Heidi: I agree that we should not, as you say, "compare all areas of civil engineering to fields like medicine and law." Instead, broaden the comparison. View the educational requirements for in-charge practice of civil engineering with the educational requirements for the in-charge practice of essentially all American professions, such as members of the following 17 professions (not all-inclusive, meant to be representative):
Advanced Practitioner Registered Nurses
Audiologists
Clergy
Dentists
Doctors of osteopathic medicine
Lawyers
Medical doctors
Occupational therapists
Ophthalmologists
Optometrists
Pharmacists
Physical therapists
Physician assistants
Psychiatrists
Psychologists
Speech therapists
Veterinarians
Each follows its undergraduate program with a multiyear professional school program. Although licensed architects and certified public accountants (not in the preceding list) do not need to earn graduate degrees, they do have the equivalent of more than four years of college education. As with engineers who seek to become licensed, would-be members of all of the listed professions complete an internship, residency, or other means of acquiring experiential knowledge and skills.
Consider the irony. Engineering was the first major occupation in the United States to establish formal education (over two centuries ago) but now has the least formal education for licensure compared to the listed licensed professions. They started after and then passed us. The first in formal education became the last.
Is that knowledge gap the best way to prepare aspiring engineers, strengthen engineering, and serve while protecting society? American engineering also uses a basic Model Law (four years of education and four years of experience) originally published by NCEES nine decades ago. Does that make sense? In asking that, I am assuming that staying current and keeping public protection paramount is engineering's ideology.
In addition, consider this irony: If a surgeon, lawyer, or veterinarian errs, the consequences -- however dire -- are limited to one or a few people or pets. If engineering fails, like in the Boeing 737, Merrimack Valley gas distribution system, BP oil spill, or I-35W bridge tragedies, then dozens or hundreds of people are killed, injured, or otherwise harmed and/or the environment is fouled.
Seems to me, going forward and considering engineering's impact, we would want engineers to be educated at least as well as most professions. However, we don't. Based on my experiences and studies, most of us (civil and other engineers) are satisfied with the current education system (and also the current massive licensure-exemption system, but that is another topic not closely connected to civil engineering).
You refer to the body of knowledge (BOK). ASCE first determined, over two decades ago, and has confirmed many times since, that the Civil Engineering BOK (the published version is now in its third edition) cannot be achieved with formal education that ends with a baccalaureate degree. Check out here the very demanding CEBOK, Third Edition: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/book/10.1061/9780784415221 . Of course, many of us can choose to ignore what massive numbers of volunteer CE academics and practitioners, working together, concluded.
You say: "… the body of knowledge needed to complete certain kinds of civil work is nowhere near the depth of knowledge to understand medicine or the entire legal system." I suspect we can find, in any profession/occupation, a tiny group of individuals who have very narrowly defined themselves to a miniscule role that could be carried out with minimal education and low expectations.
ASCE should not waste its time and resources preparing them. Instead, focus on creating the future. Aspire and work, by using PS 465 and the CEBOK, to prepare tomorrow's civil engineers who want to be in responsible charge of projects and be part of a proud public-serving and protecting profession.
------------------------------
Stu Walesh PhD, PE
Consultant - Teacher - Author
219-242-1704
www.HelpingYouEngineerYourFuture.com
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 08-18-2021 03:44 PM
From: Heidi Wallace
Subject: PS 465 & CEBOK: The Foundation of ASCE's Future
The issue is that civil engineering is very broad, and not all areas of civil engineering require a Masters to meet the requirements to be the responsible in charge. For example, I'm in site development. We have to apply a very broad scope of knowledge, but we don't need Masters level courses to be absolutely competent in our area of practice. For us, experience under another PE is more valuable to what we do. There aren't Masters programs targeted at our discipline that I've ever heard of, which I think demonstrates my point.
I'm not against encouraging post-graduate studies where they are needed, but it is an oversight to presume that is the case for all work requiring a civil seal.
I'm currently completing post-graduate studies in construction project management. Does some of what I'm learning apply at least tangentially to my job? Yes. Did I need any of these courses to meet the qualifications of being the responsible in charge on my site development projects? No.
I also think to compare all areas of civil engineering to fields like medicine and law is not accurate. It's not that I think we're special. It's that the body of knowledge needed to complete certain kinds of civil work is no where near the depth of knowledge to understand medicine or the entire legal system. The process for Architecture licensure is basically the same as the current requirements for civil engineering -- you can get licensed with a Bachelor's degree.
I think we have to acknowledge that within the umbrella of civil engineering there are large differences education necessary to safely be the EOR. Should you have a Masters degree to seal the designs for a dam? I'd say yes. Do you need a Masters degree to seal the designs for a small detention pond? No.
------------------------------
Heidi C. Wallace, P.E., M.ASCE
Tulsa, OK
Original Message:
Sent: 08-14-2021 12:11 PM
From: Bradley Aldrich
Subject: PS 465 & CEBOK: The Foundation of ASCE's Future
Thank you Stu for elegantly summarizing what PS 465 stands for and the significance of the CEBOK. As one of the several authors of the latest version of PS 465 I can assure everyone that the statements are not intended to be subtle or nuanced. Through three editions of the CEBOK, ASCE has documented that professional licensure no longer proves that an individual has attained the necessary knowledge, skills and attitudes required for those who exercise responsible charge (as defined in the CEBOK). Given this conclusion, prior to 2018, ASCE attempted to amend licensure laws to require a master's degree as the "first professional degree", to no avail. This is despite the fact that every other comparable licensed profession (medicine, law, architecture, accounting, physical therapy...and the list goes on) all require post-baccalaureate education for licensure. Somehow engineers think we are different (special). Some worry that we will not attract the "best and brightest" if we require additional education for licensure. That is not true for any of the other licensed professions listed above, but again engineers are special.
