Discussion: View Thread

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,

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.

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,

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

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.

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,

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.

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,

Thank you for replying, Heidi. I really appreciate your feed and constructive criticism. I didn't even consider changing career paths as a valid reason for taking lower division pre-requisite courses, and I agree with your conclusion in that regard. I take it you wouldn't change much about education as is other than what specifically is taught in some classes? If that was not your implication, I would love for you to clarify. I look forward to your reply.

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.

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,

From my current perspective, I think one of the biggest potential growth areas for undergraduate programs is the electives being offered. I think additional elective choices would benefit students and allow them more ability to tailor their upper level coursework to what they are interested in. I also think that some of those elective courses are an opportunity for greater industry-university partnerships where practicing engineers contribute to the course being taught by a professor or one or more practicing engineers from industry fully teach the course.

I enjoyed some of the elective courses I took, but I know many of us had to take (and therefore pay for) one or more that we weren't really all that interested in, but there weren't many choices any given semester. I know the professors have a lot on their plates from the required coursework, and I think that's where leveraging those industry partnerships may be able to diversify the elective courses beyond the specific areas of interest/expertise of the professors.

I think another option that some universities leverage more than others is being able to choose a specific "track" that changes some of the required courses. For example, someone on an environmental-track within Civil wouldn't necessarily need steel design and could, instead, take another course on something like air quality. I think you have to be careful that you don't make them all so specialized that you lose the benefits of a broad civil engineering knowledge since there is so much overlap. We need to have a foundational understanding across sub-discipline lines, and we have to remember that some practicing civil engineers need to be generalists. Those of us in site development engineering, for example, routinely use water resources, hydrology/hydraulics, Geotech, structural, materials, construction management, etc. in performing our design calculations and interpreting data for projects.

Thank you for replying, Heidi. I really appreciate your feed and constructive criticism. I didn't even consider changing career paths as a valid reason for taking lower division pre-requisite courses, and I agree with your conclusion in that regard. I take it you wouldn't change much about education as is other than what specifically is taught in some classes? If that was not your implication, I would love for you to clarify. I look forward to your reply.

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.

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,

Thank you for replying, Heidi. I really appreciate your feed and constructive criticism. I didn't even consider changing career paths as a valid reason for taking lower division pre-requisite courses, and I agree with your conclusion in that regard. I take it you wouldn't change much about education as is other than what specifically is taught in some classes? If that was not your implication, I would love for you to clarify. I look forward to your reply.

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.

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,

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.

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,

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,

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,

The thing that separates degreed engineers from tech college engineers is the breadth of their education. Humanities courses help engineers function in the real world. You will need to give presentations, write articles and reports, work with architects, urban planners, and politicians. To do these things you need training in other subjects than engineering. You need speech, english, history, art history, foreign languages and other courses that reinforce those basics of logical processes, writing, and communicating.

None of us are just technicians and it is usually obvious when talking with other engineers who have slacked in some of those subjects other than engineering. They typically aren't the decision makers or leaders.

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,

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,

The thoughts expressed so far have been really excellent. I hope my noting some constraints won't be seen as a negative perspective, as regular reinvention of education is absolutely necessary. We just need to recognize where the pressure points are as we try to reinvent.

• First is the governing bodies. In addition to reduced budgets, state universities are under pressure to get students graduated faster. That has led to a reduction in faculty and hours required for graduation. Both result in fewer electives. I don't know how private schools are affected.
• Second is ABET. Standards are strict and a curriculum that I would design could never get accredited.
• Third is university culture. At the universities I am aware of, promotion and tenure are heavily weighted toward funded research (see reduced budgets above) and peer-reviewed publications. Teaching quality and quantity count, but not for much. That's awful and we all complain about it but it hasn't changed yet. I believe that this system benefits graduate education but diminishes undergraduate education at "research" universities.

My positive recommendation is to plan on life-long learning to include both grad study (full or part-time), OJT, short courses, conference attendance, and reading to fill the gaps and grow your expertise.

Bill Mc

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,

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,

All professors/teachers educating engineers must be licensed in their respective disciplines.  Teaching should constitute the practice of engineering and professors/teachers deemed to be in "responsible charge."

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,

All professors/teachers educating engineers must be licensed in their respective disciplines.  Teaching should constitute the practice of engineering and professors/teachers deemed to be in "responsible charge."

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,

I couldn't agree more with your first sentence. However, I disagree with the second because it negates the purpose of licensing. Academia is largely ignorant of actual practice and is taking over the whole process of education and licensure. At best, school teaches you HOW to do things, but not WHAT to do. I think new graduates are at most 50% of the way to the education they need (BS, MS or PhD). In content and in timing, the Principals and Practice test has become another academic exercise. Requiring real-world experience with un-structured problems, economic pressures and ethical dilemmas is the real post-graduate training needed. I would argue that licensure for professors is a good idea but I would not allow any time in academia, as a student or a professor, to count as "practice of engineering."

All professors/teachers educating engineers must be licensed in their respective disciplines.  Teaching should constitute the practice of engineering and professors/teachers deemed to be in "responsible charge."

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,

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,

This is an important topic that is not talked about enough. 
As an undergraduate, I know how many students like me struggled to grasp some civil engineering concepts, particularly in structural engineering. For the most part, the lack of relevant practical or onsite experience brought about this discord. It wasn't until the penultimate year and final year when we began to go for internships did we find it possible to tie the connection of the theories we had learned in class to the actual application in the real world.

If there was a thing I could change, it would be to introduce a system that encouraged or mandated students to begin having onsite experience from their sophomore year of study. And these visits will not be occasional but rather regular. Doing this will improve the understanding of basic civil engineering concepts and lead to the output of more sound engineers in the Civil Engineering profession.

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,

This is an important topic that is not talked about enough. 
As an undergraduate, I know how many students like me struggled to grasp some civil engineering concepts, particularly in structural engineering. For the most part, the lack of relevant practical or onsite experience brought about this discord. It wasn't until the penultimate year and final year when we began to go for internships did we find it possible to tie the connection of the theories we had learned in class to the actual application in the real world.

If there was a thing I could change, it would be to introduce a system that encouraged or mandated students to begin having onsite experience from their sophomore year of study. And these visits will not be occasional but rather regular. Doing this will improve the understanding of basic civil engineering concepts and lead to the output of more sound engineers in the Civil Engineering profession.

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,

Greatness,

One way to improve the issue of real-world connection to the classroom learning falls on us that are practicing to implement. We need to partner with the local colleges and universities to get students out to visit sites. I have led tours of cadets from The Citadel at our water treatment plant the last two years. This was an easy connection for me to make as it is my alma mater, but I am sure any engineering program would love do tours like this for all levels of their engineering students. An opportunity to see industrial operations, construction sites, and the like will only benefit the students and will also benefit us already in the working engineering world as they will come to us better prepared. 

We often forget that we are not just engineers designing the built world and managing the projects that bring them to completion, but we are educators. I rarely pass up an opportunity to educate others on our profession and industry, whether it is a group of children in my wife's 4th grade class (potential future engineers) or our customers. I think that is one of the things we as professionals don't always do well. 

This is an important topic that is not talked about enough. 
As an undergraduate, I know how many students like me struggled to grasp some civil engineering concepts, particularly in structural engineering. For the most part, the lack of relevant practical or onsite experience brought about this discord. It wasn't until the penultimate year and final year when we began to go for internships did we find it possible to tie the connection of the theories we had learned in class to the actual application in the real world.

If there was a thing I could change, it would be to introduce a system that encouraged or mandated students to begin having onsite experience from their sophomore year of study. And these visits will not be occasional but rather regular. Doing this will improve the understanding of basic civil engineering concepts and lead to the output of more sound engineers in the Civil Engineering profession.

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,

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,

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,

I understand your frustration, Haydn.  I have been there too as have most of us engineers, whether civil or another discipline.  While you are working on beginning your career, I am at the other end of things.  I retired in 2017 after a career spent in private practice.

Professor McAnally's posts about the challenges universities face in dealing with pressure from governing bodies to get the students out quicker is from the "other side" of the equation.  And it seems some more experienced engineers feel graduating students are not well prepared for entering into the work force, maybe even being armed with only 50% or so of the knowledge needed.  There are a lot of moving parts to engineering education.

It is pretty easy when a student is struggling to make financial ends meet why they might feel some of the courses they are required to take for graduation are just holding them back from getting on with their goal of getting out of school and starting to reap some of the rewards of all their hard work.  One thing I personally did not fully understand back in the dinosaur age when I was a student and trying to live on what little money I had, was what a heavy responsibility engineers have.  The average Joe (i.e. the public) and even us engineers have an expectation that when we walk in a high rise building, flush our toilets, drive our vehicles, get on an elevator, operate our appliances, etc., etc., that these things will meet our expectations, we will be safe and can go home to our families to enjoy the fruits of our labors.  Educating engineers responsible for a large part of all of these things is a heavy responsibility, not understood by most people in government advocating for getting engineers out the door quicker (and cheaper) nor by the poor student just trying to muddle through.  While engineering students should expect value out of their education, it really isn't just (or maybe even mostly) about money.  

Based on my experience gained from a lot of years spent working, supervising new graduates (and some engineers not so new), and accepting responsibility for the work they are doing, cutting back on educational requirements is not a good idea.  In fact (and I know this won't be popular), I have long felt engineering education should require a preparatory undergraduate degree focused on the sciences followed up by a professional engineering school.  If I ran the zoo, that is the change I would make. 

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,

I understand your frustration, Haydn.  I have been there too as have most of us engineers, whether civil or another discipline.  While you are working on beginning your career, I am at the other end of things.  I retired in 2017 after a career spent in private practice.

Professor McAnally's posts about the challenges universities face in dealing with pressure from governing bodies to get the students out quicker is from the "other side" of the equation.  And it seems some more experienced engineers feel graduating students are not well prepared for entering into the work force, maybe even being armed with only 50% or so of the knowledge needed.  There are a lot of moving parts to engineering education.

