ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM
PROGRAM PERFORMANCE REVIEW
2007 SELF-STUDY
Prepared by: Robert Voeks
Program Coordinator
Introduction:
The Environmental Studies (ENST) Program represents a large and academically
diverse interdisciplinary Masters of Science program. It began formal operations in Fall
1972 and, over most of its history, has been able to draw on the good will and altruism of
a core group of dedicated faculty from cognate academic departments—biology,
economics, engineering, geography, geology, history, sociology, and others. The
Program has benefited significantly by the courses and advising offered by a pool of
highly-trained environmental professionals from local and regional government agencies,
as well as private environmental entities. Finally, it has drawn considerable vigor from
an ENST Council made up of dedicated representatives from relevant departments.
The ENST Program’s status as an academic program rather than a department,
and as a free-standing graduate program without a base of undergraduate enrollment,
presents an array of opportunities but especially challenges. On the one hand, the breadth
and flexibility of the Program has acted as a magnet for academically and professionally
high-quality students. Rather than conforming to a rigidly-defined curriculum, students
are encouraged to craft a graduate study plan that meets both the core requirements of the
ENST Program, and allows them to pursue courses in other departments that suit their
own vocational or intellectual goals. Students concentrate in one of the following areas:
Environmental Science, Environmental Policy and Planning, or Environmental Education
and Communication. After completing their course requirements, they complete a Project
or Thesis as part of their exit requirements. Enrollment has traditionally been strong,
placing the ENST Program among the largest graduate programs on campus. It has
granted over 400 Master’s degrees during the previous three decades, and many of our
graduates hold leadership positions of considerable prestige and responsibility within the
environmental community—locally and nationally. We continue to attract and graduate
high quality students, and this has been accomplished on a relatively meager budget.
Whatever success the Program may have realized over the years was due largely
to the efforts of a small cadre of dedicated and tenured professors from the sciences,
social sciences, and humanities. Unfortunately, this model of a stand-alone,
interdisciplinary graduate program staffed by altruistic and even idealistic colleagues
from cognate departments seems out of step with the current reality. For various reasons,
younger faculty tend to be motivated more by research agendas, grants and publication
records than in years past, while departments continue to be driven by FTES. Given the
current climate of uncertain participation and even disinterest in the ENST Program, this
Self-Study will focus on the concerns raised in the previous Program Performance
1
Review (2000), the degree to which these issues have or have not been adequately
addressed, and possible alternatives to address unresolved issues in the coming years.
Summary of Program Performance Review—2000-2001
The last Program Performance Review (PPR) came at a time when the ENST Program
was experiencing significant maturation pains. Among the problems raised and
addressed in the report, three were outstanding:
a. Older participating faculty retiring; need to involve new faculty. The
Program had a fairly consistent group of involved faculty who served as
Coordinators, served on the Council, and offered core and elective courses
over the decades. Unlike programs that went begging for participation, the
ENST Council maintained a core of highly committed individuals. This
situation changed quickly, however, as a result of retirements, the
changing perceptions of departments (vis-a-vis involvement in
interdisciplinary programs), and the agendas of junior faculty members.
For example, whereas faculty involvement in outside programs may have
carried weight towards tenure and promotion in previous years, this
seemed not to be the case in several critical departments by the year 2000.
Thus, one of the major challenges noted in the last PPR was erosion of
involvement by faculty and relevant departments. The report suggested
that “The Program must not depend on the altruism and idealism of faculty
members for its survival”. p. 5.
b. High enrollment with limited advising/mentoring. This represented
perhaps the primary concern of ENST students. On the one hand, nearly
all issues related to student advising and mentoring were handled by the
ENST Coordinator. These duties included: matriculation into the
Program, developing an appropriate and feasible study plan, finding and
supervising relevant internships, referring students to an appropriate
thesis/project advisor (this often entails agreeing to be the advisor to
students who ‘fall between the academic cracks’), completing the
graduation checks, monitoring progress towards degree completion, and
generally acting as a ‘sounding board’ for student complaints. With
upwards of 75 to over 100 students in various stages of degree completion,
this was a nearly impossible task. At the same time, there has been uneven
commitment on the part of cognate departments to provide project/thesis
advisement to students from outside their own department, particularly
where this involved a significant time commitment.
c. Curriculum coordination, dependence of cognate departments to fulfill
study plan requirements. Students were generally unhappy with their
inability to find relevant courses necessary to complete their study plan.
