That's really interesting on #4 Heidi. Those were the exact two courses that came to mind as unexpectedly useful to me.
I ended up going into more architectural/facade engineering after I finished my structural engineering degree and I do thermal performance analysis in addition to structural analysis. It's not necessarily a typical path for a civil engineer, but I really needed that basic background knowledge of thermodynamics to start working on analyzing heat flow through building materials, which is only becoming more important as many jurisdictions implement or tighten up requirements on the thermal performance of structures. The conceptual overlap between thermal and electrical circuits has also made it easier to understand, and easier for me to explain to other engineers who took circuits but not thermo. My field has a lot of dissimilar metals and having taken an E&M/circuits class definitely set me up to much more easily understand and design mitigation strategies for galvanic corrosion. I'm sure there's other examples that I'm not thinking of, but I do have to know quite a lot of what I learned in school to do my job, even amongst the classes that I was confident would never be relevant at the time. The only subject I truly have never needed to know anything about is transportation engineering, but I definitely wouldn't advocate for taking that one out of the curriculum lol
Original Message:
Sent: 10-29-2024 10:29 AM
From: Heidi Wallace
Subject: If You Ran the Zoo: What Would You Change about Engineering Education?
I appreciate you bringing this up. I know some of those general science classes can be frustrating, but I do think they have value from several perspectives.
1 - In those early theory courses, some students change degree paths. It would be unfortunate to take "physics specifically for electrical engineers" and then decide to be mechanical or civil, and suddenly you needed different aspects of physics and have to take another course. Some students change career paths entirely, and those engineering science classes can often cover the science requirements for other degrees as well.
2 - Similar to the reason you have to take Algebra II in high school even if it will "never apply to your life", there is something to be said to learning to think rationally and scientifically. Part of the objective of those early courses is to give students a foundation of methodically approaching a variety of problems in both theory and application. Scientists and Mathematicians make theoretical discoveries and theories, but engineers are typically the ones who help develop the application of those theories. We need engineers to "speak their language" so we know how to apply that information. The engineers who are going to help apply breakthrough research discoveries in our field are going to need more of a foundation than "this is what we do right now"
3 - There simply isn't time in, for example, a unit operations class to teach you the theoretical chemistry background that you need to understand to then understand the chemistry of water and wastewater treatment. Those early courses really do lay the groundwork for comprehending the following courses.
4 - There have been some ABET changes to civil courses. For example, I had to take Thermodynamics and Circuits, but the students a few years behind me didn't take those courses. It was decided that there wasn't content in those courses that was fundamental to the following Civil courses. However, we still have to take Dynamics. Many civil engineers won't use the concepts of dynamics in their careers. However, some will.
5 - I know that those humanities and other general courses can feel unnecessary, but they really do play a role in making well-rounded engineers and leaders. It is a dangerous position to train people in technical aspects alone and expect them to be good communicators or ethical practitioners. I'm not saying you can't be a good communicator or an ethical person without those courses, but it is within our interests as a society and engineering community to do what we can to educate students in we well-rounded manner. There are "human factors" in the designs of civil engineers, and courses like psychology can help students to begin to think about why people do the things they do.
There is always room for improvement; I think many students, including science and math majors, would benefit from an improved incorporation of more realistic example application problems in class. But I think that we, as engineers, have to be careful to not downplay the importance of courses that give us a broader perspective and improve our ability to communicate and collaborate across disciplines, with governing agencies, and with the public. Our influence and growth as a civil engineering community is limited by our ability to convey information pertinent to public safety and welfare, advocate for ourselves, and collaborate with other adjacent fields of study.
------------------------------
Heidi C. Wallace, P.E., M.ASCE
Tulsa, OK
Original Message:
Sent: 10-28-2024 08:19 AM
From: Haydn Chambers
Subject: If You Ran the Zoo: What Would You Change about Engineering Education?
I recently read a really good article in the Structure newsletter about civil engineering education by Chris Cerino titled "Time to Revisit Engineering Education", and how there's a lot of "bloat", or general education classes, prerequisite classes (especially so), and other hurdles not just for civies like us, but for other engineering disciplines in higher education as well. I agreed wholly with the thesis and related heavily to it's themes as a frustrated student, and my question is, to educators, students, and professionals alike, what would you change about engineering education if you "ran the zoo", or could influence engineering education in a profound and long lasting way somehow?
One example I've seen is at my institution, Salt Lake Community College, there's a class called "Engineering Math Techniques" that teaches basic calculus with an emphasis on relevant ideas in multiple disciplines, but especially civil, because the professor teaching this semester is a structural engineer. Rather than focusing on theory, its a direct introduction to prospective students who pay for a cheaper education than a major university that might not offer an analogous course, and I would have taken this course instead of calculus I at the University of Utah and then transferring to SLCC.
Personally, If I ran the zoo, here's what I would do, even if I don't know if it's possible. I want to own my own firm one day, and I would use the capital and profit to start my own technical college (private or public) or similar institution that is ABET accredited, but simply teaches the science and math directly related to engineering, rather than focusing on the pure math theory or general chemistry and physics of civil engineering. I don't even know if this is possible to do without general education courses, but a frustrated undergraduate can dream, can't he?
I would greatly appreciate your thoughts and constructive critisisms. Yours trully,
------------------------------
Haydn Chambers S.M.ASCE
Salt Lake City UT
------------------------------