Introduction
This page summarizes EOAS faculty discussions about quantitative programs and courses at spring retreats in 2019 & 2020 and using emails or shared documents during summer 2020. For details see pages “Priorities, summer 2020” and “Concepts, tools and programs; early ideas”.
What kinds of students to target?
EOAS faculty who teach geophysics, atmospheric sciences and physical oceanography aspire to attract students with similar qualifications as those entering physics degrees. The general consensus seems to be that it should be possible to attract 15-20 such students into Quantitative Earth Science (QES) degrees. It was also suggested that a few students who have chosen the ENSC (Environmental Sciences) specialization may fit this profile.
A question often discussed is whether students would be best served by offering curriculum that prepares them for traditional QES career paths (eg. geophysics) or whether a more general quantitatively oriented curriculum is more appropriate. Some argue that “university education is not about setting up students for specific careers” while others feel a responsibility to “prepared students to enter specific career paths upon graduation”. The optimal curriculum is probably some combination. Students will be attracted to programs that clearly prepare them for attractive opportunities upon graduation, yet they do need to be well-prepared with foundational knowledge, skills and capabilities.
Possible changes to EOAS
Faculty in EOAS have expressed a desire to “revamp” quantitative degree programs to better reflect the broad perception of “geophysics” as including all the disciplines addressed by the AGU (American Geophysical Union). Such a program would graduate students well grounded in Earth Science, with some choice in specialization (solid earth, fluid earth, hydrology / hydrogeology, climate & Earth systems science) who are (age-appropriately) fluent in math (including PDEs and linear algebra), scientific computing, data analysis, and the physical foundations including mechanics & continuum mechanics, thermodynamics, electromagnetism and fluid dynamics.
More specifically, ideas that were discussed include the following (more details are on the “Priorities, summer 2020” page).
- Making gradual changes to existing courses is probably the most efficient approach to curricular reform, although new faculty will likely introduce new courses to coincide with their expertise.
- Adjusting or creating courses should be done as part of a well-articulated Departmental plan rather than making ad-hoc changes in isolation of the Department’s context.
- Proactive engagement with the (evolving) Environmental Sciences program was considered an important opportunity for QES curricular renewal.
- There is interest in exploring options for partnering with physics, math and computer science to create new (or to market existing) joint, minor, or other degree options. Also, students would benefit from more proactive advising to help them identify existing opportunities.
- Finding the right mix of faculty members to contribute towards rejuvenating QES curricula was recognized as challenging. A larger team would be unwieldy, yet allowing decisions to be made by too few individuals is also not optimal. The time and energy expected is perceived as daunting, leaving many unwilling to commit. Departmental support such as teaching or committee duty buy-outs will be important.
- The challenge of balancing fixed versus flexible curriculum was also discussed. Individuals may want to exercise their academic freedom to teach what they want, yet some components of a degree’s curriculum do need to be fixed. In reality a balance can normally be found, but it does help to be explicit about how this balance works in each course, and across a degree’s curriculum.
- The potential for “rebranding” quantitative earth science degree specializations as a unified “subject”, akin to the way the American Geophysical Union (AGU) which considers all physical Earth sciences at “geophysics”. (AGU includes 25 sections all dedicated to fostering scientific discussion and collaboration rather than focusing on concerns of industry.)
Outreach, recruiting, marketing and a new first year QES course
Actively attracting students (i.e. “marketing” the QES programs) was considered to be a priority by most participants in discussions. Many options are detailed in the Marketing section of QuEST documentation. Here are some initial ideas suggested in the early discusses of 2019 & 2020.
- Instigate outreach activities targeting high school students, teachers and advisors.
- Rebuild all content on the Department’s and UBC’s websites that describe the strengths and benefits of pursuing QES degrees at UBC, and emphasize the opportunities available to students graduating with a BSc in QES disciplines.
- Enhance the way students are advised, especially regarding the way their QES degree specializations relate to the world of work and the challenges facing society.
- Increase the instances of incorporating work-related contexts into QES courses, especially those that can be rather “theoretical” in nature.
- Make QES degree opportunities more visible to first year science students at times that coincide with when they make decisions about their specializations.
- Improve the sense of community among QES undergraduates, graduate students and faculty.
Developing a new first year course that will inspire and challenge students keen on physics, math and computing is considered a priority by several faculty members. While it is true that such a project involves bureaucratic, “political” and practical challenges, interest appears to remain strong. Details of ideas to date are summarized on a separate page in QuEST documentation. In particular, a focus is needed that is both representative of the Department’s expertise and inspiring to prospective students. The most widely discussed option is a course that might be called something like “Introductory Climate Physics”. To consider include:
- how to be appropriately “rigorous” while avoiding the need to teach mathematical or physical fundamentals;
- how to be both “inspirational” and non-trivial;
- a sustainable teaching model is needed that will ensure consistency and motivate EOAS faculty to want to contribute;
- background “market research” will be needed to clarify potential enrollments and ongoing “marketing activity” will be needed to attract appropriate students;
- use of UBC’s curricular development support (CTLT) should be engaged to help ensure best practices are used for instructional design.
Possible program learning objectives (PLOs)
An initial attempt was made to articulate a single set of PLOs for QES specializations. These are on the “Concepts, tools and programs; early ideas” page, but they would benefit from refinement, perhaps by synthesizing from the existing PLOs for the three QES degrees, and consideration of EOAS service course PLOs.
Concepts to be learned
The table below summarizes concepts that several faculty members listed as priorities for any quantitative Earth sciences degree.
Math and geophysics were emphasized but few “geoscience” concepts were listed in the initial discussion. However, the Earth system context is what makes a QES degree distinct from math or physics degrees. Therefore, thinking styles that are uniquely “geoscientific” should be modeled and practiced. This can done by weaving geoscience contexts into existing courses, but it needs to be explicit, by design, and sufficient opportunities to practice these skills and assess student progress.
Most concepts in this table are already taught – see the “Current EOAS course content” page. Also, not all concepts would be required to complete a QES degree, and they are not meant to map one to one onto individual courses.
| Fundamental concepts | Earth-science concepts | Methods, tools, strategies |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
Course ideas
Several concrete suggestions were made for new or updated courses that would be taught by specific faculty members. Suggestions included climate physics and/or modeling, image processing, and applied geophysics & related processing and inversion. There are certainly other ideas not yet explored.
A proposed program outline
Some minor adjustments were made to the geophysics curriculum just prior to the COVID pandemic. Several adjustments were consistent with a geophysics program sketched out by one faculty member and discussed with colleagues. The discipline of “geophysics” was defined to be consistent with the way the American Geophysical Union (AGU) defines it. The “common threads” include:
- Mathematics: calculus (including vector calculus), linear algebra & Ordinary/Partial differential equations
- Physics: mechanics, waves, continuum mechanics, fluid flow, electrodynamics
- Computing: signal and image processing, problem-solving by programing, data science including visualization, AI and ML (not “how computers work”)
- Field and observational measurement techniques and corresponding data wrangling.
This should (but did not) include exposure to the unique styles of thinking associated with understanding how Earth works, including geology, hydrogeology, climate science and so on. Geoscience thinking has unique aspects that QES specialists should encounter so they can contribute effectively in the teams they will work with.