President's Monthly Message
March 2008

Raising the Bar to Shape Our Profession
For Tomorrow

At this writing, I have just returned from ASCE regional leadership conferences in Las Vegas, Baltimore and Austin, Texas, where I was struck by the many questions raised about ASCE Policy 465 (“Academic Prerequisites for Licensure and Professional Practice”), as well as about the new edition of our body of knowledge report, Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century: Preparing the Civil Engineer for the Future. In connection with the latter, questions are also being asked about changes being made by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) that will require aspiring professional engineers to supplement their bachelor’s degree with a master’s or 30 additional credits. I must say I am pleased to see our members — in all categories — taking a personal interest in this topic and stepping up to express their views and to pose questions to our leadership.  Everyone who takes a close look at the issue and examines how it might affect his or her life personally is truly helping us to shape our profession for the future.

ASCE released the new edition last month at a special event in Washington, D.C., at the National Academy of Engineering. The report underscores ASCE’s active support for higher educational standards for engineers, an initiative launched by our Board of Direction in 1998 with the adoption of Policy 465. Through our Committee on the Academic Prerequisites for Professional Practice (CAP3), we have worked tirelessly to develop the body of knowledge required for entry into civil engineering at the professional level. ASCE has produced the new report to address questions and suggestions raised by stakeholders in response to the first edition.

ASCE’s Policy 465 is a profound statement recommending a reconstruction of the academic foundation for professional practice. The body of knowledge also includes experience gained in accordance with technical and professional practice guidelines that provide flexibility for a wide range of roles in engineering. The quest to define the body of knowledge derives from the view that a bachelor’s degree alone will not provide the necessary preparation for professional practice in the future. Policy 465 (refined in April 2007) states that acquiring the body of knowledge will call for a master’s degree or approximately 30 additional graduate-level or upper-level undergraduate credits. (For the latter, the courses may be offered by agencies or professional societies.)

The group that produced the new report — CAP3 ’s Body of Knowledge Committee — began its work by reviewing the 15 goals (“outcomes”) set forth in the first edition. It also drew on reports prepared by the National Academy of Engineering and on The Vision for Civil Engineering in 2025, a report released last year that grew out of an ASCE conference held in 2006 — Summit on the Future of Civil Engineering. A significant change in the second edition is that the outcomes have been increased from 15 to 24. The goals fall into three categories: foundational, technical and professional. The members of the Body of Knowledge Committee applied the principles set forth in the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, a work by the educational psychologist Benjamin S. Bloom (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1984) that outlines six educational achievement levels. The taxonomy is widely used in the academic community as the means of gauging cognitive levels of achievement. For each outcome in the new report, a level of achievement is specified that an individual must attain before he or she may enter professional practice.

ASCE recently formed a new entity — the Body of Knowledge Educational Fulfillment Committee — to focus on curricula that will satisfy the recommendations of the new body of knowledge report. This new group is working to assemble a community of scholars interested in civil engineering education reform. It will document how programs are incorporating the body of knowledge into their curricula and will compile a list of practices

that have proved to be effective in meeting the formal education requirements of the new report.

As you may know, the NCEES voted in 2006 to change section 130.10 of its model law to encourage states to require additional education for licensure, an action strongly endorsed by ASCE. As part of a “model,” the change is not binding on the 56 jurisdictions, as each jurisdiction determines its own licensing laws. ASCE is working hard to help to provide grassroots advocacy at the state level in support of the model law, an ambitious undertaking and a long-term process. Supported by our government relations staff, ASCE is working hard to help modify requirements in all jurisdictions. Given the challenge of defining rules to support the new model law, late last year the NCEES established a group called the Bachelor’s +30 Task Force to define approved credits and course providers and to propose rule revisions that would be consistent with the requirement to supplement a bachelor’s degree with 30 additional credits.

This NCEES task force will work on this complex issue for at least two years, and those interested will be able to track its work online by visiting its licensure exchange page.

Some of us will not be around to actually see all of these changes come to fruition, because the process of persuading each state — one at a time — to change its rules regarding the educational preparation of engineers may take decades. But as we examine the details of this topic today, we are working hard to make sure we shape the outcome in a way that will truly benefit our profession and society as a whole in the long run.

I am especially pleased that ASCE continues to explore a variety of paths that would enable an aspiring engineer to acquire the body of knowledge. ASCE wishes to attract individuals to the profession from nontraditional routes while ensuring they still possess the requisite skills and knowledge.

The civil engineering and other leaders who convened in Virginia for the Summit on the Future of Civil Engineering had a broad range of backgrounds, and they took full advantage of this diversity in defining a global vision for the future of our profession. The Vision for Civil Engineering in 2025 sees a very different world for civil engineers in 2025, when they will be entrusted by society to create a sustainable world and enhance the global quality of life by acting in the following capacities:

• Planners, designers, constructors, and operators of society’s economic and social engine, the built environment;
• Stewards of the natural environment and its resources;
• Innovators and integrators of ideas and technology encompassing the public, private and academic sectors;
• Managers of risk and uncertainty arising from natural events, accidents and other threats;
• Leaders in the public policy arena in matters affecting environmental and infrastructure policy.

The new edition of the body of knowledge report advises students to carefully read The Vision for Civil Engineering in 2025. It also exhorts them to actively participate in campus organizations, explore international programs, seek relevant work experience, be solicitous in safeguarding their reputations, prepare for an ever-changing world, and find the right first job. Moreover, it counsels engineer interns to take charge of their careers, continue their education, pursue licensure and consider volunteering in their communities.

In The Vision for Civil Engineering in 2025, the term “master” implies that individuals will possess valuable knowledge, skills, and attitudes acquired as a result of education, experience and achievement. The individuals within our profession who possess these characteristics will be able to serve society by devising solutions to meet current needs while helping to ensure a viable future.

I recall a story told by Stuart G. Walesh, Ph.D., P.E., Hon.M.ASCE, about a conversation he had with a high school senior who was looking into various professions, among them medicine, engineering, law and business. She asked how many years were required to earn an engineering degree. When he told her, she replied, “If it only takes four years, it can’t be worth much.” While some individuals may view the new requirements as taking too long and being too rigorous, I believe that most young people see more formal education as the appropriate preparation for joining the engineering profession of the future.

— David G. Morgan, P.E., F.ASCE