2.1. Enrollment Trends in Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness Undergraduate Programs

U.S. AEAB undergraduate programs have experienced increased enrollment over the past 10 years. Of the 106 U.S. state universities that included agricultural economics, business, and management programs, fall enrollment increased by 27% from 2004 to 2013 (USDA, 2016).Footnote ⁶ In contrast, over this period total fall enrollment of all undergraduates enrolled in degree-granting postsecondary institutions in the United States increased by 18% (National Center for Education Statistics, 2014), showing the growth rate for AEAB programs to have been greater than that for undergraduate programs in general. Because of incomplete data and problems associated with separating out agricultural economics enrollment from agribusiness enrollment at universities that include both, it is difficult to develop a full picture of enrollment by agricultural economics versus agribusiness programs. However, of 20 land grant university agribusiness programs for which we have full data sets from our survey of AEAB programs, the increase in enrollment was 45%. For the five agricultural economics programs for which we have full data sets, the increase was 17%. Increased enrollment follows a number of years of declining enrollment in these programs during the 1980s (Adrian, Reference Adrian1990), followed by the 1990s when decreased enrollment in agricultural economics programs was more than offset by increased enrollment in agribusiness programs (Heiman et al., Reference Heiman, Miranowski, Zilberman and Alix2002).

5.1. Names of AEAB Degree Programs and Enrollment

Of the 17 agricultural economics bachelor of science degree programs, 11 were named “agricultural economics” (Figure 1). Of the remaining six, two each were named “agricultural and applied economics” and “agricultural and resource economics,” and one each was named “agricultural and consumer economics” and “food and resource economics.” Though most of these programs continue to retain the traditional “agricultural economics” name, others have extended or altered their names to indicate greater specialization in a particular area and/or to attract students who would be less interested in a traditional agricultural economics degree. The adjectives “applied,” “resource,” “consumer,” and “food” imply a program that may appeal to a more urban, less farm-oriented student population. Of the 17 programs, we identified 5 for which there were no other competing programs such as an agribusiness program on the same campus, as can be identified via Table 2. Of these five, the average 2013 enrollment was 213.

Figure 1. Names of U.S. Agricultural Economics Bachelor's Degree Programs (n = 17)

Of the 35 agribusiness bachelor of science degree programs, 14 were named “agribusiness” and 8 were named “agricultural business,” so the majority incorporated solely the words “agriculture” and “business” into their degree names (Figure 2). An additional seven were named either “agribusiness management” or “agricultural business management,” emphasizing the managerial aspects of agricultural business. Six additional program names are shown in Figure 2, which incorporate the words “rural development,” “food,” “farm management,” “food industry,” “marketing,” and/or “administration.”

Figure 2. Numbers of U.S. Agricultural Business Bachelor's Degree Programs by Name (n = 35)

Of the 35 programs, 20 were identified for which there were no other competing programs such as an agricultural economics program on the same campus, as can be identified via Table 2. Of these, the average 2013 enrollment was 143. Of the 12 named “agribusiness” or “agricultural business” (Arkansas, Colorado State, Florida A&M, Iowa State, Louisiana State, Maryland–Eastern Shore, Mississippi State, Lincoln, Montana State, Clemson, South Carolina State, and Virginia Tech), the average enrollment was 133. Of the remaining eight, average enrollment was 161. Although those including additional words other than “agricultural business” or “agribusiness” in the degree name had numerically higher enrollment, there is little evidence to suggest that, on a global scale, more additional adjectives in the degree name significantly affected enrollment. Any such impacts are likely to be university or state specific in nature.

The remaining six hybrid programs were named “agribusiness and applied economics,” “agricultural business and economics,” “agricultural and food business economics,” “agricultural economics and agricultural business,” “agricultural economics and management,” and “applied economics and management.” The average enrollment for these six programs in 2013 was 289.

