(drafted by Jim Yao on 2 January 1997 with several revisions (text in bold print) as a result of and including feedback comments from James Armstrong (JA), UK Royal Academy of Engineering; Bilal Ayyub (BA), Univ. of Maryland; Ed Back (EB), Texas A&M; Fred Beaufait (FB), Greenfield Engineering Education Coalition; J. R. Birdwell (JB), Consulting Engineer; Jean-Louis Briaud (JlB), Texas A&M, Colin Brown (CB), Univ. of Washington; Karen Chou (KC), Univ. of Tennessee at Knoxville; Shirley Dyke (SD), Washington Univ.; Norman Fortenberry (NF), NSF; Phil Gould (PG), Washington Univ.; John Hayes (JH), Purdue Univ.; Sue Hida (SH), Caltran; Teddy Hirsch (TH),Texas A&M; Peter Hoadley (PH), Vanderbilt Univ.; Mike Gaus (MG), SUNY at Buffalo; Harry Jones (HJ), Texas A&M; Guy Jester (GJ), Practicing Engineer; Wayne Klotz (WK), Klotz Assoc.; Roberto Lee (RL),AIChE Treasurer, candidate for AIChE Secretary, Monsanto; Jerry Leonards (JL), Purdue Univ.; Chuck Pennoni (CP), Pennoni Assoc.; Jim Poirot (JiP), CH2M Hill; John Prados (JP), NSF; Greg Reed (GR), Univ. of Tennessee at Knoxville; Jose Roesset (JoR), Texas A&M; Paul Roschke (PR), Texas A&M; Jeff Russell (JR), Univ. of Wisconsin; Smanchai Sae-Ung (SS), Census Bureau; Chuck Samson (ChS), Texas A&M; Chet Siess (CS), UIUC; Stu Walesh (SW), Consulting Engineer; John Weese (JW), Texas A&M; and Bruno Weinschel (BW), Consulting Engineer. [Feedback comments in square brackets]. This long-range plan was presented and discussed during a meeting of the Civil Engineering Advisory Board at Louisiana Tech University in Ruston, LA on Saturday, 26 April 1997.)

The objective of this long-range plan is to stimulate interest in improving civil engineering education in the States by (1) integrating subject matters into various courses, (2) requiring a formal internship each summer, (3) keeping the 4-year B.S.C.E. degree for those graduates who go into general engineering practice (e.g., sales engineering) or go to business-, law-, and medical school, and (4) requiring a fifth-year of specialty education to earn a professional degree (e.g., Civil Engineer) for those graduates who will practice in a particular area of civil engineering where depth of knowledge is needed. The integration of subject matters involves project based learning (PBL) as well as integrated and organized way of presenting materials in mathematics, science, engineering science, civil engineering principles, management, communication skills, personal and interpersonal attributes, ethics, and engineering practice. To stimulate discussions, a sample curriculum is suggested herein. It is realized that parts of the suggested curriculum have already been implemented elsewhere and others may be vague. It is meant to be a rough framework from which specific programs can be developed depending on local conditions and available resources. Hopefully, several schools may experiment with various versions of a five-year educational program again and make it work this time. (Note that several schools like Cornell University tried 5-year or 6-year B.S.C.E. degree programs several decades ago and did not succeed because few other schools followed their exemplary and pioneering work.) [PG: "In this regard, objectives (3) and (4) are in general the rule for our students. It is very hard for a student to get a job in structural design, in environmental engineering, or in geotechnical engineering without masters, or at least a commitment to pursue masters on a part-time basis. I don't see the need to create a new degree structure to legislate this.

In summary, I don't think we are too far from your ultimate objective if you take an outcomes approach, but the processes which various programs employ should, and I suspect will, remain varied."]

