Discussion: View Thread

I'm curious how many are in support of the push to require a masters or 30 hours of post-grad academic experience? From my perspective it seems to be largely supported by universities (who will make a lot more money if this requirement passes) and those that are decades out of school.

Here's my two cents

-Extra academic experience is not always translatable to better job performance. (This can be seen in other forum topics where people with a Masters are discouraging others from getting one depending on their career goals.)
-Extra academic experience requires greater upfront financial investment, and for many that means thousands of additional dollars in student loans. Not all companies can/will offer financial assistance for a Masters, and those with a family may not be able to feasibly work full time and pursue a Masters at the same time.
-Not everyone will know after undergrad what specific topic they would want to pursue for a Masters that would advance them the furthest in their career. The options for a Masters are often quite narrow. Would it not make more sense for many to work for a few years and then decide what area they want to dive deeper into? Not all 23-year-olds leaving college with one or two internships know exactly what they do and don't like doing in the "real world." I loved my concrete design class and hated hydrology, but in practice I've found the opposite to be true. If you shove "you have to have a Masters" down the throats of undergrads, you could very well end up with transportation PEs that have an MS in structures or site development PEs that have an MS in transportation. How is that beneficial to the discipline of civil engineering?
-There is no good masters degree option for some of the sub-disciplines within our field. The first that comes to mind is site development. We can't build without site development civil engineers, and there is already a shortage of young EIs and PEs in that area.
-Hands-on workplace experience and mentoring can be much more beneficial to growth as an engineer. There are things that can't be learned as well in a classroom: coordination with other engineering disciplines, working with architects and contractors, client interactions, navigating some of the state and local permitting practices and standards. I believe with 100% confidence that I am farther along in my career than I would have been if I'd spent two more years in school instead of learning in my field.

Ways to continue to "ensure civil engineers have the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes to practice in the future," as Engineering Tomorrow promotes, do not have to include getting a Masters or 30 hours of Masters credit. Requiring it is, in my opinion, the lazy and profitable way out.

Instead why not try
-Promote mentoring both within and outside of companies
-Offer/require beneficial continuing education opportunities outside of academia
-Extend the experience requirement to 5 years instead of 4 for PE certification
-Distinguish between the different areas of civil engineers. Maybe structural engineers need a certain number of hours of Masters level structural courses (whether taken as an undergrad or after), but transportation and construction probably don't. We are a broad and multifaceted field; let's not make a one-size-fits-all rule that reduces the number of qualified candidates.  

------------------------------
Heidi Wallace EI,A.M.ASCE
Tulsa, OK
------------------------------

Heidi:

Thank you for your post - it is a very timely topic and certainly worthy of discussion. Full disclosure: I am an "academic" - but I went to work (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) after my BSCE, and returned to graduate school after excellent design and construction experience.

Having served as a civil engineering Department Head at my university for 11 years - and, as the Chair of the ASCE Department Heads Coordinating Council (DHCC) for two of those years -- I can say that the view that this concept is "...largely supported by universities..." is actually not necessarily true.

When you look at ASCE Policy Statement 465, which provides the basis and underlying rationale for the desirability of post-baccalaureate formal education, it speaks of the "...attainment of the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for entry into the professional practice of civil engineering...".  The rationale looks at other "learned professions" which have increased educational requirements in the face of the rapid pace of change in knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to practice - compared to the very clear trend in engineering programs, which have decreased educational requirements at the baccalaureate level.  In addition, note that ASCE does not advocate specifically for the necessity of a post-baccalaureate degree (MS or PhD) - rather, the call is for formal post-baccalaureate education (primarily to increase the depth of the engineer's technical knowledge).

So, then, what does "attainment of the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge" entail?  The recently-released (for public comment) 3rd Edition of the 'BOK' identifies knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSA) desirable for the engineer practicing at the professional level.  Interestingly, attainment of those KSAs is accomplished through a combination of undergraduate education, post-baccalaureate education, mentored experience, and self-development (i.e. through life-long learning).  This supports your point - it is not a 'one size fits all' approach, but rather quite multi-faceted.

