Educational Facilities in Ground‐Water Hydrology and Geology Outside the U. S. A. and Canada, 1963

The great and continued expansion in the utilization of ground water has resulted in an ever increasing need for professional people to enter the field of ground-water resource evaluation and management. Prominent scientists and educators have indicated that the small number of graduates each year is inadequate to meet the current needs much less the future demands for ground-water geologists and engineers. It has been suggested that this deficiency is due in part to the lack of suitable programs of university and college instruction. However, statistical data on the educational and academic research facilities in ground-water geology and hydrology outside the United States and Canada have not been available for study. Statistical data for institutions in the United States and Canada were published in May 1961 (Hackett and Walton, 1961). To obtain data on formal course work and research facilities, the Research Committee of the Technical Division of the National Water Well Association circulated a Questionnaire to appropriate educational institutions outside the United States and Canada in March 1963. This paper is based on completed questionnaires and provides statistical data on university and college activities in the field of ground water. It is hoped that the statistical and descriptive information embodied in this report will provide a suitable background for those who wish to assess the adequacy of available educational and academic research facilities relating to ground-water hydrology and geology. In March, 1963, the Research Committee of the Technical Division of the National Water Well Association mailed a questionnaire on educational facilities in ground-water geology and hydrology to some two hundred foreign institutions of higher learning. By October 1963, some fifty institutions had replied to the questionnaire which was a simplified version adapted from a prototype drafted by James E. Hackett and William C. Walton (1961), and used to make a similar survey on U.S. and Canadian universities. The contents of the questionnaire are given in Table 1. While the response to the questionnaire may seem small at first sight, since only 25 percent of the polled institutions replied, the initiative taken was worthwhile and some interesting conclusions may be drawn from the result. In the first place, the relatively poor participation may be explained, to a large extent, by the fact that a great number of the foreign institu- tions that were questioned do not have a specific interest in ground water. Furthermore, the questionnaires were sent to the schools of engineering or the departments of geology of the institutions, in the hope that there would be an exchange at the local level. This was accomplished in some cases, as may be seen from a summary of the main results in Table 2, but not always. On the other hand, although English is a major international language, it is still not mastered by all foreign scientists and engineers. This may explain why some individuals may have been reluctant in answering to the request for information. We should also realize that the pattern of higher education in some countries is different from ours, which again leads to difficulties in filling out a questionnaire tailored to our needs. It was very rewarding for us to see that France had the largest participation rate (60 percent) of all countries. Probably this is due to the fact that this country apparently emphasizes the subject of hydrogeology more than any other but also, we believe, because we had sent a special French questionnaire to the French institutions. Also, as a result of this policy, the answers were more detailed than those of most of the other participants. It is safe to assume that, if we had written in the native tongue of each country, we would have received more complete answers. Table 2 has been divided somewhat arbitrarily into five classes, according to the strength of the curriculum in subjects related to ground water. Class I: unusually strong program Class II: strong program Class III: significant program Class IV: small program Class V: no program It is very difficult to draw a well defined boundary between these classes and between some institutions in particular cases, and the five classes have been allotted ten members each for the sake of simplicity. Also, the classification is not the outcome of a contest but a mere indicator of relative interest in the subject of ground water. Several institutions which belong to Classes IV and V have explicitly asked to be informed about the conclusions drawn from this survey, which would tend to prove that they have an interest in the subject but that financial means or other motivation are lacking. A quick glance at Table 2 shows that in Western