Session T2B CRISIS OF CIVIL ENGINEERING EDUCATION IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AGE: ANALYSIS AND PROSPECTS Moncef Nehdi* Abstract: The brightest students entering post secondary education are often attracted by routes other than engineering that are perceived more likely to yield careers of higher prestige and greater returns. For civil engineering in particular, this is further compounded by the fact that the field is not traditionally viewed as a high tech discipline. Thus, student quality, enrollment, and research funding in Civil Engineering programs have been declining across North America. The conservative construction industry is part of the problem; adjustments of this aging cartel to the new economy are still at the embryonic level. Civil engineering educators are facing the question: how do we change the “hard hat down in the ditch” image of civil engineering in the minds of the new information technology generation? This paper presents an analysis of possible causes of this problem and a vision for potential future solutions. Keywords: Civil Engineering, Education, Enrollment, Funding, Innovation, Curriculum Renewal.
INTRODUCTION If you had stood in any of the prestigious professional meetings of civil engineering associations in the early 80s and claimed that our civil engineering education programs were heading to a crisis, you would have been ridiculed. Civil engineering seemed then to be a thriving career, governments were pouring funds into infrastructure projects, and majestic high-rise buildings and cable-stayed bridges were the dream of many engineering students. Repeat the attempt in the late 80s and you may be vigorously opposed by a conservative establishment that sticks to the old ways of doing things and does not dare to grasp the visions and ambitions behind the emerging new economy. Reiterate your statement in the late 90s and you will be boring your battered audience with so well established facts that no one wants to hear them over and over again. Indeed, as so nicely stated by Shöpenhauer, “all truth goes through three stages: first, it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed, finally it is accepted as self-evident”. Looking closer however, dissatisfaction with the status of civil engineering has been voiced for many decades now and its displays have steadily increased with alarming frequency (Bruneau 1993). Discussion included issues such as “quantity instead of quality: a sabotage of engineering and its education” (Alpern 1976), “professional recognition” (Furman 1972), “assuring quality in civil engineering
education” (Hawkins 1986, Malina 1986), “civil engineering in crisis” (Muspratt 1986), “solving low enrollment problems in civil engineering” (Shoemaker and Elton 1989), but also reached pessimistic consideration of whether it is too late to “save our profession” (Pennoni 1992).
THE HARD HAT DOWN IN THE DITCH My doctoral thesis adviser, who was attending college in the early 60s, wanted to be an astronaut. As human beings walked the first steps on the moon, every kid wanted to take science and head to NASA he said. He did enroll in science, but ended up as a leading researcher on fiber reinforced concrete and fracture mechanics, and also became a keen collector of wine. When I finished high school in Tunisia, I enrolled in medical school. My philosophy teacher counseled me of my potential in philosophy, and that I should not only consider short-term career returns. When I received a telex in my remote village advising me that I was awarded a scholarship to study engineering in Canada, I decided to give up his medical career aspirations to travel. I was driven by the teenage excitement to explore the outside world. I became an expert in cement and concrete technology. NASA was inaccessible to my doctoral adviser in the early 60s, and the desire to travel was irresistible for me in the late 80s, so we both ended up with a “hard hat down in the ditch”. We found out this career is really what we wanted. But our experience is not shared by the information technology generation. There is usually a law, medical, high tech, or business school in the neighborhood claiming that it is the best in the land. Besides, the closest thing to a kid’s bed nowadays is a computer with hot links to the dot com culture. Getting bright students who could have been astronauts, medical doctors or high tech engineers into civil engineering these days seems more difficult than “taming” Bart Simpson to become an engineer. Show Me The Money, Or Where’s Your Silicon Valley In an era when “dot coms” mushroom in the stock market, creating sometimes one hundred millionaires a day in Silicon Valley alone, and more than 6500 websites are created each hour (Bernstein 2000), no wonder every kid wants the next Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Amazon.com or anything.com to be their own brain child. Regardless of doubts regarding the sustainability of this extravaganza of
*
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 5B9, Tel: (519) 661-2111 ext. 88308, Fax: (519) 661-3779, E-mail:
[email protected]
0-7803-6669-7/01/$10.00 © 2001 IEEE October 10 - 13, 2001 Reno, NV 31 st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T2B-20
Session T2B growth in the high tech area, career choices are fundamentally driven by economic returns and prestige. The aging construction industry and civil engineering institutions woefully failed to market the profession in both areas. Consequently, both student quality and enrollment in civil engineering and construction programs have been declining in Canada (see Fig. 1) and across the United States, including prestigious university departments. It is shown that civil engineering in Canada continues to wane in popularity; just between 1995 and 1999, undergraduate enrollment in the discipline declined by 25%. By contrast, undergraduate enrolment in computer engineering programs jump ed 89% in the same period (Hamilton 2001). In addition, among all engineering disciplines in Canada, civil engineering showed the largest decline in undergraduate degrees awarded, which decreased by 28% between 1995 and 1999. It was reported that institutions such as the Ryerson Polytechnic University in Toronto have been organizing more than 600 information sessions for high school students to persuade them to take civil engineering, with limited success. Those who teach civil engineering know that their integrity and motivation are kept up by the few faces that took civil engineering because they like it, not because they could not access the more competitive high tech fields. The challenge though is to transform all of these faces into competent professionals who are dedicated to the job.
