For presentation at the Second North American Civil Engineering Conference, Ottawa, Canada, 1-3 October 1998.

James T. P. Yao and Jose M. Roesset

ABSTRACT

According to W. H. Wisely (1974), the former Executive Director of ASCE, civil engineers are "true professionals" and thus are obliged to educate future and current members of the profession. The education of civil engineers that can fulfill the societal demands of the 21st century has been a matter of serious concern and has led to a number of workshops and conferences in recent years. In this paper, causes for changes are summarized. Trends and initiatives in civil engineering education in the United States are reviewed and discussed. Authors’ concerns are also expressed herein. Moreover, a sample curriculum involving a required post-baccalaureate professional degree is presented for discussion purposes. It is expected that such a professional degree will be required by various states for P.E. licensure. The way in which students should be educated emphasizing teamwork, integrated courses and technology are also discussed in addition to the sample curriculum. Faculty needs are outlined, and the current faculty reward systems are critically reviewed.

1. INTRODUCTION

W. H. Wisely (1974), former Executive Director of ASCE, pointed out that civil engineers as "true professionals" are obliged to educate current and future members of the profession. The education of civil engineers to fulfill the societal demands of the 21^st Century has been a matter of serious concern and has led to a number of workshops and conferences in recent years. ASCE has played a leadership role in this effort since 1874. According to J. M. Hayes (1992), former Vice President of ASCE, trends in civil engineering education in the United States were studied in depth at least a dozen times between 1874 and 1974. In addition, educational conferences were organized and conducted by ASCE at Ann Arbor, MI, 1960; Columbus, OH, 1974; Madison, WI, 1979; Columbus, OH, 1985; Las Vegas, NE, 1990; and Denver, CO, 1995. At the 1995 Denver ASCE education conference (ASCE, 1995), participants recommended to:

• Integrate all the required skills into coursework;
• Require a post-baccalaureate degree for practice;
• Pursue faculty development programs; and
• Recruit more practicing engineers into college teaching.

These recommendations are now being implemented by a special committee in ASCE (Russell and Yao, 1996; Yao, 1996). A panel of educators, practitioners, and governmental officials has been convened by Moore, Roesset, and Yao (1998) to discuss future civil engineering education in the 21^st Century at a session during the 1998 ASCE Convention in Boston. It appears that we now need more specific actions in relation to the recommendations that have been made by many panels of educators and practitioners to date.

To stimulate discussion and perhaps even some action, a very broad sample civil engineering curriculum was prepared and distributed to potentially interested people in universities, professional practice and government. Some 35 answers were received. These answers along with the sample curriculum have been summarized and are available on the Internet ().

The purpose of this paper is to review briefly the reasons and needs for change in civil engineering education, the present trends and ongoing initiatives in the States, and the authors’ concerns. Methods of teaching, curriculum content and duration will be discussed. The sample curriculum mentioned earlier is presented, and the issues affecting the type of faculty needed and faculty reward system will be explored.

1. CAUSES FOR CHANGE

2.1 General Remarks

There are a number of reasons behind the perceived need for changes in civil engineering education. Some are related to society’s demands and the expected role of civil engineers in the 21^st Century. We believe that the future demands for civil engineers are different from those today. Other reasons are related to changes in the roles of universities, the configuration of their faculties and the teaching tools available. In both cases, the tremendous technological advances in computers, both as computational tools and as a means for almost instantaneous worldwide communications, are playing a major role. Other disciplines such as mechanical engineering are also undergoing intense discussion for changes (e.g., see Fletcher, 1997).

For many years, civil engineers were trained to be very efficient solvers of routine problems, either performing approximate analyses (using a variety of methods and analogies), computing stresses and comparing them to code formulae in design (actually dimensioning) or supervising the construction process and dealing with equipment and labor issues. The desire was to produce at the bachelor’s level engineers who could be of immediate use to industry, though industry was willing to conduct in-house training programs for the beginning engineers. Only a few universities perceived their role as that of educating (rather than training) engineers. It was at the graduate level where the reasons for different formulae and approaches were explained, teaching the "why" instead of the "how." The implication was that only a small number of engineers had to know this, and that the demand was mostly for glorified technicians (Roesset and Yao, 1990). This debate between education and training is still very much alive today.

2.2 The Influence of Computers

With the advent of computers, the need for approximate methods of analysis disappeared and even the most conservative educational institutions phased out (albeit reluctantly) the teachings of clearly obsolete methodologies. For some time, however, the number of analysis packages available in practice was small, most of the programs were developed at universities and they often required some training to be used correctly. Several institutions replaced the training in hand computation with training in the use of existing software (particularly their own) in order to satisfy the immediate short-term needs of industry. The debate between developers and users of computer programs is also an ongoing one.

As user-friendly, general purpose, extremely powerful, analysis and design software, as well as virtual construction, visual computer-aided design and three-dimensional walk-through programs became available; the traditional routine analyst/designer has become obsolete. The problem is compounded by the fact that projects can be performed by international teams communicating almost instantaneously through the Internet and/or FAX that other countries can provide at a smaller cost. Highly trained and experienced users of the available software do not even have to be engineers. All that is necessary is to have a few supervisors who can check the reasonableness of the input models and of the results. The type of engineer that society will need in the 21^st Century is thus radically different from the traditional engineer of 50 or even 25 years ago. In addition, shift from empiricism has been occurring necessitating a higher level of education. Pennoni (1998) stated that "… US civil engineers must re-tool or become obsolete except as technical processors-using the computer to meet the requirements of codes, standards and regulations."

