Podcast: Should Geospatial Education Create Subject Matter Experts or Geospatial Thinkers?
By Joe Francica and Adena Schutzberg
April 28, 2009
Classified Ads:
Take advantage of a special year-end sale on SPOTMaps, the 2.5 meter, seamless, color mosaic made to fit your area of interest. Save 25% off all SPOTMaps through November 10th, when you mention this ad! Click here for detailsDo we encourage the next generation of young geospatial professionals to get degrees in specific disciplines such as geology, forestry, urban planning, etc. or do we train them to be "geospatial thinkers" with a degree in GIS? This was the question posed at a panel at last week's Geospatial Infrastructure Solutions Conference. This week we review the panelists' thoughts and offer our opinions.
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
 |
|||
Show Notes
The 2009 ESRI Survey & Engineering GIS Summit will take place concurrently with the Annual ESRI International User Conference in San Diego, California July 11th to the 14th. Join fellow surveyors, engineers, and GIS professionals to see how others leverage existing investments, hear from industry leaders and explore the latest technology. The deadline to register is May 22.Register today.
|
Your Comments Post a comment All comments provided in this section are those of the individual who has created the post. These are not the opinions of Directions Media, its editors, staff or owners unless otherwise noted. Directions Media retains the right to edit or delete any comments posted herein.
|
|
||||||
| I agree with Adena about the options of 2-year geospatial technicians (a la CAD technicians) and domain-specific degrees with some training in GIS. Yet you've forgotten a huge third segment, which is the focus of most 4-year and graduate GIS programs: highly trained GIS analysts and developers (at least Joe hinted at them). If they are well-educated, they are able to do a whole range of tasks that neither of the above two categories will ever be capable of. These are more akin to computer science graduates than CAD technicians. I agree with Joe that the best of these go out and get some education (say, a minor) in a domain of their interest. Unfortunately, many of our graduates have to slog through technician jobs they are overqualified for, because the employers (often the domain experts) do not recognize the true potential of geospatial visualization, analysis and technology. The best educate their employers, the worst perpetuate the misconceptions of GIS=data entry. I think we may come to a point where a job title like "geospatial engineer" arises to differentiate the experts from the technicians. "Analyst" does not seem to do that well enough. |
||||||
|
||||||
| My vote has always been for a well-rounded individual that can apply broad conceptual understanding across a wide range of applications. If you're looking for developers, they oughta have developed some...and when you get outta college, the stuff you do is mundane. Part of the rites of passage, albeit a tough pill to swallow for 'the over-indulged generation' now entering the workforce. If you're a botanist or a geologist or an ecologist or whateverist, you had better know geospatial - and thankfully, that's really quite simple these days. Mashups are often all that's needed to get a point across or look at the juxtaposition of disparate data. If you're into complex spatial queries and in-depth geo-analysis, well, then we're back to the scut work story again. If this bothers you, best you suck it up and pay some dues. |
||||||
|
||||||
| Realizing that all opinions are situational (geospatial?), I have to go with Geospatial Thinkers. The tool created by geographers is being used by a variety of disciplines but the problem solving capabilities has not been mainstreamed into all the possible processes that can be affected. Data has become big business and there is never enough. But a trained Geospatial Thinker can use existing data along with a sound hypothesis to fill in data gaps and also apply spatial logic to any project. |
||||||