It is pretty easy when a student is struggling to make financial ends meet why they might feel some of the courses they are required to take for graduation are just holding them back from getting on with their goal of getting out of school and starting to reap some of the rewards of all their hard work.  One thing I personally did not fully understand back in the dinosaur age when I was a student and trying to live on what little money I had, was what a heavy responsibility engineers have.  The average Joe (i.e. the public) and even us engineers have an expectation that when we walk in a high rise building, flush our toilets, drive our vehicles, get on an elevator, operate our appliances, etc., etc., that these things will meet our expectations, we will be safe and can go home to our families to enjoy the fruits of our labors.  Educating engineers responsible for a large part of all of these things is a heavy responsibility, not understood by most people in government advocating for getting engineers out the door quicker (and cheaper) nor by the poor student just trying to muddle through.  While engineering students should expect value out of their education, it really isn't just (or maybe even mostly) about money.  

Based on my experience gained from a lot of years spent working, supervising new graduates (and some engineers not so new), and accepting responsibility for the work they are doing, cutting back on educational requirements is not a good idea.  In fact (and I know this won't be popular), I have long felt engineering education should require a preparatory undergraduate degree focused on the sciences followed up by a professional engineering school.  If I ran the zoo, that is the change I would make. 

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,

I will provide my opinion on course requirements for graduation. I am a semi-retired engineering professor. I have taught for over forty years in engineering and surveying. I have practiced engineering, surveying, and law.

There are two sources of pressure that combine to reduce the engineering content required for graduation with an engineering degree. First, there is pressure from university administration to keep the graduation credit requirements low (e.g., 120 credits) so students can realistically expect to graduate in four years. Second, there is pressure to inject more 'general education' courses into engineering to produce a 'well-rounded' engineering student. As a result of these pressures, many engineering programs no longer have any flexibility in engineering course offerings. In some programs, there are no longer any free credits to explore engineering topics not deemed absolutely necessary for graduation in a particular discipline.

I will comment on general education within an engineering program. My university (and other universities) require 18 credits of general education. General education require students take courses focused on topics in the areas of: artistic and creative expressions, population and the environment, western culture, cultural diversity, and social contexts. (I will let the reader imagine some of the courses that have been approved that will meet these topic requirements.) I will give one example of a course. There is a three-credit course on 'music appreciation' that will meet the artistic and creative expression category. I have to ask: Is there any reason to have young adults take a three-credit course to appreciate music? (Many don't remove the music-playing ipods from their ears even while in class.) 

As part of ABET requirements for continuing improvement, engineering programs send surveys to graduates (3 and 10 years after graduation) and their employers. Part of the survey asks participants to evaluate the courses the graduate took and what courses the graduate wish they had taken. I have looked at hundreds of these surveys. I cannot remember a single returned survey that extoled their general education courses. The vast majority thought these courses a waste of money and time. (On a side note, many employers and graduates wanted more writing and communication courses.)

My opinion is that the content of many of the topic courses meeting general education requirements should have been taught in high school to provide a more 'well rounded' citizen. In other cases, I find any application of the course to engineering practice difficult to comprehend (e.g., a course on Human Sexuality). Attempts to obtain credit for general education in an engineering course (e.g., LEED for population and the environment requirements) meets considerable resistance from faculty outside of engineering. As engineering faculty, we often joke that general education requirements are necessary for full employment and relevancy of liberal arts faculty. We joke that rather than general education requirements providing a well-rounded engineering student, the extent and number of basic courses (English, Speech, etc.) coupled with general education requirements appear to provide a liberal (i.e., broad learning) education with a focus on engineering familiarity.

There are many aspects of my missive that can be expanded. I will end my comments for some attempt at brevity.

I understand your frustration, Haydn.  I have been there too as have most of us engineers, whether civil or another discipline.  While you are working on beginning your career, I am at the other end of things.  I retired in 2017 after a career spent in private practice.

Professor McAnally's posts about the challenges universities face in dealing with pressure from governing bodies to get the students out quicker is from the "other side" of the equation.  And it seems some more experienced engineers feel graduating students are not well prepared for entering into the work force, maybe even being armed with only 50% or so of the knowledge needed.  There are a lot of moving parts to engineering education.

It is pretty easy when a student is struggling to make financial ends meet why they might feel some of the courses they are required to take for graduation are just holding them back from getting on with their goal of getting out of school and starting to reap some of the rewards of all their hard work.  One thing I personally did not fully understand back in the dinosaur age when I was a student and trying to live on what little money I had, was what a heavy responsibility engineers have.  The average Joe (i.e. the public) and even us engineers have an expectation that when we walk in a high rise building, flush our toilets, drive our vehicles, get on an elevator, operate our appliances, etc., etc., that these things will meet our expectations, we will be safe and can go home to our families to enjoy the fruits of our labors.  Educating engineers responsible for a large part of all of these things is a heavy responsibility, not understood by most people in government advocating for getting engineers out the door quicker (and cheaper) nor by the poor student just trying to muddle through.  While engineering students should expect value out of their education, it really isn't just (or maybe even mostly) about money.  

Based on my experience gained from a lot of years spent working, supervising new graduates (and some engineers not so new), and accepting responsibility for the work they are doing, cutting back on educational requirements is not a good idea.  In fact (and I know this won't be popular), I have long felt engineering education should require a preparatory undergraduate degree focused on the sciences followed up by a professional engineering school.  If I ran the zoo, that is the change I would make. 

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,

It is great to see your opinion, Knud – bringing-in your long and valuable experience in educating the future engineers. The topic has created quite a stir among practicing engineers. Discussers participated in at least three or more threads on the topic of Engineering Education or similar.

Discussions made it apparent that – there are no shortages of pressures, constraints, causes and conditions – with knots after knots making things complicated.

Yet, the desire to untangle the knots – somewhat like, ordinary folks trying to do extraordinary things drives efforts forward – because Engineering is far from static, for it is essentially a creative profession. As some discussions made it clear – a new and evolving boundary condition(s) is upon us in the 21^st century – the internet and AI – that will continue to dictate many things in the future (more in Artificial Intelligence).

The challenge is to find a way – that has the power to ride over and address the complications – by screening and narrowing down choices and options without falling prey to the complicated baggage attached. Too much attachment to complications can deceive and derail the efforts to finding something acceptable to all pressure groups – therefore, the rationality of simplicity.

We, the engineers are masters of approximations and reasonable assumptions – e.g. we turn the elaborate hydraulic process-based models simpler – to the extent of finding easily understandable simple behavioral model (more in Water Modeling).

* * *

Agreeing with you, in my opinion some of the choice-courses you mentioned in imparting a 'general education' were not very thoughtful, perhaps. In addition to what have been discussed in different threads on some possible course materials to give a solid foundation to graduating engineers, your observation – many employers and graduates wanted more writing and communication courses – make sense to me. Of course, as mentioned earlier, they need careful selection process and screening.

On writing, my experience tells me that most practicing engineers are either incapable of – or reluctant to write beyond a short memo. Not to speak of creative writing, even good technical writing itself is not something easy to master, it needs lots of practice. And, writing from 1^st draft to editing/re-editing to finalizing – consume time and mental energy.

As I see it, there are at least four aspects to it. The first is lack of training in imparting a writing foundational skill during the college days. The second, there is sort of a fear of legal implications as engineering is a highly regulated profession – with each written word and sentence (for that matter any form of communication) getting brutally scrutinized by legal profession – if things roll down to that level. The third is probably motivated by business interests – that unless required by contractual obligation, divulging too much information may strengthen the competition. The last but not the least is the billability of time spent.

Many might have similar experiences, as for myself, most of my experiences were scientific in nature – that ask for scientific and technical writing – and my employers expected that quality of me. I tried to fulfill that obligation. I did not have any formal writing training, but having a Ph.D. – makes writing imperative. Apart from that – whatever my skill is, some cultivation on my own interest was of great help – as, it occurs to me writing helps one to systematize one's thought processes, concepts and methods – at the same time expanding the horizon of knowledge.

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

I will provide my opinion on course requirements for graduation. I am a semi-retired engineering professor. I have taught for over forty years in engineering and surveying. I have practiced engineering, surveying, and law.

There are two sources of pressure that combine to reduce the engineering content required for graduation with an engineering degree. First, there is pressure from university administration to keep the graduation credit requirements low (e.g., 120 credits) so students can realistically expect to graduate in four years. Second, there is pressure to inject more 'general education' courses into engineering to produce a 'well-rounded' engineering student. As a result of these pressures, many engineering programs no longer have any flexibility in engineering course offerings. In some programs, there are no longer any free credits to explore engineering topics not deemed absolutely necessary for graduation in a particular discipline.

I will comment on general education within an engineering program. My university (and other universities) require 18 credits of general education. General education require students take courses focused on topics in the areas of: artistic and creative expressions, population and the environment, western culture, cultural diversity, and social contexts. (I will let the reader imagine some of the courses that have been approved that will meet these topic requirements.) I will give one example of a course. There is a three-credit course on 'music appreciation' that will meet the artistic and creative expression category. I have to ask: Is there any reason to have young adults take a three-credit course to appreciate music? (Many don't remove the music-playing ipods from their ears even while in class.) 

As part of ABET requirements for continuing improvement, engineering programs send surveys to graduates (3 and 10 years after graduation) and their employers. Part of the survey asks participants to evaluate the courses the graduate took and what courses the graduate wish they had taken. I have looked at hundreds of these surveys. I cannot remember a single returned survey that extoled their general education courses. The vast majority thought these courses a waste of money and time. (On a side note, many employers and graduates wanted more writing and communication courses.)

