With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

1. Comparing all "Engineers" to medical doctors is perhaps painting with too broad a brush.  I think the vast majority of civil engineers understand the concept of not practicing engineering outside of their competency.  If we want to raise the bar for entry into the profession, we better have a good reason because we're already having trouble recruiting new civil engineers.  Consider how the concept of becoming a medical doctor, or an attorney are viewed by the general public.  Everyone knows there is a huge education requirement in order to even have a chance, followed by the bar exam, which is known to be a very difficult test (as it should be).  This leads many people to say things like, "I could never do that, I'm not smart enough, or I'm not willing to make the financial and time commitment to become that."  We don't want people without adequate education, training, and certification to be performing surgery, for obvious reasons.

However, when it comes to the civil engineering profession, not all professionals need to be performing surgery.  I think we should have some portion of the civil engineering profession seeking advanced degrees in order to pursue the most challenging and specialized aspects of projects, and help lead research efforts to best benefit the public good.  In my opinion, we need many good, solid civil engineers who can serve the single family residential, light commercial, light industrial, local and regional government and similar markets.  When it comes to designing and building skyscrapers, tunnels, interstate highway bridges, and similar types of projects, I think we should have expert civil engineers with advanced degrees, adequate experience, and perhaps additional credentials, such as the Diplomate in Geotechnical Engineering (D.GE).

2. I agree wholeheartedly that the professors teaching the next generations of civil engineers should have some (successful) industry experience.  I'm just going to throw it out there, as the saying that goes, "those who cannot do, teach."  Obviously, there are many great professors out there who are a real credit to the profession, in fact I'd argue the vast majority of professors are really solid people.  However, if one is able to be moderately successful working in the industry making a good living doing what they love, why would they consider "switching teams" and going (back) into academia?  The ability to earn advanced degrees?  A strong desire to "make a difference?"  Do civil engineering professors earn, on average, more or less than their counterparts working in the industry?  The answer is of course: It depends.  It seems some may simply stay in academia because they've already ventured so far down that path to earn a PhD, it doesn't make sense to leave that path to pursue a different one in private practice?  Again, we must consider everyone's career path is slightly different.  Some percentage of high school and college students decide to pursue a career in civil engineering, and not all are successful.  I don't know if anyone who decides to pursue a career in civil engineering sets out from the start to become the President of ASCE, the Chief Geotechnical Engineer for a large company, overseeing large, risky, high-profile projects and teams of other engineers, or similar roles, but we need to keep recruiting across the board because there is already a shortage of people who are interested in pursuing a career in civil engineering.

It seems like the profession is divided into two factions: those who believe the P.E. licensure requirement in the USA is sufficient, and those who believe advanced degrees and advanced certification should be required for all civil engineers.  Obviously, ASCE has made the decision to make efforts to advance the profession toward the latter.  According to the Academy of Geo-Professionals, if you are a licensed professional engineer with at least 8 years' post-PE experience and a Master's degree, you may apply for the D.GE certification. Without a Master's degree, you may still qualify, but the post-PE experience requirement is more than tripled.  In order to become certified, you must demonstrate "Level 5" to "Level 6" ability or mastery level in an array of subjects.  This is all very good for high risk practice areas, such as: deep excavations and retaining structures, tunnels and underground construction, embankments, dams and levees, earthquake engineering, etc.  However, is it needed for all geotechnical engineering professionals?  My answer is no.

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

I've said this before in previous discussions, but I think we need to be careful comparing ourselves to doctors. To design a culvert or roadway is not comparable to knowing the ins and outs of the human body, pathology, etc. Yes, there is a life-safety component to what we do, but it is not the same as diagnosing and treating people medically.

I was fully competent to sign and seal some kinds of civil engineering plans 4 years out of school. Are there other projects and scopes that I would not have signed and sealed yet, even in my area of civil? Yes.

This is why our ethical obligations and areas of competence are so critical. My general practitioner shouldn't do surgery, and I shouldn't sign a wastewater treatment design.

I would also say that to teach the theory of something well and to teach someone to practice are two different things. School is intended to give you the theoretical background and foundational skills needed to understand and execute the on-the-job training. Is it great when professors have practical experience? Yes. Does it mean that without that experience they aren't benefitting students? No.

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

Thanks Doug, Heidi, for your thoughts.

Both set of thoughts fall into what, I think, many other engineers would say about the suggestion.

it's time to re-think the engineer's education program/system of the past, and based on facts, not just opinions, address the needs.

The attachment furnished by Dr. Stu Walesh graphs the history of our engineer's edu-system compared to other professions.

Cheers,

Bill

------------------------------
William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
Buffalo, N.Y.

"It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880

Original Message:
Sent: 02-14-2024 10:09 AM
From: Heidi Wallace
Subject: Q. Why is it still ok to graduate engineers after just 4 years of college? And then in 4 years let them take the P.E. license exam?

I've said this before in previous discussions, but I think we need to be careful comparing ourselves to doctors. To design a culvert or roadway is not comparable to knowing the ins and outs of the human body, pathology, etc. Yes, there is a life-safety component to what we do, but it is not the same as diagnosing and treating people medically.

I was fully competent to sign and seal some kinds of civil engineering plans 4 years out of school. Are there other projects and scopes that I would not have signed and sealed yet, even in my area of civil? Yes.

This is why our ethical obligations and areas of competence are so critical. My general practitioner shouldn't do surgery, and I shouldn't sign a wastewater treatment design.

I would also say that to teach the theory of something well and to teach someone to practice are two different things. School is intended to give you the theoretical background and foundational skills needed to understand and execute the on-the-job training. Is it great when professors have practical experience? Yes. Does it mean that without that experience they aren't benefitting students? No.

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

I'm with Heidi 100%. There's a lot to it, and a lot comes down to qualifications and judgment. There's actually no good way, as far as I can tell, to completely standardize certification and licensure in a way that allows a limited set of credentials to cleanly address people's abilities to perform a functionally infinite set of engineering exercises. Even if Heidi was experienced enough to sign off on a WW plant design, she might be up for designing or signing/sealing an advanced or alternative design. I work in stormwater and ESC, surface water hydrology, etc. I constantly have recruiters reaching out to me for "Water/Wastewater" roles, not understanding that piped and pumped systems and utilities are almost a completely different field.

And to Bill's share - that graphic showing "formal education" is itself kind of misleading. 4+ years under a licensed PE is "informal" I guess. Or the word "engineer" is fuzzy. An EIT has 4+ years of formal education plus a difficult exam. A PE has 4+ years of formal education, a difficult exam, plus 4+ years of formal educational experience, and another difficult exam. It's sort of an apples to oranges avocados to tomatoes kind of comparison with the several professions represented in the graph. For medicine alone, there are many levels and types of practitioners, each with their own scope of practice and personal professional judgment to not do anything they aren't qualified to do, including RN, FNP, PA, MD, and many others.

I've got no clean conclusion, but the fact that there are EITs, PEs, PE/SE, PTOE, and then all the Diplomates (D.WRE, D.GE, etc.). suggests to me that we basically already have the bases pretty well covered.

Thanks Doug, Heidi, for your thoughts.

Both set of thoughts fall into what, I think, many other engineers would say about the suggestion.

it's time to re-think the engineer's education program/system of the past, and based on facts, not just opinions, address the needs.

The attachment furnished by Dr. Stu Walesh graphs the history of our engineer's edu-system compared to other professions.

Cheers,

Bill

------------------------------
William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
Buffalo, N.Y.