Please keep this discussion going.  Let's all strive to fully understand the details of what ASCE policy (e.g. Policy 465) actually proposes - and the implications for how that might play out "in the real world".  Let's also seek balance; just as in one of your points - "There are things that can't be learned as well in a classroom..." - the balance is also true: there are things that are better learned in a classroom.

I look forward to reading various viewpoints on this!!

------------------------------
Kevin Hall Ph.D.,M.ASCE
Professor
Univ Of Arkansas
Fayetteville AR
(479) 575-8695
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-01-2019 10:59
From: Heidi Wallace
Subject: Engineering Tomorrow Initiative

I'm curious how many are in support of the push to require a masters or 30 hours of post-grad academic experience? From my perspective it seems to be largely supported by universities (who will make a lot more money if this requirement passes) and those that are decades out of school.

Here's my two cents

-Extra academic experience is not always translatable to better job performance. (This can be seen in other forum topics where people with a Masters are discouraging others from getting one depending on their career goals.)
-Extra academic experience requires greater upfront financial investment, and for many that means thousands of additional dollars in student loans. Not all companies can/will offer financial assistance for a Masters, and those with a family may not be able to feasibly work full time and pursue a Masters at the same time.
-Not everyone will know after undergrad what specific topic they would want to pursue for a Masters that would advance them the furthest in their career. The options for a Masters are often quite narrow. Would it not make more sense for many to work for a few years and then decide what area they want to dive deeper into? Not all 23-year-olds leaving college with one or two internships know exactly what they do and don't like doing in the "real world." I loved my concrete design class and hated hydrology, but in practice I've found the opposite to be true. If you shove "you have to have a Masters" down the throats of undergrads, you could very well end up with transportation PEs that have an MS in structures or site development PEs that have an MS in transportation. How is that beneficial to the discipline of civil engineering?
-There is no good masters degree option for some of the sub-disciplines within our field. The first that comes to mind is site development. We can't build without site development civil engineers, and there is already a shortage of young EIs and PEs in that area.
-Hands-on workplace experience and mentoring can be much more beneficial to growth as an engineer. There are things that can't be learned as well in a classroom: coordination with other engineering disciplines, working with architects and contractors, client interactions, navigating some of the state and local permitting practices and standards. I believe with 100% confidence that I am farther along in my career than I would have been if I'd spent two more years in school instead of learning in my field.

Ways to continue to "ensure civil engineers have the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes to practice in the future," as Engineering Tomorrow promotes, do not have to include getting a Masters or 30 hours of Masters credit. Requiring it is, in my opinion, the lazy and profitable way out.

Instead why not try
-Promote mentoring both within and outside of companies
-Offer/require beneficial continuing education opportunities outside of academia
-Extend the experience requirement to 5 years instead of 4 for PE certification
-Distinguish between the different areas of civil engineers. Maybe structural engineers need a certain number of hours of Masters level structural courses (whether taken as an undergrad or after), but transportation and construction probably don't. We are a broad and multifaceted field; let's not make a one-size-fits-all rule that reduces the number of qualified candidates.  

------------------------------
Heidi Wallace EI,A.M.ASCE
Tulsa, OK
------------------------------

Dr. Hall,

Thank you for your response. In looking through the CEBOK3, there are 2 items that are listed as being acquired through the post graduate education equivalent. On page H-1 in the comparison tables, the language of the post graduate education has been changed from the previous edition. One year of full time study is, in most programs I've researched, what it takes to get a Masters degree. So diploma or not, the way it reads suggests it is basically requiring what it takes to get a Masters degree. (I suppose you wouldn't be limited to following a specific Masters curriculum and could mix-and-match if allowed.) How is "equivalent to" defined in the PG requirement? Do these credits have to come from an accredited university? The phrasing allowing the education to come from an agency/organization/professional society has been removed from CEBOK2.

