Challenges for Geotechnical Engineering Graduate Education

“It was the best of times; it was the worst of times.” This quote from Charles Dickens’s A Tale of Two Cities could summarize our current state of affairs for graduate geotechnical education. Geotechnical engineering salaries are low, but adequate; undergraduate student perception of the geotechnical engineering image warrants improvement; research funding is scarce; and the role of the PhD degree needs an evaluation. Yet, on the other hand, demand is high for graduates, the MS degree will soon become the first professional degree, and continuing education via the Internet presents a considerable opportunity. Whereas we face formidable challenges, discussed below, the first step toward resolution is acknowledging the challenge. Challenges are commonplace for geotechnical engineering and I’m confident we will make great progress in resolving these challenges and positioning ourselves for the future. Consequently, this paper addresses the following:

Historically, if one considers the civil engineering curriculum of 100 years ago, soil mechanics (geotechnical engineering) did not exist. However, engineering had one of the longest professional education programs, at 4 years, as shown in Fig. 1. In 1900, civil engineering required more years of education than medicine or law. Imagine: an engineer required more formal education than a medical doctor! Obviously, the technical complexity has increased substantially since 1925, and graduate-level courses are required to bridge this knowledge deficit. To remedy this deficiency, ASCE’s Policy 465 is encouraging that all state licensing boards require an MS or equivalent number of graduate hours (30 credit hours) as the first degree for licensing. Consequently, the future for graduate education is very bright and we as educators must be posed to capitalize on this opportunity.

In order to attract bright, eager, qualified students to a geotechnical graduate program, there must be motivating factors. Among these factors could be:

Unfortunately, salary surveys do not encourage specialization in geotechnical engineering. Using NSPE data, Fig. 2 reveals that geotechnical engineers are the lowest paid of the engineering professions (Davis 2000). In addition, I personally advise my students that a graduate degree is not monetarily for the short term. Consider that beginning BS degree salaries are $40,000/year, a graduate TA/RA receives a stipend of only $15,000/year, and 2 years will be required for an MS degree. This translates into a lost income of $50,000 for the 2-year period. Usually an MS receives $5,000/year more than a BS, but this means 10 years will be required just to break even. However, in the long term, the data reveal that advanced degrees will lead to higher median salaries: $92,800 for a PhD, $74,229 for an MS, and $66,874 for a BS.

In terms of employment potential, despite pessimistic projections that only modest growth in traditional civil engineering positions is expected, I am confident that the demand for civil and geotechnical engineers will only increase. The U.S. Department of Labor has predicted that the projected number of civil engineering occupations in 2006 will be 231,000, which is an increase of only 35,000 jobs over the 1996 level of 196,000. In opposition to this statistic, one merely needs to consider the growing world population (Newland 2000). The world’s population is growing rapidly and expected to increase from six billion to nine billion by 2050. By 2050 it will have increased by 50%. Most of this increase will occur in “underdeveloped” countries where many live in abject poverty, without sanitation, running water, or electricity. In fact, the gathering storm of world population increase, decaying infrastructure, demand for potable water, need for efficient transportation, accumulating mountains of waste, and havoc of natural disasters all demand civil/geotechnical engineers for the very life and breath of basic societal needs. Thus, if we are to maintain our current standards of living, we, as civil/geotechnical engineers, must not only maintain our current infrastructure, but also create an additional one-half of this existing infrastructure. Consequently, I foresee a considerable demand for our profession.

Undoubtedly, geotechnical engineering deals with the most challenging civil engineering material, as opposed to water, steel, or concrete—a statement attested by considering that:

Consequently, we should be able to attract undergraduates desiring a challenge. However, I fear a perception that geotechnical engineers merely log borings and write foundation reports, while actual design of the footing, or determination of pile groups is left to structural engineers. Consequently, we must change this perception! Optimistically, design teams with a shared responsibility would provide the design plans and specifications.

