Professional and Career Topics

<>Principles To Lead Others:
INTEGRITY: We do what is right.
EXCELLENCE: We strive to be the best.
URGENCY: We serve people now.
EMPATHY: We care.
RESPECT: We treat each other right.
TEAMWORK: We work together.
PERSISTENCE: We find a way.

Q. What principles would you add to the list?
Cheers,
Bill

Great Picks, Bill. While writing the Leadership and Management article I have asked myself . . . what a leader should or should not be . . . and shared portions of my answers to the Collaborate colleagues on early communications.

. . . no two leaders act in the same way for a given situation – or that leaders of different cultures understand and operate the leadership role differently – therefore there is no universal prescription for a good leader. Those who stand out from the rest are defined by their ability to understand – by their honesty and dedicated commitments to the causes – and how they deliver in the end to move forward . . . There lies the keyword – forward – but desirable only when in the right direction! Being forward looking by standing alone is easier said that done however – because it can be highly challenging and scary even for a very strong leader – in conflicts of interests and demands – surrounded most often by adversaries and flatterers . . .

While delving into the deftness required of a good leader (not only engineering, but in other fields of works), I came up with the HICAPtain acronym.

H, Hope . . . vision and direction to move forward in the right direction. A leader without a creative outlook, hope and vision has no right to lead – in absence he or she becomes just another manager. A leader should be strong to articulate ideas and visions to arouse emotions in his or her favor to make a difference – in resolving the conflicts of interests and demands as an accomplisher – not as a boss . . .

I, Integrity . . . doing what one says in order to develop trust within the team, people and society. The message of hope and vision carries very little weight if integrity does not define a leader – if he or she becomes unable to honor the trust bestowed upon . . .

C, Compassion . . . encompasses many: (1) in treating all equally with respect and dignity realizing that all are just humans including the leader himself or herself with all their strengths and weaknesses – (2) being accessible to ideas and thoughts by listening carefully with patience, and encouraging all to speak without fear – because sometimes great ideas come from unexpected sources – and (3) being mindful in expressing himself or herself with integrity, because words and speeches matter, and people do pay attention to – and respond and react to what he or she says. A leader must realize that in an aggressive social framework, people tend to over-assert themselves by trampling others. Compassion is not a sign of weakness – it is rather a sign of greatness that earns a leader respect, admiration and friendship . . . In my opinion, Empathy is not enough for a good leader – because a leader endowed with all the powers and facilities – can afford to be – and should be Compassionate.

A, Awareness . . . to be (remain) awake to see and perceive things that change and evolve in time – to be responsive and proactive to researches and initiatives that occur in his or her sphere of works – in order to develop and pursue an appropriate strategy. A leader occupies an envious position from where he or she has the luxury to oversee all that happen around. Based on such perceptions, a leader's envisioned organizational framework should be based on flexibility, rather than on bureaucratic rigidity – because Nature and Society stand on the framework of a dynamic equilibrium to attain stability in time. For a leader entrusted with power, it is easy to develop arrogance that blocks his or hers ability to see things as they are – this hindrance should not allow a leader's judgment . . .

P, People . . . the quality of a leader is just the reflection of the societal health and well-being in which he or she belongs. A Leader needs energy and help from the people he or she works with – from the people he or she works for and leads – a leadership cannot survive without them. Leaders need to create waves of innovative ideas and methods to nurture, absorb and propagate that energy through effective and inspiring communications . . .

. . . And there lies another very important aspect of leadership – that a leader endowed with power and privileges should not fall into the temptation of jealousy and abusing power . . .

. . . One can always reflect back on experience and history to realize – that intellect and smartness without the sweetness of morality and compassion can turn a brilliant person into a ruthless monster . . .

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

Original Message:
Sent: 09-17-2024 09:39 AM
From: William Hayden
Subject: <>Principles To Lead Others:

<>Principles To Lead Others:
INTEGRITY: We do what is right.
EXCELLENCE: We strive to be the best.
URGENCY: We serve people now.
EMPATHY: We care.
RESPECT: We treat each other right.
TEAMWORK: We work together.
PERSISTENCE: We find a way.

Q. What principles would you add to the list?
Cheers,
Bill

<>Principles To Lead Others:
INTEGRITY: We do what is right.
EXCELLENCE: We strive to be the best.
URGENCY: We serve people now.
EMPATHY: We care.
RESPECT: We treat each other right.
TEAMWORK: We work together.
PERSISTENCE: We find a way.

Q. What principles would you add to the list?
Cheers,
Bill

Key traits that I think of are Authenticity (sincerity and integrity), respectfulness, accountability for one's actions, a goal-zero mindset on safety, and a laser sharp focus on delivery and deliverables.

<>Principles To Lead Others:
INTEGRITY: We do what is right.
EXCELLENCE: We strive to be the best.
URGENCY: We serve people now.
EMPATHY: We care.
RESPECT: We treat each other right.
TEAMWORK: We work together.
PERSISTENCE: We find a way.

Q. What principles would you add to the list?
Cheers,
Bill

Excellent points Mitch, thanks!

So Dilip, Mitch,

What and how do we get our engineering educators to imbed these into their coursework?

i.e., not separate, but as a normal part of the Engr's tech lectures?

Cheers,

Bill

Key traits that I think of are Authenticity (sincerity and integrity), respectfulness, accountability for one's actions, a goal-zero mindset on safety, and a laser sharp focus on delivery and deliverables.

<>Principles To Lead Others:
INTEGRITY: We do what is right.
EXCELLENCE: We strive to be the best.
URGENCY: We serve people now.
EMPATHY: We care.
RESPECT: We treat each other right.
TEAMWORK: We work together.
PERSISTENCE: We find a way.

Q. What principles would you add to the list?
Cheers,
Bill

Excellent points Mitch, thanks!

So Dilip, Mitch,

What and how do we get our engineering educators to imbed these into their coursework?

i.e., not separate, but as a normal part of the Engr's tech lectures?

Cheers,

Bill

Key traits that I think of are Authenticity (sincerity and integrity), respectfulness, accountability for one's actions, a goal-zero mindset on safety, and a laser sharp focus on delivery and deliverables.

<>Principles To Lead Others:
INTEGRITY: We do what is right.
EXCELLENCE: We strive to be the best.
URGENCY: We serve people now.
EMPATHY: We care.
RESPECT: We treat each other right.
TEAMWORK: We work together.
PERSISTENCE: We find a way.

Q. What principles would you add to the list?
Cheers,
Bill

Bill, in 2017 there was a thread on Engineering Leadership. Some 12 discussions were posted that came up with different understandings and opinions about engineering leadership roles. As one can understand – during that time, as it is now – all focuses have been on engineering business leadership.

• Technical and Scientific Leadership as outlined in the Leadership and Management article has not crossed anyone's mind. Perhaps, because this leadership is not recognized like others – and is understood to develop through one's experience, technical prowess and deftness. Something drives these individuals to excel and make a difference. These leaders are our unsung heroes – societal progress is unthinkable without their dedications and contributions.

• Good business leaders, on the other hand, are very skillful in assembling and using all different talents with a vision to establish a business or boost an existing one. These leaders/owners are well recognized and are rewarded with high remunerations, powers, perks and privileges.

• Now, coming back to your question, whether or not it is necessary – and if it it is, how to include it in engineering curricula. It seems, leadership and other personality traits develop during one's childhood (may even be in one's gene variant, I don't know). Leadership books cite examples something like this: two laborers are given the task to throw bricks to build a wall – one diligently does that, the other is thinking how to do it differently. This other is the future leader.

