will undergraduate forestry be needed in this scenario or will 2-year technology programs be needed for one group and masters-level programs for the other? And how will the SAF accreditation system that presently accredits three levels of forestry education be adapted to a divergence in the baccalaureate programs that have traditionally been the centerpiece of forestry education in the United States?

Conclusions Forestry has long viewed itself as a science-based profession but is apparently nearing a critical juncture in terms of education. An increasing number of SAF accredited undergraduate programs and an increasing number of graduates from accredited programs are from universities with a smaller research and doctoral education emphasis. These trends, if they continue, suggest that forestry education is evolving toward two models: one with a stronger research emphasis and the other with a stronger technical focus. However, undergraduate degrees from both types of programs carry the same SAF accreditation. These results cast a strong cautionary message regarding changes in forestry education that are not intentional and beyond any large-scale national or international planning. Instead, they are likely the result of a variety of interacting factors relating to not only the natural resource professions, but also university–system dynamics and broader social trends. Perhaps the most significant effect of the reduction of Carnegie “high research productivity” institutions with undergraduate forestry programs is the potential for a corresponding reduction in applied research and production of PhDlevel researchers/instructors with an applied forestry background. If a reduced number of applied forest researchers are produced by the PhD-granting universities, we must be concerned with who will teach at the lower Carnegie class universities and colleges and who will do the applied research studies in the universities or other sectors.

Literature Cited BULLARD, S.H., P.J. BROWN, C.A. BLANCHE, R.W. BRINKER, AND D.H. THOMPSON. 2011. A “driving force” in developing the nation’s forests: The McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Research Program. J. For. 109(3):141–148. CARNEGIE FOUNDATION. 2010. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: Classification Description. Available online at classiJournal of Forestry • June 2012

205

fications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/ basic.php; last accessed Jan. 2012. COUFAL, J.E. 1999. The education of a forester. J. For. 97(9):1. DANA, S.T., AND E.W. JOHNSON. 1963. Forestry education in America: Today and tomorrow. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 402 p. DE STEIGUER, J.E., P. HAROU, AND T.L. SHARIK. 2008. The evolution of forestry education in the United States and Europe: Meeting the challenge of sustainable forestry, Chap. 20. P. 347–366 in Common goals for sustainable forest management: Divergence and convergence of American and European forestry, Sample, V.A., and S. Anderson (eds.). Forest History Society, Durham, NC. 399 p. DUNCAN, D.P., R.A. SKOK, AND D.P. RICHARDS. 1989. Forestry education and the profession’s future. J. For. 87(9):31–37. FOOD AND AGRICULTURE EDUCATION INFORMATIONS SYSTEM (FAEIS). 2011. Available online at www.faeis.ahnrit.vt.edu; last accessed Jan. 2012. GRAVES, H.S., AND C.H. GUISE. 1932. Forest education. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 421 p.

206


GUISE, C.H. 1936. Forest school statistics for 1935: Degrees granted and enrollments. J. For. 34:114 –120. GUISE, C.H. 1940. Statistics from schools of forestry for 1940: Degrees granted and enrollments. J. For. 38:259 –264. GUISE, C.H. 1950. Statistics from schools of forestry for 1950: Degrees granted and enrollments. J. For. 48:7–12. LESLIE, A.D., E.R. WILSON, AND C.B. STARR. 2006. The current state of professional forestry education in the United Kingdom. Int. For. Rev. 8(3):339 –349. MARCKWORTH, G.D. 1961. Statistics from schools of forestry for 1960: Degrees granted and enrollments. J. For. 59:273–279. MILLER, C., AND J.G. LEWIS. 1999. A contested past: Forestry education in the United States, 1898 –1998. J. For. 97(9):38 – 43. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL. 2009. Transforming agricultural education for a changing world. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 194 p. O’HARA, K.L., R.S. SEYMOUR, S.D. TESCH, AND J.M GULDIN. 1994. Silviculture and the changing profession of forestry: Providing leadership for implementing shifting paradigms. J. For. 92(1):8 –13.

SAMPLE, V.A., P.C. RINGGOLD, N.E. BLOCK, AND J.W. GILTMIER. 1999. Forestry education: Adapting to the changing demands. J. For. 97(9):4 –10. SHARIK, T.L., AND R.J. LILIEHOLM. 2010. Undergraduate enrollment trends in natural resources at NAUFRP institutions: An update. UENR Biennial Conf., Session Recruitment and Enrollment, Pap. 1. Available online at www. digitalcommons.usu.edu/cuenr/Sessions/ Recruitment/1/; last accessed Nov. 14, 2011. SHARIK, T.L., AND S.L. FRISK. 2011. Student perspectives on enrolling in undergraduate forestry programs in the United States. J. Nat. Res. Life Sci. Educ. 40:160 –166. SKOK, R.A. 1996. Forestry education in the United States. P. 168 –197 in The literature of forestry and agroforestry, McDonald, P., and J. Lassoie (eds.). Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NY. WESTVELD, R.H. 1963. Opportunities for research and graduate education in forestry. J. For. 61(6):419 – 421. WOLTER, B.H.K., K.F. MILLENBAH, R.A. MONTGOMERY, AND J.W. SCHNEIDER. 2011. Factors affecting persistence of undergraduate students in a fisheries and wildlife program: Leavers. J. Nat. Res. Life Sci. Educ. 40:10 –18.