Draft Papers for Presentation and Discussion at the
  ASCE Boston Convention, 18-21 October 1998

Session on
  Civil Engineering Education Beyond 2000

(Dedicated to the memory of Walter P. Moore, Jr.)

Draft Papers:

Written Discussions:

  • Shahid Ahmad, University of Buffalo, SUNY, Amherst, NY 14260
  • Bilal M. Ayyub, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
  • John C. Calhoun, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
  • Karen Chou, University of Tennessee at Knoxville, TN
  • Michael P. Gaus, SUNY-Buffalo, NY
  • Phillip L. Gould, Washington University, St. Louis, MO
  • Leslie K. Guice, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA
  • William J. Hall, University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, IL
  • William J. Harris, Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office, Washington, D.C.
  • Robert D. Kersten, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL
  • Horst J. Klepp, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany
  • Raymond A. Krammes, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA
  • William F. Marcuson, III, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS
  • Mary Mulhern, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA
  • Tom Mullinazzi, University of Kansas, KS
  • H. Guenther Natke et al., University of Hannover, Germany
  • Mark N. Obergfell, Ter Horst, Lamson & Fisk, Inc., Indianapolis, IN
  • Ralph B. Peck, Consulting Engineer, Albuquerque, NM
  • Gregory D. Reed, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN
  • Lea S. Sanford, Port of Houston Authority, TX
  • Andrew J. Sauvage, Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall, Arlington, VA
  • Daniel S. Turner, et al., University of Alabama and ASCE, Tuscaloosa, AL
  • Richard M. Vogel, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155
  • Stuart G. Walesh, PhD, PE, Consultant, Valparaiso, IN

    POSTSCRIPTS

    by Jose M. Roesset and James T. P. Yao

    Our late colleague, Walter P. Moore, Jr., who was a successful practitioner, an effective teacher, and a caring mentor to thousands of civil engineers, is still sorely missed. Prior to his unfortunate automobile accident last April, Walter helped us to organize this session on civil engineering education and co-authored with us the first paper that was presented at the ASCE Boston Convention last October.

    In the following, we (1) suggest action items for possible implementation, and (2) summarize all the papers and discussions (the summary notes are given in the Appendix and the full-length papers and discussions as given are available on the Internet at http://lohman.tamu.edu click on "Convention" under "Forum"). We wish to thank Professor Lee L. Lowery, Jr. for his voluntary efforts in putting these papers and discussions on the Internet, and the Lohman Professorship in Engineering Education at Texas A&M University in providing the necessary opportunity for this forum.

    Based on the panel discussion during the Session on Civil Engineering Education Beyond 2000 at the ASCE Boston Convention on 19 October 1998, we suggest the following action items:

    • ASCE and other societies should debate the pros-and-cons of requiring a post-baccalaureate professional degree for civil engineering practice. While we need to provide a broad-based undergraduate education and a more specialized graduate education, the details of such a professional degree should be fully developed before its actual implementation. As suggested by our late colleague, Walter P. Moore, Jr., one model is to have a pre-engineering liberal arts degree that is followed by a professional engineering degree. Another alternative is to follow the path of a practice-oriented master of engineering degree (e.g., those of Texas A&M University and MIT).
    • We need to take the necessary action to focus attention on quality rather than quantity in journal publications. Such action must begin with improving faculty reward systems. The current practice at Technion in Israel to limit the list of publications to nine papers (with the requirement of describing the reason for their being chosen) seems to be a step in the right direction. The practice at Purdue University of evaluating faculty members in their activities of teaching, mentoring, research, scholarship, and service is another improvement over other systems. We think that it is timely to alter the university culture and to change the faculty reward systems.
    • Faculty members must have practical experience, be enthusiastic, and serve as role models for their students. ASCE needs to facilitate faculty development programs in order to help them improve their teaching skills and to keep them current.
    • We need to attract more bright students to study civil engineering. Furthermore, we should instill into students the desire to continue their education after graduation. Universities also need to develop more formal and rigorous continuing education programs.
    • There should be a formal mechanism for experienced practitioners to become teachers (especially for design courses). While we need to continue the practice of hiring part-time practitioner to teach design courses. We should (1) find a way for practitioners (with or without a doctoral degree) to become full-time faculty members, (2) involve practitioners to develop actual case studies, and (3) jointly develop curricula with faculty-practitioner teams.