My opinion is that the content of many of the topic courses meeting general education requirements should have been taught in high school to provide a more 'well rounded' citizen. In other cases, I find any application of the course to engineering practice difficult to comprehend (e.g., a course on Human Sexuality). Attempts to obtain credit for general education in an engineering course (e.g., LEED for population and the environment requirements) meets considerable resistance from faculty outside of engineering. As engineering faculty, we often joke that general education requirements are necessary for full employment and relevancy of liberal arts faculty. We joke that rather than general education requirements providing a well-rounded engineering student, the extent and number of basic courses (English, Speech, etc.) coupled with general education requirements appear to provide a liberal (i.e., broad learning) education with a focus on engineering familiarity.

There are many aspects of my missive that can be expanded. I will end my comments for some attempt at brevity.

I understand your frustration, Haydn.  I have been there too as have most of us engineers, whether civil or another discipline.  While you are working on beginning your career, I am at the other end of things.  I retired in 2017 after a career spent in private practice.

Professor McAnally's posts about the challenges universities face in dealing with pressure from governing bodies to get the students out quicker is from the "other side" of the equation.  And it seems some more experienced engineers feel graduating students are not well prepared for entering into the work force, maybe even being armed with only 50% or so of the knowledge needed.  There are a lot of moving parts to engineering education.

It is pretty easy when a student is struggling to make financial ends meet why they might feel some of the courses they are required to take for graduation are just holding them back from getting on with their goal of getting out of school and starting to reap some of the rewards of all their hard work.  One thing I personally did not fully understand back in the dinosaur age when I was a student and trying to live on what little money I had, was what a heavy responsibility engineers have.  The average Joe (i.e. the public) and even us engineers have an expectation that when we walk in a high rise building, flush our toilets, drive our vehicles, get on an elevator, operate our appliances, etc., etc., that these things will meet our expectations, we will be safe and can go home to our families to enjoy the fruits of our labors.  Educating engineers responsible for a large part of all of these things is a heavy responsibility, not understood by most people in government advocating for getting engineers out the door quicker (and cheaper) nor by the poor student just trying to muddle through.  While engineering students should expect value out of their education, it really isn't just (or maybe even mostly) about money.  

Based on my experience gained from a lot of years spent working, supervising new graduates (and some engineers not so new), and accepting responsibility for the work they are doing, cutting back on educational requirements is not a good idea.  In fact (and I know this won't be popular), I have long felt engineering education should require a preparatory undergraduate degree focused on the sciences followed up by a professional engineering school.  If I ran the zoo, that is the change I would make. 

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,

I agree wholeheartedly Dilip! Engineers need to know writing to communicate their designs to the public in a way that's digestible for non-engineers and the like. The University of Utah actually has an upper division writing requirement for all civil engineering majors, and I'm sure other universities do, too.

It is great to see your opinion, Knud – bringing-in your long and valuable experience in educating the future engineers. The topic has created quite a stir among practicing engineers. Discussers participated in at least three or more threads on the topic of Engineering Education or similar.

Discussions made it apparent that – there are no shortages of pressures, constraints, causes and conditions – with knots after knots making things complicated.

Yet, the desire to untangle the knots – somewhat like, ordinary folks trying to do extraordinary things drives efforts forward – because Engineering is far from static, for it is essentially a creative profession. As some discussions made it clear – a new and evolving boundary condition(s) is upon us in the 21^st century – the internet and AI – that will continue to dictate many things in the future (more in Artificial Intelligence).

The challenge is to find a way – that has the power to ride over and address the complications – by screening and narrowing down choices and options without falling prey to the complicated baggage attached. Too much attachment to complications can deceive and derail the efforts to finding something acceptable to all pressure groups – therefore, the rationality of simplicity.

We, the engineers are masters of approximations and reasonable assumptions – e.g. we turn the elaborate hydraulic process-based models simpler – to the extent of finding easily understandable simple behavioral model (more in Water Modeling).

* * *

Agreeing with you, in my opinion some of the choice-courses you mentioned in imparting a 'general education' were not very thoughtful, perhaps. In addition to what have been discussed in different threads on some possible course materials to give a solid foundation to graduating engineers, your observation – many employers and graduates wanted more writing and communication courses – make sense to me. Of course, as mentioned earlier, they need careful selection process and screening.

On writing, my experience tells me that most practicing engineers are either incapable of – or reluctant to write beyond a short memo. Not to speak of creative writing, even good technical writing itself is not something easy to master, it needs lots of practice. And, writing from 1^st draft to editing/re-editing to finalizing – consume time and mental energy.

As I see it, there are at least four aspects to it. The first is lack of training in imparting a writing foundational skill during the college days. The second, there is sort of a fear of legal implications as engineering is a highly regulated profession – with each written word and sentence (for that matter any form of communication) getting brutally scrutinized by legal profession – if things roll down to that level. The third is probably motivated by business interests – that unless required by contractual obligation, divulging too much information may strengthen the competition. The last but not the least is the billability of time spent.

Many might have similar experiences, as for myself, most of my experiences were scientific in nature – that ask for scientific and technical writing – and my employers expected that quality of me. I tried to fulfill that obligation. I did not have any formal writing training, but having a Ph.D. – makes writing imperative. Apart from that – whatever my skill is, some cultivation on my own interest was of great help – as, it occurs to me writing helps one to systematize one's thought processes, concepts and methods – at the same time expanding the horizon of knowledge.

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

I will provide my opinion on course requirements for graduation. I am a semi-retired engineering professor. I have taught for over forty years in engineering and surveying. I have practiced engineering, surveying, and law.

There are two sources of pressure that combine to reduce the engineering content required for graduation with an engineering degree. First, there is pressure from university administration to keep the graduation credit requirements low (e.g., 120 credits) so students can realistically expect to graduate in four years. Second, there is pressure to inject more 'general education' courses into engineering to produce a 'well-rounded' engineering student. As a result of these pressures, many engineering programs no longer have any flexibility in engineering course offerings. In some programs, there are no longer any free credits to explore engineering topics not deemed absolutely necessary for graduation in a particular discipline.

I will comment on general education within an engineering program. My university (and other universities) require 18 credits of general education. General education require students take courses focused on topics in the areas of: artistic and creative expressions, population and the environment, western culture, cultural diversity, and social contexts. (I will let the reader imagine some of the courses that have been approved that will meet these topic requirements.) I will give one example of a course. There is a three-credit course on 'music appreciation' that will meet the artistic and creative expression category. I have to ask: Is there any reason to have young adults take a three-credit course to appreciate music? (Many don't remove the music-playing ipods from their ears even while in class.) 

As part of ABET requirements for continuing improvement, engineering programs send surveys to graduates (3 and 10 years after graduation) and their employers. Part of the survey asks participants to evaluate the courses the graduate took and what courses the graduate wish they had taken. I have looked at hundreds of these surveys. I cannot remember a single returned survey that extoled their general education courses. The vast majority thought these courses a waste of money and time. (On a side note, many employers and graduates wanted more writing and communication courses.)

My opinion is that the content of many of the topic courses meeting general education requirements should have been taught in high school to provide a more 'well rounded' citizen. In other cases, I find any application of the course to engineering practice difficult to comprehend (e.g., a course on Human Sexuality). Attempts to obtain credit for general education in an engineering course (e.g., LEED for population and the environment requirements) meets considerable resistance from faculty outside of engineering. As engineering faculty, we often joke that general education requirements are necessary for full employment and relevancy of liberal arts faculty. We joke that rather than general education requirements providing a well-rounded engineering student, the extent and number of basic courses (English, Speech, etc.) coupled with general education requirements appear to provide a liberal (i.e., broad learning) education with a focus on engineering familiarity.

There are many aspects of my missive that can be expanded. I will end my comments for some attempt at brevity.

I understand your frustration, Haydn.  I have been there too as have most of us engineers, whether civil or another discipline.  While you are working on beginning your career, I am at the other end of things.  I retired in 2017 after a career spent in private practice.

Professor McAnally's posts about the challenges universities face in dealing with pressure from governing bodies to get the students out quicker is from the "other side" of the equation.  And it seems some more experienced engineers feel graduating students are not well prepared for entering into the work force, maybe even being armed with only 50% or so of the knowledge needed.  There are a lot of moving parts to engineering education.

It is pretty easy when a student is struggling to make financial ends meet why they might feel some of the courses they are required to take for graduation are just holding them back from getting on with their goal of getting out of school and starting to reap some of the rewards of all their hard work.  One thing I personally did not fully understand back in the dinosaur age when I was a student and trying to live on what little money I had, was what a heavy responsibility engineers have.  The average Joe (i.e. the public) and even us engineers have an expectation that when we walk in a high rise building, flush our toilets, drive our vehicles, get on an elevator, operate our appliances, etc., etc., that these things will meet our expectations, we will be safe and can go home to our families to enjoy the fruits of our labors.  Educating engineers responsible for a large part of all of these things is a heavy responsibility, not understood by most people in government advocating for getting engineers out the door quicker (and cheaper) nor by the poor student just trying to muddle through.  While engineering students should expect value out of their education, it really isn't just (or maybe even mostly) about money.  

Based on my experience gained from a lot of years spent working, supervising new graduates (and some engineers not so new), and accepting responsibility for the work they are doing, cutting back on educational requirements is not a good idea.  In fact (and I know this won't be popular), I have long felt engineering education should require a preparatory undergraduate degree focused on the sciences followed up by a professional engineering school.  If I ran the zoo, that is the change I would make. 

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,

I will comment on communication courses in engineering that I have wrestled with as an engineering educator.  I believe engineers and surveyors need a 'business' writing course within an engineering program.  Every practitioner I know spends hours a week corresponding - often through writing. Unfortunately, English faculty employed at a university designated to teach undergraduate writing to engineers often lack experience in business and corresponding in business. There are seldom English faculty qualified to teach a business writing course. At the universities where I have taught, a review of the resume of English professors generally follows a common pattern of B.A. in English, two years of non-related English work, followed by returning to college, M.A. in English immediately followed by a Ph.D. in English with study and concentrations in areas such as literature, fiction writing, poetry, medieval writing, etc. In other words, university English faculty have no experience or education in the critical area of business correspondence. Engineers reading this response know business writing should be concise, focused, organized, and responsive. The writing bears little resemblance to the writing experience of English faculty.

