undergraduate enrollment trends in natural resources at ... · 4/12/2018 · proportion of...

ENROLLMENT IN NATURAL RESOURCES

DEGREE PROGRAMS IN THE U.S.: TRENDS,

DRIVERS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE

FUTURE OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES

PROFESSION

UP Chapter SAF and Central Ontario Chapter CIF Meeting

Sault Ste. Marie, MI, April 12, 2018

Terry L. Sharik Robbins Professor of Sustainable Resources and Dean

Tara L. Bal Research Assistant Professor

Key References

Sharik, T. L., R. J. Lilieholm, W. W. Richardson, and W. E. Lindquist. 2015. Undergraduate enrollment in U.S. natural resource academic programs: Trends, drivers, and implications for the future of the profession. Journal of Forestry 113 (6):538-551.

Sharik, T. L. 2015. Strategies for diversifying student demographics in natural resources. Journal of Forestry 113 (6):579-580 .

Undergraduate NR enrollment by field of

study at 31 NAUFRP institutions, 1980–2009.

Proportion of undergraduate NR enrollment in

various fields of study at 31 NAUFRP institutions for

1980, 1990, 2000, and 2009.

Undergraduate NR enrollment by academic area at

42 NAUFRP institutions, 2005–2016 (FAEIS database,

January 17, 2018).

0

5

10

15

20

25

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Academ

ic A

rea E

nro

llment

(1000’S

)

Environmental Science and Studies Fisheries & Wildlife

Forestry NR Conser. & Management

NR Recreation Range Science and Management

Watershed Science & Management Wood Science/Products

Tota

l Enro

llment (1

000’s

)

Proportion of NR undergraduates enrolled in various

academic areas at 52 NAUFRP institutions, 2012 & 2016

(FAEIS database, January 17, 2018).

2012 2016

Recreation almost halved

Wood and Range down

Water, FOR, ENV, NR up

slightly

USDA Forest Service employment in NR-related job

series, 2001–2010 (USDA Forest Service, unpubl.

data, 2010, file date Apr. 24, 2011).

Reasons for Especially Sharp Declines

in Forestry Enrollments

Diversification of degree offerings in Natural Resources Colleges (demand-driven).

Shift in hiring practices in federal agencies toward natural resource generalists.

Changing public values towards forests (shift from utilitarian/economic view, to a broader array of ecosystem values) (Xu & Bengston 1991, MEA 2005).

Public association of forestry with the utilitarian/economic perspective (Wellman 1987, Luckert 2006, Sharik & Frisk 2011).

Professional association of forestry with specialization in managing wood resources.

Inflexible curricula bound by accreditation standards compared to other natural resource fields (especially regarding transfer students).

Declining (tree) harvest levels on National Forests – a resource typically managed by foresters.

Not attractive to females and minorities.

Negative Image of Forestry--Global

USA: ―Low gender diversity in the workforce and concerns over a

negative public image of forestry were also cited as sources of

hesitancy (by forestry majors) to matriculating in a forestry program‖

(Sharik 2008).

CANADA: ―….the forestry schools will join forces with the broader

forestry community to enhance the image of the forest sector and

the forestry profession‖ (Smith 2008).

ASIA PACIFIC: ―…..there is a renewed interest from (forestry)

professionals seeking to move to a career which is more

environmentally oriented or directed to the public good…..‖ (Kennan

and Kanowski 2008).

LATIN AMERICA: ―The academic improvement of the forest

professional, and his image in the society, constitutes one of the

greatest challenges of RELAFOR.‖ (Latin American Forestry

Education Network) (Encinas 2008)

From ―Negative Image of Forestry a Global Problem‖ – Quotations from presentations

given at the First International Conference on Forestry Education, Beijing, China,

December 7-11, 2008.

Gender

Attributes of people in the work force holding

undergraduate degrees in major groups of study from U.S.

colleges based on 2009 data. Listed in order of median

wages (Carnevale et al. 2011)

Major Group

Median

Wages

% of All

Majors

%

Obtaining

Graduate

Degree

%

Earnings

Boost

from

Graduate

Degree

Full-

time

Work

Status

(%)

Employment

(%)

Female

(%)

White

(%)