    Appendix: Summary Notes of Papers and Written Discussion

    A.1 Summary of Panelists’ Presentations

    In their introduction, Moore/Roesset/Yao concluded that

    • Teaching is the most important function of a university.
    • It is necessary for university professors to be involved in research activities.
    • Practitioners should become more actively involved in engineering education.
    • Faculty members should be role models for their students.
    • It is timely to implement the many things that we have been talking about.

    Representing educators, Kelly discussed the important topics in ABET 2000 on general education, lifelong learning, faculty development, and sustainability. He concluded that the new ABET 2000 criteria offer an opportunity to further improve the civil engineering education. The faculty must take the lead in making these changes. The ASCE needs to facilitate faculty development. Sustainability should be added to other constraints such as economics, ethics, and environmental considerations in design courses.

    Representing practitioners, Hampton advocated the control of engineering education by the profession. He endorsed the ASCE policy statements (1) to require a post-baccalaureate professional degree for civil engineering practice, and (2) to assist faculty members to further develop themselves. In addition, he called for all civil engineering faculty members to be licensed professional engineers. Moreover, he would like to see that (1) more practitioners become faculty members, and (2) actions to implement his recommendations.

    Representing governmental agencies, Lih wants future engineers to

    • broaden their career options with a higher calling (by educating them "to do the right things rather than training them to do things right.");
    • become lifelong learners;
    • be equipped with abilities to lateral-thinking and integrative skills (by enabling future engineers to design and build complex systems and to manage chaos and complexity effectively);
    • be efficient in teamwork, communication skills, leadership, decision-making, and interpersonal relationships to function in a global environment;
    • integrate and implement knowledge; and
    • have vision and be enthusiastic to break new grounds.

    He also introduced several NSF programs and initiatives on engineering research centers, engineering education coalitions, combined research curriculum development, engineering education scholars, action agenda for systemic engineering education reform, research experience for undergraduates, and faculty early career development. These programs emphasize the integration and partnership of research and education.

    A.2 Summary of Written Discussions

    Ahmad reported on improved educational programs at SUNY-Buffalo including the combined BS/MEng (5 years), BS/MBA (5 years), and BS (Civil)/BS(Computer Science) (4.5 years) degree programs.

    Ayyub believes that it is essential to maintain a balance between classroom teaching, student advising, research funding, scholarship, service, and consulting. To maximize the potential of faculty members in all these aspects, education beyond 2000 would require even more skills to maintain this balance.

    Calhoun would like to see a curriculum concentrating on the general nature of engineering and another one on the specifics of engineering knowledge. He hopes that civil engineers will have an open mind to alternative goals in engineering education.

    Chou is concerned with

    • the large inertia and resistance to change;
    • the small minority of practitioners and educators who are interested in further improving engineering education;
    • most people are interested in only tangible rewards;
    • the present system in awarding contracts to the lowest bidders deters quality and hinders our ability to attract bright students;
    • the fuzzy demarcation between engineers and technicians;
    • too much emphasis on external funding for faculty in many schools;
    • lack of respect for civil engineers;
    • need for more good engineers (quality vs. quantity) and thus the need to attract high-quality students to study civil engineering; and
    • need for improving the faculty reward system (away from research funding and journal publication alone).

