February 19, 2008

American Society of Civil Engineers Updates Its Expectations of New Graduates in the Profession

Civil engineers face increasingly complex challenges in their work, but the education and licensure requirements for new graduates entering the profession are not keeping up, says the American Society of Civil Engineers. To help colleges and state licensing boards ensure that new civil engineers are ready for the tasks they will face, the organization, known as ASCE, released a report today outlining the skills, attitudes, and knowledge that it says future graduates should be expected to attain.

The report, “Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century, Second Edition,” expands on a similarly named 2004 “Body of Knowledge” report and is part of the organization’s larger campaign to raise civil-engineering education and licensure requirements.

“It is entirely possible that the fourth-grade teacher who inspires a young student to become a civil engineer is required to have a higher level of education than the engineer will when he or she begins designing the roads, bridges, and water systems that support our global society,” David G. Mongan, the society’s president, said in a written statement. “I find that troubling, given the increasing complexity of the technology and techniques with which engineers must work.”

The new report lists 24 desired learning outcomes for college civil-engineering programs, and advocates a broader engineering curriculum that allows for greater technical specialization, practical pre-professional experience, exposure to the humanities and social sciences, and the development of communication and leadership skills.

ASCE was one of the first professional engineering societies to embrace the recommendation in the National Academy of Engineering’s 2005 report “Educating the Engineer of 2020” that the master’s degree be the minimum requirement for professional practice. The society has lobbied state legislatures to increase civil-engineering licensure requirements from a bachelor’s to a master’s degree or the equivalent of 30 additional academic credits in postbaccalaureate study or work as an engineering intern. —Paula Wasley

Comments

1. As a member of ASCE for over 30 years and licensed engineer for 26 years, I’d like to offer the silent majority opinion. ASCE has slowly been taken over by the academics, who in general aren’t licensed to practice engineering but have multiple degrees for the world of theory. Sound engineering judgment is not an academic issue, as it is tied to experience working in the field, making the difficult assumptions to real world applications and applying the right theory and design solution to the problem.

   The vast majority (95% plus) of engineers do not need the additional higher level of degree to practice engineering. The need for master degrees and above is tied to unique specialty aspects of the field such as high rise structures and unique aspects of the field. Practicing engineers do need to remain current in their field and do require life long learning, but not at the academic level.

   The statement about the 4th grade teacher having a higher level of education than an engineer isn’t even a comparable subject. In most states, anyone with a four year degree can go back to school for one year and obtain a teaching certificate. It would most likely take 3 years of course work for a science teacher to obtain an engineering degree and then 4 years of relevant experience before they could apply and sit for the engineering exam.

   This is just a self serving position of the academic elite of the industry, who in most cases are not licensed themselves.

   — Mike    Feb 20, 03:58 PM    #

2. I must agree with Mike’s comments. I have been an ASCE member for some 16 years now and registered for about 12 years and would agree that the vast majority of engineers in the “real world” setting do NOT need additional institutional education so that our universities can generate another revenue stream. The process of continuing education is two fold, real world experiences and seminars or short courses to keep the engineer current in their field of work or interest. To imply that spending two more years in a university for a masters degree would make a better engineer one could only assume that you mean a better candidate for a future professorship.

   It is truly unfortunate that the academic world has driven this process to the point it is today to the detriment of all practicing engineers. If the requirement is to be then it should most certainly be limited to specialized fields and in case no one has been looking lately it would certainly require a revamping of our university level courses to actually provide a solid addition to a future engineers knowledge, not just two more years of theory.

   — Lawrence Hummel    Feb 20, 04:29 PM    #

3. Thanks for the spot on comments.

   — Kidd    Feb 20, 04:32 PM    #

4. I have been in the engineering field for over 27 years and been part of ASCE for approximately 20 years. I worked my way up through the ranks from drafting to project manager and I can tell you that most of what an engineer learns is after he/she is out of school.

   It is very inpotant that an engineer get his/her education but most of what they learn in school does not begin to cover what they need to know to work in the field. I have trained several EIT’s through their 4 year experience process and have seen first hand what a difference it is once they begin get their field experience. This is why an engineer is required to have four years of field experience before they can take the exam (they have a better understanding on how things work in the real world).

   If an engineer had to stay in school for the additional time needed to get their masters, it would take away from the time they could be getting the experience they need in the field before the exam.

   If you want a person to know more prior to becoming an engineer then update the exam to reflect the additional needs to the engineering field.

   Once a person becomes an engineer they should always keep their continued eductaion level up to date.

   — Conrad J. Beinstingel    Feb 20, 04:52 PM    #

5. Very simple. I am a civil engineer with 15 years experience that changed to the oil industry. Why? I received a 35% pay increase. The civil industry does not pay for a master degree. Perhaps there will be a time when the civil eng industry pays for a masters, not today.

   — Juan C McLane    Feb 20, 05:14 PM    #

6. I graduated with a BS in Construction Engineering and almost had to return to school because I found that many states won’t accept that degree for licensure. I received my MS and passed by boards at almost the exact same time.
   Prior to returning to college, I worked in the construciton field for almost 20 years. I can safely say that my experience in my previous occupation has come in handy in Engineering much more often than my education.
   Four years of education is more than enough. If you want to change anything, make the field period longer and the classroom shorter.

   — John Dipollino    Feb 20, 05:17 PM    #

7. I couldn’t agree more with all of the previous comments. I graduated with a BSCE in 1976 (there were 3 women in my class of 60) and have worked in many different areas of civil engineering over the past 30 years. I love what I do and can’t imagine doing anything else. Imagine the look on one of my EIT’s faces when I told them I would rather hire a new graduate with a 2.7 GPA and civil engineering work experience rather than a 4.0 who had never worked at all. They thought I was kidding!

   I do think that Universities are narrowing down the curriculum so current engineering students are not getting a broad range of CE subjects. I think it is important to take classes in all areas of civil engineering while you are in school. I have seen a lot of that lately in the college students I’ve interviewed for permanent positions and internships – they have already decided what they “want to do”. It’s hard for them to realize that most of the time, it’s the work that you do once you’ve graduated that helps you determine what you want to specialize in for the rest of your career.

   — Mary Mazzei    Feb 20, 05:21 PM    #

8. After attending my first Structures Congress last year in Long Beach, it doesn’t surprise me that something as unnecessary as requiring a master’s degree for licensure would now be coming out of ASCE. I attended a number of lectures at the conference that presented many advanced analysis techniques used in high rise construction, thermo-dynamic modeling etc. that while interesting had very little to do with what most engineers have to deal with on a daily basis. As far as the master’s degree requirement is concerned, having one myself I can’t say definitively that it helped me all that much for the majority of what I do and for sure do not believe it should be required. My belief is that I spent an additional two years in school to be six months to a year ahead of my peers who stopped at their bachelor’s degree. After eight years of working in the field, it is obvious that the person and the mentoring receive matters much more than the level of degree where skills are concerned.