"It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880

Original Message:
Sent: 02-14-2024 10:09 AM
From: Heidi Wallace
Subject: Q. Why is it still ok to graduate engineers after just 4 years of college? And then in 4 years let them take the P.E. license exam?

I've said this before in previous discussions, but I think we need to be careful comparing ourselves to doctors. To design a culvert or roadway is not comparable to knowing the ins and outs of the human body, pathology, etc. Yes, there is a life-safety component to what we do, but it is not the same as diagnosing and treating people medically.

I was fully competent to sign and seal some kinds of civil engineering plans 4 years out of school. Are there other projects and scopes that I would not have signed and sealed yet, even in my area of civil? Yes.

This is why our ethical obligations and areas of competence are so critical. My general practitioner shouldn't do surgery, and I shouldn't sign a wastewater treatment design.

I would also say that to teach the theory of something well and to teach someone to practice are two different things. School is intended to give you the theoretical background and foundational skills needed to understand and execute the on-the-job training. Is it great when professors have practical experience? Yes. Does it mean that without that experience they aren't benefitting students? No.

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

Thanks Doug, Heidi, for your thoughts.

Both set of thoughts fall into what, I think, many other engineers would say about the suggestion.

it's time to re-think the engineer's education program/system of the past, and based on facts, not just opinions, address the needs.

The attachment furnished by Dr. Stu Walesh graphs the history of our engineer's edu-system compared to other professions.

Cheers,

Bill

------------------------------
William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
Buffalo, N.Y.

"It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880

Original Message:
Sent: 02-14-2024 10:09 AM
From: Heidi Wallace
Subject: Q. Why is it still ok to graduate engineers after just 4 years of college? And then in 4 years let them take the P.E. license exam?

I've said this before in previous discussions, but I think we need to be careful comparing ourselves to doctors. To design a culvert or roadway is not comparable to knowing the ins and outs of the human body, pathology, etc. Yes, there is a life-safety component to what we do, but it is not the same as diagnosing and treating people medically.

I was fully competent to sign and seal some kinds of civil engineering plans 4 years out of school. Are there other projects and scopes that I would not have signed and sealed yet, even in my area of civil? Yes.

This is why our ethical obligations and areas of competence are so critical. My general practitioner shouldn't do surgery, and I shouldn't sign a wastewater treatment design.

I would also say that to teach the theory of something well and to teach someone to practice are two different things. School is intended to give you the theoretical background and foundational skills needed to understand and execute the on-the-job training. Is it great when professors have practical experience? Yes. Does it mean that without that experience they aren't benefitting students? No.

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

Thanks Doug, Heidi, for your thoughts.

Both set of thoughts fall into what, I think, many other engineers would say about the suggestion.

it's time to re-think the engineer's education program/system of the past, and based on facts, not just opinions, address the needs.

The attachment furnished by Dr. Stu Walesh graphs the history of our engineer's edu-system compared to other professions.

Cheers,

Bill

------------------------------
William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
Buffalo, N.Y.

"It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880

Original Message:
Sent: 02-14-2024 10:09 AM
From: Heidi Wallace
Subject: Q. Why is it still ok to graduate engineers after just 4 years of college? And then in 4 years let them take the P.E. license exam?

I've said this before in previous discussions, but I think we need to be careful comparing ourselves to doctors. To design a culvert or roadway is not comparable to knowing the ins and outs of the human body, pathology, etc. Yes, there is a life-safety component to what we do, but it is not the same as diagnosing and treating people medically.

I was fully competent to sign and seal some kinds of civil engineering plans 4 years out of school. Are there other projects and scopes that I would not have signed and sealed yet, even in my area of civil? Yes.

This is why our ethical obligations and areas of competence are so critical. My general practitioner shouldn't do surgery, and I shouldn't sign a wastewater treatment design.

I would also say that to teach the theory of something well and to teach someone to practice are two different things. School is intended to give you the theoretical background and foundational skills needed to understand and execute the on-the-job training. Is it great when professors have practical experience? Yes. Does it mean that without that experience they aren't benefitting students? No.

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

The graph is oversimplified and absolutely misleading.  It makes the assumption that no training or learning occurs after graduating with a "4-year" (how many actually complete all of the courses in just 4 years) B.S. degree.  That is the point of having multiple years of experience after graduation before qualifying to be able to take the PE exam is so that the graduate can learn in a practical environment which is experience that cannot be obtained from more schooling.  Unless a student has an internship during college, it is likely that they have not seen the principals of civil engineering directly applied.

I do agree that more can be done in engineering education to better prepare students for a professional environment.  For example, instead of requiring courses like art appreciation, drama and sex education, require advanced courses in applied engineering principles such as hydraulics, structures, soils, etc, or even construction practices.

I would also like to see a vocational course requirement, such as woodworking or metalworking, where the student is forced to work with material and create parts which are to be assembled into a component.  These courses help the student to learn critical thinking through spatial relationships, geometric design and troubleshooting when something doesn't quite work as expected.

As a professional of 20 years and business owner of 15 years, I argue that what civil engineering student lack is reality in their designs.  Sure, they can do the required calculations, but their designs don't reflect what can be practically constructed; or they design for "perfect" conditions and don't take into account the imperfect human components, such as trash or soil that is conveyed through a pipeline after it is pumped from an open canal.  Learning how to properly and efficiently troubleshoot and adjust or modify our designs for the unexpected after they are constructed is just as much a part of engineering as the design, because sometime problems occur in spite of our best efforts to prevent them.

Thanks Doug, Heidi, for your thoughts.

Both set of thoughts fall into what, I think, many other engineers would say about the suggestion.

it's time to re-think the engineer's education program/system of the past, and based on facts, not just opinions, address the needs.

The attachment furnished by Dr. Stu Walesh graphs the history of our engineer's edu-system compared to other professions.

Cheers,

Bill

------------------------------
William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
Buffalo, N.Y.

"It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880

Original Message:
Sent: 02-14-2024 10:09 AM
From: Heidi Wallace
Subject: Q. Why is it still ok to graduate engineers after just 4 years of college? And then in 4 years let them take the P.E. license exam?

I've said this before in previous discussions, but I think we need to be careful comparing ourselves to doctors. To design a culvert or roadway is not comparable to knowing the ins and outs of the human body, pathology, etc. Yes, there is a life-safety component to what we do, but it is not the same as diagnosing and treating people medically.

I was fully competent to sign and seal some kinds of civil engineering plans 4 years out of school. Are there other projects and scopes that I would not have signed and sealed yet, even in my area of civil? Yes.

This is why our ethical obligations and areas of competence are so critical. My general practitioner shouldn't do surgery, and I shouldn't sign a wastewater treatment design.

I would also say that to teach the theory of something well and to teach someone to practice are two different things. School is intended to give you the theoretical background and foundational skills needed to understand and execute the on-the-job training. Is it great when professors have practical experience? Yes. Does it mean that without that experience they aren't benefitting students? No.

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

I've said this before in previous discussions, but I think we need to be careful comparing ourselves to doctors. To design a culvert or roadway is not comparable to knowing the ins and outs of the human body, pathology, etc. Yes, there is a life-safety component to what we do, but it is not the same as diagnosing and treating people medically.

I was fully competent to sign and seal some kinds of civil engineering plans 4 years out of school. Are there other projects and scopes that I would not have signed and sealed yet, even in my area of civil? Yes.

This is why our ethical obligations and areas of competence are so critical. My general practitioner shouldn't do surgery, and I shouldn't sign a wastewater treatment design.