On the topics of speech communications, I have advocated for a more confrontational focus in an advanced speech course. While engineers and surveyors may be asked to speak at conferences and civic organizations, their 'bread-and-butter' speaking is often at planning boards, business meetings, and business advocacy meetings (selling the firm or project).  As practitioners know, speaking at these events involve give-and-take, quick responses, and even heated confrontations from the audience or board members. There are two programs that I believe do an excellent job in confrontational speaking – ROTC/NROTC/AFROTC and law. Their courses are taught by practitioners experienced in confrontational speaking.

I agree wholeheartedly Dilip! Engineers need to know writing to communicate their designs to the public in a way that's digestible for non-engineers and the like. The University of Utah actually has an upper division writing requirement for all civil engineering majors, and I'm sure other universities do, too.

It is great to see your opinion, Knud – bringing-in your long and valuable experience in educating the future engineers. The topic has created quite a stir among practicing engineers. Discussers participated in at least three or more threads on the topic of Engineering Education or similar.

Discussions made it apparent that – there are no shortages of pressures, constraints, causes and conditions – with knots after knots making things complicated.

Yet, the desire to untangle the knots – somewhat like, ordinary folks trying to do extraordinary things drives efforts forward – because Engineering is far from static, for it is essentially a creative profession. As some discussions made it clear – a new and evolving boundary condition(s) is upon us in the 21^st century – the internet and AI – that will continue to dictate many things in the future (more in Artificial Intelligence).

The challenge is to find a way – that has the power to ride over and address the complications – by screening and narrowing down choices and options without falling prey to the complicated baggage attached. Too much attachment to complications can deceive and derail the efforts to finding something acceptable to all pressure groups – therefore, the rationality of simplicity.

We, the engineers are masters of approximations and reasonable assumptions – e.g. we turn the elaborate hydraulic process-based models simpler – to the extent of finding easily understandable simple behavioral model (more in Water Modeling).

* * *

Agreeing with you, in my opinion some of the choice-courses you mentioned in imparting a 'general education' were not very thoughtful, perhaps. In addition to what have been discussed in different threads on some possible course materials to give a solid foundation to graduating engineers, your observation – many employers and graduates wanted more writing and communication courses – make sense to me. Of course, as mentioned earlier, they need careful selection process and screening.

On writing, my experience tells me that most practicing engineers are either incapable of – or reluctant to write beyond a short memo. Not to speak of creative writing, even good technical writing itself is not something easy to master, it needs lots of practice. And, writing from 1^st draft to editing/re-editing to finalizing – consume time and mental energy.

As I see it, there are at least four aspects to it. The first is lack of training in imparting a writing foundational skill during the college days. The second, there is sort of a fear of legal implications as engineering is a highly regulated profession – with each written word and sentence (for that matter any form of communication) getting brutally scrutinized by legal profession – if things roll down to that level. The third is probably motivated by business interests – that unless required by contractual obligation, divulging too much information may strengthen the competition. The last but not the least is the billability of time spent.

Many might have similar experiences, as for myself, most of my experiences were scientific in nature – that ask for scientific and technical writing – and my employers expected that quality of me. I tried to fulfill that obligation. I did not have any formal writing training, but having a Ph.D. – makes writing imperative. Apart from that – whatever my skill is, some cultivation on my own interest was of great help – as, it occurs to me writing helps one to systematize one's thought processes, concepts and methods – at the same time expanding the horizon of knowledge.

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

I will provide my opinion on course requirements for graduation. I am a semi-retired engineering professor. I have taught for over forty years in engineering and surveying. I have practiced engineering, surveying, and law.

There are two sources of pressure that combine to reduce the engineering content required for graduation with an engineering degree. First, there is pressure from university administration to keep the graduation credit requirements low (e.g., 120 credits) so students can realistically expect to graduate in four years. Second, there is pressure to inject more 'general education' courses into engineering to produce a 'well-rounded' engineering student. As a result of these pressures, many engineering programs no longer have any flexibility in engineering course offerings. In some programs, there are no longer any free credits to explore engineering topics not deemed absolutely necessary for graduation in a particular discipline.

I will comment on general education within an engineering program. My university (and other universities) require 18 credits of general education. General education require students take courses focused on topics in the areas of: artistic and creative expressions, population and the environment, western culture, cultural diversity, and social contexts. (I will let the reader imagine some of the courses that have been approved that will meet these topic requirements.) I will give one example of a course. There is a three-credit course on 'music appreciation' that will meet the artistic and creative expression category. I have to ask: Is there any reason to have young adults take a three-credit course to appreciate music? (Many don't remove the music-playing ipods from their ears even while in class.) 

As part of ABET requirements for continuing improvement, engineering programs send surveys to graduates (3 and 10 years after graduation) and their employers. Part of the survey asks participants to evaluate the courses the graduate took and what courses the graduate wish they had taken. I have looked at hundreds of these surveys. I cannot remember a single returned survey that extoled their general education courses. The vast majority thought these courses a waste of money and time. (On a side note, many employers and graduates wanted more writing and communication courses.)

My opinion is that the content of many of the topic courses meeting general education requirements should have been taught in high school to provide a more 'well rounded' citizen. In other cases, I find any application of the course to engineering practice difficult to comprehend (e.g., a course on Human Sexuality). Attempts to obtain credit for general education in an engineering course (e.g., LEED for population and the environment requirements) meets considerable resistance from faculty outside of engineering. As engineering faculty, we often joke that general education requirements are necessary for full employment and relevancy of liberal arts faculty. We joke that rather than general education requirements providing a well-rounded engineering student, the extent and number of basic courses (English, Speech, etc.) coupled with general education requirements appear to provide a liberal (i.e., broad learning) education with a focus on engineering familiarity.

There are many aspects of my missive that can be expanded. I will end my comments for some attempt at brevity.

I understand your frustration, Haydn.  I have been there too as have most of us engineers, whether civil or another discipline.  While you are working on beginning your career, I am at the other end of things.  I retired in 2017 after a career spent in private practice.

Professor McAnally's posts about the challenges universities face in dealing with pressure from governing bodies to get the students out quicker is from the "other side" of the equation.  And it seems some more experienced engineers feel graduating students are not well prepared for entering into the work force, maybe even being armed with only 50% or so of the knowledge needed.  There are a lot of moving parts to engineering education.

It is pretty easy when a student is struggling to make financial ends meet why they might feel some of the courses they are required to take for graduation are just holding them back from getting on with their goal of getting out of school and starting to reap some of the rewards of all their hard work.  One thing I personally did not fully understand back in the dinosaur age when I was a student and trying to live on what little money I had, was what a heavy responsibility engineers have.  The average Joe (i.e. the public) and even us engineers have an expectation that when we walk in a high rise building, flush our toilets, drive our vehicles, get on an elevator, operate our appliances, etc., etc., that these things will meet our expectations, we will be safe and can go home to our families to enjoy the fruits of our labors.  Educating engineers responsible for a large part of all of these things is a heavy responsibility, not understood by most people in government advocating for getting engineers out the door quicker (and cheaper) nor by the poor student just trying to muddle through.  While engineering students should expect value out of their education, it really isn't just (or maybe even mostly) about money.  

Based on my experience gained from a lot of years spent working, supervising new graduates (and some engineers not so new), and accepting responsibility for the work they are doing, cutting back on educational requirements is not a good idea.  In fact (and I know this won't be popular), I have long felt engineering education should require a preparatory undergraduate degree focused on the sciences followed up by a professional engineering school.  If I ran the zoo, that is the change I would make. 

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,

I will comment on communication courses in engineering that I have wrestled with as an engineering educator.  I believe engineers and surveyors need a 'business' writing course within an engineering program.  Every practitioner I know spends hours a week corresponding - often through writing. Unfortunately, English faculty employed at a university designated to teach undergraduate writing to engineers often lack experience in business and corresponding in business. There are seldom English faculty qualified to teach a business writing course. At the universities where I have taught, a review of the resume of English professors generally follows a common pattern of B.A. in English, two years of non-related English work, followed by returning to college, M.A. in English immediately followed by a Ph.D. in English with study and concentrations in areas such as literature, fiction writing, poetry, medieval writing, etc. In other words, university English faculty have no experience or education in the critical area of business correspondence. Engineers reading this response know business writing should be concise, focused, organized, and responsive. The writing bears little resemblance to the writing experience of English faculty.

On the topics of speech communications, I have advocated for a more confrontational focus in an advanced speech course. While engineers and surveyors may be asked to speak at conferences and civic organizations, their 'bread-and-butter' speaking is often at planning boards, business meetings, and business advocacy meetings (selling the firm or project).  As practitioners know, speaking at these events involve give-and-take, quick responses, and even heated confrontations from the audience or board members. There are two programs that I believe do an excellent job in confrontational speaking – ROTC/NROTC/AFROTC and law. Their courses are taught by practitioners experienced in confrontational speaking.

I agree wholeheartedly Dilip! Engineers need to know writing to communicate their designs to the public in a way that's digestible for non-engineers and the like. The University of Utah actually has an upper division writing requirement for all civil engineering majors, and I'm sure other universities do, too.

It is great to see your opinion, Knud – bringing-in your long and valuable experience in educating the future engineers. The topic has created quite a stir among practicing engineers. Discussers participated in at least three or more threads on the topic of Engineering Education or similar.

Discussions made it apparent that – there are no shortages of pressures, constraints, causes and conditions – with knots after knots making things complicated.