   It is apparent that there is a huge disconnect between the 99% who are doing the work from the 1% that are making the rules and there is little respect given to the 99% by the 1% as shown in the bizarre analogy of a licensed engineer to a grade school teacher by the society president. My opinion is that ASCE’s current direction will lead to addendums to the IBC/IRC by locale building jurisdictions to eliminate these burdensome requirements. While this will provide a balance of power it will make things more difficult for those of us who perform work across the country because we will be going back to different codes in different regions. In fact with the 2006 I-codes we are already seeing it.

   — Marty    Feb 20, 05:45 PM    #

9. It’s a shame that the ordinary engineer was not polled on this subject prior to issuing the new requirements. It’s very similar to the introduction of LRFD to replace ASD. This is change for change’s sake and will not make the average engineer more qualified. Those who have the ability will have it whether they get a master’s degree or not. Some of those with master’s degrees will never be qualified.

   — Jerry Crim    Feb 20, 05:53 PM    #

10. I have to agree with the comments above keeping in mind that my path to licensure may be different from others.

    My education credentials are comprised of a BS and MS in Geophysics as opposed to Civil Engineering. It was not until I was let go from working in Oil Exploration that, after gaining the necessary experience, I took and passed the EIT and PE exams. It is my belief that the focus should be on continuing education so that Engineers will continue to grow with the profession.

    — Dan    Feb 20, 05:57 PM    #

11. I am not sure what I think about requiring a minimum master’s level degree to register as an engineer. Anything that improves capability probably can’t hurt. My experience (36 years as a registered engineer) indicates that engineering competence is based more on experience and common sense than on deep knowlege of scientific theory. After registration, I worked in the field at bridge carpentry for eight years. I returned to engineering design a much more proficient engineer. I draw on those years in the field more than my engineering education. I think if I had to make the call, I would rule for wider experience over deeper education anytime. Many of the problems I see in bridge construction today have their roots in incomplete understanding of the building processes on the part of the design engineer.

    — Dennis McGee    Feb 20, 06:44 PM    #

12. There is no substitute for practical experience or real life applications for a young Engineer of today to be successful in their careers.A civil Engineer of today needs to work alongside many other specialist professionals in construction industries etc to gain competence.Having had a techinical qualification and 11 years field experience before completing my bachelors and a career span of 24 years , the level of contribution you can offer on a project or benefits to a clients can not be matched with extra 2 years of reading theory or doing exams in universities.Advice to young Engineers “think like a builder and design like an Engineer” best advice I ever got.

    — shakti Singh    Feb 20, 08:07 PM    #

13. Equating an elementary school teacher with a masters degree to an engineer with a BSCE is like comparing apples to oranges. The only thing that could convince me to the contrary would be if someone could provide absolute numerical proof that all of the fourth grade teachers could pass 16 credits of calculus plus a 3 or 4 credit course in differential equations and at least 12 credits of University Physics where all of the above mentioned courses are taught by a professor and/or graduate student for whom English is a second language.

    — Robert R Blickwedehl, PE    Feb 20, 09:51 PM    #

14. As a first year Engineering student I cannot comment on the value of actual field experience versus further university level education. However, I take exception at being told that my fourth grade teacher was more educated than I will be.

    The primary education teachers I had the pleasure of being instructed by in my youth had, at best, reached the level of advanced Algebra or Statistics in Mathematics. I have to reach Ordinary Differential Equations at a minimum. Only the Science teachers had any level of Physics, you couldn’t have gotten a simple F = ma equation out of the others.

    Who are these mysterious, undereducated Engineers who so trouble ASCE? If they’re passing with little to no education, as implied, do you think maybe it’s the test that needs updating rather than us dumping tens of thousands of more dollars into the universitys?

    — Michael Cunningham    Feb 20, 10:35 PM    #

15. I just finish mi carrer civil eng. so what i can do?? start to work or go to make a master or somenthing like that…here is not enough place to work for a person who has a diploma of civil eng, you must have a master or somenthing else. so i dont know what to do….

    — Mauricio JImenez    Feb 20, 10:39 PM    #

16. We have a problem teaching the expanded body of knowledge in fewer credit hours. The civil engineering semester credit hours have been reduced from the mid 140s to the high 120s. My discussions with a few in the education community also reveal a trend to not have the student spend 5 years completing a 4 year program. The 140 plus program included 16 to 18 credit hours of non engineering subjects. With regard to hiring current graduates, I find their education doesn’t include courses expected of an undergraduate. In some cases surveying, highway design are optional. This appears to reinforce the concept of reduced credit hours some students have taken to earn their bachelors degree. I suggest we drop a couple of humanity courses add back a few engineering courses and get back to a program in the mid 140s at the undergraduate level.

    — Birdel F Jackson III    Feb 20, 11:49 PM    #

17. I’m a PE w/ over 12 years experience. I take a middle of the road view here. I believe that practical experience both in the field and the design office is invaluable but further education is also warranted…but not in the form that it is currently manifest.

    I’ve worked with engineers of practical experience and those of “theory”. 9 times out of 10, those with practical experience are the ones that are able to quickly assess and solve problems. They can crank out the work. Those 1 out of 10 problems require some higher understanding of theory to solve begs the engineer of “theory”. I have worked with some new engineers that simply do not know how to put together a drawing properly, the legacy of moving away from hand drafting to CAD. I think where much is lacking now-a-days is in the refined engineer skills that in the past would have been developed through apprenticeship or mentorship.

    Most of the consulting firms I have seen give lip service to the need for good mentorship but in practice place it as a low priority. It has become more business than profession. There is more interest in cranking out work than in developing young engineers into seasoned engineers of skill. Pace of engineer consulting and economics of the engineer job market tend to make quality mentorship programs prohibitive. Why invest the time in developing young engineers if they are going to run out the door when they get a better offer? Profits are the priority, not retaining talent.

    Sorry for the harangue. My point is this… I think engineers need to be better educated. I don’t necessarily think that a Masters Degree (of its current form) or work experience will be of enough benefit presently. I also do not think industry is training engineers like it used to. I think on average mentorship is more the exception than the rule in the civil engineering industry and because of that it continues to suffer. Perhaps promoting a more formal apprenticeship programs that involve a hybrid of work experience and some graduate level engineering classes would make sense.