• There are those who are pushed through for all different reasons – and by having a spring board to step on – and connections and influences to back things up – their performance becomes pathetic. To compensate shortcomings, these leaders display arrogance – and instead of looking for talents, they tend to assemble flatterers around.

• I think, including a leadership course in engineering curricula is a longshot – not something justifiable. An engineer can always go for MBA, if he or she chooses to (there are many MBA engineers, but I doubt whether it made them a good leader).

• Another thinking is that, if interested, a professor's freedom might allow him or her to implant a lecture or two in some relevant courses of instruction.

• But, perhaps what is important – is to include some sort of liberal courses at some levels in engineering curricula. The justification of this is that – such courses open up one's mind (or have the potential to do so) to see things from different perspectives – to appreciate the necessity of them in professional pursuits and judgments – in becoming a good leader. In 2018, there was a thread Integration of Disciplines in Engineering Education – where some 30 discussions (they were also motivated by 2018 NAP #24988) were posted.

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

Excellent points Mitch, thanks!

So Dilip, Mitch,

What and how do we get our engineering educators to imbed these into their coursework?

i.e., not separate, but as a normal part of the Engr's tech lectures?

Cheers,

Bill

Key traits that I think of are Authenticity (sincerity and integrity), respectfulness, accountability for one's actions, a goal-zero mindset on safety, and a laser sharp focus on delivery and deliverables.

<>Principles To Lead Others:
INTEGRITY: We do what is right.
EXCELLENCE: We strive to be the best.
URGENCY: We serve people now.
EMPATHY: We care.
RESPECT: We treat each other right.
TEAMWORK: We work together.
PERSISTENCE: We find a way.

Q. What principles would you add to the list?
Cheers,
Bill

ASCE has a Committee on Developing Leaders chaired by Danielle Schroeder

Danielle, could we put you on the spot to tell us what your committee has been up to and what insights you might be willing to share on this topic?

Bill, in 2017 there was a thread on Engineering Leadership. Some 12 discussions were posted that came up with different understandings and opinions about engineering leadership roles. As one can understand – during that time, as it is now – all focuses have been on engineering business leadership.

• Technical and Scientific Leadership as outlined in the Leadership and Management article has not crossed anyone's mind. Perhaps, because this leadership is not recognized like others – and is understood to develop through one's experience, technical prowess and deftness. Something drives these individuals to excel and make a difference. These leaders are our unsung heroes – societal progress is unthinkable without their dedications and contributions.

• Good business leaders, on the other hand, are very skillful in assembling and using all different talents with a vision to establish a business or boost an existing one. These leaders/owners are well recognized and are rewarded with high remunerations, powers, perks and privileges.

• Now, coming back to your question, whether or not it is necessary – and if it it is, how to include it in engineering curricula. It seems, leadership and other personality traits develop during one's childhood (may even be in one's gene variant, I don't know). Leadership books cite examples something like this: two laborers are given the task to throw bricks to build a wall – one diligently does that, the other is thinking how to do it differently. This other is the future leader.

• There are those who are pushed through for all different reasons – and by having a spring board to step on – and connections and influences to back things up – their performance becomes pathetic. To compensate shortcomings, these leaders display arrogance – and instead of looking for talents, they tend to assemble flatterers around.

• I think, including a leadership course in engineering curricula is a longshot – not something justifiable. An engineer can always go for MBA, if he or she chooses to (there are many MBA engineers, but I doubt whether it made them a good leader).

• Another thinking is that, if interested, a professor's freedom might allow him or her to implant a lecture or two in some relevant courses of instruction.

• But, perhaps what is important – is to include some sort of liberal courses at some levels in engineering curricula. The justification of this is that – such courses open up one's mind (or have the potential to do so) to see things from different perspectives – to appreciate the necessity of them in professional pursuits and judgments – in becoming a good leader. In 2018, there was a thread Integration of Disciplines in Engineering Education – where some 30 discussions (they were also motivated by 2018 NAP #24988) were posted.

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

Excellent points Mitch, thanks!

So Dilip, Mitch,

What and how do we get our engineering educators to imbed these into their coursework?

i.e., not separate, but as a normal part of the Engr's tech lectures?

Cheers,

Bill

Key traits that I think of are Authenticity (sincerity and integrity), respectfulness, accountability for one's actions, a goal-zero mindset on safety, and a laser sharp focus on delivery and deliverables.

<>Principles To Lead Others:
INTEGRITY: We do what is right.
EXCELLENCE: We strive to be the best.
URGENCY: We serve people now.
EMPATHY: We care.
RESPECT: We treat each other right.
TEAMWORK: We work together.
PERSISTENCE: We find a way.

Q. What principles would you add to the list?
Cheers,
Bill

Thank you @Mitchell Winkler for the mention and great discussion in this thread so far! Technically, I just rolled off as Chair of the Committee on Developing Leaders (CDL), but I can give a quick recap of our past year. First the mission of CDL is provide, promote, and assure engagement in leadership opportunities for civil engineers. We provide leadership-focused presentations at events like ASCE's Multi Regional Leadership Conference (MRLC) and oversee several of the society level awards that focus on leadership and management. My favorite CDL initiative from this past year while I was still Chair was researching and creating a new ASCE Leadership Certificate program. We did multiple phases of stakeholder research, created a subcommittee with members outside our committee including MOSAIC and CYM and more to bring this to fruition. As part of this initiative, we just launched our Pilot Program for the ASCE Certificate in Communication Skills which is a 12-week integrative program that includes a mix of asynchronous and synchronous learning focused on a different communication related topic each week.

@Rosanna La Plante - Now as the current chair of CDL, do you have anything else you would like to add? 

ASCE has a Committee on Developing Leaders chaired by Danielle Schroeder

Danielle, could we put you on the spot to tell us what your committee has been up to and what insights you might be willing to share on this topic?

Bill, in 2017 there was a thread on Engineering Leadership. Some 12 discussions were posted that came up with different understandings and opinions about engineering leadership roles. As one can understand – during that time, as it is now – all focuses have been on engineering business leadership.

• Technical and Scientific Leadership as outlined in the Leadership and Management article has not crossed anyone's mind. Perhaps, because this leadership is not recognized like others – and is understood to develop through one's experience, technical prowess and deftness. Something drives these individuals to excel and make a difference. These leaders are our unsung heroes – societal progress is unthinkable without their dedications and contributions.

• Good business leaders, on the other hand, are very skillful in assembling and using all different talents with a vision to establish a business or boost an existing one. These leaders/owners are well recognized and are rewarded with high remunerations, powers, perks and privileges.

• Now, coming back to your question, whether or not it is necessary – and if it it is, how to include it in engineering curricula. It seems, leadership and other personality traits develop during one's childhood (may even be in one's gene variant, I don't know). Leadership books cite examples something like this: two laborers are given the task to throw bricks to build a wall – one diligently does that, the other is thinking how to do it differently. This other is the future leader.

• There are those who are pushed through for all different reasons – and by having a spring board to step on – and connections and influences to back things up – their performance becomes pathetic. To compensate shortcomings, these leaders display arrogance – and instead of looking for talents, they tend to assemble flatterers around.

• I think, including a leadership course in engineering curricula is a longshot – not something justifiable. An engineer can always go for MBA, if he or she chooses to (there are many MBA engineers, but I doubt whether it made them a good leader).