Based on some of the results of the 1995 Civil Engineering Education Conference (CEEC'95), the following long-range plan is outlined for purposes of stimulating discussion among interested civil engineers. Please communicate your response to Jim Yao (E-mail address: JTPYAO@TAMU.EDU), Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3136. [NF: "I received the long range plan. I think the sections on Practitioner Involvement and Faculty Involvement is very interesting. Both of these could almost be accomplished now within the context of NSF’s Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI). Also, I am sure you are aware, prototype efforts at broad curricular restructuring are appropriate topics for proposals to NSF’s Course and Curricula Development Program."] [HJ: "I like the approach - 120 hours BS + something roughly equivalent to M.E. for those who desire to be licensed to practice. ..."] [JoR: "... The proposal contains a number of excellent suggestions some already implemented in various places (...) others new and promising. It is however too general and vague in the curriculum and will raise therefore many questions. ..."] [GJ: "... It appears you have made some good changes to the curriculum by getting design aspects into the courses in the freshman year. Shouldn’t we keep emphasizing the output objective that came out of the CEEC=95 as they generally provide guidance? ..."] [JW: "... I have read it with great interest because I am deeply involved in Criteria 2000 and the implementation involved with it. In many aspects, the program being proposed here has a number of the Criteria 2000 trappings about it."] [JiP: "Please read my brief report to the World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO)."] [GR: "Our curriculum committee has been discussing similar matters ... I have learned that making major changes in curricular content and philosophy is very difficult because everyone has his/her own personal agenda. ... From our discussions here, half my faculty would reject this plan because of turf issues and ‘I think every student needs what I have always taught’ issues. It has always amazed me that even tenured full professors seem to focus on what they want to do rather than the big picture of what we collectively should do. I like the concept of 4-year BS for general practice and pre-something and a fifth year specialization degree for practice. South American universities have used this model for some time now and the University of Louisville in this country. I think it is a good model. I am trying to move us in the direction of your model but I don't think we will get all the way there. But even part way will be an improvement. ..."] [ChS: "... 'curriculum bashing' has been going on for a long time. After countless conferences, studies, discussions, and arguments, we seem to have progressed little. One can't help but wonder whether any individual effort can contribute to improving the situation. ..."]

It is recognized that each department of civil engineering possesses unique strength and can find a special niche for their respective graduates. Therefore, there should not be a uniform curriculum for all civil engineering educational institutions to follow. Nevertheless, for discussion purposes, an initial curriculum is formulated in principle herein. [GJ: "... Each institution must have overall goals. These depend on a lot of factors, which are not necessarily related with its strengths and weaknesses. These goals may be derived from state legislature, state constitution, traditions, community requirements, environment, etc. There is also the student body served, which could be local only, statewide, country, international, etc. They may be mainly merit scholars, academically deprived, or a mixture. Finally there exist constraints such as location, funding, reputation, facilities, equipment, etc. Based on these inputs, goals of the program are derived that intersect in a matrix with the civil engineering graduate output objectives to develop a curriculum that is unique to that institution, its student body input and the output demanded by the customers who hire the graduates. ..."] [JP: "As you point out at the beginning, the curricular model you propose is A good model, but by no means the ONLY good model. This point needs to be emphasized repeatedly. Far too often, someone will propose a new curricular structure as a solution, without having clearly defined what is the problem. For years, people have been advocating a five-year engineering curriculum without defining their specific learning objectives and showing why these cannot be achieved in four years (or why, for that matter, they don't need six years). Simply adding an extra year to the curriculum without changing faculty attitudes and learning objectives will simply result in more proficient analysts and differential-equation-solvers without any systemic change in engineering education. A major goal of all engineering education must be to give students the knowledge base, enabling tools, and motivation to continue learning throughout their careers."] [FB: "I think it is a mistake to identify any specific curriculum. As I look at the model suggested I find several points that I would consider a weakness. I would urge that the definition of a model be limited to the concept of a fixed number of credits per semester, e.g. four 4-credit courses per semester for a total of 128 credits with study in: communications, mathematics, science, engineering science, ... To begin to lay out specific courses opens the door for endless debates as to what is best, who is right, etc."] [ChS: "While I agree that some flexibility should be allowed civil engineering curricula at various institutions, I believe that standards for curricula output should be set (minimum technical scope and skills) related to accreditation. Because of significant variation in the different approaches now being taken by various institutions in order to stay within prescribed semester hours, in my judgment we are going to see considerable frustration on the part of many employers who hire civil engineering graduates. They can no longer assume certain civil engineering preparation by graduates - 'civil engineering' education will mean different things at different schools."]

