Questions? Call 888-624-8373

HARDBACK
list:$34.95
Web:$31.46
add to cart

PDF BOOK
your price: $27.00
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile (1995)
Board on Agriculture (BOA)

Page
34
bottomleft bottomright
  E-mail
 Facebook
 Digg
 Stumble
 Twitter
More

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.

Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile

3
THE COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURE: Academic Programs and Demographics of Students and Graduates

This chapter introduces the first of the land grant colleges' functions, that of academic instruction. It draws on data collected, compiled, and maintained by the Food and Agricultural Education Information System (FAEIS), which is supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and managed by Texas A&M University, to report trends in student enrollment and graduates, student demographics, and the types of agriculture-related degrees of most interest to students at different stages of training. This chapter also utilizes the results of a survey of Ph.D. scientists, conducted by the National Research Council's Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel, to compare employment and demographic characteristics of agricultural scientists to those of all other scientists.

  • When the Morrill Act of 1862 was enacted, the framers undoubtedly intended that a teacher would be hired by the college to teach practical skills in farming and the mechanical arts. In keeping with the tradition of the European educational system, that would mean hiring a "professor of agriculture"—someone with extensive, broad-based knowledge of the subject—to lead a cadre of support staff to help carry out the teaching function. Although this model had worked well in such fields as theology, philosophy, law, medicine, and the classics, it did not fit the needs of U.S. agriculture. The simplest reason for why it did not is that the expertise needed for animal-based agriculture is very different than the expertise needed for plant-based agriculture.

  • In 1862 there were virtually no persons trained either in agriculture or in the sciences relating to agriculture; and so the colleges, often by trial and error, had to develop their own faculty members, sometimes by recruiting highly skilled farmers. Although these farmers had expertise in animal or crop production, they did not have the requisite expertise in both. Consequently, from the outset, land grant colleges began to move from the generalist in agriculture to the specialist in agriculture. With this move came the need for more involvement from more people.

 Page
34

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 34
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile 3 THE COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURE: Academic Programs and Demographics of Students and Graduates This chapter introduces the first of the land grant colleges' functions, that of academic instruction. It draws on data collected, compiled, and maintained by the Food and Agricultural Education Information System (FAEIS), which is supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and managed by Texas A&M University, to report trends in student enrollment and graduates, student demographics, and the types of agriculture-related degrees of most interest to students at different stages of training. This chapter also utilizes the results of a survey of Ph.D. scientists, conducted by the National Research Council's Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel, to compare employment and demographic characteristics of agricultural scientists to those of all other scientists. When the Morrill Act of 1862 was enacted, the framers undoubtedly intended that a teacher would be hired by the college to teach practical skills in farming and the mechanical arts. In keeping with the tradition of the European educational system, that would mean hiring a "professor of agriculture"—someone with extensive, broad-based knowledge of the subject—to lead a cadre of support staff to help carry out the teaching function. Although this model had worked well in such fields as theology, philosophy, law, medicine, and the classics, it did not fit the needs of U.S. agriculture. The simplest reason for why it did not is that the expertise needed for animal-based agriculture is very different than the expertise needed for plant-based agriculture. In 1862 there were virtually no persons trained either in agriculture or in the sciences relating to agriculture; and so the colleges, often by trial and error, had to develop their own faculty members, sometimes by recruiting highly skilled farmers. Although these farmers had expertise in animal or crop production, they did not have the requisite expertise in both. Consequently, from the outset, land grant colleges began to move from the generalist in agriculture to the specialist in agriculture. With this move came the need for more involvement from more people.

OCR for page 35
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile By the end of the 19th century most colleges of agriculture already had several departments in their administrative structure. In the 20th century the degree of specialization, and the number of specialists, increased exponentially as the knowledge base expanded (in large part as the result of the Hatch Act, which established a research function in the agricultural experiment station). It became necessary to teach increasingly specialized courses not only to undergraduate students, but most particularly to the graduate students who would soon be in a position to make practical use of this new knowledge base both in the field and as teachers and researchers. Consequently, there was an explosion of curricula, majors, and options—and people—with a high degree of specialization (see box copy, p. 36). The trend toward increasing specialization, with its consequent increase in organizational structuring to accommodate curricula, majors, and options, continued until recently when it was recognized that issues facing society are exceedingly complex and require interdisciplinary teams to work on solutions. That realization is causing reorganization within many colleges of agriculture and the creation of interdisciplinary programs, centers, and institutes. Examples of this are degree programs in environmental sciences, centers for sustainable agriculture, and centers for biotechnology. These centers can exist as hard-wall entities (where faculty is brought together in one building), but many are instituted as soft-wall centers (where faculty is disbursed in various academic departments but come together for programmatic needs). Integration of such disciplines as animal science, horticulture, agronomy, plant pathology, entomology, natural resources, agricultural economics, and rural sociology, among others, may play an important role in the future of U.S. agriculture and of the land grant system. Higher education in agriculture, food, and natural resource sciences is supported by USDA grants. The major education grants administered by the USDA Office of Higher Education include: the higher education challenge grants program ($4 million in 1995); the higher education multicultural scholars program ($1 million in 1995); the 1890 institution capacity building grants program (about $9 million in 1995); and the USDA food and agricultural sciences national needs graduate fellowship grants program ($3.5 million in 1995) (National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, 1995). Land grant colleges of agriculture account for about 1 percent of all students enrolled at public institutions of higher education, but for higher percentages at land grant universities.