• Another thinking is that, if interested, a professor's freedom might allow him or her to implant a lecture or two in some relevant courses of instruction.

• But, perhaps what is important – is to include some sort of liberal courses at some levels in engineering curricula. The justification of this is that – such courses open up one's mind (or have the potential to do so) to see things from different perspectives – to appreciate the necessity of them in professional pursuits and judgments – in becoming a good leader. In 2018, there was a thread Integration of Disciplines in Engineering Education – where some 30 discussions (they were also motivated by 2018 NAP #24988) were posted.

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

Excellent points Mitch, thanks!

So Dilip, Mitch,

What and how do we get our engineering educators to imbed these into their coursework?

i.e., not separate, but as a normal part of the Engr's tech lectures?

Cheers,

Bill

Key traits that I think of are Authenticity (sincerity and integrity), respectfulness, accountability for one's actions, a goal-zero mindset on safety, and a laser sharp focus on delivery and deliverables.

<>Principles To Lead Others:
INTEGRITY: We do what is right.
EXCELLENCE: We strive to be the best.
URGENCY: We serve people now.
EMPATHY: We care.
RESPECT: We treat each other right.
TEAMWORK: We work together.
PERSISTENCE: We find a way.

Q. What principles would you add to the list?
Cheers,
Bill

Danielle,

You did a good job of recapping what CDL has been working on.  Just to add, the committee's hope is  that ASCE Leadership Certification Program will add insight for new professionals on development of soft skills with a focus on the Civil Engineering work environment.   We have just completed the first week of the Communication pilot, and I am already seeing great stories for learning the participant to learn from each other's experiences.

Thank you @Mitchell Winkler for the mention and great discussion in this thread so far! Technically, I just rolled off as Chair of the Committee on Developing Leaders (CDL), but I can give a quick recap of our past year. First the mission of CDL is provide, promote, and assure engagement in leadership opportunities for civil engineers. We provide leadership-focused presentations at events like ASCE's Multi Regional Leadership Conference (MRLC) and oversee several of the society level awards that focus on leadership and management. My favorite CDL initiative from this past year while I was still Chair was researching and creating a new ASCE Leadership Certificate program. We did multiple phases of stakeholder research, created a subcommittee with members outside our committee including MOSAIC and CYM and more to bring this to fruition. As part of this initiative, we just launched our Pilot Program for the ASCE Certificate in Communication Skills which is a 12-week integrative program that includes a mix of asynchronous and synchronous learning focused on a different communication related topic each week.

@Rosanna La Plante - Now as the current chair of CDL, do you have anything else you would like to add? 

ASCE has a Committee on Developing Leaders chaired by Danielle Schroeder

Danielle, could we put you on the spot to tell us what your committee has been up to and what insights you might be willing to share on this topic?

Bill, in 2017 there was a thread on Engineering Leadership. Some 12 discussions were posted that came up with different understandings and opinions about engineering leadership roles. As one can understand – during that time, as it is now – all focuses have been on engineering business leadership.

• Technical and Scientific Leadership as outlined in the Leadership and Management article has not crossed anyone's mind. Perhaps, because this leadership is not recognized like others – and is understood to develop through one's experience, technical prowess and deftness. Something drives these individuals to excel and make a difference. These leaders are our unsung heroes – societal progress is unthinkable without their dedications and contributions.

• Good business leaders, on the other hand, are very skillful in assembling and using all different talents with a vision to establish a business or boost an existing one. These leaders/owners are well recognized and are rewarded with high remunerations, powers, perks and privileges.

• Now, coming back to your question, whether or not it is necessary – and if it it is, how to include it in engineering curricula. It seems, leadership and other personality traits develop during one's childhood (may even be in one's gene variant, I don't know). Leadership books cite examples something like this: two laborers are given the task to throw bricks to build a wall – one diligently does that, the other is thinking how to do it differently. This other is the future leader.

• There are those who are pushed through for all different reasons – and by having a spring board to step on – and connections and influences to back things up – their performance becomes pathetic. To compensate shortcomings, these leaders display arrogance – and instead of looking for talents, they tend to assemble flatterers around.

• I think, including a leadership course in engineering curricula is a longshot – not something justifiable. An engineer can always go for MBA, if he or she chooses to (there are many MBA engineers, but I doubt whether it made them a good leader).

• Another thinking is that, if interested, a professor's freedom might allow him or her to implant a lecture or two in some relevant courses of instruction.

• But, perhaps what is important – is to include some sort of liberal courses at some levels in engineering curricula. The justification of this is that – such courses open up one's mind (or have the potential to do so) to see things from different perspectives – to appreciate the necessity of them in professional pursuits and judgments – in becoming a good leader. In 2018, there was a thread Integration of Disciplines in Engineering Education – where some 30 discussions (they were also motivated by 2018 NAP #24988) were posted.

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

Excellent points Mitch, thanks!

So Dilip, Mitch,

What and how do we get our engineering educators to imbed these into their coursework?

i.e., not separate, but as a normal part of the Engr's tech lectures?

Cheers,

Bill

Key traits that I think of are Authenticity (sincerity and integrity), respectfulness, accountability for one's actions, a goal-zero mindset on safety, and a laser sharp focus on delivery and deliverables.

<>Principles To Lead Others:
INTEGRITY: We do what is right.
EXCELLENCE: We strive to be the best.
URGENCY: We serve people now.
EMPATHY: We care.
RESPECT: We treat each other right.
TEAMWORK: We work together.
PERSISTENCE: We find a way.

Q. What principles would you add to the list?
Cheers,
Bill

Danielle and Rosanna, thanks for your responses. Can you please share the link to the new course? Also, would it be possible for you to share the ASCE's agreed definition of leadership and differentiation from management? I think this would be useful for

this conversation. 

Danielle,

You did a good job of recapping what CDL has been working on.  Just to add, the committee's hope is  that ASCE Leadership Certification Program will add insight for new professionals on development of soft skills with a focus on the Civil Engineering work environment.   We have just completed the first week of the Communication pilot, and I am already seeing great stories for learning the participant to learn from each other's experiences.

Thank you @Mitchell Winkler for the mention and great discussion in this thread so far! Technically, I just rolled off as Chair of the Committee on Developing Leaders (CDL), but I can give a quick recap of our past year. First the mission of CDL is provide, promote, and assure engagement in leadership opportunities for civil engineers. We provide leadership-focused presentations at events like ASCE's Multi Regional Leadership Conference (MRLC) and oversee several of the society level awards that focus on leadership and management. My favorite CDL initiative from this past year while I was still Chair was researching and creating a new ASCE Leadership Certificate program. We did multiple phases of stakeholder research, created a subcommittee with members outside our committee including MOSAIC and CYM and more to bring this to fruition. As part of this initiative, we just launched our Pilot Program for the ASCE Certificate in Communication Skills which is a 12-week integrative program that includes a mix of asynchronous and synchronous learning focused on a different communication related topic each week.

@Rosanna La Plante - Now as the current chair of CDL, do you have anything else you would like to add? 

ASCE has a Committee on Developing Leaders chaired by Danielle Schroeder

Danielle, could we put you on the spot to tell us what your committee has been up to and what insights you might be willing to share on this topic?

Bill, in 2017 there was a thread on Engineering Leadership. Some 12 discussions were posted that came up with different understandings and opinions about engineering leadership roles. As one can understand – during that time, as it is now – all focuses have been on engineering business leadership.