I would also say that to teach the theory of something well and to teach someone to practice are two different things. School is intended to give you the theoretical background and foundational skills needed to understand and execute the on-the-job training. Is it great when professors have practical experience? Yes. Does it mean that without that experience they aren't benefitting students? No.

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

Engineering is best learned in the field and hands on, most highly educated engineers can solve the problem but never see the big picture. The greatest skill an engineer requires isn't knowledge alone but how to apply that knowledge in the real world. For wastewater or water treatment design an engineer should work as an operator, a structural engineer should work in construction and experience the process of excavating, placing rebar, setting forms and placing concrete, welding/bolting steel, plumbing, etc. engineering education is to teach the fundamentals so that you can on your own expand your knowledge and skills. 

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

Honestly, I view attempts to raise academic education requirements to licensure as classic, "now I'm in the castle, let me quickly raise this drawbridge and pull in the ladders."  There is absolutely no reason to raise education requirements, other than to perhaps achieve higher salaries for PEs through the simple economics of supply and demand.  It is selfish, short-sighted thinking, and borderline unethical from an equity standpoint (what's the cost for a Master's now?  How about a pHD?)

The apprentice model is best; although I am fine with formal education replacing up to 4 years of practice when applying for licensure, as it was when I applied for licensure in 2012.  Ifpractitioners can't teach and mentor the younger engineers in their firms, who are just as bright as they've ever been, the fault is squarely on the practictioner.  Mentoring and training takes time and effort from both the master practitioner, and the apprentice. 

And I also agree wholeheartedly with Douglas Hula and Heidi Wallace's previous responses; comparing Engineers to Medical doctors is not a good comparison.  It is a totally different practice of work, and in general the "life and death" nature of a mistake is not the same.  The vast majority (not all) of what Civil Engineers do is to follow established codes, regulations and best practices that have been in place for decades, centuries, or even longer (have you been to the Coliseum in Rome)?  It should not take an advanced degree to perform such work.

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

Thanks to Bill Hayden for raising important questions. A couple of observations:

My 1969 undergrad BS required about 140 semester hours and our professors told us theirs required 150 hours. Under pressure from governing boards, many programs now require less than 130 hours. IMO, this reduction in hours has come at the expense of much needed engineering instruction. I heard one MS student say that an important benefit from graduate study was finding out how much he DID NOT know.

I encounter quite a few engineers practicing outside their area of expertise. Most are not registered P.E.s.

Bill Mc

------------------------------
William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., BC.CE, BC.NE, F.ASCE
ENGINEER
Columbus MS

Original Message:
Sent: 02-10-2024 05:52 PM
From: William Hayden
Subject: Q. Why is it still ok to graduate engineers after just 4 years of college? And then in 4 years let them take the P.E. license exam?

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

"I encounter quite a few engineers practicing outside their area of expertise. Most are not registered P.E.s."

That seems to be a different issue from requiring advanced degrees. Either they are practicing in an unregulated activity (and thus the corporation is taking the legal responsibility) or you need to report them to the relevant licensing board for a case review.

Thanks to Bill Hayden for raising important questions. A couple of observations:

My 1969 undergrad BS required about 140 semester hours and our professors told us theirs required 150 hours. Under pressure from governing boards, many programs now require less than 130 hours. IMO, this reduction in hours has come at the expense of much needed engineering instruction. I heard one MS student say that an important benefit from graduate study was finding out how much he DID NOT know.

I encounter quite a few engineers practicing outside their area of expertise. Most are not registered P.E.s.

Bill Mc

------------------------------
William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., BC.CE, BC.NE, F.ASCE
ENGINEER
Columbus MS

Original Message:
Sent: 02-10-2024 05:52 PM
From: William Hayden
Subject: Q. Why is it still ok to graduate engineers after just 4 years of college? And then in 4 years let them take the P.E. license exam?

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

Thanks to Bill Hayden for raising important questions. A couple of observations:

My 1969 undergrad BS required about 140 semester hours and our professors told us theirs required 150 hours. Under pressure from governing boards, many programs now require less than 130 hours. IMO, this reduction in hours has come at the expense of much needed engineering instruction. I heard one MS student say that an important benefit from graduate study was finding out how much he DID NOT know.

I encounter quite a few engineers practicing outside their area of expertise. Most are not registered P.E.s.

Bill Mc

------------------------------
William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., BC.CE, BC.NE, F.ASCE
ENGINEER
Columbus MS

Original Message:
Sent: 02-10-2024 05:52 PM
From: William Hayden
Subject: Q. Why is it still ok to graduate engineers after just 4 years of college? And then in 4 years let them take the P.E. license exam?

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

Thanks to Bill Hayden for raising important questions. A couple of observations:

My 1969 undergrad BS required about 140 semester hours and our professors told us theirs required 150 hours. Under pressure from governing boards, many programs now require less than 130 hours. IMO, this reduction in hours has come at the expense of much needed engineering instruction. I heard one MS student say that an important benefit from graduate study was finding out how much he DID NOT know.

I encounter quite a few engineers practicing outside their area of expertise. Most are not registered P.E.s.

Bill Mc

------------------------------
William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., BC.CE, BC.NE, F.ASCE
ENGINEER
Columbus MS

Original Message:
Sent: 02-10-2024 05:52 PM
From: William Hayden
Subject: Q. Why is it still ok to graduate engineers after just 4 years of college? And then in 4 years let them take the P.E. license exam?

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

Please consider reading the following paper in the ASCE Library. . . Cheers, Bill

"Sociology of Professions: Application to the Civil Engineering "Raise the Bar" Initiative,"

By Stephen J. Ressler, P.E., Dist.M.ASCE1

Abstract: This paper applies the sociological theory of professions, as espoused by Abbott and Freidson, as a conceptual framework to assess the critical issues associated with the ongoing implementation of ASCE Policy Statement 465-also called the "Raise the Bar" initiative. The sociology of professions provides an objective basis for evaluating key aspects of the initiative, including publication of the civil engineering body of knowledge, raising educational standards for licensure, collaboration with other engineering disciplines, and defining the role of paraprofessionals. The analysis demonstrates the following: (1) the models of professionalism by Abbott and Freidson are highly applicable to civil engineering; (2) most aspects of Policy Statement 465 implementation are consistent with these models; (3) the initiative is contributing to the strength of the profession as intended; and (4) some future additions and adjustments appear to be warranted. From this analysis, the author derives recommendations for the future direction of the Raise the Bar initiative. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EI

.1943-5541.0000043. © 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers.

CE Database subject headings: Professional role; Professional societies; Professional personnel; Engineering education; Professional practice; Licensing.

Author keywords: Professions; Professional role; Professional societies; Professional personnel; Engineering education;

JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION & PRACTICE © ASCE / JULY 2011 / 151 J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 2011, 137(3): 151-161

Thanks to Bill Hayden for raising important questions. A couple of observations:

My 1969 undergrad BS required about 140 semester hours and our professors told us theirs required 150 hours. Under pressure from governing boards, many programs now require less than 130 hours. IMO, this reduction in hours has come at the expense of much needed engineering instruction. I heard one MS student say that an important benefit from graduate study was finding out how much he DID NOT know.

I encounter quite a few engineers practicing outside their area of expertise. Most are not registered P.E.s.