CONNECTING THE HARD HAT TO THE SOFTWARE “We must acknowledge that the most important, indeed, the only thing we have to offer our students is ourselves. Everything else they can read in a book”. Teachers and mentors are trusted because “they have been there before”. Yet, in the new economy context, it is not sure that all professors “have been there before”. About 68% of faculty members of all US universities are 50 years or older (Bland et al. 1997). Not to contradict Bland and Bergquist’s “Snow on the roof – Fire in the furnace” concept of the vitality of senior faculty members, but the dramatic changes in information technology may still not be understood and considered by all faculty. Added to this is the fact that the majority of engineering faculty have not worked as practicing engineers in industry or government (Lyons 1993). We must be prepared to recognize and accommodate emerging new technology in our teaching curricula and industrial practices. We can no longer only cling to techniques of the past but must introduce and support a wide range of technological advances that will fundamentally change the way we do things in civil engineering. Only then can we expect the “hard hat down in the ditch” image to change. Only an environment of creativity and entrepreneurial initiative can attract the best and the brightest.
There are innovative methods to get students in the information technology age excited about learning. Last fall, I tried to explain the Torsion Formu la to my second year engineering students on the black board in vain. When I created a physical model and used it for illustration, I started to see appreciation in many eyes. The day I brought in a software application with virtual reality illustrations of torsion problems, I had many students asking questions. Suddenly, the classroom was vibrant and the learning was interactive. It was confirmed to me that “the whole art of teaching is only the art of awakening the natural curiosity of young minds for the purpose of satisfying it afterwards” (Anatole France 1971). Each generation seems to have different dynamics for awakening its curiosity. If we are to get students to like civil engineering, mouth to ear is the most efficient approach. Because our existing students are the messengers, we cannot teach them only what we learned. Often we need to unlearn, relearn, and then teach.
WALL STREET DOWN IN THE DITCH The marketing of civil engineering as a career choice has sputtered partly because our profession lacks public recognition and appreciation. While Alfred Nobel was an engineer by all definitions, there is no Nobel Prize for Engineering. Think of the average salary of a medical doctor or a lawyer versus that of an engineer, not to mention comparison with other low profile professions in which it was reported that civil engineers may need several years to reach the top salary of a prison trade instructor, a lineman, or a brewers retail cashier checker (see Table 1). Even within the engineering profession itself, civil engineers seem to lag well behind in terms of compensation (see Fig. 2). In the Yellow Pages of Britain, there was a listing that said: “Boring - see Civil Engineers”; While the listing guided users to specialists to bore into concrete or soil, many found unsettling truth in this unintended humor (Engen 2000). A majority of the new generation neither understands the profession nor shares its excitement and would indeed agree with the Yellow Page listing. The construction industry, professional associations, and engineering schools alike failed to project an image of civil engineering different from “the hard hat down in the ditch”. While it is barely noticeable in Wall Street headlines, the design and construction industry is the nation’s largest manufacturing activity in the US, contributing 13% of the GDP and is the largest economic sector behind healthcare (Bernstein 2000). Ironically, this sector is aging, worrying about shortage of well-qualified professionals and managers, and suffering bad publicity in the minds of the new generation. Truly, it cannot claim with Ashleigh Brilliant “my play was a complete success the audience was a failure”. Fortunately, many started to recognize and address the problem. In the US, a recently established Partnership for Advancing the Infrastructure and its Renewal (PAIR) is intended to be a knowledge and information center for innovative technology, research and related issues. This
0-7803-6669-7/01/$10.00 © 2001 IEEE October 10 - 13, 2001 Reno, NV 31 st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T2B-21
Session T2B knowledge center/clearinghouse is supposed to become a full-service resource with a physical location. Access to its resources could be through the World Wide Web, as well as via phone and mail. This marks the first time such a comprehensive clearinghouse becomes available to industry practitioners and the public (Bernstein 2000). Also, recently the Construction Association of Ontario initiated activities to promote the image of civil engineering in an attempt to avoid severe future shortages of qualified professionals and managers (see Fig. 3). Among these activities is the education of the association’s members. A web site was created including a database listing pertinent courses in Ontario’s universities that members can take for career growth. Certainly the industry, professional associations and engineering schools need to streamline their efforts to create a synergy that enhances the status of civil engineering. Actions may include collaboration to provide attractive training, internships and cooperative programs for students, coordination of efforts to face political decisionmaking, and introduction of new technology in infrastructure and environmental projects.
