Planning Education: Let's Forget It for Civil Engineers
Publication: Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 113, Issue 2
Abstract
Civil engineers interact with planners at various levels and should, arguably, have some formal training in that discipline. The arguments against such formal training are: (1) Today's civil engineering students are regularly being exposed to broader viewpoints and there is no explicit need for courses in planning; (2) few civil engineering programs could offer a planning course per se; and (3) or most, the differences between planning and civil engineering are distinct and should be maintained. In summary, another discipline's educational task should not be usurped; planning educators should teach planning to the planners and to the engineers who would be both, while engineering educators should teach engineering to the engineers and to the planners who would be both.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Cartwright, T. J. (1973). “Problems, solutions, and strategies: a contribution to the theory and practice of planning.” J. Am. Inst. Planners, American Institute of Planners, 39(3), 179–187.
2.
Lyles, R. W. (1981). “Transportation system indices: an approach to preliminary evaluation of transportation system alternatives.” Dissertation presented to Carnegie‐Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Penn., in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Doctor of Philosophy.
3.
Lyles, R. W. (1984). “Planning education: desirable for civil engineers?” J. Urban Plng. and Dev., ASCE, 110(1), 22–33.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 ASCE.
History
Published online: Nov 1, 1987
Published in print: Nov 1987
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.