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.
2 R . L. Kohls tural schools are going to be around for many years. Such an attitude will be like a breath of spring air to faculties and may stimulate growth and renewal. Part of the problem is uncertainty whether the agricultural school is merely an alternative route to a good general or scientific educa tion or a substantial, mission-oriented school serving professional needs in a dynamic society. If one accepts the first view many of the doubts we hear are very real. Personally, I prefer the concept of a professional school that offers training in applied disciplines to serve a particular set of educational needs. This position, taken with pride and firmness, is one of the first steps that can combat the inferiority complex plaguing many of our faculty. Another difficulty is that we often have not grown along with the professional needs of our students. It has been proclaimed for years that the professional fields served by our school are appropriately those that deal with the total food and fiber complex-from the farm through to the consumer. "Agribusiness" was a term coined to cover this complex, though I prefer "agindustrial science and technology." To this we have recently added a concern for the development and quality of rural life. If these are the true professional concerns of our students, then people and personnel management are as important as cattle, com and cotton. Too often, however, the primary emphasis continues to be on the production sciences, whereas food processing, food devel opment and distribution, and the social aspects of community devel opment have been accorded a lesser priority. If we really accept a broadened definition of our professional mission, then we need put our educational money where our leaders' mouths have been. G U I D E L I N E S A N D I S S U E S ⢠All professionals are members of society and their higher educa tion should equip them for leadership within it. ⢠A professional of tomorrow must have a working understanding of science and mathematics related to his specialty and should be equipped to think through problems that confront him-he should not merely be skilled in doing the tasks of the moment. ⢠The ability to deal with complex systems and problems as a whole must be emphasized, for really important questions do not come in specialized bits and pieces.
T R ENDS I N AG R I CU LTU R A L CU R R I C U LA 3 ⢠Our curricula need expanded opportunities for interdisciplinary work. Traditional departments, though they furnish a very important administrative and educational focal point, can be deadening if they insist that they alone have the answer to all problems. Much of educa tion today requires the joint effort of many different types of pro fessionals, just as in research we create various institutes and centers to get the job done. ⢠Total credit hour requirements need to be reduced-simply doing more and more of what we are currently not doing especially well is not the route to improvement. In many instances, students take well over four years to complete their curricula. ⢠We must continually clarify and unify basic knowledge as the flow of new developments continues. Yesterday's principles and doc trine are not necessarily the best. On the other hand, how close to the frontier of knowledge should the basic undergraduate presenta tion of fundamentals be? On this issue, of course, is focused much of the present concern with the content of biology. ⢠Courses in the curricula often have too many prerequisites. While sequential education is a proper goal of curricular development, prerequisites too often serve as administrative devices for restricting students rather than as educational stepping stones. ⢠More stimulating introductory courses are needed to appeal to our educationally improved freshmen; on the urgency and importance of this issue, there is no question. D I V E R SITY IN C U R R IC U LA Curriculum development should be undertaken in the context of the organization and the educational goals of a given institution-universi ties and colleges differ widely as to student mix and educational goals. There is a great tendency toward mimicry among education institu tions, a great urge to find out what some "leading" institutions are doing and then try to duplicate it. But in one institution it may make sense for the agricultural school to teach its own basic biology, bio chemistry, or statistics, whereas in another to do this would duplicate educational effort. We should accept our institution and its purposes for what they are and build on these in developing curricula. Curricula must take into account the differences among student bodies and among educational goals. Too often, there is a tendency to make all undergraduate programs simply preparatory to graduate
4 R. L. Kohls training and to regard only "hard" science curricula as "first class" an unforgivable intellectual snobbery. In the same way it is false to maintain that good undergraduate education in agriculture cannot be provided in some of our smaller new colleges because they do not have the research farms, laboratories, and other resources of a large university. There is, of course, a tremendous personal satisfaction to a profes sor to see his students go on to graduate work, but I submit it does not necessarily satisfy the educational goals of all students. The real challenge is to make each curriculum of high quality, pertinent, and well taught. It is sobering to remind ourselves that the vast majority of those who will manage our farms and businesses and who will govern our society do so without the benefit of graduate education. C O RE R E Q U I R E M E N T S Careful attention should be given to what is desired in the core edu cational requirement for a school and to its general educational con tent. The world "core" implies minimal necessary requirements and should not be confused, as faculties often do, with the concept of optimum exposure. Because each specialized group wants the student to