Click on “Download PDF” for the PDF version or on the title for the HTML version. If you are not an ASABE member or if your employer has not arranged for access to the full-text, Click here for options. Effects of Curriculum Name ChangePublished by the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan www.asabe.org Citation: Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 5(3): 412-414. (doi: 10.13031/2013.26536) @1989Authors: W. D. Shoup Keywords: Agricultural engineering education, College, Curricular assessment, Name recognition, University INTRODUCTION Sledge (1987) cites that in-depth curricular assessment and innovative curricular change have not occurred in the past quarter of a century for most colleges of agriculture in the U.S. A high percentage of colleges of agriculture have suffered declining enrollments. Bonnen (1986) supports that lack of innovation in making changes in program names has been a contributing factor. Despite declining agricultural college enrollments, the agricultural job market has been strong. A 1985 USDA national assessment of employment opportunities for college graduates in the food and agricultural sciences even projected a serious short-fall of needed graduates to fill employment opportunities (Coulter, 1988). Most of the storage of agriculture graduates was occurring in the areas of sales and marketing and scientists and engineers. Both of these areas are ideal targets for mechanization and agricultural engineering graduates. At the National Summer Meeting of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) the Agricultural Mechanization Program Recognition Committee (A-206, 1985) cited name recognition as a major problem contributing to recruiting and job placement efforts. In 1987, the ASAE A-206 and A-210 (Department Chairmen's Committee) began plans to develop curriculum workshops for engineering and mechanization programs. In North America in 1986, there were 39 known four-year mechanization programs (ASAE, 1987). Maley (1984) estimated that during the late 1970's and early 1980's approximately 800 students per year earned a degree from a four-year mechanization curriculum in North America. A study by Maley (1986) indicated that during 1986 over 1200 students were enrolled in undergraduate mechanization programs in North America. Eighty-five more enrolled in graduate programs. Maley's study also showed that 406 undergraduate mechanization degrees and 33 graduate degrees were awarded during 1986. In 1977 (Lien, 1977) the American Society of Agricultural Engineers began a review process of four-year college level mechanization programs. A committee, A-219, (and later renumbered A-206) was formed to review programs volunteered by various colleges and universities. The ASAE review process helped define and structure programs around a technical management theme. The committee created program uniformity by specifying subject matter distribution of curricula. These ASAE guidelines, shown in Table 1, were established in 1977 and exist currently (Shoup, Lien et al., 1984). While the A-219 committee established subject area uniformity, no conformity to a single program name was enforced. The most widely known program name in 1987 was "Agricultural Mechanization''. Table 2 shows the 1987 name breakdown in North America (ASAE, 1987). At the University of Florida, students, alumni and faculty had expressed concern that the name "Mechanized Agriculture" was not portraying the "high tech" image that they felt the graduates deserved. This problem surfaced during three curriculum reviews (Shoup, 1985). While most felt that the program since 1980 had evolved into a good technical management program, the job market perceived the Mechanized Agriculture graduate as being able to perform only hands on skills. (Download PDF) (Export to EndNotes)
|