Students are encouraged to complete a study plan during their first
semester in the Program, based on the assumption that courses listed in the
2
Catalogue will be offered by the various cognate departments. There is,
however, no obligation on the part of departments to offer these courses,
and there is no way of divining whether indeed they will be offered in a
timely manner. Many courses that are on the books may not be offered for
years at a time. Most of our students are employed during the day, but
many of the most relevant science courses, in particular, are also offered
during the day. According to the PPR, “Students put substantial thought
into developing study plans that end up being rather fictional” p. 4.
Students also took issue with the content and consistency of some ENST
cores courses, some of which were not offered on a regular schedule and,
when they were offered, were often taught by part time instructors rather
than core faculty.
Progress Towards Resolving 2000-2001 PPR Issues
In the period following the latest PPR, the ENST Program worked to address the primary
issues brought up by the reviewers. With the support of the Dean of HSS, the following
actions were taken:
a. Faculty Involvement—in order to enhance the involvement of faculty
from cognate disciplines, the HSS Dean authorized that three tenure-track
hires in Anthropology, Geography, and Political Science, would be
advertised with text that included a level of commitment to the ENST
Program. Although these were not joint appointments, each prospective
hire was aware that ENST involvement was part of the job description,
and in several cases, the Coordinator of ENST was asked to participate in
interviews. The result was that in 2002 Dr. Colleen Delaney-Rivera joined
Anthropology; Dr. Deborah Fedder joined Geography, and Dr. Chad
Briggs joined Political Science. Following discussions with the relevant
chairs, it was decided informally that each new hire would offer one
course per year in the ENST Program--Cultural Resource Management,
Alternative Energy, and Environmental Regulation. They also agreed to
serve as their department’s representative on the ENST Council, to assist
in advising students, and to generally add tenure-track visibility to the
Program. Because the job announcements for these positions included
wording that specifically noted involvement with the ENST Program, it
was anticipated that the relevant departments would ‘count’ ENST
participation—instruction, advising, and Council membership—towards
each respective tenure and promotion.
For a short time, the presence of these three faculty members
clearly benefited the Program. Colleen, Chad and Deborah took active
roles in ENST Council Meetings, and were especially receptive to student
advising and mentoring in the Program. They all were quickly developing
into a new core of ENST faculty. The level of professionalism in the
classroom increased significantly, and students in casual conversations
noted their approval. Unfortunately, for various reasons, the CSUF was
3
unable to retain any of these three faculty, and all had resigned by 2005.
Although there were various reasons for their departures, one was clear
that his/her involvement in the ENST Program was considered a
distraction from duties in his/her home department by the chair.
Finally, it was noted on many occasions, in and out of Council meetings,
that ideally these HSS hires would be matched by similar hires in NSM, so
that especially Biology and Geology, from which many of our students
have their BS, would be represented in our offerings and in advising.
Unfortunately, such action was never taken.
We encouraged cognate departments to consider cross-listing courses with
ENST. It was anticipated that this would serve to enhance the visibility
and accessibility of faculty from other departments, as well as help both
programs fill often low-enrollment seminars. To date we have been
successful only in cross listing Geog/ENST 572—Environmental Change,
and Geog/ENST 585—Environmental Applications of GIS.
Lack of involvement by tenure-track instructors has become even
more of a challenge than when the last PPR was written. Since then, the
last of the mainstays of the Program, Dr. Prem Saint, retired from the
Geology Department. This left another gap in our program, which was
filled by a part time instructor. As has been underscored in the last few
Annual Reports, this has created a situation in which we are now a
program taught almost exclusively by outside professionals with MS
degrees. The only full-time involvement is by the Associate Coordinator,
who has an MA, the Coordinator, and the occasional cross-listed class.
This is (in the view of the Coordinator) a completely unacceptable way to
run a graduate program. Over the last three years, for example, over 83%
of our Masters level courses have been offered by instructors with
Master’s degrees. Lacking a core faculty, we are increasingly forced to
employ part-time instructors as Project advisors as well. While all of our
adjunct faculty are seasoned professionals, I am extremely uneasy about
turning over the exit requirement for the lions share of our students to
people with a MS degree, some of whom may not have written a thesis
themselves. In terms of academic rigor, this situation is troubling.