LACK OF INNOVATION In a keynote speech to the 2000 conference of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering (CSCE), one of the longest serving mayors in North America (mayor of the City of Mississauga, Ontario) pointed out that it is always popular for a politician to allocate funds for a community center, a swimming pool, or a social program. However, a politician does not get votes for allocating funds to upgrade a sewerage system or a solid waste management plant. Thus, funding for infrastructure is declining although it is the most vital component of the economy, while the environment seems to become a primary concern only when disasters occur. In such a political environment, governmental funding for research in the civil engineering area has been declining (see Fig. 4). Furthermore, the design and construction industry suffers from one of the lowest rates of R&D investment compared to other industrial sectors. While the mean R&D investment among major US industries is around 3.5%, the level of investment by the design and construction industry is only 0.5% (Bernstein 2000). Part of the reason is that despite its huge size, this industry is fragmented (with over 80% of all firms consisting of 10 employees or less), survives on low profit margins and is affected by seasonal cycles. In a business driven by the culture of the “lowest bid”, innovation and R&D are often considered a luxury. This piecemeal approach was cited as one of the reasons why productivity of the construction industry declined by 0.5% a year from 1964 to 1998, while other industrial productivity increased by 1.7% per year (Bernstein 2000). The Tunisian proverb “walk in the dirt you know to avoid the one you don’t know” applies well to the design and construction industry. Because of liabilities and insurance costs, the industry prefers the known and proven over innovative alternatives that might provide greater
returns but are less certain. Picasso confessed that he dumped 99% of his work; other designers often scrap a bad design. In Civil Engineering, a bad design means a fatal failure of a building in Izmir, a collapse of a bridge in Kobe, or a disaster anywhere a human being walks. Surveys by the American Council of Engineers (ACE) found that private engineering design firms turned down 69% more work in 1996 than in 1995 because of concerns of liability exposure and that 76% of survey respondents avoided innovative materials and methods because of the threat of litigation (Bernstein 2000). If ancient Egyptians had similar worries, they would be still having Friday morning think tanks over preliminary sketches of the pyramids. Yet we need to address the paradox of implementing innovation while limiting risk; if civil engineers must take some risk to implement innovations then we need to clearly define how much risk is justified keeping in mind that the safety and well being of the public are paramount in engineering codes of ethics. The construction industry is also one of the most regulated, with exhaustive combinations of federal, state and local guidelines, materials standards, design and building codes and best practice manuals. These policies were intended for the interest of the public but had a side effect of reinforcing the conservative attitude of the industry. Consequently, the system is biased against the use of innovative technology especially when no governing standards exist. It comes as no surprise that 10 to 15 years are needed to move a new product or technology into the marketplace. Compared to high tech areas, the situation becomes a tortoise-rabbit contest. There is obvious need to speed up the implementation of new technology and develop mechanisms and processes that allow the use of new materials, designs and construction methods that enhance productivity even though they may not meet past standards. The challenge though is how to verify the safety and reliability of such innovations in a timely manner. It was suggested (Bernstein 2000) that non-profit broker institutions based on a peer-reviewed process in cooperation with stakeholders can evaluate new construction materials and technologies and help innovative entrepreneurs reach the marketplace within shorter periods of time.