OCR for page 36
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile Academic Specializations in Agriculture, Forestry, and Renewable Natural Resources General Agriculture Agricultural sciences, general Agricultural sciences, other Animal Sciences Animal sciences, general Animal breeding and genetics Animal health Animal nutrition Animal physiology Dairy science Livestock Poultry sciences Pre-veterinary medicine Veterinary medicine Embryology Endocrinology Animal pathology Animal pharmacology Animal sciences, other Plant Sciences Plant sciences, general Agronomy Horticulture science Ornamental horticulture Plant breeding and genetics Plant pathology (applied) Plant physiology Plant protection (integrated pest management) Turf management science Landscape architecture Plant pharmacology Plant sciences, other Soil Sciences Soil sciences, general Soil chemistry Soil conservation Soil management and fertility Soil microbiology Soil physics Soil sciences, other Agricultural Business and Management Agricultural business and management, general Agricultural business Agricultural economics Farm and ranch management Agricultural business and management, other Education, Communication, and Social Sciences International agriculture, general Rural sociology, general Agricultural communications/journalism, general Extension education Education, communication, social sciences, other Natural Resources Fisheries science Range management Renewable natural resources conservation, general Environmental science/studies Natural resources management and policy Natural resources law enforcement and protective services Wildlife and wildlands management Parks, recreation, and leisure studies Parks, recreation and leisure facilities management Water resources Natural resources, other

OCR for page 37
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile Forest Sciences   Forest harvesting and production Forest management Forest products technology Forest mensuration Logging/timber harvesting Urban forestry Forestry, general Wood science Forest sciences Pulp and paper technology Forest biology Forest soils Forest engineering Forest hydrology Forestry and related sciences, other Agricultural Engineering/Mechanization Agricultural mechanics Agricultural engineering Agricultural mechanization   Food Science/Human Nutrition Food sciences, general Food technology Dairy processing Nutritional sciences Food distribution Food engineering Food packaging Food science/human nutrition, other Related Biological/Physical Science Biology, general Biometrics and biostatistics Biochemistry and biophysics Parasitology Botany Entomology Mycology Climatology/meteorology Microbiology/bacteriology Biological/physical science, other.   SOURCE: Food and Agricultural Education Information System. 1994. Fall 1993 Enrollment in Agriculture, Renewable Natural Resources and Forestry: A Combined Report. College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University. ENROLLMENT: LAND GRANT VERSUS NON-LAND GRANT In the fall of 1991 there were approximately 10 million undergraduates and 1 million graduate students (both full and part time) enrolled in U.S. public institutions of higher education (U.S. Department of Education, 1993). Between 80 and 85 thousand of these undergraduates (<1 percent) and about 22 thousand graduate students (2 percent) were enrolled at land grant colleges of agriculture (Table 3-1).1 1   To provide information representative of 100 percent response, extrapolation was accomplished by applying the percent change by major area and degree level observed in institutions reporting in both 1992 and 1993 to responses from institutions that did not respond in either year. This process requires response from each institution in at least one year.

OCR for page 38
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile TABLE 3-1 Fall Enrollment, by Degree Program, at Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture, 1984–1993   Year Degree Program 1984 1986 1990 1992 1993 Associate's           Agricultural 3,170 3,757 3,929 3,633 3,451 Other 110 483 518 70 59 Subtotal 3,280 4,240 4,447 3,703 3,510 Bachelor's           Agricultural 71,241 63,232 66,390 71,706 78,192 Other 10,161 8,730 9,882 9,398 6,513 Subtotal 81,402 71,961 76,272 81,104 84,706 Master's           Agricultural 12,831 13,002 10,873 11,082 11,751 Other 732 755 712 765 592 Subtotal 13,563 13,758 11,585 11,847 12,343 Doctorate           Agricultural 9,197 9,412 9,990 9,753 10,032 Other 254 39 108 205 159 Subtotal 9,451 9,451 10,098 9,957 10,190 NOTE: To provide information representative of 100 percent response, extrapolation is based on applying the percent change by major area and degree level observed in institutions reporting in both 1992 and 1993 to responses from institutions that did not respond in either year. This process requires response from each institution in at least 1 year. Agricultural programs include natural resources, and forestry sciences; "other" includes any nonagricultural program such as chemistry, geography, geology, home economics, psychology, sociology, statistics, etc. SOURCE: Data are from the Food and Agricultural Education Information System (FAEIS). In contrast to these aggregate data, at many land grant universities enrollment in colleges of agriculture is a larger percentage of university-wide or campus-wide enrollment. For example, at the University of California, Davis—the most "agricultural" of the University of California campuses—in the early 1990s about 25 percent of campus enrollment was in the college of agriculture. At North Carolina State University, enrollment in the college of agriculture was about 13 percent of university-wide enrollment; at Mississippi State it was about 10 percent. At the University of Illinois and the Pennsylvania State University, college of agriculture enrollment was 6 to 7 percent of university enrollment (U.S. Department of Education, 1993). As noted in Chapter 1, some non-land grant colleges and universities also have agriculture schools or colleges. In the fall of 1993, nationwide enrollment in all colleges of agriculture, renewable natural resources, and forestry comprised more than 137,000 students, 80 percent of whom were enrolled in the land grant colleges of agriculture (Food and Agricultural Education Information System, 1994; Table 3-1). Although total enrollment at public colleges and universities increased steadily from the mid-1980s through the early 1990s, land grant colleges of agriculture struggled to keep students (U.S. Department of Education, 1993). For example, enrollment in the colleges' bachelor's degree programs fell off sharply between 1984 and 1986 but recovered fully by 1992 (Table 3-1). Most colleges went on to report higher enrollment in 1993 than in 1992 (Table 3-2).