    ASCE has often lamented that Civil Engineers are not held to the same respect as the “other” professions..Doctors, Lawyers, etc. Seems the thinking is that these professions have more education therefore we need more education. If we get better educated as a profession, we will then be on par with Doctors and Lawyers. I think the answer is a bit more complex. I think the answer involves rethinking the graduate engineering professional education experience.

    — Al Zytowski    Feb 21, 12:58 AM    #

18. As a younger engineer, I hold in very high regard the opinion, guidance, experience and knowledge of senior engineers including technical and field experts, professors, managers and executives. This is fundamentally because I think that most senior engineers have knowledge that I do not – whether by academic/research or industry experience – and I am willing to listen and learn from those more knowledgeable.

    My staunch support of PS 465 is based on my belief that the “Body of Knowledge” will continue to provide the required depth and breadth for licensed civil engineers to address issues on emerging technology, new construction materials, and challenging infrastructure. These issues morph with time and, in my opinion, the approaches to address them evolve with time as well.

    Whether the depth and breadth for a licensed civil engineer is obtained through education beyond a bachelor’s degree, practical experience, or a combination of the two is debatable but that it’s needed it’s a certainty. I am thankful that the path I followed was a combination: higher degrees and industry experience starting in graduate school. This combination has allowed me to tackle challenges in my industry and academic work that some of my peers are not as comfortable addressing because they require relatively more detailed analyses and designs while adhering to the codes, client guidelines, budgets, timelines, etc. that most projects have.

    In the past 20 years, advancements in technology have impacted communication, data processing, and, in my opinion inevitably, civil engineering. I think that current professional engineers have a wealth of experience in dealing with challenges based on their career paths. However, to me the career paths of the future will have unprecedented challenges based on undergoing technical and technological progress. I hope that the senior engineers of today support and promote efforts so that the engineers of the future have the tools and background for a continued level of excellence in the practice of civil engineering.

    — N. Catherine Bazan-Arias, Ph.D., P.E.    Feb 21, 09:53 AM    #

19. It is refreshing to see so much common sense spoken on this subject. What a pity it has to come in reaction to the preposterous actions and pronouncements of our ‘representative’ organization, ASCE. Ironic, too, that all this venting is taking place on the Chronicle of Higher Ed’s website. What, is no one listening over at ASCE?

    The competence of an engineer derives in very large measure from the experience gained in the field and the insights passed along by senior professionals. A good grounding in theory is essential, of course, but the nature of what we do is the application of that theory, the proper practice of which comes with real-world understanding. I would support a move to extend the experience period required before licensing. (There couldn’t possibly be anything wrong with what’s actually being taught in engineering school, though, could there? No, of course not.)

    I think an often overlooked aspect of this discussion is the role played by state boards of licensing. These entities have the power to stipulate what education, experience, and continuing education are necessary to receive a license. They have the advantage of not being overstocked with academics polishing their resumes. They are not required to follow the recommendations of ASCE. Imagine the influence of a national organization of state boards grounded in reality and served by real engineers. (And if such a body already exists, then it is clearly failing since nobody currently looks to it for leadership or guidance.) I am concerned that state boards are giving up their responsibilities rather than taking them more seriously, as is evident from the increased influence of the national filing-service and clearinghouse, NCEES. Take a look at architecture’s AIA, the state boards of licensing for architecture, and (the NCEES equivalent) NCARB to see just how ugly it could get with NCEES and ASCE.

    ASCE has problems as an organization, amply described in the comments already posted. It is more accurate to describe ASCE as an institution, which exists and functions primarily to serve and perpetuate the institution itself (abetted by self-promoters and academics with time to spare). The profession of civil engineering does not have to tie itself to the ASCE mast. Go national, state by state.

    — Philip Lowery    Feb 21, 10:07 AM    #

20. Those who complain about foreign born professors speaking with foreign accents should also know that at the current rate of interest among U.S. born civil engineers in studying for a Ph.D., in a decade or so there will be no native U.S. professors around. Almost all Ph.D. students in civil engineering, at least in the major academic institutions, are foreign born.

    — MS    Feb 21, 10:08 AM    #

21. I help run a mid-sized consulting engineering firm and have been in the civil engineering business about 35 years. And yes, I do have a Civil Engineering Masters degree of the M.S. version with research, obtained long ago (I admit it!). Although this is anecdotal, I have always been glad for the formal education that I have, at all levels, from elementary school through graduate school.

    As a practicing engineer who is in business and still designs and oversees the construction of projects, I have never felt that there was some great disconnect between what I have learned formally and what I have learned on the job through watching and working with others. The ASCE Body of Knowledge recognizes that there are ever-increasing levels of learning that should occur beyond formal education. Formal education prepares us for those experiences and gives a breadth of understanding that I think allows us to work in the world of practical engineering with a deeper appreciation of the goals and thinking of others. What is called “leadership” stands, in part, on formal education, as one of one of the many attributes of that leadership.

    I agree with many of you that much worthwhile learning happens after formal schooling, but without that grid of formal thinking to fall back on, later practical learning will be hindered. Formal education is but one thrust of ASCE’s policy, and in my experience, most of the drivers behind this move are not academics but practicing engineers like me.

    — C. Gary Kellogg, FASCE, M.S., P.E., S.E.    Feb 21, 10:10 AM    #

22. In my many years of engineering experience, I’ve known several good, practical engineers who never attended college. They became licensed prior to the education requiement being added to state laws. More education does not automatically make someone a better engineer. In the more than 25 years since I graduated from college, I’ve seen engineering programs becom more theoretical and less practical, hence newly graduated engineers have no understanding of how to apply their high level theories to the practical world of moving stormwater from one side of a site to the other.

    Newly graduated engineers don’t know how to read plans. They don’t know what contour lines should look like. The feel that since the TIN was made by the computer it has to be right. All two additional years of college will do is increase the egos of these young engineers without increasing their ability to design.

    A better approach would be to require newly graduated engineers to spend a minimum of 2 years in general construction, reading plans and having to figure out just what all those funny little lines on the plan mean. Then let them try their hand at design. They will be better designers, since they will have seen the real world result of both good and bad plans.

    Too many colleges have shortened the number of hours required to get a bachelor degree. This is another example of playing to the lowest common denominator. Engineers do need to know more than the mere technical and theoretical details of their profession. Dropping humanities, reducing or eliminating grammar, and literature courses will in the long run injur the profession. We communicate with humans using written and spoken language. If we come across in speaking or writing as poorly educated our opinions will be rejected by the public, possibly just at the time that accpetance of those opinions will save lives.