I also think, in looking at the items listed as being attained through PG, that it would be possible to get a non-thesis Masters and not acquire both of those skills through the coursework. (This is based on the graduate level courses I look during my undergrad. Admittedly that was only a few.) Technical depth certainly increases with PG, but selecting and analyzing experiments and solutions may not.
I would love to see some options in our industry to acquire both of these outside of the university setting. I don't know exactly what that would look like -- maybe some hands on, multi-day "short courses" run through collaboration between organization like ASCE and universities or government engineering agencies. Site development and transportation don't have many experimental components. I understand it is a skill all engineers need, but the traditional courses in those areas likely won't cover much of that.

Please understand, I'm not opposed to Masters programs. I've looked into getting my Masters both here and abroad. I've toyed with the idea of pursuing my doctorate with the potential goal of professorship later in my career. I love academia. I just want us to take a hard look at the things we want to recommend/require for licensure and ask if it's doing what we think it's doing and if it could be done differently with the same or better results.

------------------------------
Heidi Wallace EI,A.M.ASCE
Engineer Intern
Tulsa OK
(918)720-8664
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-02-2019 10:15
From: Kevin Hall
Subject: Engineering Tomorrow Initiative

Heidi:

Thank you for your post - it is a very timely topic and certainly worthy of discussion. Full disclosure: I am an "academic" - but I went to work (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) after my BSCE, and returned to graduate school after excellent design and construction experience.

Having served as a civil engineering Department Head at my university for 11 years - and, as the Chair of the ASCE Department Heads Coordinating Council (DHCC) for two of those years -- I can say that the view that this concept is "...largely supported by universities..." is actually not necessarily true.

When you look at ASCE Policy Statement 465, which provides the basis and underlying rationale for the desirability of post-baccalaureate formal education, it speaks of the "...attainment of the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for entry into the professional practice of civil engineering...".  The rationale looks at other "learned professions" which have increased educational requirements in the face of the rapid pace of change in knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to practice - compared to the very clear trend in engineering programs, which have decreased educational requirements at the baccalaureate level.  In addition, note that ASCE does not advocate specifically for the necessity of a post-baccalaureate degree (MS or PhD) - rather, the call is for formal post-baccalaureate education (primarily to increase the depth of the engineer's technical knowledge).

So, then, what does "attainment of the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge" entail?  The recently-released (for public comment) 3rd Edition of the 'BOK' identifies knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSA) desirable for the engineer practicing at the professional level.  Interestingly, attainment of those KSAs is accomplished through a combination of undergraduate education, post-baccalaureate education, mentored experience, and self-development (i.e. through life-long learning).  This supports your point - it is not a 'one size fits all' approach, but rather quite multi-faceted.

Please keep this discussion going.  Let's all strive to fully understand the details of what ASCE policy (e.g. Policy 465) actually proposes - and the implications for how that might play out "in the real world".  Let's also seek balance; just as in one of your points - "There are things that can't be learned as well in a classroom..." - the balance is also true: there are things that are better learned in a classroom.

I look forward to reading various viewpoints on this!!

------------------------------
Kevin Hall Ph.D.,M.ASCE
Professor
Univ Of Arkansas
Fayetteville AR
(479) 575-8695

Original Message:
Sent: 05-01-2019 10:59
From: Heidi Wallace
Subject: Engineering Tomorrow Initiative

I'm curious how many are in support of the push to require a masters or 30 hours of post-grad academic experience? From my perspective it seems to be largely supported by universities (who will make a lot more money if this requirement passes) and those that are decades out of school.