THE VALLEY OF DEATH OR CLIMBING TO THE EL DORADO: A CROSS ROAD FOR CIVIL ENGINEERING EDUCATION When the first computers were created, the founder of IBM, T.J. Watson, predicted that “We may need six computers worldwide” for governmental and other important matters. In 1977, K. Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, stated “there is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home”. Even Bill Gates was quoted as saying, “640K ought to be enough for anybody” (Clough 2000). Forecasting the future of the civil engineering profession is as risky a venture. There are however certain
0-7803-6669-7/01/$10.00 © 2001 IEEE October 10 - 13, 2001 Reno, NV 31 st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T2B-22
Session T2B principles that have to be followed and adjustments to be made by the design and construction industry, civil engineering schools and institutions if this profession is to prosper. Need for Initiative and Leadership There are immense future opportunities for civil engineering. Whether the field will gain vitality will depend on whether it can abandon techniques and management styles of the past to seize these opportunities. These are in infrastructure development and renewal, sustainable development, and mitigating effects of natural hazards. Most of the buzz these days is about information technology, biotechnology and other emerging areas. The recent faltering of the technology sector and subsequent bankruptcies and lay-offs by high tech companies is a sobering reminder that this buzz should not blind us to the seriousness of more basic technologies that are fundamental to social functioning. Human kind’s essential future technological challenge is to relieve poverty, provide water, food, and education, prevent disease, assure housing and transportation and other needed infrastructure. This requires tremendous amounts of energy and must be done in a sustainable way without polluting the environment. According to the United Nations, the world’s population reached 6 billion on October 12th , 1999. It took all the world history up to the early 1800s to reach the 1 billion mark. The second billion took nearly a century. The most recent billion was accomplished in about 12 years. The planet must prepare to accommodate another 4 billion people within the next fifty years (Clough 2000). During this period, the challenge of accommodating infrastructure needs and waste generation will increase by nearly 70%. Infrastructure is already failing to keep up. It is estimated that the US alone will need to spend $300 billion over the next 20 years to upgrade its water systems (Clough 2000). By year 2025, 3 billion people will be living in areas of the planet where sustainable supply of fresh water is not possible (Clough 2000). By some accounts, replacing the aging concrete infrastructure in Canada will cost $600 billion (Concrete Canada 1998). Transportation systems are also heading to a crisis. The Southern California Council of Governments warns that by 2020, rush hour there will last all day, with an average top speed on the area’s expressways of 15 miles per hour (Clough 2000). With the advent of the open economy and e-commerce, transportation needs will be growing beyond what current infrastructure can sustain. Meanwhile, the US and Canada alone produce more than 5 billion tonnes of solid waste each year (Finkelstein 1991). The practice of disposing of such waste in landfills is n o longer acceptable because available disposal sites are depleting rapidly, their costs are sharply increasing, and their future liabilities are uncertain. Moreover, estimated liabilities related to acid drainage from mining waste alone total $3-5 billion in Canada and around $32-72 billion in the US (MEND 2000). Currently, more than 3 billion scrap tires
are stockpiled in the US alone (often in illegal tire dumps) and another 240 million are generated each year (Epps 1994). Furthermore, human activity is causing excessive carbon emissions, with associated global warming and climate change. The situation may worsen as energy demand triples in populated India and doubles in China as such countries strive to reach western standards of living. The 90s were already declared the hottest decade in 1000 years by a joint statement of meteorologists from Britain and the US. In 1998, worldwide losses due to storms, droughts, floods, and fires totalled $89 billion (Clough 2000), 3 times more than in 1997. Coastal development escalated in the last 20 years, with more than one fifth of the population in the US living within 50 miles of the coast. Insured property in this region totals more than $2 trillion (Clough 2000). Potential losses are paramount if current trends in hurricanes continue. Combined, the challenges of population growth, decaying infrastructure, growing transportation congestion, shrinking waste management options, increasing shortages of energy and clean water, and growing potential for catastrophic losses are compelling reasons for fostering creative technology to maintain and protect quality of life in the future. The question remains as to whether the civil engineering profession will provide leadership and implement needed adjustments and new paradigms to face these challenges and be the profession that will reap the rewards offered by such tremendous opportunities. New Problems, New Education and New Civil Engineers The above challenges will require new solutions and hence, civil engineers must be educated differently. Interdisciplinary teaching is needed to address such global issues. We will have to abandon some of the things in the curricula that we have always taught. Such curricula must allow for change, otherwise it will become obsolete as new technology develops. At the University of Western Ontario, we have two-semester capstone design projects in which teams of fourth year students compete for a real-word design project sponsored by the City of London, Ontario. Each team is advised by a faculty member and an external consulting engineer. Final submissions include drawings, calculations, specifications and cost estimates. Some existing structures in the City of London were built based on winner student designs. The Brooklyn Polytechnic University, has developed a program “Manufacturing across the curriculum” aimed at team projects across various engineering disciplines. At Illinois -Tech, all incoming undergraduates are required to take a two-semester “Inter-professional Projects Program” in which students from engineering, business, architecture, and law strive to find a solution to a “real world” problem. The Nonyang Technological University in Singapore requires each student to take turns serving as a manager, office engineer, and field engineer, make presentations and interact with real-world architects, professional engineers, zoning boards and other parties
