Is it time to create an ENTS major? ENTS concentrators and ENTS faculty have been discussing that question, largely independently of one another. I think it's time for a common conversation.
So far, I’ve heard three strong arguments in favor of a major:
Marketing: Let's face it, marketing matters. Offering an ENTS major may help attract talented students to Carleton. Of our peer institutions, Oberlin, Pomona, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Claremont McKenna, Wellesley and Brown already offer a major in environmental studies or something similar.
Strengthening the concentration: Redesigning the curriculum to support a major might make it easier to fulfill the requirements of the concentration. In addition, the majors could provide leadership and bring their expertise to ENTS classes.
Faculty development and pedagogy: Designing and administering a major would probably require even more conversation about curricular goals and pedagogy among faculty. The ENTS program is pioneering two major curricular innovations: interdisciplinary education and project-based learning. Designing a major centered on those goals would give students an education uniquely suited to help them deal with the challenges of citizenship in the twenty-first century--or so we hope. This project would also help faculty figure out the challenges of these pedagogies.
On the other hand, there are two compelling reasons not to go this route:
The depth/breadth issue: Most programs pair a disciplinary major with an interdisciplinary concentration, with good reason. Disciplines are designed to give students an in-depth understanding of a particular methodology and theoretical approach. At the moment, we can’t offer that in environmental studies; we risk giving our students a superficial understanding of a variety of different disciplines, but no experience with the rigorous training in a particular methodology that disciplinary majors offer. This could put students at a disadvantage, particularly when applying to graduate school.
On the other hand, many disciplines (like my own, political science) began their lives as a hodgepodge of different methods and theories. They’ve evolved a degree of coherence and depth over time—usually after being institutionalized in the universities. Maybe we need to create an ENTS major as an essential step toward creating a more coherent environmental studies discipline.
Workload: This is a big issue. We could probably staff enough courses for a coherent ENTS major (provided we bolster our staffing in the humanities). But we would have to find a way to advise comps; this is the main sticking point, in my opinion. Most majors offer students the optin of doing supervised independent research projects. Both students and faculty usually find this a very valuable learning experience, but it’s the most labor-intensive approach to comps. And it poses special challenges when we expect such projects to be interdisciplinary (American Studies has a long experience with these challenges). In my view, we would have to design a different comps experience, perhaps following Bio’s problem-based model.
At this point, I'm leaning toward the pro side, but I think we need to hear more perspectives and arguments.
Comments
As a current ENTS concentrator, I would be strongly in favor of an ENTS major as an option. Ideally there would then be three options available to those interested in ENTS: the current concentration approach requiring major-level specialization in a particular discipline, a double major in ENTS and another discipline, and (the best option in my opinion) and ENTS major with a concentration in a particular discipline.
Due to its interdisciplinary nature, an ENTS major would overlap nicely with distribution requirements, thereby still leaving plenty of open slots for an in-depth focus in a particular field. Using my own department as an example, ENTS majors concentrating in biology could be required to take the intro sequence, the required three classes at the cell, organismal, and ecological level, and 2-3 cross-listed BIOL/ENTS classes. Comps could then have two parts, an interdisciplinary project required of all majors and supervised by dedicated ENTS faculty, and a concentration-specific project (perhaps simply a scaled-down version of that department's comps requirement with an environmental focus) supervised by department-specific faculty.
The overlap of ENTS core classes and distribution requirements (as already occurs now with the concentration) could lead to concern among those who feel that this discourages diversification, as students take American Environmental History, American Environmental Thought, and Environmental Ethics instead of learning the central concepts of a discipline in such classes as English Literature, Comparative Political Regimes, or Epistemology. This situation could be improved by limiting the number of distribution requirements that can be covered by ENTS cross-listed classes.
I am strongly in favor of an ENTS major, and I would have been one had the option been available. As long as a solid grounding in one discipline is required, I see no reason why a major should not be available, and I see a demand emerging in environmental organizations, policy positions, and even corporate management positions for people who all well-versed in all aspects of environmental issues.