In principle, civil engineering education must center on technical content along with an integrated broad general education, communication skills, and project management principles, teamwork and leadership skills throughout the curriculum. Furthermore, it is desirable to develop integrated and interdisciplinary projects including the planning, analysis, design, and construction of bridges, tunnels, and waste treatment facilities. [TH: "Building codes?"] Results of various NSF engineering education coalitions may be synthesized and disseminated to all civil engineering departments in the country. [JoR: "Why mention specifically bridges, tunnels and waste treatment facilities and not concrete or earth dams, buildings, offshore structures, harbors, etc.?"] [JP: "... I would urge you to think about even more radical approaches to force integrative thinking from the beginning of the students program -- e.g., the combined math-science-engineering science freshman/sophomore experiences being pioneered by the Foundation Coalition, and a focus on project based experiences in a majority of the civil engineering courses. You might also want to suggest that the capstone design experience involve multi-disciplinary teams, including, for example, students from electrical and/or mechanical engineering, urban/regional planning, management, architecture, construction technology, etc. (depending on the disciplines offered at a specific university). In this regard, you may want to contact Professor Renate Fruchter at Stanford University (fruchter@ce.stanford.edu) who has put together an integrated architecture-engineering-construction course for the Synthesis Coalition."] [JW: AI wonder if there should not be a paragraph dealing with use of the computer. Computing is becoming so basic to so many aspects of engineering that I don’t think it is wise to leave it unstated as to how computing would be integrated into the program."] [EB: "... it is stated that we wish civil engineering education to be centered around technical content along with an integrated broad general education, communication skills, project management principals, teamwork and leadership skills. As a rule, I think we mistakenly use the term project management to refer to construction engineering. Project management is but one component within the field of construction engineering. Unfortunately, even here at Texas A&M, an undergraduate student can go through the entire program and never take a course in project management, let alone construction engineering. Such material is difficult to teach and will not be learned without a structured course. Everyone seems to tell me that they think the material is important, but there is apparently an unwillingness to include classes in the subject as required courses. It is a contradictory position. We run the risk of producing graduates that will know how to design structural members or components without ever understanding how designs are constructed. Frankly, designers that lack an understanding of construction often create designs that are costly, inefficient, and poor products. They do disservice to their clients.

The same paragraph in the text refers to the construction of bridges, tunnels, and waste treatment facilities. I think this is too narrow. We build infrastructure, roadways, refineries, power generations facilities, pulp and paper mills, and chemical processing plants to name just a few. Engineers lead these efforts. These type of projects will truly require interdisciplinary skills. Without an awareness of how such projects are constructed and managed, we fail to meet the expectations of industry."] [WK: "The statement and the related comments indicate a need to have far reaching integration with multiple skills and disciplines. I believe we should be cautious about the complexity of the approaches we take. Every civil project is not a Golden Gate Bridge or Hoover Dam. The important skills, in addition to technical content, are communication and teamwork. Project management and leadership are secondary and should not take time form an already crowded curriculum. I think we should also recognize that the process is what is important and not focus too much on the exact project these integrated efforts pursue."]

A possible curriculum consists of an undergraduate and pre-professional BSCE degree (120 semester hours of course work plus 20 hours of internship) and a graduate and professional CE degree (30 additional semester hours of course work plus 5 more hours of internship) is suggested herein. [JR: "good suggestion."] Every semester has five courses with 3 credit hours each (following my late friend Jerry Leonards advice to limit each semester to five subject matters), and each summer has 5 credit hours of internship that is supervised by a licensed professional engineer in practice. [JR: "... we must move in the direction of requiring this. Do doctors start to practice right out of school?"] [GR: "Your curriculum seems to be two courses for general proficiency and then choose one of three focus areas? It isn't clear how one would demonstrate proficiency in at least 4 areas as required by CE program criteria. Is that handled in a way that is integrated into the course selection? Does this in essence become a specialists degree?"] [WK: "I will reiterate my position that a BSCE should not be a pre-professional degree. The marketplace will not recognize it as such. Focus on a new curriculum that makes a BSCE the entry degree."]

Academic Year 1 (30 hours):

• Mathematics I & II
• Science I & II [JoR: "What is included in Science: Physics, Chemistry, also Geology?"]
• 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.)
• H & SS I & II

[JW: "I have some concerns which are similar to ones I harbor with respect to Criteria 2000. It deals primarily with the lack of specificity yet I realize that we are in an age where specificity is out of fashion. However, it seems to me that the content of some courses should be spelled out at least in broad strokes. What is meant by mathematics I and II for example? Does this start with the study of calculus so that these are essentially differential and integral calculus or are these courses something quite different? The same point applies to science courses I and II; are these calculus-based physics or are they something very different? I think that answering these questions is going to be very important. If engineering programs begin to drift from their current rigorous level to something where ‘cowboy’ physics (to use a TAMU term) can be used for an engineering program, then I fear much will be lost in maintaining the high-level quality we currently enjoy.’] [PR: "Given the excellent level of internship involvement proposed throughout the curriculum, especially in the summers, is there an addition need for a set of 'motivation' courses such as Intro. to Civil Engineering I & II? Perhaps the 'motivational' content of one of these courses could be shifted to, say, case examples in a numerical methods or project based learning courses. Another factor is that many students have not decided on a particular engineering field during their first year of study and two introductory courses may be too heavy of an investment in the student's time at this level."]