2.3 University Education and R/D Practices

On the other hand, the organization and goals of universities seem to be changing also. Engineering faculty were used to have many years of practical experience, were devoted to teaching (with open door policies for students with questions), and did mostly bibliographical or applied research keeping in touch with the practical side of the profession. Only a few institutions granted graduate degrees and were therefore actively involved in basic engineering research. Since the sixties, the number of institutions with graduate programs and with claims to innovative and revolutionary research capabilities has skyrocketed. As the primary role of universities has changed from undergraduate education to research, the time devoted to the former has consistently decreased since few undergraduate students can participate actively in research. The open door policy of the faculty has been generally replaced by rigid office hours that are frequently cancelled. The ever-increasing number of international as well as national conferences and workshops held during the academic year further aggravate the problem. Faculty members must attend these conferences or workshops in order to achieve visibility and/or to have a good chance at obtaining research funds. Assistant professors are now hired as soon as they complete their doctoral degrees, and sometimes even before. They have in most cases very little, if any, exposure to engineering practice. Within five years, they are required to have published a substantial number of papers in refereed journals. They must also have raised a significant amount of research funds, and they must have completed the supervision of one or more doctoral students. This leaves very little time for consultation by undergraduates or for exposure to engineering practice. As a result, it has become increasingly difficult at many universities to teach meaningful design courses and in particular capstone and synthesis type of design courses using only full-time faculty.

4. Technology Advances

The same advances in computer technology and engineering software that have caused the loss of many jobs have also allowed properly conceived and nontraditional design courses to include much larger and much more meaningful projects effectively eliminating the need for cumbersome hand computations. As it was pointed out correctly by Peck (1998), "Even in complex problems there are order-of-magnitude estimates and checks that can be made; they give perspective and cultivate a sense of proportion." We also echo his question: "Can’t this technique be taught?" Meanwhile, the development of user-friendly software and CAD packages represented the next significant step allowing students to conduct extensive parametric studies that could provide in a relatively short time part of the experience that would take years of office work in practice. The advent of the Web and all the recent multimedia developments have allowed universities on one hand to facilitate and increase the communication between students and faculty and to develop on the other new electronic textbooks and simulation packages that can revolutionize the way we teach. There is no doubt that these are all invaluable tools that can tremendously enhance engineering education. Yet it should be remembered that they are only tools that will not replace faculty. Moore and Yao (1998) stated that "most of us need the discipline and the fundamental knowledge that come with it. … Nevertheless, the Internet as well as all the desirable software is a tool and definitely not a replacement for education." Brown (1996) had written: "Perhaps people will be able to forsake the fireworks and bells of the information age and give time to developing wisdom, understanding and knowledge."

2. TRENDS AND INITIATIVES

3.1 Teaching Methodologies

There have been a large number of papers written during the last couple of decades addressing different aspects of engineering education: teaching methodologies, curriculum content and organization, curriculum duration and relation to a professional degree.

At a time when state contributions to universities are in some cases as low as 25% of their budget there is a natural interest in reducing the costs of education, particularly undergraduate education. Some of the changes in teaching styles that have been suggested are intended to achieve cost reductions by substituting faculty time with that of graduate students acting as mentors. Most of them are provided, at least on paper, to improve the quality of teaching for the average students who may no longer fit the mold of the traditional engineering students. Most teaching at present is abstract (based on the mastery of basic principles before seeing their applications), verbal (with a reduced number of graphical displays and laboratory demonstrations), deductive (going from general axioms to the specific applications), and sequential (proceeding in a logical order with different topics and subjects). This system has produced some outstanding engineers worldwide. Yet it is felt that many potentially great engineers are being lost because their learning styles do not fit this mold.

Some of the new teaching approaches that have been suggested, such as active or cooperative learning, are intended to reach students who may depend more on physical observation (sensing) and visual demonstration to learn and assimilate the material, who prefer an inductive approach, going from the specific towards the general; who enjoy active participation in the classroom, and who need to see the global picture to fully understand. In some cases, these new teaching styles are promoted as a replacement for the traditional lectures, which are reported to be "the most inefficient way to transmit information." It would be better though to consider them as a complement to present methods rather than a substitute, in order to obtain a better-balanced system. After all, the objective of education is to teach students how to think and not just to transmit information. The distinction between "information" that may be readily available and "knowledge" that must be acquired was also made by Brown (1996).

Most reports and papers seem to agree on the need for engineering curricula to promote:

• A solid base in science (mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology).
• A solid content of engineering courses.
• Exposure to economics, risk and decision analysis in the face of uncertainty, and socio-political implications of engineering works.
• Skills in technical communications, team forming, and leadership.
• Exposure to practical engineering problems.