As Stu points out, this is not about those of us who have been in practice for 20+ years, but about those who are about to enter the profession and those still in school. The BS degree in civil engineering simply cannot cover the expanded body of technical knowledge that civil engineers will need to grasp to meet their professional obligations in the future. This is not an indictment of these programs. You simply cannot cover everything in a four-year degree. If you study graduation rates for civil engineers over time, you will find that nearly 50% of all recent civil engineering graduates already recognize this as they pursue a master's degree at some point in their career.
The civil engineering profession must come to terms with the fact that there is a different between professional licensure (the legal authority to practice in responsible charge) and what is needed for today's civil engineers who chose to assume responsible charge of significant engineering services. Some think such a statement is heresy, but we operate this way in practice today. Many firms (mine included) encourage our engineers to obtain their PE license, but never put some of them in responsible charge as we deem them not ready or unsuitable for the role. As the leader of the civil engineering profession, it is time for ASCE (and the civil engineering community) to embrace this fact and develop a certification for those who first attain and then maintain the knowledge, skills, and attitudes defined in the CEBOK. This is paramount if we are to fulfill our most fundamental obligation to society - to protect and advance public health, safety and welfare.
------------------------------
Bradley Aldrich P.E., F.ASCE
Senior Associate
Aldrich and Elliott, PC
Essex Jct VT
Original Message:
Sent: 08-11-2021 01:37 PM
From: Stuart Walesh
Subject: PS 465 & CEBOK: The Foundation of ASCE's Future
I started this new thread partially in response to the recent series of many posts under the topic "Experience vs grad school: Is a master's degree worth it?" In my view, that conversation among civil engineers should be conducted within the context of what ASCE has accomplished over more than two decades to prepare future civil engineers who want to acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to be in responsible charge of projects that could put the public at risk.
Policy Statement 465: A Visionary and Proactive Framework for Public Protection
In response to the consistent findings and recommendations of a series of ASCE education conferences (1960 – 1995), the ASCE Board of Direction adopted Policy Statement (PS) 465, "Academic Prerequisites for Licensure and Professional Practice" in 1998. The original PS 465 said, "ASCE supports the concept of the Master's degree as the First Professional Degree for the practice of civil engineering at the professional level [licensure]." This was ASCE's initial attempt to prepare some future civil engineers to be in responsible charge of projects that could affect public health, safety, and welfare.
From the beginning, PS 465 was about the future, not about us and now but, instead, about them and then. PS 465 evolved over the next two decades with the most recent version being adopted in 2019 (https://www.asce.org/issues-and-advocacy/public-policy/policy-statement-465---the-civil-engineering-body-of-knowledge-and-the-practice-of-civil-engineering/).
Why did ASCE develop, refine, and apply PS 465? The society answers that question, in today's PS 465, as follows: "Beyond expanded technical knowledge and skills, today's civil engineers need to understand the immediate and long-term environmental, societal, political, legal, aesthetic, and economic implications of their engineering decisions. These and other changes have created a need for civil engineers to have a greater breadth of capability and specialized technical competence to meet their obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare." In other words, recognize inevitable change and prepare for it.
Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge: Equipping Civil Engineers to Protect the Public
Paralleling the refinement of PS 465, ASCE developed, refined, and applied the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge (CEBOK). The first, second, and third editions of the CEBOK were published in 2004, 2008, and 2019 (https://www.asce.org/civil_engineering_body_of_knowledge/).
PS 465 defines the CEBOK as "the knowledge, skills, and attitudes [KSA] necessary to exercise responsible charge in the practice of civil engineering and is attained through undergraduate and post-graduate engineering education, mentored experience, and self-development." The KSA includes foundational, technical, and professional practice learning outcomes.
Regarding master's degrees, PS 465 says, "ASCE believes that the most effective means of fulfilling the formal educational requirements of the CEBOK is by completing a baccalaureate degree in civil engineering from an ABET-accredited program and a master's degree in civil engineering or a civil engineering specialty area."
Why does PS 465 say that a master's degree is the most effective formal education for tomorrow's civil engineers who want to practice at the professional level? Because fulfilling the CEBOK will require more formal education than a baccalaureate degree. We can't put ten pounds in a five-pound bag.
Bottom Line
Hundreds of ASCE members and staff working for about 25 years developed, refined, and used PS 465 and the CEBOK. These two documents are the evolving foundation for the future of civil engineering in the United States. As long as ASCE continues to proactively support, maintain, and use PS 465 and the CEBOK, American Civil Engineering will be a proud public-serving and protecting profession.
------------------------------
Stu Walesh PhD, PE, Dist.M.ASCE, F.NSPE
Consultant - Teacher - Author
219-242-1704
www.HelpingYouEngineerYourFuture.com
------------------------------