Engineering $75,000 8.2 37 32 93 94 16 71

Computers and mathematics $70,000 5.1 32 31 91 94 31 67

Business $60,000 2.5 21 40 90 95 45 76

Health $60,000 6.9 31 50 77 98 85 73

Physical sciences $59,000 2.8 48 70 86 95 42 74

Social science $55,000 6.9 40 57 86 94 47 75

Agriculture and natural resources $50,000 1.6 27 35 90 96 30 90

Communications and journalism $50,000 5.9 20 25 82 94 64 81

Industrial arts and consumer services $50,000 1.6 20 35 84 95 35 83

Law and public policy $50,000 2.3 24 45 90 95 41 72

Biology and life science $50,000 3.5 54 101 81 95 55 76

Humanities and liberal arts $47,000 9.7 41 48 80 93 58 80

Arts $44,000 4.6 23 23 76 92 61 81

Education $42,000 10.6 44 33 82 96 77 82

Psychology and social work $42,000 5.4 45 43 79 94 74 76

(Carnevale et al. 2011)

Various attributes of people in the work force holding undergraduate

degrees in Forestry and Natural Resource Management compared to

other majors in Agriculture and Natural Resources from U.S. colleges,

based on 2009 data (Carnevale et al. 2011).

Percent of

Major

Group

(rank)

Median

Earnings

($, rank)

%

Obtaining

Graduate

Degree

Earnings

Boost

from

Graduate

Degree

(%, rank)

Full-time

Work

Status

(%, rank)

Employ-

ed

(%, rank)

Female

(%, rank)

Female

Median

Earnings

($, rank)

Male

Median

Earnings

($, rank)

White

(%, rank)

Agriculture and

Natural

Resources Major

Group* 100 50,000 27 35 90 96 30 40,000 55,000 90

Forestry 11 (6) 60,000 (2) 26 (6) 15 (8) 92 (2) 97 (2) 17 (10) 50,000

(2) 60,000

(2) 93 (1)

Natural

Resources

Management 14 (4) 50,000 (3) 28 (5) 45 (2) 88 (5) 95 (4) 33 (4) 43,000

(3) 53,000

(3) 92 (2)


*Includes Agricultural Economics, Agriculture Production and Management, Animal Sciences, Food

Sciences, Forestry, General Agriculture, Miscellaneous Agriculture, Natural Resources Management, Plant

Sciences and Agronomy, and Soil Science.

Workforce characteristics for employees with

undergraduate degrees in US Census fields of study

represented in NR programs at NAUFRP institutions,

2009.

Undergraduate NR enrollment by gender for 42

Institutions, (FAEIS data set, only complete data),

2005–2016, excluding unknown gender.

Gende

r 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Femal

e 5,143 5,582 5,559 5,869 6,674 7,464 8,446 8,569 8,721 8,870 9,644 10,308

% 36.4 36.5 37.3 38.6 39.9 40.3 41.8 42.1 42.6 44.5 45.0 46.1

Male 8,995 9,710 9,340 9,327 10,060 11,047 11,740 11,772 11,747 11,068 11,805 12,065

% 63.6 63.5 62.7 61.4 60.1 59.7 58.2 57.9 57.4 55.5 55.0 53.9

Total 14,138 15,292 14,899 15,196 16,734 18,511 20,186 20,341 20,468 19,938 21,449 22,373

Undergraduate enrollment in NR programs at 42 NAUFRP

institutions (with completed data) by academic area and

gender, 2012 & 2016, excluding unknown gender.

Data from FAEIS database, January 18, 2018.

2012 2016

Areas Female Male % Female %

Female Environmental Science & Studies 1,668 1,694 49.6 53.8 Fisheries & Wildlife 2,925 3,333 46.7 53.2 NR Conservation & Management 2,135 2,573 45.3 48.7 NR Recreation 595 610 49.4 45.7 Range Science & Management 175 260 40.2 43.1 Watershed Science &

Management 128 162 44.1 32.6

Wood Science/Products 55 191 22.4 30.8

Forestry 888 2949 23.1 26.2

Total 8,569 11,772 42.1 46.1

Race/Ethnicity

Attributes of people in the work force holding undergraduate

degrees in major groups of study from U.S. colleges based on

2009 data. Listed in order of median wages (Carnevale et al.