3.2 Organization and Dissemination of Knowledge Base

Most people would agree that the above-mentioned five points are all desirable. Yet there is a substantial disagreement about the extent and scope of each one and the amount of breadth or depth that must be provided. Should all civil engineering undergraduate students learn something about structures, soil mechanics, fluid mechanics, materials, highway design, transportation systems planning, water resources, construction planning and management, and environmental engineering? Or should they have the choice to select only one or two of these areas? Should we continue to call all these fields civil engineering? Or should we subdivide the profession into structural engineering, geotechnical engineering, materials engineering, transportation engineering, environmental engineering, and construction engineering? In fact, the ASCE has already done so in part by creating the Structural Engineering Institute and the Geotechnical Institute. Several other institutes are in the works. Several states have also done so for professional registration. NRC (1985), ASEE (1994), and ASCE (1995) reports recommended to postpone a part of the extensive disciplinary specialization to the graduate level.

Among others, Bordogna et al. (1993), NRC (1985), Philips (1993), and NSF (1995a) emphasized the continued need for a strong foundation in science in a broad and general engineering education. Roesset and Yao (1988, 1990) also emphasized the importance of fundamental studies such as engineering mechanics. Parker et al. (1990) re-examined the civil engineering curriculum and recommended to start from the beginning in redesigning the curriculum for the next Century. Moore and Yao (1998) suggested possible ways of educating structural engineers for modern practice. The Engineering Deans Council and Corporate Roundtable (ASEE, 1994) recommended that universities continue teaching fundamentals, prepare students for the broadened world of engineering work by incorporating team skills, communication skills, leadership skills, system perspective, integration of knowledge through the curriculum, commitment to quality, ethics, and other matters. Pennoni (1998) said "there is still a need for the experienced and/or creative engineer, but not to the same degree as in the past, and this new engineer of today and the future must have much broader skills." "He or she need not have the capability to solve all of the problems related to a project, but must be able to recognize all areas of concern and properly deal with the issues, i.e., legal, political, societal, aesthetic and financial as well as technical, economical and environmental. …"

Closely related to the above question is the issue of the duration of a civil engineering curriculum and its relation to professional licensing. Most professional degrees (lawyers, medical doctors, etc.) require 7 to 10 years of education and training. Is it realistic to expect that engineers with a 4-year bachelor’s degree be considered professionals of the same level and make similar salaries? Hall et al. (1988) recommended exploring the concept of a master’s degree as the entry-level professional practice degree. Epstein (1992), Ingersoll (1992), Moses (1994), Philips (1993), Marcuson et al. (1991) and NSF (1995b) among others also advocated a post-baccalaureate professional engineering degree. The desirable civil engineer that would satisfy the societal needs of the 21^st Century will indeed require more than four years of education (Galambos, 1998). Recently, the ASCE Board of Direction "approved a resolution endorsing the master’s degree as the first professional degree for the practice of civil engineering" (ASCE, 1998). The Educational Activities Committee has been charged to develop a policy and a plan for its implementation.

3.3 Recent University Initiatives

A number of initiatives are in progress to implement several of the above-mentioned changes. For instance, Louisiana Tech initiated a new program in 1997 where a group of students take together a series of courses with mathematics, physics, chemistry, and engineering topics integrated and coordinated so that the material covered finds immediate application to a practical problem. Students are exposed to design projects, even if simple ones, from the very early stages. They are also taught to work in teams and they have a more active participation in the classroom. Although the program affects only some 30 students at present and is in its first year, the students involved are enthusiastic about it. They appreciate the reduced size of their group and the relationship developed by taking the same courses and working in teams, the increased exposure to the faculty, the ability to see the practical applications of what they learn and the faster exposure to useful computer software. Yet the success of a program of this kind depends strongly on the availability of dedicated and interested faculty, willing to accept innovation and to devote significant amount of time to teaching. Cooperation and communication among the teachers to effect the collective learning experience is sometimes missing. There can also be some deficiencies in this system such as (1) stronger students may carry the weak ones, (2) team grades reflect the collective effort which can be detrimental, and (3) less enthusiastic and capable students tend to be parasitic to the team progress. Moreover, it requires the willingness of the College to devote these resources to the program and to recognize the effort of the faculty involved.

A similar program was started at the University of Maryland with support from the National Science Foundation. The National Science Foundation is also sponsoring some eight engineering education coalitions involving many universities integrating engineering curricula for the first two years. Texas A&M University (TAMU) is the leading partner of the Foundation Coalition emphasizing computer technology, teamwork, and integration for the first two years. The ten departments in the College of Engineering at TAMU have adopted a portion of the five-course sophomore level basic courses in engineering sciences in addition to a uniform freshman curriculum. These sophomore courses emphasize the application of conservation principles and their applications to solve various problems. In this sequence for all engineering students, the Department of Electrical Engineering successfully demanded to have their own course with only electrical applications. The other four courses are integrated in the sense that students apply the same conservation principles to solve problems in statics, dynamics, materials, and heat transfer.

The Department of Civil Engineering at the Air Force Academy has a unique program called the Field Engineering and Readiness Laboratory (Swint, 1993). Before they begin civil engineering studies, all sophomore students build something on campus with the supervision of experienced troupes. From then on, each civil engineering course will use what the students built as examples. For example, when the students take the soils and foundation course, they learn why the foundation was built in a certain type and how it was sized. After they learned the course material, the students are challenged to obtain a better design.