OCR for page 39
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile TABLE 3-2 Fall Enrollment, by Region, at Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture, 1990 and 1992   Undergraduate Graduate University 1990 1992 1990 1992 North-Central Southern Illinois State U. 700 788 98 104 U. of Illinois 1,815 1,897 595 629 Purdue U. 1,839 2,042 439 516 Iowa State U. 2,248 2,392 635 797 Kansas State U. 1,440 1,634 367 406 Michigan State U. 2,507 2,521 682 782 U. of Minnesota 747 1,253 507 517 U. of Missouri 1,648 1,846 417 411 Lincoln U. NR 184 NR 0 North Dakota State U. NR 738 NR 169 U. of Nebraska 1,139 1,344 478 366 The Ohio State U. 1,880 1,694 517 555 South Dakota State U. 1,077 1,440 190 212 U. of Wisconsin, Madison 1,889 2,025 1,227 1,256 Regional total 18,929 21,798 6,152 6,720 Northeastern U. of Connecticut 421 550 144 161 U. of Delaware 627 605 61 105 Delaware State U. 64 82 0 0 U. of Massachusetts 1,872 2,192 408 428 U. of Maryland 830 795 267 251 U. of Maryland, Eastern Shore 92 147 18 12 U. of Maine, Orono 636 651 0 49 U. of New Hampshire 1,158 1,587 186 184 Rutgers—The State U. of New Jersey 2,862 2,908 560 604 Cornell U. 3,029 3,081 1,085 1,128 The Pennsylvania State U. 1,912 2,194 358 415 U. of Rhode Island 664 808 190 0 U. of Vermont 787 724 83 84 West Virginia U. 1,170 1,319 181 190 Regional total 16,124 17,643 3,541 3,611 Southern Auburn U. 512 645 248 282 Alabama A&M U. 339 357 109 167 U. of Arkansas, Pine Bluff 340 196 0 1 U. of Arkansas, Fayetteville 795 868 285 270 U. of Florida 1,049 1,377 695 457 Florida A&M U. NR 146 NR 21 U. of Georgia 913 1,031 241 247 U. of Guam 13 14 0 0 U. of Kentucky 745 890 276 259 Louisiana State U. 1,028 1,008 564 463 Southern U. NR 287 NR 0 Mississippi State U. 1,070 1,104 313 354 Alcorn State U. 100 150 0 33 North Carolina State U. 2,677 3,034 707 742 North Carolina A&T U. 239 NR 61 NR Oklahoma State U. 1,187 1,327 297 356 Langston U. 28 34 0 0 U. of Puerto Rico 552 577 76 97 Clemson U. 541 821 232 309

OCR for page 40
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile   Undergraduate Graduate University 1990 1992 1990 1992 South Carolina State U. 83 94 6 17 U. of Tennessee 759 836 229 224 Tennessee State U. NR 174 NR 17 Texas A&M U. 3,671 3,927 1,241 1,254 Texas Tech U. 1,151 1,155 157 151 Prairie View A&M U. 219 134 64 48 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State U. 1,199 1,465 466 461 Virginia State U. 278 162 0 0 U. of the Virgin Islands 72 0 NR NR Regional total 19,560 21,813 6,267 6,230 Western U. of Alaska 66 78 27 25 U. of Arizona 1,694 1,644 509 479 Arizona State U. 208 422 36 67 U. of California, Berkeley 767 NR 342 NR U. of California, Davis 5,279 5,026 1,309 1,098 U. of California, Riverside 1,104 NR 306 NR Colorado State U. 760 1,000 192 190 U. of Hawaii 388 397 216 182 U. of Idaho 512 179 212 187 College of Micronesia NR 7 NR 0 Montana State U. 600 535 110 111 U. of Nevada, Reno 295 332 78 61 New Mexico State U. 1,087 1,128 185 230 Oregon State U. 724 790 431 406 American Samoa Community College NR 0 NR 0 Utah State U. 519 613 133 134 Washington State U. 1,078 1,365 335 282 U. of Wyoming 598 635 142 160 Regional total 15,679 14,151 4,563 3,612 Total 70,292 75,405 20,523 20,173 NOTE: NR, no response. SOURCE: Data are from the Food and Agricultural Education Information System (FAEIS). Enrollment in doctorate programs increased steadily over the same period (Table 3-1). Nonetheless, graduate student enrollment in agricultural sciences has been losing ground versus other areas of science. In 1981 graduate enrollment in agricultural sciences (not including agricultural economics or agricultural engineering) accounted for 4 percent of graduate enrollment in all sciences; by 1991 agricultural science's share had dropped to 3 percent. Graduate enrollment in agricultural engineering also declined as a percent of enrollment in all engineering during this same period (U.S. Department of Education, 1993). USDA has divided the states according to four major geographic regions—northeastern, north-central, southern, and western (Figure 3-1). The largest percentages of land grant college of agriculture students are in the north-central region, the "farm belt," and in the southern region. Each of the four regions, however, contributes to total national enrollment at colleges of agriculture. In 1992 no region contributed less than 17 percent of either graduate or undergraduate students (Figure 3-2).

OCR for page 41
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile Enrollment at land grant colleges of agriculture is concentrated at a few large institutions. In 1992, 39 percent of reported enrollment at the undergraduate level was concentrated in ten land grant colleges of agriculture (Table 3-3); four of these are in the northeastern region. More than 40 percent of graduate student enrollment was concentrated in a slightly different list of ten land grant colleges (Table 3-4). Overall, less than 15 percent of the schools enroll 40 percent of the land grant college of agriculture students. In 1993 women composed 37.5 percent of undergraduates and 35 percent of graduate students in agricultural programs at land grant colleges of agriculture. In contrast, at all U.S. institutions of higher education, more than one-half of both undergraduate and graduate students are women (U.S. Department of Education, 1993). Women are significantly better represented in the agriculture colleges' "other" programs, which include principally home economics but also chemistry, geology, geography, psychology, sociology, statistics, etc. (Table 3-5). FIGURE 3-1 The four geographic regions of the United States, as determined by USDA.