0-7803-6669-7/01/$10.00 © 2001 IEEE October 10 - 13, 2001 Reno, NV 31 st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T2B-23
Session T2B involved in a project (Bernstein 2000). Other institutions, such as Georgia tech have undertaken revisions of the civil engineering curriculum, providing emphasis on engineering systems, technical communications, sustainability, and computer-based analysis and design (Meyer 2000). Although there were no formal rubrics implemented to evaluate such programs, their value is evidenced by anecdotal feedback such as: (i) undergraduate students often rank them among the highest of any courses offered in their program, (ii) students frequently report that during interviews for internships in industry or career positions, discussion with recruiters on the mentioned programs often helped them securing a position, (iii) alumni often mention that their experience in such projects is one of the most memorable and valuable aspects of their education, preparing them for the real-world cross-functional team work environment (Jacobius 2001). We need to get students not only to analyze but also to synthesize. We have to stimulate critical thinking, generate enthusiasm and foster creativity. We need to put more focus on computer skills, technology development, management practices, financial knowledge, and design skills. In this regard new technology may help. But technology may also impose new challenges on civil engineering education. UC Berkley, Michigan, Columbia and other universities initiated collaboration with major information providers such as Microsoft, Cisco, Time Warner and Disney to tackle the global market of education on the Internet. How can we foster creativity and stimulate critical thinking if education develops into a commodity delivered in a box? Can we train students to communicate, function in teams, solve openended design problems and conduct hands-on laboratory work online? Can we really substitute an e-university to the mentoring and tutoring approach to education? Isn’t good eye contact necessary for some of the learning experience? Such questions need to be faced by civil engineering and other educators. Perhaps the top urgent priority for the civil engineering field is to create an environment that is conducive and supportive to innovation, and to foster entrepreneurial spirit so that it can attract its share of the best and the brightest. Of equal importance is for the civil engineering community to realize that learning is truly a continuous process. An engineer’s professional and technical knowledge was becoming obsolete within 30 years in the sixties. This “halflifetime” of knowledge is estimated at about 9 years today (reported in Bruneau 1994). We cannot change the “hard hat down in the ditch” image of civil engineering if we fail to use new developments from other technological fields such as telecommunications, biotechnology, etc. These offer unique opportunities such as satellite positioning and monitoring, remote sensing, virtual reality simulation to increase design efficiency and productivity, automated erection methods, fiber reinforced systems, high performance materials, “smart” materials, self-repairing materials, etc. However, no potential innovations can be
implemented without integrating the labor-force into the process. This poses the challenge of transforming a huge labor force to become computer literate, familiar with automation, prefabricated components, remote sensing, etc. These incredible possibilities will also remain dreams if we do not implement new management strategies to incorporate them into practice. In a talk on Civil Engineering in the New Millennium presented at MIT, Dr. Wayne Clough, the president of Georgia-Tech and a civil engineer by background, suggested that a design-build approach bringing together the owner, designer and builder needs to be implemented in construction. Abandoning cumbersome management paradigms of the past is imperative if we are to prevent losing talent to other fields and compete for the most creative minds.
PROSPECTS AND SOLUTIONS It is not the intent of this author to provide a set of ready-toimplement solutions to the complex multi-dimensional current crisis of the civil engineering education and profession. The author rather feels that such potential solutions must be created and implemented by concerted nationally supported strategies involving engineering schools, professional associations, the construction industry and labor. A few thoughts are discussed below in a point format in order to catalyze and initiate discussion leading to such a comprehensive effort. The reader is also referred to other discussion on this issue, for instance Bruneau (1994) and Pennoni (1992). • The author heard arguments such as “if our numbers decline, won’t our value (both salary and prestige) increase? Perhaps, then, we don’t want to convince would-be astronauts and dot-com executives to become civil engineers”. The author disagrees with such thinking. The problem is not simply in the numbers; it is in the quality of people that we will attract to our field. If the profession does not get its share of the “best and brightest” students today, its condition will get even worse tomorrow. We do not need more civil engineers, we need more high quality ones; By merely limiting numbers, the profession will keep “losing ground to so many others that are moving in our old turf” (Bates 1993). In the author’s circle alone, a dozen bright civil engineers, some with doctoral degrees, changed their career direction and are currently successful in other areas, including one of the brightest civil engineering students Laval University has ever had. Beyond the issue of not attracting bright students, the profession is also losing some of the best existing professionals. Indeed, this writer supports the idea of limiting the number of “qualified” civil engineers, not through lack of interest-driven declining enrollment, but through longer and better educational training and more stringent certification process. However, there is a fine line to walk here not to hinder democratization of education and equal opportunity. 0-7803-6669-7/01/$10.00 © 2001 IEEE October 10 - 13, 2001 Reno, NV 31 st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T2B-24
Session T2B •
•
•
