Quality vs. Quantity in Undergraduate Geoscience Education

Earlier this year I served as an external evaluator of a geoscience department at a liberal arts public university. The geology program in this department is small but vibrant. Let me reiterate: small, but vibrant. Small is unquestionable. It's a fact. The geology degree graduation rate there is fewer than 10 students per year. Determining that it is "vibrant," on the other hand, is a largely qualitative, but important, evaluation based on a wide range of evidence - from student research opportunities to their post-graduation job placement, from course innovation to student and alumni interviews, from faculty CVs to (yes) graduation rates. It was clear from such evidence that the program's faculty are deeply committed to fostering scientific literacy among the general student population, and building a solid foundation for geoscience careers for their majors. It was also clear that the students love being part of this department. But it is small. It was in meeting with an administrator at this university that our committee raised the question of whether the size of the program was a concern. In the classic SWOT (strengthsweaknesses-opportunities-threats) mode of evaluation we wanted to know: Did being small create a weakness that, in this time of economic stress, could threaten its existence? The administrator (whose area of expertise is outside of the sciences), with a mildly surprised expression, said that she/he could not imagine a liberal arts university without a geology program. That geology is "a basic science at a liberal arts university." How sharply this administrator's perspective contrasts with the administrative perspective at another liberal arts public university - the University of Northern Iowa (UNI). In March, at the recommendation of the UNI President and Provost (Allen, 2012), the Iowa Board of Regents voted unanimously to terminate 22 undergraduate majors, including geology (BS and BA). The reasoning was that UNI needed to cut costs and these programs, which also included physics, microbiology, French, German, and philosophy among others, were considered too small to keep (Associated Press, 2012). The programs were too small to be highly valued. The UNI Provost said in a press conference that this decision has nothing to do with the quality of education (Ta, 2012). And here lies the primary flaw in their argument. The administration never considered the quality of education as a factor in their decision. It was purely based on the numbers. Simply, quantity. Available evidence from a white paper (Morgan, 2012) produced by the UNI Department of Earth Science faculty and alumni shows that the geology program at UNI is vibrant. For example, UNI geology students conduct research with faculty and participate in internship opportunities across Iowa and in other states. Graduates have gone on to successful geoscience careers in industry, government, and academics. Department faculty have won awards for their teaching, research, and service. The department consistently provides extensive educational and outreach opportunities to the UNI and local communities, and it provides instruction that supports the UNI liberal arts core and preservice science teacher education. Even by the numbers, the administrative decision is flawed. Currently, there are 81 majors in the UNI Department of Earth Science, 29 of whom are geology majors, and 52 are Earth science majors. For comparison, the Fall 2011 enrollment data for University of Iowa lists 39 geoscience majors (geology and Earth science), while Iowa State has 52 geology majors and 11 Earth science majors, for a total of 63 geoscience undergraduates. Thus, while the geology program at UNI is among the smaller programs on campus, this undergraduate geoscience department is the largest in the state. UNI is imploding as a result of this decision. Tenured faculty positions are being eliminated. Students are disappointed and confused. …