    She would also like to see Delon Hampton and ASCE bring the entire profession together in addressing these issues with actions. On the Moore/Roesset/Yao paper, she pointed out that (1) private schools are more "student friendly" than public schools, (2) faculty members are very important in implementing curriculum changes, (3) ASCE should team up with the Consulting Engineers Council to implement such programs as the practitioners-in-residence and faculty-in-residence, and (4) we need to address the question of non-traditional students participating in co-op programs. These non-traditional students usually are older and have families. They are more reluctant to relocate to another city. She also questions Hampton on the "incentive for faculty to be registered professional engineers." She thinks that, as role models to students, faculty members should become licensed professional engineers. However, she thinks that there are not enough incentives for some faculty members to do so.

    Gaus advocated for a civil engineering virtual design simulator. He reported on their program at SUNY-Buffalo, which has been successful.

    Gould (1) pointed out the important link between undergraduate education and funded research, (2) praised modern tools such as Matlab and JAVA in a virtual learning environment, (3) advocated for qualified practitioners to teach design courses, (4) would like to see more professional post-baccalaureate degrees than research-based MS degrees, (5) endorsed Hampton’s idea of mandatory requirement of continuing education for license renewal, and (6) supported Kelly’s Study Abroad program.

    Guice reported on a major transition at the Louisiana Tech University consisting of an interdisciplinary Ph.D. degree program in Engineering, a comprehensive strategic planning process, and teamwork successes. He pointed out the importance of identifying and overcoming the barriers to improvements in faculty rewards and incentives (e.g., rigid organizational structures). He also believes that undergraduate students should be exposed to a broad-based education and experience discovery, critical thinking, professionalism, and ethics in addition to co-op, internship, and other forms of experiential learning.

    Hall emphasized the need for (1) an outstanding and committed faculty who are interested in teaching, research, scholarship, service, and high-level consultation, (2) flexibility of educational approaches in different institutions, (3) diverse but not diluted majors, and (4) lifelong learning.

    Harris thinks that Moore/Roesset/Yao should have discussed more the importance of teaching students critical thinking. They also did not call for assessing (1) the experience of engineers nor (2) the strengths and weaknesses of their education. It is important to understand the relationship between educational efforts and their impact on students’ career patterns. He concluded by endorsing the recommendations of Moore/Roesset/Yao. On Kelly’s paper, Harris pointed out the importance of non-technical courses (e.g., English composition, history, art history, sociology, and geology). It is especially challenging to appreciate the societal and sustainability implications of engineering projects. He also believes that aggressive development of case studies and computer simulations can be helpful in emphasizing the many important engineering issues such as failures and ethics. On the Hampton paper, it is important for educators to understand the various needs of the employers of our graduates. The new ASCE policy to require a post-baccalaureate professional degree is desirable. It will be difficult to implement because of additional costs for students. Harris is optimistic in a bright future of civil engineering education because of the new ABET 2000 criteria (provided that ABET evaluators are flexible in their interpretation).

    Kersten urged ABET to remove the "anomalous condition" that "in order to be considered for accreditation, engineering programs must be designed to prepare graduates for the practice of engineering at a professional level" because of its conflict with the DOE definition of the professional degree. Furthermore, he recommended

    • to define a body of knowledge requisite for entry into professional practice;
    • to consider altering the length, content, and structure of the "first professional degree,"
    • to collaborate among ASCE, ABET, and USDOE to a common definition of the first professional degree,
    • for ASCE to exert leadership to achieve educational standards that place the nation in "hallmark" status worldwide, and thus "substantial equivalency" should reflect these standards,
    • for every member of the engineering profession to realize that the formation of those "who will practice and carry on" is a part of his or her professional responsibility.
    • to establish the ethical standards/codes by which we govern our professional behavior should include greater emphasis on environmental/sustainability matters,
    • to raise the level of engineer involvement in public service so that the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the public is more than the project mechanic is.

    He concluded "there should be more State and National leaders in our midst."

