An ASCE membership login is required to participate in discussion forums and ASCE Mentor Match. Interested in becoming an ASCE member? Join Now. Need to renew? Renew Now.
Please reply to this discussion to provide general comments, suggestions, etc. that are related to multiple or span across criterion phrases. This discussion may also be used to provide your comments, suggestions, etc. about items or issues that are completely missing from the draft program criteria.
Thanks for reading, and for your comments, Timothy. Some further comments about some of the aspects you mention, keeping your numbering:1. You say "The problem starts before college, and persists afterwards..." Well, I don't know how many times I've been told "you skipped this material in your hydrology class, even though it's part of the FE exam!" Well, yes, I could include all they want, but then would certainly not have enough time to explain any of it decently, or assess it. IDK if I'm from another planet, but why would a multiple-choice exam that focusses strictly on procedural aspects dictate how you teach basic civil engineering concepts?Example: Understanding the rational method, and when it is applicable or not, requires students to know a lot more than just Q = C i A. But seemingly, according to these standardized tests and the textbooks, if you know how to compute an areally-weighted C and know the method should not be applied to areas larger than x acres, then you're good to go! This is so, even though any person knowing hydrology realizes that the explicit location of different types of surfaces within a watershed can strongly affect its response (connectivity, partial area effects, etc), and this is the type of knowledge that is basically "negated" when computing an areally-weighted C. To make things worse, they typically: (i) say that it is an empirical model, even though it has a very strong physical basis (as Qmax = i A in the case of a fully impervious surface, for a constant intensity storm lasting longer than the time of concentration), (ii) call C a "runoff coefficient" even though it is not (it is a ratio between max discharges for the above case, when comparing real-world surfaces to the equivalent "teflon watershed" case), and then (iii) also use the term "time of concentration" in the context of unit hydrographs, where it means something wholly different (it's a basin lag time; steady-state makes no sense in larger basins).2), 3), 4), 5) Fully agreed, even though in (2), I sense that when they are given "real teaching," many students rise to the occasion, and get actually excited about learning more, and really understanding. Regarding (3), yes. I was never a fan of homework, but now I just don't assign it anymore as it all comes from Chegg or else "the good student in the class who happens to be my buddy." You grade one and you've graded them all! I went for quizzes... (4) As I said above, I think there would be value in teaching Calculus, but immersed in a real-world context of engineering problems, and focussing much more on how to "correctly couch the physical situation into an equation" instead of having them solve an integral by applying the "by parts" method three times in a row... Also, students should realize that many times, there is no f(x) and g(t), but actual data, that behave the way they want, but certainly not following some predetermined mathematical function! (5) I like your "paint-by-the-numbers" analogy... Learning to think about problems (what's the problem in the first place? what do I know? what do I need to know? is it open-ended? could it be that there is no solution? could there be multiple solutions?, even though it is a complicated problem can I find upper and lower bounds?, etc) takes exactly that: thinking. Can't do it if you only memorized an equation or procedure, no matter how complicated the procedure is... Teaching engineering should strongly focus on this type of skills (vs preparing for the multiple-choice questions on areally-weighted C values to decide "whether you know hydrology or not"). Note that IMO, an average student cannot be expected to acquire these kinds of skills, if the material is not taught critically, focussing on real learning (vs. "the hoops"). Because of this, I simply cannot believe the contrast between teaching engineering students as if they were technicians, and then the criteria requesting that they solve "complex engineering problems" (and this is true even for ABET's "watered-down" version of what a CEP is, as compared to the original definition in the Washington Accord). Engineers are not technicians!6) Yes, I found this the hard way! Hahaha... Now, to prepare my students to the way I assess, I give them an actual example of what I mean by "assessing," on the first day of class: I tell them that I will teach them about precipitation depth and intensity, and how to compute storm volumes, etc. I then explain a very simple example (say, a sprinkler applying a known total volume of water over a known circular area, and we compute "rainfall" depth, mean intensity, etc.). Then, I show them a quiz question in which the setup is completely different (say, there is a single slope roof without a gutter, and under it is a bathtub, part of which is covered by the roof, part of which is not covered by the roof. I tell them the rainfall depth for the storm event and then ask them "how much water will the tub collect?", and "by how much will it go up?"). This is real assessment of the ability of students for applying the basic concepts that any civil engineer should understand: they need to apply them to a different situation, they must be able to visualize what the new situation is and how it differs (the setup, not the concepts!) from the case studied in class. That is what engineering is all about! (or maybe "should be about"?)Thanks again for commenting.Cheers
We really appreciate your input on this issue. It's certain that the Task Committee will be giving careful consideration to your feedback. (Indeed, we're already working on a revised formulation that, we hope, will address your concern.) For now, I'd just like to provide some personal thoughts:
Here I posted the CM program criteria as one example of what that approach might look like. I am familiar with CM's as this is part of the Durham School at UNL. Please note the broad statements prior to the list. (personally, I am not advocating (or apposing) this approach, but just trying to facilitate the discuss with a concrete example) JP=================================================================Construction Management and Similarly Named Programs
Lead Society: Construction Management Association of America
Graduates of Construction Management programs will have the knowledge, as well as the technical, administrative and communication skills, necessary to succeed in the construction industry. Students must demonstrate the knowledge and skills to deliver construction projects with respect to scope, schedule, budget, quality, safety, and the environment. The professional component must include these topics:
1. construction project management from pre-design through commissioning;
2. project life-cycle and sustainability;
3. health and safety, accident prevention, and regulatory compliance;
4. law, contract documents administration, and dispute prevention and resolution;
5. materials, labor and methods of construction;
6. finance and accounting principles;
7. planning and scheduling;
8. cost management including plan reading, quantity take offs and estimating;
9. project delivery methods;
10. leadership and managing people;
11. business and communication skills
Construction Management programs are expected to provide breadth across the range of topics. Other topic areas may be added as dictated by the Mission and Program Educational Objectives. Additionally, the extent to which each content area is developed and emphasized in a given program must be consistent with the program's mission and objectives.
A full-time faculty member must be identified as administratively in charge of the program and preferably be full-time with the program.