Here's my two cents

-Extra academic experience is not always translatable to better job performance. (This can be seen in other forum topics where people with a Masters are discouraging others from getting one depending on their career goals.)
-Extra academic experience requires greater upfront financial investment, and for many that means thousands of additional dollars in student loans. Not all companies can/will offer financial assistance for a Masters, and those with a family may not be able to feasibly work full time and pursue a Masters at the same time.
-Not everyone will know after undergrad what specific topic they would want to pursue for a Masters that would advance them the furthest in their career. The options for a Masters are often quite narrow. Would it not make more sense for many to work for a few years and then decide what area they want to dive deeper into? Not all 23-year-olds leaving college with one or two internships know exactly what they do and don't like doing in the "real world." I loved my concrete design class and hated hydrology, but in practice I've found the opposite to be true. If you shove "you have to have a Masters" down the throats of undergrads, you could very well end up with transportation PEs that have an MS in structures or site development PEs that have an MS in transportation. How is that beneficial to the discipline of civil engineering?
-There is no good masters degree option for some of the sub-disciplines within our field. The first that comes to mind is site development. We can't build without site development civil engineers, and there is already a shortage of young EIs and PEs in that area.
-Hands-on workplace experience and mentoring can be much more beneficial to growth as an engineer. There are things that can't be learned as well in a classroom: coordination with other engineering disciplines, working with architects and contractors, client interactions, navigating some of the state and local permitting practices and standards. I believe with 100% confidence that I am farther along in my career than I would have been if I'd spent two more years in school instead of learning in my field.

Ways to continue to "ensure civil engineers have the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes to practice in the future," as Engineering Tomorrow promotes, do not have to include getting a Masters or 30 hours of Masters credit. Requiring it is, in my opinion, the lazy and profitable way out.

Instead why not try
-Promote mentoring both within and outside of companies
-Offer/require beneficial continuing education opportunities outside of academia
-Extend the experience requirement to 5 years instead of 4 for PE certification
-Distinguish between the different areas of civil engineers. Maybe structural engineers need a certain number of hours of Masters level structural courses (whether taken as an undergrad or after), but transportation and construction probably don't. We are a broad and multifaceted field; let's not make a one-size-fits-all rule that reduces the number of qualified candidates.  

------------------------------
Heidi Wallace EI,A.M.ASCE
Tulsa, OK
------------------------------

The world is becoming increasingly specialized. Civil engineering is becoming increasingly specialized. It has been that way forever. This is why ASCE began establishing its technical institutes more than 20 years ago. Recognizing that engineering is now the only recognized "profession" that does not require meaningful graduate education, ASCE began a campaign to correct this deficiency. It began as "Masters as the First Professional Degree," which was eventually rebranded as "Raise the Bar", and then again as "B+30." Rebranding could not overcome the loud pushback from those ASCE members who proudly considered their BSCE degree to be the "be all, end all." At the same time, the minimum requirements for a BSCE degree at most public universities dropped from more than 140 hours in 1970 to 124 hours or less today. In my view, a 124-hour BSCE degree is little more than an "Introduction to Civil Engineering Degree." Those graduates are prepared to become land development engineers, or government agency staff, or technicians in the more specialized fields of civil engineering.

I earned a BSCE and MSCE back-to-back and went on to enjoy a long and glorious career as a structural engineer. That would not have been possible without those additional 30 hours of specialized education. Apparently, most other structural engineers feel likewise. The MSCE and MSAE degrees have been the de-facto standard for entry into the structural engineering consulting business for at least 40 years. In Texas, where I have enjoyed my career, virtually no consulting structural engineering firms hire entry level engineers without a MSCE or MSAE. The sole exception might be those bridge engineers who arrive with several years of experience at a state DOT or similar agency.

Why is the MSCE or MSAE the de-facto standard for structural engineering firms? It boils down to a famous quotation, "You can't teach chemistry in the workplace." In this case, chemistry is the finer points of concrete, steel, timber, and masonry design, as well as indeterminate static and dynamic analysis. Employers expect entry level engineers to arrive with that knowledge already mastered and have no interest in teaching it. Rather, they want to teach those engineers to use that knowledge to efficiently and confidently design economical buildings, bridges, and so forth.

