GRADUATE COUNCIL MEETING
May 3, 2007
3:00pm, Gilkey 109
Present: Blythe, Dreher, Francis, Harter, Koenig, Rettig, Russ-Eft, Tadepalli, and Unsworth
Absent: Filtz, Grosskopf, McLain, Strickroth, and Wolpert
Guests: Dan Edge, Stella Coakley, Ken Williamson, and Belinda Batten
1. Review of Graduate Programs in Fisheries and Wildlife
Darlene Russ-Eft (School of Education) explained that she would be presenting the report on
behalf of Alix Gitelman who led the Graduate Council Review Team but is currently away on
sabbatical. Russ-Eft then thanked Dan Edge for his leadership of the Fisheries and Wildlife selfstudy and for successfully pulling together a complex review (complete with trips, video
conferencing, and the involvement of three review teams: CSREES, Curriculum Council, and
Graduate Council). Russ-Eft said that it was a pleasure to be involved and that she was sure the
entire review panel felt the same. To keep her presentation short, Russ-Eft referred the Council
to the report, which is appended to this document.
Hal Koenig (College of Business) then asked Dr. Edge and Associate Dean Coakley for any
comments.
Dan Edge (Fisheries and Wildlife) extended his thanks to the review team and thanked Russ-Eft
for complimenting his leadership. He appreciated the effort the review panel members took in
evaluating all the materials that were presented to them. He was glad to see that the review report
contained good recommendations on how to improve what the department is doing and a
sufficient amount of kudos for what the department is already doing very well. He added that he
was thankful that many of the recommendations were in the vein of “continue doing what you
are doing.” He assured the Council that the department is not planning on discontinuing any of
those things.
Edge then addressed the panel’s recommendation to unite the department in a single modern
facility. He said that this recommendation was also made after the last review in 1996, but he
said that a new facility is not likely to appear any time soon. He did say that he has a committee
looking at ways to combine lab services in the hope of freeing up some sorely needed lab space,
but otherwise he is fresh out of ideas for improving the situation. He assured the Council that the
department always attempts to assign new students office space in close proximity to their
faculty advisors and it also tries to keep student office space in the same building as the
laboratories in which students are working.
Edge told the Council that the final reports from the Curriculum Council and the CSREES team
are expected very soon. Although the recommendations from those reports are likely be similar
to those in the Graduate Council team’s report, he is waiting to judge them all together. The
1
department is currently undergoing a substantial undergraduate curriculum revision, which will
feed into a parallel discussion at the graduate level.
Linda Blythe (Veterinary Medicine) asked Edge if this discussion involved the evaluation of the
department’s 400/500 “slash” course offerings. Edge answered that it did.
Stella Coakley (College of Agricultural Sciences) echoed Edge’s thanks to the Graduate Council
for its thorough review. She added that the department of Fisheries and Wildlife is important to
the College but there is no pot of money available to fix the problems requiring funding. She said
that although a new building in not on the OSU/OUS radar screen, making the current facility
earthquake proof is. This observation was followed by discussion of the building’s condition and
the heavy cost of the retrofit. Coakley said that the retrofit would cost a lot, but less than half the
cost of a new building.
There was additional discussion on the status of the CSREES and Curriculum Council review
reports. Coakley said that the meeting with the Provost is already scheduled and she hopes that
the other reports are available by then. She also said that she is surprised at the timeliness of
these review follow-up meetings. Normally it takes much longer for the reports to be completed
and the follow-up meetings scheduled.
When there were no further questions, Koenig thanked the guests as they departed.
The Council then had additional discussion over the department’s “slash” and 50% rule issues,
the challenges of recruiting minority/economically disadvantaged students, the consequences of
research requirements for multiple field seasons on the time to degree for the MS, and the
condition of Nash Hall and the future repairs that have been budgeted.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the Fisheries and Wildlife graduate review report.
All voted in favor. Motion passed.
2. Category I proposal to create a school of Chemical, Biological, and Environmental
Engineering
Category I proposal to create a School of Civil Construction Engineering
Ken Williamson (College of Engineering) gave the Council a brief overview of the CAT I
proposals. He explained that the College of Engineering is moving to a different administrative
structure involving the creation of schools. The first school was created two years ago – the
School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. Williamson then talked about the
reasons why the environmental engineering program should move from its old home in the
Department of Civil Engineering to the new School of Chemical, Biological, and Environmental
Engineering (a better “fit,” better for the students and faculty, better collaborative research
opportunities, etc.).
Theo Dreher (College of Science) told Williamson that he was under the impression that water
research was still an important part of Civil Engineering. Williamson answered that a large part
of the faculty in civil engineering are involved in ocean engineering and related structural
2
engineering issues. In fact there are only two faculty working in traditional water resources in the
department. Williamson said that water resources engineering is not a growing area of civil
engineering.