• Technical and Scientific Leadership as outlined in the Leadership and Management article has not crossed anyone's mind. Perhaps, because this leadership is not recognized like others – and is understood to develop through one's experience, technical prowess and deftness. Something drives these individuals to excel and make a difference. These leaders are our unsung heroes – societal progress is unthinkable without their dedications and contributions.

• Good business leaders, on the other hand, are very skillful in assembling and using all different talents with a vision to establish a business or boost an existing one. These leaders/owners are well recognized and are rewarded with high remunerations, powers, perks and privileges.

• Now, coming back to your question, whether or not it is necessary – and if it it is, how to include it in engineering curricula. It seems, leadership and other personality traits develop during one's childhood (may even be in one's gene variant, I don't know). Leadership books cite examples something like this: two laborers are given the task to throw bricks to build a wall – one diligently does that, the other is thinking how to do it differently. This other is the future leader.

• There are those who are pushed through for all different reasons – and by having a spring board to step on – and connections and influences to back things up – their performance becomes pathetic. To compensate shortcomings, these leaders display arrogance – and instead of looking for talents, they tend to assemble flatterers around.

• I think, including a leadership course in engineering curricula is a longshot – not something justifiable. An engineer can always go for MBA, if he or she chooses to (there are many MBA engineers, but I doubt whether it made them a good leader).

• Another thinking is that, if interested, a professor's freedom might allow him or her to implant a lecture or two in some relevant courses of instruction.

• But, perhaps what is important – is to include some sort of liberal courses at some levels in engineering curricula. The justification of this is that – such courses open up one's mind (or have the potential to do so) to see things from different perspectives – to appreciate the necessity of them in professional pursuits and judgments – in becoming a good leader. In 2018, there was a thread Integration of Disciplines in Engineering Education – where some 30 discussions (they were also motivated by 2018 NAP #24988) were posted.

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

Excellent points Mitch, thanks!

So Dilip, Mitch,

What and how do we get our engineering educators to imbed these into their coursework?

i.e., not separate, but as a normal part of the Engr's tech lectures?

Cheers,

Bill

Key traits that I think of are Authenticity (sincerity and integrity), respectfulness, accountability for one's actions, a goal-zero mindset on safety, and a laser sharp focus on delivery and deliverables.

<>Principles To Lead Others:
INTEGRITY: We do what is right.
EXCELLENCE: We strive to be the best.
URGENCY: We serve people now.
EMPATHY: We care.
RESPECT: We treat each other right.
TEAMWORK: We work together.
PERSISTENCE: We find a way.

Q. What principles would you add to the list?
Cheers,
Bill

Excellent points Mitch, thanks!

So Dilip, Mitch,

What and how do we get our engineering educators to imbed these into their coursework?

i.e., not separate, but as a normal part of the Engr's tech lectures?

Cheers,

Bill

Key traits that I think of are Authenticity (sincerity and integrity), respectfulness, accountability for one's actions, a goal-zero mindset on safety, and a laser sharp focus on delivery and deliverables.

<>Principles To Lead Others:
INTEGRITY: We do what is right.
EXCELLENCE: We strive to be the best.
URGENCY: We serve people now.
EMPATHY: We care.
RESPECT: We treat each other right.
TEAMWORK: We work together.
PERSISTENCE: We find a way.

Q. What principles would you add to the list?
Cheers,
Bill

It's an important topic; however, speaking of adding anything to the undergraduate engineering curriculum makes me cringe.

The curriculum has been squeezed from both ends. Governing boards usually require a broad grounding in the general literacy, humanities, and arts to produce a well-rounded graduate. That typically takes 30 to 40 semester hours, twice the number from the 1950s. Under pressure from legislatures, publicly funded universities have reduced the number of required semester hours from around 150 to 130 or less over the same period. So, today's engineering bachelor's graduate has covered about two semesters less engineering subject matter than my generation. IMO, today's BS graduates are under-prepared technically and must immediately engage in continuing education of some form.

Perhaps you can see why I cringe. If we add something to the engineering undergraduate technical coursework, what do we take out to make room for any new material?

On the plus side, excellent leadership and teamwork training are available for working engineers. The U.S. Army excels in providing that training for both civilian employees and military service members. The other DoD elements may provide similar training.

Excellent points Mitch, thanks!

So Dilip, Mitch,

What and how do we get our engineering educators to imbed these into their coursework?

i.e., not separate, but as a normal part of the Engr's tech lectures?

Cheers,

Bill

Key traits that I think of are Authenticity (sincerity and integrity), respectfulness, accountability for one's actions, a goal-zero mindset on safety, and a laser sharp focus on delivery and deliverables.

<>Principles To Lead Others:
INTEGRITY: We do what is right.
EXCELLENCE: We strive to be the best.
URGENCY: We serve people now.
EMPATHY: We care.
RESPECT: We treat each other right.
TEAMWORK: We work together.
PERSISTENCE: We find a way.

Q. What principles would you add to the list?
Cheers,
Bill

Thanks Bill!

Re: "It's an important topic; however, speaking of adding anything to the undergraduate engineering curriculum makes me cringe."

Well of course it would as it fly's in the face of some 50 to 80 years of doing. . . basically . . . the same stuff over and over....despite

the fact the world and its needs and demands have changed.

C H A N G E.

• Clarification:

The notes are not intended to discount what the past edu-process supported.

But that time has clearly passed.

Cheers,

Bill

It's an important topic; however, speaking of adding anything to the undergraduate engineering curriculum makes me cringe.

The curriculum has been squeezed from both ends. Governing boards usually require a broad grounding in the general literacy, humanities, and arts to produce a well-rounded graduate. That typically takes 30 to 40 semester hours, twice the number from the 1950s. Under pressure from legislatures, publicly funded universities have reduced the number of required semester hours from around 150 to 130 or less over the same period. So, today's engineering bachelor's graduate has covered about two semesters less engineering subject matter than my generation. IMO, today's BS graduates are under-prepared technically and must immediately engage in continuing education of some form.

Perhaps you can see why I cringe. If we add something to the engineering undergraduate technical coursework, what do we take out to make room for any new material?

On the plus side, excellent leadership and teamwork training are available for working engineers. The U.S. Army excels in providing that training for both civilian employees and military service members. The other DoD elements may provide similar training.

Excellent points Mitch, thanks!

So Dilip, Mitch,

What and how do we get our engineering educators to imbed these into their coursework?

i.e., not separate, but as a normal part of the Engr's tech lectures?

Cheers,

Bill

Key traits that I think of are Authenticity (sincerity and integrity), respectfulness, accountability for one's actions, a goal-zero mindset on safety, and a laser sharp focus on delivery and deliverables.

<>Principles To Lead Others:
INTEGRITY: We do what is right.
EXCELLENCE: We strive to be the best.
URGENCY: We serve people now.
EMPATHY: We care.
RESPECT: We treat each other right.
TEAMWORK: We work together.
PERSISTENCE: We find a way.

Q. What principles would you add to the list?
Cheers,
Bill

We may not be thinking about the same engineering curriculum, Bill H. The typical undergrad curriculum today is hugely different from that of 50 years ago. Even during my brief (2002-2014) teaching at the university level we significantly revamped our curriculum to adapt to changing science, technology, and practice needs plus a directive from the governing board to reduce the number of hours. Both the list of courses and content of those courses changed.

I'm pretty sure that most, if not all, engineering schools are adapting; not doing the same things over and over.

Bill Mc

Thanks Bill!