    A return to the 140-hour level, restoring both the technical and non-technical courses will better prepare engineers to survive the real world. Two more years of theory won’t.

    — Will Sawtelle    Feb 21, 10:13 AM    #

23. I’m a civil engineer and have made my living exclusively with consulting firms in the water resources field. I have three civil engineering degrees, all with emphasis in hydrology. and I’ve been a PE since ’79. I’ve never signed plans and don’t want to. Personally, I think all engineering programs should be a five-year bachelor’s degree, provided that the extra year would emphasize humanities.

    The talk of requiring that civil engineers have a master’s degree to practice will ensure a substantial pay raise for the rest of us. The shortage of CEs that would follow civil engineering programs’ dramatic drop in enrollment would make us in quite short supply. Of course under my five-year plan, enrollment in all engineering programs would drop dramatically.

    My Ph.D. means that I have a bigger toolkit, but from the real-world point of view it means little else. I’ve known very able engineers practicing with a mere bachelor’s degree, and doing very well. And some of them have an academic record that, shall we say, wouldn’t be attractive to graduate schools. Shall we eliminate them?

    For good or ill, we’re stuck with the educational system that we have. The parents and students don’t want to pay for an additional year, the students surely don’t want to go through the extra year, and it’s not clear to me that the colleges and universities would welcome ASCE’s proposal.

    And what’s this nonsense about our profession’s standing compared to doctors and lawyers and such? Did we get into the profession because we like the kind or work, or did we do it for the prestige?

    — Dean Randall    Feb 21, 10:34 AM    #

24. Educating for the future, not for the present, is what quality education is all about. In my opinion, a graduate degree holder with an understanding of new theories will always have an advantage in trying to understand what the future of civil engineering holds for him-/herself.

    Regarding the comment in item 20 above, perhaps it’s not so bad that all future professors will be foreign born. The new generation of civil engineers will need a global perspective, rather than local. They also need to invest time and effort in educating themselves about the societal, legal, political and cultural issues of the outside world. Not to mention acquiring some basic conversational skills in Spanish (which is already a de facto second – not foreign – language in our country), Chinese, Arabic, and even Russian. Cutting down on the humanities and general ed coursework in civil engineering programs would be, for this reason, totally counterproductive.

    — East Coast    Feb 21, 10:38 AM    #

25. I think we must each ask ourselves two questions. First, what knowledge and skills will future civil engineers need, especially early in their careers? My short answer to this question, based on 30 years of varied engineering practice, is that future young engineers will need both broader AND deeper capabilities than the basic capabilities deemed necessary for me and my generational colleagues. Secondly, how will the needed knowledge and skills of future engineers be best developed. Most of us would readily agree that academic preparation and engineering experience are BOTH needed. Neither is a satisfactory substitute for the other. I am convinced that the broader and deeper preparation needed by the future engineer cannot be acquired solely through experience – it will require greater academic preparation.

    One vision of the well-prepared future engineer is presented in the “Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century, Second Edition” which was prepared by a wide cross-section of our profession, including many eminent practitioners. We would all do well to study their work carefully before we casually dismiss their visionary call for change.

    Our profession is today preparing engineers who will use tools and techniques that aren’t yet developed, to solve future problems that we cannot even dream of, and we are preparing them with an engineering education system that is little changed since the advent of the automobile. As an engineer, I find this disturbing.

    — Wayne Bergstrom    Feb 21, 10:59 AM    #

26. I applaud “East Coast” for hitting on what I think is the real issue here: it is about the future, not the past. Curiosity got me so I took a look at the report ASCE released, and what I saw was the phrase “preparing the civil engineer for the future.” As I read it, I did not read it to say theory over practice and nor did I see education over experience. I just wonder if some of those who have commented have actually read the report.

    — West Coast    Feb 21, 11:42 AM    #

27. It is difficult to justify borrowing money for a Masters degree within a profession serving an industry that already has a hard time recognizing the dedication required to get a License. Yes, I wrote “borrow” because historically engineers have been labeled as middle class by society, the class that is ever shrinking. To require a Masters degree as a prerequisite for licensure is to force the middle class out of the engineering profession. That might keep more professional engineering prospects in the field, but it won’t help in validating the profession.

    The higher level of education required by a 4th grade teacher is by no means equivalent to the higher level of dedication to his/her profession required of a Civil Engineer. Additionally, I don’t want a Civil Engineer teaching 4th graders what he/she knows about the world, at that age the kids that don’t get it at home, are better off not knowing.

    — Southern Cal    Feb 21, 12:39 PM    #

28. Call a spade a spade. This is nothing but an attempt to limit the number of licensed engineers to drive up wages. It will do nothing to improve the quality of engineers.

    — Carl    Feb 21, 12:49 PM    #

29. I don’t see here any ideas on how to increase a supply of qualified professors from our own ranks in order to secure a future supply of civil engineers. Does anyone here have anything to say about this?

    — Boilermaker Civil Engineer    Feb 21, 01:37 PM    #

30. I am a PE in Civil Enginnering and I am finishing my Ph.D. My specialty is in structural and geotechnical engineering. I have been practicing Civil Engineering for several years. I want to make the following points:
    1. Like other engineering fields, civil Engineering is and should be based on sound mathematics and theories (e.g. statics, dynamics, structural analysis, etc.).
    These theories are based on hundreds and even thousands of years to develop and improve. Some of them is based on experiental results. Without those theories, those so called “engineering judgement” and/or “engineering experiences” are worthless. I was totally shocked by some PEs in my organization whose only knowledge is to analyze a simply supported beam.
    2. One of the reasons why so many PEs can’t solve problems is our education system. Some universities don’t require the core courses (e.g., structural analysis including matrix structural analysis) to graduate for structural majors. Another reason is that the PE license test (including EIT) is focuse more on so called “design code” that candidates don’t need to study in depth of the subject. EIT test deals a little bit of mechanics but it is NOT sufficient.
    3. Ironically, those who know nothing about the structural behavior are actually in the business of writing/approval the “Highway design code” because they have powers and they mandate engineers to use it. Therefore you know what happened. Some of the code doesn’t make any sense. For those who know this problem, they still have to use it. To make things worse, a lot of PEs just blindly follow the code never bother to question the validity of the code. It is NOT that the university teaches too much theory. On the contrary, it is some practicing engineers that DON“T have enough knowledge to understand the besic behavior of the structures. So they use big safety factor based on their “engineering experience” and “engineering judgement” and called it conservative.
    4. I have read and agreed with most of the ASCE report but I do believe that most of the management, social skill courses can be achieved by just reading texts. Speaking of manamgement, I DO believe that our society is OVER managed. Our country needs more problem solvers (scientists, engineers, etc.) NOT managers.
    5. Finally, speaking about global competition, the only way this country will win is through technical superiority (advanced math and science). The sad truth is most graduate students in our universities are from foreign countries. So don’t blame globalization or ASCE report for raising the bar. Rather view it as a reminder to everybody. Wake up and compete!