Bill Mc

------------------------------
William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., BC.CE, BC.NE, F.ASCE
ENGINEER
Columbus MS

Original Message:
Sent: 02-10-2024 05:52 PM
From: William Hayden
Subject: Q. Why is it still ok to graduate engineers after just 4 years of college? And then in 4 years let them take the P.E. license exam?

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

Bill, I read the referenced article, and here is my take:

-I agree with most of what was stated in the paper

-I disagree with the leap they made in assuming that requiring a Masters will necessarily accomplish the goals better than other education (like training under a qualified PE)

This was my initial problem with the "Raise the Bar" initiative. I think it is a huge over-step to require a Masters degree when Civil Engineering is such a varied field. This has been discussed a lot in previous threads, so this probably isn't the place to deep-dive into the subject.

(Keep in mind while reading the following that I do have a Masters degree.)

To summarize my thoughts: Civil Engineering is a vast field, and engineers should be attaining the BOK they need by means that are applicable to the work they will be performing and overseeing. For some, they need a Masters to meet the ethical licensure requirements to sign and seal particular work. For others, their area may require additional non-university studies taught by a PE. Some may be qualified with the training and mentoring they receive from the PE overseeing their time as an engineer-in-training. It all depends on the career path, the mentorship available, etc. A Masters degree doesn't even really exist for some of the career paths and project types that rightly require a Civil PE, and the reason for that is they don't need Masters-level education to carry our their licensure duties. (They already have to just pick a Civil PE sub-discipline to study for the test - should they also have to pay for and complete a Masters degree just to check a box?)

As stated in the paper you shared, Civil Engineering is a broad field. You can try to make the BOK too restrictive by being too specific; I think requiring a Masters for all Civil Engineers falls into the "too restrictive" category. The paper states, "In the ideal-typical model, professional education is fully controlled and conducted by members of the occupation, although these professionals are not expected to work in the labor market" -- this control by "members of the occupation" would extend to the training provided by PEs to EIs -- in the same way that they don't have to work in the labor market, they shouldn't have to be fully dedicated to academic either. 

As a side note to those discussing the educational credits required for a Bachelors - I was one of those who graduated in the current "around 130 hours" requirement era. Many of my full-time student classmates were on the 4.5 or 5 year path. I can't speak to previous generations, but we had multiple classes that were more classroom-hours of time per week than "credit hours" given for the courses. I'd be interested to know how the time-in-class compares across the years vs the credit received. How much of the curriculum has been dropped vs the adjustment happening in the credit assignments?

Please consider reading the following paper in the ASCE Library. . . Cheers, Bill

"Sociology of Professions: Application to the Civil Engineering "Raise the Bar" Initiative,"

By Stephen J. Ressler, P.E., Dist.M.ASCE1

Abstract: This paper applies the sociological theory of professions, as espoused by Abbott and Freidson, as a conceptual framework to assess the critical issues associated with the ongoing implementation of ASCE Policy Statement 465-also called the "Raise the Bar" initiative. The sociology of professions provides an objective basis for evaluating key aspects of the initiative, including publication of the civil engineering body of knowledge, raising educational standards for licensure, collaboration with other engineering disciplines, and defining the role of paraprofessionals. The analysis demonstrates the following: (1) the models of professionalism by Abbott and Freidson are highly applicable to civil engineering; (2) most aspects of Policy Statement 465 implementation are consistent with these models; (3) the initiative is contributing to the strength of the profession as intended; and (4) some future additions and adjustments appear to be warranted. From this analysis, the author derives recommendations for the future direction of the Raise the Bar initiative. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EI

.1943-5541.0000043. © 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers.

CE Database subject headings: Professional role; Professional societies; Professional personnel; Engineering education; Professional practice; Licensing.

Author keywords: Professions; Professional role; Professional societies; Professional personnel; Engineering education;

JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION & PRACTICE © ASCE / JULY 2011 / 151 J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 2011, 137(3): 151-161

Thanks to Bill Hayden for raising important questions. A couple of observations:

My 1969 undergrad BS required about 140 semester hours and our professors told us theirs required 150 hours. Under pressure from governing boards, many programs now require less than 130 hours. IMO, this reduction in hours has come at the expense of much needed engineering instruction. I heard one MS student say that an important benefit from graduate study was finding out how much he DID NOT know.

I encounter quite a few engineers practicing outside their area of expertise. Most are not registered P.E.s.

Bill Mc

------------------------------
William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., BC.CE, BC.NE, F.ASCE
ENGINEER
Columbus MS

Original Message:
Sent: 02-10-2024 05:52 PM
From: William Hayden
Subject: Q. Why is it still ok to graduate engineers after just 4 years of college? And then in 4 years let them take the P.E. license exam?

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

Speaking of continuing education, ASCE's new "Unlimited Access to On-Demand Webinars" offers a way to choose substantive CEU's at a bargain price. Check out: 

https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/article/2024/02/08/gain-unlimited-access-to-asces-on-demand-webinar-catalog?utm_medium=email&utm_source=rasa_io&utm_campaign=newsletter

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

Thanks Bill for the suggestion:

" ASCE's new "Unlimited Access to On-Demand Webinars""

• Fact 1 of 3: 60% of engineer's projects fail, by falling short in meeting one or more requirements for scope, schedule, or budget.
• Fact 2 of 3: Rarely are the failures initially due to technology, but instead due to engineers never being educated "How to play nice with others."
• Fact 3 of 3:  A question: How many courses has ASCE placed, percentage wise, into the  "On-Demand Webinars" addressing the so-called soft skills?

Cheers,

Bill

Speaking of continuing education, ASCE's new "Unlimited Access to On-Demand Webinars" offers a way to choose substantive CEU's at a bargain price. Check out: 

https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/article/2024/02/08/gain-unlimited-access-to-asces-on-demand-webinar-catalog?utm_medium=email&utm_source=rasa_io&utm_campaign=newsletter

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

Thanks Bill for the suggestion:

" ASCE's new "Unlimited Access to On-Demand Webinars""

• Fact 1 of 3: 60% of engineer's projects fail, by falling short in meeting one or more requirements for scope, schedule, or budget.
• Fact 2 of 3: Rarely are the failures initially due to technology, but instead due to engineers never being educated "How to play nice with others."
• Fact 3 of 3:  A question: How many courses has ASCE placed, percentage wise, into the  "On-Demand Webinars" addressing the so-called soft skills?

Cheers,

Bill

Speaking of continuing education, ASCE's new "Unlimited Access to On-Demand Webinars" offers a way to choose substantive CEU's at a bargain price. Check out: 

https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/article/2024/02/08/gain-unlimited-access-to-asces-on-demand-webinar-catalog?utm_medium=email&utm_source=rasa_io&utm_campaign=newsletter

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

Something to think about on the facts presented by Dr. Bill Hayden: 60% of engineer's projects fail, by falling short in meeting one or more requirements for scope, schedule, or budget . . . Rarely are the failures initially due to technology, but instead due to engineers never being educated "How to play nice with others."

• I think, I have seen these facts somewhere before. I am sure there are more interlinked causes, circumstances and constraints behind a project's failure (when we think of failure, we mostly think of structural and geotechnical failures; but there are more types than that, more in the Civil Engineering on our Seashore). When forensic investigation and blaming games ensue failures – many different types come to light. In my previous discussion, I have briefly outlined the contradictory nature of scope, schedule and budget – in terms of the required billable time vs budgeted time. And there are more visible and invisible strings attached to that . . .

• The cited facts point finger to the causes of failures that are not technical in nature. Does 'Raising the Bar' (RB) initiative or proposition take account of these non-technical causes of failures? If it does, how? I do not have answer to this question.