In total, of the 58 AEAB programs, 33 (57%) had traditional agricultural economics, agricultural business, or agribusiness names, whereas the remaining 43% had names that varied in many cases significantly from these. The average agricultural economics and hybrid program enrollments were numerically greater than the average agribusiness enrollments, but the sample sizes for agricultural economics and hybrid programs were small, so more work should be done with a fuller set of data (including non–land grant universities) to discern whether true enrollment differences exist. Although using a degree program name other than one of the traditional disciplinary names allows a program to differentiate itself and perhaps attract nontraditional students, a downside could be that general name recognition of the greater AEAB field is reduced with the array of program names.

5.2. Areas of Concentration

A rather large number of areas of concentration are offered within AEAB programs at land grant universities, with 66 different area-of-concentration names and a total of 88 areas of concentration offered, for an average of 1.6 areas of concentration offered per program. Using the term “area of concentration,” we refer to specific designated and approved curricular areas within AEAB through which AEAB majors may formally concentrate their coursework beyond the base AEAB requirements. We do not examine minors, which refer to formal, concentrated study of fields outside of the AEAB major (e.g., agronomy, sociology, etc.). Thirty-eight percent of the programs offered areas of concentration, where some programs offer rather large numbers of areas of concentration (one program offers 15). Table 3 provides all of the area-of-concentration names, and Figure 3 provides a breakdown by general area. The most common areas of concentration were management oriented, with 11 in the agribusiness management/management category and 9 in the farm/ranch management category. An additional four were in the agribusiness management and marketing category. Areas of concentration emphasizing marketing were the second-most common, with eight programs offering agricultural/food/commodity marketing areas of concentration, plus an additional four offering agribusiness management and marketing areas of concentration. Eight programs each offered agricultural finance/finance and/or international trade/business/development areas of concentration. Other areas of concentration that appeared to hold promise for attracting nontraditional AEAB students were pre-law, pre-vet, and quantitative skills/analysis/theory.

Table 3. Listing of 66 Areas of Concentration in U.S. Land Grant Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness Programs, 58 Programs

Figure 3. Numbers of Programs Offering Various Areas of Concentration

6.1. Economics Courses

All programs required a principles of microeconomics course. Names of these courses varied, from Principles of Microeconomics to Introduction to Agricultural Economics, and so forth, but examination of course descriptions suggests that all programs included a course devoted to introductory microeconomic theory.Footnote ¹³ All agricultural economics programs also required a principles of macroeconomics course, but 91% of the agribusiness programs required such a course. If a P ≤ 0.10 level of significance is required to consider these percentages statistically different, there is insufficient evidence to conclude a difference. Overall, 95% of the programs required an introductory macroeconomics course. Some of the remaining 5% of programs include introductory macroeconomics content within other courses but do not require a course specifically devoted to the subject.

The AEAB curricula were less likely to require intermediate microeconomic theory. Seventy-one percent of the programs required intermediate microeconomics, with 69% of agribusiness and 82% of agricultural economics programs requiring such a course. If one combines Intermediate Microeconomics, Production Economics, and Managerial Economics courses into one category, then 82% of all programs required such a course, including 77% of agribusiness programs and 88% of agricultural economics programs. Fewer (43%) required an intermediate macroeconomics course, with 40% of the agribusiness and 59% of the agricultural economics programs requiring such a course. It appears the AEAB profession is in agreement that introductory microeconomic and macroeconomic theory are core to the curriculum and most consider intermediate microeconomic theory as core. There appears, however, to be disagreement as to whether intermediate macroeconomic theory is core.

6.2. Agribusiness Courses

We designate courses as agribusiness courses if they deal with general business concepts but are not specific to economics, management, marketing, finance, accounting, or quantitative methods. Thirty-eight percent of the programs required an Introduction to Agribusiness or an Introduction to Business course: 49% of agribusiness and 29% of agricultural economics programs. Ten percent included a designated agricultural economics or agribusiness capstone course: 9% of agribusiness and 18% of agricultural economics programs. Other agribusiness courses including such topics as entrepreneurship, case studies, agribusiness strategy, and/or business ethics, and so forth, were also required by 21% of the programs, including 12% of agricultural economics and 29% of agribusiness programs.