Yet, the desire to untangle the knots – somewhat like, ordinary folks trying to do extraordinary things drives efforts forward – because Engineering is far from static, for it is essentially a creative profession. As some discussions made it clear – a new and evolving boundary condition(s) is upon us in the 21^st century – the internet and AI – that will continue to dictate many things in the future (more in Artificial Intelligence).

The challenge is to find a way – that has the power to ride over and address the complications – by screening and narrowing down choices and options without falling prey to the complicated baggage attached. Too much attachment to complications can deceive and derail the efforts to finding something acceptable to all pressure groups – therefore, the rationality of simplicity.

We, the engineers are masters of approximations and reasonable assumptions – e.g. we turn the elaborate hydraulic process-based models simpler – to the extent of finding easily understandable simple behavioral model (more in Water Modeling).

* * *

Agreeing with you, in my opinion some of the choice-courses you mentioned in imparting a 'general education' were not very thoughtful, perhaps. In addition to what have been discussed in different threads on some possible course materials to give a solid foundation to graduating engineers, your observation – many employers and graduates wanted more writing and communication courses – make sense to me. Of course, as mentioned earlier, they need careful selection process and screening.

On writing, my experience tells me that most practicing engineers are either incapable of – or reluctant to write beyond a short memo. Not to speak of creative writing, even good technical writing itself is not something easy to master, it needs lots of practice. And, writing from 1^st draft to editing/re-editing to finalizing – consume time and mental energy.

As I see it, there are at least four aspects to it. The first is lack of training in imparting a writing foundational skill during the college days. The second, there is sort of a fear of legal implications as engineering is a highly regulated profession – with each written word and sentence (for that matter any form of communication) getting brutally scrutinized by legal profession – if things roll down to that level. The third is probably motivated by business interests – that unless required by contractual obligation, divulging too much information may strengthen the competition. The last but not the least is the billability of time spent.

Many might have similar experiences, as for myself, most of my experiences were scientific in nature – that ask for scientific and technical writing – and my employers expected that quality of me. I tried to fulfill that obligation. I did not have any formal writing training, but having a Ph.D. – makes writing imperative. Apart from that – whatever my skill is, some cultivation on my own interest was of great help – as, it occurs to me writing helps one to systematize one's thought processes, concepts and methods – at the same time expanding the horizon of knowledge.

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

I will provide my opinion on course requirements for graduation. I am a semi-retired engineering professor. I have taught for over forty years in engineering and surveying. I have practiced engineering, surveying, and law.

There are two sources of pressure that combine to reduce the engineering content required for graduation with an engineering degree. First, there is pressure from university administration to keep the graduation credit requirements low (e.g., 120 credits) so students can realistically expect to graduate in four years. Second, there is pressure to inject more 'general education' courses into engineering to produce a 'well-rounded' engineering student. As a result of these pressures, many engineering programs no longer have any flexibility in engineering course offerings. In some programs, there are no longer any free credits to explore engineering topics not deemed absolutely necessary for graduation in a particular discipline.

I will comment on general education within an engineering program. My university (and other universities) require 18 credits of general education. General education require students take courses focused on topics in the areas of: artistic and creative expressions, population and the environment, western culture, cultural diversity, and social contexts. (I will let the reader imagine some of the courses that have been approved that will meet these topic requirements.) I will give one example of a course. There is a three-credit course on 'music appreciation' that will meet the artistic and creative expression category. I have to ask: Is there any reason to have young adults take a three-credit course to appreciate music? (Many don't remove the music-playing ipods from their ears even while in class.) 

As part of ABET requirements for continuing improvement, engineering programs send surveys to graduates (3 and 10 years after graduation) and their employers. Part of the survey asks participants to evaluate the courses the graduate took and what courses the graduate wish they had taken. I have looked at hundreds of these surveys. I cannot remember a single returned survey that extoled their general education courses. The vast majority thought these courses a waste of money and time. (On a side note, many employers and graduates wanted more writing and communication courses.)

My opinion is that the content of many of the topic courses meeting general education requirements should have been taught in high school to provide a more 'well rounded' citizen. In other cases, I find any application of the course to engineering practice difficult to comprehend (e.g., a course on Human Sexuality). Attempts to obtain credit for general education in an engineering course (e.g., LEED for population and the environment requirements) meets considerable resistance from faculty outside of engineering. As engineering faculty, we often joke that general education requirements are necessary for full employment and relevancy of liberal arts faculty. We joke that rather than general education requirements providing a well-rounded engineering student, the extent and number of basic courses (English, Speech, etc.) coupled with general education requirements appear to provide a liberal (i.e., broad learning) education with a focus on engineering familiarity.

There are many aspects of my missive that can be expanded. I will end my comments for some attempt at brevity.

I understand your frustration, Haydn.  I have been there too as have most of us engineers, whether civil or another discipline.  While you are working on beginning your career, I am at the other end of things.  I retired in 2017 after a career spent in private practice.

Professor McAnally's posts about the challenges universities face in dealing with pressure from governing bodies to get the students out quicker is from the "other side" of the equation.  And it seems some more experienced engineers feel graduating students are not well prepared for entering into the work force, maybe even being armed with only 50% or so of the knowledge needed.  There are a lot of moving parts to engineering education.

It is pretty easy when a student is struggling to make financial ends meet why they might feel some of the courses they are required to take for graduation are just holding them back from getting on with their goal of getting out of school and starting to reap some of the rewards of all their hard work.  One thing I personally did not fully understand back in the dinosaur age when I was a student and trying to live on what little money I had, was what a heavy responsibility engineers have.  The average Joe (i.e. the public) and even us engineers have an expectation that when we walk in a high rise building, flush our toilets, drive our vehicles, get on an elevator, operate our appliances, etc., etc., that these things will meet our expectations, we will be safe and can go home to our families to enjoy the fruits of our labors.  Educating engineers responsible for a large part of all of these things is a heavy responsibility, not understood by most people in government advocating for getting engineers out the door quicker (and cheaper) nor by the poor student just trying to muddle through.  While engineering students should expect value out of their education, it really isn't just (or maybe even mostly) about money.  

Based on my experience gained from a lot of years spent working, supervising new graduates (and some engineers not so new), and accepting responsibility for the work they are doing, cutting back on educational requirements is not a good idea.  In fact (and I know this won't be popular), I have long felt engineering education should require a preparatory undergraduate degree focused on the sciences followed up by a professional engineering school.  If I ran the zoo, that is the change I would make. 

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,

Knud - I agree with your assessment on the need for 'business' writing and the qualifications of the professor of such a course. My technical writing class felt largely like a waste of time and resources. I think I got more applicable technical writing practice in my first summer internship than in the course.

A memorable day from the course was when we covered the textbook section on specifications. There was an example AASHTO spec in the textbook. Our professor read the spec out loud, and he said it as individual letters (A - A - S - H - T - O) every time the acronym came up, which was a lot... I thought I was going to lose my mind. When I realized he was going to read the whole thing, I did let him know it was pronounced ash-toe. No one learned a single thing (except how to pronounce AASHTO) from listening to an English professor read a random spec section.

He was probably a great professor in his actual focus area, but he had no real understanding besides what the book said about engineering communication.

I will comment on communication courses in engineering that I have wrestled with as an engineering educator.  I believe engineers and surveyors need a 'business' writing course within an engineering program.  Every practitioner I know spends hours a week corresponding - often through writing. Unfortunately, English faculty employed at a university designated to teach undergraduate writing to engineers often lack experience in business and corresponding in business. There are seldom English faculty qualified to teach a business writing course. At the universities where I have taught, a review of the resume of English professors generally follows a common pattern of B.A. in English, two years of non-related English work, followed by returning to college, M.A. in English immediately followed by a Ph.D. in English with study and concentrations in areas such as literature, fiction writing, poetry, medieval writing, etc. In other words, university English faculty have no experience or education in the critical area of business correspondence. Engineers reading this response know business writing should be concise, focused, organized, and responsive. The writing bears little resemblance to the writing experience of English faculty.

On the topics of speech communications, I have advocated for a more confrontational focus in an advanced speech course. While engineers and surveyors may be asked to speak at conferences and civic organizations, their 'bread-and-butter' speaking is often at planning boards, business meetings, and business advocacy meetings (selling the firm or project).  As practitioners know, speaking at these events involve give-and-take, quick responses, and even heated confrontations from the audience or board members. There are two programs that I believe do an excellent job in confrontational speaking – ROTC/NROTC/AFROTC and law. Their courses are taught by practitioners experienced in confrontational speaking.

I agree wholeheartedly Dilip! Engineers need to know writing to communicate their designs to the public in a way that's digestible for non-engineers and the like. The University of Utah actually has an upper division writing requirement for all civil engineering majors, and I'm sure other universities do, too.

It is great to see your opinion, Knud – bringing-in your long and valuable experience in educating the future engineers. The topic has created quite a stir among practicing engineers. Discussers participated in at least three or more threads on the topic of Engineering Education or similar.

Discussions made it apparent that – there are no shortages of pressures, constraints, causes and conditions – with knots after knots making things complicated.

Yet, the desire to untangle the knots – somewhat like, ordinary folks trying to do extraordinary things drives efforts forward – because Engineering is far from static, for it is essentially a creative profession. As some discussions made it clear – a new and evolving boundary condition(s) is upon us in the 21^st century – the internet and AI – that will continue to dictate many things in the future (more in Artificial Intelligence).

The challenge is to find a way – that has the power to ride over and address the complications – by screening and narrowing down choices and options without falling prey to the complicated baggage attached. Too much attachment to complications can deceive and derail the efforts to finding something acceptable to all pressure groups – therefore, the rationality of simplicity.

We, the engineers are masters of approximations and reasonable assumptions – e.g. we turn the elaborate hydraulic process-based models simpler – to the extent of finding easily understandable simple behavioral model (more in Water Modeling).