2011)

Major Group

Median

Wages

% of All

Majors

%

Obtaining

Graduate

Degree

%

Earnings

Boost

from

Graduate

Degree

Full-

time

Work

Status

(%)

Employment

(%)

Female

(%)

White

(%)

Engineering $75,000 8.2 37 32 93 94 16 71

Computers and mathematics $70,000 5.1 32 31 91 94 31 67

Business $60,000 2.5 21 40 90 95 45 76

Health $60,000 6.9 31 50 77 98 85 73

Physical sciences $59,000 2.8 48 70 86 95 42 74

Social science $55,000 6.9 40 57 86 94 47 75

Agriculture and natural resources $50,000 1.6 27 35 90 96 30 90

Communications and journalism $50,000 5.9 20 25 82 94 64 81

Industrial arts and consumer services $50,000 1.6 20 35 84 95 35 83

Law and public policy $50,000 2.3 24 45 90 95 41 72

Biology and life science $50,000 3.5 54 101 81 95 55 76

Humanities and liberal arts $47,000 9.7 41 48 80 93 58 80

Arts $44,000 4.6 23 23 76 92 61 81

Education $42,000 10.6 44 33 82 96 77 82

Psychology and social work $42,000 5.4 45 43 79 94 74 76


Various attributes of people in the work force holding undergraduate degrees in

Forestry and Natural Resource Management compared to other majors in

Agriculture and Natural Resources from U.S. colleges, based on 2009 data

(Carnevale et al. 2011).

Percent of

Major

Group

(rank)

Median

Earnings

($, rank)

%

Obtaining

Graduate

Degree

Earnings

Boost

from

Graduate

Degree

(%, rank)

Full-time

Work

Status

(%, rank)

Employ-

ed

(%, rank)

Female

(%, rank)

Female

Median

Earnings

($, rank)

Male

Median

Earnings

($, rank)

White

(%, rank)

Agriculture and

Natural

Resources Major

Group* 100 50,000 27 35 90 96 30 40,000 55,000 90

Forestry 11 (6) 60,000 (2) 26 (6) 15 (8) 92 (2) 97 (2) 17 (10) 50,000

(2) 60,000

(2) 93 (1)

Natural

Resources

Management 14 (4) 50,000 (3) 28 (5) 45 (2) 88 (5) 95 (4) 33 (4) 43,000

(3) 53,000

(3) 92 (2)


*Includes Agricultural Economics, Agriculture Production and Management, Animal Sciences, Food

Sciences, Forestry, General Agriculture, Miscellaneous Agriculture, Natural Resources Management, Plant

Sciences and Agronomy, and Soil Science.

Workforce characteristics for employees with undergraduate degrees in

US Census fields of study represented in NR programs at NAUFRP

institutions, 2009.

Total undergraduate enrollment in NR programs by

race/ethnicity from 42 NAUFRP Institutions, FAIES dataset,

2005–2016 (excluding non-US citizens, two or more races,

unknown and unspecified).

0

5

10

15

20

25

Enro

llment

(1000'S

)

White, non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaskan Native

Asian Black, non-Hispanic

Hispanic Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

Total Minority Total

Total undergraduate enrollment in NR programs by race/ethnicity from

42 NAURFP Institutions, FAIES dataset, 2005–2016 (excluding non-

Hispanic white, non-US citizens, two or more races, unknown and

unspecified).

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

En

rollm

en

t (1

00

0'S

)

American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian

Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander Total Minority

Absolute and percent undergraduate enrollment in NR programs

by race/ethnicity from FAIES dataset with complete data for all

years (n=42 institutions), 2005–2016 (excluding non-US citizens

and two or more races).

Race/Ethnicity 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Caucasian 11845

(70.3) 12793

(75.6) 12463

(72.4) 12694

(70.5) 13673

(71.0) 14830

(71.1) 15554

(72.0) 15772

(72.2) 15681

(70.8) 15165

(72.6) 16128

(75.1) 16939

(75.6)

Unknown Ethnicity 3487

(20.7) 2452

(14.5) 3046

(17.7) 3316

(18.4) 3501

(18.2) 3418

(16.4) 3079

(14.3) 3008

(13.8) 3078

(13.9) 2199

(10.5) 1302 (6.1) 1333 (6.0)

Hispanic 405 (2.4) 489 (2.9) 520 (3.0) 540 (3.0) 650 (3.4) 933 (4.5) 1153 (5.3) 1179 (5.4) 1289 (5.8) 1259 (6.0) 1560 (7.3) 1687 (7.5)

Asian 178 (1.1) 212 (1.3) 276 (1.6) 338 (1.9) 264 (1.4) 305(1.5) 268 (1.2) 338 (1.5) 364 (1.6) 395 (1.9) 415 (1.9) 418 (1.9)

