National Academies Press: OpenBook

Educating the Next Generation of Agricultural Scientists (1988)

Chapter: PROFILE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS

« Previous: CHALLENGES IN FOOD, FIBER, AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES
Suggested Citation:"PROFILE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS." National Research Council. 1988. Educating the Next Generation of Agricultural Scientists. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18633.
×
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"PROFILE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS." National Research Council. 1988. Educating the Next Generation of Agricultural Scientists. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18633.
×
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"PROFILE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS." National Research Council. 1988. Educating the Next Generation of Agricultural Scientists. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18633.
×
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"PROFILE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS." National Research Council. 1988. Educating the Next Generation of Agricultural Scientists. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18633.
×
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"PROFILE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS." National Research Council. 1988. Educating the Next Generation of Agricultural Scientists. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18633.
×
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"PROFILE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS." National Research Council. 1988. Educating the Next Generation of Agricultural Scientists. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18633.
×
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"PROFILE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS." National Research Council. 1988. Educating the Next Generation of Agricultural Scientists. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18633.
×
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"PROFILE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS." National Research Council. 1988. Educating the Next Generation of Agricultural Scientists. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18633.
×
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"PROFILE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS." National Research Council. 1988. Educating the Next Generation of Agricultural Scientists. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18633.
×
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"PROFILE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS." National Research Council. 1988. Educating the Next Generation of Agricultural Scientists. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18633.
×
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"PROFILE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS." National Research Council. 1988. Educating the Next Generation of Agricultural Scientists. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18633.
×
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"PROFILE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS." National Research Council. 1988. Educating the Next Generation of Agricultural Scientists. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18633.
×
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"PROFILE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS." National Research Council. 1988. Educating the Next Generation of Agricultural Scientists. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18633.
×
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"PROFILE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS." National Research Council. 1988. Educating the Next Generation of Agricultural Scientists. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18633.
×
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"PROFILE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS." National Research Council. 1988. Educating the Next Generation of Agricultural Scientists. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18633.
×
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"PROFILE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS." National Research Council. 1988. Educating the Next Generation of Agricultural Scientists. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18633.
×
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"PROFILE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS." National Research Council. 1988. Educating the Next Generation of Agricultural Scientists. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18633.
×
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"PROFILE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS." National Research Council. 1988. Educating the Next Generation of Agricultural Scientists. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18633.
×
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"PROFILE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS." National Research Council. 1988. Educating the Next Generation of Agricultural Scientists. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18633.
×
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"PROFILE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS." National Research Council. 1988. Educating the Next Generation of Agricultural Scientists. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18633.
×
Page 40

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

3 Profile of Food and Agricultural Scientists To assess current and future personnel needs, the commit- tee reviewed the demographic, training, and employment charac- teristics of doctoral scientists employed in food and agricultural science. Changes in employment and activity patterns sometimes result in the need for new skills and educational experiences. Many doctoral scientists have been educated at land-grant colleges and universities. The education and research training provided have been regarded as successful but in need of reform given current demands (Rossiter, 1986). Doctoral agricultural scientists can be defined as individu- als having Ph.D. degrees in agricultural subfields (regardless of current employment field) or working in agricultural employment specialties (regardless of fields within which doctoral degrees were earned). The second definition best indicates the demand for scien- tists in agricultural work, even though it includes many scientists originally trained outside traditional agricultural disciplines. The first definition includes some individuals who no longer work or never worked in agriculture despite earning doctorates in applied agricultural disciplines. The field of employment classification is generally used, although some data are presented on agricultural scientists classified by field of doctorate. The doctorate subfields and employment specialties, which 21