* * *

Agreeing with you, in my opinion some of the choice-courses you mentioned in imparting a 'general education' were not very thoughtful, perhaps. In addition to what have been discussed in different threads on some possible course materials to give a solid foundation to graduating engineers, your observation – many employers and graduates wanted more writing and communication courses – make sense to me. Of course, as mentioned earlier, they need careful selection process and screening.

On writing, my experience tells me that most practicing engineers are either incapable of – or reluctant to write beyond a short memo. Not to speak of creative writing, even good technical writing itself is not something easy to master, it needs lots of practice. And, writing from 1^st draft to editing/re-editing to finalizing – consume time and mental energy.

As I see it, there are at least four aspects to it. The first is lack of training in imparting a writing foundational skill during the college days. The second, there is sort of a fear of legal implications as engineering is a highly regulated profession – with each written word and sentence (for that matter any form of communication) getting brutally scrutinized by legal profession – if things roll down to that level. The third is probably motivated by business interests – that unless required by contractual obligation, divulging too much information may strengthen the competition. The last but not the least is the billability of time spent.

Many might have similar experiences, as for myself, most of my experiences were scientific in nature – that ask for scientific and technical writing – and my employers expected that quality of me. I tried to fulfill that obligation. I did not have any formal writing training, but having a Ph.D. – makes writing imperative. Apart from that – whatever my skill is, some cultivation on my own interest was of great help – as, it occurs to me writing helps one to systematize one's thought processes, concepts and methods – at the same time expanding the horizon of knowledge.

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

I will provide my opinion on course requirements for graduation. I am a semi-retired engineering professor. I have taught for over forty years in engineering and surveying. I have practiced engineering, surveying, and law.

There are two sources of pressure that combine to reduce the engineering content required for graduation with an engineering degree. First, there is pressure from university administration to keep the graduation credit requirements low (e.g., 120 credits) so students can realistically expect to graduate in four years. Second, there is pressure to inject more 'general education' courses into engineering to produce a 'well-rounded' engineering student. As a result of these pressures, many engineering programs no longer have any flexibility in engineering course offerings. In some programs, there are no longer any free credits to explore engineering topics not deemed absolutely necessary for graduation in a particular discipline.

I will comment on general education within an engineering program. My university (and other universities) require 18 credits of general education. General education require students take courses focused on topics in the areas of: artistic and creative expressions, population and the environment, western culture, cultural diversity, and social contexts. (I will let the reader imagine some of the courses that have been approved that will meet these topic requirements.) I will give one example of a course. There is a three-credit course on 'music appreciation' that will meet the artistic and creative expression category. I have to ask: Is there any reason to have young adults take a three-credit course to appreciate music? (Many don't remove the music-playing ipods from their ears even while in class.) 

As part of ABET requirements for continuing improvement, engineering programs send surveys to graduates (3 and 10 years after graduation) and their employers. Part of the survey asks participants to evaluate the courses the graduate took and what courses the graduate wish they had taken. I have looked at hundreds of these surveys. I cannot remember a single returned survey that extoled their general education courses. The vast majority thought these courses a waste of money and time. (On a side note, many employers and graduates wanted more writing and communication courses.)

My opinion is that the content of many of the topic courses meeting general education requirements should have been taught in high school to provide a more 'well rounded' citizen. In other cases, I find any application of the course to engineering practice difficult to comprehend (e.g., a course on Human Sexuality). Attempts to obtain credit for general education in an engineering course (e.g., LEED for population and the environment requirements) meets considerable resistance from faculty outside of engineering. As engineering faculty, we often joke that general education requirements are necessary for full employment and relevancy of liberal arts faculty. We joke that rather than general education requirements providing a well-rounded engineering student, the extent and number of basic courses (English, Speech, etc.) coupled with general education requirements appear to provide a liberal (i.e., broad learning) education with a focus on engineering familiarity.

There are many aspects of my missive that can be expanded. I will end my comments for some attempt at brevity.

I understand your frustration, Haydn.  I have been there too as have most of us engineers, whether civil or another discipline.  While you are working on beginning your career, I am at the other end of things.  I retired in 2017 after a career spent in private practice.

Professor McAnally's posts about the challenges universities face in dealing with pressure from governing bodies to get the students out quicker is from the "other side" of the equation.  And it seems some more experienced engineers feel graduating students are not well prepared for entering into the work force, maybe even being armed with only 50% or so of the knowledge needed.  There are a lot of moving parts to engineering education.

It is pretty easy when a student is struggling to make financial ends meet why they might feel some of the courses they are required to take for graduation are just holding them back from getting on with their goal of getting out of school and starting to reap some of the rewards of all their hard work.  One thing I personally did not fully understand back in the dinosaur age when I was a student and trying to live on what little money I had, was what a heavy responsibility engineers have.  The average Joe (i.e. the public) and even us engineers have an expectation that when we walk in a high rise building, flush our toilets, drive our vehicles, get on an elevator, operate our appliances, etc., etc., that these things will meet our expectations, we will be safe and can go home to our families to enjoy the fruits of our labors.  Educating engineers responsible for a large part of all of these things is a heavy responsibility, not understood by most people in government advocating for getting engineers out the door quicker (and cheaper) nor by the poor student just trying to muddle through.  While engineering students should expect value out of their education, it really isn't just (or maybe even mostly) about money.  

Based on my experience gained from a lot of years spent working, supervising new graduates (and some engineers not so new), and accepting responsibility for the work they are doing, cutting back on educational requirements is not a good idea.  In fact (and I know this won't be popular), I have long felt engineering education should require a preparatory undergraduate degree focused on the sciences followed up by a professional engineering school.  If I ran the zoo, that is the change I would make. 

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,

Knud - I agree with your assessment on the need for 'business' writing and the qualifications of the professor of such a course. My technical writing class felt largely like a waste of time and resources. I think I got more applicable technical writing practice in my first summer internship than in the course.

A memorable day from the course was when we covered the textbook section on specifications. There was an example AASHTO spec in the textbook. Our professor read the spec out loud, and he said it as individual letters (A - A - S - H - T - O) every time the acronym came up, which was a lot... I thought I was going to lose my mind. When I realized he was going to read the whole thing, I did let him know it was pronounced ash-toe. No one learned a single thing (except how to pronounce AASHTO) from listening to an English professor read a random spec section.

He was probably a great professor in his actual focus area, but he had no real understanding besides what the book said about engineering communication.

I will comment on communication courses in engineering that I have wrestled with as an engineering educator.  I believe engineers and surveyors need a 'business' writing course within an engineering program.  Every practitioner I know spends hours a week corresponding - often through writing. Unfortunately, English faculty employed at a university designated to teach undergraduate writing to engineers often lack experience in business and corresponding in business. There are seldom English faculty qualified to teach a business writing course. At the universities where I have taught, a review of the resume of English professors generally follows a common pattern of B.A. in English, two years of non-related English work, followed by returning to college, M.A. in English immediately followed by a Ph.D. in English with study and concentrations in areas such as literature, fiction writing, poetry, medieval writing, etc. In other words, university English faculty have no experience or education in the critical area of business correspondence. Engineers reading this response know business writing should be concise, focused, organized, and responsive. The writing bears little resemblance to the writing experience of English faculty.

On the topics of speech communications, I have advocated for a more confrontational focus in an advanced speech course. While engineers and surveyors may be asked to speak at conferences and civic organizations, their 'bread-and-butter' speaking is often at planning boards, business meetings, and business advocacy meetings (selling the firm or project).  As practitioners know, speaking at these events involve give-and-take, quick responses, and even heated confrontations from the audience or board members. There are two programs that I believe do an excellent job in confrontational speaking – ROTC/NROTC/AFROTC and law. Their courses are taught by practitioners experienced in confrontational speaking.

I agree wholeheartedly Dilip! Engineers need to know writing to communicate their designs to the public in a way that's digestible for non-engineers and the like. The University of Utah actually has an upper division writing requirement for all civil engineering majors, and I'm sure other universities do, too.

It is great to see your opinion, Knud – bringing-in your long and valuable experience in educating the future engineers. The topic has created quite a stir among practicing engineers. Discussers participated in at least three or more threads on the topic of Engineering Education or similar.

Discussions made it apparent that – there are no shortages of pressures, constraints, causes and conditions – with knots after knots making things complicated.

Yet, the desire to untangle the knots – somewhat like, ordinary folks trying to do extraordinary things drives efforts forward – because Engineering is far from static, for it is essentially a creative profession. As some discussions made it clear – a new and evolving boundary condition(s) is upon us in the 21^st century – the internet and AI – that will continue to dictate many things in the future (more in Artificial Intelligence).

The challenge is to find a way – that has the power to ride over and address the complications – by screening and narrowing down choices and options without falling prey to the complicated baggage attached. Too much attachment to complications can deceive and derail the efforts to finding something acceptable to all pressure groups – therefore, the rationality of simplicity.

We, the engineers are masters of approximations and reasonable assumptions – e.g. we turn the elaborate hydraulic process-based models simpler – to the extent of finding easily understandable simple behavioral model (more in Water Modeling).

* * *

Agreeing with you, in my opinion some of the choice-courses you mentioned in imparting a 'general education' were not very thoughtful, perhaps. In addition to what have been discussed in different threads on some possible course materials to give a solid foundation to graduating engineers, your observation – many employers and graduates wanted more writing and communication courses – make sense to me. Of course, as mentioned earlier, they need careful selection process and screening.

On writing, my experience tells me that most practicing engineers are either incapable of – or reluctant to write beyond a short memo. Not to speak of creative writing, even good technical writing itself is not something easy to master, it needs lots of practice. And, writing from 1^st draft to editing/re-editing to finalizing – consume time and mental energy.