Black, non-Hispanic 139 (0.8) 156 (0.9) 202 (1.2) 208 (1.2) 209 (1.1) 227 (1.1) 277 (1.3) 284 (1.3) 302 (1.4) 315 (1.5) 401 (1.9) 329 (1.5)

American Indian or

Alaskan Native 173 (1.0) 174 (1.0) 175 (1.0) 184 (1.0) 199 (1.0) 228 (1.1) 201 (0.9) 192 (0.9) 200 (0.9) 188 (0.9) 184 (0.9) 186 (0.8)

Native Hawaiian or other

Pacific Islander 21 (0.1) 9 (0.1) 12 (0.1) 7 (0.0) 15 (0.1) 20 (0.1) 19 (0.1) 16 (0.1) 23 (0.1) 18 (0.1) 18 (0.1) 22 (0.1)

Unspecified Minority 54 (0.3) 54 (0.3) 74 (0.4) 189 (1.1) 155 (0.8) 256 (1.2) 279 (1.3) 124 (0.6) 162 (0.7) 54 (0.3) 52 (0.2) 19 (0.1)

Total 16838 16924 17223 18000 19256 20860 21598 21853 22143 20875 21466 22397

Total Minority 970 (5.8) 1094 (6.5) 1259 (7.3) 1466 (8.1) 1492 (7.7) 1969 (9.4) 2197

(10.2) 2133 (9.8) 2340

(10.6) 2229

(10.7) 2630

(12.3) 2661

(11.9)

U.S. Population of 18- to 24-year olds by

race/ethnicity, 2005 to 2009.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

White, Non-Hispanic 18,057,079 (61.9%) 18,074,501 (61.7%) 18,125,260 (61.5%) 18,235,034 (61.2%) 18,335,329 (60.8%)

Hispanic 5,145,678 (17.7%) 5,196,018 (17.7%) 5,247,627 (17.8%) 5,360,039 (18.0%) 5,502,605 (18.2%)

Black 4,340,582 (14.9%) 4,393,557 (15.0%) 4,466,142 (15.2%) 4,576,954 (15.4%) 4,676,303 (15.5%)

Asian and Pacific Islander 1,241,298 (4.3%) 1,239,657 (4.2%) 1,242,635 (4.2%) 1,251,080 (4.2%) 1,261,022 (4.2%)

American Indian/Alaskan Native 366,761 (1.3%) 372,658 (1.3%) 378,035 (1.3%) 382,971 (1.3%) 387,389 (1.3%)

Undergraduate NR enrollment at 67 NAUFRP institutions by race/ethnicity

as a percentage of the 18- to 24-year-old population in each group, 2005–

2009 (US Census Bureau 2010, U.S. Department of Education 2010; FAEIS

database, Apr. 12, 2010).

http://faeis.ahnrit.vt.edu/

Undergraduate NR enrollment by academic area and

race/ethnicity at 52 NAUFRP institutions (FAEIS data,

excluding unknown ethnicity, non-US citizens, and two or

more races), 2016.

Academic Area Total

Enrollme

nt

America

n Indian

or

Alaskan

Native Asian Black Hispanic

Native

Hawaiian

or other

Pacific

Islander Unspecif.

Minority Caucasia

n Total

Minority

Total

Minority

Percentage

Environmental Science &

Studies 4599 35 (0.8) 186 (4.0) 165 (3.6) 497 (10.8) 2 (0.0) 5 (0.1) 3709

(80.6) 890 19.4%

Range Science &

Management 259 11 (4.2) 1 (0.4) 0 (0.0) 29 (11.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 218 (84.2) 41 15.8%

Fisheries & Wildlife 6683 69 (1.0) 107 (1.6) 111 (0.9) 612 (3.7) 10 (0.1) 1 (0.0) 5773

(86.4) 910 13.6%

NR Conservation &

Management 4504 45 (1.0) 111 (2.5) 91 (2.0) 355 (7.9) 7 (0.2) 4 (0.1) 3891

(86.4) 613 13.6%

NR Recreation 1276 5 (0.4) 20 (1.6) 62 (4.9) 66 (5.2) 4 (0.3) 0 (0.0) 1119

(87.7) 157 12.3%

Wood Science/Products 220 4 (1.8) 9 (4.1) 4 (1.8) 8 (3.6) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 195 (84.2) 25 11.4%

Forestry 3740 29 (0.8) 32 (0.9) 32 (0.9) 239 (6.4) 3 (0.1) 0 (0.0) 3405

(91.0) 335 9.0%

Watershed Science &

Management 436 3 (0.7) 10 (2.3) 4 (0.9) 16 (3.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 403 (92.4) 33 7.6%

Total Enrollment in 2016

(n=52) 21717 201

(0.93) 476

(2.1) 469

(2.1) 1822

(8.3) 26

(0.1) 10

(0.0) 18713

(86.1) 3004 13.8%

Undergraduate enrollment in NR programs at NAUFRP

institutions (FAIES data, n=52) by race/ethnicity and

gender, 2016 (excluding unknown gender). FAEIS, 2018.