22 EDUCATING AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS are aggregated to provide "agricultural" totals in this analysis, do not correspond precisely to those used in other National Research Council (NRC) publications (see Appendix C). They were selected by the committee to encompass applied agriculture and include the fields in Table 3-1. Agricultural economics appears in the tables as a separate category (NRC specialty code 000). Totals are also presented for the biological sciences category (codes 100-199). The reader should exercise caution when comparing data in this report with those in other pubh'cations, which may use dif- ferent categories and definitions of basic and applied agricultural disciplines. Moreover, the features that differentiate applied from basic sciences have become difficult to define in the context of many agricultural science disciplines. Recent graduates earning Ph.D. degrees in traditional applied science fields, such as plant breeding or animal nutrition, might spend their careers engaged in research essentially comparable to work undertaken by colleagues with basic science degrees in plant genetics or animal physiology. Likewise, many scientists with basic science degrees are identi- fying and pursuing new approaches in the conduct of research on subjects traditionally considered within the domain of applied science. Based on the fields selected by the committee as encompassing applied agricultural employment, there were an estimated 20,600 scientists and engineers with Ph.D.s who classified themselves as working within applied agricultural science fields in 1985 (NRC, 1986b). Table 3-2 shows the numbers of agricultural scientists and engineers employed in basic and applied agricultural sciences, agricultural economics, and biological sciences. It is important to note that many individuals employed in applied agricultural specialties do not hold doctoral degrees in ap- plied agricultural fields. An estimated 39 percent received degrees in basic, natural, or other science fields, such as biology, genetics, biochemistry, or zoology, and are using their training in applied agricultural jobs as shown in Table 3-3. The group educated in academic departments outside traditional applied agricultural dis- ciplines is large in industry and government (50 percent for each sector) and least pronounced in academia (27 percent). The total number of doctoral degrees awarded annually in basic science fields related to agriculture is much larger than the number of degrees in applied agricultural fields. Basic science fields

PROFILE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS 23 TABLE 3-1 Employment Specialties Specialty Code I. Applied agricultural sciences Animal sciences Animal breeding and genetics 005 Animal husbandry, science, and nutrition 010, 019 Veterinary medicine 250 Plant and soil Agronomy and soil 020 Plant breeding and genetics 025 Soil sciences 045 Other plant sciences 039 Horticulture and hydrobiology 050 Food science and technology 040 Natural resources and environment Fish and wildlife 055, 060 Forestry 065 Environmental sciences 580 Hydrology 585 Other fields General and other agriculture 098 Agricultural engineering 303 II. Agriculture-related basic sciences Biochemistry 100 Biophysics and biometrics 105, 133 Ecology 139 Cytology and embryology 142 Entomology 148 Molecular biology 154 Genetics 170 Plant-related Bacteriology and microbiology 110, 157 Plant genetics 115 Plant pathology 120 Plant physiology 125 Botany 125 Animal-related Immunology 151 Nutrition and dietetics 163 Animal physiology 185 Zoology 189 SOURCE: Adapted from NRC (1986b).

24 EDUCATING AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS TABLE 3-2 Employed Ph.D.s by Field and Employment Sector Field of Employment Year Academiaa Industry Government Total0 Applied agriculture 1975 7,900 4,100 2,800 14,800 1985 9,900 7,000 3,800 20,600 Animal 1975 1,900 600 200 2,600 1985 2,500 1,100 300 3,900 Plant and soil 1975 2,600 600 700 3,800 1985 3,200 1,300 800 5,300 Food 1975 700 1,300 200 2,200 1985 700 1,800 200 2,700 Natural resources 1975 1,800 1,100 1,500 4,400 and environment 1985 2,000 2,000 2,100 6,100 Other 1975 1,000 600 300 1,800 1985 1,500 900 300 2,700 Agricultural 1975 1,200 300 400 1,900 economics 1985 1,900 300 400 2,700 Agriculture-related 1975 24,800 5,200 4,500 34,500 basic sciences 1985 31,300 9,600 5,000 45,900 Biological sciences 1975 24,900 4,900 4,100 34,000 1985 34,600 10,700 5,300 50,600 aThis sector does not include postdoctoral students. This sector includes self-employed Ph.D.s. cTotals are not exact because a small number of Ph.D.s (less than 0.1 percent) did not report their employment sectors and because of rounding. SOURCE: NRC (1986b). can partially satisfy future demand for agricultural scientists. For many agricultural jobs, however, a degree in one of the applied fields, complemented by a thorough background of basic training, may be preferable. RECENT TRENDS The committee examined information on employment trends, degrees granted, and sectoral and activity distributions. It ana- lyzed employment in government, academia, and industry sectors. Primary work activities were categorized as teaching, RfcD, man- agement, and all other activities. The committee believes that these data provide insights into the hiring preferences of employ- ers of agricultural scientists, labor market conditions, and, at least

