J. T. P. Yao and J. M. Roesset

In this paper, the authors present a summary of the work that has been done at the NSF coalition schools to prepare engineering graduates for the new millennium, a summary of the changes of the "Standards and Routes to Registration" in the United Kingdom, and a discussion of the different issues that must be taken into consideration in planning model civil engineering curricula that are consistent with the new ASCE policy statement for the first professional degree. The purpose of this paper is to stimulate further discussion of these important topics.

According to the late 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. Educational conferences were organized and conducted by ASCE at Ann Arbor, MI, in 1960; Columbus, OH, in 1974; Madison, WI in 1979; Columbus, OH in 1985; Las Vegas, NE in 1990, and Denver, CO in 1995. At the Denver ASCE education conference (ASCE, 1995), participants recommended to:

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

A special committee in ASCE (Russell and Yao, 1996) has effectively implemented these recommendations leading to the adoption of a policy statement on the first professional degree by the ASCE Board of Direction and the ASCE’s implementation of faculty development programs.

A number of sessions on Engineering Education were held again at the ASCE Boston Convention in October 1998. In one session, Moore et al. (1998) convened a panel of educators, practitioners and government officials to discuss further the desirable characteristics of civil engineering curricula and to try to get some action. The papers presented at that session and the ensuing discussions could be found in the Web (http://lohman.tamu.edu, click on "Convention" under the heading "Forum).

Of particular importance to the topic of this paper is the fact that in October 1998 the ASCE Board of Directors adopted a policy statement in favor of the Master as the first professional degree. The objectives of this requirement would be to enhance the professional stature of civil engineers and to provide a clearer distinction between engineers and technicians. It may require many years to implement this policy. Planning curriculum changes to accommodate society’s needs in the 21^st century needs the proper consideration of the requirements for professional registration and licensing. Meanwhile, to achieve the desired results, implementing the professional degree requirement needs careful revision of the undergraduate and graduate (Master level) curricula. A critical and constructive discussion of the problems that may result from making the Master a requirement for the first professional degree has been presented by Yao and Lutes (1999) who outlined the many issues that must be considered if no change is introduced in the present undergraduate and Master curricula. Of particular concern to these authors were:

• The possible aftereffects on the present Master programs imposing perhaps rigid restrictions for accreditation that would limit their flexibility in an attempt to make them uniform.
• A further lowering of the Master’s standards (on top of that already imposed by the elimination of the thesis requirement at several major universities) if all undergraduates are to be automatically accepted as Master’s candidates without the present admission process.
• The social implications of creating many bachelors of engineering who would not be able to get a professional license if they were not admitted to graduate school.

Many suggested as a better alternative to require a general bachelor degree with some specified pre-engineering courses and then two or three years of professional engineering school. This is done in law or medicine, and would satisfy even better the goal of increasing the prestige and professional status of engineers. In addition, this practice would eliminate the above concerns. It would require however truly major changes (see Yao and Lutes, 1999). It would raise a number of other questions such as the duration of the professional school’s curriculum and the total cost of engineering education.

None of these concerns should deter us from proceeding with changes that are considered beneficial to the profession and to society at large. These and other questions raised point out however the need to examine all aspects carefully and to make consistent changes in curricula before adopting major initiatives.

The objective of this paper is to review briefly the reasons and needs for introducing changes in civil engineering education, to summarize some of the work done at the coalition schools under the sponsorship of the NSF in this country, to present some of the changes in the United Kingdom, and to discuss further some of the issues that must be addressed when preparing curriculum changes in response to the new trends in professional registration requirements.

Several prestigious engineers have questioned the need for major changes in the civil engineering curricula. They pointed out that our present system is continuing to produce excellent engineers. These are educators who are not afraid of change and who are not trying to maintain at all costs the status quo but who are genuinely interested in the quality of engineering education. They deserve therefore our attention. Yet the pressures for change, the apparent dissatisfaction of important industry executives and government officials (as well as state legislators) and the increasing unhappiness of junior faculty (particularly female faculty) with the reward system of the research university cannot be ignored either. Relying on the piecemeal patching of the curriculum that takes place on a continuous basis at most universities to provide a satisfactory solution is not sufficient or realistic.