I think for Carleton to continue to be competitive with its peers, environmental education must be a prominent focus on its campus. Environmental education is by its nature multidisciplinary. Because ENTS is a developing field, there are many opportunities for undergraduate research to really advance the knowledge in the field -- for example Carleton’s eco-house class. In just an introductory class, students were able to do original research, just imagine what ENTS major's comps projects would do! Environmental projects build community and connection with the campus, and I think that ENTS students would really bond with Carleton as an institution. Several of our “peer” institutions have very developed and prominent environmental studies departments – perhaps Carleton needs to follow before it can lead?
http://www.stolaf.edu/green/
http://www.oberlin.edu/envs/
http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/es/
http://www.middlebury.edu/academics/catalogs/catalog/academic_programs/courses/interdis/envs.htm
http://www.williams.edu/CES/
I might transfer from Carleton to pursue a more engineering approach to environmental design. But if I stay, I found sufficient overlap in a major in Geology and concentrations in Political Economy and ENTS to create the ENTS major I wanted to have: science & policy. Near the end of freshman year, I went through talking to my advisor and Gary about the necessary steps to create a major. Ultimately, if I stay, I'm not going to push for a major for me.
I hope Carleton creates a major for ENTS. If nothing else, it will create more institutional approach to the environmental concerns and increase multi-disciplinary thinking skills.
Though I myself am not an ENTS concentrator, I enter the discussion as one concerned about humanity's relationship with the environment. I feel that there is a great need for professionals in this area, and that this need ought continue to grow, and that Carleton ought be a leader here (or at least a follower of other institutions with such majors). That said, I believe that some of the negatives to creation of an ENTS major voiced above by Kim Smith are matters of concern. Now, recently I read a lengthy report by a committee studying the feasibility of creating a new building for the Arts at Carleton. I was wondering if anyone was farmilliar with the process by which serious issues such as these come to the attention of such comittees. It seems to me like there are enough people concerned about this issue that such a probing look is merited. Perhaps something along these lines, where a grouping of faculty and students spend time reflecting and listing pros/cons is the next step.
One of the barriers to creating an ENTS major is comps. The most popular model for comps is a supervised independent research project. Supervising these projects is very labor-intensive for the faculty (although also very rewarding). But we generally get no teaching credit for it. Since all the ENTS faculty have comps students in their home departments, how would we find time to handle an additional group of ENTS comps? Maybe some of you could brainstorm a model for comps that would be less labor-intensive for the faculty but still valuable for the students? I was thinking that something less than a supervised indepdent research project but more than an exam might work: Pose a broad problem at the beginning of the term--like biodiversity loss in California--and have students come up with an "appropriate response" (broadly defined) to that problem. The faculty's role would be limited to giving a few lectures or discussion sessions on the topic over the course of the term, and evaluating the responses (according to whatever criteria we agree on). I don't know whether the other ENTS faculty would be comfortable with that, but maybe you all have some other ideas.
One approach to problems of comps and depth in a discipline would be to do what some special majors do, which is to have students in the major "belong" to a relevant department. A student could take a substantial amount of coursework in that department and do comps in it, but still take a lot of interdisciplenary courses. For instance, with the Asian studies special major, you choose a region of study and a department. You take at least 18 credits in your department, including a methods class, and do comps with an advisor from that department. There are also requirements for the major to keep it interdisciplinary.
So I would think that a student majoring in ENTS could have a focus in, say, biology, and have to take 3 or 4 crosslisted ENTS/bio classes and perhaps the biology methods class (seminar). He or she could then be required to take at least one ENTS course from each of the three remaining fields of study (humanities, arts & literature, social sciences).
For comps, a student could work on an ENTS project within the comps requirements of his or her honorary department with an ENTS advisor from that department. If the project were very interdisciplinary, the student could consult with other professors. But in general, I think that most Carleton professors should be equipped to advise a student working on an interdisciplinary project. How can Carleton expect students to think across disciplines if faculty don't?
Maybe for comps, students could choose between working within a department and doing the kind of problem-based project Kim Smith suggested.
Nina's proposal is quite interesting, but I'm wondering how it's an improvement over just doing an ENTS concentration. It sounds pretty much the same. But you also pose a good and (for us faculty) troubling question: how can we expect our students to do what we don't seem to have the time or inclination to do--that is, to be truly interdisciplinary in our teaching and research?