Dreher asked for more explanation in regard to the program in Biological and Ecological
Engineering being replaced by a new program. Williamson answered that the College of
Engineering is developing a new “biological” engineering program (the name of this program is
currently being negotiated). It will be a multi-disciplinary graduate degree program (with many
tracks) administered by the College of Engineering, similar to the current ocean engineering
degree. Williamson said that he is currently redrafting the statement regarding that proposal
before it goes before the Faculty Senate. Dreher asked if there was a response from John Bolte
supporting this plan in the proposal. Williamson said there is no conflict with Dr. Bolte or with
the Department of Chemical Engineering about this plan. There is a lot of discussion and
negotiation. When the CAT I to create the school is approved, the next steps will be to develop
Category I proposals for graduate degrees in environmental engineering, which is currently a
specialization within civil engineering, and the new college wide biological engineering graduate
degrees.
Sally Francis (Graduate School) spoke of the past Graduate Council graduate program review of
the programs in the Department of Civil Engineering in which an external reviewer was opposed
to moving environmental engineering out of the department. Williamson responded that that
external reviewer is the chair of a civil engineering department (having a huge water research
component) in a water-stressed state. OSU’s faculty are interested in biological remediation of
exotic compounds which has little connection to civil engineering but close ties to work in
chemical engineering. It makes sense to move these people to the new school. Williamson added
that the National Science Foundation has a division in “Chemical, Biological, and Environmental
Engineering,” which is another good reason to justify this organization.
Prasad Tadepalli (College of Engineering) asked Williamson if there is any collaboration
between the environmental, biological and chemical engineers. Williamson answered that there
is (nanotechnology applications and membrane work in kidney dialysis development).
Williamson added that there is more collaboration between environmental and chemical
engineers than there is between environmental and civil engineers.
Blythe noted that the proposed school has new administrative positions but no extra budget to
support them. Williamson answered that the school head will be supported half time from state
funds; the other half time will be supported through research funding. The head will also get a
reduced teaching load and be expected to maintain their highly active research programs. The
long-term goal would be for the school heads to hold an endowed chair.
Williamson then spoke about the Civil and Construction Engineering proposal, which is similar
to the other CAT I proposal but has a slightly different flavor because the new school will be
organized and administered through the endowed Kiewit Center for Infrastructure and
Transportation. The head of the proposed new school would also be in charge of this center and
would receive half of his/her salary from this endowment.
3
Belinda Batten was introduced as the Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering (ME)
and the interim Head of the Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering (IME).
Michael Unsworth (Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences) asked Batten to comment on IME’s fear
of losing departmental identity and their ability to attract high quality students to their programs.
Batten answered that she was aware of this concern (of IME departments going away once
they’ve been merged with another department). She has communicated to the faculty that if they
want to preserve their identity they need to define what that identity is and then work on building
up those strengths. Batten said that it seems that the faculty are learning that their fears were
unfounded; many are beginning to see some benefits to the merger.
Dreher asked Batten how she will deal with strategic decisions, especially those involved in the
hiring of faculty. Batten understands that this is a sensitive issue because IME is half the size of
ME. When hiring faculty one should consider curricular needs, faculty and student ratios, and
research areas contributing to the unit. It would be best to hire faculty who could bridge both
programs and foster collaborations between them.
When Dreher expressed concern about the need to maintain balance between ME and IME,
Batten informed the Council that the head of the school would appoint the two associate heads.
One would come from each program although their duties would be functional:
graduate/undergraduate. If further developments led to having one associate head instead of two,
it would be very important to have the associate head from a different program than the head.
But Batten added, that is not the way the departments are operating right now.
Before leaving the room, Williamson and Batten thanked the Council for its willingness to revise
its agenda and listen to the CAT I proposals today.
In discussion, Council members felt that the CAT I proposals seemed to be a done deal and felt
that the Council could make little impact at this point. It was also felt that the graduate students
and the graduate programs involved would not be impacted by the creation of the schools as no
concerns have yet arisen.
Bruce Rettig (Graduate School) informed the Council that the Curriculum Council approved
these CAT I proposals contingent upon the Graduate Council approving them. Votes by the
Council would determine whether these proposals would be on the May 10 Senate agenda.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the Category I proposal to create a School of Civil
and Construction Engineering and the Category I proposal to create a School of Mechanical,
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering. All voted in favor. Motion passed.
Another motion was made and seconded to approve the Category I proposal to create a School of
Chemical, Biological, and Environmental Engineering on the condition that a supportive
liaison letter is submitted from John Bolte of the Biological and Ecological Engineering
Program.