The motivation for the PhD degree should be reexamined. Is it possible to continue to produce PhD destined to become faculty members and spend their lives conducting basic research? What is the demand? Many graduates of doctoral programs will end up working in industry and not necessarily in research and development. Consequently, a doctorate in engineering (not philosophy) is essential for those engineers planning to become team leaders in charge of the overall supervision of projects instead of simply high-level specialists in very narrow areas. These Doctor of Engineering graduates must have a proper understanding of the economics and sociopolitical implications of major engineering projects. They will have to learn about team forming, conflict resolution, risk analysis, decision making in the face of uncertainty, and management skills. Several universities currently offer a practice-oriented Doctor of Engineering degree, including Texas A&M and SMU.

I foresee a need for advanced education beyond the MS as a Doctor of Engineering. However, this degree must not be considered a “booby prize” for failing PhD qualifying exams or not pursuing a PhD. The goals and needs are quite different for the two degrees, and should not be considered as two-tiered.

Based upon the aforementioned factors, the challenge of attracting graduate students to geotechnical engineering is formidable. Currently, only 7% of ASCE’s 130,000 members are classified as geotechnical engineers. Of this 7%, only 6%, or $\approx 550$ are academicians. At the University of Florida, 9% of the faculty are “geotechs,” and 9% of the graduate student population are geotechs. Accordingly, as I interpret these data, geotechs represent a small percentage of civil engineers. Although this population of geotechnical engineers currently is sufficient to meet society and industry demands, the employment demand for geotechnical engineers can only increase.

Support of a geotechnical graduate student program obviously requires financial resources for salaries, equipment, etc. These financial resources traditionally evolve from sponsored (funded) research projects. Most $(90\%+)$ funded research is from governmental agencies. For geotechnical engineering projects, the key agencies can be identified with the help of the U.S. Council on Geotechnical Education and Research (www.usucger.org).

The success rate varies from agency to agency. For example, the National Science Foundation (NSF) may only fund about 15% of unsolicited proposals, whereas state transportation agencies may fund as high as 30–40% of the same. NSF’s FY 2003 budget was a total of $5 billion, of which about $489 million was for engineering. Of that $489 million, civil and mechanical programs received about 11.8%, or $57.7 million. Of that $57.7 million, the geotechnical engineering program will receive a meager $7.5 million for research projects.

This paucity of funding resources will force some of us to “think outside the box” and adapt our creative abilities. It is clear that we cannot all continue to compete for the same meager funds, refine old theories, or test a different “z” soil type. The problems of the next century will require us to develop new solutions and techniques; consequently, we must align with the richer funding sources. Geotechnical engineers must look to technology for most of our solutions, and while geotechnical engineering may give form to new solutions, the technology that drives them is unlikely to start with us. The arithmetic is simple. Research and development monies are in short supply in our field because they are pouring into areas like biotechnology, nanotechnology, information technology, and advanced communications. Our response must be to draw from fields that are advancing faster than ours wherever possible, and use that technology as a springboard for our own progress. Given the circumstances, technology transfer will be the mother lode for our future (Clough 2000).

Perhaps biotechnology will lead to clean-up solutions in environmental issues (landfills and contaminated soils). Maybe information technology will lead to faster, more powerful computers, and 3D finite-element analyses under dynamic conditions will be more easily solved. Perhaps, video games for teaching will evolve, such as the West Point Bridge Competition. Hopefully, advanced communications will lead to “smart” geotechnical structures. For example, the Panama Canal has had an early warning landslide-detection system along the canal banks for over a decade. Perhaps, advanced in-situ testing methods (ground-penetrating radar, etc.) that can locate hazardous subsurface conditions, or a better method of field compaction control, or simple GPS units to locate field borings.

Geotechnical engineers can and will evolve into these areas and our graduate teaching and research will likewise change. But change means thinking outside the box, and that means that faculty evaluation (promotion and tenure) also must change.

