University Fisheries Programs in the United States: Structure and Needs

University Fisheries Programs in the United States: Structure and Needs William E. Kelso and Brian R. Murphy ABSTRACT A survey of fisheries programs in the United States was undertaken to determine faculty participation, curriculum requirements and their relationship to AFS certification, student enrollment, and graduate research activities. Of 138 programs surveyed, 45 useable questionnaires from programs offering a named fisheries degree (FD) and 35 from programs not offering a named degree (NON-FD) were returned. The predominance of FD programs offering curricula at all degree levels appeared to reflect an overall institutional commitment to fisheries education and research. In contrast, NON-FD fisheries programs usually were specialized areas within biology, zoology, or natural resources departments. Accordingly, the average number of fisheries specialists in NON-FD was lower, and probably resulted in increased emphasis on teaching (at schools with only undergraduate programs) or research (at schools with only graduate programs). Both types of programs emphasized undergraduate courses in biology, chemistry, fisheries, and communications. Wildlife, computer science, economics, sociology, and natural resource courses were required by a higher percentage of FD compared to NON-FD programs, with an average of one required course per discipline. A lack of knowledge regarding AFS certification requirements was evident in survey responses, possibly reflecting a conception that the current program actually has little career impact for the fisheries professional. In addition, if the majority of students from any fisheries program in the U.S. is academically eligible for certification, the program may serve little purpose for identification of highly qualified individuals. Fisheries graduates need to be better prepared to function in the non-scientific capacities of a fisheries professional. However, while all fisheries programs should require coursework in human-oriented disciplines, we doubt that substantial increases in coursework in these areas will result in corresponding increases in skills desired by employers. Such analytical and administrative skills are developed during the course of employment, and to expect them of entry-level employees is unrealistic. The incorporation of temporary agency internships into educational curricula might serve to bridge part of the perceived gap between employer expectations and educational realities.

The

role of university education programs in the fisheries profession continues to be an area of concern to members of the American Fisheries Society (AFS). Previous studies of undergraduate curricula have included discussions of optimal curriculum design (Eipper 1973; Royce 1973), accreditation (Nielsen 1981), and curriculum surveys of U.S. fisheries programs (Chapman 1979; Nielsen 1984). The latter studies provided important baseline information on fisheries curricula, but few institutions were surveyed and little data on other aspects of fisheries programs were presented. Our study was designed to expand the scope of previous survey efforts in order to characterize several components of U.S. fisheries programs. In addition to examining undergraduate curriculum re-

quirements, we wanted to assess faculty numbers, student enrollment, relationships of undergraduate curricula to AFS certification, graduate program requirements, and areas of research emphasis. These data were analyzed to describe existing fisheries programs and to outline how programs could develop to better prepare our future graduates to be fisheries professionals.

Materials and Methods We felt that a written questionnaire would provide the most up-to-date analyses of fisheries programs in the U.S. Program identification was based on the university affiliation of faculty listed in the Directory of North American Fisheries Scientists (Lewis 1984) and the

William E. Kelso is an assistant professor in the School of Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803. Brian R. Murphy is an associate professor in the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843. March - April 1988

North American Fishery Educators Directory (Menzel 1984). The survey consisted of five questions. Questions one and two covered the type of degrees offered, average annual enrollment of students pursuing the various degrees, and a listing of all faculty associated with the teaching/research program and their departmental affiliations. Question three involved several aspects of the undergraduate program: number of hours required in 16 disciplines; presence of marine and freshwater specializations and differences in course requirements; amount of required field experience (course-related as well as extracurricular); curriculum design as it related to AFS certification; and a subjective assessment of program deficiencies due to funding or faculty-expertise limitations. Question four dealt with the graduate program and requested a listing of core courses, minor fields (if required), percentage of candidates choosing a non-thesis option (if offered), numbers and research areas of 9

theses completed in the last five years, and identical questions on AFS certification and program deficiencies. The final question requested a list of other universities in the respondent's state that had fisheries programs. Surveys were mailed initially to 138 fisheries programs in May 1986, with a second mailing in June to non-respondents and other non-surveyed programs identified on initial returns. Several respondents were subsequently contacted by telephone to clarify responses.

Results

Table 1. Degrees offered and average enrollments (with range) in fisheries programs in the United States. FD Degrees Offered

Number of Programs

B.S. B.S. + M.S.(M.A.) B.S. + M.S.(M.A.) + Ph.D. M.S.(M.A.) + Ph.D. M.S.(M.A.)

