<p>If someone would like to pursue the field of environmental science or ecology or something related to that, should they be looking into getting an environmental science degree. For some reason it seems to make more sense to study Biology or Biochemistry or something on those lines, because environmental science is essentially a broad field that covers all that those topics without depth. What do you guys think?
Thanks ahead of time!</p>
<p>Yes, I would agree that you would be best served by getting a rigorous in depth grounding in the basic sciences.</p>
<p>My wife entered the environmental sciences field after getting a B.S. in chemistry and a Ph.D. in biophysics and biochemistry. Even though none of her undergraduate or graduate work had any tilt towards environmental perspectives, the solid background it gave her in the sciences allowed her to enter into the environmental field, learn what she needed, and excel in her profession.</p>
<p>If you get a solid grounding in the basic sciences, you will have a good foundation from which to continue critical learning and add on whatever spins and nuances applications in the environmental arena requires. You can do this later as part of a post graduate program, or (like my wife) you can learn it as you need it outside of formal programs (which you will have to do anyway once you’re working if you want to keep up with the field). And a rigorous background in the sciences will make you much more effective. If you pursue a program environmental studies that, as you say, may be without depth, in lieu of rigorous studies in the sciences, you may be less effective than you might otherwise be, and you may have a weaker foundation on which to build. This has been my wife’s observation over her 25 yrs of working in environmental sciences.</p>
<p>Plus, a degree in the basic sciences gives you many more options downstream, if you should decide later to do something different that you’re thinking about now in the environmental sciences (or if you decide to go a whole different path altogether).</p>
<p>Main question is which sciences you’d be interested in pursuing: biology? chemistry? biochemistry? physics? geology? For the specialties my wife works in (bioremediation, treatment designs, site and treatment assessments), she’d recommend chemistry. And it’s true that chemistry will be incredibly useful no matter where your interests lead you downstream. Since I think you can’t say for sure at this time where you’d like to end up, and life is short, I’d recommend you pick the one about which you are the most interested in right now, the one that will make you excited to get out of bed and throw yourself into your work each day. Just take the most rigorous courses you can, include a good grounding in the other sciences on the side, and have as strong a quantitative component as possible (including as many formal mathematics courses as you can fit in, including if possible exposure to multivariable calculus, linear algebra, and differential equations). From there you can ultimately move onto what ever field you want as dictated by your (probably changing) interests over time. With a solid background in any of the sciences, plus appropriate breadth in several, where you started your focus doesn’t have to dictate where you end up.</p>
<p>Some more general advice:</p>
<p>Don’t close off options unnecessarily.</p>
<p>Remember: it’s a marathon, not a sprint!</p>
<p>Good luck to you!</p>
<p>Most environmental science programs will have an area of concentration so you do get more depth in whatever area most interests you most. If you go the chem major route but you’re not really interested in chemistry for its own sake, you may feel you’re spending a lot of time in classes that are of little interest to you and have nothing to do with your intended career. My recommendation would be that if you’re passionate about a particular science, then major in that, but if your only real interest in science is the environmental aspects of it, then major in environmental science.</p>
<p>“My recommendation would be that if you’re passionate about a particular science, then major in that, but if your only real interest in science is the environmental aspects of it, then major in environmental science.”</p>
<p>If your only real interest in science is the environmental aspects of it, then youre probably not going to be a very good environmental scientist.</p>
<p>That doesnt necessarily mean you cant work in the environmental field in any number of other capacities, but paradoxically you may find your options more limited if you prematurely specialize in environmental science. </p>
<p>I spoke further to my wife about this (whose opinions come from many years of experience). She says she cant say that there arent a few environmental science programs that give you an in depth grounding in one or more underlying sciences but, based on her experience, those programs appear to be uncommon. According to her, all of the people she works with who only have environmental science backgrounds know a little about a lot of things, but dont know anything much in depth, and it limits how much they can grow and what they can do with respect to environmental science per se. For example, doing project management–coordinating the efforts of a stable of experts during a project, where in depth understanding of project elements may not be a prerequisite–is a common landing place for such people. And, to be sure, there are project managers who love their jobs and the unique challenges they present, and who certainly have a key role in making efforts on behalf of the environment successful. But, again, their options can be more limited.</p>
<p>In contrast, she says that the people who have in depth training in a basic science have no problem picking up what they need from the constellation of fields under the environmental science banner as needed, and in addition they become the go-to experts when questions arise whose answers depend on in depth understanding of their specialty. The deep dive these people have done in a particular area also gives them training in critical thinking and rigor that you dont get from shallow exposure to multiple areas, and that translates to everything they do, adding to their value. Some of these people become project managers, too, but then they bring much more to the table as project managers, and so are valued more. And, they can move more easily into other roles as per their interests and the needs of their employer. The higher value these people enjoy is especially important when companies downsize; my wifes personal experience is that a smartly run company wont get rid of such people lightly.</p>
<p>I stand by my original advice.</p>
<p>“Environmental science” encompasses a lot more than the technical aspects of science. There are also policy decisions, economics, and other management issues (like PD and PM) that you won’t get as a chemistry major. As in any field of science, there is a technical ladder and a management ladder, and depending on where the OP’s interest truly lies, my recommendation would be that he follow his motivation.</p>
<p>FWIW, my path was much like your wife’s. I was passionate about chemistry, and went that route, later adding a master’s degree in marine science and a PhD in chemistry before going to work in the environmental field. And when I got there I found I had a lot to learn about environmental science that was never taught in a chemistry curriculum (especially the federal regulations – I spent many a bleary-eyed evening curled up with 40CFR as I tried to scramble my way to competency in the early weeks at my new job). But I did the same thing I’m recommending here – I followed my own particular interests, just like your wife did.</p>
<p>Your experience sounds very similar to my wife’s. And, part of her work also involves negotiations with state and federal regulators on treatment projects, as well as involvement in litigation (which is a whole other kettle of fish!).</p>
<p>I think she would say that it was easier (not easy, mind you–just easier; like, as in possible) to learn the policy part of the job to the depth needed than it would have been for her to learn the chemistry side of the job to the depth needed, at least with respect to the things she does.</p>
<p>I agree that if one is certain they are more interested in the policy/management side of environmental work, they may well be better served with an education that provided more focus on that. From the original question the OP asked, though, it sounded like they were coming at this with some interest on the science side of the equation. And I’d still maintain that one can start off with relative strength on the sciences side of the equation without voiding future opportunities on the policy/management side, but that doing the opposite is more difficult.</p>
<p>I hope this discussion has been useful to the OP.</p>