    Klepp believes that more attention should be paid to motivation by saying that "the high quality of a final product depends on the mastership of the cook as on the good quality of the ingredients." We need to improve students’ ability to make use of the "information society." "The strength of a team is given by the strength of its weakest member." Therefore, it is important to form teams of qualified and responsible individuals. Also, a critical inspection of simulation results is important in teaching students simulation techniques.

    Krammes commented on (1) "the quality and heart of civil engineering faculty" (have a significant impact on students), (2) "the sustainability of our strategies" (all educational strategies should have "long and wide reach in order to produce the desired effect"), and (3) "attentiveness to the customers’ needs" ("faculty would do well to view students’ assessment as those of an important customer." In addition, universities should seek feedback from students’ employers. Students’ and their employers inputs are necessary but not sufficient).

    Marcuson illustrated the changing needs for technical knowledge (at the beginning), human relationship (mid-career), and leadership and vision (for successful managers and executives). He praised the military schools for successfully teaching leadership and vision while other universities are doing an excellent job in teaching technical skills. Meanwhile, human relationships are important to all engineers whether they are motivated to move into upper management or not. Therefore, he recommended to develop leadership and vision skills in the formal education process in order for civil engineers to become future statesmen and leaders of our society.

    Mulhern is not in favor of lengthening the educational process for civil engineers by requiring a post-baccalaureate professional degree for practice. She pointed out the difference between M.D. (who do not study medicine until they get into the medical school) and engineering (who study engineering subjects as undergraduates). Instead, the attention should be given to revising the curriculum rather than changing the length of educational process.

    Mulinazzi considers the existing 3-2 program in collaboration with liberal arts schools as a good model in engineering education. The first three years would emphasize mathematics, sciences, humanities, social sciences, communications, ethics, business, and engineering sciences. The last two years would concentrate on civil engineering courses. He also cited the practice of the University of Kansas in paying for two-week salaries and travel expenses for a faculty member to teach a short course abroad. This way, civil engineering students may have more opportunities to study abroad through contacts of these professors. He encourages students to

    • learn foreign languages and study abroad;
    • take courses in history;
    • concentrate on the general education requirements in some depth to make it more meaningful.

    "The computer has changed the traits needed to succeed as an engineer in the 21st Century." However, the engineer must still interact with people.

    Natke et al. recommended to

    • enhance the quality of research and teaching by limiting the total number of refereed publication to the several best in resumes for consideration of faculty rewards (e.g., tenure and promotion) in order to shift the attention to quality rather than quantity;
    • broaden the scope of faculty evaluation to more than external funding and scholarly publications by including teaching, mentoring of students and colleagues, and professional service;
    • attract more bright high school students to study engineering;
    • develop innovative engineering curricula;
    • require a post-baccalaureate professional degree for practice;
    • pursue lifelong learning; and
    • involve more practitioners in engineering education.

    Obergfell would like to see that

    • more practitioners are involved in the education process;
    • students receive a broader-based education;
    • students experience more team-situations and learn more communication skills.

    Peck thinks that perhaps we worry too much because the present educational system has been working well. We need to continue "to drive the fundamentals by repetitive exposure and practice." The students need to be "surrounded by the people and the tools that were advancing their chosen profession." Teachers should be civil engineers, and their research should be "related to practice." Enthusiasm of teachers "rubs off on the students." In summary, he believes that "engineering must be taught by educators who know and love engineering." Moreover, "not all-creative consists of esoteric treatises in learned journals."

    Reed believes that we need to develop a formal and rigorous system of continuing education as an integral part of the educational mission. Computer technologies make such an approach more feasible today. We also need to make a major overhaul or to start from scratch in improving the civil engineering curriculum. He also advocates for more ASCE awards for educational excellence of individuals as well as programs.

    Sanford feels the need to improve civil engineering salaries by increasing public’s awareness of civil engineering accomplishments. She also is in favor of expanding co-op education and a broad-based undergraduate education.