6.4. Policy, Trade, and Law Courses

Relatively few programs (9%) required a specific agricultural trade course, and 34% required a specific agricultural policy course. Only 50% of the curricula required any agricultural policy, trade, or international economics course. Most AEAB programs offer courses in these areas, but most of these courses are offered as electives. In comparison, Boland and Akridge (Reference Boland and Akridge2008b) found that about half of the AEAB curricula required an agricultural policy course.

Significant differences were found between AEAB programs in whether a law course was required. Although 29% of the agribusiness programs required a Business Law course, no agricultural economics program required such a course. Similarly, 31% of the agribusiness programs required an Agricultural Law course, but only 6% of the agricultural economics programs required such a course. Boland and Akridge (Reference Boland and Akridge2008b) found that an Agricultural Law course was required by about 21% of agricultural economics and 24% of agribusiness curricula. Overall, 60% of agribusiness programs required any type of a business or agricultural law course, whereas only 6% of agricultural economics programs required such a course. Whether a specific law course is required depends significantly on whether the program is an agricultural economics or an agribusiness program.

6.5. Accounting and Finance Courses

Ninety-three percent of the programs required a first-semester accounting course, and 52% required a second semester of accounting. Significant differences were not found in accounting requirements between AEAB curricula. This suggests that the AEAB profession generally agrees that one semester of accounting is core to AEAB. There appears to be disagreement as to whether a full year of accounting is core to the curriculum.

Twenty-four percent, 31%, and 9% of the programs required Agribusiness Finance, Agricultural Finance, and Financial Management courses, respectively. Although the percentages of agribusiness programs requiring these courses were numerically greater than for agricultural economics programs, there is insufficient statistical evidence to suggest differences in proportions. A finance course offered by a college or school of business was required by 20% of the agribusiness and none of the agricultural economics program. Most (85%) of the agribusiness programs required some type of a finance course, whereas only 35% of the agricultural economics programs required such a course; the difference in proportions was highly significant (P ≤ 0.01). It appears finance is generally considered core for agribusiness, but not agricultural economics programs. Boland and Akridge (Reference Boland and Akridge2008b) found that about two-thirds of AEAB programs required an Agricultural Finance course in 2003.

6.6. Management Courses

We examined five specific management courses: a business school management course, Agribusiness Management, Farm Management, Strategic Management, and Supply Chain Management. The first three were more likely to be required by agribusiness than agricultural economics programs, with 24- to 28-point spreads for all three. None, however, appear to be considered core to either program, with Agribusiness Management being the most likely to be required by agribusiness programs, at 63%. In comparison, almost two-thirds of the agribusiness programs analyzed by Boland and Akridge (Reference Boland and Akridge2008b) required Agribusiness Management, roughly the same proportion as they found for agricultural economics programs. However, the requirement of any management course appears to be considered “core” for agribusiness programs, with 91% of the programs requiring some type of a management course. On the other hand, there seems to be disagreement as to whether a management course should be core to agricultural economics programs: 53% of these programs required a management course. Management courses can vary widely in content, as discussed by Boland and Akridge (Reference Boland and Akridge2008a).

6.7. Agricultural Prices and Marketing Courses

Relatively few programs (22%) required a specific Agricultural Prices course (compared with 40% of AEAB programs as shown in the Boland and Akridge [Reference Boland and Akridge2008b] study), though some programs may consider Agricultural Prices and Intermediate Microeconomics as close substitutes. On the other hand, most (86%) required any type of a marketing course, with 97% of the agribusiness programs and 71% of the agricultural economics programs requiring one. The difference in proportions was significant at P ≤ 0.10. Most programs (67%) required an Agricultural Marketing course, while 17% required an Agribusiness Marketing course. It is recognized that for some cases, these courses are likely synonymous, but in other cases could differ in focus, with Agricultural Marketing focusing more heavily on farm-level marketing and Agribusiness Marketing focusing more heavily on marketing functions downstream from the farm firm. Boland and Akridge (Reference Boland and Akridge2008b) also found that most AEAB programs required an Agricultural Marketing course. Agribusiness programs were more likely to require a business school marketing course than agricultural economics programs. Twenty-five percent and 7% of the programs required Agricultural Market Structure and Commodity Marketing courses, respectively. The requirement of a marketing course seems to be “core” to agribusiness programs, and the majority of agricultural economics programs also appear to consider such a course as “core.”