Meeting adjourned.
4
GRADUATE COUNCIL PROGRAM REVIEW OF
GRADUATE PROGRAMS IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
January, 2007
OVERALL CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
The review teams (Graduate Council team, and Cooperative State Research, Extension
and Education Service—CSREES—of the U.S. Department of Agriculture team) found
the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife (hereafter, the Department) to be well
functioning and very well respected within the University as well as regionally,
nationally and internationally. The external reviewers concluded that the Department was
among the top such Departments nationally in terms of quality, breadth and depth of
research and faculty expertise. The diversity of expertise among the faculty enables them,
and their graduate students, to address virtually any major issue pertaining to natural
resources. Furthermore, the close links between the Department and many state and
federal agencies afford graduate students access to both relevant problems and potential
employers. The Department benefits from the strong leadership of the Department Head,
which is acknowledged by faculty, staff and graduate students. Graduate students are
well-qualified, extremely dedicated to their research programs and also very loyal to the
Department.
The Department relies heavily on courtesy faculty (appointed from various state and
federal agencies) for teaching and mentoring graduate students. There is some concern
that retirements from these agencies, many of which may be left unfilled, will
detrimentally impact the Department’s teaching and mentoring, and put additional
pressure on the tenure track faculty. We recommend that the program be continued with
additional support for new faculty hires, unified, updated, and safe on-campus facilities
and additional GTA positions.
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS.
These fall broadly into three categories: A. Research capabilities and faculty resources;
B. Graduate education and issues for graduate students; C. Facilities and administration.
These recommendations overlap heavily with those of the CSREES team that are
pertinent to the Department’s graduate programs. Each recommendation is referenced
later in the document in an appropriate context.
A. Research Capabilities and Faculty Resources
1. With strong linkages to federal and state agency partners, and their importance in the
graduate and research programs, the department should continue to foster multi-way
communication, particularly concerning hiring of professional staff within federal and
state agencies, who may eventually serve as courtesy faculty. The Department should
1
foster these relationships to improve the Department’s standing in integrated research
and outreach.
2. Faculty should have a long-term plan of action for dealing with the potential loss of
expertise within the Department provided by courtesy faculty, both in terms of
research potential as well as graduate course availability.
3. The faculty are encouraged to continue to build linkages with other departments
within the College of Agricultural Sciences (CAS) outside of CAS, including
Veterinary Medicine, Forestry, Business, and Science.
4. The Department should continue to seek positions to fill gaps in terrestrial wildlife
and marine/freshwater invasive species extension. The Department might cooperate
with other departments to fill the need for terrestrial invasive species extension.
5. The faculty should continue to aggressively recruit minority faculty to increase
diversity.
6. The Department should continue its strong mentoring program for junior faculty.
7. The Department should develop a departmental governance document, or a
procedural manual, including policies and procedures related to personnel matters and
the policies governing courtesy and affiliated faculty.
8. The Department should consider establishment of a more organized mechanism for
gaining stakeholder inputs to planning, and it should continue to foster direct
interactions between stakeholders and students.
B. Graduate Education and Issues for Graduate Students
9. The Department should consider developing a comprehensive plan for recruitment of
minority students. In particular, the current ad hoc admission screening has the
potential to let qualified minority candidates slip through the cracks.
10. Efforts should be made to continue to develop processes to ensure communication
and linkages among on-campus and off-campus graduate students and faculty.
Significant progress has been made with actions including the formation of a
Graduate Student Association. Some other possibilities include but are not limited to:
(a) scheduling on-campus seminars and other similar activities such that they do not
conflict with off-campus courses, and (b) providing a van for off-campus students
(e.g., those at Hatfield) to travel to campus as a group
11. The Department must further evaluate 400/500 “slash” courses, and especially
examine the consistency with which such courses are taught across the curriculum. It
may be desirable to make some courses solely 400- or 500-level based on past
2
enrollment patterns, course material, and faculty desire to accommodate
undergraduates and graduates.
12. Efforts should be made to increase teaching opportunities to graduate students,
particularly through increasing the number of Teaching Assistantships. The
department should continue to develop graduate teaching assistants for courses with
large enrollments. For Ph.D. students who want teaching experience, the Department
could consider offering course credit in return for teaching.
13. GTA’s assigned to “slash” courses should not be responsible for grading the papers of
their graduate student peers.
14. Faculty should continue to be forthright in representing the amount of time needed for
students to complete their degree and the availability of support throughout that
period. Faculty should be sensitive to and responsive to the perception that the time to
complete a MS degree can be excessive.