Another innovative example is the Integrated Teaching and Learning Laboratory at the University of Colorado at Boulder (Monaghan, 1998). The new $17-million center serves 2,250 undergraduate and 1,200 graduate students. Students are introduced to "hands-on" design approach through the use of 30 workstations and various working machines. Projects include bottle rockets powered by compressed air and water, an Archimedean screw, a fishing pole for wheelchair users, a ski-walker, and cutaways and transparent panels in the building reveal wall construction and plumbing. More than 250 sensor monitors, gauges, and control panels can be used to check conditions of the foundation and structure of the building. Now a Discovery Learning Center (DLC) is being planned as a partner to the Integrated Teaching and Learning Laboratory (Corotis et al. 1998). The DLC will host new research opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students.

4. SAMPLE CIVIL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM

Each university should have its own characteristics and strengths. Instead of a single engineering curriculum to be followed by all it would make sense to have a series of curricula based on some general principles and let each institution select the one that best fits their capabilities and goals. Industry could then decide what types of graduates they wanted to hire or need at any time. The following sample curriculum was presented for at a meeting of the Civil Engineering Advisory Board at Louisiana Tech University in 1997. It was put on the Internet () along with more than thirty written discussions.

Academic Year 1 (30 hours):

• Mathematics I & II
• Science I & II

• Communication I & II
• Introduction to Civil Engineering I & II (introduction to the engineers’ need for knowledge in mathematics and science, with overviews of case studies of significant engineering projects through all stages of planning, design/analysis, construction, and maintenance for constructed facilities, infrastructure, transportation, and environmental engineering.)
• Humanities and Social Sciences (H & SS) I & II

Summer Internship I (5 hours)

Academic Year 2 (30 hours)

• Mathematics III & IV
• Science III & IV
• Engineering Science I, II, III, IV
• H & SS III & IV

Summer Internship II (5 hours)

Academic Year 3 (30 hours):

• Problem Solving Methods I & II (deterministic and probabilistic)
• Constructed Facilities (CF), or Infrastructure and Transportation (IT), or Environmental Engineering (EE) I & II (these courses will emphasize the specialty area with coverage of all related CE practices)
• Project Based Learning (PBL) I & II (actual engineering project prepared by practicing engineers)
• Technical Electives I & II (these courses provide depth in the chosen specialty area)
• H & SS V & VI

Summer Internship III (5 hours)

Academic Year 4 (30 hours):

• CF or IT or EE III & IV
• PBL III & IV
• Technical Electives III, IV, V, and VI
• H & SS VII & VIII

Summer Internship IV (5 hours)

BSCE degree (for general practice, pre-medicine, pre-business, or pre-law)

Academic Year 5 (30 hours):

• PBL V & VI

• Technical Electives VII, VIII, IX, and X

• Capstone Design I & II

• Independent Study I & II

Summer Internship V (5 hours)

CE professional (e.g., Civil Engineer) degree (for specialty practice)

5. FACULTY NEEDS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Successful implementation of major curriculum revisions or educational initiatives requires the availability of willing and dedicated faculty. While (1) computers and multimedia technology will enhance the quality of teaching and (2) graduate students may help with the mentoring of undergraduates, there will still be a need for lectures and the more traditional methods of instruction. In spite of the substantial pressures and demands that research universities place on young faculty members, many of them devote a significant amount of time to preparing and updating class notes, homework and laboratory demonstrations on a continuous basis as well as personally advise students. Others, unfortunately, feel forced to repeat year after year the same lecture notes, in some cases the ones that they received when they took the course as students. Graduate students with little faculty supervision and intervention very often teach laboratories. Curriculum revisions are done in most cases in a piecemeal and incremental manner creating occasionally a new course without in-depth consideration of how it affects the overall program. Most of the time, we just add or delete some material as a result of (1) top-down mandate of reducing the total number of required hours for graduation and (2) horse-trading between the faculty in different sub-specialties.

A comprehensive redesign of the curriculum starting from scratch, as suggested by Jester (19) and Parker et al. (1990), is rarely done. Whenever more serious revisions are made, they are often based on the adaptation at the local level of what is done at other universities in an attempt to emulate them. Whether these changes were indeed the best ones for the place is seldom considered carefully.

The most important attributes in a teacher include (1) a solid knowledge and clear understanding of the material to be taught (going well beyond the matter covered in the course), (2) dedication and commitment to teaching and genuine caring for the students, and (3) good communication skills. Faculty with these qualities will be successful and respected professors but not necessarily successful in the academic career upward mobility if their research activities are lacking. During the last four decades, engineering professors are normally hired at the completion of their doctoral degrees and thrust into the classroom without any formal training as teachers, relying only on their own experience as students and their personal abilities. In some enlightened institutions, starting assistant professors are assigned first graduate courses related to the topic of their dissertation or their ongoing research. They do not get to teach basic undergraduate courses until they have proven experience and ability in teaching. However, in many universities, the process is reversed because the senior faculty members do not want to spend their time teaching undergraduates. There are states, in fact, where teaching a graduate course is given 50% more credit than teaching a basic undergraduate subject.