PROFILE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS 25 TABLE 3-3 Distribution of Applied Agricultural Scientists by Employment Sector and Doctorate Field in 1985 Applied Agriculture Employment Sector (percentage) Field of Doctorate All Sectors Academia Industry Government Applied agricultural sciences 61 73a 50 50 Agriculture-related basic sciences 20 16 22 24 Other natural sciences 13 6 20 16 65 8 10 Total Number 20,000 9,900 7,000 3,800 Percentage 100 100 100 100 aFor example, 73 percent of academic doctoral scientists working in applied agriculture had their degrees in that field. This Held includes the specialties listed under the agriculture, biological sciences, health sciences, computer and information sciences, mathematics, and physical sciences headings from Summary Report: 1985 Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities (NRG, 1986b) except those specialties that are included under applied agricultural sciences and agriculture-related basic sciences. See Table 3-1 and Appendix C. cThese fields include the specialties listed under the engineering, psychology, social sciences, humanities, education, and professional fields headings from Summary Report 1985: Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities (NRC, 1986b). See Table 3-1 and Appendix C. Totals may not be exact because of rounding. SOURCE: NRC (1986b). indirectly, the skills required to meet the challenges of new and more traditional agricultural jobs. Figure 3-1 shows that the rate of growth in the total number of doctoral degree recipients working in applied agricultural sci- ences and engineering had slightly slowed between 1979 and 1983. Preliminary 1985 data seem to indicate that the growth rate has increased to a level comparable to that in the mid-1970s.

26 EDUCATING AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS z 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 ' 2,000 Total Academla 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 YEAR FIGURE 3-1 Employment of Ph.D.s in applied agricultural sciences classi- fied by field of employment. Source: NRG (1986b).

PROFILE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS 27 TABLE 3-4 Primary Activity Distribution of Applied Agricultural Science and Engineering Ph.D.s (percentage) Year Teaching R&D Management Other 1973 20 37 81 11 1975 20 38 28 12 1977 20 34 30 15 1979 17 93 81 18 1981 18 89 21 17 1983 18 38 22 21 1985 15 41 21 21 NOTE: Applied agricultural science and engineering Ph.D.s are classified by field of employment. Percentages do not total 100 because of a 2 to 3 percent nonresponse rate. SOURCE: NRC (1985c). Activity Distributions Table 3-4 shows the distribution of primary work activity as reported by Ph.D.s employed in agriculture. In 1975, 5 percent fewer scientists reported teaching and 3 percent more reported R&D as their primary work activities than in 1985. From 1977 to 1985, fewer jobs were reported as management. Jobs in the other category reflected the move of Ph.D.s into product development and stewardship, marketing, regulation, and private consulting businesses. But the distribution of work activity remained essen- tially stable from 1975 to 1985 if teaching and R&D categories are combined and contrasted to management combined with the other category. This observation holds when the data are examined ac- cording to either field of doctoral degree (see Appendix A, Table 3) or field of employment. Moreover, activity distributions within the academia, business and industry, and government sectors were comparably stable. The most notable changes occurred within the management and other categories in the industrial sector. The proportion of those primarily involved in management declined; the proportion of those involved in other activities such as sales, quality control, and compliance with government regulations consequently increased.