[FB: "I agree that an internship is an important component of undergraduate engineering education. But such a program does not just come about by good intentions. If this is to be a key component of the education, the universities and all CE related businesses must join forces and put into place appropriate mechanisms to provide internship opportunities for the students and to monitor the program. If an internship is to become an important component of CE education, there must be programs in place to ensure that EVERY STUDENT has the opportunity. An internship program is not inexpensive. Who will pay for it? Somehow the CE profession must make a real commitment to this sort of program - and I have not seen any real willingness for the CE industry to do so. I hope this lack of support can be overcome."] [GR: "I like the intern provision but I'm afraid, at best, it could only be an option at most schools. My experience is that there are not enough employers out there willing to do this so that it could include all students. The few vocal employers in ASCE are not enough to go around. But I think programs should provide that option for as many students as can match up with employers. It seems to me you are suggesting a higher level co-op with lots of coordination involved."] [ChS: "I believe the concept of summer internships is sound, but I don't believe they should be a substitute for formal education."] [EB: "The concept of summer internship is good, although not all internships will provide exposure to the complexities of professional practice nor expose the student to the wide number of options available within the profession. To make an internship a "learning experience" will require industry to "partner" with us in the education of students. I don't know if they understand this is what we intend. A joint collaboration in the education of engineering students between universities and industry would be advantageous, but require tremendous planning and cooperation. Would working in a large construction company be an acceptable internship for instance? Would working for the state highway department be appropriate? Such questions are important."] [MG: "... We have such a program and I have wasted quite a number of days during the last two weeks trying to place Civil Engineering students in the 8 week practical program. We ask the companies to pay the students $8.00 (per hour) with no overhead or benefits so an 8 week internship costs a company $2560. I managed to place 9 students but have three more that I simply haven't been able to place. When I call the consultants they are very enthusiastic about the program when they think they can get the students to work for nothing but as soon as we mention $8.00/hour they suddenly stonewall and say they can't afford it. All of these students are CAD capable, are excellent in computers and analysis and enthusiastic so they would turn out a lot or work.

This makes me very cynical about Civil Engineering and reinforces what I said about smart American students avoiding the profession. Were the people who were pushing the summer internships from industry? And if so, where are they when we try to place students? ..."]

Academic Year 3 (30 hours):

• Problem Solving Methods I & II (deterministic and probabilistic) [JR: "statistics"]
• 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) [ChS: "I also believe that 'civil engineering' should continue to be a defined discipline, and that all those aspiring to that designation should have educational preparation in the traditional, recognized areas. I fully understand that 'spin-off' specialties may be needed where they cannot be adequately accommodated within the civil engineering umbrella; for example, we may have reached that point with 'environmental engineering.'"]
• Project Based Learning (PBL) I & II (actual engineering project prepared by practicing engineers) [JoR: "We have 6 PBL courses. Does this mean that every year the participating professional engineers must come up with 6 actual CE projects with different levels of complexity for each one of the CE areas? How do these courses and in particular the last 2 tie in with the 2 capstone design courses? Perhaps a more detailed definition of the PBL courses would help."] [GJ: "Is the PBL a capstone or meaningful major engineering design experience? If not, it should be."]
• Technical Electives I & II (these courses provide depths in the chosen specialty area) [JoR: "What are the technical electives? Would have to look at sample lists. ..."] [ChS: "... I have to say that providing a large number of technical electives at the undergraduate level and permitting an undergraduate student to

decision that will impact his or her career too early."]

• H & SS V and VI

[JR: "project management is so important that a separate course with the word management in the title is essential for our students. ..."] [GJ: "I personally don’t believe there should be project management courses. PM is something that should be taught during Project Based Learning. A lot of other critical subjects such as writing, listening, speaking, critical thinking, decision theory, etc. are very important."]

Academic Year 4 (30 hours):

• CF or IT or EE III & IV [JoR: "Will students take only courses in one of the 3 CE areas? Or, will they be required to have some exposure to the other 2 areas? Or will they take all aspects of CE? Does this basic exposure come from the 4 CE courses or from the technical electives?"]
• PBL III & IV
• Technical Electives III, IV, V, and VI
• H & SS VII & VIII

BSCE degree (for general practice, pre-medicine, pre-business, or pre-law) [ChS: "I am not persuaded that 120 SCHs are adequate for the BSCE. Based upon my experience, I believe that 138 SCHs are needed if we are to provide the necessary work, with the added requirement of an additional 32 SCHs of advanced study for the professional master's degree to meet the requirement for professional licensure. If are set on 120 SCHs as appropriate for the BSCE, then I believe that 50 SCHs should be required for the professional master's degree. In other words, if we are to provide what I believe is essential to qualify one to be licensed, then a total of 170 SCHs is needed."]

