LETTER TO THE EDITOR Dear TPG Editor,
Just received the 4thQ edition of
TPG and read through the AGI ad on page 1, the inside cover: Critical Skills for the Development of Undergraduate Geoscience Students.
It seems to me the AGI list of critical skills highlights some of the fundamen- tal misconceptions and problems with our profession and the current American higher educational system rather than critical skills. As a geoscientist for example, critical skills, particularly for undergraduates include at least mega- scopic mineral identification and hand sample petrology, optical mineralogy and beginning petrography. These skills are essential for any geoscientist from field geologists, geological engineers, to geophysicists, to planetary scientists, anyone who considers and studies the earth in a scientific way. Rocks are the earth’s words, minerals the alphabet, and their geologic relationships present the story. Those who can’t read, develop problems that accelerate with time and muddy the waters for their coworkers, other researchers and the broader public audiences.
Some of the best geophysicists I’ve worked with understand and consider the actual rocks and their subtleties in the subsurface from what can be seen at the surface better than many geolo- gists working on the same site. Those geophysicists understand that the rock signals, data and models are proxies for particular properties of the rocks. The more they know about rocks and rock properties the better geophysicist they are and the more predictive are their results. Those that don’t understand rocks and minerals on an intuitive level tend to focus more on their instrument signals and models in a grand academic voyage that is really not that useful in the end.
Another example of a critical skill is reading and then making a descriptive geologic map and the ability to draw a realistic balanced cross section and alternative cross sections. Or better yet, constructing a realistic virtual 3D geologic model under the geologic map.
Field skills is way down on the list, even though observation of the earth at the rock human interface, including the displayed geologic relationships, pro- vides some of the best direct evidence of what went on here we have. Look at the Martian rovers; they are trying to be the best descriptive, field observa-
tional platforms money can buy: why not undergraduate students?
You surely can see where I’m headed, particularly for undergraduates. Where in their careers will they learn the fun- damental skills that they can put to work for the synthesis and data handling skills listed in the ad? They surely will not learn them in graduate school.
In my travels through American uni- versities over the years, I’ve noticed fewer rigorous fundamental geologic skill classes, fewer petrographic micro- scopes and optical mineralogy cours- es and professors, even fewer geology departments. The departments have often been combined with forestry and environmental science studies and homogenized away. American mining schools have also largely disappeared. With less fundamental skills at the rock human interface for undergraduate level students, what will all the critical think- ing be about?
In the list, why aren’t ethics, pro- fessional standards and integrity mentioned? These acquired skills are especially important in the observa- tional, semi quantitative sciences, not only to achieve quality end results, but for realistically defining and evaluating the multiple working hypotheses that lead to the final product and ultimately real progress.
You need only to look at the types of studies some of the major geologic research institutions and organizations are currently involved in to see where the lack of fundamentals leads on an institutional scale.
Discouraging ad, particularly in the AIPG TPG. Vic Chevillon
C. Victor Chevillon M.A., C.P.G. AIPG 11054 President & Consulting Exploration Geologist
Chevillon Exploration Consulting
Reno, Nevada
Dear Mr. Chevillon:
Thank you for your message. My reply is solely on behalf of TPG.
As a member society of AGI, AIPG routinely supports related geoscience organizations, including through TPG. The page to which you refer is a regu- lar AGI feature “Geoscience Currents.” While not an ad, these one-page “bul- letins” provide general information and trends about the geosciences - in this case Currents #106 presents the results of an online survey.
Like you, I practice in the private sector and agree with you that students need to be trained and develop critical geologic skills during their undergradu- ate education. I share your concerns about students’ learning environments and that there be distinction between geologic sciences and social perspectives. However, I note that the categories presented in the AGI survey are very broad and might well be interpreted to encompass the skills you mention under the first three “critical geoscience skills.” The survey appears to be very general and we may be thinking too specifically about basic geologic skills.
“Field skills” does appear lower on the list but it is lumped with GIS in this survey. Because the other lowest-ranked skills appear to be technology-based, perhaps the survey reflects that criti- cal thinking, integrating concepts, and applying math and science to solve geo- logic problems using your brain are more valued by the respondents than data processing/analysis. Hopefully the sur- vey stresses the preference for scientific synthesis and interpretation vs. routine data collection and analysis. The text states that 78% of the respondents are from academia so their survey reflects those opinions (and possibly some mis- conceptions as you point out).
I encourage you and others to take the AGI survey and weigh in on behalf of the private sector, as I have done recently for other academic surveys. Most practitioners I know are very clear about valuing basic geologic skills and training. Professors want their students to be employable and routinely ask for feedback so it is imperative to identify the geologic skills students need to suc- ceed.
Thanks for your feedback.
Jean Neubeck, CPG-11438
Editor, TPG
www.aipg.org
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56