28 EDUCATING AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS Table 3-4 reflects another significant feature of the work per- formed by agricultural scientists. The doctorate signifies mastery of an appropriate body of scientific knowledge and research skills. But only 41 percent of all Ph.D.s employed in applied agricultural activities in 1985 reported R&D as their primary work activity. Teaching was the primary activity of another 15 percent. Sig- nificantly, 42 percent of the respondents reported management, administration, or related activities as their primary work activ- ity. Employment Sectors Figure 3-1 shows academia employs almost half of Ph.D.s working in the agricultural sciences, and industry employs about one-third. Government and nonprofit institutions employ the rest. The largest employers in this sector are USDA's Agricultural Re- search Service (ARS) and the Economic Research Service (ERS). The 1983-1985 data indicate future employment growth in indus- try and academia. Figure 3-2, which is based on field of degree, presents a sim- ilar picture. Trends and sectoral distribution were similar. But a smaller total number of Ph.D.s was employed (16,700 instead of 20,600) because this figure excluded Ph.D.s working in agri- culture who earned degrees outside agriculture. The size of this difference is not surprising because of the basic science fields that have become critical to progress in applied agricultural science programs. In Figures 3-1 and 3-2, industrial employment has shown the most rapid growth from 1975 to 1985. Industry's share of employed Ph.D.s with agricultural science degrees increased from 22 to 29 percent from 1975 to 1985, academia's share decreased from 60 to 55 percent, and government's share decreased from 19 to 16 percent. Age Distribution Age distribution of doctoral scientists within a laboratory, de- partment, or discipline can be an important factor, particularly in areas with rapidly developing new research methodologies. The

PROFILE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS 29 DC HI m 20,000 — 18,000 — 16,000 — 14,000 - 12,000 — 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 10,000 — 8,000 — 6,000 - 4,000 - 2,000 YEAR FIGURE 3-2 Employment of Ph.D.s in applied agricultural sciences classi- fied by field of degree. Source: NRC (1986b).

30 EDUCATING AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS distribution of ages within the labor force, especially the propor- tion more than 55, determines how many new Ph.D.s are likely to be hired into existing positions. Of the doctoral scientists in applied agriculture in 1985, 18 percent were more than 55 years old, and 28 percent were under 40 (see Appendix A, Table 8). This situation is similar to age distribution in the biological and natural sciences; the over-55 groups constituted about 17 percent of the total. The situation varied considerably by field and sector, however. Figure 3-3 shows that a larger percentage of applied agricultural scientists more than 55 years old were employed in academia and government compared to natural scientists. In the industrial sector, the situation was reversed. About 28 percent of applied agricultural Ph.D.s were under 39; of these, the government employed 22 percent. Retirements and newly established positions are opportunities to bring new ideas and skills to the agricultural sciences. If those now more than 55 years old retire by age 65, and all positions are filled, there will be openings throughout the next decade for as many as 2,300 new Ph.D.s in universities and colleges and 700 in government. Recruitment for new Ph.D.s combined with opportunities for their collaboration with senior scientists will help to ensure that the latest advances in science and technology are incorporated into R&D programs. Underrepresented Groups Demographic studies indicate a modest decline in the college student population over the next 10 years (OTA, 1985). In ad- dition, there are indications of increasing percentages of women in the undergraduate student body. Agricultural administrators and educators should initiate efforts to reach women and other underrepresented groups in agriculture. The data in Table 3-5 show cause for concern. Women who had doctoral degrees represented 14.6 percent of all Ph.D. sci- entists and engineers in the United States in 1983, but only 5.5 percent of agricultural scientists (NSF, 1985b). As a point of ref- erence, women comprised 34 percent of the U.S. full-time working population. Asians who held doctoral degrees represented 8.6 percent of all Ph.D. scientists and engineers and 5.8 percent of Ph.D.s in agricultural sciences. Because Asians comprise only 1.6 percent of

PROFILE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS 31 oc 111 Q o DC O Q uu in in h- LU O OC UJ o. 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Applied Agricultural Sciences Natural Science TOTAL ACADEMIA INDUSTRY GOVERNMENT FIELD FIGURE 3-3 Ph.D.s 55 years old or older by selected fields and sectors of employment in 1985. Source: NRG (1986b).