have optimal exposure in its particular area, too many efforts at curricular revision end up with more required courses and increased total credit hours. In deciding on core and content we must face squarely the great professional diversity within a school. It makes as little sense to re quire business majors to take chemistry or biology in depth as it does to require soil science or nutritional majors to take advanced theoret ical economics. If the school is to have a single core curriculum for all, the hard question of minimum must be faced. The concept of a single minimum core forces us to decide what we want to accomplish in the "general education" part of the curriculum. Too often the "general education" needs are met by requiring that students take some English, literature, history, sociology, and eco nomics. Probably we do somewhat better with the core.requirements in the sciences as a way of building background in professional specialities. My experience is that the core and general education requirements of the first two years cause much student anguish and frustration. They continually ask "why?" and "what for?" -questions the faculty
TR ENDS IN AGR I CULTURAL CUR R I CULA 5 fmd hard to answer because they are not sure themselves. More dialogue is needed between the agricultural professional school and the rest of the university. We have been indiscriminate users of the output of others in the academic community and have had little to say about the designs of the general education offerings we use. But we cannot have much input if we cannot first formulate our own needs, problems, and goals. The rest of the university has the same "we-would rather-teach only-our-own-majors" view as do our own departments-a service role is enthusiastically performed at very few places on the university campus. Certainly we cannot settle for watered down, old-fashioned, out-of-date offerings for servicing our students. C U R R IC U LA C H O I C E It is a question how many curricula options there should be, consid ering the present diverse professional emphases of our schools. I doubt that there is any single answer. If we insist upon tight, highly prescribed curricula, then we must have several routes if we are to satisfy the diverse student needs and goals. If we have a more loosely prescribed curriculum and a substantial number of electives, then we can have fewer basic routes. Loose, highly elective curricula cannot be automatically equated with excellence. Neither the straitjacket nor chaos has much to offer the educational system. Tightly controlled and course-specified curricula require continual academic policing to see that the courses are doing their prescribed jobs. Permissive curricula require a very high input of knowledgable advisers and counselors if students are to reach respectable educational goals. I have an uneasy feeling that the present faculty attitude favoring more freedom is often based on a competitive effort to woo students rather than a carefully thought out objective. A C C O M PL I S H I N G C URRIC U LA R E F ORM A N D R E V I S I O N Curriculum building is faculty business-it is axiomatic that no worthwhile eudcational operation can be imposed from above. If the faculty is not involved, interested, and desirous of curricula reform, anything that is done will be half-hearted.
6 R. L. Kohls A professor's first loyalty is to his professional peers, as a member of the profession into which he aspires to bring his students. He is probably next most concerned about his own course and students, about his department, and about the students majoring therein. Still further down the scale is his concern for the school, the university, and the student's total educational experience. What I am suggesting is that the very individual who must be the most directly involved in successful curricula improvement is, if left to his own devices, the least interested and least well equipped to do it. This implies that in any curricula effort that is focused on depart ments, the professors' individual interests will come frrst, the specialty program for its student majors next, and the total curricula organiza tion of the students and of the school will be a poor third. The good administrator recognizes that he must stimulate and involve profes sors. The dean and his administrative colleagues should be the best informed educators on the staff, whereas the individual professor is expert in his specialty. Curricula building must be experimental. Established procedures and ideas need to be challenged, alternatives proposed, put into prac tice and evaluated. For example, are we overburdened by too many or useless prerequisites? If so, let's do away with some of them and see whether the educational result is downgraded. Are we boxed in by the three credit-hour tradition? Let's experiment with five- or six hour complexes to handle sequential areas; or one- and two-hour seminars to deal with more specialized, limited problems. This may short-circuit the computer scheduling, but the computer should serve the educational venture, not dominate it. Do we really need laboratories in introductory chemistry or phys ics? Let's try to do without it and evaluate the results. Do we really believe that we should take advantage of the student's high school training and permit him to move on from that point? Advanced placement is used some in mathematics and chemistry. Similarly, high school students who come through a vocational agri cultural program should probably be permitted to skip many of the freshman agricultural survey courses. Would the use of outside consultants aid curricula review and revi sion? They are commonly used in reviewing research programs. And faculty members believe strongly in their effectiveness as outside consultants to businesses, holding that an informed outsider can more easily see important problems and more freely raise pertinent ques tions. If the consultant idea is valid elsewhere, why shouldn't consul tants be useful in evaluating curricula proposals?