15. Faculty should continue annual performance reviews of graduate students.
16. The Department should continue to ensure that graduate students are represented in
departmental governance and operations.
17. The Department should continue to conduct surveys of recent graduates, as this
provides valuable feedback.
C. Facilities and Administration
18. The Department is encouraged to develop a space utilization plan to unite the
department in a single modern facility. The teams note that this recommendation was
made during the prior review, which indicates some urgency in addressing this
situation.
19. Given the importance of distance learning for the Hatfield Marine Science Center, it
is critical that full technical support is provided.
20. The Department should evaluate staff needs as new funds are secured. IT support
should be continued with the same level of responsiveness and quality
1.
INTRODUCTION
The Graduate Council conducted a site review of graduate programs in the Department of
Fisheries and Wildlife during the week of January 22, 2007. The review was concurrent
with an outside review by the Cooperative State Research, Extension and Education
Service (CSREES) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and an internal review of the
Department’s undergraduate programs by the Curriculum Council. Most of the Graduate
Program review activities occurred on Monday, January 22. One member of the external
3
CSREES review team, Donna Parrish, was designated to assist in the graduate program
review, although in the end all members of the CSREES team contributed to this report,
and they are all therefore listed and acknowledged below. The teams also benefited from
the participation of Sally Francis, Dean of the Graduate School, Bruce Rettig, Associate
Dean of the Graduate School, and the Curriculum Council review team, consisting of
Carol Brown, Accounting; Susie Leslie, Acting Director of Academic Programs and
Academic Assessment; and Rich Shintaku, Adult Education and Higher Education
Leadership.
Internal Graduate Program Review Team:
• Alix Gitelman, Department of Statistics, chair of internal team
• David Bernell, Department of Political Science and Director of the Master of Arts
in Interdisciplinary Studies Program
• Darlene Russ-Eft, Department of Adult Education & Higher Education
Leadership
CSREES Team:
• Bruce Menzel, CSREES, chair of external team
• Jim Dobrowolski, CSREES
• Bruce Leopold, Mississippi State University
• Donna Parrish, U.S. Geological Survey, Vermont Cooperative Fish and Wildlife
Research Unit, University of Vermont
• Ken Wilson, Colorado State University
The self-study report of the program, which was provided in advance, gave a detailed
description of the department and its history, strengths of the faculty, research facilities,
graduate program components, financial issues, assessment procedures, and proposals for
future developments. The review teams appreciate the hard work that went into the
preparation of the self-study, which greatly helped in informing the teams during the
review process. Indeed, many of the recommendations herein overlap substantially with
those provided by the CSREES team.
On January 22, the teams began by meeting with the Department Head (D. Edge) and
College-level administrators. Following that, the teams heard a series of presentations
from the Department Head, the Graduate Program Director (S.A. Heppell), and a
representative from the Fisheries and Wildlife Graduate Student Association (B. Glenn).
The next series of engagements were open-ended conversations with Graduate Faculty,
the Graduate Committee, a group of graduate students, and the Oregon Cooperative Fish
and Wildlife Research Unit faculty (B. Anthony, H. Li, D. Roby, and C. Schreck). The
teams broke into three groups for late-afternoon tours of Nash Hall facilities, Weniger
Hall facilities and the off-campus Fish Performance and Genetics Laboratory just east of
Corvallis. The final formal meeting of the afternoon was a brief meeting with Department
administrative staff. The review teams shared dinner with “clientele representatives” and
courtesy/affiliate faculty. On Tuesday, January 23, the external review team toured
Hatfield Marine Science Center (HMSC) and the Oregon Hatchery Research Center. A
teleconferenced meeting brought the teams together Tuesday afternoon to learn about
4
educational components of HMSC. On Thursday, January 25, the external review team
presented a draft of their report.
This review includes an analysis of the Graduate Programs in the Department, including
evaluations of its mission, students, curriculum and organization. In addition, the review
examines the level of productivity and quality of the students and faculty. A discussion of
outcomes of the program, including the professional viability of the graduates, their
satisfaction with their training, and the ranking of the program on a national scale is also
included.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Department history
Much of the material for this section is taken from the Department’s self-study document.
The Department of Fish, Game and Fur Animal Management was established in 1935 at
the same time as the Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit (hereafter, the Coop
Unit). The name of the Department was changed to Fish and Game Management in 1936
and to its current name, Fisheries and Wildlife in 1964. Since its establishment, the
Department has the largest or second-largest undergraduate program in the College of
Agricultural Sciences, and one of the largest graduate programs in the University.