Percentage Full Time (incl. lecturer) vs. Part Time Instructors (2001-2007)
Fall 2001
Fall 2002
Fall 2003
Fall 2004
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
86% PT, 14%FT
50% PT; 50% FT
50% PT; 50% FT
43% PT; 57% FT
57% PT; 43% FT
66% PT; 33% FT
Spring 2002
Spring 2003
Spring 2004
Spring 2005
Spring 2006
Spring 2007
43% PT; 57% FT
33% PT; 66% FT
50% PT; 50% FT
57% PT; 43% FT
86% PT; 14% FT
83% PT, 17% FT
b. Advising—with the encouragement of the Council, the HSS Dean
authorized the hire of a full time advisor for the Program. This Associate
4
Coordinator position was created at a full time lecturer position using
available ENST FTEF. From 2001-2002, this position was occupied by
Melanie Schlotterbeck. From 2002-2005, the position was occupied by
Tracy Briggs. Since 2005, the position has been occupied by Steve Kim.
Although this position involves a host of duties, student advising is at the
forefront. Primary advising duties include: assisting in entrance to the
Program, following up on students who fail to submit all supporting
material, initial advising, preparing the study plan, suggesting relevant
faculty for project/thesis advisement, reviewing graduation checks,
coordinating with the Graduate Studies Office, and addressing the
multitude of issues that confront our graduate students. One of the most
important advising duties in the first few years was following up on our
‘lost’ students, those that have finished their course work, often many
years ago, and who continue to procrastinate on their thesis/project. The
Associate Coordinator makes personal contact with each student in the
Program every year to check on his or her progress, and to make
suggestions for degree completion. Moreover, in order to meet the needs
of our students who have full-time day jobs, the Associate Coordinator
holds office hours for advising until 7:00 PM at least two nights per week.
The Coordinator is also still involved in advising, and considers this one
of the position’s more important duties. The difference is that now this is
not such an onerous task.
In order to remedy the problem of securing Thesis or Project advising
from faculty in cognate disciplines, who have no real obligation to work
with our students, the HSS Dean authorized that a modest stipend of $400
would be paid to the primary Thesis advisor, and the sole Project advisor,
upon completion of the exit requirement and graduation of the student.
This does not include the Coordinator. Although there are obvious ethical
issues associated with paying advisors ‘per head’, none have complained
about the extra money to my knowledge, and the policy has continued to
the present.
Finally, the last two hires of office secretaries has included the
requirement that they be willing to stay at least one evening per week until
7:00 PM. In this way, students who often found most campus services
closed by the time they arrived at school were able to access and file
appropriate paperwork and other necessities.
c. Curriculum coordination and consistency—several informal changes were
put in place to address these issues. However, given that students take a
considerable percentage of their courses in cognate departments, and given
that the ENST Program has extremely limited influence in terms of the
schedules offered by other departments, this is an inherent and largely
intransigent problem. Nevertheless, we have made some progress.
1. Three ENST core courses were put on a rigidly consistent schedule.
ESNT 500 (Issues and Approaches) is offered every semester, while
and ENST 520 (Research and Analysis) is offered every Fall, and
5
2.
3.
4.
5.
ENST 510 (Environmental Evaluation and Protection) is offered
every Spring. There is no question about when these are offered.
Students are required to write up their study plan during their first
semester in the Program as part of ENST 500. Because this is
completed under the guidance of the Coordinator and the Associate
Coordinator, the likelihood of including ‘phantom’ classes is at least
diminished.
Both the ENST 500 and ENST 520 courses have been thoroughly
revised. In addition to addressing selected environmental topics (this
depends on the expertise of the instructor), ENST 500 now
represents in part a ‘primer’ on how to succeed in the ENST
Program. Thus, the course includes: how to write a study plan, how
to find a thesis/project advisor, what constitutes a thesis and a
project, which problem should the student undertake, and the like.
Importantly, so that students can get a sense of the breadth of the
sub-discipline as well as the research expertise available on our
campus, a representative from the most relevant cognate departments
comes in each week to give an overview to his/her own research and
teaching interests. This often includes a faculty member from
biology, economics, environmental engineering, geography,
geology, public health, philosophy, and others. The ENST 520 class
has morphed from a largely quantitative methods class to one that
focuses on the mechanics of thesis research. This includes: how to
identify a relevant research problem and hypothesis, how to craft a
research design, quantitative and qualitative methods, sampling,
causation, etc. Students are encouraged to use the class as a
springboard to doing their thesis or project. The class culminates
with each student giving a poster-presentation, following the
guidelines they will use for the program exit requirement.