• Without questioning the necessity of it for now, the issue of RB invokes some more questions:

• (1) Who will bear the cost of such extended education (excellent comments put forward by Alex Thomas and Joseph Gilroy)? Obviously, the answer is the student or the practitioner. Why would they be willing to invest in such an expensive endeavor? Is it because they would be forced to do so by some entity's checklist? Can they afford the cost? Or would they be subjected to the burden of student loans?

• (2) Or is it because they are inspired to do so? This question invokes a follow-up question. Like in every investment, is the return guaranteed? I know, no one likes that kind of question. Because it is difficult to answer.

• (3) The proponent of RB or any other initiative must have a realistic and thorough vision on this – at least in terms of benefit-cost assessment of the student rather than on high-level talks of professionalism, etc. As mentioned by some, extended higher education may prove superfluous or unnecessary for some sub-disciplines of CE – but, in my hydraulic/coastal engineering field, it is useful because we interact with scientists quite often. But perhaps it is not absolutely necessary – because, after all, experience is the best teacher.

• (4) Who are the immediate beneficiaries of RB? It may be students or may be not – lots of uncertainty are there. It may sound cynical, but it is obvious that the training/educating entities would. Their responsibility ends there – just training or selling expertise whether they are needed or not. That's the reason why so many institutes are mushrooming in many countries, giving all sorts of certificates and what not (perhaps not so much in engineering per se, but certainly in other fields; they are just cashing-in on easily available resources on the internet, pretending that anyone can be an educator). One cannot question their competency – because more often than not they have powerful backers/investors and have lucrative statistics in their pamphlets.

• On this 4^th question, I like to share the experience of seeing a Hollywood movie – I forgot its name (someone may help me on this, the teacher role was played by a well-known actor), but it was brilliantly made. Briefly, it was something like this: A brave dedicated school teacher in a rundown poor ethnic neighborhood became very bullish to see his students successful and go to college. It was difficult because these kids do not have any motivation for such things. Anyway, after lots of persuasion and hard training, they sat for the college test. And some of them became successful. But, the bureaucratic/technocratic organization overseeing the test results became very suspicious, because no one ever passed such tests from that school. So, a team of well-dressed arrogant gurus with the authority of power showed up to challenge the teacher and accused the school that the tests were cheated. The teacher wouldn't accept such accusation and said, if such results would have come from a rich neighborhood or a private school – they would have been immediately accepted without any question raised – even if instances of cheating could have been there . . .

Dilip

-------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

Thanks Bill for the suggestion:

" ASCE's new "Unlimited Access to On-Demand Webinars""

• Fact 1 of 3: 60% of engineer's projects fail, by falling short in meeting one or more requirements for scope, schedule, or budget.
• Fact 2 of 3: Rarely are the failures initially due to technology, but instead due to engineers never being educated "How to play nice with others."
• Fact 3 of 3:  A question: How many courses has ASCE placed, percentage wise, into the  "On-Demand Webinars" addressing the so-called soft skills?

Cheers,

Bill

Speaking of continuing education, ASCE's new "Unlimited Access to On-Demand Webinars" offers a way to choose substantive CEU's at a bargain price. Check out: 

https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/article/2024/02/08/gain-unlimited-access-to-asces-on-demand-webinar-catalog?utm_medium=email&utm_source=rasa_io&utm_campaign=newsletter

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

I believe the movie that Dilip Barua is referring to is "Stand and Deliver"

Something to think about on the facts presented by Dr. Bill Hayden: 60% of engineer's projects fail, by falling short in meeting one or more requirements for scope, schedule, or budget . . . Rarely are the failures initially due to technology, but instead due to engineers never being educated "How to play nice with others."

• I think, I have seen these facts somewhere before. I am sure there are more interlinked causes, circumstances and constraints behind a project's failure (when we think of failure, we mostly think of structural and geotechnical failures; but there are more types than that, more in the Civil Engineering on our Seashore). When forensic investigation and blaming games ensue failures – many different types come to light. In my previous discussion, I have briefly outlined the contradictory nature of scope, schedule and budget – in terms of the required billable time vs budgeted time. And there are more visible and invisible strings attached to that . . .

• The cited facts point finger to the causes of failures that are not technical in nature. Does 'Raising the Bar' (RB) initiative or proposition take account of these non-technical causes of failures? If it does, how? I do not have answer to this question.

• Without questioning the necessity of it for now, the issue of RB invokes some more questions:

• (1) Who will bear the cost of such extended education (excellent comments put forward by Alex Thomas and Joseph Gilroy)? Obviously, the answer is the student or the practitioner. Why would they be willing to invest in such an expensive endeavor? Is it because they would be forced to do so by some entity's checklist? Can they afford the cost? Or would they be subjected to the burden of student loans?

• (2) Or is it because they are inspired to do so? This question invokes a follow-up question. Like in every investment, is the return guaranteed? I know, no one likes that kind of question. Because it is difficult to answer.

• (3) The proponent of RB or any other initiative must have a realistic and thorough vision on this – at least in terms of benefit-cost assessment of the student rather than on high-level talks of professionalism, etc. As mentioned by some, extended higher education may prove superfluous or unnecessary for some sub-disciplines of CE – but, in my hydraulic/coastal engineering field, it is useful because we interact with scientists quite often. But perhaps it is not absolutely necessary – because, after all, experience is the best teacher.

• (4) Who are the immediate beneficiaries of RB? It may be students or may be not – lots of uncertainty are there. It may sound cynical, but it is obvious that the training/educating entities would. Their responsibility ends there – just training or selling expertise whether they are needed or not. That's the reason why so many institutes are mushrooming in many countries, giving all sorts of certificates and what not (perhaps not so much in engineering per se, but certainly in other fields; they are just cashing-in on easily available resources on the internet, pretending that anyone can be an educator). One cannot question their competency – because more often than not they have powerful backers/investors and have lucrative statistics in their pamphlets.

• On this 4^th question, I like to share the experience of seeing a Hollywood movie – I forgot its name (someone may help me on this, the teacher role was played by a well-known actor), but it was brilliantly made. Briefly, it was something like this: A brave dedicated school teacher in a rundown poor ethnic neighborhood became very bullish to see his students successful and go to college. It was difficult because these kids do not have any motivation for such things. Anyway, after lots of persuasion and hard training, they sat for the college test. And some of them became successful. But, the bureaucratic/technocratic organization overseeing the test results became very suspicious, because no one ever passed such tests from that school. So, a team of well-dressed arrogant gurus with the authority of power showed up to challenge the teacher and accused the school that the tests were cheated. The teacher wouldn't accept such accusation and said, if such results would have come from a rich neighborhood or a private school – they would have been immediately accepted without any question raised – even if instances of cheating could have been there . . .

Dilip

-------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

Thanks Bill for the suggestion:

" ASCE's new "Unlimited Access to On-Demand Webinars""

• Fact 1 of 3: 60% of engineer's projects fail, by falling short in meeting one or more requirements for scope, schedule, or budget.
• Fact 2 of 3: Rarely are the failures initially due to technology, but instead due to engineers never being educated "How to play nice with others."
• Fact 3 of 3:  A question: How many courses has ASCE placed, percentage wise, into the  "On-Demand Webinars" addressing the so-called soft skills?