Federal cooperators are an integral part of the Department. The Coop Unit, which became
a combined Fish and Wildlife Research Unit in 1971, has been a major component of the
Department’s research and graduate training for much of their mutual history. Since
1971, there have been four scientist positions in the Coop Unit almost continuously, and
currently these four are responsible for supervising almost 25% of the Department’s
graduate students. A fisheries biologist from the Natural Resources Conservation Service
and a fisheries scientist from NOAA Fisheries, Alaska Science Center are also housed in
the Department. Courtesy faculty from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW); U.S. Forest Service, Forest Research Laboratory; U.S. EPA; and USGS, Forest
and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center collaborate in Department research and
teaching programs. In addition, the Department participates in several major
collaborative research programs including the Hatfield Marine Science Center, the LongTerm Ecological Research Program, and the Fish Performance and Genetics Laboratory.
In all, the Department has 27 tenured or tenure-track faculty, with 17 housed in other
administrative units (9 at HMSC, 3 at two other experiment stations, 5 at county
extension offices). In addition, there are 43 faculty on non-recurring funds (these include
11 Senior Research appointments and 32 Post-doc, Research Associate and Research
Assistant positions). Finally, the Department has 39 courtesy faculty (these include 4 in
the Coop Unit, and others from such agencies as ODFW, USGS, USFS, EPA, NOAA
Fisheries, ARS, and NRCS).
In the last 10 years the Department has lost nine members to retirement. Six of these
positions were teaching and research positions, of which four have been replaced with 1
5
search pending. The other three retirements were of extension faculty, of which two have
been refilled. In addition, one promotion to administration left a terrestrial wildlife
specialist position unfilled. Three faculty joined the Department upon the closure of
another CAS department; two tenure-track faculty failed to reach tenure; and there have
been four new positions in the last two years. Taken in aggregate, these changes in
faculty in the last 10 years have left some holes or little depth in some of the core
programs of the Department. In addition, three pending retirements in the Coop Unit
loom large for the Department as these faculty teach and mentor many graduate students
each year.
The Department obtains funds from four sources: The Agricultural Experiment Station,
University Education and General funds, Extension Service (including Sea Grant,
Agricultural Program and RREA), and state and federal funds in support of grants and
contracts. The first three sources account for just under $2 million annually. Among CAS
units, Fisheries and Wildlife ranks eighth in recurring base funds, but has the largest
number of grants and contracts, and the largest graduate program. The grants and
contracts account for between $6 and $6.6 million annually, mostly in federal grants.
Typically, the Department ranks between second and fourth among University units in
grant activity. The Department has developed several distance education offerings that
bring fees directly back to it.
The Department offers programs leading to the M.S. in either Fisheries or Wildlife; the
Ph.D. in either Fisheries or Wildlife; Masters of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies; and the
Masters of Agriculture-Aquaculture. These programs are greatly enriched by the
intellectual and experiential diversity of the Department faculty, with students gaining
valuable experiences working on timely, relevant projects that are of interest to State and
Federal agencies.
2.2 Department mission (directly from the self-study document)
Faculty and students in the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife acquire, integrate and
disseminate knowledge about fish and wildlife at all levels of biological organization. We
focus on resource systems influenced by human activities. Our goal is to provide people
with the knowledge needed to make wise decisions on issues of conservation, sustainable
use, and ecosystems restoration. We accomplish this through a combination of
undergraduate and graduate education, scholarly research, extension education, and
public outreach.
3. THE GRADUATE PROGRAM
3.1 Graduate students
There are usually between 70-85 students in the Fisheries and Wildlife graduate program
– with roughly two-thirds of the total currently pursuing a Masters degree and the
remaining students pursuing a Ph.D. The graduate students are extremely dedicated and
well qualified. Due to the strength and reputation of the Department, the program attracts
6
strong graduate applicants, such that the faculty are competing for some of the best
students in the country, while also attracting excellent international students.
The graduate students appear to be selected not only based on their grades and GREs, but
on their demonstrated capabilities, their fit within the larger research program of the
faculty, and even their prior relationships and interactions with faculty members. The
graduate students generally seemed to have strong working relationships with faculty,
and there is clearly a feeling of mutual respect among graduate students and faculty.
Like the rest of the university, the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife is well attuned to
the goal of building diversity. The department, including the graduate program, reflects
some of the same weaknesses as all of OSU in recruiting a diverse student body. To
address this, the program seeks to take advantage of university resources to hire new
faculty that add diversity to the program. In addition, some faculty in the program have
made a concerted effort to recruit graduate students from underserved and
underrepresented minority groups.