We have worked to offer a diverse mix of elective courses, those that
not only meet the needs of our environmental professionals, but also
students whose interests are more eclectic or academically oriented.
These have included courses like Human Ecology, Environmental
Ethics, Environmental Change, Environmental Activism, and
Environmental Dispute Resolution.
In order to diminish overlap between our own course offerings, we
changed the timing from exclusively 7:00-10:00 PM as it had been
for many years to include 4:00-7:00 PM offerings. This allows
students to take two, three-unit courses per semester with only one
evening on campus.
Assessment of Student Learning
In response to requests from the HSS Dean, the ENST Coordinator prepared a draft set of
Student Learning Goals. These were distributed at the Spring 2005 Council Meeting.
6
There has been no comment on these goals, and to date, no serious attempt has been
made to assess the degree to which these are or are not being achieved by our students.
Having received their MS degree in Environmental Studies from CSUF, students should:
 have a profound understanding of the interdisciplinary nature of environmental
problems and proposed solutions, that is, the necessary interplay between the
natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities;
 be proficient in writing on and public presentation of environmental topics;
 understand planning and regulatory processes as these pertain to local, regional,
and international environmental challenges;
 be proficient in working as part of problem-solving teams of environmental
professionals;
 be able to use quantitative and qualitative methods in environmental research;
 have the academic background necessary to pursue successfully a career in
environmental science, planning and regulation, or environmental education;
 be sufficiently familiar with the core concepts of environmental studies so as to
prepare them for teaching careers at community colleges;
 be prepared academically to pursue a PhD in environmental studies or a cognate
discipline.
Several possibilities exist for meaningful assessment of these goals. First, sending
questionnaires to alumni as part of our Annual Newsletter would yield some quantitative
and qualitative results. Some of our alums hold significant positions in the environmental
management area, such as Kurt Fredrikkson, Commissioner for the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation, and their views on the relative value of their ENST degree
after so many years would be illuminating. Second, exit polls of graduating students
could be taken at Commencement Ceremonies. Third, a committee could be formed to
assess the relevance and quality of theses and projects. Again, to date none of these have
been attempted.
Enrollment and Graduation
Enrollment over the review period (2001-2007) has remained fairly strong. Students
continue to be drawn to the Program from the CSUF and other universities. We continue
to attract about 8% of our students from other countries. However, these figures are lower
than the period 1996-1999, when the Program averaged 100 annualized students. The
cause of this decline is partly systemic, that is, nearly all HSS programs witnessed
significantly higher graduate student enrollment during this period. Also, the present
Coordinator has been fairly firm in regards to incoming GPA meeting at least the
minimum 3.0 requirement. This means that a fair number of applicants are rejected
outright. My sense is that this has increased the quality of students overall, but
diminished enrollment somewhat.
Annualized Student Head Count (2001-2007)
2001-2002
70.5
7
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
64.5
67.0
70.0
76.0
pending
During the review period, the ENST FTES target has been 28.0. The Program has never
achieved its target. It should be noted, however, that stand-alone graduate programs are
at a significant disadvantage in this calculation compared to departments with large
undergraduate programs. Full time status is calculated at 15 units. This is appropriate for
undergraduates, but obviously not for graduate students. A full time graduate student
takes 9 or 12 units, not 15. Thus, FTES for any graduate program should in principle be
calculated at significantly above the undergraduate rate. If full time status were to be
adjusted appropriately (not likely), the ENST FTES would be at or above target.
FTES—Target 28.0
Fall 2001
Fall 2002
Fall 2003
Fall 2004
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
20.1
17.5
23.0
25.2
27.0
27.2
FTES % of Annual Target
Spring 2002
Spring 2003
Spring 2004
Spring 2005
Spring 2006
Spring 2007
20.3
21.2
21.2
29.0
21.0
21.8
72.1%
69.1%
78.9%
96.8%
85.7%
87.5%
It should be noted moreover that given the difficulty of finding thesis advisors for
Masters level students, it has never seemed sensible to grow student enrollment much
beyond the present point. In spite of the stipend given to Project/Thesis advisors of
our students, which definitely acts as a carrot, it is still a continuing challenge to
secure advisors from such a diversity of disciplines.
