The BOK Blog: Practical Experience at the University

[Editorial comment on BOK draft report]

Under “Have Practical Experience” on page 31: delete the statement “Educators should be cognizant of practical issues in engineering subjects they teach, preferably through practical experience.” I suggest you go with the NAE recommendations that colleges and universities should develop new standards for faculty qualifications, appointments, and expectations (for example, to require experience as a practicing engineer) and should create or adapt development programs to support professional growth of engineering faculty. Then we need to make sure the relevant systems reflect these changes so the future faculty will hold the necessary practical experience.

As far as I can determine, after the Russians launched Sputnik 1 in the fall of 1957, engineering had a shift to add more research, which was good. An unintended consequence was a deletion of the requirement that faculty have the ability to perform the engineering they were teaching. This experiment of not having practical experience to teach engineering, a profession of practice, has not served the engineering profession very well and it is time we move on from that concept.

I tend not to chime in very often, but I don’t want my silence to imply consent with developing discussions. The following is shared to quickly rebut the above point about practical experience.

As reference, there are several phrases in [the draft BOK2 report] that are part of this debate:I agree with Phrase A and even C, but Phrase D is too strong. Research is a strong component of the mission of a growing number of CEE departments, and it is common for new faculty candidates to have laboratory/analytical experience, but no industry experience. I suppose one could argue that the lab/analytical experience is “practical experience,” but I sense that [the previous comment] is arguing exactly the opposite. I will take “practical experience” to refer to industry, consulting, or other field experience, as opposed to university research activities. Clearly there are blurred lines—many research projects have strong links to field experiments and construction; however, I think the previous commenter is voicing support for a future where every faculty member has spent some period of his/her life in industry or consulting, or somehow participating in field projects. This is a case were moderation in our language is called for. I favor language that encourages practical experience. I flinch at language that requires practical experience.

Phrase B is uncomfortable because it includes an explicit expectation that more than 50% of faculty have a P.E. I don’t know why this should be true…it seems arbitrary to me. My view of faculty hiring is governed by many issues, and “practical experience” is not the most important. For example, I want faculty to have awareness of and have participated in creating new knowledge for engineers, and embrace a component of research throughout their professional life. Academia has a special role in cultivating the knowledge base of engineering, and that is one of the strong reasons that university faculty benefit by being active in research. I also want faculty to be excellent communicators and empathetic mentors and well-rounded citizens and just really smart people. Practical experience is just one more of these kinds of characteristics that contribute to a professor’s effectiveness. There is a huge range of practical experience in today’s faculty and in tomorrow’s faculty…and that’s OK! I don’t want to be so rigid as to blackball faculty candidates that happen not to have a past job in industry—they might be brilliant scholars and amazing teachers, and that is reason to hire them, too.

So in summary, I do not favor strengthened language by which the BOK2 advocates requirements for practical (i.e., industry, consulting, etc.) experience in future faculty.

I would like to chime in on this one as well. Although I agree in principle with the statements put forward in the points above, I think that language requiring practical experience, etc., can be very restrictive and can start to change the culture of a department, and should not be a disqualifier for otherwise very qualified faculty candidates. We need to be encouraging, not requiring. The emphasis on practical experience needs to be left to the departments and reflect the objectives of the department and college. In our college, industry experience and registration as a P.E. (when possible) are expected and it reflects the emphases of the engineering departments in the college, but that does not make it the universally correct thing to do; it is right for our college and the educational experience we want to give our students. I do believe, though, that faculty supervising design courses should be P.E.’s. Practical experience is a wonderful thing and is very beneficial in teaching, but as soon as we require experience we may be ruling out very qualified faculty and we must put bounds on the experience that is necessary: Does working summers in a construction field office while in college count or does it require full-time employment?

One more country with its two cents…. I appreciate all of the comments on this subject and can relate to most of them.