6.8. Other Coursework

Seven percent of the programs required any type of a development economics course, with equal portions of the AEAB programs requiring such a course. Twenty-six percent of the programs required a resource or environmental economics course, with Resource Economics being the more common. Although the percentage of agricultural economics programs (35%) requiring such a course was numerically higher than for agribusiness programs (20%), the difference was not statistically significant. With increased environmental and natural resource policy issues facing agriculture, it can be argued this is an area where AEAB students need exposure.

Considering the importance employers of AEAB graduates appear to be placing on “soft skills” such as oral and written communication skills (Litzenberg and Schneider, Reference Litzenberg and Schneider1987; NFAMEC, 2004; Noel and Qenani, Reference Noel and Qenani2013), we were surprised that only about half of the programs required any type of a professional writing or public speaking/communications course. Although numerically higher percentages of agribusiness programs required these courses, the differences were statistically nonsignificant. At some universities, there is insufficient instructional capacity in English and/or communications departments to meet the demands of such courses, so that could be affecting the percentages requiring these courses. In some programs, writing and oral communication skills are addressed via departmental course offerings. Based on our observations of student communication skills and what employers are telling us about the importance of these skills, we urge faculty in programs that provide little training in these areas to consider ways to ensure student proficiency in communications.

Only 58% of AEAB programs required technical agriculture courses such as Agronomy, Animal Science, Food Science, and so forth, which have traditionally been service courses offered by other college of agriculture departments. The average program required 5.1 hours of such courses, with the highest number of required hours in this category being 21. This is lower than that found by Litzenberg, Gorman, and Schneider (Reference Litzenberg, Gorman and Schneider1983) and later Harris, Miller, and Wells (Reference Harris, Miller and Wells2003). For 43% of the programs, we could not identify a required course that we would categorize as a “technical agriculture” course. The reduction and in some cases deletion of such courses has likely been the result of increases in business-type courses in agribusiness curricula, greater emphasis on post–farm gate agriculture, and pressure on universities to reduce curriculum hours to promote higher 4-year graduation rates. Although employers have placed technical agriculture knowledge rather low on the attribute set of AEAB graduates, such courses provide context for many of the decisions AEAB graduates make. Basic knowledge of agricultural production is particularly important for the increasing portion of AEAB graduates with limited agricultural backgrounds.

7.1. Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness Degrees Do Not Have Strong Name Recognition

Anyone who has majored in agricultural economics or agribusiness has been asked, What does one study in your major and what type of a job would a person in your major typically take? There are likely a number of reasons for low name recognition in AEAB. Espey and Boys (Reference Espey and Boys2015) found that <20% of high school students could name a job other than farming that an agricultural economics graduate might secure. Although farming is a career AEAB graduates may enter, it is but one of many. Misconceptions can continue at the college level with students not fully recognizing the potential of an AEAB degree. Many programs accept most of their students during the sophomore and junior years of their undergraduate studies.

There are only 106 AEAB programs at state universities and few if any remaining at private universities. There are, however, well over 600 state 4-year colleges and universities in the United States and many more private institutions. Of the 106 AEAB programs, there is a wide array of names used for the degrees. Of the 58 programs we examined, the degrees had 21 different names, with the top 3 names being agribusiness, agricultural economics, and agricultural business. Not only does the AEAB profession have relatively small numbers of programs granting these degrees, but they are called by 21 different names.