32 EDUCATING AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS TABLE 3-5 U.S. Doctoral Scientists and Engineers from Under-represented Groups in 1983 Applied Scientists and Agricultural Group Engineers Scientists Women 14.6% 5.5% Asians 8.6 5.8 Hispanics 1.5 1.1 Blacks IA OJt American Indian O.I 0.2 All, including underrepresented (number) 400,400 20,600 SOURCES: NRC (1985b); NSF (1985b). the U.S. full-time working population, they are overrepresented in the sciences relative to their presence in the overall labor force. Hispanics represented only 1.5 percent of the total doctoral science and engineering population in 1983 and 1.2 percent of agricultural science Ph.D.s. Hispanics accounted for 5.5 percent of the U.S. full-time working population. Blacks holding doctoral degrees made up 1.4 percent of the total number of doctoral scientists and engineers, but only 0.8 percent in agriculture. Their representation in the U.S. full-time working population was about 10.4 percent. American Indians were likewise underrepresented. Equal opportunity has been the focus for most federal educa- tion programs directed toward underrepresented groups. In exam- ining future research personnel needs and the increasing need for scientific expertise at the doctoral level, the committee concluded underrepresented minority groups should be reached more effec- tively in undergraduate and graduate fellowship programs and recruitment efforts. Recruitment efforts need to recognize and overcome sometimes negative cultural impressions about agricul- ture among women and other underrepresented groups.

PROFILE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS 33 Salary Patterns The committee examined salary patterns among sectors of employment and disciplines to assess labor market conditions that might suggest excessive supply or demand (see Appendix A, Tables 4 through 7). The median annual salary of Ph.D.s in applied agricultural science was $43,100 in 1985—about 7 percent higher than that of Ph.D.s in the agriculture-related basic sciences (see Appendix A, Table 4). Salaries in 1985 were often lower than salaries in 1975 after adjustment for inflation (see Appendix A, Table 5). Applied agricultural scientists frequently make slightly higher average salaries than scientists in agriculture-related basic sci- ences. Analyses showed that 1985 salary patterns among fields and sectors were essentially the same as those observed 10 years earlier. A comparison of employment sectors showed that the 1985 median salaries in academia—even when adjusted to 12-month equivalence—were somewhat lower than those in government and industry, even though Ph.D.s in industry on average were younger (see Appendix A, Table 6). The committee points out that some universities and com- panies are paying salaries of about $100,000 annually, which is a positive development. In contrast, the cap on federal salaries is currently less than $77,500 for the highest-paid civil service positions. The committee believes that this salary ceiling has a deleterious effect on federal agricultural science programs, because it prevents the government from competing for the most sought- after scientists. The committee believes the salary ceiling should be lifted. Salaries are a function of many factors beyond employment demand, including responsibility, performance, length of appoint- ment, and age. The salary advantage of applied agricultural scien- tists noted earlier could be due, at least in part, to their age distri- bution, which shows a bias toward the older group (see Appendix A, Table 8). Another factor may stem from the low participation rates of applied agricultural scientists in postdoctoral fellowships. Most agricultural scientists move directly into professional posi- tions upon graduation. Therefore, they tend to have more years of professional experience than scientists of comparable ages in related fields that commonly offer postdoctoral fellowships.

34 EDUCATING AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS In 1985 the average salary of 30- to 34-year-old agricultural science Ph.D.s was slightly higher than that of agriculture-related basic science Ph.D.s (see Appendix A, Table 6). In general, the demand for Ph.D.s in applied agriculture—measured by rela- tive salaries—appears similar to agriculture-related basic science Ph.D.s and has not changed significantly during the last decade. The only exception to this salary pattern occurs in industry where the 30- to 34-year-old applied agricultural science degree recipi- ents lag in average salary behind agriculture-related basic science degree recipients. Overall, the salary data suggest there are no current supply and demand problems for Ph.D.s in agricultural science, although there may be a relatively small pool of recent graduates within specific subspecialties in some regions of the country. The prospect of future supply and demand imbalances are assessed in the next chapter. Employment Mobility The committee reviewed data indicating considerable employ- ment mobility between sectors and fields. Movement between related fields occurs at all stages of a scientist's career. As demonstrated by Table 3-3, 39 percent of doctoral scientists em- ployed in 1985 in applied agricultural science fields held degrees in fields other than applied agricultural science (20 percent were in agriculture-related basic sciences, 13 percent in other natural sci- ences, and 6 percent in other fields). Individuals from fields other than applied agriculture will continue to be important resources for agriculture. On the other hand, movement out of the field of degree is limited at the time the individual enters the job market, for example, just after receiving a doctoral degree. This is not surprising; a new graduate generally seeks jobs in the field of his or her degree. PRODUCTION OF PH.D.S IN AGRICULTURE Table 3-6 summarizes the number of Ph.D.s awarded in 1985 to U.S. and non-U.S. citizens by subfield in the basic and applied agricultural science fields. The new doctoral recipients in the basic science fields outnumber the applied agricultural sciences degree recipients by almost three to one. This ratio is not unexpected,