Many of the graduate students that the teams met with became affiliated with the
Department before their formal graduate study began. For example, several worked as
field research assistants for faculty members. With these relationships already forged,
these students had relatively easy access to the graduate programs, and faculty willing to
support them. This informal access seems to create a selection bias among Department
applicants—those who can afford to relocate to Corvallis (or some other field research
area) may have considerably easier access to the graduate programs in the Department.
See recommendations 9 and 10.
3.2 Faculty
The faculty demonstrate a strong commitment to the graduate students. They are
extremely qualified and diverse in their areas of expertise, and they are very teamoriented and loyal not only to their students, but also to the Department and the
University. While there are a large number of courtesy faculty, and these faculty tend to
work disproportionately with graduate students, especially in teaching graduate courses,
the nature of these appointments do not seem to impact graduate education in any adverse
way. Rather, there is a net benefit for the graduate program. The diversity of expertise,
and the exposure that courtesy faculty provide to 1) funding sources, 2) institutions and
individuals outside OSU and the academic community, 3) the aims and uses of applied
research, and 4) the state and federal agencies where the graduate students may end up
working, serve the graduate students quite well.
See recommendations 2 through 7.
3.3 Curriculum
7
There is a wide offering of graduate level courses, allowing students to learn in a variety
of areas. There are, however, a relatively large number of slash courses, and few
graduate stand alone courses, considering the large number of graduate students and the
strength of the graduate program. In addition, the consistency of slash courses, with
regard to rigor, workload, requirements for graduate student participation, and level of
instruction seems to vary depending upon the course and the instructor. The department
may be well-served by evaluating its slash courses, especially the consistency in how
such courses are taught across the curriculum, e.g., some courses were considered too
difficult by undergraduates while in other courses students felt that extra work for
graduate students was contrived. It may be desirable to make some courses solely 400 or
500 level based on past enrollment patterns, course material, and faculty desire to
accommodate undergraduates and graduates.
A related concern among graduate students is that because there are so many slash
courses, the “50% Rule” sometimes comes into play when students are designing a
program of study. The need to add additional graduate stand alone credit hours
sometimes means that graduate students are not able to take courses they would like to,
because they are slash courses.
Faculty and graduate students both expressed some concern with the Graduate School
policy involving continuous enrollment. There was agreement that getting students
through the program is beneficial, especially considering the length of time it takes to
earn a degree. However, students and faculty provided examples of how the policy is a
disservice to students who need to take a temporary break from their studies due to
financial or personal reasons.
See recommendation 11.
3.4 Research
The research interests and pursuits of the faculty provide the graduate students with the
opportunity to participate in a first-rate research program. The faculty are very diverse in
their expertise, addressing a wide variety of issues in the field, and graduate students play
an important role in that research agenda, developing their own research agenda and
expertise.
The faculty have an outstanding rapport with state and federal agencies – this includes the
Coop Unit – which opens up significant opportunities for graduate students to participate
in multidisciplinary, team oriented research projects.
The graduate students are well mentored by the faculty in their research pursuits, and this
has led to great productivity of scholarship. The graduate students have a strong record
of publications, and significant participation in academic conferences.
Faculty and graduate students both acknowledge that because a long time is required in
the field conducting research – this is true for students pursuing either a Masters or a
8
Ph.D. – students take a long time to earn a degree relative to other programs at OSU, but
not necessarily relative to comparable programs elsewhere.
See recommendations 1 through 3 and 14.
3.5 Financial Support
It is a great strength of the program that graduate students are not accepted without
financial support. All are provided research assistantships as they begin their studies, and
such funding usually lasts 2-3 years. Even though funding from most of the grants
supporting graduate students tends to run out before graduate degrees are completed,
faculty consistently work with graduate students to secure additional funding through the
completion of their degrees. Very few students end up without some financial support
despite what may be a long time to degree completion. While there was some concern
among graduate students and faculty about the need to secure additional funding to
complete graduate studies, the graduate students understood that this was simply a part of
how their field works.
By contrast, the program provides relatively little funding for teaching assistantships,
allowing for very few opportunities to provide graduate students with teaching
experience. There are typically 2-3 GTA positions for on campus courses per term, and
an additional 4-5 for distance education courses per term. While many graduate students
may not want to serve as TA’s, there are graduate students that both want and need the
experience, especially those pursuing a career in academics. The program should make
more teaching opportunities available through teaching assistantships, so that students
who so desire can have the opportunity to teach. Alternatively, the Department could
consider offering course credit to Ph.D. students who want to gain teaching experience.
The review process found that there are cases where graduate students are serving as
TA’s in slash courses, and that part of their responsibility involves grading and evaluating
graduate students enrolled in the course. Graduate students are not permitted to evaluate
their peers in this way, and this practice should be discontinued.
See recommendations 12 and 13.