Race/Ethnicity Female Male Grand

Total % Female

Asian 282 194 476 59.2%

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific

Islander 15 11 26 57.7%

ALL Non-US Citizens 147 122 269 54.6%

Hispanic 1013 809 1822 55.6%

Two or More Races (Multiple

Ethnicity) 401 360 765 52.4%

Unspecified Minority 5 5 10 50.0%

Black, non-Hispanic 221 248 469 47.1%

Unknown Ethnicity 533 602 1139 46.8%

White, non-Hispanic 8015 10684 18713 42.8%

American Indian or Alaskan Native 85 116 201 42.3%

Grand Total 10717 13151 23890 44.9%

Total and minority undergraduate NR enrollment at 64

NAUFRP institutions, 2012 (FAEIS database, Apr. 1, 2014).

Geographic distribution of minority undergraduate NR

enrollment at 64 NAUFRP institutions, 2012 (FAEIS database,

Apr. 1, 2014).

Graduate Enrollment

Graduate NR enrollment by academic area at 42

NAUFRP institutions, 2005–2016 (FAEIS database,

January 17, 2018).

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

To

tal G

rad

ua

te E

nro

llme

nt

Gra

duate

Enro

llment

by P

rogra

mm

atic

Are

a

Environmental Science and Studies Fisheries & WildlifeForestry NR Conser. & ManagementNR Recreation Range Science and ManagementWatershed Science & Management Wood Science/Products

Proportion of NR graduates enrolled in various academic

areas at 52 NAUFRP institutions, 2012 & 2016 (FAEIS

database, January 17, 2018).

FW 15.1%

(595)

FOR 24.4%

(958)

EV 10.4%

(407)

NR 38.8%

(1524)

Rec 2.4%

(95)

Range 3.2%

(124)

Water 4.5%

(177)

Wood 1.3%

(52)

2012 2016

FW 17.8%

(607)

FOR 20.6%

(702)

EV 7.7%

(264)

NR 40.7%

(1387)

Rec 3.1%

(107)

Range 3.4%

(116)

Water 4.3%

(148)

Wood 2.3%

(80)

Comparison of the proportion of NR undergraduates and

graduates enrolled in various academic areas at 52 NAUFRP

institutions, 2016 (FAEIS database, January 17, 2018).

Undergraduate Students Graduate Students

FW 17.8%

(607)

FOR 20.6%

(702)

EV 7.7%

(264)

NR 40.7%

(1387)

Rec 3.1%

(107)

Range 3.4%

(116)

Water 4.3%

(148)

Wood 2.3%

(80)

Gender

Graduate NR enrollment by gender for 42

Institutions, (FAEIS data set, only complete data),

2005–2016, excluding unknown gender.

Gende

r 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Femal

e 1,271 1,423 1,281 1,387 1,470 1,605 1,716 1,716 1,639 1,678 1,709 1,684

% 44% 45% 46% 46% 45% 46% 47% 47% 47% 47% 48% 49%

Male 1,633 1,705 1,527 1,645 1,827 1,885 1,921 1,935 1,813 1,905 1,850 1,725

% 56% 55% 54% 54% 55% 54% 53% 53% 53% 53% 52% 51%

Total 2,904 3,128 2,808 3,032 3,297 3,490 3,637 3,651 3,452 3,583 3,559 3,409

Graduate enrollment in NR programs at 42 NAUFRP

institutions (with completed data) by academic area and

gender, 2012 & 2016, excluding unknown gender.

2012 2016

Areas Female Male % Female % Female

Range Science & Management 58 47 55.2 51.7

Environmental Science & Studies 215 191 53.0 51.1

NR Recreation 50 45 52.6 49.5

NR Conservation & Management 677 688 49.6 52.6

Watershed Science &

Management 67 82 45.0

47.3

Forestry 361 552 39.5 40.4

Fisheries & Wildlife 270 296 47.7 52.3

Wood Science/Products 18 34 34.6 45.0

Total 1,716 1,935 47.2 48.7

Data from FAEIS database, January 18, 2018.