As I see it, there are at least four aspects to it. The first is lack of training in imparting a writing foundational skill during the college days. The second, there is sort of a fear of legal implications as engineering is a highly regulated profession – with each written word and sentence (for that matter any form of communication) getting brutally scrutinized by legal profession – if things roll down to that level. The third is probably motivated by business interests – that unless required by contractual obligation, divulging too much information may strengthen the competition. The last but not the least is the billability of time spent.

Many might have similar experiences, as for myself, most of my experiences were scientific in nature – that ask for scientific and technical writing – and my employers expected that quality of me. I tried to fulfill that obligation. I did not have any formal writing training, but having a Ph.D. – makes writing imperative. Apart from that – whatever my skill is, some cultivation on my own interest was of great help – as, it occurs to me writing helps one to systematize one's thought processes, concepts and methods – at the same time expanding the horizon of knowledge.

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

I will provide my opinion on course requirements for graduation. I am a semi-retired engineering professor. I have taught for over forty years in engineering and surveying. I have practiced engineering, surveying, and law.

There are two sources of pressure that combine to reduce the engineering content required for graduation with an engineering degree. First, there is pressure from university administration to keep the graduation credit requirements low (e.g., 120 credits) so students can realistically expect to graduate in four years. Second, there is pressure to inject more 'general education' courses into engineering to produce a 'well-rounded' engineering student. As a result of these pressures, many engineering programs no longer have any flexibility in engineering course offerings. In some programs, there are no longer any free credits to explore engineering topics not deemed absolutely necessary for graduation in a particular discipline.

I will comment on general education within an engineering program. My university (and other universities) require 18 credits of general education. General education require students take courses focused on topics in the areas of: artistic and creative expressions, population and the environment, western culture, cultural diversity, and social contexts. (I will let the reader imagine some of the courses that have been approved that will meet these topic requirements.) I will give one example of a course. There is a three-credit course on 'music appreciation' that will meet the artistic and creative expression category. I have to ask: Is there any reason to have young adults take a three-credit course to appreciate music? (Many don't remove the music-playing ipods from their ears even while in class.) 

As part of ABET requirements for continuing improvement, engineering programs send surveys to graduates (3 and 10 years after graduation) and their employers. Part of the survey asks participants to evaluate the courses the graduate took and what courses the graduate wish they had taken. I have looked at hundreds of these surveys. I cannot remember a single returned survey that extoled their general education courses. The vast majority thought these courses a waste of money and time. (On a side note, many employers and graduates wanted more writing and communication courses.)

My opinion is that the content of many of the topic courses meeting general education requirements should have been taught in high school to provide a more 'well rounded' citizen. In other cases, I find any application of the course to engineering practice difficult to comprehend (e.g., a course on Human Sexuality). Attempts to obtain credit for general education in an engineering course (e.g., LEED for population and the environment requirements) meets considerable resistance from faculty outside of engineering. As engineering faculty, we often joke that general education requirements are necessary for full employment and relevancy of liberal arts faculty. We joke that rather than general education requirements providing a well-rounded engineering student, the extent and number of basic courses (English, Speech, etc.) coupled with general education requirements appear to provide a liberal (i.e., broad learning) education with a focus on engineering familiarity.

There are many aspects of my missive that can be expanded. I will end my comments for some attempt at brevity.

I understand your frustration, Haydn.  I have been there too as have most of us engineers, whether civil or another discipline.  While you are working on beginning your career, I am at the other end of things.  I retired in 2017 after a career spent in private practice.

Professor McAnally's posts about the challenges universities face in dealing with pressure from governing bodies to get the students out quicker is from the "other side" of the equation.  And it seems some more experienced engineers feel graduating students are not well prepared for entering into the work force, maybe even being armed with only 50% or so of the knowledge needed.  There are a lot of moving parts to engineering education.

It is pretty easy when a student is struggling to make financial ends meet why they might feel some of the courses they are required to take for graduation are just holding them back from getting on with their goal of getting out of school and starting to reap some of the rewards of all their hard work.  One thing I personally did not fully understand back in the dinosaur age when I was a student and trying to live on what little money I had, was what a heavy responsibility engineers have.  The average Joe (i.e. the public) and even us engineers have an expectation that when we walk in a high rise building, flush our toilets, drive our vehicles, get on an elevator, operate our appliances, etc., etc., that these things will meet our expectations, we will be safe and can go home to our families to enjoy the fruits of our labors.  Educating engineers responsible for a large part of all of these things is a heavy responsibility, not understood by most people in government advocating for getting engineers out the door quicker (and cheaper) nor by the poor student just trying to muddle through.  While engineering students should expect value out of their education, it really isn't just (or maybe even mostly) about money.  

Based on my experience gained from a lot of years spent working, supervising new graduates (and some engineers not so new), and accepting responsibility for the work they are doing, cutting back on educational requirements is not a good idea.  In fact (and I know this won't be popular), I have long felt engineering education should require a preparatory undergraduate degree focused on the sciences followed up by a professional engineering school.  If I ran the zoo, that is the change I would make. 

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,

Heidi:

You and others' use of "technical writing" prompted me to comment.

I think that the term "technical writing" is too narrow. We, engineering educators and practitioners, should focus instead on "communication" which I define as asking, listening, writing, speaking, and using visuals. My studies and experience suggest that engineers use various combinations of these communication modes about half of their work time.

The preceding idea is developed and documented in my book The Communicative Engineer: How to Ask, Listen, Write, Speak, and Use Visuals (Wiley, 2024).

The book is designed to be used by two audiences. First, students, as a textbook in an engineering communication course or as a resource for use in many courses in a communication-across-the-curriculum manner. The second audience: engineering practitioners.

Based on the third of my career in academia, I learned that engineering students can be effective communicators if we first stress its importance and then show them how.

Knud - I agree with your assessment on the need for 'business' writing and the qualifications of the professor of such a course. My technical writing class felt largely like a waste of time and resources. I think I got more applicable technical writing practice in my first summer internship than in the course.

A memorable day from the course was when we covered the textbook section on specifications. There was an example AASHTO spec in the textbook. Our professor read the spec out loud, and he said it as individual letters (A - A - S - H - T - O) every time the acronym came up, which was a lot... I thought I was going to lose my mind. When I realized he was going to read the whole thing, I did let him know it was pronounced ash-toe. No one learned a single thing (except how to pronounce AASHTO) from listening to an English professor read a random spec section.

He was probably a great professor in his actual focus area, but he had no real understanding besides what the book said about engineering communication.

I will comment on communication courses in engineering that I have wrestled with as an engineering educator.  I believe engineers and surveyors need a 'business' writing course within an engineering program.  Every practitioner I know spends hours a week corresponding - often through writing. Unfortunately, English faculty employed at a university designated to teach undergraduate writing to engineers often lack experience in business and corresponding in business. There are seldom English faculty qualified to teach a business writing course. At the universities where I have taught, a review of the resume of English professors generally follows a common pattern of B.A. in English, two years of non-related English work, followed by returning to college, M.A. in English immediately followed by a Ph.D. in English with study and concentrations in areas such as literature, fiction writing, poetry, medieval writing, etc. In other words, university English faculty have no experience or education in the critical area of business correspondence. Engineers reading this response know business writing should be concise, focused, organized, and responsive. The writing bears little resemblance to the writing experience of English faculty.

On the topics of speech communications, I have advocated for a more confrontational focus in an advanced speech course. While engineers and surveyors may be asked to speak at conferences and civic organizations, their 'bread-and-butter' speaking is often at planning boards, business meetings, and business advocacy meetings (selling the firm or project).  As practitioners know, speaking at these events involve give-and-take, quick responses, and even heated confrontations from the audience or board members. There are two programs that I believe do an excellent job in confrontational speaking – ROTC/NROTC/AFROTC and law. Their courses are taught by practitioners experienced in confrontational speaking.

I agree wholeheartedly Dilip! Engineers need to know writing to communicate their designs to the public in a way that's digestible for non-engineers and the like. The University of Utah actually has an upper division writing requirement for all civil engineering majors, and I'm sure other universities do, too.

It is great to see your opinion, Knud – bringing-in your long and valuable experience in educating the future engineers. The topic has created quite a stir among practicing engineers. Discussers participated in at least three or more threads on the topic of Engineering Education or similar.

Discussions made it apparent that – there are no shortages of pressures, constraints, causes and conditions – with knots after knots making things complicated.

Yet, the desire to untangle the knots – somewhat like, ordinary folks trying to do extraordinary things drives efforts forward – because Engineering is far from static, for it is essentially a creative profession. As some discussions made it clear – a new and evolving boundary condition(s) is upon us in the 21^st century – the internet and AI – that will continue to dictate many things in the future (more in Artificial Intelligence).

The challenge is to find a way – that has the power to ride over and address the complications – by screening and narrowing down choices and options without falling prey to the complicated baggage attached. Too much attachment to complications can deceive and derail the efforts to finding something acceptable to all pressure groups – therefore, the rationality of simplicity.

We, the engineers are masters of approximations and reasonable assumptions – e.g. we turn the elaborate hydraulic process-based models simpler – to the extent of finding easily understandable simple behavioral model (more in Water Modeling).

* * *

Agreeing with you, in my opinion some of the choice-courses you mentioned in imparting a 'general education' were not very thoughtful, perhaps. In addition to what have been discussed in different threads on some possible course materials to give a solid foundation to graduating engineers, your observation – many employers and graduates wanted more writing and communication courses – make sense to me. Of course, as mentioned earlier, they need careful selection process and screening.

On writing, my experience tells me that most practicing engineers are either incapable of – or reluctant to write beyond a short memo. Not to speak of creative writing, even good technical writing itself is not something easy to master, it needs lots of practice. And, writing from 1^st draft to editing/re-editing to finalizing – consume time and mental energy.