Just a few years ago, SEI conducted a substantial study on the future of the structural engineering profession. It should be required reading for all structural engineers and structural engineering students. Among the conclusions, engineers with only a BSCE and the 8-hour PE exam will likely become paraprofessionals. They will dutifully served the needs of the professional structural engineers, those with a MSCE or better and the 16-hour SE exam. You can download and read the 46-page report, "A Vision for the Future of Structural Engineering and Structural Engineers: A case for change" at:
https://www.asce.org/structural-engineering/structural-engineering-institute/

------------------------------
Stan R. Caldwell, P.E., SECB, F.ASCE, F.SEI, F.AEI
Plano, Texas
www.StanCaldwellPE.com
stancaldwell@...
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-02-2019 10:15
From: Kevin Hall
Subject: Engineering Tomorrow Initiative

Heidi:

Thank you for your post - it is a very timely topic and certainly worthy of discussion. Full disclosure: I am an "academic" - but I went to work (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) after my BSCE, and returned to graduate school after excellent design and construction experience.

Having served as a civil engineering Department Head at my university for 11 years - and, as the Chair of the ASCE Department Heads Coordinating Council (DHCC) for two of those years -- I can say that the view that this concept is "...largely supported by universities..." is actually not necessarily true.

When you look at ASCE Policy Statement 465, which provides the basis and underlying rationale for the desirability of post-baccalaureate formal education, it speaks of the "...attainment of the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for entry into the professional practice of civil engineering...".  The rationale looks at other "learned professions" which have increased educational requirements in the face of the rapid pace of change in knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to practice - compared to the very clear trend in engineering programs, which have decreased educational requirements at the baccalaureate level.  In addition, note that ASCE does not advocate specifically for the necessity of a post-baccalaureate degree (MS or PhD) - rather, the call is for formal post-baccalaureate education (primarily to increase the depth of the engineer's technical knowledge).

So, then, what does "attainment of the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge" entail?  The recently-released (for public comment) 3rd Edition of the 'BOK' identifies knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSA) desirable for the engineer practicing at the professional level.  Interestingly, attainment of those KSAs is accomplished through a combination of undergraduate education, post-baccalaureate education, mentored experience, and self-development (i.e. through life-long learning).  This supports your point - it is not a 'one size fits all' approach, but rather quite multi-faceted.

Please keep this discussion going.  Let's all strive to fully understand the details of what ASCE policy (e.g. Policy 465) actually proposes - and the implications for how that might play out "in the real world".  Let's also seek balance; just as in one of your points - "There are things that can't be learned as well in a classroom..." - the balance is also true: there are things that are better learned in a classroom.

I look forward to reading various viewpoints on this!!

------------------------------
Kevin Hall Ph.D.,M.ASCE
Professor
Univ Of Arkansas
Fayetteville AR
(479) 575-8695

Original Message:
Sent: 05-01-2019 10:59
From: Heidi Wallace
Subject: Engineering Tomorrow Initiative

I'm curious how many are in support of the push to require a masters or 30 hours of post-grad academic experience? From my perspective it seems to be largely supported by universities (who will make a lot more money if this requirement passes) and those that are decades out of school.