OCR for page 42
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile Women and ethnic minorities constitute smaller percentages of enrollment at land grant colleges of agriculture than at all institutions of higher education. Ethnic minorities—including African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and Native Americans—represent a small, though recently growing, percentage of land grant college of agriculture enrollment—about 10 percent in 1993 versus 5 percent in 1984 (Table 3-5). About 20 percent of ethnic minorities pursuing bachelor degrees attend the 1890 institutions (FAEIS, 1994). At all U.S. institutions of higher education, ethnic minorities account for slightly more than 20 percent of undergraduates and about 14 percent of graduate students (U.S. Department of Education, 1993). Students who are not U.S. citizens make a significant contribution to enrollment at the colleges of agriculture, but mostly at the graduate level. In 1993 (the only year for which data is currently available) more than one-fourth of graduate students were citizens of other countries, suggesting that colleges of agriculture may contribute significantly to the development of the human capital of other nations (Table 3-5). FIGURE 3-2 The regional breakdown of undergraduate enrollment at land grant colleges of agriculture in the fall of 1992 shows nearly 60 percent of undergraduate enrollment evenly distributed between the north-central and southern regions. At the graduate level, the north-central and southern regions share 64 percent of the total enrollment.

OCR for page 43
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile TABLE 3-3 The Ten Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture Leading in Total College of Agriculture Undergraduate Enrollment, Fall 1992   Including Other Programs and Excluding Separately Administered Schools and Colleges of Forestry Excluding Other Programs and Separately Administered Schools and Colleges of Forestry Including Separately Administered Schools and Colleges of Forestry, Excluding Other Programs University Number Percenta Number Percenta Number Percenta U. California, Davis 5,026 7 3,552 5 3,552 5 Texas A&M U. 3,927 5 3,927 6 3,927 6 Cornell U. 3,081 4 3,081 5 3,081 4 North Carolina State U. 3,034 4 2,374 4 3,022 4 Rutgers—The State U. of New Jersey 2,908 4 1,555 2 1,555 2 Michigan State U. 2,521 3 2,141 3 2,141 3 Iowa State U. 2,392 3 2,392 4 2,392 3 Pennsylvania State U. 2,194 3 2,194 3 2,194 3 U. of Massachusetts 2,192 3 1,406 2 1,406 2 Purdue U. 2,042 3 2,042 3     Subtotal 29,317 39 24,664 37 25,312 36 Totalb 75,850 NA 66,452 NA 71,270 NA NOTE: ''Other'' programs include any nonagricultural programs offered by the college of agriculture such as home economics, statistics, sociology, chemistry, geology, geography, psychology, etc. a Percent of all undergraduate students at all reporting colleges of agriculture. b Total of undergraduates at all reporting colleges of agriculture. SOURCE: S. S. Whatley, Project Coordinator, Food and Agricultural Education Information System, 1994, personal communication. TABLE 3-4 The Ten Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture Leading in Total College of Agriculture Graduate Enrollment, Fall 1992   Including Other Programs and Excluding Separately Administered Schools and Colleges of Forestry Excluding Other Programs and Separately Administered Schools and Colleges of Forestry Including Separately Administered Schools amd Colleges of Forestry and Excluding Other Programs University Number Percenta Number Percenta Number Percenta U. of Wisconsin 1,256 6 1,242 7 1,242 6 Texas A&M U. 1,254 6 1,254 7 1,254 6 Cornell U. 1,128 6 1,128 6 1,128 5 U. of California, Davis 1,098 5 994 5 994 5 Iowa State U. 797 4 797 4 979 5 Michigan State U. 782 4 774 4 774 4 North Carolina State U. 742 4 742 4 922 4 U. of Illinois 557 3 557 3 557 3 Rutgers—The State U. of New Jersey 604 3 392 2 392 3 The Ohio State U. 555 3 555 3 554 3 Subtotal 8,845 44 8,479 44 8,659 42 Totalb 20,173 NA 19,203 NA 20,745 NA NOTE: "Other" programs include any nonagricultural programs offered by the college of agriculture such as home economics, statistics, sociology, chemistry, geology, geography, psychology, etc. a Percent of all graduate students at all reporting colleges of agriculture. b Total of graduate students at all reporting colleges of agriculture. SOURCE: S. S. Whatley, Project Coordinator, Food and Agricultural Education Information System, 1994, personal communication.

OCR for page 44
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile TABLE 3-5 Fall Enrollment, by Degree Program, of Female, Ethnic Minority, and Foreign Students at Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture, 1984–1993   1984   1986   1990   Degree Program Females Ethnic Minorities Females Ethnic Minorities Females Ethnic Minorities Bachelor's             Agricultural 22,836 (32.1) 2,683 (3.8) 22,144 (35.0) 2,684 (4.2) 24,491 (36.9) 4,195 (6.3) Other 6,648 (65.4) 1,073 (10.6) 6,210 (71.1) 982 (71.1) 6,892 (69.7) 1,439 (14.6) Subtotal 29,484 (36.2) 3,756 (4.6) 28,354 (39.4) 3,666 (5.1) 31,383 (41.1) 5,634 (7.4) Graduate             Agricultural 5,949 (27.0) 1,168 (5.3) 6,347 (28.3) 1,119 (5.0) 6,726 (32.2) 1,812 (8.7) Other 45 (46.6) 40 (4.1) 413 (52.0) 44 (5.5) 470 (57.3) 127 (15.5) Subtotal 6,408 (27.8) 1,208 (5.2) 6,760 (29.1) 1,163 (5.0) 7,196 (33.2) 1,939 (8.9) NOTE: Number in parentheses is the percent of females and ethnic minorities compared with total student enrollment in each degree program. Total student enrollment figures are reported in Table 3-1. "Other" includes any nonagricultural program offered by the college of agriculture such as chemistry, geography, geology, home economics, psychology, sociology, statistics, etc. SOURCE: Data are from the Food and Agricultural Education Information System (FAEIS). TABLE 3-6 Graduates in Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources, from All Degree Programs, by Region and Institution Classification, 1992 Region 1862s 1890s Non-Land Grants All Institutions North-central 6,325 16 1,106 7,447 Northeastern 5,071 27 521 5,619 Southern 5,565 432 1,728 7,725 Western 4,339 0 1,463 5,802 Total 21,300 475 4,818 26,593   SOURCE: Data are from the Food and Agricultural Education Information System (FAEIS). Since the inception of colleges of agriculture, the science of agriculture has taken on a myriad of specializations. Although land grant universities—and principally their colleges of agriculture—grant most U.S. degrees in agriculture, food, and natural resources, non-land grant schools also grant a significant number of agriculture-related degrees, particularly in the southern and western regions (Table 3-6; Figure 3-3). In 1992, of all students graduating from all degree programs in the food, agriculture, and natural resources disciplines, 73 percent received bachelor's degrees (Figure 3-3). Natural resources and agricultural business and management (especially agricultural economics) accounted for nearly 40 percent of all bachelor's degrees issued (Table 3-7). Bachelor's degrees in animal science were also popular, probably because of the higher demand for admission to veterinary medicine colleges. Non-land grant schools granted 21 percent of all the bachelor's degrees (Table 3-8).