3.6 Administration, Facilities and Infrastructure
The Department is very well served by the current Department Head, Dr. Dan Edge. He
has the respect and admiration of faculty, staff and students. In particular, he takes
personal interest in all members of the Department. The review teams would like to
acknowledge and commend Dr. Edge for his outstanding leadership.
The Fisheries and Wildlife program benefits from some excellent facilities, and these
enhance the opportunities and work of not only the faculty but also the graduate students.
The fish lab at the Agricultural Experiment Station is an outstanding facility for
9
conducting fish physiology experiments. In addition, the Hatfield Marine Science Center
and the Oregon Hatchery Research Center are outstanding research facilities. The
technology upgrades at Hatfield Marine Science Center and Nash Hall allow for
additional distance learning capabilities.
The graduate students have access to sufficient resources and labs to carry out and
complete their work, though they tend to be dispersed throughout Nash Hall and Weniger
Hall, and in some cases, their assigned space leaves significant room for improvement.
[One possible recommendation would be to house the graduate students in some common
areas so that there would be more peer-to-peer interaction.] This is particularly the case
concerning Weniger Hall. Serving as an annex for several departments, it is substandard
in many cases including the fact that labs and equipment are very old and seem to lack
regular maintenance; it is isolated with little faculty/student visitation; faculty and
graduate research assistants sometimes have to modify their work to match the facilities;
and it may not be, overall, a consistently safe environment.
The condition of some of these facilities provides a useful lesson. The Department of
Fisheries and Wildlife and its graduate program receive a great deal of funding from
outside sources to finance research. The connections the program has with federal and
state natural resource agencies are impressive. Yet it is clear that simply because such
funding sources exist, it does not necessarily mean that the facilities to conduct research
will be well-funded. Though outside the scope of this report, the recognition of this
circumstance should offer a cautionary note for larger efforts at the university to attract
outside funding sources: additional funding from outside sources may not meet the
expectations attached to it for providing financial relief, particularly for facilities and
infrastructure. Unless there is a commitment by the university to support the facilities
and infrastructure that make first-rate research possible, the quality of research coming
out of OSU may slip.
See recommendations 18, 19 and 20.
3.7 Community and Participation
The extent to which the graduate students see themselves as part of a community or
cohort is somewhat limited in the program.
One great strength of the program is that graduate students are included in activities
involving departmental governance and operations. This includes representation in
retreats, faculty meetings, curriculum development, graduate student recruitment, and
even promotion and tenure decisions. The graduate students very much appreciate this
participation; solicitation and consideration of their input results in a sense that their work
is valued and that they are taken seriously.
Another important development has been the formation of a Graduate Student
Association, which allows for communications and contact among students.
10
At the same time, because Fisheries and Wildlife is located in different buildings on
campus, with graduate students in both Nash and Weniger Hall, and because faculty are
located throughout the state, within the numerous facilities available to the Department,
the students understand that they are somewhat isolated, both from the Department and
from each other. As such, there is not a strong sense of community among graduate
students. While students acknowledged this weakness in the program, they also
acknowledged that this is often their choice, as they are busy with their research and their
studies, and usually do not choose to make time for efforts aimed at building community.
It may be that providing graduate students with contiguous or common office spaces will
facilitate the development of a graduate student community.
In spite of this acknowledgement, the graduate program would be well-served by strong
communication and linkages among on-campus and off-campus graduate students and
faculty.
See recommendations 8, 10, 16, and 18.
3.8 Annual Reviews
The program conducts annual reviews of graduate students to monitor progress. This
exercise is more enthusiastically supported by the graduate students than the faculty.
Faculty generally expressed the idea that it represented an additional bureaucratic
requirement that did not serve to “catch” struggling or failing students, as such students
would be likely to be identified by their advisors at some earlier point. The students,
however, perceived as this as positive and not too onerous requirement, as it provides a
mechanism for assessment of progress and self-evaluation.
See recommendation 15.
4. PRODUCTIVITY
4.1 Level and Quality of Student Performances:
According to the self-study document, the Department has awarded 154 degrees over the
previous six years, of which 105 were M.S. degrees and 49 were Ph.D. Approximately
two thirds of these degrees were awarded in Fisheries. In terms of scholarly output, in the
years 2003-2005 Fisheries and Wildlife graduate students authored or co-authored 63
publications in the primary literature and 8 book chapter/other works. In the same time
period the students made 67 presentations locally or regionally and 52 presentations at
national or international conferences. These publication and presentation records were
deemed to be very good by the external CSREES team members.
See recommendation 17.