    — Rational Engineer    Feb 21, 01:39 PM    #

31. In response to West Coast (26), I went back and reviewed the latest BOK, downloaded from ASCE today. The BOK heavily discusses the need for continuing education but it starts with considering the MS is the first professional degree. The BOK also spends a great deal of time discussing the need for engineering faculty to be; scholars, effective teachers, have relevant experience and positive role models. Upon review of the criteria, it appeared to follow the academic model of publish or peril, intellectual and interpersonal rapport, relevant experience (but no license required) and a positive role model. There is an unmistakable academic bent to the BOK and it doesn’t appear to reflect the needs of most practitioners.

    Much of the academic discussion seems to relate back to the 140 credit degree model. Having graduated in the 70’s I obtained a 132 credit degree which was solid on the basics although it lacked on making us “well rounded”, as this was left up to us. My program included; 18 credits of humanities of which 3 credits was Freshmen English, 16 credits of Calculus/DQ, Chemistry and Physics, 6 credits reserved for technical electives, 3 credits “free elective”, and the remaining 79 credits of structured (no choice); civil, mechanical and electrical courses as part of the core program. I’m disappointed to say that my college’s program was modified and watered down in the late 80’s allowing more specialization at the BS level, which allowed some areas of Civil Engineering to be omitted.

    One of my best Instructors was licensed and “only” had a MS in geotechnical engineering, hence an Instructor as opposed to Professor. He was let go because he didn’t have a PhD. a major disappointment to those who had taken his class that stressed the practical application of geotechnical engineering.

    Our civil engineering profession requires; general practitioners, experience developed specialists (or MS level), cutting edge specialists (MS level and above), managers and leaders. For most, the standard well rounded BS level degree will suffice, so long as they remain current in their discipline. I do believe that there may be problems with current ABET version of the BS degree. For others developing specialties; experience, mentorship and specialty course work will do the trick. Specialists will most likely require advanced learning and for some a MS.

    Geotechnical Engineering has long required a MS to truly advance in the filed due to the mix of craft and science. Some Structural Engineering specialties require advanced work but not necessarily an MS. Our profession’s mangers and leaders generally spend a lifetime of honing their skills while stepping away from the technical side of their careers. Our engineering faculty in general requires the advanced degrees of MS and PhD, but they should also require licensure in the specialty that they teach. In order to ensure faculty have the relevant experience they should be willing to meet the criteria for licensure in the field.

    — Mike    Feb 21, 02:08 PM    #

32. Until very recently, PE license exams did not have Construction Engineering as a specialty option, so practitioners or university teachers in that field could not become registered unless they did so under another specialty. From the legal standpoint, registration is required only from those who stamp design drawings and worry about professional liability lawsuits resulting from this assumption of liability. If a teacher in construction engineering is competent to serve in this function, why drag him through an apparently unnecessary ordeal – just to make all others feel good?

    — Construction Engineer    Feb 21, 03:42 PM    #

33. The vast majority if the comments above are indicative of the practicing engineer and not academics. I too agree with the experience factor as providing the breadth of understanding needed for providing engineering solutions to real world problems. Working in the field for 20 years and licensed for 13, I find that student interns have a eye-opening experience once they become aware of how engineers use the theory taught in school to solve a problem.

    I find it extremely contradicory for ASCE to be advocating the additional education requirements while at the same time requesting the we engineers meet with high school and middle school students across this country to convince them to become engineers. Students DO NOT want to hear that they have to get a Master’s in order to practice as a licensed engineer. Why not focus on the problem of reduction of undergraduate graduation requirements and advocate the teaching of some real world problem solving. While Academics may not “need” a license, should a professor of Civil Engineering be required to have a minimum of 5-10 years of “practical” experience as a licensed engineer, then maybe they would understand how to help better educate the engineers of the future.

    — WEst Coast Mike    Feb 21, 04:50 PM    #

34. Who wants to be an engineering educator? The pay is low, stress level high, and the industry does not care to give us what we need to sustain ourselves in the academic environment. Even if we do get a PE license, how do we justify the cost of renewing it each year? What we need is industry support for our research – and we want to make it relevant for industry – so we can produce the ASCE journal publications necessary to remain on the job. The criteria for faculty promotion and tenure are the same in all departments in any good university. Like it or not, Civil Engineering included.

    — Educator    Feb 21, 06:07 PM    #

35. What practicing engineers don’t often realize is the importance of faculty research on the name recognition of the academic institution they themselves graduated from. As a colleague pointed to me recently, few if any outside of its own alumni ranks are aware of Rose-Hulman’s national prominence as the top-ranking teaching institution in engineering, including civil. Rose-Hulman does little, if any, externally funded research. How many have heard of it before, or can name the state in which this fine institution is located?

    And now contrast Rose-Hulman with Stanford, the top ranking civil engineering program overall… If you think that Stanford is famous because of its outstanding quality of undergraduate teaching, you are certainly out of touch with reality. Research-intense universities become famous because of their research, not teaching. And famous institutions attract the top talent into their student body, and these students will do well in life because of the institution they were fortunate to graduate from. Thus, success in research breeds success in the quality of students. The quality of students breeds success in the ranks of the alumni. I hope all can see the connection here…

    — Researcher    Feb 21, 07:00 PM    #

36. Educator and Researcher,

    I understand your points but let me offer the perspective of a practitioner with over 30 years of varied industry, owner and consulting experience. We need real world expertise and problem solving to provide value to our employers and clients. Our education gives us the tools (science and applied science knowledge) that we sharpen early in our careers and hopefully we’ve learned the ability to continue to learn on our own and solve problems from our college experience. Problem solving skills and our aptitude/interest in math, science and building things is what inspired us to become engineers in the first place. We all had the base intelligence to allow us to succeed in many professions, including business that currently appears to understand the idea of value added much better than we do, but that’s another subject.

    Educator, we’re all aware of the “publish or peril” requirement that you find yourselves in, but it shouldn’t necessarily always tie to research. You could write about your experience of working in the field utilizing your PE license during your summer break or semester sabbatical to reinvigorate yourself and reconnect to the industry of the profession you teach. Your goals could be for sound financial moonlighting through consulting, to noble pursuits of working for agencies like Engineers without Boarders. Working and utilizing your PE license would make you a better faculty member and someone who is sought out by students.