Cheers,

Bill

Speaking of continuing education, ASCE's new "Unlimited Access to On-Demand Webinars" offers a way to choose substantive CEU's at a bargain price. Check out: 

https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/article/2024/02/08/gain-unlimited-access-to-asces-on-demand-webinar-catalog?utm_medium=email&utm_source=rasa_io&utm_campaign=newsletter

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

Heidi, Bill:

Sorry that I could not respond earlier. Thanks for trying to rescue me. The movie was the 1988 "Stand and Deliver" 

How could you pinpoint Heidi? A movie that was made about 35 years ago - the year I came to the US to begin my PhD program. 

Best,

Dilip

-------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

I believe the movie that Dilip Barua is referring to is "Stand and Deliver"

Something to think about on the facts presented by Dr. Bill Hayden: 60% of engineer's projects fail, by falling short in meeting one or more requirements for scope, schedule, or budget . . . Rarely are the failures initially due to technology, but instead due to engineers never being educated "How to play nice with others."

• I think, I have seen these facts somewhere before. I am sure there are more interlinked causes, circumstances and constraints behind a project's failure (when we think of failure, we mostly think of structural and geotechnical failures; but there are more types than that, more in the Civil Engineering on our Seashore). When forensic investigation and blaming games ensue failures – many different types come to light. In my previous discussion, I have briefly outlined the contradictory nature of scope, schedule and budget – in terms of the required billable time vs budgeted time. And there are more visible and invisible strings attached to that . . .

• The cited facts point finger to the causes of failures that are not technical in nature. Does 'Raising the Bar' (RB) initiative or proposition take account of these non-technical causes of failures? If it does, how? I do not have answer to this question.

• Without questioning the necessity of it for now, the issue of RB invokes some more questions:

• (1) Who will bear the cost of such extended education (excellent comments put forward by Alex Thomas and Joseph Gilroy)? Obviously, the answer is the student or the practitioner. Why would they be willing to invest in such an expensive endeavor? Is it because they would be forced to do so by some entity's checklist? Can they afford the cost? Or would they be subjected to the burden of student loans?

• (2) Or is it because they are inspired to do so? This question invokes a follow-up question. Like in every investment, is the return guaranteed? I know, no one likes that kind of question. Because it is difficult to answer.

• (3) The proponent of RB or any other initiative must have a realistic and thorough vision on this – at least in terms of benefit-cost assessment of the student rather than on high-level talks of professionalism, etc. As mentioned by some, extended higher education may prove superfluous or unnecessary for some sub-disciplines of CE – but, in my hydraulic/coastal engineering field, it is useful because we interact with scientists quite often. But perhaps it is not absolutely necessary – because, after all, experience is the best teacher.

• (4) Who are the immediate beneficiaries of RB? It may be students or may be not – lots of uncertainty are there. It may sound cynical, but it is obvious that the training/educating entities would. Their responsibility ends there – just training or selling expertise whether they are needed or not. That's the reason why so many institutes are mushrooming in many countries, giving all sorts of certificates and what not (perhaps not so much in engineering per se, but certainly in other fields; they are just cashing-in on easily available resources on the internet, pretending that anyone can be an educator). One cannot question their competency – because more often than not they have powerful backers/investors and have lucrative statistics in their pamphlets.

• On this 4^th question, I like to share the experience of seeing a Hollywood movie – I forgot its name (someone may help me on this, the teacher role was played by a well-known actor), but it was brilliantly made. Briefly, it was something like this: A brave dedicated school teacher in a rundown poor ethnic neighborhood became very bullish to see his students successful and go to college. It was difficult because these kids do not have any motivation for such things. Anyway, after lots of persuasion and hard training, they sat for the college test. And some of them became successful. But, the bureaucratic/technocratic organization overseeing the test results became very suspicious, because no one ever passed such tests from that school. So, a team of well-dressed arrogant gurus with the authority of power showed up to challenge the teacher and accused the school that the tests were cheated. The teacher wouldn't accept such accusation and said, if such results would have come from a rich neighborhood or a private school – they would have been immediately accepted without any question raised – even if instances of cheating could have been there . . .

Dilip

-------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

Thanks Bill for the suggestion:

" ASCE's new "Unlimited Access to On-Demand Webinars""

• Fact 1 of 3: 60% of engineer's projects fail, by falling short in meeting one or more requirements for scope, schedule, or budget.
• Fact 2 of 3: Rarely are the failures initially due to technology, but instead due to engineers never being educated "How to play nice with others."
• Fact 3 of 3:  A question: How many courses has ASCE placed, percentage wise, into the  "On-Demand Webinars" addressing the so-called soft skills?

Cheers,

Bill

Speaking of continuing education, ASCE's new "Unlimited Access to On-Demand Webinars" offers a way to choose substantive CEU's at a bargain price. Check out: 

https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/article/2024/02/08/gain-unlimited-access-to-asces-on-demand-webinar-catalog?utm_medium=email&utm_source=rasa_io&utm_campaign=newsletter

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

Something to think about on the facts presented by Dr. Bill Hayden: 60% of engineer's projects fail, by falling short in meeting one or more requirements for scope, schedule, or budget . . . Rarely are the failures initially due to technology, but instead due to engineers never being educated "How to play nice with others."

• I think, I have seen these facts somewhere before. I am sure there are more interlinked causes, circumstances and constraints behind a project's failure (when we think of failure, we mostly think of structural and geotechnical failures; but there are more types than that, more in the Civil Engineering on our Seashore). When forensic investigation and blaming games ensue failures – many different types come to light. In my previous discussion, I have briefly outlined the contradictory nature of scope, schedule and budget – in terms of the required billable time vs budgeted time. And there are more visible and invisible strings attached to that . . .

• The cited facts point finger to the causes of failures that are not technical in nature. Does 'Raising the Bar' (RB) initiative or proposition take account of these non-technical causes of failures? If it does, how? I do not have answer to this question.

• Without questioning the necessity of it for now, the issue of RB invokes some more questions:

• (1) Who will bear the cost of such extended education (excellent comments put forward by Alex Thomas and Joseph Gilroy)? Obviously, the answer is the student or the practitioner. Why would they be willing to invest in such an expensive endeavor? Is it because they would be forced to do so by some entity's checklist? Can they afford the cost? Or would they be subjected to the burden of student loans?

• (2) Or is it because they are inspired to do so? This question invokes a follow-up question. Like in every investment, is the return guaranteed? I know, no one likes that kind of question. Because it is difficult to answer.

• (3) The proponent of RB or any other initiative must have a realistic and thorough vision on this – at least in terms of benefit-cost assessment of the student rather than on high-level talks of professionalism, etc. As mentioned by some, extended higher education may prove superfluous or unnecessary for some sub-disciplines of CE – but, in my hydraulic/coastal engineering field, it is useful because we interact with scientists quite often. But perhaps it is not absolutely necessary – because, after all, experience is the best teacher.

• (4) Who are the immediate beneficiaries of RB? It may be students or may be not – lots of uncertainty are there. It may sound cynical, but it is obvious that the training/educating entities would. Their responsibility ends there – just training or selling expertise whether they are needed or not. That's the reason why so many institutes are mushrooming in many countries, giving all sorts of certificates and what not (perhaps not so much in engineering per se, but certainly in other fields; they are just cashing-in on easily available resources on the internet, pretending that anyone can be an educator). One cannot question their competency – because more often than not they have powerful backers/investors and have lucrative statistics in their pamphlets.