There is also a common belief that a key solution to the current crisis consists of creating innovative activities at pre-engineering levels, from early or mid-grade school through the college sophomore year to get students excited about civil engineering as a profession. Many such initiatives already exist (e.g. Pickett et al. 2000) and their impact should not be underestimated. It should be remembered however, that a truly successful profession does not need such promotion. One can also question the long-term effectiveness of this approach. Does pre-college information on civil engineering genuinely affects career choice decisions of students despite the deteriorated public image, low compensation, and expressed job dissatisfaction of civil engineers themselves? Promotion alone is doomed to failure if not accompanied by comprehensive solutions to the many facets of the crisis. Public respect cannot be artificially gained; it must be earned and deserved. However, a comprehensive strategy to enhance the well being of the civil engineering profession should include a sound program to give the profession its deserved public esteem. Perhaps success stories and achievement awards honoring leading civil engineers in high profile forums to create role models would be beneficial initiatives in this regard (Bruneau 1994). It is widely recognized that we need to attract high quality students to civil engineering. The reality however, is that there is growing evidence that entering students in this area are the poorest of all engineering fields (see e.g. Morris 1989). Even worse, students failing other engineering disciplines are reported to be often “recycled” into civil engineering (Laursen 1989). We cannot attract intelligent students to civil engineering via a glorified presentation of an in fact ailing profession. Besides being unethical, this approach is not effective. As long as the public profile of the profession is low and a junior civil engineer is often making less than a prison trade instructor, a lineman, or a brewers retail cashier (see Table 1), bright students will not be attracted to civil engineering. The profession itself must be made attractive and prestigious for the bright students to consider it. The present author sees attracting bright students to civil engineering as a potential consequence of a comprehensive effort to revert the declining well-being of the profession not as an immediate possible solution to it. The first step in solving the crisis of the civil engineering education and profession is recognizing that there is a serious problem, which by and large has been achieved for many years now. Several interesting and worth considering strategies to mitigate the crisis have been formulated (e.g. Pennoni 1992; Bruneau 1994). The real challenge now is: who is going to take leadership to create a coherent and comprehensive strategy to address the crisis, who is going to pay the cost of doing that, can the proposed solutions actually
•
•
•
be implemented in the new economic and political context, and how can they be enforced? This writer thinks that a concerted initiative joining learned associations (ASCE, CSCE, etc.), associations of professional engineers, educational accreditation boards (ABET, CEAB, etc.), engineering schools, and partners from the construction industry and governments should create a united front leading to a North-American association whose mandate will be to comprehensively reform the educational curricula and licensing requirements of civil engineers. The new association must have such powers as to restrict accreditation of civil engineering programs only to those university programs that respond to its mandated restructuring of the civil engineering curriculum. A preferably uniform North-American certification process of civil engineers should be gradually implemented thereafter to accommodate this change. Required structural reforms of civil engineering curricula should include a compulsory pre-engineering year to enforce a non compromising quality control for entry to civil engineering, a five-year professional degree with a concentration in structural, geotechnical, environmental, hydraulic, transportation, etc., followed by a one year design internship in the industry in the appropriate sub-discipline. This more demanding sevenyear program will enhance the self-esteem of new civil engineering graduates and their value in the market place, and consequently the well being and prestige of the profession at large. Revisions to the civil engineering curriculum should also emphasize business and financial knowledge, project and labor management, ethics and sustainability, technical communication, business law, and accounting. Special emphasis should be on leadership skills. New civil engineering educators shall have at least three years of industrial experience in order to be able to train students for real project leadership challenges. Continuing education should be an enforced requirement for renewal of certification of engineers. The above mentioned umbrella association should also strongly support research and development, create mechanisms for faster implementation of innovation, and strive to enhance the leadership role of civil engineers in infrastructure projects. A reformed engineering fees structure must be established and mechanisms to enforce it must be created both to protect the public and the profession. There has been and will be fierce resistance to some of these proposed changes. However, the association, through its accreditation and certification powers, can implement many of these changes, some of which have been advocated for more than forty years now (Pennoni 1992) with no success. Let’s face it; the mostly anonymous profession of civil engineer will not be on top of the list of the most wanted jobs. The present writer still believes that this profession
0-7803-6669-7/01/$10.00 © 2001 IEEE October 10 - 13, 2001 Reno, NV 31 st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T2B-25
Session T2B has many positive aspects that keep it unique, challenging, and rewarding. However, something needs to be done to deal with the declining public image, compensation, and self-esteem of civil engineers. This kind of discussion about existing problems and potential solutions has taken too long. There is urgent need for leadership and real action. If civil engineers continue on losing grasp of the bigger picture and keep engaging in fierce bone-braking competition between themselves, lowering their fees and status, civil engineering services will keep transforming into an interchangeable commodity.