TR ENDS I N AGRICULTURAL CUR R I CULA 7 Lewis Mayhew* points out that because curricula revision involves vested interest, self study inevitably becomes conservative political action. You may have heard the statement that changing a college curriculum is like trying to move a cemetery, the problem is that the dead have so many friends. A principal purpose of good administration is to stimulate and guide the faculty in such a way that it is forced to carry out its aca demic responsibilities. The administration must create the atmosphere that encourages analysis, experimentation, and change, which goes far beyond periodic, perfunctory "reviews of the curricula," introducing new course titles for old course content, and placing old courses in a new sequence. The principal tool available to the administrator is the committee. Though committees are the favorite faculty synonym for useless activity, they are the sine qua non of college and university decision making. A good administrator gives critical thought to committee structure, sees that resources are made available for its work, and shows continuing concern over its progress. Most importantly, he makes certain that the faculty sees action taken on the basis of com mittee recommendations. Much of the cynicism and disillusionment arises from the feeling on the part of faculty members that the ad ministrator really is not interested and does nothing to implement their advice. Implementation can, of course, be either positive action or explicit decision not to act. I think most professors would plead with their administrators not to get so bogged down in keeping the books, checking on vacation plans, and seeing that students are prop erly registered and grades are properly recorded; they cannot give time and effort to what should be their other important role-the academic leadership of the faculty. This, in the final analysis, is the key to effective curricula revision and improvement. I L. c. PE I RCE I We are a people living within constraints-constraints imposed by federal laws, state regulations, local ordinances, university rules. Such *L. B. Mayhew. 1967. The Collegiate Curriculum-An Approach to Analysis, Research Monograph No. 11, Southern Regional Educational Board, Atlanta, Ga.
8 L. C. Peirce is the daily confrontation with these constraints that we tend to for get that we still have the freedom to think and to act. This freedom is not unlike that expressed in historian Bruce Catton's analysis of the pioneer spirit in a vibrant U.S. republic of the early 19th century.* The people could go anywhere they chose, quite literally anywhere; all the way to the undiscovered mountains and the deserts, beyond these to the ex treme limit of the imagination. Men could very likely do anything on earth they had the courage to dream of doing. I quote this passage as a good philosophy for any dealing with education and curricula. Credits, quarters, textbooks, labs, the cur riculum itself and the prerequisites entrenched therein often repre sent a straightjacket constraining the development of the new and the bold. Established educational patterns must not encumber delib erations about agricultural curricula and the needs of tomorrow. But to confront the needs of tomorrow, we must plant our feet survey where we started, where we are, and, most important, why. T R E N D S I N A G R I C U L T U R E I have chosen two graphs that together reflect conglomerate progress in agriculture. Figure 1 records the number of horses and mules on Number 24 18 12 6 OL-----,r-----,,...------,-----,----, 1866 1886 1906 1926 1946 1966 YEAR FIGURE 1 Number of horses and mules on United States Farms for the years 1866-1966. ⢠Agriculture/2000. 1967. (A collection of essays by Orville Freeman, Secretary of Agriculture.) USDA.
TR ENDS IN AGR I CULTURAL CUR R I CULA 9 Production 4000 Production 3000 2000 Acreage 200 1000 100 Harvested Acreage QL-----..,.-------.-----,.----..--�0 1866 1886 1906 1926 1946 1966 YEAR FIGURE 2 Total production and harvested acreage of corn in the United States for the years 1866-1966. (From USDA Statistical Reporting Service Agr. Handbook 318.) farms over a period of 1 00 years. Figure 2 presents yield and har vested acreage for com over a similar period of time. These graphs reflect the single outstanding trend in American Agriculture-effi ciency: efficiency of motion, of time, of land and of the inherent adaptation of the plant or animal to its environment. Increasing efficiency in agriculture has, since World War II, pro vided a challenging paradox. The fli'St disturbing question was not "how to produce more," but "how to produce less." Overabundance brought overconfidence, a take-it-for-granted attitude that current warning signals have not yet tempered. It is hard to worry-to be really concerned-about food supplies when one is full of prepeeled, precooked victuals bathed in seasoned butter sauce, served with a freeze-dried salad in a preformed aluminum tray that, when washed, can serve as a convenient depository for pins, buttons, nuts, and bolts. This just has to be utopia. But the agricultural specialist can read the signals. The elevators are empty of grain; land is disappearing under concrete, asphalt, and two-car garages. The problem is that the after-effects of the abundant era policies still exist. We are now told that before the century is over, the world food problem will demand the best minds, that agriculture will become theN AS A of tomorrow. In short, money and men, the strengths of colleges of agriculture in postwar years, will return. But even if this does come to pass, it is no license for inaction now. And whether we enter a new golden age or not, it will not be the same.