Academic Year 5 (30 hours):

• PBL V & VI
• Technical Electives VII, VIII, IX, and X
• Capstone Design I & II [TH: "Plans & specs - calculations, codes define state-of-art."]
• Independent Study I & II

[JW: "The most striking feature of the proposed Civil Engineering Program is the entry point at the master’s level after 150 hours of education. The award of the civil engineering degree would set new trends and in the opinion of many, is precisely the way to go. The curriculum leading to the BSCE degree certainly has a strong civil flavor to it and would be appropriate for general practice as well as a vehicle to pre-medicine and prelaw and other fields."]

The following actions except for the last one are taken from the summary report of CEEC'95:

• practitioners serve on department and college advisory committees helping to define the desired attributes of graduates and the curriculum to produce these characteristics.
• practitioner serve as sources and help to prepare course materials for project based learning (PBL) courses.
• practitioner help to arrange and supervise students during summer internships.
• practitioner teach courses in cooperation with educators. [JR: "This is an excellent opportunity for faculty and industry to jointly work together in defining ‘what needs to be taught’ and ‘how to teach it.’ Industry can help with the what while academics can focus on how. Courses that have application to the practice of civil engineering, we must characterize the context in which the information is relevant. The key to improve learning is the ability to answer the questions of ‘why it is important?’ ‘what is it really?’ and ‘how to use it?’ ..."]
• practitioner support faculty development programs and other continuing education activities. [ChS: "... a lot of joint consideration by practitioners and educators is needed to devise workable approaches."]

[WK: "Practitioners are an important part of the overall education program. The use of advisory committees should be continued. One the main ways to increase practitioner involvement is to bring them into the classroom. Some method of compensation should be developed if the practitioner will be asked to do more than be a guest lecturer. One of our biggest hindrances to this topic is the lack of participation by educators in professional and technical societies. Engineering groups work together to solve issues related to continuing education and other education issues. Unfortunately, the very people with the most at stake, the educators, participate the least. I also find that the majority of educators have an incorrect view of how much financial support that practitioners receive from their employers. This misunderstanding is then used to justify nonparticipation by educators."]

[JR: "We need a specific process to achieve this. The key issue here is ‘training.’ ... There are many areas that faculty need help including: teaching, effective communication, teamwork/human relations, mentoring, counseling, strategic planning, how to build a research program, and personality profiles. We need to hold ourselves to the same standards we hold the industry to. We need to develop the materials that can be used to help our faculty."] [JoR: "What does it mean to include faculty development as part of the evaluation process? A new system of metrics to evaluate faculty performance? Just another additional set of measures and paperwork? I have grown very cynical about the increased bureaucracy of faculty evaluation procedures based always on bean counting but increasing constantly the types of beans that must be counted. It is only a justification for more bureaucracy. As I said at the beginning, I think it would help if you provided lists of the various types of courses and some detail on their intended content, objectives, etc. ..."] [PR: "The definition of 'practitioner' is potentially an important point. Is it limited to men from 'traditional' general civil engineering firms or should it be broadened to include significant numbers of, for example, women who are working on finite element code development in large commercial firms, those working in large governmental or private research laboratories on parallel algorithms for structural optimization, and NASA employees who are civil engineers?"]

[JL: "... I see three main problems (with the current educational system): (1) Too few primary and secondary schools are of sufficient quality to prepare students for a University education; (2) Too few college students, across the board, have sufficient motivation to excel in their studies; and (3) Too many young CE Faculty mature as senior professors without any practical design or construction experience. As you know, for 40 years I have been an advocate of an integrated, 5-yr, BSCE-MSCE program - with the MSCE being the first professional degree. Students interested in other careers would pursue different paths after receiving a BSCE degree. ..."] (in a letter dated 28 January 1997, a few days before he passed away unexpectedly.)

[SW: "Based on my experience as a practitioner and educator, I believe that the most important of the four ‘ASCE Action Areas,’ by far, is ‘Professional Degrees.’ Briefly stated, earning a BSCE degree on the present system is simply too easy--and getting easier because requirements are being further reduced. I support your ‘Academic Year 5’ suggestion. I prefer even more formal education as a condition for entering the CE profession. The negative consequences of the current "easy" programs are:

Expanding and extending CE educational requirements will be strongly opposed by the majority of CE faculty, as individuals and as departments, because the high probability of fewer CE students will jeopardize faculty jobs. Similar opposition will be raised by the majority of CE employers because the high probability of fewer CE graduates will jeopardize access to low-cost labor. Ironically, both faculty members (albeit fewer of them) and employers would be better served in the long run, by a smaller group of more capable and better educated CE's. Society would be the principal beneficiary."]