Re: "It's an important topic; however, speaking of adding anything to the undergraduate engineering curriculum makes me cringe."

Well of course it would as it fly's in the face of some 50 to 80 years of doing. . . basically . . . the same stuff over and over....despite

the fact the world and its needs and demands have changed.

C H A N G E.

• Clarification:

The notes are not intended to discount what the past edu-process supported.

But that time has clearly passed.

Cheers,

Bill

It's an important topic; however, speaking of adding anything to the undergraduate engineering curriculum makes me cringe.

The curriculum has been squeezed from both ends. Governing boards usually require a broad grounding in the general literacy, humanities, and arts to produce a well-rounded graduate. That typically takes 30 to 40 semester hours, twice the number from the 1950s. Under pressure from legislatures, publicly funded universities have reduced the number of required semester hours from around 150 to 130 or less over the same period. So, today's engineering bachelor's graduate has covered about two semesters less engineering subject matter than my generation. IMO, today's BS graduates are under-prepared technically and must immediately engage in continuing education of some form.

Perhaps you can see why I cringe. If we add something to the engineering undergraduate technical coursework, what do we take out to make room for any new material?

On the plus side, excellent leadership and teamwork training are available for working engineers. The U.S. Army excels in providing that training for both civilian employees and military service members. The other DoD elements may provide similar training.

Excellent points Mitch, thanks!

So Dilip, Mitch,

What and how do we get our engineering educators to imbed these into their coursework?

i.e., not separate, but as a normal part of the Engr's tech lectures?

Cheers,

Bill

Key traits that I think of are Authenticity (sincerity and integrity), respectfulness, accountability for one's actions, a goal-zero mindset on safety, and a laser sharp focus on delivery and deliverables.

<>Principles To Lead Others:
INTEGRITY: We do what is right.
EXCELLENCE: We strive to be the best.
URGENCY: We serve people now.
EMPATHY: We care.
RESPECT: We treat each other right.
TEAMWORK: We work together.
PERSISTENCE: We find a way.

Q. What principles would you add to the list?
Cheers,
Bill

Bill M - I agree. I'm still at the earlier end of my career, and new grads from my same university aren't doing the same thing I was just 10 years ago.

Our civil department leadership took feedback that we gave in our exit interviews and made changes. They made changes based on things they discussed with those in practice and in research. They had to re-up their ABET accreditation while I was in school which revises requirements over the years. They created a new course after my sophomore year that they added to our required coursework because they didn't want us to miss out on the content they'd added. They removed a couple of the engineering science classes that didn't act as a foundation for any of the Civil courses and replaced those with other courses instead. They added multi-disciplinary projects to help prepare students to work in a multi-disciplinary world. They added courses on developing technology like BIM. 

It seems incredibly disrespectful to assume those who have dedicated their careers to preparing the next generation of civil engineers aren't doing anything to keep up with the ever-changing demands of our industry.

Bill H - if you know of specific programs that are behind the times, maybe it would be best for you to personally reach out to those programs and express your concerns directly. I don't think it is helpful to paint with a broad brush about what educators as a whole are or aren't doing the way you think they ought to be.

We may not be thinking about the same engineering curriculum, Bill H. The typical undergrad curriculum today is hugely different from that of 50 years ago. Even during my brief (2002-2014) teaching at the university level we significantly revamped our curriculum to adapt to changing science, technology, and practice needs plus a directive from the governing board to reduce the number of hours. Both the list of courses and content of those courses changed.

I'm pretty sure that most, if not all, engineering schools are adapting; not doing the same things over and over.

Bill Mc

Thanks Bill!

Re: "It's an important topic; however, speaking of adding anything to the undergraduate engineering curriculum makes me cringe."

Well of course it would as it fly's in the face of some 50 to 80 years of doing. . . basically . . . the same stuff over and over....despite

the fact the world and its needs and demands have changed.

C H A N G E.

• Clarification:

The notes are not intended to discount what the past edu-process supported.

But that time has clearly passed.

Cheers,

Bill

It's an important topic; however, speaking of adding anything to the undergraduate engineering curriculum makes me cringe.

The curriculum has been squeezed from both ends. Governing boards usually require a broad grounding in the general literacy, humanities, and arts to produce a well-rounded graduate. That typically takes 30 to 40 semester hours, twice the number from the 1950s. Under pressure from legislatures, publicly funded universities have reduced the number of required semester hours from around 150 to 130 or less over the same period. So, today's engineering bachelor's graduate has covered about two semesters less engineering subject matter than my generation. IMO, today's BS graduates are under-prepared technically and must immediately engage in continuing education of some form.

Perhaps you can see why I cringe. If we add something to the engineering undergraduate technical coursework, what do we take out to make room for any new material?

On the plus side, excellent leadership and teamwork training are available for working engineers. The U.S. Army excels in providing that training for both civilian employees and military service members. The other DoD elements may provide similar training.

Excellent points Mitch, thanks!

So Dilip, Mitch,

What and how do we get our engineering educators to imbed these into their coursework?

i.e., not separate, but as a normal part of the Engr's tech lectures?

Cheers,

Bill

Key traits that I think of are Authenticity (sincerity and integrity), respectfulness, accountability for one's actions, a goal-zero mindset on safety, and a laser sharp focus on delivery and deliverables.

<>Principles To Lead Others:
INTEGRITY: We do what is right.
EXCELLENCE: We strive to be the best.
URGENCY: We serve people now.
EMPATHY: We care.
RESPECT: We treat each other right.
TEAMWORK: We work together.
PERSISTENCE: We find a way.

Q. What principles would you add to the list?
Cheers,
Bill

The comment from Heidi Wallace is spot on.  Thank you, Heidi.  There has been and continues to be a lot of change in civil and environmental engineering curricula.  This trend is accelerating, helped by sharing and support within the CE education community.  ASCE has held Civil Engineering Education Summits in 2019 (at Southern Methodist University, in Dallas) and 2023 (at Clemson University, South Carolina), and a June 2025 Summit is being planned and will be held at Case Western Reserve University (in Cleveland).  The theme of the 2019 Summit, an interactive, facilitated 2.5-day event, was Empowered to Innovate.  The report from the 2019 Summit, with the themes and goals developed collectively by the participants, and the subsequent 2021 Action Plan developed in response to that Summit are available at:  https://www.asce.org/career-growth/educators/education-summit  

Curricula are being revised in diverse ways, building on local strengths and opportunities.  There is not just one monolithic civil engineering "curriculum."  Old courses are being replaced with new courses, including new kinds of project courses integrated throughout the curriculum so that synthesis and design does not appear for the first time in "senior capstone design."  

Expanding and strengthening industry-university partnerships is among the goals identified at the 2019 Summit and examined in more detail in the 2021 Action Plan.  The 2025 Summit will feature a focus on industry-university engagements and collaborations.  CE programs from across the US will be represented by their heads/chairs, at least one faculty member from each program, and an industry partner for each program.  I encourage folks on this thread who have a relationship with a university program and who may be interested in participating in the 2025 Summit to contact the head/chair of the department and let them know of your interest.

Bill M - I agree. I'm still at the earlier end of my career, and new grads from my same university aren't doing the same thing I was just 10 years ago.