10 L. C. Peirce T R E N D S IN C U R RI C U L A The major changes in agricultural curricula have been from hands to mind, from vocational to professional, from facts to concepts. The end product of our curriculum is not expected to be conversant in the classics, but is now visualized as a humanized computer-able to di gest various inputs and to spew out a rational, well-based output. If we ask the graduate to be a computer, then teachers must assume re sponsibility for programming him. And just as with the System 360, the programming must be done completely and carefully-as the computer jargon cautions us "Garbage in-Garbage out." Efforts to improve the quality of programming have involved changes in administrative organization, grading systems, course con tent, core requirements, general education requirements and teaching systems. Some of these changes have snowballed to the point they can be called trends. Some have helped, some have not. While the focus of this change must be directed toward (a) the student's need and (b) the most effective system for the faculty to meet this need, neither of these foci stresses efficiency. Let us examine some of the major trends in terms of student response and faculty effectiveness, keeping these prime objectives distinct from those of lesser value number of student majors, course appeal or popularity. The agricultural student of today is seldom a farmer, is no longer provincial in attitude and interests. He comes from a varied back ground and with varied preparation for college work. He must, in 4 years, become a good biologist, integrating physics, mathematics, chemistry and biology toward a comprehension of specific organisms and their interaction with natural and artificial environments. He may emphasize one of a number of career objectives-but in no sense is he less a student than his counterpart in other colleges or majors. Structure There is a restlessness among faculty and administrators that for some universities has resulted in major reorganization with a view to assem bling in one unit the so-called pure sciences or pure biological sciences. In general, agriculturists are not behind this move for so much of their success has been achieved through coordinated basic-applied approach to problems. While the scientist's primary interest in this move is probably to promote research-improved grantsmanship-the liberal arts faculty and others teaching what they regard as untainted
TREN DS I N AG R I C U LTU RAL CU R R I C U LA 1 1 subject matter favor this type of organization from a purist's stand point. In short, most agriculture colleges have found it difficult to muster enough votes to defeat such reorganizations. Our concern may be how to prevent such changes from occurring or, perhaps more commonly, how to modify and redirect our teaching program after a change is made. It is just possible that we can take advantage of such situations. Reorganization raises issues that must be dealt with. One that im mediately comes to mind is relevancy. We have faced the "relevancy gap" before with regard to physics and other basic courses, a dilemma that seemed to dissipate with development of "Ag. Physics" course, for example. But this course and others like it quickly proved medi ocre and conveyed a poor impression of our college and our student majors to the whole academic community. We may face similar prob lems in dealing with a college of biological sciences. Courses in bio chemistry, for example, may relate less and less to the higher plants and animals so important in agriculture. And no matter what our peculiar needs may be, I doubt that the college of agriculture will ever be generally successful in coaxing science departments in other colleges to prepare and present courses especially for agriculture. They are not enthusiastic about such courses and neither am I. New approaches are needed. We must educate the student in the basic sciences, but his strength and the strength of agriculture itself still require that both student and teacher have their respective feet firmly on the ground. What's in a Name? For several years, there was a bandwagon move toward the tri-option system, consisting of business, technology, science. I suspect that it was designed primarily for efficiency and appeal, but some ascribed to it considerable academic value as well. Measured in terms of num ber of students, I doubt that it had any long-term effect; more impor tant, one might question if it really enhanced the education of the student or improved effectiveness of the faculty. The courses were the same-the old prerequisites were still there. The same argument might apply to renaming colleges of agricul ture. Names may have some effect in advertising the product; but, after the product is sampled ... ? New names should not merely glamorize, they must reflect a fundamental change in personnel, courses, and direction.