4 10 27

4

NON-FD Average Enrollment

38.3 57.0 10.4 27.7 18.1 8.3 11.3 5.7

(25-50) (7-200) (2-30) (3-80) (2-120) (1-41) (10-12) (5-6)

Number of Programs 7 10 8

5 5

0

Average Enrollment 15.4 17.4 7.6 14.2 6.0 3.0 10.3 2.8 9.4

(5-40) (3-30) (4-20) (10-35) (3-10) (1-6) (3-15) (2-4) (1-25)

Fisheries Programs Eighty-five surveys (62%) were returned from programs in 44 states (Fig. 1). Only one survey was returned from a two-year program and was not included in the analyses. Four additional respondents indicated that their programs contained no formal training in fisheries science. The remaining 80 programs were divided into two categories: those offering a named fisheries/aquaculture degree (FD programs, n = 45) and those without a named degree (NON-FD programs, n = 35)

(Ira Adelman, personal communication). In general, FD programs were associated with departments in agriculture or natural resources, while NON-FD programs were in biology/ zoology departments. We felt this division was appropriate and permitted a more equitable assessment of the different types of available fisheries programs. Programs offering all degrees (B.S., M.S. or M.A. [Master of Aquaculture or Agriculture], and Ph.D.) predomi-

nated among FD institutions; undergraduate degrees were offered at 91% of responding programs (Table 1). In contrast, only 23% of NON-FD programs offered all degrees; nearly onethird offered fisheries-related programs only at the graduate level.

Faculty Faculty associated with fisheries programs included faculty resident in the degree-granting department, adjunct faculty, and those individuals actively

Figure 1. Geographic distribution of surveyed fisheries programs. Solid circles represent responses, open circles represent non-respondents or non-surveyed programs identified on initial returns. 10

Fisheries,Vol. 13, No. 2

researching fisheries problems or teaching fisheries-applied courses in other disciplines. Respondents identified 487 (FD) and 235 (NON-FD) associated faculty in 17 (FD) and 14 (NONFD) disciplines (Fig. 2). Over 54 and 45% of faculty associated with FD and NON-FD programs, respectively, were from outside the degree-granting department. FD programs averaged 10.8 total faculty per program with 4.9 individuals in the degree-granting department, while NON-FD programs averaged 6.7 total faculty per program with 3.6 in the degree-granting department. FD and NON-FD programs with both undergraduate and graduate degrees, or graduate degrees only, averaged 10.9 faculty per program while undergraduate-only programs averaged 4.0 faculty per program.

Students There was substantial variability in student enrollment among programs at all educational levels (Table 1). FD programs typically had higher maximum and average enrollments, particularly at the undergraduate level. Overall, FD programs averaged 36, 16, and 8 students enrolled at B.S., M.S./ M.A., and Ph.D. levels, respectively, while NON-FD programs averaged 16,

8, and 3 students, respectively. Student/faculty ratios (considering only faculty in the degree-granting department) were similar between program types, averaging 8.3 and 5.4 undergraduates, 2.1 and 1.8 M.S./M.A., and 0.9 and 0.6 Ph.D. students per faculty member in FD and NON-FD programs, respectively. These ratios were also highly variable, differing by as much as two orders of magnitude (0.4-40.0) for undergraduates at FD institutions. Undergraduate Program The presence or absence of a graduate program did not affect the diversity of required undergraduate subject areas or number of hours (all converted to semester) in each subject. Thus, responses from all undergraduate FD programs were compared to values reported by NON-FD programs. Of the 16 subject areas identified in the survey, FD programs required a greater diversity of coursework (11.2 subject areas) than NON-FD programs (9.6 subject areas). Both types of programs emphasized biology, chemistry, fisheries, and communications (Table 2). Greater diversity of coursework in FD programs was reflected by a higher percentage of institutions requiring courses in wildlife, computer science, economics,

sociology, and natural resources. Only nine FD and five NON-FD programs provided students with the opportunity to specialize in areas of fisheries science such as aquaculture, freshwater or marine fisheries, management, or biometrics. Although a greater diversity of required coursework in FD programs was apparent, the average number of hours required per discipline was quite similar between programs (Table 2). In addition, the actual number of hours required in disciplines outside the basic sciences was low, usually the equivalent of one course. This was particularly evident in economics, sociology, administration, political science, and law, as 74% of the programs that required coursework in these disciplines averaged four or fewer semester hours. Similarly, natural resource courses were required by 70% of FD programs; however, 52% of these programs required less than four semester hours. Experience with field sampling gear and research methods was an important part of most undergraduate curricula. Course-related field experience was required by a substantial majority of FD (95%) and NON-FD (83%) programs. In contrast, additional extracurricular experience (e.g., summer

IES BIOLOGY

FD

NON- FD

Figure 2. Distribution by discipline of faculty associated with FD (N = 487) and NON-FD (N = 235) fisheries programs.