Our civil department leadership took feedback that we gave in our exit interviews and made changes. They made changes based on things they discussed with those in practice and in research. They had to re-up their ABET accreditation while I was in school which revises requirements over the years. They created a new course after my sophomore year that they added to our required coursework because they didn't want us to miss out on the content they'd added. They removed a couple of the engineering science classes that didn't act as a foundation for any of the Civil courses and replaced those with other courses instead. They added multi-disciplinary projects to help prepare students to work in a multi-disciplinary world. They added courses on developing technology like BIM. 

It seems incredibly disrespectful to assume those who have dedicated their careers to preparing the next generation of civil engineers aren't doing anything to keep up with the ever-changing demands of our industry.

Bill H - if you know of specific programs that are behind the times, maybe it would be best for you to personally reach out to those programs and express your concerns directly. I don't think it is helpful to paint with a broad brush about what educators as a whole are or aren't doing the way you think they ought to be.

We may not be thinking about the same engineering curriculum, Bill H. The typical undergrad curriculum today is hugely different from that of 50 years ago. Even during my brief (2002-2014) teaching at the university level we significantly revamped our curriculum to adapt to changing science, technology, and practice needs plus a directive from the governing board to reduce the number of hours. Both the list of courses and content of those courses changed.

I'm pretty sure that most, if not all, engineering schools are adapting; not doing the same things over and over.

Bill Mc

Thanks Bill!

Re: "It's an important topic; however, speaking of adding anything to the undergraduate engineering curriculum makes me cringe."

Well of course it would as it fly's in the face of some 50 to 80 years of doing. . . basically . . . the same stuff over and over....despite

the fact the world and its needs and demands have changed.

C H A N G E.

• Clarification:

The notes are not intended to discount what the past edu-process supported.

But that time has clearly passed.

Cheers,

Bill

It's an important topic; however, speaking of adding anything to the undergraduate engineering curriculum makes me cringe.

The curriculum has been squeezed from both ends. Governing boards usually require a broad grounding in the general literacy, humanities, and arts to produce a well-rounded graduate. That typically takes 30 to 40 semester hours, twice the number from the 1950s. Under pressure from legislatures, publicly funded universities have reduced the number of required semester hours from around 150 to 130 or less over the same period. So, today's engineering bachelor's graduate has covered about two semesters less engineering subject matter than my generation. IMO, today's BS graduates are under-prepared technically and must immediately engage in continuing education of some form.

Perhaps you can see why I cringe. If we add something to the engineering undergraduate technical coursework, what do we take out to make room for any new material?

On the plus side, excellent leadership and teamwork training are available for working engineers. The U.S. Army excels in providing that training for both civilian employees and military service members. The other DoD elements may provide similar training.

Excellent points Mitch, thanks!

So Dilip, Mitch,

What and how do we get our engineering educators to imbed these into their coursework?

i.e., not separate, but as a normal part of the Engr's tech lectures?

Cheers,

Bill

Key traits that I think of are Authenticity (sincerity and integrity), respectfulness, accountability for one's actions, a goal-zero mindset on safety, and a laser sharp focus on delivery and deliverables.

<>Principles To Lead Others:
INTEGRITY: We do what is right.
EXCELLENCE: We strive to be the best.
URGENCY: We serve people now.
EMPATHY: We care.
RESPECT: We treat each other right.
TEAMWORK: We work together.
PERSISTENCE: We find a way.

Q. What principles would you add to the list?
Cheers,
Bill

The comment from Heidi Wallace is spot on.  Thank you, Heidi.  There has been and continues to be a lot of change in civil and environmental engineering curricula.  This trend is accelerating, helped by sharing and support within the CE education community.  ASCE has held Civil Engineering Education Summits in 2019 (at Southern Methodist University, in Dallas) and 2023 (at Clemson University, South Carolina), and a June 2025 Summit is being planned and will be held at Case Western Reserve University (in Cleveland).  The theme of the 2019 Summit, an interactive, facilitated 2.5-day event, was Empowered to Innovate.  The report from the 2019 Summit, with the themes and goals developed collectively by the participants, and the subsequent 2021 Action Plan developed in response to that Summit are available at:  https://www.asce.org/career-growth/educators/education-summit  

Curricula are being revised in diverse ways, building on local strengths and opportunities.  There is not just one monolithic civil engineering "curriculum."  Old courses are being replaced with new courses, including new kinds of project courses integrated throughout the curriculum so that synthesis and design does not appear for the first time in "senior capstone design."  

Expanding and strengthening industry-university partnerships is among the goals identified at the 2019 Summit and examined in more detail in the 2021 Action Plan.  The 2025 Summit will feature a focus on industry-university engagements and collaborations.  CE programs from across the US will be represented by their heads/chairs, at least one faculty member from each program, and an industry partner for each program.  I encourage folks on this thread who have a relationship with a university program and who may be interested in participating in the 2025 Summit to contact the head/chair of the department and let them know of your interest.

Bill M - I agree. I'm still at the earlier end of my career, and new grads from my same university aren't doing the same thing I was just 10 years ago.

Our civil department leadership took feedback that we gave in our exit interviews and made changes. They made changes based on things they discussed with those in practice and in research. They had to re-up their ABET accreditation while I was in school which revises requirements over the years. They created a new course after my sophomore year that they added to our required coursework because they didn't want us to miss out on the content they'd added. They removed a couple of the engineering science classes that didn't act as a foundation for any of the Civil courses and replaced those with other courses instead. They added multi-disciplinary projects to help prepare students to work in a multi-disciplinary world. They added courses on developing technology like BIM. 

It seems incredibly disrespectful to assume those who have dedicated their careers to preparing the next generation of civil engineers aren't doing anything to keep up with the ever-changing demands of our industry.

Bill H - if you know of specific programs that are behind the times, maybe it would be best for you to personally reach out to those programs and express your concerns directly. I don't think it is helpful to paint with a broad brush about what educators as a whole are or aren't doing the way you think they ought to be.

We may not be thinking about the same engineering curriculum, Bill H. The typical undergrad curriculum today is hugely different from that of 50 years ago. Even during my brief (2002-2014) teaching at the university level we significantly revamped our curriculum to adapt to changing science, technology, and practice needs plus a directive from the governing board to reduce the number of hours. Both the list of courses and content of those courses changed.

I'm pretty sure that most, if not all, engineering schools are adapting; not doing the same things over and over.

Bill Mc

Thanks Bill!

Re: "It's an important topic; however, speaking of adding anything to the undergraduate engineering curriculum makes me cringe."

Well of course it would as it fly's in the face of some 50 to 80 years of doing. . . basically . . . the same stuff over and over....despite

the fact the world and its needs and demands have changed.

C H A N G E.

• Clarification:

The notes are not intended to discount what the past edu-process supported.

But that time has clearly passed.

Cheers,

Bill

It's an important topic; however, speaking of adding anything to the undergraduate engineering curriculum makes me cringe.

The curriculum has been squeezed from both ends. Governing boards usually require a broad grounding in the general literacy, humanities, and arts to produce a well-rounded graduate. That typically takes 30 to 40 semester hours, twice the number from the 1950s. Under pressure from legislatures, publicly funded universities have reduced the number of required semester hours from around 150 to 130 or less over the same period. So, today's engineering bachelor's graduate has covered about two semesters less engineering subject matter than my generation. IMO, today's BS graduates are under-prepared technically and must immediately engage in continuing education of some form.

Perhaps you can see why I cringe. If we add something to the engineering undergraduate technical coursework, what do we take out to make room for any new material?

On the plus side, excellent leadership and teamwork training are available for working engineers. The U.S. Army excels in providing that training for both civilian employees and military service members. The other DoD elements may provide similar training.