12 L . C. Peirce General Education vs. Professional Courses Our agriculture major is now faced with more exposure to sociology, philosophy, history, arts, language, government, mathematics, and economics than in earlier times. Few agriculture faculty dispute their value in helping a person adjust in this complex society, but increas ing general requirements has reduced the number of professional courses that a student may take. In retrospect, this has been a blessing in convincing many departments that fewer courses can still ade quately develop a student to the desired level of learning, that the self-centered curriculum is not the only way to assure a well-trained individual. The net result has been a trend toward streamlining the curriculum, separating the chaff from the grain. Currently, too, there is more willingness on the part of faculty to team up, to cross depart mental lines, to present a good, solid multi-lateral course. This makes sense. General Studies There has been a tendency to include a general studies program in agriculture, usually directly administered by the dean of resident in struction. It was developed as a home for the undeclared major-the searching student-but has, I am sure, become a sort of sanctuary for avoiding tough courses or departmental requirements. Measures to assure quality and direction are just as important for general studies as for a departmentally oriented program. New Programs New areas of concentration are being created in colleges of agricul ture, but in no uniform way. These, in particular, include honors programs and foreign study. The honors program is designed to spur on the superior mind and is a good idea, but as long as great emphasis is placed upon grades earned, students may be reluctant to enroll in an honors section. Perhaps the pass-fail system being adopted in some other course areas would be more appropriate here, if combined with an entrance requirement that would assure honor students in honors classes. International programs raise some questions. Is the program de signed to train foreign students to return to their homeland? Is it to train Americans for foreign service? These are two very different ob-
TREN DS I N AG R I C U LTU RAL CU R R I C U LA 1 3 jectives, requiring different programs. It is obvious, too, that a student cannot specialize in more than one continental area: There simply is not enough time to study the language, politics, social systems, his tory, and agriculture of more than one. Curricula involving direct foreign experience for U.S. students, once the logistics problems are solved, would seem to be of special value. Teaching Systems Teaching machines are becoming sophisticated. First adopted in lan guage labs, modifications are showing up in a few agricultural courses. The recent business mergers of such electronics firms as C.B.S. with publjshing companies suggest that we can expect much more in the way of both equipment and technique. I suspect that there are many courses in our colleges that would be enhanced tremendously through use of such equipment. Financing the required equipment in the face of small class enrollments is difficult to justify on efficiency alone, but there is no problem justifying it on the basis of teacher effective ness. Agriculture could lead in developing unique approaches to teach ing because we have such a diverse array of subject matter and bio logical organisms from which to choose. Science Core It is generally recognized that certain courses are in the "must" category for most students in agriculture, but there is quite a gap between the recognition and action. Personnel problems, tradition, lack of facilities seem to oppose needed change, and these forces cannot be dismissed lightly. The action is painfully slow. C O NC L U S I O N S There are many changes that will grow out of efforts to solve the problems of the day. Textbooks, or the paucity of them, teaching machines, teacher evaluation all affect course quality; and the cur riculum is no better than the quality of its courses. Such things as pass-fail options, general education requirements, biology cores, accreditation standards, entrance requirements, advis ing systems, administrative structures all concern-occasionally plague-those involved in planning curricula. The levels of student
1 4 D uane Acker attainment in math, chemistry, and physics, before and during col lege, must be taken into account. Experts predict serious food problems by the turn of the century no country excepted. The changes effected in our teaching between now and the end of the 1970's will have prime impact on those in dividuals who reach the peak of professional competence in the years 1990-2000. Is not this a critical time? It would be unusual, indeed, if changes imposed on colleges of agriculture offered no opportunity for gain. Even seemingly dele terious change can be exploited by the imaginative. Those content merely to react to change will be viewed as chronic complainers. Those eager to seize upon change as an opportunity for improvement will be the architect's of agriculture's new era. D UAN E ACK E R In 1969 there were approximately 1 00,000 students studying agricul ture and related sciences in the nation's colleges and universities. Though precise figures are not available, probably 60,000 of these are in what could be termed hard core agriculture. These students represent a significant responsibility. We recognize a division of re sponsibility in this task of educating students in the agricultural sciences. The first is among the various institutions-junior colleges vs. state colleges or private colleges vs. the land-grant universities. The second is between the agriculture faculty of the institution and the faculties in mathematics, English, physical sciences, biological sciences, and other disciplines. R E C ENT C U R R IC U LU M C HANG E S The years 1946 to 1952 saw a big infusion o f new, recently trained PhD's into agricultural faculty. Their orientation for the most part was biological. The importance of the basic sciences in helping to understand biological phenomena was paramount in their minds as they considered curricula. They were noticeably lacking business ex-