    Researcher, I understand the concept of attracting the best students through the use of state of the art facilities and cutting edge research. But this tends to be somewhat of a self fulfilling prophecy of getting the very best and grooming them for higher education and having them remain in research and teaching. In my experience of mentoring and hiring engineers; from new grads through senior supervising engineers I’ve always searched out the engineers with the most rounded backgrounds who have honed their skills toward the specialty that they love the most. This may come as a big surprise to you, but after your first job coming out of college, where you graduated from isn’t really an issue anymore. It becomes, what have you been doing since college. In fact, I concur with the earlier comment that I’d be more interested with the new grad that had worked in the industry as an engineering intern or assistant field engineer regardless of their GPA of 2.7 vs. 4.0. Most ABET BS programs would meet my needs, I don’t need the high end schools like CalTech or MIT to impress me, in fact they may cause me to think that they’re too theory bound.

    — Sr. Engineer    Feb 22, 09:28 AM    #

37. One of the problems university CE departments face is that they are being squeezed from both ends. The universities are having to teach remedial math that the high schools don’t teach and they are also expected to teach large final year design project classes to satisy industries demand for graduates with experience (instead of industry providing them a work place to gain experience in). Comparing a degree from 20 years ago with one from today on the basis of credit hours taken is not valid because they are a different 140 hours. I agree 100% that experience and judgement are valuable. They just should not be backed into the undergraduate degree. If employers took more responsibility for professional development Universities would have more time to teach the core technical courses within the 4 year degree and the MS debate would go away.

    — Nigel    Feb 22, 01:40 PM    #

38. Nigel,

    You’re correct that the program of 20 years ago isn’t being taught. We need to return to the earlier program breakdown of classes. Of course today we teach CAD where I had 2 semesters of design drafting and everyone has their own computer and IBM card punch terminals are now in museums, but we should not be watering down the program to deal with improperly prepared high school students. If students lack the proper math or science background they can take those courses out of program or at a community college before attending the college for their BS program. Don’t dumb the program down for the lower performers as this causes the prepared students to waste their time and money and it sets up the unnecessary need for instruction beyond the BS degree.

    If the BS program was simply an updated version of 20-30 years ago there wouldn’t be a problem with the undergraduate degree.

    — mike    Feb 22, 02:22 PM    #

39. I agree with the majority of opinions expressed in the comments. I see no need to mandate by law that Masters Degree be the minimum entry level requirement. If Master’s Degrees are what engineering firms and agencies want for entry level positions then the market place will dictate that. While I received a strong academic technical background in college to allow me to begin my career, the real benefit was learning how to learn. In my field, geotechnical, there is no substitute for experience and a keen eye for observation.
    There is one aspect, however, I wholeheartedly endorse and that’s the need for more education in the ability to communicate. The ability to communicate and working relationship skills are the two qualities I look for first and foremost in the people I have hired. As long as they are reasonably intelligent and have some initiative we can teach them what they need to know from a technical standpoint. I have been in too many meetings where the decision was not necessarily based on the best technical position but was selected because it was the one best articulated.

    — Michael    Feb 22, 03:17 PM    #

40. Michael is right. From the comments I consistently hear from industry colleagues what most often distinguishes a successful engineer from a failing one is his ability to communicate, both orally and in writing. However, the side effect is that as his career progresses, a good engineer spends less and less time pursuing engineering and more time managing other people. Financial incentives to do so are quite consistent in most career scenarios.

    I don’t believe the Sr. Engineer in comment 36 really understands the predicament of the professors who are required by their universities to be BOTH educators and researchers. The quality of research and the research dollars raised by professors from industry and government sources, plus the resulting research papers published in academic journals are the basis on which all leading universities compete. Writing only about one’s experiences from sabbatical stints in industry practice will not lead to research-focused papers in ASCE journals and to obtaining research grants for substantial sums of money to be seriously considered by the university for the mandatory promotion and tenure. You should also know that each journal paper – before it is allowed to be counted as part of a promotion and tenure portfolio – needs to be anonymously refereed by several other academics outside of one’s own institution for the seriousness of research reported and for its intellectual contribution to the overall body of knowledge on the research subject at hand. Our mechanical and electrical engineering professorial colleagues don’t seem to have the same problem – their industry counterparts seem eager to help with research grants which in turn lead to the required journal papers. Civil engineering professors are held to the identical standards by promotion and tenure committees in their universities as their electrical, mechanical or chemical counterparts. We are in competition with them for academic space and other resources, and without similar sponsored research dollars coming in to support civil engineering we are indeed being squeezed out and downgraded by the academic system to an orphan category.

    Repeating the question raised in comment 29, I still don’t see any ideas in any of the following comments on how to increase the supply of future professors for civil engineering departments in our universities. I don’t think that abolishing the standards is the answer. It follows from the general silence on this subject that nobody has a clue what to do about this urgent problem. The longer the silence continues, the more acute this problem will become and civil engineering may be eliminated from major universities as an academic discipline.

    — Educator    Feb 23, 08:57 AM    #

41. I would also add that most of the very limited funding for research in civil engineering departments goes into transportation and environmental engineering, maybe also to geotechnical science to some extent, while other traditional disciplines such as structural or construction engineering get almost no research funds to sustain themselves in the highly competitive academic world. There is already a sense of morale crisis among many ambitious civil engineering professors who are slowly abandoning academia altogether and moving to the greener pastures in the world of full-time consulting.

    Ironically, construction firms which account for the largest share of profits among civil-related businesses, fund almost no research in universities. Unless this situation changes very soon, the professors will gradually fade away and the pipeline of new students graduating from top-tier institutions will dry up before it is too late to do anything about it. Restoring these programs after the professors move away will be very costly to all and practically unrealistic. Training civil engineers that the industry wants will be relegated to community colleges or second- and third-tier universities with old-fashioned teachers regurgitating old knowledge created by others and no research ambitions. Such programs attract less selective and ambitious students, do not engage in research and do not seek industry funding for this purpose. From the preceding discussion it sounds like this is what the civil industry wants. The big and well-known engineering schools will continue with offering majors mostly in biotechnology, informatics, nano-engineering and all the new academic disciplines where research support from industry and foundations alike is plentiful.

    — Researcher    Feb 24, 09:28 AM    #

42. Just about everything most of the above comments have said about what I will call “old” versus “new” civil engineering education is right on target—but ONLY for fairly well established CEs practicing NOW. The whole object of ASCE’s substantial endeavor was to look out to the future and suggest reasonable plans for it, not simply to react to current conditions.