Excellent points Mitch, thanks!

So Dilip, Mitch,

What and how do we get our engineering educators to imbed these into their coursework?

i.e., not separate, but as a normal part of the Engr's tech lectures?

Cheers,

Bill

Key traits that I think of are Authenticity (sincerity and integrity), respectfulness, accountability for one's actions, a goal-zero mindset on safety, and a laser sharp focus on delivery and deliverables.

<>Principles To Lead Others:
INTEGRITY: We do what is right.
EXCELLENCE: We strive to be the best.
URGENCY: We serve people now.
EMPATHY: We care.
RESPECT: We treat each other right.
TEAMWORK: We work together.
PERSISTENCE: We find a way.

Q. What principles would you add to the list?
Cheers,
Bill

Can you please provide a contact for the June 2025 Summit? 

The comment from Heidi Wallace is spot on.  Thank you, Heidi.  There has been and continues to be a lot of change in civil and environmental engineering curricula.  This trend is accelerating, helped by sharing and support within the CE education community.  ASCE has held Civil Engineering Education Summits in 2019 (at Southern Methodist University, in Dallas) and 2023 (at Clemson University, South Carolina), and a June 2025 Summit is being planned and will be held at Case Western Reserve University (in Cleveland).  The theme of the 2019 Summit, an interactive, facilitated 2.5-day event, was Empowered to Innovate.  The report from the 2019 Summit, with the themes and goals developed collectively by the participants, and the subsequent 2021 Action Plan developed in response to that Summit are available at:  https://www.asce.org/career-growth/educators/education-summit  

Curricula are being revised in diverse ways, building on local strengths and opportunities.  There is not just one monolithic civil engineering "curriculum."  Old courses are being replaced with new courses, including new kinds of project courses integrated throughout the curriculum so that synthesis and design does not appear for the first time in "senior capstone design."  

Expanding and strengthening industry-university partnerships is among the goals identified at the 2019 Summit and examined in more detail in the 2021 Action Plan.  The 2025 Summit will feature a focus on industry-university engagements and collaborations.  CE programs from across the US will be represented by their heads/chairs, at least one faculty member from each program, and an industry partner for each program.  I encourage folks on this thread who have a relationship with a university program and who may be interested in participating in the 2025 Summit to contact the head/chair of the department and let them know of your interest.

Bill M - I agree. I'm still at the earlier end of my career, and new grads from my same university aren't doing the same thing I was just 10 years ago.

Our civil department leadership took feedback that we gave in our exit interviews and made changes. They made changes based on things they discussed with those in practice and in research. They had to re-up their ABET accreditation while I was in school which revises requirements over the years. They created a new course after my sophomore year that they added to our required coursework because they didn't want us to miss out on the content they'd added. They removed a couple of the engineering science classes that didn't act as a foundation for any of the Civil courses and replaced those with other courses instead. They added multi-disciplinary projects to help prepare students to work in a multi-disciplinary world. They added courses on developing technology like BIM. 

It seems incredibly disrespectful to assume those who have dedicated their careers to preparing the next generation of civil engineers aren't doing anything to keep up with the ever-changing demands of our industry.

Bill H - if you know of specific programs that are behind the times, maybe it would be best for you to personally reach out to those programs and express your concerns directly. I don't think it is helpful to paint with a broad brush about what educators as a whole are or aren't doing the way you think they ought to be.

We may not be thinking about the same engineering curriculum, Bill H. The typical undergrad curriculum today is hugely different from that of 50 years ago. Even during my brief (2002-2014) teaching at the university level we significantly revamped our curriculum to adapt to changing science, technology, and practice needs plus a directive from the governing board to reduce the number of hours. Both the list of courses and content of those courses changed.

I'm pretty sure that most, if not all, engineering schools are adapting; not doing the same things over and over.

Bill Mc

Thanks Bill!

Re: "It's an important topic; however, speaking of adding anything to the undergraduate engineering curriculum makes me cringe."

Well of course it would as it fly's in the face of some 50 to 80 years of doing. . . basically . . . the same stuff over and over....despite

the fact the world and its needs and demands have changed.

C H A N G E.

• Clarification:

The notes are not intended to discount what the past edu-process supported.

But that time has clearly passed.

Cheers,

Bill

It's an important topic; however, speaking of adding anything to the undergraduate engineering curriculum makes me cringe.

The curriculum has been squeezed from both ends. Governing boards usually require a broad grounding in the general literacy, humanities, and arts to produce a well-rounded graduate. That typically takes 30 to 40 semester hours, twice the number from the 1950s. Under pressure from legislatures, publicly funded universities have reduced the number of required semester hours from around 150 to 130 or less over the same period. So, today's engineering bachelor's graduate has covered about two semesters less engineering subject matter than my generation. IMO, today's BS graduates are under-prepared technically and must immediately engage in continuing education of some form.

Perhaps you can see why I cringe. If we add something to the engineering undergraduate technical coursework, what do we take out to make room for any new material?

On the plus side, excellent leadership and teamwork training are available for working engineers. The U.S. Army excels in providing that training for both civilian employees and military service members. The other DoD elements may provide similar training.

Excellent points Mitch, thanks!

So Dilip, Mitch,

What and how do we get our engineering educators to imbed these into their coursework?

i.e., not separate, but as a normal part of the Engr's tech lectures?

Cheers,

Bill

Key traits that I think of are Authenticity (sincerity and integrity), respectfulness, accountability for one's actions, a goal-zero mindset on safety, and a laser sharp focus on delivery and deliverables.

<>Principles To Lead Others:
INTEGRITY: We do what is right.
EXCELLENCE: We strive to be the best.
URGENCY: We serve people now.
EMPATHY: We care.
RESPECT: We treat each other right.
TEAMWORK: We work together.
PERSISTENCE: We find a way.

Q. What principles would you add to the list?
Cheers,
Bill

For any practitioners interested in participating in the ASCE 2025 Civil Engineering Education Summit, which will be held from June 10-12, 2025 at Case Western University in Cleveland,  again I encourage you to contact the department head/chair of a CEE program with which you have a relationship to let them know of your interest.  

I am a member of the organizing committee and can try to answer, or carry forward to the committee, any questions that you may have about the 2025 Summit.  You can reach me at <maskemail>dzombak@...</maskemail>

Can you please provide a contact for the June 2025 Summit? 

The comment from Heidi Wallace is spot on.  Thank you, Heidi.  There has been and continues to be a lot of change in civil and environmental engineering curricula.  This trend is accelerating, helped by sharing and support within the CE education community.  ASCE has held Civil Engineering Education Summits in 2019 (at Southern Methodist University, in Dallas) and 2023 (at Clemson University, South Carolina), and a June 2025 Summit is being planned and will be held at Case Western Reserve University (in Cleveland).  The theme of the 2019 Summit, an interactive, facilitated 2.5-day event, was Empowered to Innovate.  The report from the 2019 Summit, with the themes and goals developed collectively by the participants, and the subsequent 2021 Action Plan developed in response to that Summit are available at:  https://www.asce.org/career-growth/educators/education-summit  

Curricula are being revised in diverse ways, building on local strengths and opportunities.  There is not just one monolithic civil engineering "curriculum."  Old courses are being replaced with new courses, including new kinds of project courses integrated throughout the curriculum so that synthesis and design does not appear for the first time in "senior capstone design."  