TREN DS I N AG R I C U LTU RAL CU R R I C U LA 1 5 perience or business orientation; essentially none had significant ex perience in nonfarm businesses or had been successful in food produc tion enterprises. One could say that these faculty were and are biological consultants. Their responsibilities have been to teach and do research in the biological disciplines, to cooperate with other biologists, to read the biological literature, and to study biological phenomena. Very few have served as consultants to feed mills, fertil izer plants, sales organizations, or farm production units. I believe this collective faculty characteristic had and continues to have a m�Yor influence in giving our undergraduate curricula a heavy orien tation to biology and a paucity of business and management courses; e.g., mathematics to support biological and physical sciences rather than to support management technology. From about 1956 to 1965 a high proportion of colleges of agricul ture developed, within their m�Yors or curricula in traditional agricul ture, options in science, production (or technology), and business (or industry). This action simply recognized that 25 to SO percent of the graduates in a given area-animal science, agronomy, or similar curricula-take their first employment, and many remain, in the non farm industries allied to agriculture. Faculty decided their graduates should be better equipped in such topics as business law, accounting, and personnel management. Usually, to make room for each business course, a nonm�Yor agri cultural course was omitted from the curriculum-the animal science students pursuing a business option took very little agronomy, the agronomist was able to get only the introductory course in animal science. This shift was hard for some faculty in colleges of agriculture to accept, but I believe most would agree that this movement was beneficial. We did observe real difficulty in going far enough into principles of business in the business options or in having enough enterprise management in the production options. GE N E R A L AGRI C U LTU R E C U R R I C U LA In the late 1950's and early 1960's there developed on a few cam puses broad curricula in agriculture, such as agricultural science or agricultural business. These seemed to arise as a result of curriculum committee discussions or at the suggestion of administrators. The main reasons advanced were that students often do not know what discipline within agriculture they want to m�Yor in and that the cur-
1 6 Duane Acker riculum in agricultural science should suit a young man planning on graduate work. Very few of these "broader agriculture curricula" in m�or uni versities have succeeded except as a feeder to departmental curricula. I think the reason is that they generally do not provide a departmental home. Students in our colleges of agriculture, perhaps more than other students, apparently want to identify themselves with a par ticular discipline, a particular group of faculty, and a particular oc cupation or profession. We might call them job-oriented. Studies have shown that our students come to the university to equip them selves to specialize in a particular field, not just for the sake of "getting an education." Some faculty have suggested that we may be moving toward a common undergraduate curriculum for all students in colleges of agriculture, permitting specialization only at the master's degree level. But we forget the student and what motivates him. In my opinion, this move is not likely to occur, for several significant reasons : ⢠The job-oriented motivation of our students. ⢠The major improvement that has been achieved in the level of education students have when they leave high school, permitting specialization and professionalism at the B.S. level. ⢠The unlikelihood that society will be willing to pay the cost of prolonging education; society would perfer to permit specialization early and then invest in continuing adult education. Changes in tech nology and talents required of people and rapidly developing pro grams in continuing adult education, designed to accommodate professional workers' need for new professional skills, support this premise. I N T E G R A T I O N W I T H I N T H E U N IV E R S ITY The next step, in my opinion, will be toward undergraduate "majors" and "minors," in place of traditional "curricula" in colleges of agri culture. College of agriculture faculty have repeatedly rejected cur riculum accreditation, for many reasons. Therefore, fixed curricula patterns need not be maintained for that purpose. Increased flexi-
T R E N D S I N AG R I CU LTU R A L CU R R I CU LA 17 bility in program planning is usually desired and justified by students and their advisers. The major and minor system, already in use at Iowa State, permits the student and his adviser flexibility, allows identification of a second or third area of specialization by the student, and may well encourage increased curriculum interaction between colleges of agriculture and departments in colleges of arts and sciences. I N T E R N A T IO N A L A G R IC U LT U RE It has been estimated that 50 percent of our graduates will travel or work in a foreign country during their productive lifetime and that 30 percent will have specific employment in, or business relations with persons in, foreign countries. Several colleges of agriculture have sponsored travel programs or programs of one-semester-at-a-foreign-institution for undergraduates; at the graduate level this is a bit more common. Undergraduate pr� grams in international agriculture are spelled out in many agriculture college catalogs. The common experience has been that many stu dents express interest during their freshman or sophomore year, but that not more than one or two in each class complete the full pr� gram. Oregon State and several other universities report highly successful seminars, designed to expose agricultural students to international opportunities and challenges. All this suggests that the technique for preparing American stu dents for international agriculture is unlikely to be via separate cur ricula or even separate courses, but rather through (I) the develop ment of an awareness through conferences and seminars, (2) the development of an international attitude by exposure to faculty who have served overseas, and (3) the development of international com petence-and confidence in that competence-by teaching soils, or animal nutrition, or plant ecology on a world basis rather than on a North Carolina or Mississippi or Arkansas basis. AC C O M M O D ATING T R A N S F E R S T U D E N T S During the past decade most colleges of agriculture in states with a junior college system have worked diligently with the faculty and