The future demands for civil engineers will be different from those of today. In addition, the roles of universities, their faculty and students, and the available teaching tools have changed and will continue to change. The tremendous technological advances in computers and communications (including communications theory and cognitive science) are also playing a major role in forcing changes in the way we teach.

For many years in the past, civil engineers were efficient solvers of routine problems either performing approximate analyses or supervising the construction process. In such cases, a BS graduate was satisfactory. Only a few universities perceived their role as that of educating (rather than training) engineers. There are still places in fact where faculty members believe that their primary role is to train rather than to educate students.

As user-friendly, general purpose and extremely powerful software became available for analysis, design, and virtual construction, the traditional routine analyst/designer has become obsolete. The problem is further compounded by the fact that international teams can work around the clock at lower costs. Highly trained and experienced users of the available software do not even have to be engineers as long as a competent one supervises their work. The type of engineer that society needs in the 21^st Century is thus radically different from the traditional engineer or even the one we have been producing recently. 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." A number of our present engineers may in fact be doing today glorified technician’s work. Thus we have the desire to make a clearer distinction between engineers and graduates of four-year technology programs.

As the primary role of universities changed from educating undergraduate students to research and money generating enterprises the number of faculty members with experience in engineering practice has consistently decreased. It is normal now to hire assistant professors as soon as they complete their Ph.D. requirements and within 5 years they are expected to have raised a substantial amount of funds and to have published a large number of papers in refereed journals. This leaves them little time, if any, to learn about actual engineering projects. The situation does not improve after they are granted permanent or temporary tenure (the new oxymoron created by some university chancellors and state legislatures) because the reward system still emphasizes volume of research and publications and makes little or no allowance for practical experience. Meanwhile, there is a consensus on the need to expose engineering students to real engineering problems. Several major universities have encountered serious problems manning the required senior-level capstone design courses with their own faculty, illustrating the need to involve more actively selected professional engineers in the education process.

The continuous progress in computer technology shifting the computers from objects of research at mathematical or electrical engineering laboratories to valuable tools for engineers first, and appliances used by the general population next, have resulted not only in the capability to perform in a very short time and at a very low cost previously impossible computations but also in the development and general availability of user friendly software packages for all kinds of applications. This not only affects the role of the engineer, but also provides students with new means to acquire experience in systems behavior that would have required many years in the past. Of particular importance in this context are the simulation packages (such as virtual construction or design laboratories) that are being developed.

New means of communication like the Web are already being used to replace the traditional meetings with students in the instructor’s office when all faculty members had an open door policy. This policy was replaced by a small number of office hours that left the student with classes at those times unable to ask questions or to have consultations. The use of the Web has helped to reduce this problem. There are many more possibilities open through the Web which are already being considered and used, including the enhancement of distance learning as well as distance teaching (allowing some retired practitioners to participate in the education process without having to travel to the location of the university).

Finally the advances in cognitive science and cognitive psychology have allowed us to understand that not all human beings learn the same way and that our traditional teaching methods in engineering, while very successful with reflective, deductive and sequential learners, discourages students who may have other desirable qualities such as creativity and who could bring different perspectives and contributions to the profession.

Engineering education and education in general have been the subject of strong criticism in recent years at the level of state governments. State support for their universities has been decreasing at least on a relative basis (as a fraction of the university’s budget) while tuition has been increasing steadily. As a result, to cut costs, there has been a trend to decrease the active participation of faculty members in teaching allowing them more time for marketing their research, supervising Ph.D. students and/or post-doctoral personnel who conduct the research, and participating in national and international conferences, workshops and panels as well as a forever increasing number of departmental, college and university wide administrative committees. It has been argued that graduate students are in fact better teachers than some faculty members. Whether this implies that a graduate student will automatically lose his ability or interest in teaching as soon as he joins the faculty upon graduation or that we have a substantial number of poor teachers in our faculties is not clear. There is also a trend towards bigger class sizes and more individual unsupervised work. All these trends, conscious or unplanned, must be considered.