A continuing problem in the Program, exacerbated in the past due to lack of adequate
advising, was that students frequently finished their coursework before they even
began to think about an exit option. This inaction was relatively inexpensive because
students were allowed to take as many GS-700 (continuing enrollment) offerings
through Extended Education as they chose. Because the cost is minimal, students
often continued in this status for years. In the meantime, their advisor may have left
the campus, their projects languished, and they became part of a cohort of ‘lost’
students. In 2002, the Coordinator with the Council’s agreement changed this
informal policy. Students pursuing the Project option are entitled now to only one
semester GS-700 through Extended Education, after which they were required to
enroll through regular university enrollment (which is several times more expensive
per semester). Thesis students are allowed two semesters GS-700 through Extended
Education. This action served to dramatically thin our ranks of lost souls—many
quickly finished up (see below 2002-03), while a few gave up. Students now
regularly graduate from the program within 2.5 years or so.
8
MS Degrees Awarded (2000-2006)
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
20
20
36
27
19
26
Because ENST is a Program rather than a department, we suffer from inherent lack of
visibility. Unless undergraduates here or elsewhere are referred by a faculty member in a
cognate discipline, the Program operates mostly under student radar. We initiated several
strategies to mitigate this situation. First, on the assumption that students are considerably
more computer literate than their professors, we completely revised and updated the
Program website in 2004. Many of our incoming students report having discovered the
Program through the website. http://hss.fullerton.edu/envstud/. Assuming that
undergraduate students are especially interested in a MS degree with career potential, we
began also sponsoring an annual Career Evening, in which seven or eight ENST alumni
are invited to discuss their career, and how the ENST Program contributed to their
success. In order to further enhance campus-wide awareness, we also sponsor several
campus-wide events during the year, such as guest speakers, Earth Day events, and field
trips. We also initiated our first alumni outreach effort in Spring 2006. With the help of
Joan Rubio, the new HSS Director of Development, we sent copies of our 4th ENST
Annual Newsletter to nearly 400 alumni. The newsletter outlines research being carried
out by current students, Environmental Studies Student Association activities, as well as
professional experiences from our alums. This was followed up by telephone
solicitations. This effort, it is hoped, will stimulate greater involvement from our
graduates. Finally, in order to give the Program a research method focus, the ENST
Program and Geography joined efforts in order to secure funding for a Remote Sensing
Center.
Center for Remote Sensing & Environmental Analysis
Beginning in 2003, Robert Voeks (ENST) and Jonathan Taylor (Geography), began
seeking a funding source for a remote sensing laboratory. After pursuing various funding
opportunities, we eventually approached Congressman Chris Cox (R-Newport Beach) via
Owen Holmes (VP Public Affairs & Government Relations) for support of the project in
the form of a Congressional Earmark. After receiving a number of letters of support from
community leaders and environmental professionals, Rep. Cox agreed to sponsor “The
Remote Sensing Initiative”. The Initiative was not successful during it first attempt, but
was eventually approved as a $750,000 FY 2006 NASA Science, Aeronautics &
Exploration Earmark. During the following months, we completed a full proposal and
revision following NASA guidelines. The Initiative proposal was approved by NASA in
January 2007. In order to accommodate the new facility, Dean Klammer authorized a
9
remodeling effort on the 4th floor of HSS. The remodel is scheduled for completion on
22 March 2007, and the Earmark funds are scheduled to arrive sometime in February
2007.
When completed (projected June 2007), the Remote Sensing Center will include a
state-of-the-art student classroom learning center and a faculty/graduate student research
lab. The classroom with include 15 (+/-) dedicated workstations, with access to nearly
full coverage satellite imagery for southern California, as well as selected environmental
hotspots around the globe. In addition to structural changes and
hardware/software/image purchases, the establishment of the Remote Sensing Center will
also include development of a series of relevant classes--GEOG 487 Digital Image
Processing; GEOG 490 Advanced Digital Image Processing; GEOG 586/ENST 586
Special Topics in RS/DIP. Under the supervision of the proposed Center for Remote
Sensing & Environmental Analysis, our goals will be to:





establish a well-equipped remote sensing facility and relevant curriculum that will
attract high-quality undergraduate and graduate students to California State
University, Fullerton;
create an undergraduate student learning center that will qualify our graduates for
careers in the rapidly-growing and increasingly applicable field of geospatial
analysis;
encourage graduate students from a range of disciplines—geography,
environmental studies, geology, biology, anthropology and others—to integrate
remotely sensed data into their research methods and analysis. By providing an
advanced facility for the study of remote sensing applications that is supported by
a relevant curriculum, we will help to produce the next generation of
environmental scientists;
furnish a technologically-advanced remote sensing laboratory for cooperative
research on environmental problems between our faculty and graduate students;
provide the facilities and venue for cooperative research enterprises between
CSUF faculty and environmental stakeholders—local, state, federal and private.