1 8 Duane Acker the administration of these junior colleges to mesh curricula offer ings. Many have urged that junior colleges not teach technical agri culture because of its high cost, the difficulty in obtaining qualified teachers, and shortage of laboratory equipment. Where agriculture is offered at the junior college, the state university usually reserves the right in effect to certify the teacher and the course by giving or with holding credit in the professional curriculum when the student trans fers. In some states the colleges of agriculture have offered the junior college video-taped courses, or at least conferences during the summer in which course outlines, workbooks, and methods of teaching might be discussed and shared with university faculty. Several years ago Kansas State University spelled out the courses to be taken by those intending to transfer, a single list being set up for the whole college of agriculture. This required some compromise by departments. The list was taken to each junior college and adjusted to fit its course sequence so it could be printed in the catalog as a pre-Kansas State University agriculture course. It was felt the uni versity might just as well decide what it will or will not accept before the student enters the junior college. These courses were guaranteed as acceptable for a three-year period. In states where several colleges provide four-year programs, or at least the first two years of an agricultural curriculum, there have been some attempts to achieve uniformity among courses offered. The measure of success in this worthy venture varies. C O U RS E C O N T E N T Students i n colleges and universities will increasingly demand germane and up-to-date course content. I think the present lack is one of the underlying causes of student unrest. Over the next few years I think we will see more rapid adjustments in course content initiated by the instructor, more department heads sitting in on classes taught in their departments, and more review of course outlines by department heads and departmental faculties. To insure that course content be directed toward the mission of the department and the course, I think we will see a tendency for in structors to state the goals of their course rather specifically-1 0 to 15 specific pieces of knowledge, competencies, or concepts that the students should expect to achieve and that the instructor expects
TR E N D S I N AG R I CU LTU RAL C U R R I CU LA 1 9 them to achieve. This will give the student and the instructor bench marks against which to measure progress. The instructor may also specify what he expects the student to bring into a course. In se quential courses, the concept a student is expected to bring to course 2 should mesh, of course, with the expected accomplishments of course l . This device will result in many benefits to the instructors, but most importantly to the students. I am amazed at the frequency with which agriculture faculty are not even acquainted with the person who teaches a prerequisite course in one of the basic sciences. We have a lot of work to do in this area. I believe we also lack adequate rapport with our high schools as far as curriculum is concerned. Two years ago we took our depart ment heads to visit a high school biology department-it was most enlightening. I would propose that we encourage some of our faculty to spend their sabbatical leave teaching in some of the more progres sive secondary schools in their respective states. They would probably teach biology, but experience in teaching chemistry, mathematics, physics, or vocational agriculture might also be useful. I recognize most will not meet formal state teacher certification requirements, but they could be identified as teacher's aides. TE A C H IN G E F F E C T I V E N E S S Probably 80 to 85 percent o f the pressures that exist for curriculum change are "teacher oriented"-fifteen percent or less are subject ori ented. In other words, the pressure for change results from the failure of a teacher to make his course effective and appropriate for the stu dents who take it. Consequently the advisers of these students pres sure for a "curriculum change." They will suggest, "We need a course with a little different emphasis," or "We need a course with less lab and more lecture." In most cases we try to be tactful by taking the committee route to achieve a curriculum change, when what we really need is a reassignment of teachers or reorientation of the teacher to the needs of the students he has in class. I think we will see, increas ingly, that any new teacher of a course is thoroughly briefed by the department head on the students he will have in the class, the curric ulum or curricula from which they come, the missions of those cur ricula, and the other courses in the sequence where his course fits the backgrounds and aptitudes of the students. We do a pretty poor job