The National Science Foundation has supported some eight Engineering Education Coalitions (see http://www.eng.nsf.gov/). The goal is "to stimulate the creation of comprehensive, systemic models for reform of undergraduate engineering education." All eight Engineering Education Coalitions are aimed at (1) the design and implementation of comprehensive, systemic, and structural reform of undergraduate engineering education, (2) providing tested alternative curricula and new instructional delivery systems that improve the quality of undergraduate education, (3) creation of substantive resource linkages among engineering institutions, and (4) the increase of engineers especially among women, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities. While these coalitions continue, the NSF is supporting a relatively new program called "The Action Agenda for Systemic Engineering Education Reform."

The available information on the eight NSF engineering education coalitions is given on the Internet at http://www1.needs.org. The eight coalitions (listed by establishment date) are The Synthesis Coalition, The Engineering Coalition for Schools of Excellence in Education and Leadership (ECSEL), The Southeastern University and College Coalition for Engineering Education (SUCCEED), The Gateway Coalition, The Foundation Coalition, Greenfield: The Coalition for New Manufacturing Education, The Engineering Academy of Southern New England, and Southern California Coalition for Education in Manufacturing Engineering (SCCEME). There are some 61 institutions of higher learning involved in these eight coalitions. Their founding year, constituents, and areas of concentration are listed in the Appendix.

The amount of information varies with each Coalition. Although much information is made available on the Internet, there does not seem to be any organized effort to give users a specific detailed summary of the activities and achievements of each Coalition beyond some general and rather vague statements. Some files are "not found," and others are "under construction." The authors also had difficulties getting into some files with the message "user anonymous unknown." While the problems may be simple to solve, it seems that the coalitions could make the data more accessible to interested parties. There is also a paucity of data on how the success of these new programs or the degree of satisfaction of the students and faculty involved are measured, beyond the rather meaningless statistics of number of students enrolled or graduated.

While only a few coalitions deal with topics related directly to civil engineering (e.g., mechanics, structures, and environmental engineering in the Synthesis Coalition), many are concerned with freshman and sophomore curricula. As examples, there are educational software packages for mechanics of materials, and a structural engineering visual encyclopedia (available in CDROM only from Bob Henry, robert.henry@unh.edu) from the Synthesis Coalition on the Internet. In addition, Kurt Gramoll (now at the University of Oklahoma) developed multimedia textbooks on statics, dynamics, and mechanics of materials (http://eml.ou.edu) on the basis of his work with the SUCCEED coalition before his move from the Georgia Institute of Technology. There may be other examples of this type that most of us are not familiar with. It is interesting to notice on the other hand that while achieving a uniform curriculum for all engineers the first two years is a worthwhile objective, this could result in courses which are more abstract and with fewer specific applications, contrary to what the new trends in teaching recommend.

Much, and perhaps much too much, has already been written on this topic. Roesset and Yao (1988, 1990) emphasized for instance for instance the importance of fundamental studies such as engineering mechanics. Parker et al. (1990) re-examined the civil engineering curriculum, agreed with Jester (1989), and recommended starting the preparation of civil engineering curricula from scratch. We need to find out what a civil engineer must possess, and then work backward to build a curriculum in order to get there. The Engineering Deans Council and Corporate Roundtable (ASEE, 1994) recommended that universities continue teaching fundamentals, and prepare students for the broadened world of engineering work. Team skills, communication skills, leadership skills, systems perspective, integration of knowledge, commitment to quality, and ethics are all important topics. Most reports and papers seem to agree on the following items:

• A solid base in science (mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology).
• A solid content of engineering science courses.
• Exposure to economics, risks, 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 (formulation and solution).

Everybody agrees on the desirability of having civil engineers with a strong basis in science, a good knowledge of broad as well as specific engineering topics, an understanding of the environmental, socio-political and economic implications of civil engineering works and outstanding communication and leadership skills. What is not clear is whether industry is willing to upgrade not only the skills and level of education of engineers but also their salaries. Or how much are we willing to pay to get these more renaissance type engineers. A second equally important question is how many of these superior engineers will society need. Should all engineering graduates (with the same numbers we are producing today) be accomplished and articulate leaders or do we need a smaller number of these potential leaders and a larger number of specialists and technicians? Should we have a single level of engineering graduates, 2 levels (the professional level replacing the present Master and a Doctor of Engineering) or our present 3 levels? These are difficult questions but they must be answered before embarking in major curriculum changes.