Graduate Committees and Graduate Advisors
As requested in PPR Guidelines (2006), I include here a brief statement regarding
graduate committees and advisors. As noted above, however, this is a fundamental
challenge in this Program, and one that has not been solved. The ENST Program has no
tenure-tenure track faculty. This means that students have recourse to two options: carry
out a project with one of our ENST adjunct faculty (all with MS degrees), or seek out and
rely on the good will of one or more faculty members from an adjunct department.
Sometimes this works seamlessly; other times it completely breaks down, leaving
graduate students without the prospect of an advisor. This is especially acute in the
sciences, where graduate students in those programs are usually only admitted after a
faculty member has agreed to serve as their advisor, and it is clear that lab space will be
made available. Our students operate at a complete disadvantage in these cases, and for
10
good reason. Moreover, in a few cases our students have not performed well under the
tutelage of a faculty member in a cognate department, with the result that this advisor
simply refuses to advise any more ENST students.
This scenario also presents challenges in terms of Project quality control.
Because the Project is supervised by a single advisor, the quality and rigor of the product
is completely dependent on the integrity and professionalism of that person. In nearly all
cases, this is not an issue. However, in a limited number of cases, after having been
approved and signed off by the advisor, the bound Project that arrived in the hands of the
Coordinator was clearly a very marginal scholarly endeavor. On paper, the solution to
this is to have a committee, or the Coordinator, act as quality control. However, a
supervisory committee is not going to happen in a Program without a dedicated faculty,
and the Coordinator is not sufficiently specialized to make meaningful judgments
regarding the array of Project subjects and titles.
In any case, the following represents the ENST Program’s current ‘policy’
regarding the ‘supervisory committee’ for Projects and Theses. The Project supervisory
committee consists of a committee of one—a single primary advisor. Only full-time
CSUF faculty members and part-time ENST faculty with long-term contractual
agreements (Entitlement) may be considered as the primary Project advisor. In all cases,
the primary advisor is subject to the approval of the Program Coordinator. It is possible
and fairly common for an outside professional, or a faculty member from another
university, to serve in an unofficial advisory role for the Project, but this person cannot
serve as the primary Project advisor. Where appropriate, the Program Coordinator or
Associate Coordinator can also be called upon by the student or the primary advisor to
serve in an optional, supervisory role on the Project. Students should consult ENST
Graduate Project Guidelines 2005 for further details.
(http://hss.fullerton.edu/envstud/pdf/Project_manual.pdf)
Students pursuing a Thesis exit option are required to have three advisors on their
supervisory committee (see CSUF Catalogue 2007, p. 507). Normally one of the three
serves as the primary advisor. The primary advisor must be a tenure-tenure track faculty
member at CSUF. The secondary advisors can be either full-time or part time (Entitled)
CSUF faculty. Students can if they choose include an additional advisor from another
campus or from a relevant profession, and this person becomes the fourth member of the
committee.
Whether students who pursue the Project or Thesis option do or do not have an oral
examination as part of their degree exit requirement depends on the primary advisor and
the requirements of his/her home department. In the case of theses, oral exams are the
norm. In practice, very few Projects include an oral defense. In order to offset any
inequity here, effective beginning Fall 2005 semester all ENST students who are
undertaking the Project exit research option (usually about 80% of our students) will be
required to present a professional poster and 15 minute presentation of their research in a
public forum to their advisor, the Environmental Studies Council, and to interested ENST
students. Students admitted to the ENST Program prior to Fall 2005 semester are exempt
from this requirement. For details see Poster Design Manual for ENST 597 Final Projects
(http://hss.fullerton.edu/envstud/pdf/Poster%20Design%20Guidelines.pdf).
11
Recommendations for Long-Term Action
In the period since the submission of the previous PPR, significant efforts have been by
the HSS Dean to address the fundamental issues that were raised by the Council and the
External Reviewers. Student advising (not project/thesis) has improved dramatically.
