← Risk register SOC 25-1053 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Environmental Science Teachers, Postsecondary

6,690 US workers · median $94,980/yr · Education

EXPOSED

Lecture slides, syllabi, problem sets, rubric-based grading of lab reports, and literature reviews for grant proposals are all things current models draft at usable quality, and enrollment pressure in a small field (6,690 jobs) makes course consolidation into shared or asynchronous sections a real threat. What holds is the embodied and accountable part: running field sampling trips and wet labs, mentoring graduate researchers, sitting on IRB/thesis committees, and signing off on data and publications under your own name. The modal worker here is a tenure-track or contingent faculty member whose survival depends more on institutional budgets and enrollment than on model capability.

10-year outlook: The job persists but thins: content delivery gets AI-assisted and consolidated across sections, while faculty who run field programs and funded labs keep their seats.

Score — 53/100 resistance

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 11 + 11 + 4 + 14 + 13 = 53.

Task resistance 11/20

Mixed — a routine tier and a judgment tier. Roughly half the job — building slide decks on biogeochemical cycles, writing exam banks, grading lab reports against a rubric, and summarizing recent literature for a seminar — is already draftable, but supervising a stream gauging exercise, calibrating a YSI sonde with twenty undergrads in waders, and reading a struggling thesis student's raw data for what they actually did wrong are not, which is what puts this at 11 rather than 6.

Embodiment 11/20

Some physical or field component. Field methods courses, watershed sampling trips, GC/ICP-MS and wet-chem lab supervision, and the safety judgment calls that go with cold water, ticks, and hazardous reagents are genuinely physical, but the majority of contact hours are still lecture, office hours, and committee rooms — an 11 reflects a real field component that does not dominate the teaching load.

Liability shield 4/20

No licence, no signature requirement. There is no licence to teach environmental science; a PhD is a hiring credential, not a statutory gate, and while tenure and accreditation reviews create institutional friction, no board can strip your right to practice, so the 4 comes from the accreditation/HR layer rather than any personal licensure.

Trust premium 14/20

The human relationship is the product. Graduate advising is the product here — students choose a lab for the advisor, recommendation letters carry your name and reputation with hiring committees, and co-authorship relationships run a decade — which puts this at 14; it is not higher because the large intro-level enrollment that funds the department is largely anonymous seat-time.

Judgment & accountability 13/20

Meaningful discretion. You decide whether a thesis defends, whether a student's field data are clean enough to publish, whether a site is safe to sample, and how to handle authorship disputes and academic-integrity cases — high-stakes, ambiguous, and yours to own — with 13 rather than 16 because departmental curriculum committees, IRB, and deans formally share the heaviest of those calls.

Confidence: medium · reviewed 2026-08-11 · how scoring works

Tasks already automatable

What survives

Active moats: embodiment, trust, judgment

How to future-proof this job

Escape hatches — adjacent fields with better verdicts

Computed from U.S. Dept. of Labor O*NET skill profiles: high overlap with what you already do, materially higher resistance score.

Health Specialties Teachers, Postsecondary SAFE · 69/100 · you already have ~75% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Time Management, Judgment and Decision Making, Equipment Maintenance, Equipment Selection

Nurse Anesthetists SAFE · 89/100 · you already have ~54% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Operation and Control, Equipment Selection, Operations Monitoring, Equipment Maintenance

Field report — do you do this job?

Has AI actually changed your work?

Self-reported and unverified — a sentiment signal, not a survey. One response per person per occupation; you can change your answer.

From people who do this job

Nobody has filed one yet. If you do this work, you know things the rubric can't see.

What has actually changed in your work?

Concrete beats general: a tool that arrived, a task that moved, a headcount decision you watched happen. Don't include anything that identifies you or your employer if that would put you at risk.