ROYCE: EDUCATION OF FISHERY SCIENTISTS 



2. A biology or zoology undergraduate major 

 may be good preparation for graduate work in 

 fisheries, but it is relatively poor preparation for 

 a job. Advanced biology courses in general are 

 much less useful than courses in English compo- 

 sition, public speaking, fishery science and man- 

 agement, and the quantitative sciences. 



3. Student and faculty opinions about curric- 

 ula are probably not the best guides. Both differ 

 substantially from the opinions of a majority of 

 the nonteaching professionals in the field, espe- 

 cially in their evaluation of subjects that develop 

 the ability to deal with people. 



~4. Courses in the social sciences, humanities, 

 and liberal arts have not been as useful as people 

 now want them to be. With a few exceptions 

 these subjects were characteristically among 

 those listed as the least useful. The exceptions 

 are important as indication of needed improve- 

 ments because they include courses in resource 

 economics and administration — both public and 

 business. These are courses that are relevant to 

 real problems, and it would appear that many 

 social sciences-humanities-liberal arts courses 

 have not been relevant hitherto. 



5. The high value of general courses in science, 

 both basic and applied, and the mixed value of 

 advanced courses indicate the importance of 

 teaching the general courses especially well. 



6. There are advantages in a fishery education 

 that is interrupted by periods of work. The 

 student can form definite opinions about spe- 

 cialties that he needs for the job that he has or 

 wants. In addition almost everyone can benefit 

 from refresher courses that cover new devel- 

 opments. 



REFERENCES 



Carlander, K. D. 



1959. A survey of technical fishery personnel. 



Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 88:18-22. 

 1963. Fisheries. In H. Clepper (editor), Careers 



in conservation, p. 37-50. Ronald Press, N.Y. 



1970. Fishery education and training. In N. G. 

 Benson (editor), A century of fisheries in North 

 America, p. 57-69. Am. Fish. Soc, Spec. Publ. 7. 



Cartter, a. M. 



1971. Scientific manpovi^er for 1970-1985. Science 

 (Wash., D.C.) 172:132-140. 



Deason, H. J. 



1941. A survey of academic qualifications for fish- 

 ery biologists and of institutional facilities for 

 training fishery biologists. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 

 70:128-142. 



Hall, D. N. F. 



1969. Synopsis of manual on fishery education and 

 training. Food Agric. Organ. U.k. COFI:FET/ 

 1/69/Inf 2, 28 p. 



McHuGH, J. L. 



1968. Education and training of fishery scientists 

 and administrators. In D. Gilbert (editor). The 

 future of the fishing industry of the United States, 

 p. 285-287. Univ. Wash. Publ. Fish., New Ser. 4. 



National Research Council. 



1967. Undergraduate education in renewable na- 

 tural resources, an assessment. Natl. Acad. Sci. 

 (Wash., D.C), Publ. 1537, 28 p. 



Paulik, G. J. 



1968. Fisheries education : A critical review, and 

 a look at future programs. In D. Gilbert (editor) , 

 The future of the fishing industry of the United 

 States, p. 295-299. Univ. Wash. Publ. Fish., New 

 Ser. 4. 



Terman, F. E. 



1971. Supply of scientific and engineering man- 

 power: Surplus or shortage? Science (Wash., 

 D.C.) 173:399-405. 



691 