20 Duane Acker on most campuses of orienting new faculty to their teaching respon sibilities. This handicaps their chance for success. Indeed, it is prob ably a matter of luck that we have as many suc.cesses as we have. We also recognize the improved teaching effectiveness that results from identifying and rewarding effective teachers. At the Gamma Sigma Delta banquet at Texas A&M last spring the agriculture and veterinary medicine students gave a certificate of award to a professor of English for his effective instruction, an event that may improve teaching effectiveness in the total English department in the years ahead. I N D E PE N D E N C E IN C U R R IC U LU M TH O U G H T I n the decade o f the SO's and for a few years beyond, faculty i n some colleges of agriculture developed considerable self-consciousness about their colleges, their curricula requirements, the quality of their students, even their own disciplines. Perhaps it was because the SO's was accepted as the decade of the physical sciences. Perhaps it was due to the enrollment decline in agriculture after 1 9SS. Perhaps it was Sputnik and the recoil away from "vocational curricula ." Some reacted by saying, "We are not concerned about numbers; we want quality," and implemented a very rigorous standard freshman year. Some said , "We are j ust as professional as the engineers," and added the engineering math sequence to all curricula. Some said, "We are not 'vocational,' " added 20 credits of social sciences and humani ties, decreasing the number of courses in the major agriculture field. In the 60's faculty attitudes changed. Effects of curriculum changes of the SO's were carefully reviewed and assessed. Society became con cerned about "feeding the hungry world" and thus about agriculture. High investments in agricultural enterprises-farm and nonfarm-de manded competent agricultural professionals. Enrollments in colleges of agriculture surged-growth has in many cases been much faster in agriculture than in other disciplines. Faculty became more secure of their position on the campus and adopted new attitudes regarding curricula. One college interrupted the collegewide requirement of engineer ing math and adopted a course in finite math for agriculture business majors and those in business options. Several colleges added under graduate statistics as a requirement. A director has proposed to his
T R E N D S I N AG R I CU LTU RAL CU R R I CU LA 21 faculty that a "level of competence" in basis communication be re quired rather than "six credits of freshman English." Several colleges of agriculture have added biochemistry to their plant and animal cur ricula; a few are pressing their chemistry departments to move bio chemistry to a position earlier in their course sequences. Agriculture faculty now are less concerned about how faculty in other colleges view them and their programs and students. They are designing curricula for their students and the sciences and professions they will enter. C L AS S I F Y I N G A N D E V A LU A T I N G P R O G R AM S There is reason to believe that colleges of agriculture will develop in the years ahead a system of classifying and evaluating academic pro grams. Traditionally, college of agriculture faculties have rejected ac creditation in any form because of its stifling effect on curriculum change, the way it prevents experimentation in teaching and in cur riculum, and because of the abuses that often result. There are two major reasons, however, why classifying and evalu ating programs will probably be seriously considered. The frrst is to insure that students and their parents know what a curriculum is and what it is supposed to do. With agriculture available in many kinds of colleges and universities, with agriculture faculty varying greatly in size and training, and with the tremendous variation in the goals at various institutions, students may be badly confused as to what they will receive. Some curricula stress liberal arts, with a touch of agriculture, taught by faculty members with the equivalent of a master's degree or less. Others are pregraduate curricula, highly specialized. Still others are professional degree programs aimed at employment within a specific agricultural profession after a B.S. degree. It is wrong to permit a young man to enter a pregraduate curricu lum when he clearly wants and expects to obtain professional train ing for employment after two or four years. It is equally wrong to permit a young man who is seeking professional-level education in soils at the B.S. or M.S. degree level to enter an institution with only three or four agricultural faculty with little or no specialization in soils. The second reason for classification and evaluation is to provide
22 D uane Acker the college of agriculture with the leverage, now enjoyed by many schools of education, pharmacy, or nursing, for obtaining faculty, buildings, and operating funds. We are all aware of instances in which accreditation reports have forced administration, regents, or legis latures to increase funds for the accredited unit, under the threat of losing accreditation. And while these increased funds may be fully justified, agriculture often suffers by comparison.
2 Trends in Renewable Natural Resources Curricula JAM E S S. B ETH E L Any meaningful discussion o f trends in renewable natural resource education must be based, it seems to me, on the history of renewable resources use and education. At the outset, this country assumed the custodianship of a vast territory richly endowed. Much of the land was productive, in most areas water was abundant, fish and game were present in large quantities, and forests or grass covered large areas. These natural resources did not arise as a result of human manipula tion but as a consequence of the development of natural ecosystems. At the outset, they were exploited without regard for a continuity of supply ; indeed, they were sometimes considered obstacles to more effective use of the land. Public sentiment for treating natural resources as renewable na tional assets did not emerge strongly until the last half of the 1 9th century , when professional forestry education also appeared on the American scene. The first two forestry schools in the United States were established in 1 898, one at Cornell University and the second, the Biltmore School in North Carolina. In 1 900 a forestry school was 23