Currently, many engineering deans and promotion and tenure committees evaluate faculty as “cash cows.” They prefer to evaluate quantitatively using easy metrics: How many research dollars are being generated? How many publications? How many PhDs are being produced? All questions and answers very easily counted and quantified. This is the evaluation “standard” imposed upon us by the media (“E-Learning” 2002). Consequently, many geotechnical engineering professors are timid to “think outside the box.” For example, are esoteric topics (education research) publishable? Can I get PhDs graduated in these areas, and if so, will they find academic employment? If the research funding is moving into other technological areas (biotechnology, etc.), then obviously we too will gyrate to those areas, but will the evaluation of our efforts also move in cadence? Will risk-takers be acknowledged during evaluation?

The issue of “teaching” when it comes to promotion and tenure qualifications needs to be addressed. What is a normal teaching load—three to four courses per year? Should professors be given guidance on how to teach? How do we address teaching evaluations? Obviously half the professors will evaluate above, and the other half will be below average; (remembering that below average evaluations do not equal a poor teacher)? In my opinion, engineering deans need to be cognizant that a well-prepared, state-of-the-art course consisting of $30+$ lectures is actually more beneficial to society than producing another obscured archived refereed journal paper read by few.

I’m confident that all of us recognize that continuing education and lifelong learning is paramount to practicing geotechnical engineers. And we, as educators, are deeply involved in providing this continuing education. As proof, one only needs to examine the number of geotechnical continuing education courses offered. For example, I merely used “geotechnical short courses” in a Web search engine, and found 12 universities offering Internet graduate civil engineering courses. Currently, maintaining one’s license is dependent upon demonstrated professional development hours (PDH). Or simply, a licensee must demonstrate to the licensing board the satisfactory completion of specified activities (continuing education) as a condition for renewal of the individual’s professional license. As a result of this demand for continuing education, a myriad of delivery systems have evolved ranging from on-campus night classes to Web-based lectures; from one-semester classes to one-day short courses; from paper notes to videos.

Consequently, continuing education is not new; however, what is new is the delivery system of the Internet. If we can deliver content via the Internet, we can deliver it anywhere: in real time or offline, across the country and across oceans. The technology exists and is constantly improving, getting ever closer to reproducing the classroom experience. Is this the end of residential colleges (Newland 2000)? Most of us will answer no. There is value added in the personal interactions between faculty and students and in the life experiences of residential colleges, particularly at the undergraduate level. In fact, studies have shown at the undergraduate level that personal interaction between faculty and peer pressure of attending classes produces successful learning. However, many graduate students possess the discipline and maturity to succeed using Internet learning. Thus, the challenge will be in the type of graduate education model that will develop. I believe that this model will be dictated by individual demands. Those seeking professional development only and not a graduate degree will flock to Web-based courses. Alternatively, those desiring an advanced degree (MS, Doctor of Engineering, or PhD) will primarily take university residence courses.

Conceivably, elite universities could dominate (via prestige) acceptance/enrollment in Web courses and thus de facto become “world universities.” However, I’m confident, because of human diversity, that millions will not flock to a single Web-based course.

We need to change curriculum and course content at the MS level to prepare the MS as the first professional degree envisioned by ASCE Policy 465.

We need to “sell” geotechnical engineering so as to attract the best and brightest students. We must convince undergrduates that geotechnical engineering is not simple “sample fetching” or merely logging boreholes. Rather, we must develop team concepts.

We must reexamine the purpose and motivation for the PhD degree. Universities cannot absorb all the research PhDs, and society and industry demands higher education with a broader spectrum. The Doctor of Engineering degree, with a different emphasis than our traditional research PhD, should be incorporated.

Engineering administrators evaluating academicians need to give continued attention to the teaching of the practice of engi-neering and not just look at quantifiable metrics such as publications and research funds. We cannot abandon teaching engineering practice to computer software, particularly in the geotechnical arena. Research universities in particular have to make an effort to recruit enough faculty with relevant geotechnical engineering experience and to be deliberate about injecting practical issues and capstone projects into the curriculum.

We need to prepare for use of the Internet, particularly for graduate geotechnical courses, as a delivery system for continuing education. Lifelong learning online is soon to be a reality.