Some universities are beginning to have one- or two-day orientation programs for new faculty. In many cases, this orientation covers only administrative and bureaucratic matters. In others, however, the orientation includes valuable exposure to new teaching techniques and multimedia facilities that can be valuable tools for the faculty. In some places, the faculty orientation may take up to a week of paid time. There are also universities, such as TAMU, which have centers of teaching excellence to offer teaching workshops to the faculty. These are excellent initiatives, which should be maintained and expanded. There should be also a continuous opportunity for faculty to learn about new pedagogical techniques and developments as part of their regular duties. While most universities have some form of sabbatical programs to allow faculty to refresh their research interests and expertise, often called research leaves or research assignments, there are not many equivalent teaching leaves.

6. FACULTY REWARD SYSTEMS

6.1 General Remarks

The present evaluation and reward system at universities does not encourage faculty to dedicate time and effort to teaching, particularly at the undergraduate level. In most institutions, the reward system is based foremost on the amount of funding granted. Many universities will consider five aspects in evaluating faculty performance: teaching, research, publications, administrative duties, and service. The range of ratings in teaching tends to be narrow: very good and excellent. It is difficult to find anyone described by his/her colleagues as a bad teacher though bad teachers do in fact exist. Research reflects purely the amount of funding generated. In a litigation prone society, it has become impossible to judge quality of work on a subjective basis and therefore evaluation must be based on counting beans. Even recommendation letters written by outside reviewers have become essentially unclear and must be read carefully to detect what is said between the lines. These letters are in the public domain and no one wants to be sued for emitting a negative opinion.

Few, if any, faculty members have their papers read and evaluated by their colleagues and therefore the quality is assumed to be implied by the fact that the papers were published. Clearly faculty members who generate large amounts of funding can employ a number of full-time researchers (post-doctoral fellows, research engineers, etc.) who will write a large number of papers with the name of the overall supervisor. The number of authors per paper seems to be consistently increasing also. Supervising a large number of researchers is in itself an important administrative job, which should get proper recognition, particularly when the researchers can be assembled into any sort of formal or informal center. It is noted that informal or internal centers have proliferated in recent years. Conducting or supervising a substantial volume of research will inevitably lead to membership in a number of technical, research, and administrative committees, and thus provide the opportunity for important service activities. Generating large amounts of research funds guarantees high grades in four of the five evaluation categories. Within a research university, those who can come up with most research funding will always be the stars as expected. Can we expect then that a bright young faculty member who wants to be successful will be willing to spend a large fraction of his/her time teaching undergraduates who usually do not contribute to the faculty member’s research record?

It should also be pointed out that the use of number of publications as a measure of the quality of a faculty member’s work is getting less and less meaningful due to the proliferation of journals. Not so long ago, a faculty member in structures subscribed/read only the ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering and/or the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Today, within ASCE alone, he/she has to subscribe/read the Journal of Architectural Engineering, the Journal of Bridge Engineering, the Journal of Composites for Construction, the Journal of Computers in Civil Engineering, the Journal of Infrastructure Systems, the Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, and the Periodical on Structural Design and Construction in addition to the above-mentioned two journals. There are, of course, many, many other journals in structural engineering not connected with ASCE, published by other organizations and commercial publishers. Is the amount of significant research discoveries each year sufficient to fill all these journals? Or are we just facilitating the publication of the same article with minimal variation in a number of different journals? With many more journals available today, fewer people read each paper. As a result, quantity may have had a significant effect in reducing the quality. This fact has an impact on education in the following two ways:

• Administrators in academia put more emphasis on quantity of publications as an easy way out, while few people read these published papers and thus their significance is smaller and smaller each year.
• Many authors make reference only to their own papers. The index counting of the number of citations used as a measure of the value of a published paper is becoming meaningless.

The basic question here is how to change the faculty reward system to put the emphasis on the quality and significance of each paper rather than just counting the number of publications and citations.

6.2 Evaluating Teaching Performance

The lack of appreciation for teaching in the present reward system of research universities has led to a number of papers and initiatives. Leonards and Yao (1985) explored a new way of evaluating teaching including scholarship and classroom performance. Boyer (1990) expanded the definition of scholarship to include that of creativity (basic research), integration (apply successful methods in one discipline to solve problems in another), application (solve practical problems), and teaching (write journal articles and/or textbooks). He pointed out that many modern universities tend to be "imitative" aiming at becoming another MIT or UC-Berkeley rather than trying to develop their own identity and provide their own leadership. These universities do not seem to realize that it is very difficult to be recognized as a leader by following the example of others. Because of different strengths, traditions, and resources of each institution of higher learning, it is neither realistic nor appropriate to force each and every faculty through the same mold. In fact, it is impractical to think that all faculty members will excel in all areas of evaluation and will do well in basic research throughout their lives. Boyer suggested therefore that each faculty member be allowed to decide every few years what kind of scholarship to pursue. Faculty members should be accountable for their decisions and should be able to show results of their scholarship.