Another important decision is whether to maintain the present degrees but assign the professional registration to the Master degree, with the appropriate curriculum changes, as implied by the new policy statement of the ASCE or whether to embark in more drastic changes and implement the model of a general bachelor followed by hopefully 2 or at most 3 years of professional school. In this respect, we must decide whether the professional degree will be concerned with (1) civil engineering in general (requiring breadth in all the diverse disciplines that are encompassed now within the civil engineering umbrella) or (2) specialization in a particular branch (e.g., environmental, construction, geotechnical, structures, transportation, or water resources).

A final question that must be addressed is whether the idea of a professional school or even that of a professional degree is compatible with the concept of the research university with its emphasis and almost exclusive interest in the production of Ph.D. degrees. Perhaps it should be left to professional organizations to create their own professional schools separate from the university system.

Each university should have its own characteristics and strengths. Instead of a single engineering curriculum to be adopted by all departments of civil engineering, it would make sense to have a series of curricula based on some general principles. Each institution should adopt then the curriculum that best fits its capabilities and goals and make it its own. A model curriculum with a four-year BSCE degree followed by a one-year post-baccalaureate "Civil Engineer" professional degree (with mandatory internship each year) is presented in the Web at http://lohman.tamu.edu for details. If the professional school model is selected instead, the duration of this school is to be limited to 3 years providing a degree of knowledge at least comparable (and hopefully superior) to that of present M. S. graduates. It will be necessary to ensure that the general bachelor program includes a number of pre-engineering requirements (including the present Math, Physics and Chemistry courses, as well as engineering courses applicable to all engineering disciplines as given now by some of the coalitions). The contents of the professional curriculum will depend then on the amount of breadth versus specialization that is desired (the question raised earlier). In any case there should be a significant design project involving a realistic project and a summer internship in industry.

Of some interest in this respect is to look at what is being discussed in the United Kingdom at this time.

The 3^rd Edition of the Standards and Routes to Registration (SARTOR, 1997) in the United Kingdom provides valuable information on the approach which is being proposed for the U.K. The Chartered Engineer (CEng) seems to be equivalent to the licensed Professional Engineer in the States. Chartered Engineers "develop and apply new technologies; promote advanced designs and design methods; introduce new and more efficient production techniques and marketing and construction concepts; and pioneer new engineering services and management methods. … Professional judgement is a key feature of their role, allied to the assumption of responsibility for the direction of important tasks, including the profitable management of industrial and commercial enterprises."

Candidates for registration, who must be members of an engineering institution recognized by the Engineering Council (with some 40 institutions or institutes in UK as its constituents), must provide evidence of:

• a satisfactory educational base (four years’ academic study instead of three as specified in 1990);
• initial professional development (IPD) – to improve the acquisition and development of the skills, specialist knowledge and competence needed to practice in a specific area of engineering (recorded by the trainee and certified by his/her supervisor or mentor);
• a professional review – a stringent Professional Review process to assess the evidence of professional competence (a written report from all candidates and an in-depth interview by two qualified CEng). This review requires the candidate to demonstrate a commitment to continuing professional development and to the Code of Conduct and relevant Codes of Practice.

In an E-mail message, Dr. James Armstrong, Member of the Royal Academy of Engineering and instrumental in the development of SARTOR, responded with the following remarks. "There are some concerns here among academics and some senior members of professional institutions that the requirements are too prescriptive, particularly with the insistence on high entry qualifications for professional degree courses, which can penalize the late developer, or those whose early educational experience has been unsatisfactory. The two-stage process envisaged in the USA of first and second degree may be more helpful here, giving the opportunity for the late developer to catch up. However the extended formal education program might prove off-putting for many potential candidates, and too expensive to undertake. … Some colleges may offer only BS degrees leading to the incorporated engineer recognition - seen by some as branding their students as 'failed' professional engineers, and making progress difficult, although this may be improved by some 'bridging' courses offering 'matching modules' which could convert 'ordinary' BS degrees into 'honors' BE/ME degrees after a further period of study. There is a good deal of further debate and development work still to be done. SARTOR is certainly not the final answer to engineering education or status recognition."