Here's my two cents

-Extra academic experience is not always translatable to better job performance. (This can be seen in other forum topics where people with a Masters are discouraging others from getting one depending on their career goals.)
-Extra academic experience requires greater upfront financial investment, and for many that means thousands of additional dollars in student loans. Not all companies can/will offer financial assistance for a Masters, and those with a family may not be able to feasibly work full time and pursue a Masters at the same time.
-Not everyone will know after undergrad what specific topic they would want to pursue for a Masters that would advance them the furthest in their career. The options for a Masters are often quite narrow. Would it not make more sense for many to work for a few years and then decide what area they want to dive deeper into? Not all 23-year-olds leaving college with one or two internships know exactly what they do and don't like doing in the "real world." I loved my concrete design class and hated hydrology, but in practice I've found the opposite to be true. If you shove "you have to have a Masters" down the throats of undergrads, you could very well end up with transportation PEs that have an MS in structures or site development PEs that have an MS in transportation. How is that beneficial to the discipline of civil engineering?
-There is no good masters degree option for some of the sub-disciplines within our field. The first that comes to mind is site development. We can't build without site development civil engineers, and there is already a shortage of young EIs and PEs in that area.
-Hands-on workplace experience and mentoring can be much more beneficial to growth as an engineer. There are things that can't be learned as well in a classroom: coordination with other engineering disciplines, working with architects and contractors, client interactions, navigating some of the state and local permitting practices and standards. I believe with 100% confidence that I am farther along in my career than I would have been if I'd spent two more years in school instead of learning in my field.

Ways to continue to "ensure civil engineers have the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes to practice in the future," as Engineering Tomorrow promotes, do not have to include getting a Masters or 30 hours of Masters credit. Requiring it is, in my opinion, the lazy and profitable way out.

Instead why not try
-Promote mentoring both within and outside of companies
-Offer/require beneficial continuing education opportunities outside of academia
-Extend the experience requirement to 5 years instead of 4 for PE certification
-Distinguish between the different areas of civil engineers. Maybe structural engineers need a certain number of hours of Masters level structural courses (whether taken as an undergrad or after), but transportation and construction probably don't. We are a broad and multifaceted field; let's not make a one-size-fits-all rule that reduces the number of qualified candidates.  

------------------------------
Heidi Wallace EI,A.M.ASCE
Tulsa, OK
------------------------------

Stan-

Just a few thoughts in response to what you wrote.

I agree that a structural engineer needs more than a general civil engineering undergrad degree to be where they need to be as a structural engineering design consultant in nearly all cases.

I don't, however, think that is necessarily the absolute truth for everyone headed down the path to being a successful civil PE.

Lastly, to suggest that "land development engineers" are somehow beneath structural engineers is not the kind of attitude we need to have toward one another. What we do may not be as technically precise -- there isn't one "best" answer to many of the land development challenges. We do a little bit of everything in our projects: water resources, structural, transportation, construction, and a little Geotech. However, it requires a vast array of skills not required by most structural engineers. We spend days researching and becoming familiar with codes and standards that vary, sometimes wildly, between municipalities. Those regulations change much more frequently than building codes. Sometimes they change by the whim of the plans reviewer. We need to be experts at networking and negotiating on behalf of our clients while also maintaining strict adherence to ethical guidelines. We have to do everything we can to advocate for our clients while not "pushing the buttons" of the authorities so much that they are more difficult to coordinate with in the future. It is as much an art as it is a science. When you discount the abilities and contributions to our profession by a large sector, you alienate a portion of your audience.
Maybe I read to much into what you said, but from my experience there are more than a couple structural engineers that unjustly view us as the kid brother to the civil engineering world.

There are also plenty of transportation and construction engineers that don't require a Masters to start off prepared for their jobs.
Do you need a Masters to design a water treatment plant? Most likely. Do you need a Masters to understand the deeper structural engineering concepts? Probably, unless you were in a 5 year more structural focused degree. (There are many architectural engineering graduates that become leading PEs at amazingly successful firms without a Masters degree.)

I have no problem with a company deciding they need someone to have a Masters to work for them based on what work they will be performing. But I do have an issue with a one-size-fits-all mandate of a Masters or Masters level credit minimum in order to be a licensed professional engineers. There are more factors to consider than the typical structural engineer.