    Like many other commenters, I earned my bachelors degree a good while ago—37 years ago to be precise—and subsequently earned P.E. registration in three states. While turns in my career have led me away from active practice in new engineering work in recent years, I remain more closely involved with more engineering disciplines than ever, and I played the education and registration games even as their rules changed over time.

    There is absolutely no argument that professional practice is the ultimate “making” of a professional. Whether the profession is medicine, law, education, engineering, or any other, the key element that makes one a professional is judgment. Professionals work in areas where there are few absolute “goes” and “no-goes.” In engineering, most new work almost every aspect of it involves “gray areas,” with the costs, benefits, and risks all having to be traded against one another to produce a practical outcome. Similar analogies can be made for any other profession. The drive to tackle these gray-area challenges instead of simple black-and-white, stay-inside-the-lines, somebody-else-is-responsible vocations is a gut-level component of good professionals.

    The complexity of economic, environmental, resource, regulatory, liability, and social impacts on a civil engineering project today are much more complicated today than when I and most above commenters began to practice, and this says nothing about the increased complexity of analytical methods or construction practices. We have gradually kept up, at least to some degree in—usually—ever-narrowing fields. While that has worked for us, what about the new engineer? Or the one a decade or more from now? Do any of you reasonably think all the aspects of, and influences on, our profession will stay the same? I certainly expect all of them, most especially the non-technical aspects, to grow substantially. It is easy to say, “Just get rid of all the non-engineering courses and minimize all that theory nobody but academics wants. Just add more design and field work. That’s what they really need.” The only problem with this is that a professional—the person who has to make crucial judgments—has to really understand how and why what he/she is doing works. Lindenthal did not design the Sciotoville Bridge simply by copying numbers out of the steel manual. How many of us would have the audacity to even imagine a continuous truss across the Ohio River, much less truly understand why it was the best choice for the location? And today, I am not all that sure that the various public bodies that have injected themselves into the process would permit it to be built.

    To confront such challenges, future engineers will increasingly have to satisfy public—make that the non-technically proficient public—demands to prove that they are trustworthy and competent. Like it or not, those qualities are being increasingly defined by greater education and public licensure/registration requirements. We all know that’s not a panacea, but it is reality in the socio-political world.

    Future engineers of all disciplines will have to hit the ground more productive than ever. Competition will demand it. And they will have to be able to work effectively in multi-disciplinary teams made up of technical, economic, and social players. No one is born knowing how to do all this, and our current educational requirements leave much of it to be learned in the School of Hard Knox. That may somehow be satisfying revenge to those who had to “make their bones” that way, but it is anything but an enlightened approach. The price of failure is too high, for both the engineer and society. This is why the Body of Knowledge stresses a broad educational background—to at least give the new practitioner awareness that all of these issues strongly impact what he/she does. Down the line, any engineer who aspires to gain influence on public policy will have to be at least as adept at these skills as at technical ones.

    This Body of Knowledge Report and its recommendations are by no means perfect. Even with the immediate adoption of everything in it—something highly unlikely to occur anywhere—engineering will still have much to do to reach the status now enjoyed by other professions. That will always be an uphill battle, because, unlike other professionals, engineers very rarely work directly for the people who will use their products. Thus, there is no direct human connection. But these recommendations are a well-considered, thoroughly debated start in the right direction, and they deserve far more than a simple comparison to rather narrowly defined, current conditions.

    Interestingly, many of the above commenters expressed a view that this is really an academic conspiracy to build their empires. Had you been a party to the debate, you would have observed that the strongest opposition to any change came from the academics. There are, of course, exceptions, but current university promotion and tenure practices strongly favor maintenance of the status quo. The kinds of changes recommended actually do little or nothing to promote academic careers, and no one now knows how all of this can be fully integrated into university administration in a positive fashion. Practicing civil engineers, particularly those in leadership positions, were the ones who realized what is lacking most of all, and they generally had the best vision for what future needs would likely be.

    Those who want to think that this generation of civil engineers has all the answers need look no farther back that the I-35 bridge in Minnesota, the tunnel roof collapse in Boston, or the meltdown of railroad service in Texas a few years ago due largely to inadequate infrastructure. Most of us could add quite a bit to this list. We will, in our retirement, go over, under, around, and through structures our sons and daughters design and build. And they will do so under increasingly demanding restraints. I want to know that they will have the best tools, knowledge, thinking, and judgment resources at their disposal.

    In closing, please note that I have no pecuniary interest in this at all. The report recommendation’s adoption or rejection will have no impact on my area of practice as an engineering historian. I do, however, believe that engineering is anything but a static discipline, and that society evolves as well. Thus, it is not only good, but vital, for our profession and the world at large that these difficult issues be examined in the most critical light possible. From what I can tell from other engineering societies, ASCE is a good decade ahead of most in making this investment in the future. Try to imagine the world in 2020 and read the report—thoroughly—before jumping to conclusions. Change will come. It’s up to us whether it will be for good or bad.

    — J. Lawrence Lee    Feb 25, 11:29 AM    #

43. If changes over the next 20 years is what this rule is intended to address then I’d submit for building design and construction a Master’s degree will be even less relevant for civil engineers located in the United States than what it is now. Over the next 20 years globalization will continue to shift most of the analysis and design work off-shore where licensed engineers with advanced degrees from US institutions can be hired at half of what a US based engineer with an equivalent degree will charge. To continue to be in demand, the 21st century US civil engineer will need to be a facilitator/communicator/manager much more than a designer. Where they will need to be an expert in design is when errors and omission arise from the designs produced overseas and it is time critical to come up with solutions. Master’s degrees do not teach this experience does. You’d be better off requiring entry level engineers to spend two years as an iron worker apprentice, framer/carpenter apprentice or in some other field where they need to determine effective solutions quickly to real world problem that arise during the construction phase. These are the skills that will be critical in the 21st Century and are the skills which will continue to provide an increase in wages. Until all engineers globally are on an equivalent pay scale as their US counterparts there will be very little change in the salaries made by US based engineers no matter what their level of degree happens to be. This in turn will remove all incentive for acquiring an advanced degree which will deter a large number of the best and brightest from wanting to enter the field in the first place.

    — Marty    Feb 25, 08:18 PM    #

44. As an engineering professor in a discipline other than civil engineering I am finding these discussions to be both enlightening and compelling. The issues are broadly applicable throughout the engineering profession, and I am grateful that they have been so cogently articulated.