OCR for page 47
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile More than 80 percent of graduates in agriculture, food, and natural resources receive their degrees at land grant universities, but non-land grant schools are important in some fields. Master's degrees in natural resources accounted for one-quarter of the master's degrees issued (Table 3-7). The high number of master's degrees in natural resources may be because a master's degree is now forestry's first-level professional degree. In 1992 non-land grant schools granted about one-third of the natural resource degrees at the master's level (Table 3-8). Students in doctorate programs have a different orientation; they are most numerous in plant sciences and "related" sciences such as botany and entomology. Natural resources, animal sciences, and food sciences are the next most populated disciplines at the doctorate level (Table 3-7). Non-land grant schools conferred only a small share of these doctorate degrees; in other words, producing Ph.D. agricultural scientists is the domain of the land grant colleges (Table 3-8). From all degree programs, less than 5 percent of all graduates in 1992 received degrees labeled "general agriculture" or soil science (Table 3-7). More than 40 percent of the "general agriculture" degrees (which are mostly undergraduate degrees) were issued by non-land grant institutions (Table 3-8). There is some regional specialization in academic fields, particularly at the doctorate level. For example, doctorate degrees in food science are a higher percentage in the northeast than in other parts of the country; while more doctorate degrees in natural resources are conferred in the west (Figure 3-4). "Related science" degrees are most significant (as a percent of all degrees) in the northeast and least significant in the south (see Appendix Table 2). Across the country, colleges of agriculture offer many of the same agricultural science or other agriculture-related degree programs. For example, in 1991-1992 in the land grant system, there were 92 bachelor's degree programs in animal science and 50 at the doctorate level (Table 3-9). In plant sciences in that same academic year, there were 129 undergraduate degree programs including 35 in agronomy and 38 in horticulture (Table 3-9). There was a slight decline between 1985 and 1992 in the number of degree programs in most agricultural and renewable natural resource specializations offered at land grant colleges of agriculture, particularly at undergraduate and master's degree levels (Figures 3-5 through 3-7). Using Table 3-9 to more closely examine specific areas of specialization, data indicate a decline in the number of programs in traditional agricultural specializations like dairy and poultry science. Some colleges offer general animal science degrees as well as more specific degrees in dairy or poultry science. In most cases, these more specialized programs are being incorporated into the more general programs. The two-period comparison in Table 3-9 also suggests that some expansion is occurring in basic science degree programs and some natural resource specializations like water resources and wildlife management.

OCR for page 48
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile FIGURE 3-4 The graph provides a regional breakdown of doctorate degrees conferred by land grant and non-land grant institutions in agriculture, food, and natural resources specializations in 1992.

OCR for page 49
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile TABLE 3-9 Number of Degree Programs in Agricultural Science and Renewable Natural Resource Specializations at Land Grant Institutions, 1984–1985 and 1991–1992   Degree Program   Bachelor's Master's Doctorate Specialization 1984–85 1991–92 1984–95 1991–92 1984–85 1991–92 Agricultural business and management             Agricultural business/management, general 12 11 2 1 1 1 Agricultural business 16 16 2 1 0 0 Agricultural economics 49 45 48 47 26 27 Farm and ranch management 3 3 1 1 0 0 Agricultural business/management, other 5 2 1 1 0 0 Agricultural products/processing, general 0 1 1 2 1 2 Nonfood products 0 0 0 0 0 0 Agricultural products/processing, other 0 1 0 0 0 0 Floristry farm and garden supp, gen other 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 90 84 63 60 31 36 Agricultural mechanics             Agricultural mechanics, general 17 15 4 3 0 0 Agricultural elect/power/controls 0 0 0 0 0 0 Agricultural mech/const/maint skills 0 0 0 0 0 0 Agricultural power machinery 0 0 0 0 0 0 Agricultural structures/equipment/facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 Soil and water mechanical practices 0 2 0 0 0 1 Agricultural mechanics, other 2 3 1 1 0 0 Total 19 20 5 4 0 1 Agricultural services and supplies             Agricultural services and supplies, general 1 0 0 0 0 0 Agricultural services 0 1 0 0 0 0 Agricultural supplies marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Agricultural services and supplies, other 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1 1 0 0 0 0 International agriculture 3 3 1 1 0 0 Agricultural sciences             Agricultural production, general 1 1 1 1 0 0 Agricultural production, other 0 0 0 1 0 0 Agricultural sciences, general 34 33 12 9 1 1 Total 35 34 13 11 1 1 Animal sciences             Animal production 1 0 1 1 0 0 Aquaculture 0 2 1 1 1 1 Animal sciences, general 56 57 48 45 28 31 Animal breeding and genetics 1 0 1 2 1 2 Animal health 1 2 2 2 1 1 Animal nutrition 1 0 3 1 2 2 Animal physiology 0 0 1 0 1 0 Dairy science 15 12 14 12 6 4 Fisheries science 4 0 3 0 3 0 Livestock science 0 0 0 0 0 0 Poultry science 15 13 15 7 8 6 Animal sciences, other 4 6 3 5 2 3 Animal technology 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 98 92 92 76 53 50 Food sciences             Food products 1 2 0 0 0 0 Food sciences, general 27 33 26 31 19 25 Dairy processing 3 0 0 0 0 0 Food distribution 0 0 0 0 0 0 Food engineering 0 0 1 0 1 0 Food packaging 0 0 0 0 0 0 Food technology 5 0 2 0 2 0 Food sciences, other 2 0 2 0 2 0 Food processing technology 0 1 0 0 0 0 Total 38 36 31 31 24 25