Th

e o

rder

is d

iffe

rent fr

om

underg

raduate

s

Race/Ethnicity

Total graduate enrollment in NR programs by race/ethnicity

from 42 NAUFRP Institutions, FAIES dataset, 2005–2016

(excluding non-US citizens, two or more races, unknown and

unspecified).

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

EN

RO

LL

ME

NT

(10

00

'S)



Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander Total

White, non-Hispanic Total Minority

Total graduate enrollment in NR programs by race/ethnicity from 42

NAURFP Institutions, FAIES dataset, 2005–2016 (excluding non-Hispanic

white, non-US citizens, two or more races, unknown and unspecified, and

overall total).

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 GR

AD

UA

TE

EN

RO

LL

ME

NT

(1

00

0'S

)



Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander Total Minority

Absolute and percent graduate enrollment in NR programs by

race/ethnicity from FAIES dataset with complete data for all years

(n=42 institutions), 2005–2016 (excluding non-US citizens and two

or more races).

Race/Ethnicity 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

White, non-Hispanic 2150

(65.7) 2304

(70.6) 2081

(65.2) 2149

(67.4) 2269

(69.2) 2476

(70.6) 2541

(74.8) 2478

(71.8) 2314

(71.6) 2409

(78.5) 2380

(79.8) 2260

(79.5)

Unknown Ethnicity 915 (28.0) 732 (22.4) 869 (27.2) 734 (23.0) 750 (22.9) 712 (20.3) 539 (15.9) 652 (18.9) 581 (18.0) 348 (11.3) 287 (9.6) 278 (9.8)

American Indian or Alaskan Native 18 (0.6) 24 (0.7) 19 (0.6) 30(0.9) 25 (0.8) 25 (0.7) 25 (0.7) 23 (0.7) 27 (0.8) 27 (0.9) 28 (0.9) 28 (1.0)

Asian 49 (1.5) 53 (1.6) 89(2.8) 111 (3.5) 51 (1.6) 86 (2.5) 52 (1.5) 64 (1.9) 80 (2.5) 81 (2.6) 72 (2.4) 79 (2.8)

Black, non-Hispanic 44 (1.3) 37 (1.1) 34 (1.1) 44 (1.4) 42 (1.3) 41 (1.2) 42 (1.2) 63 (1.8) 50 (1.5) 51 (1.7) 55 (1.8) 44 (1.5)

Hispanic 76 (2.3) 88 (2.7) 83 (2.6) 95 (3.0) 104 (3.2) 118 (3.4) 142 (4.2) 142 (4.1) 150 (4.6) 132 (4.3) 149 (5.0) 142 (5.0)

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0 (0.0) 2 (0.1) 3 (0.1) 0 (0.0) 2 (0.1) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.0) 2 (0.1) 1 (0.0) 2 (0.1)

Unspecified Minority 18 (0.6) 22 (0.7) 15 (0.5) 27 (1.8) 35 (1.1) 48 (1.4) 55 (1.6) 30 (0.9) 29 (0.9) 17 (0.6) 10 (0.3) 11 (0.4)

Total 32670 3262 3193 3190 3278 3506 3397 3452 3232 3067 2982 2844

Total Minority 205 (6.3) 226 (6.9) 243 (7.6) 307 (9.6) 259 (7.9) 318 (9.1) 317 (9.3) 322 (9.3) 337 (10.4) 310 (10.1) 315 (10.6) 306 (10.8)

Graduate NR enrollment by academic area and race/ethnicity

at 52 NAUFRP institutions (FAEIS data, excluding unknown

ethnicity, non-US citizens, and two or more races), 2016.

Academic Area

Total

Enrollment

American

Indian or

Alaskan

Native Asian Black Hispanic

Native

Hawaiian or

other

Pacific

Islander

Unspecifi

ed

Minority

Caucasia

n

Total

Minority

Total

Minority

Percentag

e

Recreation 74 0 (0.0) 4 (5.4) 10 (13.5) 9 (12.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 51 (68.9) 23 31.1%

Range Science & Management 90 2 (2.2) 3 (3.3) 0 (0.0) 15 (16.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 70 (77.8) 20 22.2%

Wood Science/Products 33 0 (0.0) 4 (12.1) 2 (6.1) 1 (3.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 26 (78.8) 7 21.2%