PROFILE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS 35 because Ph.D.s in the basic sciences work in many areas other than agriculture. Figure 3-4 shows the number of Ph.D.s granted in applied agri- culture from 1975 to 1985. The number of Ph.D. recipients has increased significantly since 1977. In 1985 the number of recipients in these fields was an estimated 40 percent larger than in 1977. However, only two-thirds of the 1985 graduates were U.S. citizens or foreigners with permanent residence visas. The 1977-1985 in- crease in doctoral degrees granted in agricultural sciences occurred primarily in animal and plant/soil-related fields; the food and nat- ural resources/environmental sciences fields showed essentially no growth at all. The number of Ph.D.s granted in agriculture-related basic sciences peaked in 1980 and declined to a 9 percent lower level in 1985. It is important to note that during this period of increasing numbers of doctoral degree recipients in applied agricultural sci- ences, undergraduate enrollment patterns differed markedly. Be- tween 1978 and 1985, undergraduate majors in agriculture in the member institutions of the National Association of State Univer- sities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) dropped about 28.5 percent. In sum, it is not clear whether a continuation of the trend toward decreasing undergraduate enrollments will produce cor- responding decreases in the numbers of Ph.D.s in agricultural science. Many factors could increase the number of doctoral can- didates despite declining undergraduate enrollments. The most important include recruitment efforts and the availability of at- tractive fellowship and research assistant opportunities. Foreign Students About one-third of new Ph.D.s in applied agriculture were non-U.S. citizens holding temporary visas; the figure was about 13 percent in the basic sciences for agriculture (Table 3-6). These data show evidence of the attractiveness of U.S. applied agricultural ed- ucation to foreign students. For U.S. educators and researchers, foreign students are a source of knowledge about agriculture meth- ods, problems, and goals in other countries. The chance to carry out or supervise doctoral thesis research in a foreign country can be a rewarding experience. Foreign students who received doctorates in 1985 showed the

36 EDUCATING AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS TABLE 3-6 Doctorates Granted in Selected Basic and Applied Sciences in 1985 Number Non-U.S. Citizens with Temporary Visas Specialties3 Total I. Applied agricultural sciences Animal 252 79 Animal breeding and genetics 28 • Animal husbandry, science, and nutrition 173 53 Veterinary medicine 51 17 Plant and soil 440 159 Agronomy and soils and soil sciences 255 99 Plant breeding and genetics 88 25 Other plant sciences 21 8 Horticulture and hydrobiology 76 27 Food science and technology 136 53 Natural resources and environment 238 36 Fish and wildlife 74 6 Forestry 105 19 General and other environmental sciences 42 6 Hydrology and water 17 5 Other 126 65 General and other agriculture 66 81 Agricultural engineering 60 34 Subtotal 1,192 392 II. Agriculture-related basic sciences General 1,833 205 Biochemistry 579 69 Biophysics 69 9 Biometrics 40 6 Cytology 100 7 Ecology 200 17 Embryology 15 - Entomology 173 32 Molecular biology 277 30 Genetics 105 11 Other general biological sciences 275 24 Plant-related 640 120 Botany 120 17 Bacteriology and microbiology 304 40 Plant genetics ai 16 Plant pathology 127 35 Plant physiology 58 12 Animal-related 620 66 Immunology 121 10 Nutrition and dietetics 113 24