• On this 4^th question, I like to share the experience of seeing a Hollywood movie – I forgot its name (someone may help me on this, the teacher role was played by a well-known actor), but it was brilliantly made. Briefly, it was something like this: A brave dedicated school teacher in a rundown poor ethnic neighborhood became very bullish to see his students successful and go to college. It was difficult because these kids do not have any motivation for such things. Anyway, after lots of persuasion and hard training, they sat for the college test. And some of them became successful. But, the bureaucratic/technocratic organization overseeing the test results became very suspicious, because no one ever passed such tests from that school. So, a team of well-dressed arrogant gurus with the authority of power showed up to challenge the teacher and accused the school that the tests were cheated. The teacher wouldn't accept such accusation and said, if such results would have come from a rich neighborhood or a private school – they would have been immediately accepted without any question raised – even if instances of cheating could have been there . . .

Dilip

-------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

Thanks Bill for the suggestion:

" ASCE's new "Unlimited Access to On-Demand Webinars""

• Fact 1 of 3: 60% of engineer's projects fail, by falling short in meeting one or more requirements for scope, schedule, or budget.
• Fact 2 of 3: Rarely are the failures initially due to technology, but instead due to engineers never being educated "How to play nice with others."
• Fact 3 of 3:  A question: How many courses has ASCE placed, percentage wise, into the  "On-Demand Webinars" addressing the so-called soft skills?

Cheers,

Bill

Speaking of continuing education, ASCE's new "Unlimited Access to On-Demand Webinars" offers a way to choose substantive CEU's at a bargain price. Check out: 

https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/article/2024/02/08/gain-unlimited-access-to-asces-on-demand-webinar-catalog?utm_medium=email&utm_source=rasa_io&utm_campaign=newsletter

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

Thanks Bill for the suggestion:

" ASCE's new "Unlimited Access to On-Demand Webinars""

• Fact 1 of 3: 60% of engineer's projects fail, by falling short in meeting one or more requirements for scope, schedule, or budget.
• Fact 2 of 3: Rarely are the failures initially due to technology, but instead due to engineers never being educated "How to play nice with others."
• Fact 3 of 3:  A question: How many courses has ASCE placed, percentage wise, into the  "On-Demand Webinars" addressing the so-called soft skills?

Cheers,

Bill

Speaking of continuing education, ASCE's new "Unlimited Access to On-Demand Webinars" offers a way to choose substantive CEU's at a bargain price. Check out: 

https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/article/2024/02/08/gain-unlimited-access-to-asces-on-demand-webinar-catalog?utm_medium=email&utm_source=rasa_io&utm_campaign=newsletter

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

Great topic!

I wholeheartedly agree with John Bolger, PE.

After graduating with a B.Engr., I sought a position as a treatment plant operator as a way to better understand water and wastewater operations, in which I'm still currently certified, and apply my hands-on experiences towards designing and building more user-friendly facilities for the owners and their staff. I enrolled in graduate school a year later, and just before graduation, I accepted a project engineering consultant position with confidence about 2½ years after my bachelor's degree. If I had 9 lives, I'd do it the same way 8 more times.

The single greatest strength in an undergraduate engineering education is its emphasis and indeed success in producing highly qualified problem solvers. The ABET curriculum has been so successful in that regard that at least one recent study determined that 10 years after graduation, only 10% of graduates held on to positions in engineering. The remaining 90% are offering their problem-solving expertise to a wide variety of other industries as non-engineers, including in health, law, business/finance, real estate, etc. Those of us who choose to continue practicing engineering accept a career of continual learning in an ever-changing field, and the undergraduate technical coursework provides the foundation for building our engineering expertise.

So, whoever's serious about extending an already exclusive field with a rigorous 4-year program to 5 (or more) years should first determine what it is about the practice of engineering that's driving away so many post-graduate engineers. I'm concerned that extending the education period will only exacerbate the current problem and not result in better engineers or engineering environment.

------------------------------
Ronald Eyma P.E., M.ASCE
Municipal Engineer/Consultant
Fort Lauderdale, FL

Original Message:
Sent: 02-10-2024 05:52 PM
From: William Hayden
Subject: Q. Why is it still ok to graduate engineers after just 4 years of college? And then in 4 years let them take the P.E. license exam?

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

• Posted with appreciation to Mitch Winkler!

The attachment clearly lays out the cure for "Cognitive Bias."

This type of bias is normal, and part of each and all of us when we are

reacting to what seems to be a challenge that what and how we do our work is

being challenged.

Q. Perhaps part of "The Cure" is making our first responses more of the inquisitive type than asserting

something is either right or wrong and why.

Cheers,

Bill

p.s. Of course, as always, I may just be wrong.

------------------------------
William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
Buffalo, N.Y.

"It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880

Original Message:
Sent: 02-26-2024 02:35 PM
From: Ronald Eyma
Subject: Q. Why is it still ok to graduate engineers after just 4 years of college? And then in 4 years let them take the P.E. license exam?

Great topic!

I wholeheartedly agree with John Bolger, PE.

After graduating with a B.Engr., I sought a position as a treatment plant operator as a way to better understand water and wastewater operations, in which I'm still currently certified, and apply my hands-on experiences towards designing and building more user-friendly facilities for the owners and their staff. I enrolled in graduate school a year later, and just before graduation, I accepted a project engineering consultant position with confidence about 2½ years after my bachelor's degree. If I had 9 lives, I'd do it the same way 8 more times.

The single greatest strength in an undergraduate engineering education is its emphasis and indeed success in producing highly qualified problem solvers. The ABET curriculum has been so successful in that regard that at least one recent study determined that 10 years after graduation, only 10% of graduates held on to positions in engineering. The remaining 90% are offering their problem-solving expertise to a wide variety of other industries as non-engineers, including in health, law, business/finance, real estate, etc. Those of us who choose to continue practicing engineering accept a career of continual learning in an ever-changing field, and the undergraduate technical coursework provides the foundation for building our engineering expertise.

So, whoever's serious about extending an already exclusive field with a rigorous 4-year program to 5 (or more) years should first determine what it is about the practice of engineering that's driving away so many post-graduate engineers. I'm concerned that extending the education period will only exacerbate the current problem and not result in better engineers or engineering environment.

------------------------------
Ronald Eyma P.E., M.ASCE
Municipal Engineer/Consultant
Fort Lauderdale, FL

Original Message:
Sent: 02-10-2024 05:52 PM
From: William Hayden
Subject: Q. Why is it still ok to graduate engineers after just 4 years of college? And then in 4 years let them take the P.E. license exam?

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

The engineering field has provided a great opportunity for many good people to make it out of the working class into a more financially secure middle class profession. But it is not easy for everyone to afford 4 years of college. Requiring another year or two of school might put the engineering field out of reach for many good people, and I believe the professions would suffer as a result. If in fact we need 5 years or more to cover all the required knowledge, would it be practical to develop apprenticeship programs? After 2 years of college, covering certain basics including practical job skills such as CADD or entry-level construction inspection skills, a person could achieve some kind of certificate that would allow him to start working as an apprentice engineer, perhaps on a 3-day or 4-day work week,  while finishing up the remaining course work. If life circumstances never allowed that person to finish the schooling, at least there'd be some certificate to show for those first 2 or 3 years besides a big tuition bill. At the same time, the actual work experience would be valuable training. I know there have been some attempts to develop things like this - how have they worked out?