[PH: "... Two comments about your outline for CE curriculum: (a) Criteria 2000 replaces H&SS requirements with Gen. Ed. Requirements which may be a better way to go in the long run; and (b) Summer Internships are obviously very useful but I don’t think academic credit should be given for work experience. Overall-some very good ideas."]

[CS: "... keep in mind that we are educating engineers for the practice of engineering and the importance of keeping in contact with the practitioners, both in what we teach and in what we do research on.

practice. However, we no longer require, or even encourage, a thesis for MS candidates, whether or not they hope to go on for a Ph.D. The Ph.D. has long ceased to be only for researchers. Some of my most successful Ph.D. students have never done any research--at least not in the laboratory. Examples are Fazlur Khan and Joe Colaco. Neither did a major or important piece of research for their thesis, but both have attested to the importance of their exposure to research in their careers. Of course, the importance of research in the training of future teachers and researchers is unquestioned. ... I am prouder of the accomplishments of my students than of any research I ever did."]

[EB: "Poll the graduating seniors, and I will bet that most of them will admit that they feel unsettled about entering the profession largely because they don't really know how they fit into the big picture nor do they understand how projects are constructed. As I tell my class, it is much like the music profession. Designers are like composers, they write the musical score, the notes on the page. The deliverable is in black and white, a paper product. It is not music however, until the composition is played by the orchestra. Construction is an important part. We are the orchestra, the customer of design. Unlike musicians however, we don't get the opportunity to rehearse. We can't practice building the bridge, tunnel, or refinery. Design and construction are integral processes. Just as dependent on each other as the composer and the orchestra.

So what is our goal as educators? To teach design and briefly familiarize students with construction? Or to teach both in an integrated fashion? It is an important question and it has significant impact on curriculum development. Project management and construction engineering won't be learned with one technical elective. In our own program, we took Project Management from a required course to a non-required tech elective. It seems to me to send a very strong signal against integration of design and construction. Yet clearly, in the real world, they are inseparably linked."]

[MG: "... For openers I have usually looked at Civil Education as a system problem. There are three major components to the system: Clients (i.e. students); Content (educational process); Results (job & economic opportunities, quality of life after graduation). It would seem that there is excessive concentration on the second of these two categories (i.e. curricula) without adequately recognizing the interaction. (although one of your respondents touched on it).

As far as the participation of professionals I do not agree that the participation of any professional is necessarily a good thing. We unfortunately have many practicing people out there that are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Many of the practicing people lack imagination and would encourage students to walk the same minute detail ridden unimaginative path they walked down. If you do not believe it just look at the NY DOT. Our students view working there as only one step above unemployment. I had one student come back after 9 months of employment there bitterly complaining that he had not yet done anything he could not have done when he finished high school. This, unfortunately has been a frequent experience with our summer intern problem. Thus the participation of the professionals is only useful if you can find unique individuals."]

[CP: "... simply - engineering is no longer looked upon as a profession. Testimony to this is as follows:

In addition, the matter of international engineering practice adds another dimension to this dilemma. ..."]

[SH: "...I, for one, could not be doing what I am doing as a Bridge Engineer for Caltrans were it not for my education "beyond 4 years". My MSCE design courses at Purdue approached the complexity of the real world. My MSE experience at Princeton gave me the theoretical background especially for seismic analysis. My co-op experience pointed out things I didn't want to do for the rest of my life. It seems that too many of my colleagues who have done otherwise don't have a real deep understanding of the analysis we now do. I don't claim to fully understand, but at least know enough to ask questions. Being a State Agency, I think we're somewhat obliged to hire BSCE's from our State's schools. I can't begin to adequately convey the difference in aptitude at a consulting firm where I worked that only hired engineers with Master's Degrees, vs. Caltrans. I think you're on the right track IF you can get employers to appreciate the difference in education programs. This may not be apparent on a resume or in an interview if the employer hasn't been convinced of the merits. ..."]

[JB: "... I read it and the comments with interest. I fall in the category of those that think that 120 hours in not enough work for a BS degree in engineering. However, I applaud your efforts to find some consensus in an enhanced curriculum. I have serious doubts that a 5-year program will ever have broad appeal to either students or employers. The truth is that the four-year program has been and continues to be successful. Seems to me that there may be more fruit in trying to change the content and organization of courses in order to reduce duplication. ..."]