4.2 Level and Quality of Faculty Performance:
11
Input for this section was taken from the CSREES team draft report. The faculty are
extremely qualified and diverse in expertise, which enables them to address any major
issue pertaining to natural resources. The faculty (including, especially the Coop Unit
faculty) have an outstanding rapport with State and Federal agencies which facilitates
multi-disciplinary, team-oriented research projects. As noted by the CSREES reviewers,
the faculty are extremely productive in granstsmanship, publishing in peer-reviewed
journals, and garnering regional and national awards. There is a good balance between
basic and applied research, and an atmosphere of integration between the types of
research. The applied research conducted by the faculty is of critical importance to local,
state and regional issues.
The recent growth of the marine program, combined with the historical strength of the
salmonid program offers promise of national prominence in this area. The Department
has also developed a very strong avian research group that exceeds most programs in size
and depth, nationally. The research program does lack adequate faculty in mammalogy
and big game ecology, and with pending retirements in the next two to four years, this
problem will only be exacerbated. The faculty are very team-oriented and very loyal to
the Department and the University.
See recommendations 1 through 4.
4.3 Quality of the Scholarly Community (including collaborative ventures).
By its very nature, the Department is intimately connected with many state and federal
agencies which affords it rich and plentiful opportunities for research collaborations. In
all, courtesy faculty are affiliated with eight different state or federal agencies. These
connections not only allow graduate students to work on relevant research projects, but
also allow them to gain exposure to working in state or federal agencies and to “rub
elbows” with potential employers.
See recommendations 1 though 4, and 7 and 8.
5. OUTCOMES
5.1. Professional Viability of Graduates
Given the importance that faculty place on the professional viability of graduates, the
Department has conducted surveys of graduates every three years. The most recent
survey, completed in 2006, contacted 230 domestic undergraduate and graduate students
who had graduated from the department between 2003 and 2005. Rigorous pre-survey
and follow-up procedures were used, but there was no adjustment for non-response bias.
Twenty-eight MS. and seven Ph.D. graduates returned the survey. Almost 90% of M.S.
degree graduates and all Ph.D. graduates were employed. A majority of these were
permanently employed (64% for M.S. and 57% for Ph.D.), and most were working in the
natural resources professions (90% for M.S. and 70% for Ph.D.). Most graduates
12
obtained employment with a state or federal agency. These responses indicate a high
level of professional viability for graduates (or at least those responding to the survey).
See recommendation 17.
5.2. Satisfaction Survey of Graduates
During the past three years, 44 Fisheries and Wildlife students have completed the OSU
Graduate School Exit Survey; and their responses were compared to all responding OSU
graduate students (n = 367). There appeared to be a high level of satisfaction with the
program, particularly in encouragement from major professor to present or publish their
work (96% versus 69%) and securing a job before graduating (78% versus 58%).
There were, however, some areas of concern. More Fisheries and Wildlife graduate
students than the general population of OSU graduate students indicated that the program
took longer than expected (44% versus 22%). Furthermore, this has continued as a
concern from the last review. Another issue involved negative ratings in Department
attitudes toward race (with 9% providing negative ratings). From a Department Survey
of Current Graduate Students, with 30 respondents, facilities were of concern (e.g., office
space, computers, and research equipment). Availability and rigor of graduate courses,
particularly with regard to slash courses, was another concern. Information on
Department and graduate school policies was also mentioned as a concern, with the
recommendation that orientation sessions should be conducted each term. Availability
and assignment of graduate teaching assistantships and teaching experiences in general
were viewed as limited.
The Department appears to provide many positive outcomes for students, particularly
with regard to presentations and publications and employment following graduation. The
issue of the length of time for completion might be addressed at the time of application as
well as within the context of the recommended orientation sessions. Issues regarding
race should be addressed by making concerted efforts department-wide to entice
increased numbers of minority students, as well as possible departmental discussions and
action-planning. As described in the Facilities section of this report, the department
needs to identify common spaces for graduate students in order to encourage greater
camaraderie and collaboration among graduate students. Finally, the continued concern
for teaching experience needs to be addressed, not only through Teaching Assistantships
but also through course or program requirements.
See recommendations 9, 10, 12, 14, and 18.
5.3. Ranking of the Graduate Program
The Department provided a comparison of OSU Fisheries and Wildlife with 29 National
Association of University Fish and Wildlife Program institutions. The data presented the
number of advanced degree students and graduates during the last semester or quarter of
2004. From that comparison, OSU appears to be one of the largest programs and appears
13
to be successful in graduating its M.S. and Ph.D. students. The external CSREES team
concurred that the Department is among the top of its kind nationally. The one area of
concern involves the enrollments and graduation rates among minority students,
particularly in terms of Fisheries M.S. and Ph.D. students.
See recommendation 9.
14