Employer Preferences in Landscape Horticulture Graduates: Implications for College Programs

NACTA Journal, Mar 2007 by Berle, David

Abstract

Plant science departments at many universities face the challenge of maintaining core programs in the face budget shortages, while responding to the needs of the green industry which employs a majority of the graduates. A survey was conducted of national landscape horticulture companies to understand the differences between preparation in academia and preparation in the profession. The results of this study show that employers prefer characteristics of a high quality individual more than specific training or job skills. Furthermore, the results suggest that employers are uncertain as to whether current methods of teaching leadership skills and traditional character development activities are effective.

Introduction

Horticulture programs across the country are faced with shrinking budgets and restructuring, causing faculty and administrators to reevaluate curricula (Looney, 2004). As four-year horticulture programs adjust to national trends of reorganization and consolidation, changes in curricula are likely to occur (Lineberger, 2001). Maintaining identity as a plant science program, while providing skills for landscape horticulture careers is a challenge facing many programs. In a Bachelor of Science curriculum, the degree in landscape horticulture leans toward technical proficiency, yet a balance must be struck between job preparation and providing a well-rounded science education (Davies, 2004). In an effort to streamline programs, the University of Georgia Horticulture Department was recently asked by the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences to consolidate three degree programs into one B.S. degree in horticulture. During the process several faculty raised questions regarding core curriculum and course content. The general feeling among teaching faculty was that the existing curriculum offered the minimum of basic plant sciences and there was little room for more service and technically-based courses. Based on postings to the ISHA Forum on the Future of Horticultural Science within Academia, there is a national debate over the definition of horticulture as an academic pursuit and what types of courses should be required of a horticulture undergraduate student (Darnell, 2005).

Information regarding employer preferences is typically gathered through surveys of alumni and employers. These surveys provide insight into industry preferences, however, these survey tend to focus more on satisfaction with the program than on specific knowledge or skills needed by the profession. Faculty, alumni, students and employers frequently differ when surveyed about what is most important in curriculum and program content. When evaluating course requirements, faculty priorities often reflect individual areas of research or specialties more than the needs of the green industry (National Center for Postsecondary Improvement 1,1998). This situation is not unique to horticulture programs as documented in an employer survey conducted by the National Center for Postsecondary Improvement (1998), which found a "disconnection between employers and schools" when asked to rank the factors used in making hiring decisions. A survey of design school alumni at Iowa State University found there was a gap between faculty and alumni, in regards to importance of studies compared to extracurricular activities (Sauer and Ladjahasan, 2004). A disconnect between employers and students in a study based on time allocation decisions of agribusiness undergraduates was found (Siebert et al., 2002). The employers in this study valued "work experience and leadership experiences" more than students, who considered "raising grade point average and interview preparation" to be most important to them (Siebert et al., 2002 p.222).

A survey conducted by the University of Delaware Department of Plant and Soil Sciences found that alumni felt they were well prepared but favored adding courses in professional development and other nontechnical skills such as oral communication, personnel management and human relations (Kitto, 1996). This corresponds with a survey of alumni from the College of Design at Iowa State University, which demonstrated that the importance of certain skills, abilities and traits was greater for entry-level employees than the emphasis placed on them by the college (Sauer and Ladjahasan, 2004). In a similar survey of crop, soil and environmental sciences alumni from the University of Arkansas, alumni suggested adding the following to course design: problem solving, working independently and in teams, followed by written communication skills, critical thinking, computer skills, and leadership skills (Madewell et al., 2003).

Employer surveys provide further insight into the knowledge, skills, and traits required of recent graduates. In the Delaware study, employers thought there should be more emphasis on professional development and largely agreed that internships and practical field experience were important. Employers were also clearly in favor of a "broad education" (i.e. more than just technical training). Some of the specific, non-technical skills, employers ranked high included: ability to learn on own; problem solving; time management; ethical standards; ability to speak and write clearly; and appreciation of cultural differences (Kitto, 1996). Employers in the Arkansas survey suggested adding oral communication and problem solving to course design. Data synthesis and interpretation were also considered important skills by the employers in the Arkansas survey (Madewell et al., 2003). An employer assessment at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln ranked communication skills near the top, suggesting the "ability to listen and carry out instructions" and the "ability to speak clearly on technical information," were very important (Andelt et al., 1997, p.48). They also felt that new employees would need to increase their leadership in the areas of teamwork and problem solving. However, the highest preference in this assessment was for skills such as self-motivation and positive work attitude (Andelt et al., 1997).