------------------------------
Heidi Wallace EI,A.M.ASCE
Engineer Intern
Tulsa OK
(918)720-8664
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-03-2019 13:44
From: Stan Caldwell
Subject: Engineering Tomorrow Initiative

The world is becoming increasingly specialized. Civil engineering is becoming increasingly specialized. It has been that way forever. This is why ASCE began establishing its technical institutes more than 20 years ago. Recognizing that engineering is now the only recognized "profession" that does not require meaningful graduate education, ASCE began a campaign to correct this deficiency. It began as "Masters as the First Professional Degree," which was eventually rebranded as "Raise the Bar", and then again as "B+30." Rebranding could not overcome the loud pushback from those ASCE members who proudly considered their BSCE degree to be the "be all, end all." At the same time, the minimum requirements for a BSCE degree at most public universities dropped from more than 140 hours in 1970 to 124 hours or less today. In my view, a 124-hour BSCE degree is little more than an "Introduction to Civil Engineering Degree." Those graduates are prepared to become land development engineers, or government agency staff, or technicians in the more specialized fields of civil engineering.

I earned a BSCE and MSCE back-to-back and went on to enjoy a long and glorious career as a structural engineer. That would not have been possible without those additional 30 hours of specialized education. Apparently, most other structural engineers feel likewise. The MSCE and MSAE degrees have been the de-facto standard for entry into the structural engineering consulting business for at least 40 years. In Texas, where I have enjoyed my career, virtually no consulting structural engineering firms hire entry level engineers without a MSCE or MSAE. The sole exception might be those bridge engineers who arrive with several years of experience at a state DOT or similar agency.

Why is the MSCE or MSAE the de-facto standard for structural engineering firms? It boils down to a famous quotation, "You can't teach chemistry in the workplace." In this case, chemistry is the finer points of concrete, steel, timber, and masonry design, as well as indeterminate static and dynamic analysis. Employers expect entry level engineers to arrive with that knowledge already mastered and have no interest in teaching it. Rather, they want to teach those engineers to use that knowledge to efficiently and confidently design economical buildings, bridges, and so forth.

Just a few years ago, SEI conducted a substantial study on the future of the structural engineering profession. It should be required reading for all structural engineers and structural engineering students. Among the conclusions, engineers with only a BSCE and the 8-hour PE exam will likely become paraprofessionals. They will dutifully served the needs of the professional structural engineers, those with a MSCE or better and the 16-hour SE exam. You can download and read the 46-page report, "A Vision for the Future of Structural Engineering and Structural Engineers: A case for change" at:
https://www.asce.org/structural-engineering/structural-engineering-institute/

------------------------------
Stan R. Caldwell, P.E., SECB, F.ASCE, F.SEI, F.AEI
Plano, Texas
www.StanCaldwellPE.com
<maskemail>stancaldwell@...</maskemail>

Original Message:
Sent: 05-02-2019 10:15
From: Kevin Hall
Subject: Engineering Tomorrow Initiative

Heidi:

Thank you for your post - it is a very timely topic and certainly worthy of discussion. Full disclosure: I am an "academic" - but I went to work (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) after my BSCE, and returned to graduate school after excellent design and construction experience.

Having served as a civil engineering Department Head at my university for 11 years - and, as the Chair of the ASCE Department Heads Coordinating Council (DHCC) for two of those years -- I can say that the view that this concept is "...largely supported by universities..." is actually not necessarily true.

When you look at ASCE Policy Statement 465, which provides the basis and underlying rationale for the desirability of post-baccalaureate formal education, it speaks of the "...attainment of the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for entry into the professional practice of civil engineering...".  The rationale looks at other "learned professions" which have increased educational requirements in the face of the rapid pace of change in knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to practice - compared to the very clear trend in engineering programs, which have decreased educational requirements at the baccalaureate level.  In addition, note that ASCE does not advocate specifically for the necessity of a post-baccalaureate degree (MS or PhD) - rather, the call is for formal post-baccalaureate education (primarily to increase the depth of the engineer's technical knowledge).