Recently, UC-Berkeley has put more emphasis on teaching if the faculty member has a balanced record in research, teaching, and service (Langari and Tomizuka, 1998). However, "people doing strong research appear to be advanced faster than others" still.

To implement Boyer’s ideas, the ASCE Department Heads’ Council (Chaired by Vince Drnevich) established a task force that drafted a report available on the Internet (see Al-Khafaji, 1998). This report is based on the Purdue model (Drnevich, 1997). In the School of Civil Engineering at Purdue University, the department head and a faculty committee agreed that five things are important contributions of the faculty: teaching, mentoring, research, scholarship, and service. Any faculty member who excels in more than three of these five areas deserves to be rewarded. Teaching includes all the activities normally considered in this category except student supervision (M.S. or Ph.D. students supervised). This is a part of the reward category called mentoring that includes guidance of other faculty members, advising of student organizations, and undergraduate and graduate advising. Research includes not only the number of active grants, proposals submitted, pending, and funded, but also interdisciplinary activities, contribution to the research infrastructure, national and international recognition and awards. Scholarship includes all the articles normally included in publications. Service is also the normal category including both external societies and committees, and administrative committees at the university. The basic difference between that policy and the more standard one is that the administration category has been assimilated into service and a new category has been created in mentoring. That change allows faculty devoted primarily to teaching to excel at least in two categories and do well at least in three. From that point of view, it represents potentially a significant improvement but its real impact will depend on how it is implemented in practice.

A trend towards increased recognition of teaching activities is necessary if new education initiatives are to be successful. Even with this dramatic change in the present university culture, the problem remains that new faculty have a minor exposure to the practice of engineering. To remedy this situation, it would be necessary to promote the opportunity for faculty to spend some time in industry or to involve more practitioners in the educational process. Since a semester or a year of residence in an engineering firm will not be considered as an asset in the promotion/tenure process, it is not appropriate to have junior and pre-tenure faculty taking advantage of opportunities of this kind. Some senior faculty members spend their sabbatical leaves or part of them in engineering firms. Nevertheless, they are normally involved in some special problems where their expertise is needed. They may try to identify new potential research areas rather than participating in actual practice. Unless major changes are made in the faculty reward system, the option of placing faculty members in industry to acquire practical experience is not a realistic one.

6.3 Practitioner Participation

Professional engineers participate already in a number of ways in academic activities. They give seminars at meetings of the professional societies (ASCE student chapters for instance) or at regularly scheduled classes, are parts of visiting committees for the departments, etc. ASCE created a Practitioner-in-Residence program whereby an experienced professional engineer spends a week of full-time (at his/her own expense) at a university interacting with students and faculty (Poirot and Yao, 1991). It was a valuable program for several years. It is not clear, however, whether this program is still successful today.

Many universities have involved practitioners to teach design courses as adjunct professors. In such cases, the engineer has full responsibility for the course with little interaction of the faculty. While this practice has economic advantages because the practitioner is paid less than a regular full-time professor per course, it is not as effective from the educational viewpoint as where the courses are taught jointly by regular faculty and a practitioner. The best solution is to have successful professional engineers who are willing to take early retirement from industry as regular faculty members. There are a number of excellent examples. Yet this solution is somewhat difficult because of the reluctance of universities to hire faculty who will not fit the established criteria as typified by number of refereed publications, research accomplishments, and attainment of the Ph.D. degree.

7. CONCERNS

The large number of conferences, sessions at conferences, workshops and papers dealing with engineering education indicates that there is at least a perception that everything is not well within the present system and the evolution of research universities. Bright students will continue to perform well and become successful engineers irrespective of the quality of their education. They can read, think, and learn on their own. They need minor mentoring and supervision, only the opportunity to learn. The concern here is how to keep the very bright students interested while we provide education for the average student.

The authors are concerned with the continuous discussion on the problems and deficiencies of engineering education, the writing of numerous reports and recommendations and the scarcity of action that follows up. Some of these issues have been discussed for decades, ever since we both were students. There has been little positive change.

A second point of concern is the tendency to fragment a proud and successful profession. The awareness of the need to provide and maintain an adequate infrastructure implies an important and promising future for civil engineers. Moreover the interest in our civil infrastructure should have served as an integrative force to bring back together a profession that was becoming too broad and disjoint. Yet the trend toward splitting the profession seems to continue. Students are being pushed into specialty areas at earlier and earlier stages. Before he passed away, Jerry Iffland (the founder of Kavanagh, Iffland, and Waterbury, P.C. of New York) made a survey and found that there are more than one hundred organizations that an American structural engineer can join. There is pressure at the same time to establish separate degree programs in environmental engineering, transportation engineering, geotechnical engineering, and structural engineering. Many departments have changed their name to Civil and Environmental Engineering implying clearly that these are two distinct programs. Why not include structural, geotechnical, or transportation in the title? Is the implication that these specialties are not as worthwhile as the environmental option? Dismembering the civil engineering profession into a number of new ones is a subject worthy of discussion. After all, even the ASCE has formed independent Institutes for structural engineering and geotechnical engineering. Other institutes are being formed as well. The authors believe that it is in the best interest of students to keep the undergraduate degree broad based in the general practice of civil engineering.