Environmental Science & Studies 188 2 (1.1) 10 (5.3) 7 (3.7) 10 (5.3) 1 (0.5) 5 (2.7) 153 (81.4) 35 18.6%

Forestry 518 9 (1.7) 19 (1.2) 6 (2.1) 21 (4.1) 0 (0.0) 3 (0.6) 460 (88.8) 58 11.2%

Watershed Science & Management 108 2 (1.9) 4 (3.7) 1 (0.9) 3 (2.8) 1 (0.9) 1 (0.9) 96 (88.9) 12 11.1%

NR Conservation & Management 1039 11(1.1) 27 (2.6) 12 (1.2) 58 (5.6) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.1) 930 (89.5) 109 10.5%

Fisheries & Wildlife 516 2 (0.4) 8 (1.2) 6 (1.2) 25 (4.8) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.2) 474 (91.9) 42 8.1%

Total Enrollment in 2016 (n=52) 2566 28 (1.1) 79 (3.1) 44 (1.7) 142 (5.5) 2 (0.1) 11 (0.4) 2260 (88.1) 306 11.9%

*(percentage of total enrollment in programmatic area)

Graduate enrollment in NR programs at NAUFRP

institutions (FAIES data, n=52) by race/ethnicity and

gender, 2016 (excluding unknown gender). FAEIS, 2018.

Race/Ethnicity Female Male Grand Total % Female

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 2 0 2 100%

Black, non-Hispanic 28 16 44 64%

American Indian or Alaskan Native 17 11 28 61%

Asian 46 33 79 58%

Two or More Races (Multiple Race/Ethnicity) 36 30 66 55%

Hispanic 75 67 142 53%

Unknown Ethnicity 142 135 277 51%

White, non-Hispanic 1101 1158 2259 49%

ALL Non-US Citizens 234 267 501 47%

Unspecified Minority 3 8 11 27%

Grand Total 1684 1725 3409 49%

Summary and Conclusions-I

The fastest growing undergraduate academic

areas in NR since 2005 have been Fisheries and

Wildlife, NR Conservation and Management, and

Environmental Science and Studies, which now

collectively make up nearly three-quarters of all

NR enrollment.

Percent female undergraduate enrollment has

been increasing steadily since 2005 and now

constitutes about 46% of total enrollment. Most

of this increase has occurred in the overall

fastest growing academic areas noted above,

with Forestry having the lowest percent females

among all NR disciplines at 26%.

Summary and Conclusions-II

Minority undergraduate enrollment has been

increasing more rapidly than Non-Hispanic

Caucasian enrollment since 2005, and now

constitutes about 12% of all NR enrollment.

Most minority groups have a higher percent

undergraduate female enrollment than does

non-Hispanic Caucasians.

While these gains are notable, the percent

undergraduate minority enrollment in NR

remains among the lowest of all areas of study

in higher education.

Summary and Conclusions-III

NR graduate enrollments have been

decreasing since about 2010.

NR Conservation and Management is the

largest and fastest growing NR discipline at

the graduate level.

Women now make up nearly half the graduate

enrollment in NR.

While the percent females in forestry (40%) is

lower than in all other NR disciplines, it is

significantly higher than at the undergraduate

level.

Summary and Conclusions-IV

While percent graduate minority enrollment

has nearly doubled since 2005, it remains less

than the percent undergraduate minority

enrollment.

Minority groups have a higher percent

graduate female enrollment than do non-

Hispanic Caucasians.

Key Questions Regarding Gender and Minority

Diversity Issues in Natural Resources

(1) Is there a demand for women and underrepresented

minorities in the NR professions?

(2) Why are females and minorities less attracted to NR

disciplines than to most other disciplines?

(3) Why are females especially less attracted to Forestry

than to other NR disciplines?

(4) Why are there differences among ethnic/racial

groups in their attraction to Forestry and related NR

disciplines?

(5) Why do some universities attract a higher

percentage of females and minorities to Forestry and

related areas of NR than do others?

Strategies for Increasing Minority Diversity

in Natural Resources-I

Acknowledge the historical (and in some cases,

continuing) discrimination against minorities with

respect to access to land and resources (Schelhas

2002, Finney 2014), and strategize on how to

minimize this discrimination.

Increase outreach efforts in young age groups

Convince them that NR majors are culturally

relevant to them by making the link between their

local communities and the health and well-being

of ecosystems.

Expose them to key role models in the form of

minority faculty and practicing NR professionals

(who are few).


in Natural Resources-II

Partner with two- and four-year minority-

serving institutions to deal with the hesitancy

of minority students to matriculate at larger

and more distant academic institutions.