[BW: "... IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MAJOR ENGINEERING SOCIETIES TO HAVE COURSE CONTENT AND FACULTY TRAINING ADJUST TO THE NEEDS OF THE MARKET PLACE! Since most engineers do not take any graduate courses, we must use our best teachers for the undergraduate education. Naturally those teachers must have real engineering experience and not just know theory! ... Academics are using the boards and committees of the Engineering Societies to maintain the status quo in engineering education. This is quite short sighted. But there is no leadership in the Engineering Societies to improve the present conditions of Engineering Education for the good of future engineers, their employers and of both their ability to succeed in global competition in service and manufacturing. ..."]

[SD: "In general, I like the requirement that more course work and practical experience be required for the CE degree. It seems that implementing the internship portion of this program would require a great deal of support from industry/practitioners. To require each student to complete an internship each summer (with a licensed engineer), the university would have to guarantee a position for each student. It might be more reasonable to require only 1-2 summers of internship - preferably later in their education so that the experience is productive. Unless there is enough supervision, students doing an internship before the junior year are usually assigned tasks such as typing and Xeroxing, rather than engineering. A summer research position with a faculty member, or a supervised summer project should also satisfy this requirement.

In some sense, things seem to be moving in the direction of the five-year degree already. To be more marketable, more and more students are pursuing a Master's degree before taking a job. Thus, the Master's degree is becoming more attractive to potential employers. Some may view this proposal as requiring what has previously been MS level training to get an undergraduate degree, when the same objectives could be achieved by requiring a MS degree to be licensed. I'm not suggesting this, only pointing out criticisms that some might have."]

[WK: "... I share the enthusiasm for evaluating the current education program to see if we can do a better job. ... I will focus my remarks on the broader issues.

... I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to offer my comments on this huge undertaking. ... The practice of civil engineering has changed dramatically while the education process has changed slowly. We must ask the hard questions and proceed to make changes. We can allow no sacred cows. Let me know how I can help."]

[KC: "1. I am pleased to see the credit hours for the 4 years curriculum reduced to 120 hours. ... The 120-hour program will make us think VERY CRITICALLY of what are the important and top priority issues we need to address at the undergraduate level. Recognizing many of our graduates will not practice civil engineering nor engineering, an additional year or two for a professional degree will make us in line with the law and medicine. ... What they will get in 4 years is not exactly how to design anything specific but the process necessary to design anything they will face. The process of collecting information, applying fundamentals to synthesize the problem to reach a rational and logical conclusion is a tool that will help them not just in engineering but in everyday life. ... I do not agree with Chuck Samson’s argument that we need to increase the credit hour to a total of 170 for the undergraduate degree. ... I think we, as faculty, fail to challenge the students enough. ... We (practitioners and educators) have to recognize that the students learn the generic concepts, theory, principles and fundamentals from us and the practitioners need to nurture these students in order to ‘create’ a good engineer. ...

In conclusion, even ABET’s Criteria 2000 does not give us enough ammunition to change. The bean counting of enrollment and retention by the state legislature does not ensure quality. The clients, the employers of our students, do no want to pay for quality. ... Similar to what Greg Reed said about engineering firms’ support on internship, the few firms supporting the actions in the ASCE Education Conference is not sufficient to move the progress forward. I am surprised that ASCE does not have a session on this issue in the national convention where feedback can be obtained from a more diverse group of employers. ... I think you have a good start for a blue print of an undergraduate curriculum. Each department needs to work on the detail from here. Unfortunately, the blue print is quite different from the curriculum we are familiar with. The resistance is going to be significantly larger. ... I hope I can be helpful in your endeavor to make the CE education viable to the future generations."]

[BA: "... I have a lot of interest and concerns about our academic curriculum since its credit requirement was reduced by 10 credit hours following a national trend. Most of the cuts were in surveying, structures, and sciences. The students are now expected to specialize at an early stage. I graduated from a program that required 152 semester credit hours, a five-year program. The breadth and depth of the education that I received had proven its value to me on many occasions. The complex nature of engineering projects, the uncertainty in knowing a career track by a graduating engineer, and the nature of the decisions made by engineers, and the increasing society expectations are some factors that require us to provide an education with the needed breadth and depth. Even with a five-year program, engineers need to be trained for life-long learning and continuous improvement, which cannot be achieved without a solid educational foundation.

Faculty involvement and enthusiasm are key for the success of a curriculum that includes summer internship and independent study since these key elements should be carefully designed and monitored by faculty members. Perhaps the interest of the faculty can be enhanced by linking these features to their research activities."]