PROFILE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS 37 TABLE 3-6 (Continued) Numberb Non-U.S. Citizens Specialties* Total with Temporary Visas Animal physiology 239 23 Zoology 147 9 Subtotal 3,093 381 111. Agricultural economics 147 48 *See Appendix C. For 3 percent of individuals with Ph.D.s, citizenship was unknown. SOURCE: NRC (1985c). greatest representation in agricultural engineering (57 percent) and lowest in natural resources and environment (15 percent). The committee believes the following issues associated with the education of foreign students deserve further study: • The degree of dependence of some institutions and depart- ments on foreign students to fill classrooms; • The interest and capability of faculty in meeting the educa- tion and training needs of foreign students, including supervision of field research outside the United States; • The ways interests and needs of foreign students should be reflected in the curricula and related class activities; and • Strategies to foster understanding of agricultural problems and systems in other countries through interaction with foreign and domestic students and foreign faculty. The committee believes that the task of educating scientists from other countries, especially developing countries, is an impor- tant mission of the U.S. university system. Education of foreign students warrants support from university administrators and fac- ulty. Many foreign students need help in understanding a new culture and language and and gaining familiarity with scientific procedures and equipment. These problems must be overcome so that foreign students can benefit from the educational resources available to them. Additionally, institutions and faculty often

in § eo o> C4 00 O> 00 O> I o oo en cc < LU O CO o> r-. CO oo i>- o> a 3 o> (O t^ o> "5 1 i ID t^ en o o CM o o o o o 00 o o (£> o o o o CM ^» n S33H03ddOH3ai/\inN tf O

PROFILE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS 39 need to make sure foreign students are able to apply their new knowledge to situations within their countries. The presence of foreign students can benefit teaching pro- grams, students, and institutions. Foreign students can be an im- portant source of knowledge about their respective countries. They can help U.S. scientists gain a better understanding of conditions and scientific challenges outside the United States. Agriculture is a global endeavor; the marketplace is the world. Educating foreign students can be a way to help them—and all students— develop an international view of agriculture and a sense of the global challenges that must be overcome to feed all people. Basic Skills of Students In recent years, many educators have noticed the quality of students—undergraduate and graduate—intending to enroll in agricultural science programs is relatively low (NASULGC, 1986b). Test scores support this perception. Most college-bound high school seniors take the SAT. As seen in Table 3-7, the verbal and quantitative scores of students intending to study agriculture as undergraduates were among the lowest on the SAT. Among all students taking this test, only those intending to major in home economics had lower average scores. Students planning to major in physical sciences and English had combined verbal and mathematics average scores 19 percent or more above those of the prospective agricultural majors. A similar picture emerges from GRE average scores. College seniors who plan to attend graduate school take the GRE, which is intended to predict performance. Students intending to go to graduate school in biosciences, computer sciences, mathematics, and physical sciences had higher verbal and quantitative scores than students intending to go to graduate school in agriculture. The implications of these data are disturbing. Agriculture has an impact on the well-being and health of all citizens, and plays a role in assuring a prosperous national economy. Agricultural doctoral scientists face many technical and scientific challenges. Employers in the private sector and agricultural educators and institutions must overcome misunderstandings among gifted students in high school and at the undergraduate level that agri- cultural science careers are either uninteresting or unrewarding. This effort will take time and require some changes in educational

40 EDUCATING AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS TABLE 3-7 Basic Skills of Students as Reflected in Test Scores 1981-1984 GRE Scores 1985 SAT Scores (percentage with scores Intended (average) above mean of 500) Area of Study Verbal Math Verbal Quantitative Agriculture 400 433 33.7 65.2 Biosciences 480 516 54.6 77.6 Business and commerce 407 456 35.8 64.7 Computer science 413 488 48.3 91.0 Education 404 432 30.6 42.3 English 526 499 76.9 57.4 Home economics 385 406 20.6 33.8 Mathematics 459 578 56.4 93.0 Physical sciences 506 569 56.6 89.4 SOURCES: Educational Testing Service (1985b); The College Board (1985). programs. The students and previously trained Ph.D.s that agri- culture needs to reach have many options. They tend to carefully analyze their career choices. As a group, they are attracted to careers that provide interaction with colleagues, scientific chal- lenges, professional recognition, and competitive salaries. Some agricultural science positions meet these requirements and attract top-notch candidates. Most positions do not meet these require- ments to the extent necessary to improve the quality of doctoral scientists.

Next: FUTURE DEMAND FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS »
Educating the Next Generation of Agricultural Scientists Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!