March - April 1988

11

Table 2. Average number of semester hours in 16 disciplines required by undergraduate fisheries programs. Numbers in parenthses are percentages of programs requiring coursework in a particular discipline. Discipline Biology Chemistry Communications Fisheries Math Statistics Computer science Physics Natural resources Wildlife Economics Sociology Political science Administration Law Foreign language

employment, internship) was required by only 18 and 22% of FD and NONFD programs, respectively, although such experience was encouraged in many other programs. AFS currently requires 57 semester hours in five subject areas for the educational component of certification as a fisheries scientist. We assumed that two required fisheries courses would account for seven semester hours, with the remaining semester hour requirements as follows: biology (23); physical sciences (15); math/statistics (6); and communications (6). Survey respondents indicated that 90% of FD and 43% of NON-FD programs provided students with the background to become certified by AFS. However, when required hours in each subject area reported by respondents were compared to AFS requirements, only 22% of FD and 11% of NON-FD undergraduate programs met certification standards. Of those programs that failed to meet AFS requirements, 45% of FD programs were deficient in biology (17% NON-FD), while 40% of NON-FD programs were deficient in fisheries (18% FD). Thirty and 26% of FD and NONFD programs, respectively, did not meet the chemistry/physics requirement while over 90% of both program types required adequate hours in math/statistics and communications.

Graduate Program A core curriculum for the M.S./M.A. program was required at 40% of FD 12

FD 23.1 11.7 9.9 12.8 6.1 3.8 3.0 6.0 6.4 6.4 4.4 4.5 3.8 3.4 3.5 10.0

11% (NON-FD) of the responding programs, although several other respondents indicated that a minor field was frequently recommended. Minors were more common at the Ph.D. level (FD, 20%; NON-FD, 38%) but still were required in relatively few programs. Minor fields chosen by students pursuing M.S./M.A. or Ph.D. degrees in FD and NON-FD programs were similar and distinctly quantitative; statistics and computer science accounted for approximately 50% of the minors commonly pursued by fisheries graduate students. A total of 1,624 graduate theses completed in the last 5 years was reported by survey respondents (Table 3). Studies dealing with the basic biology of fishes accounted for approximately one-third of M.S. and Ph.D. theses at both FD and NON-FD programs. Aquaculture research was reported almost exclusively in FD programs, while population dynamics was studied primarily in NON-FD programs. A greater emphasis on invertebrate research was apparent in NONFD programs, while the proportions of theses dealing with management and habitat were quite similar between program types. Theses dealing with economics and administration were reported only from FD programs, comprising about 1% of the total number of theses completed. A non-thesis M.S./M.A. degree was

NON-FD

(100) (100) (100) (97) (97) (97) (90) (89) (70) (69) (69) (56) (33) (26) (10) (5)

29.1 13.3 7.4 10.0 6.5 3.5 3.1 6.5 8.4 6.3 3.0 3.3 3.9 2.3 3.0 8.5

(100) (100) (100) (87) (96) (87) (61) (87) (30) (39) (39) (39) (56) (9) (9) (10)

and 33% of NON-FD institutions. Fisheries, biology, and statistics courses predominated as core requirements; few programs required courses in disciplines outside the basic sciences. Ph.D. core courses were required in 35% of FD and 15% of NON-FD programs. Requirements were nearly identical to the M.S./M.A. core with fisheries, biology, and statistics accounting for 80% of the core; only one program required college teaching. A minor field was required for a master's degree at only 10% (FD) and

Table 3. Research areas of theses completed in fisheries programs during the last 5 years. Numbers presented are percentage of theses in each research area for each degree and program type. M.S./M.A. Research Area Fish biology/physiology Management Invertebrate biology Habitat Aquaculture Population dynamics Aquatic ecology Administration Aquatic toxicology Limnology Techniques Systematics Fish distribution Philosophy Economics Not specified Total number of theses

FD 28% 21 13 13 20