A third point of concern is the fuzzy demarcation between engineers and technicians. Many people view the civil engineers as technicians because all that is required is a four-year degree not very different from a technology education. Even within universities there are many that believe that their primary goal is to train proficient technicians rather than to educate professionals (Roesset and Yao, 1990).

Recently, Shewbridge (1998) suggested to shift the emphasis of faculty from research to practice for the benefit of undergraduate education. Weese (1998) noted that some faculty members have already over-emphasized their consulting activities to the detriment of undergraduate students. We believe that it is necessary for faculty members to do research, sponsored or otherwise, in order to stay in the forefront of one’s specialty. Meanwhile, occasional consulting work applying their research results is desirable.

8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

The Engineering Deans Council and Corporate Roundtable (ASEE 1994) recommended to:

• Establish individual missions for various engineering colleges.
• Pursue life-long learning.
• Use of the outreach approach within the university.
• Share resources
• Re-examine faculty reward systems.
• Reshape the curriculum.
• Broaden educational responsibility.
• Exchange personnel between faculty and practicing engineers.

We touched only the last four points in this paper. Also, the specific emphasis was on undergraduate education of civil engineers. It would be unwise, however, to go through a complete overhaul of the undergraduate civil engineering curriculum without simultaneous consideration of the graduate and continuing engineering education agendas. The question of the duration of the undergraduate curriculum and whether the resulting degree should be considered a professional degree or this should be linked to some graduate work must be resolved first. In this regard, we are pleased to note that the ASCE Board of Direction has decided to endorse a post-baccalaureate professional degree for civil engineering practice (ASCE, 1998). According to Pennoni (1998), "The engineers of the next millennium must possess a bachelor’s degree, masters degree in an area of specialty, experience, licensing, leadership qualities and be bi- or multi-lingual. He or she must be capable of working in a team environment, be a good communicator and possess excellent people skills."

The role of Ph.D.’s in industry, academia, or a research environment should also be considered. Finally, it is important for universities to assume a more active role in the formulation of rational continuing education programs that will provide a solid opportunity for life-long learning, rather than providing only a handful of short-course offerings without any linking or continuity among them. While the present educational system is not broken, we need to improve it continuously. As an example, the faculty reward system in many universities should be changed so that mentoring activities as well as scholarships of discovery, integration, application, and teaching (Boyer, 1990) are equally as important as research funding in the evaluation criteria.

Natke (1997) among others has advocated the systems approach in civil engineering education and practice. Bordogna (1998) calls the future civil engineer "the master integrator" because we must understand civil infrastructure as a system. In addition to possessing the up-to-date technical knowledge, civil engineers must know "how to do things right" and also know "the right things to do." Civil engineers must be able to work in teams, communicate well, work from a systems approach, and within the context of ethical, political, international, environmental, and economical considerations. Consequently, civil engineers are required to have a broad-based undergraduate education. We also believe that a post-baccalaureate professional education is needed before entering practice.

Based on his many years of university teaching and administrative experience, Calhoun (1998) believes that "… the impetus for change will have to come from pressures outside the engineering education community, primarily from the university community as a whole. … The underlying question becomes – What is the role of engineering education within the University? … engineering education should consist of two items, for two different purposes – the undergraduate degree, unaccredited, for general technological careers, and the accredited graduate-level degree for professional preparation purposes. …" The authors would welcome additional comments and suggestions to further improve engineering education.

9. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank the Lohman Professorship in Engineering Education at Texas A&M University for its support in preparing and presenting this paper. John Calhoun, Bill Hall, Frank Lane Lynch, Chuck Pennoni, made constructive suggestions to improve the contents of this manuscript. In addition, Emin Aktan, Nancy Amato, Robin Autenrieth, Jean-Louis Briaud, Ross Corotis, Dan Fambro, Skip Fletcher, Ted Galambos, Mary Beth Hueste, Charlie Parthum, John Weese and Henry Yang read the draft paper and helped to improve it. Please continue to send your comments and suggestions concerning possible improvements in engineering education to the authors at your convenience.

Al-Khafaji, A. W., et al. (1998), "The Scholarship Landscape in Civil Engineering: A Bridge Between Rhetoric and Reality," 2^nd Draft, Report of Task Force on Redefining Scholarly Work, (Internet at http://ce.www.ecn.purdue.edu/~drnevich/FacWork.html)

ASCE (1995), Summary Report on the 1995 Civil Engineering Education Conference, Denver, Colorado, 16 pages.

ASCE (1998), "Board Supports Professional Degree for Civil Engineers," ASCE NEWS, Vol. 23, No. 5, May 1998, pp. 1-2.

ASEE (1994), Engineering Education for a Changing World, Joint Report of the Engineering Deans Council and Corporate Roundtable, 24-25 February 1994. (also available on the Internet with the following address: http://www.asee.org/pubs/html/green_report.html).

Bordogna, J., (1998), "Tomorrow’s Civil Systems Engineer – The Master Integrator," Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 124, No. 2, April 1998, pp.48-50.

Bordogna, J., Fromm, E., and Ernst, E. W., (1993), "Engineering Education: Innovation Through Integration," Journal of Engineering Education, ASEE, January 1993, pp. 3-8.