Expanding and strengthening industry-university partnerships is among the goals identified at the 2019 Summit and examined in more detail in the 2021 Action Plan.  The 2025 Summit will feature a focus on industry-university engagements and collaborations.  CE programs from across the US will be represented by their heads/chairs, at least one faculty member from each program, and an industry partner for each program.  I encourage folks on this thread who have a relationship with a university program and who may be interested in participating in the 2025 Summit to contact the head/chair of the department and let them know of your interest.

Bill M - I agree. I'm still at the earlier end of my career, and new grads from my same university aren't doing the same thing I was just 10 years ago.

Our civil department leadership took feedback that we gave in our exit interviews and made changes. They made changes based on things they discussed with those in practice and in research. They had to re-up their ABET accreditation while I was in school which revises requirements over the years. They created a new course after my sophomore year that they added to our required coursework because they didn't want us to miss out on the content they'd added. They removed a couple of the engineering science classes that didn't act as a foundation for any of the Civil courses and replaced those with other courses instead. They added multi-disciplinary projects to help prepare students to work in a multi-disciplinary world. They added courses on developing technology like BIM. 

It seems incredibly disrespectful to assume those who have dedicated their careers to preparing the next generation of civil engineers aren't doing anything to keep up with the ever-changing demands of our industry.

Bill H - if you know of specific programs that are behind the times, maybe it would be best for you to personally reach out to those programs and express your concerns directly. I don't think it is helpful to paint with a broad brush about what educators as a whole are or aren't doing the way you think they ought to be.

We may not be thinking about the same engineering curriculum, Bill H. The typical undergrad curriculum today is hugely different from that of 50 years ago. Even during my brief (2002-2014) teaching at the university level we significantly revamped our curriculum to adapt to changing science, technology, and practice needs plus a directive from the governing board to reduce the number of hours. Both the list of courses and content of those courses changed.

I'm pretty sure that most, if not all, engineering schools are adapting; not doing the same things over and over.

Bill Mc

Thanks Bill!

Re: "It's an important topic; however, speaking of adding anything to the undergraduate engineering curriculum makes me cringe."

Well of course it would as it fly's in the face of some 50 to 80 years of doing. . . basically . . . the same stuff over and over....despite

the fact the world and its needs and demands have changed.

C H A N G E.

• Clarification:

The notes are not intended to discount what the past edu-process supported.

But that time has clearly passed.

Cheers,

Bill

It's an important topic; however, speaking of adding anything to the undergraduate engineering curriculum makes me cringe.

The curriculum has been squeezed from both ends. Governing boards usually require a broad grounding in the general literacy, humanities, and arts to produce a well-rounded graduate. That typically takes 30 to 40 semester hours, twice the number from the 1950s. Under pressure from legislatures, publicly funded universities have reduced the number of required semester hours from around 150 to 130 or less over the same period. So, today's engineering bachelor's graduate has covered about two semesters less engineering subject matter than my generation. IMO, today's BS graduates are under-prepared technically and must immediately engage in continuing education of some form.

Perhaps you can see why I cringe. If we add something to the engineering undergraduate technical coursework, what do we take out to make room for any new material?

On the plus side, excellent leadership and teamwork training are available for working engineers. The U.S. Army excels in providing that training for both civilian employees and military service members. The other DoD elements may provide similar training.

Excellent points Mitch, thanks!

So Dilip, Mitch,

What and how do we get our engineering educators to imbed these into their coursework?

i.e., not separate, but as a normal part of the Engr's tech lectures?

Cheers,

Bill

Key traits that I think of are Authenticity (sincerity and integrity), respectfulness, accountability for one's actions, a goal-zero mindset on safety, and a laser sharp focus on delivery and deliverables.

<>Principles To Lead Others:
INTEGRITY: We do what is right.
EXCELLENCE: We strive to be the best.
URGENCY: We serve people now.
EMPATHY: We care.
RESPECT: We treat each other right.
TEAMWORK: We work together.
PERSISTENCE: We find a way.

Q. What principles would you add to the list?
Cheers,
Bill

Bill M - I agree. I'm still at the earlier end of my career, and new grads from my same university aren't doing the same thing I was just 10 years ago.

Our civil department leadership took feedback that we gave in our exit interviews and made changes. They made changes based on things they discussed with those in practice and in research. They had to re-up their ABET accreditation while I was in school which revises requirements over the years. They created a new course after my sophomore year that they added to our required coursework because they didn't want us to miss out on the content they'd added. They removed a couple of the engineering science classes that didn't act as a foundation for any of the Civil courses and replaced those with other courses instead. They added multi-disciplinary projects to help prepare students to work in a multi-disciplinary world. They added courses on developing technology like BIM. 

It seems incredibly disrespectful to assume those who have dedicated their careers to preparing the next generation of civil engineers aren't doing anything to keep up with the ever-changing demands of our industry.

Bill H - if you know of specific programs that are behind the times, maybe it would be best for you to personally reach out to those programs and express your concerns directly. I don't think it is helpful to paint with a broad brush about what educators as a whole are or aren't doing the way you think they ought to be.

We may not be thinking about the same engineering curriculum, Bill H. The typical undergrad curriculum today is hugely different from that of 50 years ago. Even during my brief (2002-2014) teaching at the university level we significantly revamped our curriculum to adapt to changing science, technology, and practice needs plus a directive from the governing board to reduce the number of hours. Both the list of courses and content of those courses changed.

I'm pretty sure that most, if not all, engineering schools are adapting; not doing the same things over and over.

Bill Mc

Thanks Bill!

Re: "It's an important topic; however, speaking of adding anything to the undergraduate engineering curriculum makes me cringe."

Well of course it would as it fly's in the face of some 50 to 80 years of doing. . . basically . . . the same stuff over and over....despite

the fact the world and its needs and demands have changed.

C H A N G E.

• Clarification:

The notes are not intended to discount what the past edu-process supported.

But that time has clearly passed.

Cheers,

Bill

It's an important topic; however, speaking of adding anything to the undergraduate engineering curriculum makes me cringe.

The curriculum has been squeezed from both ends. Governing boards usually require a broad grounding in the general literacy, humanities, and arts to produce a well-rounded graduate. That typically takes 30 to 40 semester hours, twice the number from the 1950s. Under pressure from legislatures, publicly funded universities have reduced the number of required semester hours from around 150 to 130 or less over the same period. So, today's engineering bachelor's graduate has covered about two semesters less engineering subject matter than my generation. IMO, today's BS graduates are under-prepared technically and must immediately engage in continuing education of some form.

Perhaps you can see why I cringe. If we add something to the engineering undergraduate technical coursework, what do we take out to make room for any new material?

On the plus side, excellent leadership and teamwork training are available for working engineers. The U.S. Army excels in providing that training for both civilian employees and military service members. The other DoD elements may provide similar training.

Excellent points Mitch, thanks!

So Dilip, Mitch,

What and how do we get our engineering educators to imbed these into their coursework?

i.e., not separate, but as a normal part of the Engr's tech lectures?

Cheers,

Bill

Key traits that I think of are Authenticity (sincerity and integrity), respectfulness, accountability for one's actions, a goal-zero mindset on safety, and a laser sharp focus on delivery and deliverables.

<>Principles To Lead Others:
INTEGRITY: We do what is right.
EXCELLENCE: We strive to be the best.
URGENCY: We serve people now.
EMPATHY: We care.
RESPECT: We treat each other right.
TEAMWORK: We work together.
PERSISTENCE: We find a way.

Q. What principles would you add to the list?
Cheers,
Bill