How is the wide range of degree names in AEAB affecting our branding and degree visibility? To compare with other fields, we examined economics, marketing, management, biology, and agronomy-related majors at each of the land grant universities included in our study. Similar to our analysis of AEAB programs, we visited the websites of each of these programs to determine their program names. For most universities, the economics, marketing, and management degrees conferred do not divert much from the disciplinary name. Main variations include business administration, general business, and business economics, which are most commonly seen when the major is housed in the business school. For biology degrees, name recognition is quite high; the degree name most commonly used is biological sciences.Footnote ¹⁴ For agronomy majors, we observe the most variability in the discipline and name of degree conferred. Some of the most common names were agronomy and soils, sustainable plant systems, plant sciences, crop science, soil and crop science, and agronomic sciences. Of the five majors, those with the greatest consistency of degree name are also those available at most comprehensive universities: business-related and biology. Agronomy, however, like AEAB, is available at a limited number of comprehensive universities and has a wide array of names. Thus, in addition to having limited offerings, the agriculture degree names vary significantly, potentially further exacerbating the problem of major name recognition. Do adjectives such as “food,” “resource,” “development,” “applied,” and others attract more students than the standard AEAB names? Although there could be differences in perceptions by region and/or university, this is an area of investigation that could produce some potentially interesting results for the AEAB profession.

7.2. Standard Coursework Required of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness Students

It is evident from our study that about six courses universally make up the core for AEAB programs: Principles of Microeconomics, Principles of Macroeconomics, Intermediate Microeconomic Theory, Accounting I, Calculus I, and Statistics. Otherwise, there is wide variation in what agricultural economists believe should make up the core AEAB coursework. This wide variation was previously recognized by Boland and Akridge (Reference Boland and Akridge2004) with regard to agribusiness programs. They called for professional organizations to become involved in developing model agribusiness programs that would suggest some standard coursework while providing individual universities some flexibility to develop curricula that uniquely serve the industries and environments in which they work.

Agribusiness curricula are more extensively structured than agricultural economics curricula, with agricultural economics curricula more likely to allow students to choose from lists of courses. Courses more likely to be required in agribusiness than in agricultural economics programs include: Agricultural or Business Law; Agricultural, Agribusiness, or general Finance; Agricultural, Agribusiness, or general Marketing; and Agricultural, Agribusiness, or general Management. Courses in finance, management, and marketing are generally considered as core to agribusiness programs, with ≥85% of agribusiness programs requiring courses in each of these areas. They are not, however, universally considered as core to agricultural economics programs. Thus, the main difference we observe between agricultural economics versus agribusiness programs is the greater emphasis on business courses of all types in the agribusiness category. Generally, however, large differences between the two are not found, as was also established by Boland and Akridge (Reference Boland and Akridge2008b).

Most programs include rather extensive “choose from a list” agricultural economics and business courses. Although employers can generally expect AEAB graduates to be well versed in the economic and business aspects of agriculture, it appears that the university from which students graduate can significantly affect their knowledge in certain areas. For instance, if students hold degrees from one of the roughly half of agricultural economics programs that do not require a management course, there is no guarantee these students will have been exposed to the basic tenets of management.

There is some question as to which courses should be offered “in-house” by AEAB faculty versus via others, such as through colleges of business. Although we cannot provide definitive answers to what “should be,” we can provide information on how the 58 programs we examined are handling this, specifically for business-oriented coursework. Of the 86% of AEAB programs requiring any type of marketing course, only 3 of the 50 did not require at least one of the required marketing courses to be an agricultural marketing-related course. Of the 81% of AEAB programs requiring any type of management course, only 6 of the 47 did not require at least one of the required management courses to be an agricultural or farm-related management course. Of the 71% of AEAB programs that required a finance course, only 4 of the 41 programs did not require at least one of the required finance courses to be an agricultural finance-related course. It appears that most of the AEAB programs that require such courses prefer these courses to include agricultural business content. In some areas, such as agribusiness management, it has become challenging to find new Ph.D. graduates with expertise in this area.

7.3. “Soft Skills”

As discussed earlier, employers of AEAB graduates tend to emphasize the importance of “soft skills” such as communication, team building, and so forth, in their employees (Litzenberg and Schneider, Reference Litzenberg and Schneider1987; NFAMEC, 2004; Noel and Qenani, Reference Noel and Qenani2013). This suggests that specific courses in written and oral communications, ethics, and others would be important for AEAB students. However, our results do not suggest that dedicated courses are necessarily included in AEAB curricula. It is likely that there is insufficient capacity to service the demand for such courses that are offered by English, speech communications, and other departments at some universities. In such cases, how can AEAB programs best incorporate the development of such skills into the curriculum, and in some cases within existing AEAB courses? Employer survey results suggest the need to find ways to ensure AEAB students have ample opportunities to develop these skills in college, hence the need to evaluate programs to ensure students develop these skills.