Curriculum coordination has improved somewhat, although as noted, the ENST Program
has limited ability to tinker with course offerings by cognate departments. The ENST
Council, mostly ad hoc and comprised of a mostly new generation of volunteers,
continued to provide sage advice to the Program, and to advise students in their areas of
expertise. And, perhaps because of the substantial career opportunities, and/or because of
a resurgence of interest in environmental issues, student interest in the Program continues
to be strong. As has been mentioned elsewhere, the Program does function surprisingly
well, in spite of itself.
The most glaring challenge, however, continues to be how to effectively operate a
stand-alone, interdisciplinary program without dedicated tenure/tenure track positions. In
the previous PPR, the recommendation of the External Review Committee was the
following “New faculty must be hired with commitments to the Environmental Studies
Program, and existing faculty in appropriate areas must be enticed into moving part of
their appointment into the Environmental Studies Program” (p. 5). Efforts along these
lines were made, but without the permanence of actually moving part of the appointment
to ENST, or of hiring as joint appointments. These became in essence ‘good will’
gestures on the part of the faculty and their chairs. All three hires left the university for
their own reasons, and since these were not partial appointments to ENST, we had no
influence in terms of replacements. Thus, in this respect, the Program is exactly back to
where it was seven years ago, except that most of the old-guard, ‘altruistic’ faculty has
retired.
I suggest three possible action plans regarding faculty involvement for the future:
a. Take No Action—in this case, the Program continues as it has for over three
decades. The Coordinator is recruited from a cognate department, given partial
release from home-department teaching duties, and he or she hires a team of
professionals from the private and public sector to offer courses. I have suggested
elsewhere that this is not the type of position that is going to attract many faculty
and, given our current inability to attract a new Coordinator, this seems to be the
case. This is, however, the easiest and cheapest option to pursue.
b. Hire Joint Appointments for the Current Stand-Alone Program—this alternative
addresses the faculty involvement, project/thesis advising, and program continuity
issues without significant structural changes to the Program. The Program could
use its current small FTEF to fund two joint appointments, possibly with
geography, or political science, or biology. We would also need to advertise for a
Coordinator/Chair, which will require that new resources be made available. This
could be as either a joint or full appointment, but in either case, would be best
suited for an Associate or Full Professor. Given the excellent research and
teaching facilities that will be provided by the joint Geography-Environmental
Studies Remote Sensing Center, it would be sensible to consider hiring someone
with expertise in this area.
12
c. Develop an Undergraduate Major in Environmental Studies--the university would
develop a plan for an undergraduate major as a foundation to the MS program,
and move to assemble a critical mass of full time faculty whose long term success
is tied to the success of the program. This strategy addresses most of the problems
that are endemic to a stand-alone, interdisciplinary MS Program, including faculty
involvement, program continuity, student advising, and meaningful connection
between the sciences, social sciences, and humanities. It also improves resource
issues, since most of these are tied to FTES. At present, for example, ENST
Program receives the lowest per capita O&E of any of the HSS departments or
programs, totaling just over $1600/year. Most importantly, however, increased
FTES translates to the ability to make permanent hires into what would be a joint
undergraduate-graduate ENST Program.
This strategy was attempted nearly a decade ago, but for various reasons
failed. I suggest that an altered version of the model adopted by CSU Long Beach
several years ago—Environmental Science & Policy—would match our own
needs. The major is jointly administered by the College of Liberal Arts and the
College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics. Majors take a few core ES & P
courses, but most courses are taken in cognate departments. Thus, there would not
be a need to dramatically increase the number of courses, and cognate disciplines
would benefit from ENST undergraduate standing taking elective classes in these
departments. Within the major, students would pursue either a BS or a BA. The
BS would emphasize courses in the natural and physical sciences, whereas the BA
would focus on the social sciences and humanities.
This could be accomplished probably with three tenure/tenure track
positions. The current Coordinator position should be converted to a full-time
Chair, and he/she should occupy one of these tenure/tenure-track positions,
probably at the Associate or Full Professor rank. The latter two positions could be
directed at the areas of environmental policy and at conservation biology, as these
are two topics of continued interest among our students.
This alternative would, of course, require considerable cooperation among
the relevant colleges. It may be that either joint administration under the Deans of
HSS and NSM, or even reporting directly to the VP for Academic Affairs, would
be most sensible. Whatever the decision, it is critical that the concerns of the
natural sciences and the social sciences/humanities be heard in the decision
making process for this prospective major.
13