Boyer, E. L., (1990), Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton, NJ

Brown, C. B., (1996), "Trapped in One’s Own Times: The Individual’s Relationship to Education and Practice," Civil Engineering Systems, Vol. 14, pp. 1-18.

Calhoun, J. C., (1998), private communication.

Corotis, R. B., et al. (1998), Program Plan for Discovery Learning Center, College of Engineering and Applied Science, Department of Facilities Management, University of Colorado at Boulder, 21 pages.

Drnevich, V., (1997), private communication.

Epstein, H., (1992), "Why Four Years?" CEEC’95 Position Paper No. P-4, ASCE.

Fletcher, L. S., (1997), "Mechanical Engineering Education for the 21^st Century," International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 42-51.

Galambos, T. V., (1998), private communication dated 21 April 1998.

Hall, W. J., Focht, J. A., Jr., Michael, H. A., Paulson, B. G., Jr., Saville, T., and Lowe, S. D., (1988), Civil Engineering in the 21^st Century: A Vision and a Challenge for the Profession, ASCE.

Hayes, J. M., (1992) "ASCE’s Responsibility in Civil Engineering Education," CEEC’95 Position Paper No. G-1, ASCE.

Ingersoll, A. C., (1972), "The Nature of Continuing Education," Journal of Professional Activities, ASCE, Vol. 98, No. PP1, pp. 113-130.

Jester, G. E., (1989), "Curriculum for Future Civil Engineers: Practitioner’s Viewpoint," Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 4, pp. 357-362.

Leonards, G. A., and Yao, J. T. P., (1985), "On Teaching Evaluation," Proceedings on Challenges for Civil Engineering Educators and Practitioners, ASCE, 1985, pp. 370-376.

Marcuson, W. F., Dobry, R., Nelson, J. D., Woods, R. D., and Youd, J. L., (1991), "Issues in Geotechnical Engineering Education," Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 1, pp. 1-9.

Monaghan, P., (1998), "A ‘Hands-On’ Approach to Engineering is Reflected in New Facility at Colorado," The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. XLIV, No. 24, 20 February 1998.

Moore, W. P., Jr., Roesset, J. M., and Yao, J. T. P., (1998), "Civil Engineering Education in the 21^st Century - An Introduction to the Panel Discussion," to be presented at the ASCE Boston Convention, 18-21 October 1998.

Moore, W. P., Jr., and Yao, J. T. P., (1998), "On Education and Practice of Structural Engineering," to be presented at the Structural Engineering World Congress, San Francisco, CA, 18-23 July 1998.

Moses, J., (1994), "Engineering With a Big E: Integrative Education in Engineering," Long Range Plan 1994-1998, School of Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Spring 1994.

Natke, H. G., (1997), private communication.

NRC (1985), Engineering Education and Practice in the United States, Committee on the Education and Utilization of the Engineer, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

NSF (1995a), Restructuring Engineering Education: A Focus on Change, Report of an 1994 NSF Workshop on Engineering Education, Division of Undergraduate Education, Directorate for Education and Human Resources, National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia.

NSF (1995b), Systemic Engineering Education Reform: An Action Agenda, Recommendations of a 1995 Workshop Convened by the Engineering Directorate, National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia.

Parker, C. E., Jester, G. E., Desai, C. S., and Yao, J. T. P., (1990), "Reexamination of CE Curriculum for the 21st Century," Education and Continuing Development for the Civil Engineer, ASCE, April 1990, pp. 684-694.

Peck, R. B., (1998), private communication.

Pennoni, C. R., (1998), "Managing Your Career in an Era of Change," Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 4, July 1998.

Philips, W. M., (1993), "Taking the Lead," Prism, ASEE, p. 52.

Poirot, J. W., and Yao, J. T. P., (1991), Practitioner-in-Residence: An ASCE Pilot Program and the CH2M Hill – Texas A&M Experience, Report to ASCE EDAC/PAC Joint Task Committee on Educator/Practitioner Interface.

Roesset, J. M., and Yao, J. T. P., (1988), "Civil Engineering Needs in the 21st Century," Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 3, July 1988, pp. 248-255.

Roesset, J. M., and Yao, J. T. P., (1990), "The Civil Engineer: Scientist or Technician?" Education and Continuing Development for the Civil Engineer, ASCE, April 1990, pp. 741-749.

Russell, J., and Yao, J. T. P., (1996), "Education Conference Delivers Initiatives," Feature, Journal of Management in Engineering, November/December 1996, pp. 17-24.

Shewbridge, S. E., (1998) "A Suggestion to University Administrators," Forum, Civil Engineering, February 1998, p. 6.

Swint, D. O., (1993), private communication.

Weese, J. A., (1998), private communication.

Wisely, W. H., (1974), The American Civil Engineer, 1852-1974, New York, NY.

Langari, R., and Tomizuka, M., (1998), private communication.

Yao, J. T. P., (1996), "On Civil Infrastructure Systems and Engineering Education," Viewpoint, Journal of Infrastructure Systems, ASCE, Vol. 2, No. 1, March 1996, pp. 1-4.

Return to the Lohman homepage