    Sauvage thinks that we are "certainly doing many things right." As a practitioner, he looks for the following traits in engineers:

    • technical excellence;
    • registration;
    • communication skills;
    • leadership ability;
    • vision; and
    • well-rounded background with diverse interests outside of engineering.

    He is in favor of a post-baccalaureate professional degree for civil engineering practice. On curriculum, he recommends to

    • continue to teach the "basics;"
    • expand engineering materials courses (properties and mechanics) to include new materials such as carbon fiber and other composites;
    • computer skills;
    • teamwork and client contacts;
    • problem solving skills (not just calculations);
    • knowledge of building codes;
    • more specialization in education (e.g., earthquake engineering should be required of all structural engineers);
    • professionalism and pride should be formally taught;
    • have a current and flexible curriculum in civil engineering.

    We also need to have more faculty members with practical experience.

    Turner/Kupferman/Lenox concluded that any substantial changes to civil engineering education are slow and difficult. However, such changes are now in good progress. As examples, they cited ABET 2000 and the many educational programs at NSF. ASCE also has initiated several educational programs including (1) the development of a high-quality workshop on college teaching methods at West Point during the last three years, and (2) the adoption of a policy by the ASCE Board of Direction to require a master’s degree as the first professional degree for civil engineering practice. They urged ASCE members to continue their active support of the various efforts to improve the educational process.

    Vogel would like to see a comparison among actual ABET accredited curricula. This activity should enhance curriculum reform.

    Walesh paraphrased Rodney Dangerfield in saying that "engineers ‘get no respect.’" He believes that civil engineers "have to earn" "more respect and greater rewards" "by providing more value – by preparing for and taking on an even more important role in society." He concluded by saying that "education is the key and we need to profoundly change who teaches, what they teach, and what is expected of students."

1 October 1998

Dear Friend:

Thank you for your active participation in this session that is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Walter P. Moore, Jr.* As you know, Walter has made many important contributions to education and practice of civil engineering. Prior to his untimely death, he helped us to organize this session on civil engineering education. He also co-authored the first paper for presentation in this session.

This set of preprint includes all four papers and twenty written discussions. We apologize for any inadvertent and possible omissions. With funds from the Lohman Professorship in Engineering Education at Texas A&M University, these preprints are distributed free of charge to participants of this session. We also plan to put it on the Internet at http://lohman.tamu.edu as a Forum for information and discussion purposes. If the authors would please send a copy of the final manuscript electronically (preferably as an attachment in Word) via E-mail to jtpyao@tamu.edu on or before 1 November 1998, we will make it available on the Internet for continued discussion.

Best wishes for a successful session!

Jose M. Roesset and James T. P. Yao
 

* Walter P. Moore, Jr. died in Houston on 21 June 1998 from injuries suffered in an automobile accident on 4 April 1998. He is remembered by thousands of friends as a highly successful consulting engineer, an effective teacher, and a caring mentor. He was Chairman of Walter P. Moore and Associates, Inc., the company founded in 1931 by his father, Walter P. Moore, Sr., and capably led by Dr. Moore as its President from 1972 through 1993. In 1993, he became Professor of Civil Engineering and Architecture, and Director of The Center for Building Design and Construction in the Colleges of Architecture and Engineering, Texas A&M University at College Station, Texas. He remained as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the firm until his untimely death. He was also the holder of the Thomas A. Bullock Endowed Chair in Leadership and Innovation in the Design and Construction Industries at Texas A&M University. He was an elected member of the National Academy of Engineering (N.A.E.); an Honorary Member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE); an Honorary Member of the American Institute of Architects (AIA); a Fellow of the American Consulting Engineers’ Council (ACEC); and received the Distinguished Alumnus Awards from Rice University and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He was a recipient of many other awards and served in various capacities in ASCE and several other professional and technical societies. We hereby dedicate this session honoring the memory of Dr. Walter P. Moore, Jr.

 

 lohman

Return to the Lohman homepage

© 2001 The Lohman Professorship all rights reserved. Last modified