OCR for page 50
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile   Degree Program   Bachelor's Master's Doctorate Specialization 1984–85 1991–92 1984–85 1991–92 1984–85 1991–92 Plant sciences             Crop production 0 1 1 2 1 1 Horticulture, general 8 10 6 7 3 4 Arboriculture 0 0 0 0 0 0 Floriculture 0 5 0 3 0 1 Greenhouse operation and management 0 0 0 0 0 0 Landscaping 2 5 0 0 0 0 Nursery operation and management 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turf management 0 1 0 0 0 0 Horticulture, other 1 1 0 0 1 1 Plant sciences, general 16 13 11 8 5 9 Agronomy 36 35 35 34 31 30 Horticulture 29 28 28 27 17 19 Ornamental horticulture 18 0 16 0 9 0 Plant breeding and genetics 0 0 4 0 5 0 Plant pathology 5 0 6 0 5 0 Plant physiology 0 0 0 0 1 0 Plant protection (pest management) 8 6 9 7 1 2 Range management 12 12 10 9 7 6 Turf management science 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plant sciences, other 3 6 3 3 1 2 Plant genetics 2 1 2 3 2 3 Plant pathology 6 5 23 29 21 26 Plant physiology 1 0 4 4 5 7 Total 147 129 158 136 115 111 Soil sciences             Soil sciences, general 23 22 19 27 14 18 Soil chemistry 0 0 1 0 0 0 Soil conservation 0 0 0 0 0 0 Soil management and fertility 0 0 2 0 2 0 Soil microbiology 0 0 0 0 1 0 Soil physics 0 0 0 0 1 0 Soil sciences, other 2 0 2 0 2 0 Total 25 22 24 27 20 18 Agricultural sciences, other             Agribusiness and production, other 9 7 4 2 1 1 Agricultural sciences, other 6 8 6 4 2 1 Total 15 15 10 6 3 2 Renewable natural resources             Renewable natural resources, general 25 21 17 15 6 6 Renewable natural resources, other 4 5 2 4 1 1 Total 29 26 19 19 7 7 Conservation and regulation             Conservation and regulation, general 1 3 0 0 0 0 Conservation 2 2 0 2 0 1 Resources protection and regulation 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conservation and regulation, other 1 1 0 0 0 0 Total 4 6 0 2 0 1 Fishing and fisheries             Fishing and fisheries, general 3 10 3 9 2 5 Fisheries 7 0 5 0 1 0 Fishing and fisheries, other 1 0 1 0 1 0 Total 11 10 9 9 4 5 Forestry production and processing             Forestry production and processing, general 4 4 3 3 4 4 Forest production 0 0 0 0 0 0 Forest products utilization 1 0 0 0 0 0 Forest products processing technology 2 1 0 0 0 0 Pulp and paper production 1 0 0 0 0 0 Forestry production and processing, other 2 2 0 0 0 0 Total 10 7 3 3 4 4

OCR for page 51
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile   Degree Program   Bachelor's   Master's   Doctorate   Specialization 1984–85 1991–92 1984–85 1991–92 1984–85 1991–92 Forestry and related sciences             Forestry and related products, general 16 15 20 21 13 13 Forestry 7 5 5 6 1 3 Forest biology 2 0 0 0 0 0 Forest engineering 3 3 1 1 0 0 Forest hydrology 1 0 2 0 1 0 Forest management 9 8 4 3 3 2 Forest mensuration 0 0 0 0 0 0 Urban forestry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wood science 8 7 6 4 0 2 Forestry and related science, other 3 4 1 1 0 0 Total 49 42 39 36 18 20 Wildlife management             Game farm management 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wildlife management 22 25 18 20 7 6 Total 22 25 18 20 7 6 Agricultural engineering 41 38 32 36 15 19 Preveterinary 4 4 0 0 0 0 Veterinary medicine             Veterinary science (excludes D.V.M.) 5 6 15 18 11 14 Biology, general 63 126 32 59 16 28 Biochemistry and biophysics 34 36 36 34 33 35 Botany             Botany, general 33 23 32 29 28 27 Bacteriology 4 2 3 1 2 0 Mycology 0 0 1 0 0 0 Plant pharmacology 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 37 25 36 30 30 27 Cell and molecular biology             Cell biology 1 2 3 4 3 4 Molecular biology 2 4 2 3 3 4 Total 3 6 5 7 6 8 Microbiology 38 39 36 34 31 32 Miscellaneous specialized areas, life sciences             Anatomy 1 1 4 5 5 8 Biometrics and biostatistics 4 3 4 4 4 4 Ecology 8 8 14 12 11 11 Embryology 0 0 0 0 0 0 Endocrinology 0 0 2 1 1 3 Histology 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marine biology 2 3 4 3 2 2 Parasitology 0 10 2 14 0 18 Toxicology 1 0 5 9 8 8 Total 16 25 35 48 31 54 Parks and recreation, general 17 13 6 6 2 3 Parks and recreation management 24 22 8 8 1 2 Water resources 0 2 5 6 2 0 NOTE: The list of specializations in this table was derived from many sources that have similar programs, each of which has been titled slightly differently. Consequently, titles listed may seem repetitive or categories may seem fragmented. Data are provided in response to FAEIS's annual survey of enrollment (see below) and any specialization in which a degree was conferred is included in this listing. SOURCE: FAEIS. 1994. Fall 1993 Enrollment in Agriculture, Renewable Natural Resources and Forestry: A Combined Report. College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University.