[JH: "... I am in agreement with the comments therein. The two most important elements in CE education are the Professor and the Student. The Professor must be a competent civil engineer and have had experience in practice. In addition the Professor must have a genuine interest in the welfare of the individual student. The Student must have enthusiasm for CE and have a desire to learn. All of the elements in my ‘Ingredients of a Competent Engineer’ (copy is available through James Yao via US mail) must be met. The first four years BSCE must be general in nature with Specialization in a fifth year (MSCE) being the requirement for entrance into professional engineering. Competence in written and spoken English must be required in each course. Ethics must be taught in each course. An internship is essential."]

[SS: "... I would like to provide an input for the long-range Plan for Improving Civil Engineering Education in USA Forum. This input is based on my own experience, observation, and speculation. I hope that it would be useful for your design of the long-range plan.

(4) The civil/structural engineering discipline needs another quantum leap innovation like the finite element analysis technology to revolutionize the current practice, and this will consequently boost the demand for more civil/structural engineers, and attract more better students. I believe that civil/structural schools are still the most likely institutions to make this happen, and thus more resource should be allocated and more risk should be taken in this regards by all civil/structural engineering schools."]

[JlB: "As it is, a young professor is hired after receiving a Ph.D. degree from an accredited university. My sense is that this gives him/her some serious knowledge on the topic and some serious practice on how to perform quality research.

Another problem is that professors teach others without any formal training in teaching. I would like to see that a Ph.D. student who wishes to become a professor be required to take courses on ‘how to teach’ and the associated practice in the classroom. Just some thoughts to make teaching a little bit better."]

[RL: "Your suggestion for improving educator-practitioner interaction fulfills a real need. I can ... bring it to AIChE Council. ... It generally deals with broad and significant issues only.

What you are doing on the Outline is the kind of work I would get into on Council. Like you, I feel a sense of responsibility to our chosen profession. And, it is fun. Let’s keep in touch."]

[CB: "... The State of civil engineering education appears to be in flux. There seems to be some real problems. If it is deemed appropriate to have a baccalaureate degree in environmental engineering then the same reasoning should apply to structural, transportation, geotechnical and hydraulic engineering. They are satisfactory professional activities which will all be designated academies by ASCE in due course. Certainly that degree would have greater depth and in that way possibly exclude some that now obtain it. I know that in structural engineering the students had no idea about the theory and design of machines, thermodynamics and power systems when I finished at Washington. These could be included in a structural engineering degree. Also the so-called humanities and social sciences credits seemed too often be a throw away; they were selected more on the basis of time convenience rather than subject matter. As you well know there is much to learn under this title for the future professional and the learning of the material could be as obligatory as mechanics of materials. I see little need to lengthen the study time until efficiency is found in the present four year scale. In a nostalgic way I regret the apparent break up of civil engineering as a cultural as well as professional discipline but I suppose that it is inevitable."]

[JA: "Engineering education requires the acquisition of a great deal of information, and the practice of many skills. This can result in the increasing isolation of engineering training from the humanities, with an attended lack of understanding of common social and cultural relationships, leaving engineers poorly equipped to take part in decision making processes affecting the general quality of life in the community. It can also leave some individuals with many facets of their lives unfulfilled, although their technical ability and contribution significantly affect the quality of life for all. ...

The key attributes whose development can begin during the undergraduate phase of our education were identified as: Intellectual abilities (Integrity, the search and respect for truth; The ability to take part in critical discourse and make appropriate judgements; The ability to work with disjunctions and to engage in complex system analysis; The ability to resolve conflicts of interest), Moral abilities (The ability to make ethical judgements and accept responsibility; The exercise of freedom, of personal autonomy, achieving personal fulfillment; The building of self and community awareness, self responsibility; The formation of trust and teamwork), Aesthetic abilities (Creativity – ‘an ability to see possibilities beyond the immediate’ (Warnock); Access to the rich literary and artistic traditions of diverse cultures; The ability to lose oneself in wonder, to become explorers, to achieve delight), and Practical abilities (The ability to benefit from collaborative learning using the new technologies; The ability to develop throughout adulthood, as a member of a ‘learning society’; The acquisition of professional competencies; The ability to cope with failure).@ ...All these several qualities can be embodied in course material for any vocational course. It only requires that the tutor is awake to the need and the opportunity, with the vision to meet the need and with the necessary skills and material to fulfill this vision. The teacher needs to be the archetypal designer! ..."]

Return to the Lohman homepage