So, then, what does "attainment of the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge" entail?  The recently-released (for public comment) 3rd Edition of the 'BOK' identifies knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSA) desirable for the engineer practicing at the professional level.  Interestingly, attainment of those KSAs is accomplished through a combination of undergraduate education, post-baccalaureate education, mentored experience, and self-development (i.e. through life-long learning).  This supports your point - it is not a 'one size fits all' approach, but rather quite multi-faceted.

Please keep this discussion going.  Let's all strive to fully understand the details of what ASCE policy (e.g. Policy 465) actually proposes - and the implications for how that might play out "in the real world".  Let's also seek balance; just as in one of your points - "There are things that can't be learned as well in a classroom..." - the balance is also true: there are things that are better learned in a classroom.

I look forward to reading various viewpoints on this!!

------------------------------
Kevin Hall Ph.D.,M.ASCE
Professor
Univ Of Arkansas
Fayetteville AR
(479) 575-8695

Original Message:
Sent: 05-01-2019 10:59
From: Heidi Wallace
Subject: Engineering Tomorrow Initiative

I'm curious how many are in support of the push to require a masters or 30 hours of post-grad academic experience? From my perspective it seems to be largely supported by universities (who will make a lot more money if this requirement passes) and those that are decades out of school.

Here's my two cents

-Extra academic experience is not always translatable to better job performance. (This can be seen in other forum topics where people with a Masters are discouraging others from getting one depending on their career goals.)
-Extra academic experience requires greater upfront financial investment, and for many that means thousands of additional dollars in student loans. Not all companies can/will offer financial assistance for a Masters, and those with a family may not be able to feasibly work full time and pursue a Masters at the same time.
-Not everyone will know after undergrad what specific topic they would want to pursue for a Masters that would advance them the furthest in their career. The options for a Masters are often quite narrow. Would it not make more sense for many to work for a few years and then decide what area they want to dive deeper into? Not all 23-year-olds leaving college with one or two internships know exactly what they do and don't like doing in the "real world." I loved my concrete design class and hated hydrology, but in practice I've found the opposite to be true. If you shove "you have to have a Masters" down the throats of undergrads, you could very well end up with transportation PEs that have an MS in structures or site development PEs that have an MS in transportation. How is that beneficial to the discipline of civil engineering?
-There is no good masters degree option for some of the sub-disciplines within our field. The first that comes to mind is site development. We can't build without site development civil engineers, and there is already a shortage of young EIs and PEs in that area.
-Hands-on workplace experience and mentoring can be much more beneficial to growth as an engineer. There are things that can't be learned as well in a classroom: coordination with other engineering disciplines, working with architects and contractors, client interactions, navigating some of the state and local permitting practices and standards. I believe with 100% confidence that I am farther along in my career than I would have been if I'd spent two more years in school instead of learning in my field.

Ways to continue to "ensure civil engineers have the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes to practice in the future," as Engineering Tomorrow promotes, do not have to include getting a Masters or 30 hours of Masters credit. Requiring it is, in my opinion, the lazy and profitable way out.

Instead why not try
-Promote mentoring both within and outside of companies
-Offer/require beneficial continuing education opportunities outside of academia
-Extend the experience requirement to 5 years instead of 4 for PE certification
-Distinguish between the different areas of civil engineers. Maybe structural engineers need a certain number of hours of Masters level structural courses (whether taken as an undergrad or after), but transportation and construction probably don't. We are a broad and multifaceted field; let's not make a one-size-fits-all rule that reduces the number of qualified candidates.  

------------------------------
Heidi Wallace EI,A.M.ASCE
Tulsa, OK
------------------------------

Heidi:

I did not write that land development engineers are beneath structural engineers. To the contrary, I spent 25 years as a vice president and chief structural engineer at Halff Associates, a large multi-discipline firm in Dallas. I reported to the president. During most of those years, the presidents were BSCE land development engineers. They were good, competent people.



------------------------------
Stan R. Caldwell, P.E., SECB, F.ASCE, F.SEI, F.AEI
Plano, Texas
www.StanCaldwellPE.com
stancaldwell@...
------------------------------

Origina