Dear Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London

We, the undersigned students of the Department of Earth Science and Engineering, write to express our concerns regarding the cancellation of the geophysics field course in Cyprus.

We recognise that this decision was made in response to heightened geopolitical tensions in the Middle East and that student safety must remain the department’s highest priority. We appreciate the care and responsibility required in making such decisions, particularly when they involve international travel.

However, the Cyprus field course is not simply an optional excursion. It represents a central and highly anticipated component of the geophysics curriculum, designed to give students extended hands-on experience in applying geophysical theory to real geological settings. Through multi-day surveys involving seismic refraction, electrical resistivity, electromagnetic methods, and field data interpretation, the course allows students to develop practical skills that are essential for careers in geophysics, environmental geoscience, and industry.

Field courses are widely recognised across geoscience education as irreplaceable learning experiences. They provide an immersive environment where students learn to design surveys, troubleshoot equipment, interpret data in real time, and understand the geological context that underpins geophysical observations. These experiences cannot be fully replicated through classroom exercises or short local demonstrations.

We acknowledge that the department has proposed alternative activities in London. While we appreciate the effort made to provide some form of practical experience, many students feel that these activities do not offer an equivalent educational experience to the original field course. Short urban surveys lack the geological diversity, scale of investigation, and immersive learning environment that make field courses so valuable. As a result, students are concerned that the proposed alternatives would fall significantly short of the training originally promised within the programme.

Additionally, students have paid tuition fees with the expectation that key elements of the course—including field training—would be delivered as advertised. The cancellation of such a major component without a comparable replacement raises understandable concerns about academic fairness and value for the educational experience provided.

In light of this, we respectfully but strongly urge the department to reconsider how this situation can be addressed in a way that supports students and maintains the high standard of geoscience education that Imperial is known for.

In particular, we ask the department to seriously explore the following options:

If travel to Cyprus is currently deemed unsafe, the department could consider organising a comparable field course in another location where travel risks are lower. Many locations within the UK or nearby Europe offer geological settings suitable for geophysical field training.

If feasible, postponing the Cyprus trip to a later date when travel guidance allows could still enable students to benefit from the intended field experience.

If a comparable field course cannot be delivered, we ask the department to consider financial compensation, fee adjustments, or funding for alternative field training opportunities so that students are not disadvantaged by the loss of this core component of the programme.

We also note that the department has suggested that some of the intended learning objectives may be met through a virtual field course. While we understand the intention behind this proposal, it appears somewhat contradictory to the very purpose of the Cyprus field course. The central value of the trip lies precisely in physical, hands-on experience within a geologically complex environment, where students can design surveys, deploy instruments, troubleshoot equipment in real time, and interpret data within its geological context. A virtual substitute cannot replicate the practical decision-making, logistical challenges, and observational skills that are developed through immersive fieldwork.

Furthermore, the proposed local field exercises appear to rely only on a limited subset of the equipment that remained in London, as much of the field equipment had already been shipped to Cyprus. As a result, students would only gain exposure to a small portion of the geophysical methods originally planned, which significantly reduces the breadth of practical training intended for this course. While we appreciate the department’s efforts to provide alternatives under difficult circumstances, many students feel that this approach does not fully deliver the comprehensive field experience that was expected and advertised as part of the programme.

We raise these concerns not in opposition to the department, but out of a shared commitment to ensuring that students receive the high-quality practical geoscience education that Royal School of Mines and Imperial College London is known for.

We believe that, through open dialogue and collaboration, a solution can be found that balances student safety with the academic integrity of the programme. We therefore welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter further and to work with the department to identify a constructive path forward.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Students of the Department of Earth Science and Engineering

Imperial College London