Significant changes in curriculum and adopting new teaching tools and techniques will require a dedicated and enthusiastic faculty. In spite of the substantial pressures and demands facing young faculty members in research universities, many of them devote a significant amount of time to preparing and updating class notes continuously, to learn about new teaching tools and techniques and to personally advise students. Others however continue to use forever the same lecture notes and the same class style in order to cope with the demands to generate more research funding and journal publications. To involve a substantial fraction of the faculty in the new curriculum it may be necessary to change the present reward system giving a larger emphasis to teaching and this is something that may not be palatable to many universities. It would be important for the faculty to know unequivocally where the goals and objectives of the institution are as exemplified by a consistent reward system rather than just statements.

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 the faculty reward system.
• Reshape the curriculum.
• Broaden educational responsibility.
• Exchange personnel between faculty and practicing engineers.

In this paper, we touched only two of these important topics. While the merits of the post-baccalaureate professional degree are being debated (e.g., see Yao and Lutes, 1999), new civil engineering curricula should be consistent with the ASCE policy statement on this topic. According to Pennoni (1998), "The Engineer of the next millennium must possess a bachelor’s degree, master’s 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", and Bordogna (1998) called for the future civil engineers to be "the master integrator" because they must understand civil infrastructure as a system

The authors wish to thank the Lohman Professorship in Engineering Education at Texas A&M University for its support in preparing the presenting this paper.

Appendix The Eight NSF Engineering Education Coalitions (http://www1.needs.org)

The following summary is based on information available on the Internet:

1. SYNTHESIS (1990-present) Constituents: Cal-Poly at San Luis Obispo, Cornell, Hampton, Iowa State, Southern, Stanford, Tuskegee, UC at Berkeley. Concentration: New Curricula, Pedagogical Models, Multidisciplinary Content, Teamwork, Communication, Hands-on and Laboratory Experiences, Open-ended Problem Solving, Industrial Examples.
2. ECSEL (1990-present) Constituents: CCNY, Howard, MIT, Morgan State, Penn State, Maryland, Washington. Concentration: Design Across the Curriculum.
3. SUCCEED (1992-present) Constituents: Clemson, Florida A&M, Florida State, Georgia Tech, NC A&T State, NC State, Florida, NC-Charlotte, VPI. Concentration: Comprehensive Revitalization of Undergraduate Engineering Education.
4. GATEWAY (1992-present) Constituents: Case-Western Reserve, Columbia, Cooper Union, Drexel, Florida International, NJIT, Ohio State, Penn, Polytechnic Univ. of NY, SC. Concentration: Alternating Engineering Education from Course Contents to Integrated Experience.
5. FOUNDAYION (1993-present) Constituents: Arizona State, Maricopa Community College, Rose-Hulman, TAMU at College Station, TAMU at Kingsville, Texas Women, Alabama, Wisconsin at Madison. Concentration: Foundation in Engineering Problem Solving, Design and Teamwork, Integrated with Mathematics and Science.
6. GREENFIELD (1994-present) Constituents: Central State, Focus-HOPE, Lawrence Tech., Lehigh, Detroit, Michigan, Wayne State. Concentration: Manufacturing Engineering Work Force for Tomorrow.
7. ACADEMY (1995-present) Constituents: Connecticut, U. Mass at Amherst, U. Mass at Lowell, Rhode Island, Hartford Graduate Center. Concentration: A Set of Engineering Courses, Curricula to Integrate Design, Manufacturing, Teamwork, and Hands-on Manufacturing.
8. SCCEME (1995-present) Constituents: Cal State at Fullerton, Cal State at Los Angeles, Cal State at Long Beach, USC, UCLA, UC at Irvine. Concentration: Long-term Systemic Reform of Undergraduate Manufacturing Engineering Across the Curricula.

Return to the Lohman homepage