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

After reading through most of the replies on this thread, some things I've observed are very clear:

1. With the exception of one person, all of those who are pushing for post-graduate degree requirements for licensure, such as a Masters or Ph. D. are themselves Ph.D.'s.
2. Those with the Ph.D.'s are putting forth papers or graphs as "evidence" for their positions which have also been written or developed by other Ph.D.'s
3. I could be wrong on this one, but I didn't see anyone without a Ph.D. support the idea of post-graduate degree requirements for licensure.
4. None of those who are pushing for post-graduate degrees have taken into account the additional cost of the degrees versus what a Professional Civil Engineer can expect to earn with that degree and how long it will take to pay it off.

While I recognize a post-graduate degree may be necessary for specialized fields of Civil Engineering (such as dams, high-rise structures, forensics, and research),  from my observations above, I am coming to the conclusion that the push for post-graduate degree requirements for licensure is being led by those who don't understand that practical, not educational, experience is more necessary for the work that most Professional Civil Engineers perform.  They also do not seem to recognize the value of us more experienced professionals continually training and mentoring the graduates and newly licensed Civil Engineers.

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

After reading through most of the replies on this thread, some things I've observed are very clear:

1. With the exception of one person, all of those who are pushing for post-graduate degree requirements for licensure, such as a Masters or Ph. D. are themselves Ph.D.'s.
2. Those with the Ph.D.'s are putting forth papers or graphs as "evidence" for their positions which have also been written or developed by other Ph.D.'s
3. I could be wrong on this one, but I didn't see anyone without a Ph.D. support the idea of post-graduate degree requirements for licensure.
4. None of those who are pushing for post-graduate degrees have taken into account the additional cost of the degrees versus what a Professional Civil Engineer can expect to earn with that degree and how long it will take to pay it off.

While I recognize a post-graduate degree may be necessary for specialized fields of Civil Engineering (such as dams, high-rise structures, forensics, and research),  from my observations above, I am coming to the conclusion that the push for post-graduate degree requirements for licensure is being led by those who don't understand that practical, not educational, experience is more necessary for the work that most Professional Civil Engineers perform.  They also do not seem to recognize the value of us more experienced professionals continually training and mentoring the graduates and newly licensed Civil Engineers.

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

We're seeing lots of interesting discussion. Based on comments so far, some points of clarification may be helpful. (Corrections are welcome.)

·         As I recall, university types didn't start the ASCE initiative for more education hours. Practicing engineers first suggested that graduating engineers lacked necessary knowledge. 

·         It isn't just a question of 4 years, but a question of 4 years of what courses. Governing bodies have squeezed engineering education from both ends by increasing required general education hours and decreasing the total number of hours. My 4 years included at least 12 more semester hours of engineering courses than today's 4-year programs.

·         ASCE's Raise the Bar initiative did not advocate advanced degrees. It advocated additional college level coursework, which could be obtained while working, as many of us do.

·         Everyone agrees that on-the-job training is just as essential as solid academic preparation.

·         ASCE has replaced Raise the Bar with a Board Certification initiative. https://www.asce.org/career-growth/civil-engineering-certification

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

Greetings, 

First time posting on these forums. Thanks for the discussion. (I wrote this on my phone, so it might needs some fine tuning. Thank you for your patience. )

As a person both with over twenty years in academics and with over 20 years in private practice, my perspective is someway unique:

1. Taking care with any comparison to the medical community, and considering that several disciplines in CE already need a Masters, the missing "link" in CE education is the need to require Masters' level courses be taught by practicing academics. If the medical profession can teach us anything, it's this: Masters level of CE degrees needs to include more practicing education-currently done by non-academic, practicing, organizations.  This change, while allowing more practicing education to be done in academia, would also allow more (not less) humanities at the undergraduate level. (Requiring engineers to take humanities courses is a topic for another thread.) This suggestion creates a huge problem for the CE profession because academics are held both to teach a very narrow part of CE education-the theoretical-and to teach the part that is the least appreciated in the industry. The least appreciated for the reasons already mentioned by others: that a great deal of civil engineering is "cookbook" to the point where no formal education is really needed to do the work. 
2. My suggestion is that we create practicing academic institutions to teach Masters level courses. To address the original question: stop requiring all academics to do research and require practicing engineers in academia to teach Masters level courses and become PEs. The biggest problem with this suggestion is money: the disparity of salaries for practicing engineers versus academic engineers is great, as is the cost of running a practicing engineering firm. To suddenly require academic institutions to hire practicing engineers will transform those programs to something different than they are now: CE practicing "clinics" for lack of a better word.

IMHO, this suggestion is ready to be implemented. There already exist many technology/technical academic institutes, whose graduates could be hired as practicing engineers assistants (like PAs and nursing assistants in medicine). The missing piece, in higher education, is a radical change in CE programs to look more like a practicing CE firm. 

There is more that could be said about this, for example (1) the creation of state funded practicing firms competing with private forms, and (2) CE's close connection to the trades in the construction industry, which still requires little formal education. But, I will stop there. 

Thank you for reading. 

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill

Excellent idea, Steven. I hadn't thought of it that way, but a clinical practice is how James Martin and I operated our graduate program in water resources at Mississippi State U for a good many years. MS and PhD students took classes enabling them to solve more complex problems while they worked on our funded projects, which were sometimes applied research and sometimes more akin to practical consulting. Graduates from our program were much in demand, often receiving multiple job offers before they finished their degree requirements. IMO, it worked really well.

Bill Mc

Greetings, 

First time posting on these forums. Thanks for the discussion. (I wrote this on my phone, so it might needs some fine tuning. Thank you for your patience. )

As a person both with over twenty years in academics and with over 20 years in private practice, my perspective is someway unique:

1. Taking care with any comparison to the medical community, and considering that several disciplines in CE already need a Masters, the missing "link" in CE education is the need to require Masters' level courses be taught by practicing academics. If the medical profession can teach us anything, it's this: Masters level of CE degrees needs to include more practicing education-currently done by non-academic, practicing, organizations.  This change, while allowing more practicing education to be done in academia, would also allow more (not less) humanities at the undergraduate level. (Requiring engineers to take humanities courses is a topic for another thread.) This suggestion creates a huge problem for the CE profession because academics are held both to teach a very narrow part of CE education-the theoretical-and to teach the part that is the least appreciated in the industry. The least appreciated for the reasons already mentioned by others: that a great deal of civil engineering is "cookbook" to the point where no formal education is really needed to do the work. 
2. My suggestion is that we create practicing academic institutions to teach Masters level courses. To address the original question: stop requiring all academics to do research and require practicing engineers in academia to teach Masters level courses and become PEs. The biggest problem with this suggestion is money: the disparity of salaries for practicing engineers versus academic engineers is great, as is the cost of running a practicing engineering firm. To suddenly require academic institutions to hire practicing engineers will transform those programs to something different than they are now: CE practicing "clinics" for lack of a better word.

IMHO, this suggestion is ready to be implemented. There already exist many technology/technical academic institutes, whose graduates could be hired as practicing engineers assistants (like PAs and nursing assistants in medicine). The missing piece, in higher education, is a radical change in CE programs to look more like a practicing CE firm. 

There is more that could be said about this, for example (1) the creation of state funded practicing firms competing with private forms, and (2) CE's close connection to the trades in the construction industry, which still requires little formal education. But, I will stop there. 

Thank you for reading. 

With proverbial 20/20 hindsight, going forward lets re-visit the requirements to be an "Engineer."

1. How long  do medical students take to become doctors?

And how are their early years in that profession managed before they can be truly on their own as M.D.s?

2. What are the requirements of engineering professors to actually have hands-on engineering experience in the subjects they teach?

Cheers,

Bill