Featured Guest Blogger: Merlin Kirschenman, P.E., CPC, M.ASCE, M. AIC
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has been a leader in “raising the bar” for the education of civil engineers. In 2001, ASCE established the Task Committee on Academic Prerequisites for Professional Practice. During a decade of work on raising the requirements for a professional engineer, this committee accomplished a lot, and in 2008 it published the Body Of Knowledge Second edition (BOK-2). This establishes the education requirement of a master’s degree in engineering, or equivalent, to qualify to be a licensed professional engineer. The BOK-2 addresses the necessary non-technical topics, but it lacked emphasis or depth of knowledge in the non-technical, professional areas of the education phase; which is necessary to prepare the graduate engineer to function as a master builder and meet the requirements for ASCE’s Vision 2025. The 5th year of the BOK-2 is dedicated to technical knowledge topics; making it similar to a current advanced technical engineering degree.
Many engineers believe the “raise the bar” effort for engineering education should include significantly more professional preparation especially in leadership, management, business, communication and public policy. During the preparation of the ASCE BOK reports, some of the committee members with industry backgrounds tried to get more professionalism into the 5th year of the CE curriculum. They proposed that the 5th year should be a professional engineering degree instead of more technical knowledge. However, they were not successful in obtaining this level of professionalism in the BOK reports.
The following are a few comments and suggestions on how the concerns of those who want more professional aspects in the education process can be addressed while still addressing the concerns of those who want the primary emphasis to be on the technical aspects. This debate has been going on for quite some time and it doesn’t appear like a resolution of the differences is forthcoming.
The consensus of the majority of the people involved in preparation of the BOK-2 apparently believes the emphasis should be on more technical preparation. Those in industry want more professional preparation in the 5th year which includes leadership, communication, business, public policy, management and team building; which is a professional engineering master’s degree. The non-technical professional component of engineering is more important than the technical component for the success of an engineer as a leader and master builder.
To improve your engineering education I propose the following:
- There is little to be gained by extending this debate as to which approach should be followed. This raising the bar for engineering education will be a work in progress for a period of time. The main thing is to start, and modification to the process can be made as necessary to continue accomplishing the objectives. We should proceed with both the technical and professional approaches simultaneously. There is room in the system for both the technical and professional approach.
- There are certain advantages associated with both approaches. For the technical approach it would be easier for the universities to present this approach as most of the faculties’ credentials are technical, and it would be similar to what presently occurs. For the professional approach it would prepare the graduates to be leaders and master builders as described in the ASCE Vision. This professional engineering approach would address the present unmet professional education needs of the industry. A recent report prepared for the ASCE October 2010 Board meeting included a survey result which stated that 74% of ASCE members support additional professional engineering education especially in leadership and communication.
- Universities than could choose to offer either the technical or professional 5th year of the BOK-2, or could offer both programs. Both would meet the education requirements for the new model licensing law.
- The professional engineering master’s option likely would be very popular with students. Many students know intuitively that they will need these professional skills to be successful.
- The criteria for ABET accreditation would need to be developed so both the technical and professional masters degree would meet the ABET accreditation requirements for the 5th year of education.
- The professional engineering masters’ degree would be a better option for engineers than a MBA. Many industry engineers are advising young engineers to get a MBA rather than an M Engineering for those who want to advance. The reason is that the concepts of leadership, communication, management, business and team building apply to all levels of engineering, not just to those who have a management designation.
- This professional engineering master’s degree option could be added to the BOK-2 as an amendment, at essentially no cost, without the necessity of having a BOK-3 committee with the associated committee costs.
CONCLUSION:
Many engineers in industry want more non-technical professional and leadership knowledge and skills integrated into the engineering education raise the bar effort. The raise the bar effort should include a Professional Masters of Engineering option. The non-technical component of engineering is more important than the technical component for the success of an engineer as a Leader and Master Builder as discussed in the ASCE VISION.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
If anyone agrees with the recommendation that we add a Professional Masters of Engineering option to the 5th year of the BOK-2 recommended 5 year education program, please contact me at [email protected] or Tom Lenox at ASCE.
Mr. Lenox is in charge of the ASCE’s raise the bar effort.