There are a number of experiential learning opportunities that most universities offer to encourage the development of “soft skills.” One program requires experiential/interdisciplinary learning experiences such as internships, study abroad, and undergraduate research, where the students have a choice of several options for fulfilling the requirement. Although internships are available through many of the programs, only two programs required internships. Internships not only allow students to develop workplace skills, including “soft skills,” but also are a way through which students can “connect with industry,” as discussed by Akridge (Reference Akridge2016). Marsh et al. (Reference Marsh, Hashem, Cotton, Allen, Min and Clarke2016) discuss how research internships, which combine the internship experience with undergraduate research, benefit students in a number of ways, including improved communication and critical thinking skills. Boland (Reference Boland2009) noted that colleges of agriculture at many universities are leaders in study abroad programs; these programs may provide additional resources for AEAB students to have an experiential learning experience that can enhance “soft skills.” Note that culture/gender awareness/sensitivity was in the top five skills, abilities, and experience employers desired as reported by NFAMEC (2004). Study abroad programs provide an outlet for students to develop a more global view and appreciation for diversity, intercultural awareness, and understanding (Harrell et al., Reference Harrell, Sterner, Alter and Lonie2017; Miller, Reference Miller1993). These programs thus contribute to meeting employer expectations (Harrell et al., Reference Harrell, Sterner, Alter and Lonie2017), as well as to the student learning outcomes expected by many universities.

7.5. Areas of Concentration

There is evidently a diversity of thought on the value of areas of concentration. The majority of AEAB undergraduate programs do not offer them, whereas others offer quite a few, with one program offering 15. With an area of concentration, students can highlight a particular area of expertise for their targeted area of employment. If ample free electives are available to use toward an area of concentration, then opting for one requires little or no additional coursework. On the other hand, Hurley and Cai (Reference Hurley and Cai2012) present an argument for a more flexible curriculum without areas of concentration, suggesting this motivates students to identify interests and a career path early on and provides flexibility for selecting coursework that fits their specific career path. We see value in both approaches, but urge undergraduate committees to be careful to ensure that curricula are structured enough to ensure competencies in the core areas.

To compare AEAB program use of areas of concentration with their use in other majors, we examined area-of-concentration offerings in economics, marketing, management, biology, and agronomy curricula using the same land grant institutions as used in the earlier analysis. This involved again visiting the websites of these programs to determine their areas of concentration. Areas of concentration, tracks, or specializations are rather uncommon in economics and marketing programs. We tend to see greater use of areas of concentration in management programs with the main areas of concentration being human resource management, small business and entrepreneurship, and operations and supply chain management.Footnote ¹⁵ In biology programs, we observe a number of concentrations in ecology, evolution and conservation biology, botany, and teaching tracks. The greatest variety of areas of concentration was found in agronomy, such as business and industry, consulting and production, plant science and biotechnology, precision agriculture, range management, soil and environmental science, pest management, turf grass, and horticultural science.

A couple of areas of concentration stand out as potential opportunities for recruitment. Four land grant programs offered pre-law areas of concentration. With significant numbers of students desiring law school postgraduation, this seems a good way to attract strong students into the program, particularly those with an interest in business and/or agricultural law.Footnote ¹⁶ Three programs offered pre-vet areas of concentration. This could be another good way to attract top students into AEAB. Many veterinarians need to understand basic business concepts, particularly those who own veterinary clinics, and colleges of veterinary medicine generally do not offer those courses. The Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges (2017) discusses a number of attributes veterinary colleges are looking for in applicants, with one being knowing “how to run a business.” Fitting such an area of concentration into an agricultural economics or agribusiness curriculum may in some cases prove challenging, particularly given the core set of courses required by most colleges of veterinary medicine for admission. Given, however, the relatively low percentage of undergraduates who plan to attend veterinary school, but who never end up attending because of change of plans or rejection, completion of a degree with strong employment prospects such as agricultural economics or agribusiness has advantages.