OCR for page 52
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile FIGURE 3-5 The number of bachelor degree programs in most areas of agricultural science and renewable resources at land grant institutions declined slightly between 1984–1985 and 1991–1992, although the number of programs in general biology (genetic, cell, and molecular biology and microbiology) increased significantly. FIGURE 3-6 At the master's degree level, between 1984–1985 and 1991–1992 the number of programs in soil science, natural resources, and agricultural engineering/mechanics at land grant institutions increased only slightly while the number offering programs in general biology (genetic, cell, and molecular biology and microbiology) increased more. FIGURE 3-7 Between 1984–1985 and 1991–1992 there were increases in more degree program areas at the doctorate level than at the bachelor or master's levels.

OCR for page 53
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile A DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS Today's and tomorrow's leaders of the land grant colleges of agriculture are its doctorate degree recipients. Its graduates at all degree levels have the potential to become leaders in industry, government, schools, and communities across the country—in fact, they often become the colleges' clientele. However, Ph.D. recipients are the ones most likely to join the colleges as faculty members and scientists, and advance to administrative positions at the colleges and universities. Most U.S. agricultural scientists received their doctorate degrees from land grant universities. Thus a review of demographic characteristics of Ph.D. agricultural scientists who received degrees from U.S. schools provides a fairly accurate profile of those who received doctorate degrees from land grant colleges of agriculture. The demographic data used here were collected by surveying a sample of Ph.D. scientists; the survey was administered by the National Research Council's Office of Science and Engineering Personnel.2 Table 3-10 shows that the estimated number of agricultural scientists continues to grow but more slowly than the number of scientists in the life or natural sciences. In relative terms, agricultural science is losing human capital. Among agricultural scientists, the majority are plant and soil scientists, though the dominance of this group has declined from 58 percent in 1973 to 49 percent in 1991. Agricultural scientists with doctorate degrees, like their peers in other areas of science, are still most likely to go to work for an academic institution. However, agricultural scientists are more likely to be employed in government (because of the large intramural research program at the USDA) and less likely to be employed in the private sector than their natural science peers. For all scientists, including agricultural scientists, academia and government are becoming less important as employers, while industry is becoming more important (Table 3-11). (Food scientists are the agricultural scientists most likely to have private sector jobs.) Thus the private sector increasingly competes with universities for those graduates with leadership potential. Agricultural science is still clearly a more male-dominated discipline than other areas of science (Table 3-12). Within the agricultural science community, only in food sciences are women, at 22.5 percent, nearly as well represented as they are in science in general. TABLE 3-10 Number of Employed Scientists Holding Doctorate Degrees, by Discipline, 1973, 1979, 1985, 1991   Year Discipline 1973 1979 1985 1991 Agricultural sciences         Agricultural economics 314 993 1,835 2,200 Animal sciences 2,184 2,909 3,612 4,148 Plant and soil sciences 6,285 8,016 9,687 10,751 Forestry and wildlife management 1,346 2,211 2,510 2,811 Food sciences 653 915 1,430 1,944 Subtotal 10,782 15,044 (40) 19,074 (27) 21,854 (15) Life sciences 42,593 60,343 (42) 81,226 (35) 99,180 (22) Natural sciences 123,248 166,265 (35) 208,431 (25) 243,081 (17) All sciences 173,674 248,994 (43) 323,056 (30) 379,768 (18) NOTE: Number in parentheses is the percentage increase over previous year in table. SOURCE: Data are from the National Research Council, Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel's biennial surveys of doctorate recipients. 2   Scientists answering the National Research Council survey identified their own scientific specializations. These may not match their academic degree specializations at graduation reported to FAEIS.

OCR for page 54
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile TABLE 3-11 Employment (percent) of Scientists Holding Doctorate Degrees, 1973, 1979, 1985, 1991   Year Employment Field 1973 1979 1985 1991 Education         Agricultural sciences 62.8 57.8 57.0 54.5 Life sciences 68.2 66.5 62.2 59.1 Natural sciences 57.8 55.6 53.4 51.7 All other sciences 61.9 58.6 55.6 52.8 Business/Industrya         Agricultural sciences 15.0 19.8 24.6 25.0 Life sciences 12.4 13.3 19.5 22.2 Natural sciences 25.1 27.1 31.5 32.4 All other sciences 20.4 22.3 27.7 29.3 Governmentb         Agricultural sciences 20.7 19.5 15.7 16.3 Life sciences 12.4 11.6 10.1 10.4 Natural sciences 12.0 11.2 9.6 9.9 All other sciences 11.4 10.7 9.3 9.6 Nonprofit Organizations         Agricultural sciences 1.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 Life sciences 6.6 7.6 8.1 7.7 Natural sciences 4.8 5.4 5.3 5.3 All other sciences 6.0 7.5 7.0 7.2 a Includes self-employed. b Federal, state, and local. SOURCE: Data are from the National Research Council, Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel's biennial surveys of doctorate recipients. TABLE 3-12 Prevalent Demographic Characteristics (percent) of Employed Scientists Holding Doctorate Degrees, 1991 Characteristic Discipline Male White Age 55 and Over U.S. Citizen Agricultural sciences 90.0 86.3 19.9 92.8 Agricultural economics 91.4 85.6 5.8 88.6 Animal sciences 89.8 90.2 17.9 93.1 Plant and soil sciences 90.7 86.3 23.5 93.7 Forestry and wildlife management 92.5 93.9 22.9 95.5 Food sciences 80.5 65.1 16.9 87.9 Life sciences 73.6 87.8 15.3 95.5 Natural sciences 83.6 86.3 18.0 93.6 All sciences 78.3 87.7 18.1 94.4   SOURCE: Data are from the National Research Council, Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel's biennial surveys of doctorate recipients. Although the differences may not be statistically significant, it appears that relative to other areas of science a slightly higher percentage of agricultural scientists are more than 55 years old and a slightly lower percentage are U.S. citizens (Table 3-12). These figures may indicate a declining interest among U.S. students in pursuing agricultural science careers, while the age figure suggests that new leadership opportunities are at hand. The higher percent of non-U.S. citizens in agricultural sciences may also suggest that the colleges of agriculture have a relatively larger role in international training than do nonagriculture schools.