Use distance and hybrid education models to

deliver curricula to minorities in their local

communities.

Use different strategies for recruiting various

minority groups given their differential

preferences for NR majors.


in Natural Resources-III

Focus on minority groups that are well represented in

the local and regional population.

Develop pilot programs to target minorities from which

the wider NR university community can learn.

Create a better support system for minorities and their

families.

Hire faculty, staff, and students dedicated to working

on diversity, and rewarding them for having been

successful in doing so.

Have minorities serve as role models and mentor

other minorities.

Provide for social networks for minorities.


in Natural Resources-IV

Revise curricula to

incorporate different ways of knowing, doing, and

being

incorporate different cultural values

Increase flexibility in environments for learning (e.g.,

urban areas)

Be sensitive to workplace discrimination.

Conduct basic research to increase knowledge and

understanding of minorities in relation to natural

resources and the environment.

Implement existing strategies that reside in the literature

for attracting minorities into NR fields and measure their

success.

Challenges: Land Access Summary (Burmann

2017, Schelhas 2002)--I

Hispanics

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848)

U.S. purchase of most of southwestern U.S. from

Mexico

Honored the property rights of former Mexican citizens

Only 24% actually claimed—strict and complicated legalities

Asian Americans

Alien Land Laws (1913-1920)

11 states prohibited non-citizens from owning land

Direct response to Japanese immigrants pooling their

money to purchase land

Japanese internment camps following WWII

Chinese—transcontinental railroads


2017, Schelhas 2002)--II

African Americans

Slavery

Emancipation Proclamation and Freemen’s Bureau

(1865)

Congress assigns confiscated land in south to former

slaves

Andrew Johnson pressured to rescind all land titles

Proposal to allow same rights under Homestead Act

vetoed

Native Americans

Movement to reservations (poor quality land) and

later to urban areas (assimilation)

Treaty rights and ceded lands--hunt, fish, and

gather


2017, Schelhas 2002)--III

Has created a mistrust of land management

agencies

Much of the land appropriation was happening

at a the same time as the conservation

movement.

Images of a pristine wilderness landscape as

shaped by preservationists like John Muir,

attracted the privileged as an opportunity to

escape from the city pollution.


2017, Schelhas 2002)--IV

An overwhelming majority of people in the field

say that their reason for pursing a path in NR is

because of a love for nature.

This creates a challenge to attracting minority

groups that have lost their connectedness to the

land (Schelhas 2002, Sharik and Frisk 2011,

Finney 2014, Taylor 2016)

Overall Conclusions

Under-representation of minorities in natural

resources (NR) is a critical issue in the U.S., and

may be the leading cause of slow growth in this

field.

The issue is especially critical in the more

traditional fields of NR.

Strategies need to be developed for increasing

the numbers of minorities in the NR student

population and, in turn, in the workforce.

This requires a better understanding of various

minority groups in relation to natural resources

and the environment.

Other Key References-I

Dunbar-Ortiz, R. 2015. An indigenous people’s

history of the United States. Beacon Press:

Boston.

Finney, C. 2014. Black faces, white spaces:

Reimagining the relationship of African

Americans to the Great Outdoors. University of

North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill.

Marchand, M.E. et al. 2014. The river of life:

Sustainability practices of Native Americans and

indigenous peoples (ecosystem science and

applications). Michigan State University Press:

East Lansing.

Other Key References--II

Rouleau, M., T.L. Sharik, S. Whitens, and A.

Wellstead. 2017. Enrollment decision-making in

U.S. forestry and related natural resource

degree programs. Natural Sciences Education

46:170007. Doi:10.419S/nse2017.05.0007

Schelhas, J. 2002. Race, ethnicity, and natural

resources in the United States: A review. Natural

Resources Journal 42:723-763.

Contact Information

Terry L. Sharik

Robbins Professor of Sustainable Resources and Dean

School of Forest Resources and Environmental

Science

Michigan Technological University

Email: [email protected]

http://www.mtu.edu/forest/about/faculty-staff/

Contact Information

Tara L. Bal

Research Assistant Professor and Director, Master of

Forestry Program

School of Forest Resources and Environmental

Science

Michigan Technological University

Email: [email protected]

http://www.mtu.edu/forest/about/faculty-staff/

undergraduate enrollment trends in natural resources at ... · 4/12/2018 · proportion of...

Documents