Letters to the Editor

I enjoyed your Editor’s Letter in the April 2005 issue of LME. You’re right on target that we need to raise the bar and have a sound program in place to do so. However, I’d like to address a misconception in your last paragraph.

In your last paragraph, you assumed that no one had foreseen the next steps. That is just not so. We have always known that success will be measured by having all fifty-five licensing jurisdictions adopt modified licensing laws that mandate education beyond the bachelor’s degree as a condition for being allowed to take the licensing exam. And, ASCE is taking prudent steps to make this happen. Starting last November, the ASCE Executive Committee (EXCOM), which meets monthly, receives a report on which sections have active state government relations (SGR) programs. This report is prepared by the vice presidents, who get current information from the directors who get the info from the section presidents. In addition, we have modified the “visit report”—prepared by a national officer following each visit with an ASCE unit—to address the status of the SGR. These reports go to each member of EXCOM.

As part of our governmental affairs program, ASCE has a Committee on State Government Relations. This committee is staffed by members active in government relations in their home areas, and has all the info needed by a section wanting to start an SGR program. The SGR committee also is in contact with sections sharing info on successful SGR activities.

So, ASCE is working on sections from the top down to promote SGR activities. The SGR committee is a recognized resource for SGR activities by sections, and comes into sections from the “side.” Why the “sudden” push for SGR? It came from the recognition that we have to influence the leaders of fifty-five governmental units to amend their registration laws over the next one to two decades, and we stand a much better chance of success if these governmental leaders know ASCE, know our members, and recognize that we provide good, factual information on civil engineering issues. I’m happy to say that the “next committee action” that you called for has been underway for the last six months.

Thanks for all your efforts to keep LME going strong. It is one ASCE journal that I read regularly.Bill HenryPresident, ASCE

fter reading your Editor’s Letter, I would like to make a few comments. It is a major stretch to blame the politicians for reducing the education requirements for an engineering education. If we in the engineering body look in the mirror we will see who are at fault in this case as in many other situations where engineers are involved. It is primarily a lack of engineering leadership and primarily at the engineering dean’s area. Why were we not involved and leading the political debate on what the minimum requirements are to be an engineer? Why did we let the requirements to be an engineer be lowered? It was not a budget problem as you indicated. It was simply letting others set the agenda, once again, and we engineers follow and then complain about the outcome. From my perspective and from what I observed, the engineering deans were primarily tracking other institutions and making sure their institution did not require more credit hours to graduate in engineering than other institutions. They are primarily concerned about losing students to other departments. You will have to look very hard to find any evidence of engineering leadership in this debate!

The BOK (Body of Knowledge) in its present form will do precious little to prepare future engineers to be leaders in a political process such as this one. Even now, there is little evidence that the current engineering deans are leading in this effort to raise the bar for civil engineering education. So what does that tell us about the problem?

I would appreciate your comments.Merlin KirschenmanProfessor Emeritus, NDSU

Letters to the editor are welcome. They may be sent via e-mail to [email protected]. Letters may be edited for clarity and style, as well as for conformity to space constraints.