As I see it, there are at least four aspects to it. The first is lack of training in imparting a writing foundational skill during the college days. The second, there is sort of a fear of legal implications as engineering is a highly regulated profession – with each written word and sentence (for that matter any form of communication) getting brutally scrutinized by legal profession – if things roll down to that level. The third is probably motivated by business interests – that unless required by contractual obligation, divulging too much information may strengthen the competition. The last but not the least is the billability of time spent.

Many might have similar experiences, as for myself, most of my experiences were scientific in nature – that ask for scientific and technical writing – and my employers expected that quality of me. I tried to fulfill that obligation. I did not have any formal writing training, but having a Ph.D. – makes writing imperative. Apart from that – whatever my skill is, some cultivation on my own interest was of great help – as, it occurs to me writing helps one to systematize one's thought processes, concepts and methods – at the same time expanding the horizon of knowledge.

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

I will provide my opinion on course requirements for graduation. I am a semi-retired engineering professor. I have taught for over forty years in engineering and surveying. I have practiced engineering, surveying, and law.

There are two sources of pressure that combine to reduce the engineering content required for graduation with an engineering degree. First, there is pressure from university administration to keep the graduation credit requirements low (e.g., 120 credits) so students can realistically expect to graduate in four years. Second, there is pressure to inject more 'general education' courses into engineering to produce a 'well-rounded' engineering student. As a result of these pressures, many engineering programs no longer have any flexibility in engineering course offerings. In some programs, there are no longer any free credits to explore engineering topics not deemed absolutely necessary for graduation in a particular discipline.

I will comment on general education within an engineering program. My university (and other universities) require 18 credits of general education. General education require students take courses focused on topics in the areas of: artistic and creative expressions, population and the environment, western culture, cultural diversity, and social contexts. (I will let the reader imagine some of the courses that have been approved that will meet these topic requirements.) I will give one example of a course. There is a three-credit course on 'music appreciation' that will meet the artistic and creative expression category. I have to ask: Is there any reason to have young adults take a three-credit course to appreciate music? (Many don't remove the music-playing ipods from their ears even while in class.) 

As part of ABET requirements for continuing improvement, engineering programs send surveys to graduates (3 and 10 years after graduation) and their employers. Part of the survey asks participants to evaluate the courses the graduate took and what courses the graduate wish they had taken. I have looked at hundreds of these surveys. I cannot remember a single returned survey that extoled their general education courses. The vast majority thought these courses a waste of money and time. (On a side note, many employers and graduates wanted more writing and communication courses.)

My opinion is that the content of many of the topic courses meeting general education requirements should have been taught in high school to provide a more 'well rounded' citizen. In other cases, I find any application of the course to engineering practice difficult to comprehend (e.g., a course on Human Sexuality). Attempts to obtain credit for general education in an engineering course (e.g., LEED for population and the environment requirements) meets considerable resistance from faculty outside of engineering. As engineering faculty, we often joke that general education requirements are necessary for full employment and relevancy of liberal arts faculty. We joke that rather than general education requirements providing a well-rounded engineering student, the extent and number of basic courses (English, Speech, etc.) coupled with general education requirements appear to provide a liberal (i.e., broad learning) education with a focus on engineering familiarity.

There are many aspects of my missive that can be expanded. I will end my comments for some attempt at brevity.

I understand your frustration, Haydn.  I have been there too as have most of us engineers, whether civil or another discipline.  While you are working on beginning your career, I am at the other end of things.  I retired in 2017 after a career spent in private practice.

Professor McAnally's posts about the challenges universities face in dealing with pressure from governing bodies to get the students out quicker is from the "other side" of the equation.  And it seems some more experienced engineers feel graduating students are not well prepared for entering into the work force, maybe even being armed with only 50% or so of the knowledge needed.  There are a lot of moving parts to engineering education.

It is pretty easy when a student is struggling to make financial ends meet why they might feel some of the courses they are required to take for graduation are just holding them back from getting on with their goal of getting out of school and starting to reap some of the rewards of all their hard work.  One thing I personally did not fully understand back in the dinosaur age when I was a student and trying to live on what little money I had, was what a heavy responsibility engineers have.  The average Joe (i.e. the public) and even us engineers have an expectation that when we walk in a high rise building, flush our toilets, drive our vehicles, get on an elevator, operate our appliances, etc., etc., that these things will meet our expectations, we will be safe and can go home to our families to enjoy the fruits of our labors.  Educating engineers responsible for a large part of all of these things is a heavy responsibility, not understood by most people in government advocating for getting engineers out the door quicker (and cheaper) nor by the poor student just trying to muddle through.  While engineering students should expect value out of their education, it really isn't just (or maybe even mostly) about money.  

Based on my experience gained from a lot of years spent working, supervising new graduates (and some engineers not so new), and accepting responsibility for the work they are doing, cutting back on educational requirements is not a good idea.  In fact (and I know this won't be popular), I have long felt engineering education should require a preparatory undergraduate degree focused on the sciences followed up by a professional engineering school.  If I ran the zoo, that is the change I would make. 

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,

It is great to see your opinion, Knud – bringing-in your long and valuable experience in educating the future engineers. The topic has created quite a stir among practicing engineers. Discussers participated in at least three or more threads on the topic of Engineering Education or similar.

Discussions made it apparent that – there are no shortages of pressures, constraints, causes and conditions – with knots after knots making things complicated.

Yet, the desire to untangle the knots – somewhat like, ordinary folks trying to do extraordinary things drives efforts forward – because Engineering is far from static, for it is essentially a creative profession. As some discussions made it clear – a new and evolving boundary condition(s) is upon us in the 21^st century – the internet and AI – that will continue to dictate many things in the future (more in Artificial Intelligence).

The challenge is to find a way – that has the power to ride over and address the complications – by screening and narrowing down choices and options without falling prey to the complicated baggage attached. Too much attachment to complications can deceive and derail the efforts to finding something acceptable to all pressure groups – therefore, the rationality of simplicity.

We, the engineers are masters of approximations and reasonable assumptions – e.g. we turn the elaborate hydraulic process-based models simpler – to the extent of finding easily understandable simple behavioral model (more in Water Modeling).

* * *

Agreeing with you, in my opinion some of the choice-courses you mentioned in imparting a 'general education' were not very thoughtful, perhaps. In addition to what have been discussed in different threads on some possible course materials to give a solid foundation to graduating engineers, your observation – many employers and graduates wanted more writing and communication courses – make sense to me. Of course, as mentioned earlier, they need careful selection process and screening.

On writing, my experience tells me that most practicing engineers are either incapable of – or reluctant to write beyond a short memo. Not to speak of creative writing, even good technical writing itself is not something easy to master, it needs lots of practice. And, writing from 1^st draft to editing/re-editing to finalizing – consume time and mental energy.

As I see it, there are at least four aspects to it. The first is lack of training in imparting a writing foundational skill during the college days. The second, there is sort of a fear of legal implications as engineering is a highly regulated profession – with each written word and sentence (for that matter any form of communication) getting brutally scrutinized by legal profession – if things roll down to that level. The third is probably motivated by business interests – that unless required by contractual obligation, divulging too much information may strengthen the competition. The last but not the least is the billability of time spent.

Many might have similar experiences, as for myself, most of my experiences were scientific in nature – that ask for scientific and technical writing – and my employers expected that quality of me. I tried to fulfill that obligation. I did not have any formal writing training, but having a Ph.D. – makes writing imperative. Apart from that – whatever my skill is, some cultivation on my own interest was of great help – as, it occurs to me writing helps one to systematize one's thought processes, concepts and methods – at the same time expanding the horizon of knowledge.

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

I will provide my opinion on course requirements for graduation. I am a semi-retired engineering professor. I have taught for over forty years in engineering and surveying. I have practiced engineering, surveying, and law.

There are two sources of pressure that combine to reduce the engineering content required for graduation with an engineering degree. First, there is pressure from university administration to keep the graduation credit requirements low (e.g., 120 credits) so students can realistically expect to graduate in four years. Second, there is pressure to inject more 'general education' courses into engineering to produce a 'well-rounded' engineering student. As a result of these pressures, many engineering programs no longer have any flexibility in engineering course offerings. In some programs, there are no longer any free credits to explore engineering topics not deemed absolutely necessary for graduation in a particular discipline.

I will comment on general education within an engineering program. My university (and other universities) require 18 credits of general education. General education require students take courses focused on topics in the areas of: artistic and creative expressions, population and the environment, western culture, cultural diversity, and social contexts. (I will let the reader imagine some of the courses that have been approved that will meet these topic requirements.) I will give one example of a course. There is a three-credit course on 'music appreciation' that will meet the artistic and creative expression category. I have to ask: Is there any reason to have young adults take a three-credit course to appreciate music? (Many don't remove the music-playing ipods from their ears even while in class.) 

As part of ABET requirements for continuing improvement, engineering programs send surveys to graduates (3 and 10 years after graduation) and their employers. Part of the survey asks participants to evaluate the courses the graduate took and what courses the graduate wish they had taken. I have looked at hundreds of these surveys. I cannot remember a single returned survey that extoled their general education courses. The vast majority thought these courses a waste of money and time. (On a side note, many employers and graduates wanted more writing and communication courses.)

My opinion is that the content of many of the topic courses meeting general education requirements should have been taught in high school to provide a more 'well rounded' citizen. In other cases, I find any application of the course to engineering practice difficult to comprehend (e.g., a course on Human Sexuality). Attempts to obtain credit for general education in an engineering course (e.g., LEED for population and the environment requirements) meets considerable resistance from faculty outside of engineering. As engineering faculty, we often joke that general education requirements are necessary for full employment and relevancy of liberal arts faculty. We joke that rather than general education requirements providing a well-rounded engineering student, the extent and number of basic courses (English, Speech, etc.) coupled with general education requirements appear to provide a liberal (i.e., broad learning) education with a focus on engineering familiarity.

There are many aspects of my missive that can be expanded. I will end my comments for some attempt at brevity.