Selection of Students for Graduate Training in Fisheries and Wildlife

Abstract

There is no method or combination of methods which will invariably identify the student who will succeed in work. The previous academic record and letters of recommendation from people known to the admissions officer constitute the most practicable information on which to base judgments. Aptitude tests tend only to confirm the validity of the undergraduate academic record. A married student may be a greater risk than an unmarried student. Ability to meet the physical demands of work in fisheries and wildlife sciences seems to be inversely related to the age of the student. The student with a rural background, when compared to a comparable student with an urban background, is more likely to have an understanding of ecological relationships, to be more effective in solving field problems, and to have acquired self-discipline, dedication to duty, and a responsible attitude. A human being is a complex organism in an increasingly complex world, and it is exceedingly difficult to predict its response to new conditions. We seem to be able to do a fair job of measuring an individual's knowledge and some of his simple skills, but, when we use this information to estimate probable response to a new situation, we engage in a risky extrapolation. No one yet, to my knowledge, has devised an infallible method for selecting candidates for study who will be certain to succeed. The problem of screening applicants began with the inception of training and has become progressively more difficult. It is an important consideration because education is the most advanced instruction provided by our instructional system and because training is expensive. Today's heavy loads on instructors and instruction facilities and the unprecedented preoccupation of the faculty with research require effective use of the limited time remaining for supervision of students. Further, the problem promises to become more difficult because, as Carmichael (1961: 143) concludes, graduate education is on the eve of its greatest expansion. Those of us in fisheries and wildlife instruction can take some comfort in the fact that difficulty in screening students for training is not limited to our field. Carmichael (1961:144) recently observed that One of the most glaring defects in education is its weakness in recruitment of talent. In an evaluation of graduate-school talent by the Graduate Office at Michigan State University, Tucker and Sloan (1964:12) concluded: Except for ten or fifteen universities of the highest prestige . . . most universities do not seem to have as many top-quality students as they would like. Consequently, the competition for brilliant students has become almost as keen as the competition for outstanding athletes. Superior students are well aware that universities are vying with each other for the privilege of educating them. They place themselves on the market and await the highest bidder.