SUMMARY Civil engineering has been clinging to old practices and educational paradigms. Thus, it has been losing its luster and talent to other areas and is getting smaller and smaller shares of the brightest new students. Its public image, compensation of its professionals, and its research funding have also been declining. The profession is slipping down the prestige totem pole. Moreover, despite its huge size, the construction industry is fragmented, holds a conservative culture, has one of the lowest investment rates in R&D, and exhibits declining productivity. Conversely, the challenges and opportunities in the design and construction field are growing in size and importance. Population growth, new infrastructure demand and decaying existing infrastructure, transportation congestion, shortage of water and energy, sustainable development and pollution, exposure to natural hazards, all require new civil engineers with new solutions. Furthermore, opportunities to benefit from novel technology from other fields have never been so substantial. We can no longer live off the legacy of the past. The profession needs new paradigms to foster innovation, streamline the construction process, implement modern management strategies and novel technologies, and lead its professionals and labor into a life-long learning attitude. Teaching curricula must accommodate change to foster creativity and entrepreneurial skills, enhance synthesis skills and teamwork, incorporate innovation and research results into the education process, and stimulate enthusiasm. If educational institutions, professional associations, the design and construction industry and labor succeed to adapt to the new challenges, civil engineering will be the profession that will reap the rewards provided by infrastructure and environmental opportunities. Hence, the next few years may become such exciting times to be in civil engineering. However, concerted and immediate effort is needed to develop, implement, and enforce comprehensive strategies to solve the current crisis before irreparable damage to the profession occurs.
REFERENCES Alpern, M. (1976). “Quantity instead of quality: a sabotage of engineering and its education by ‘engineering shortage’ propaganda.” J. Profl. Issues in Engrg Educ. and Pract., ASCE, 102 (4), 457-469. Bates, G. D. (1993). Discussion of “Visioning: the future of civil engineering”. J. Profl. Issues in Engrg Educ. and Pract., ASCE, 119 (4), 438. Bernstein, H. M. (2000). “Creating innovative and entrepreneurial environment.” Presented at the MIT CEE New Millennium Colloquium , March 2000, 10 p. Bland, C. J., Bergquist, W. H., and Fife, J. D. (1997). “The vitality of senior faculty members: Snow on the roof, fire in the furnace.” Ashe-Eric Higher Education Reports, 25 (7). Bruneau, M. (1994). “Strategies to enhance well being of civil engineering profession.” J. Profl. Issues in Engrg Educ. and Pract., ASCE, 120 (4), 341-359. Canadian Engineering Resource Board. (2000), “Canadian engineers for Tomorrow: Trends in engineering enrollment and degrees awarded 1995-1999.” Clough, G. W. (2000). “Civil engineering in the next millennium.” Presented at the MIT CEE New Millennium Colloquium, March 2000, 13 p. Concrete Canada (1998). “Concrete Infrastructure Renewal: Durability, Performance and Environmental Impact”, Research Network Application, October 1998. Engen, T. (2000). “Perceptions, perspectives and partnerships: engineering in the 21 st century.” Presented at the MIT CEE New Millennium Colloquium , March 2000, 8 p. Epps, J. A. (1994). “Uses of recycled rubber tires in highways.” Synthesis of Highway Practice, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 162 p. Feasby, D. G., Tremblay, G. A., and Weatherell, C. J. (2000). “A decade of technology improvement to the challenge of acid drainage – A Canadian perspective.” MEND Secretariat, CANMET, Natural Resources Canada. Finkelstein, A. (1991). “An overview of Environment Canada’s National Incinerator Testing and Evaluation Program (NITEP).” Second Annual Int. Spec. Conf. on Municipal Waste Combustion, Tampa, Florida, April 15-19, 1991. France, Anatole (1971). Les autels de la peur, Paris Nizet, 1971, 252 p. Furman, T. S. (1972). “Professional recognition… discussion.” J. Profl. Issues in Engrg Educ. and Pract., ASCE, 98 (2), 173-177. Hamilton, D. (2001). “Engineering still a popular career choice, study shows”, Engineering Dimensions, Professional Engineers Ontario, March-April 2001, p. 12. Hawkins, N. M. (1986). “Assuring quality in civil engineering education”. J. Profl. Issues in Engrg Educ. and Pract., ASCE, 112 (1), 3-14. Jacobius, T. M. (2001). Director of Inter-Professional Studies, Illinois Institute of Technology, Personal communication. Laursen, E. M. (1989). “First, second, and third thoughts on civil engineering education.” J. Profl. Issues in Engrg Educ. and Pract., ASCE, 115 (2), 129-147. Lyons, W. C. (1993). Discussion of “visioning; the future of civil engineering.” J. Profl. Issues in Engrg Educ. and Pract., ASCE, 119 (4), 445-447. Malina, J. F. (1986). “Ensuring quality in civil engineering education.” J. Profl. Issues in Engrg Educ. and Pract., ASCE, 113 (1), 16-22. Meyer, M. D. (2000). “A civil engineering curriculum for the future: the Georgia Tech case.” J. Profl. Issues in Engrg Educ. and Pract., ASCE, 126 (2), 74-78. Morris, M. D. (1989), “Actions necessary to make civil engineering more attractive to high quality high -school students.” J. Profl. Issues in Engrg Educ. and Pract., ASCE, 113 (2), 181-184. Muspratt, M. A. (1986). “Civil engineering in crisis.” J. Profl. Issues in Engrg Educ. and Pract., ASCE, 112 (1), 34-48. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (1997), “Research Grants Program Discipline Dynamics.” May 1997, Draft, 75 p.