    — Richard Burke    Feb 26, 10:59 AM    #

45. Unless memory fails, neither Brunel, Linant, or Wrights had advanced degrees in engineering. Yet, Great Eastern sailed majestically, the Suez Canal works most admirably, and airplanes keep on flying. Let’s not get completely crazed: self education and learning are the duty of every engineer, otherwise survival in the field will be pathetically short. Medicine still insists on creating scientist-physicians and ends having neither fish nor fowl. Do we now need to create a generation of engineers sklled in academic debate but not knowing where the front of a hard hat is? ASCE would do itself and the rest of humanity a much greater favour if it contemplated how to demolish continuous barriers that separate engineers from other disciplines. My own medical pursuits have been greatly expanded by developing close contacts with the engineering world. Regrettably, too many colleagues took such stance either as a “betrayal of discipline” or a clean sign of my marbles getting entirely and irrevocablt lost.

    — Dag von Lubitz    Feb 26, 01:38 PM    #

46. Houston, we have a problem. I agree with most of the posters positions. I checked the ASCE website and found it incredible that there is no place to continue the debate. The president’s blog is silent to the under current of discontent on this issue.

    — majorityview    Feb 26, 11:42 PM    #

47. It may be so that Mike from comment #1 above and others that fully agree with him in the subsequent comments are not a silent majority as he suggests, but indeed a minority..?

    — Boilermaker Civil Engineer    Mar 1, 08:32 AM    #

48. Comments from “old” Europe:
    The education of civil engineers in Europe shows a variety of different paths. The time of education is from 3 1/2 to 4 years as bachelor; for a master (5 years) you have to add 1 1/2 or 1 year.
    The bachelors mostly will be employed directly by building companies, whereas the masters in the majority are more oriented towards a university career.
    Independent from the career most of the universities will go back to a 4 years education time as it was before the Bologna process. The reason for this turn is the impression that it needs at least 4 years to give a sound civil engineering education due to the fact that a civil engineer has to fulfill so many safety and risc duties on the building site. Another reason is that companies pay less for shorter educated civil engineers.
    In Europe we envisage the problem of working and serving across borders without limitation, but want to leave the old national limitatons. Therefor the respective European directive gives the possibility to install a so called platform, which describes the minimum professional qualifications a civil engineering must have to get licensed by a foreign host national or non-governmental institution. Most of the licensing institutions think that this professional platform may be scissored only for masters.
    A third point, which supports the BOK is that it fosters the students involvement in a great variety of disciplines. The depth cannot be too deep, but a basis is laid on which the later civil engineers can step forward. In the still nationally different education systems in Europe we have a variety in educating different profiles of civil engineer. This is done in depth. But then the broad overview may be missing.
    Finally I think the BOK is well known in the European Higher Education Area and mainly appreciated.

    — Carsten Ahrens    Mar 3, 07:21 AM    #

49. Boilermaker,

    Considering that there have 40 plus comments so far and the vast majority of posters strongly agree, I would surmise that there is a vast silent majority. The minority opinion is usually held and controlled by the active minority. Most people don’t have the time to get involved, don’t bother and trust that their interests are commonly ascribed to by many and therefore they don’t need to be involved. To have an issue that had multiple posts from engineers, who in general are known to be diplomatic, polite and reserved, shows that there is most likely a lot of discourse in the ranks.

    ASCE would be well served to pay attention to the vast silent majority.

    — mike    Mar 3, 12:30 PM    #

50. Mike,

    It appears from the lack of any response from the ‘silent majority’ on how to secure a future supply of qualified professors, that the ‘silent majority’ does not have an opinion on this critical subject brought up by the Educator and the Researcher. It follows that the ‘silent majority’ only wants to resist formal academic education. True leadership must call for tackling critical problems had-on, i.e. for something much more responsible than effectively dismissing academics as useless in the practice of civil engineering. If we condone this attitude of the ‘silent majority’ in our learned profession, we will condemn ourselves to extinction.

    — Boilermaker    Mar 14, 05:18 PM    #

51. Boilermaker,

    I’d like to offer you some facts to explain the comments in the Chronicle of Higher Education News Blog. On the February 19, 2008 the story “American Society of Civil Engineers Updates Its Expectations of New Graduates in the Profession” was posted on the web. By coincidence the ASCE started on February 19, 2008 to send out daily Smart Brief emails to its membership including about 10 topical articles from the news of the day. I opened my new Smart Brief that day and quickly read the synopsis of a number of articles and I was interested in ASCE’s expectations for new grads, so I clicked on the link. We get these briefs everyday, so if you don’t read your smart brief within the first week people begin to delete them. If you review the posts most were made within the first few days and they stopped within a week.

    The practicing engineers posting to the Chronicle of Higher Education site only got there by clicking a link from the ASCE Smart Brief news letter, as this is not a publication that most of us would be familiar with, never mind read for obscure articles about the profession of engineering. So the silent majority is there and in general we’re fairly busy with our careers and demands on our time to stay current I our field, earn our professional development hours to keep our licenses current and pay attention to the business of engineering.

    So what happened on this website was a discussion and posting of opinions that show that there is a clear divide in the practicing profession of civil engineering and the latest thoughts on Civil Engineering education, and this discussion needs to be moved to a forum within ASCE to obtain more input. I say a clear divide for the following reasons; this forum is not one known by non academics, it had a relatively robust discussion for a few days, most people only read posts with only a very small percentage actually posting.

    I don’t see the “silent majority” positions as stated, as an attack on your “learned profession” but I do see them as a wake up call and you should take note of the positions and statements, like some of your peers did. I am not against formal academic education as it is a required to establish a sound foundation of engineering principles, but I believe that it is an evolving process that must adapt to react to the needs of its clients; the students and the future employers of the students.

    The academic profession would serve itself well to look outward as well as inward to fulfill its need for “qualified professors”. There are many practicing engineers that would love to become involved in the education of the next generation of engineers. But the biggest hurdle is the question of what makes a professor qualified; is it his top notch multiple degrees, is it the volumes of technical papers published, is it the research that brings in grant money, is it the number of letters he received from past graduates on how their career was shape by their professor, is it the real world preparation or advice they bestowed on their students because they were licensed engineers with field experience who know the difference between study of theory and application of theory.

    I wouldn’t worry about extinction, but I would worry about a loss of relevancy unless academia modifies its continuing education plan, after all doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is not a realistic position.

    — Mike    Mar 17, 09:06 PM    #

Previous: Revised Federal 'Watch List' Would Trap Fewer Colleges Than Original
Next: Law School Is Sold and Owners Leave in Settlement With Students Who Sued