OCR for page 55
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile Table 3-13 presents trends in the numbers of women and ethnic minorities in the agricultural sciences. Clearly, women are a significantly larger percentage in agricultural science today than 20 years ago; however, their presence is still minimal in relation to that of women in either life or natural sciences. In contrast, ethnic minorities are represented in similar proportions in agricultural sciences and other areas of science. In all areas of science, participation by ethnic minorities has grown more slowly than participation of women. It is interesting that only in the agricultural sciences are ethnic minorities actually better represented than women as a group (Table 3-13). (This, however, may reflect inclusion of U.S.-educated scientists from, for example, Africa, Latin America, Asia, etc.) Table 3-14 shows that the percent of agricultural scientists less than 35 years old is declining as it is in all areas of science. Thus the science community is aging generally, although agricultural scientists are somewhat older than their peers. TABLE 3-13 Women and Ethnic Minority Scientists (percent) Holding Doctorate Degrees, 1973, 1979, 1985, 1991   Year Discipline 1973 1979 1985 1991 Women Agricultural sciences 1.3 2.6 5.5 9.3 Agricultural economics 0.6 1.7 5.2 12.5 Animal sciences 1.1 2.7 4.8 8.4 Plant and soil sciences 1.1 1.8 4.9 7.9 Forestry and wildlife management 0.0 0.2 2.2 7.1 Food sciences 7.0 16.3 17.8 18.4 Life sciences 12.7 15.8 21.3 26.7 Natural sciences 6.8 8.9 12.5 16.4 All sciences 8.9 12.3 17.0 21.6 Ethnic Minorities Agricultural sciences 6.3 11.0 12.0 11.8 Agricultural economics 7.0 13.3 15.1 11.5 Animal sciences 2.3 6.5 8.2 9.4 Plant and soil sciences 7.7 12.2 11.5 10.1 Forestry and wildlife management 1.1 4.1 5.1 5.9 Food sciences 12.7 30.2 32.8 35.4 Life sciences 6.3 8.8 9.8 11.3 Natural sciences 5.7 9.0 10.8 12.4 All sciences 5.4 8.1 9.9 11.2   SOURCE: Data are from the National Research Council, Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel's biennial surveys of doctorate recipients.

OCR for page 56
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile TABLE 3-14 Scientists (percent) Less Than 35 Years Old Holding Doctorate Degrees, 1973, 1979, 1985, 1991   Year Discipline 1973 1979 1985 1991 Agricultural sciences 21.4 13.7 13.2 8.8 Agricultural economics 56.3 24.7 20.1 11.1 Animal sciences 17.6 12.1 13.8 10.8 Plant and soil sciences 20.5 11.8 13.2 8.2 Forestry and wildlife management 20.3 13.9 7.3 4.4 Food sciences 26.8 22.6 13.5 11.9 Life sciences 27.1 22.6 16.5 10.6 Natural sciences 28.3 20.4 15.2 11.5 All other sciences 27.3 20.6 14.4 10.1   SOURCE: Data are from the National Research Council, Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel's biennial surveys of doctorate recipients. ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION What factors explain the trends in enrollment at colleges of agriculture? Will the large agribusiness sector, and strong public interest in food, natural resource, and environmental issues, generate a continued demand for programs of colleges of agriculture even though few students will enter or return to farming? Are college curricula adjusting to meet the interests of today's students and the needs of today's agribusiness industry? Do the instruction programs of the colleges provide the basic knowledge and practical skills pertinent to those who do return to farms or join businesses that serve farms? (Are they too ''discipline-oriented''?) Are programs of the colleges adjusting or consolidating in accordance with trends in student demand? Could system-wide efficiencies be realized through increased specialization by individual colleges in the offering of specific degrees? What are the future relative roles of land grant colleges of agriculture and non-land grants in educating students in agriculture, food, and natural resource fields? Ph.D. students have different academic program emphases than undergraduates. Is the pool of potential new faculty appropriate to the future instructional needs of the colleges? What qualities and characteristics are desired of the current and future leadership of the colleges of agriculture? Given the growing diversity of the system's clientele, how important to the system's future is a diversity of backgrounds and views among its leadership? How can the colleges enhance opportunities for and attractiveness of their programs to women, minorities, and young scientists?

OCR for page 57
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile SUGGESTED READINGS Coulter, K. Jane, Allan D. Goecker, and Marge Stanton. Employment Opportunities for College Graduates in the Food and Agricultural Sciences: Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Veterinary Medicine. Washington, D.C.: Higher Education Programs, Cooperative State Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture , 1990. Marchant, Mary, and Handy Williamson, Jr., eds. Achieving Diversity: The Status and Progress of Women and African Americans in the Agricultural Economics Profession. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1994. National Research Council. Agriculture and the Undergraduate. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1992. National Research Council. Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities: Summary Report 1992. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993. National Research Council. Educating the Next Generation of Agricultural Scientists. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1988. National Research Council. Plant Biology Research and Training for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1992. National Research Council. Understanding Agriculture: New Directions for Education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1988. National Research Council. Women Scientists and Engineers Employed in Industry: Why So Few? Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1994. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. The Condition of Education 1993. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1993.

Representative terms from entire chapter:

agricultural scientists