0-7803-6669-7/01/$10.00 © 2001 IEEE October 10 - 13, 2001 Reno, NV 31 st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T2B-26
Session T2B Pennoni, C. R. (1992). “Visioning: the future of civil engineering.” J. Profl. Issues in Engrg Educ. and Pract., ASCE, 118 (3), 221-233. Pickett, M., Oliver, D., Giles, S., Fridman, E., Fetters, M. and Cooks, H. (2000), “Hands-on engineering experiments for secondary school students.” J. Profl. Issues in Engrg Educ. and Pract., ASCE, 126 (2), 69-73.
Professional Engineers of Ontario. (2001). “2000 PEO Membership Salary Survey – Summary Report.” Engineering Dimensions, PEO Magazine March-April 2001, 4. p. Shoemaker, W. L. and Elton, D. J. (1989). “Solving low enrollment problems in civil engineering.” J. Profl. Issues in Engrg Educ. and Pract., ASCE, 115 (3), 252-260.
Table 1 – Top Salaries for Various Occupations in Ontario in 1993 Versus Number of Years Needed by Ontario Engineers (all Disciplines) to Reach Comparable Salary (Modified from Bruneau 1993) Top Salary (Canadian Dollars)
Occupation
Number of Years since Graduation Needed by Engineer in Ontario to Reach this Salary Mean Top Decile
Major general Chief Librarian Ottawa Public library NRC Principal research Officer Ontario Government Psychologist Ottawa Fire Platoon Chief Canada Post Computer Programmer Ottawa Secondary School Teacher Air Traffic Controller Canadian Press Reporter
109,500 103,828 81,934 77,236 70,050 68,234 59,400 54,828 52,676
>35 >35 >35 >35 34 27 15 11 9
>35 >35 16 13 10 10
Ontario Prison Trade Instructor Ontario Provincial Police First Class Constable Ottawa Hydro Lineman Brewers Retail Cashier-Checker Ottawa Carleton Bus Driver
51,742 50,468 46,009 43,243 36,816
9 9 7 5 2
4 4 3 2 0
5 4
Full-Time Enrollment
10000
8000 Electrical
6000 Civil
4000 Compute
2000 1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Year
FIG. 1. Canadian Undergraduate Student Enrollment in Civil vs. Computer and Electrical Engineering (Canadian Engineering Resource Board 2000)
0-7803-6669-7/01/$10.00 © 2001 IEEE October 10 - 13, 2001 Reno, NV 31 st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T2B-27
Session T2B
Biomedical, Biological Computer, Systems Electrical/Electronics Systems design Chemical Metallurgical/Materials/Mining Mechanical, Industrial
Civil, Geotechnical Civil, Environmental Civil, Structural 65
70
75
80
85
90
Mean Annual Base Salary ($1000 CAD)
FIG. 2. Mean Annual Salaries by Discipline for Engineers in Ontario (PEO 2001)
Degrees Awarded
1900 Electrical 1400 Civil
900 Computer
400 1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Year
FIG. 3. Undergraduate Degrees Awarded in Canada for Civil, Computer and Electrical Engineering (Canadian Engineering Resource Board 2000)
0-7803-6669-7/01/$10.00 © 2001 IEEE October 10 - 13, 2001 Reno, NV 31 st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T2B-28
Session T2B
160
Index of Dollars
150
Civil Electrical Computer
140 130 120 110 100 1988
1991
1994
1997
Year FIG. 4. Index of Dollars Awarded to Grantees by the Natural Sciences & Engineering Research Council of Canada for Civil and Electrical Engineering and Computer and Information Sciences (1988-89 = 100) (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada 1997)
0-7803-6669-7/01/$10.00 © 2001 IEEE October 10 - 13, 2001 Reno, NV 31 st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T2B-29