Mr. Lenox’s address is:
Thomas A. Lenox, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Executive Vice President
Professional & Educational Strategic Initiatives
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
Email: [email protected]
About the author:
Merlin Kirschenman is professor emeritus and former chair of the Construction Management and Construction Engineering Department at North Dakota State University. Before entering academia, he spent 20 years in industry as a construction engineer and manager, primarily in heavy construction such as oil refineries, chemical plants, large concrete arch dams, large earth dams, and other flood control projects. He joined NDSU to develop their construction engineering and construction management programs. The CME Department received its first ABET accreditation for the construction engineering program and its first ACCE accreditation for its construction management program, during his tenure. He currently is a consultant in construction engineering and management.
[widgets_on_pages id=”TECC Free Resources”]
6 Responses
Interesting article. Unlike most young engineers, I recognized before I graduated high school that I didn’t want to crunch numbers behind a desk all day and wanted to be a manager and ultimately help run a company. I determined that a Master’s in Engineering would not get me there and so I chose to get an MBA after undergraduate school. It was the best decision and I have no regrets. I do understand the conflict the article discusses as engineers and professors are always debating whether to lengthen the time and credits needed to get a Bachelor’s or to make a Master’s degree mandatory to become a Professional Engineer. The technical skills learned in college are a critical factor in the success of an engineer starting out their career but basic business skills are just as important and usually overlooked in most curriculums. Some universities offer courses to help engineers prepare for the business world but they are likely electives and not mandatory.
It’s easy to say, let’s add another semester of courses to the engineering bachelor’s curriculum when we aren’t the ones who will have to pay the extra fees. I feel the best way is to continue to offer courses teaching business basics as electives and as engineers in the community, go back into the high schools and univerisities and talk to the science and engineering clubs about the skills needed to be successful when you graduate. It’s unlikely business courses will ever be mandated as part of the engineering degree program so it’s up to us to teach the next generation of engineers those “soft” skills they’ll need to succeed in the real world.
Carlos,
Thanks for you comments. I agree that more than a technicial background is required to be successful as a managing engineer. Also it would be helpful if more young engineers would go back to the highschools and discuss what engineers do and what it takes to prepare to be an engineer. However, the article is relating to the proposed body of knowledge (BOK) for future Civil Engineers. When the new model licensing law is adopted by the states, it will require a masters in enginering or a bachelors and 30 appropriate credits as the education requirements to be a licensed professional engineer.
The proposed professional masters of engineering as an option instead ot the technical masters that is included in this BOK would be a better option for engineers than the technical masters for those who want to advance in the management area. This professional masters in enginering has as the core a strong emphasis on leadership and communication, exactly what is presently missing in engineers education.
If you agree with the recommendation in the article, tell Tom Lenox at ASCE to include the pofessional engineering masters as an option in the BOK.
An MBA degree is very powerful as the skills you get are complimentary to the career development of an engineer.
A little known fact is that about 23 percent of Fortune 500 CEO’s are engineers. In addition, 40 percent of all CEOS worked in Finance/accounting related disciplines. That means that some engineers had to work in non science disciplines at some point.
It’s a good point Abraham and why I often recommend to students that they should consider an engineering degree even if they want to go into finance. Thanks!
I reject the entire concept of needing additional education, and I have an M.S.
ethics requires you to practice in your area of competence and wails and means from industry about young engineers not knowing enough are an unrealistic expectation on their part.
companies these days want genius robots who know absolutely everything about engineering, require zero supervision, zero training, and will work for zero pay.
why ASCE has taken it upon themselves to “fix” this problem escapes me, as I have seen no studies showing an increase in engineering failures resulting from a lack of education on the part of junior staff.
further, if such evidence existed, it would be the ethical responsibility of PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER dealing the document to provide “direct supervision” to the junior, leaving responsibility for the failure on the shoulders of, again, the PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER sealing the work.
No other profession seems to legitimize the expectation, (absurd) that a new graduate be, basically, a senior cardiovascular surgeon on day one.
I could go on, but it occurs to me I am likely lecturing deaf ears and closed minds.
Thanks for your feedback Brian – point well taken. I don’t know though that the author of this post is suggesting that engineers be highly skilled upon graduation, but that the education may not give them enough technical background to succeed without seeking additional education. It’s a tricky issue, but I do agree with some of your points around the accountability of the engineers. Thanks for the food for thought.