I support the position that faculty that teach design courses should be registered professional engineers and have real-world experience. I believe that the education that students will gain from design professionals is crucial to our profession in the future. I’m not saying that faculty that are not registered P.E.’s are not capable of teaching design courses—I’m sure they are. But I fear that all the student may be getting is “book learning.” Conversely, I appreciate that each university has its own mission statement, some being heavy into research and others not so much, and based upon the type of research that may be conducted at an institution it may very well qualify for real-world experience and the students will definitely benefit from faculty that bring this type of knowledge into the classroom. So I guess what I am trying to say is that as long as the faculty that teach design are registered professionals with some real-world experience, real-world experience coming from consulting or applied research, I see no concern. My concern comes from faculty that teach design and have no real-world experience.

The bottom line is that smaller research-intensive departments are under increasing pressure to maintain their research competitiveness while trying to balance the teaching of traditional design, and keeping the proportion of their faculty with P.E.’s at a reasonable proportion. The BOK and ABET CE criteria should be cognizant of this difficult balancing act, and I believe that a flexible rather than a prescriptive approach is best for the profession. We all want CE to be successful in the research domain in comparison to other engineering fields, or else it will go under at research-intensive engineering colleges and negatively impact the prestige of the profession. However, we also want the educational programs at these departments to be sound. So a middle path is needed. Phrases A and B [as presented in Comment 2] will likely yield graduates who are ready to roll in the consulting field quickly, but depending on how strongly they are enforced, can make it even more difficult for smaller departments to succeed in research. I propose Phrase C as the “middle path.”

Comments 2 and 5 have brought up important practical issues related to the experience required/desired of CE faculty. Their perspective will resonate with academics with experience and responsibilities of developing and maintaining active research programs.

However, the primary consideration before the BOK2 committee should be improvement of standards for tomorrow’s CEs (i.e., raising the bar). I have yet to hear an argument as to why practical experience of CE faculty would have a bad effect on the quality of preparation of CEs. That it would place pressure on some CE departments or would make things uncomfortable is not reason enough, in my opinion, to not include something that would be consistent with raising the bar.

On that note, the BOK2 committee has so far enthusiastically proposed moves to raise the bar on what is expected of students and practitioners of CE. We (as members of BOK2 and academia) will be remiss if we did not take on the challenge facing faculty simply because it would disturb the status quo.

Talking of status quo: I am told by colleagues with far more years in academia than I that the relative emphasis of teaching versus research goes through cycles. That is to say, the importance of research over teaching is a function of time and the “pendulum” swings from one end to the other. So we should not give up on a good idea simply because conditions at the present time appear to pose difficulties in its implementation.

[There is] a trend among research-oriented programs to hire faculty with non-CE or even nonengineering degrees. I agree that exploring the frontiers of our knowledge is essential for the continued vitality of the CE profession. I do not feel the proposed requirements in Chapter 4 of BOK2 will hinder this trend. For one thing, these requirements are specifically meant for faculty responsible for delivering the BOK…. [I]mplicitly, the core CE components of the BOK (e.g., the requirement for practical experience) does not apply to faculty covering math and science, and even the emerging technologies components. Even there, I would hope those faculty would have some relevant experience. However, I would think the requirements should definitely apply to a faculty teaching the core CE components, especially the design courses.

Coming to the four phrases described in Comment 2: I support Phrase A (educators should have practical experience in engineering subjects that they teach), the second part of Phrase C (most civil engineering faculty should strive to acquire professional engineering licenses), and Phrase D (NAE158 recommends that “colleges and universities should develop new standards for faculty qualifications, appointments, and expectations, for example, to require experience as a practicing engineer, and should create or adapt development programs to support the professional growth of engineering faculty). I am open to changing “require” to “encourage” in Phrase D.

I do not think the CE profession in the United States is yet ready for Phrase B (most civil engineering faculty should hold professional engineering licenses). I do not support the first part of Phrase C (educators should be cognizant of practical issues in engineering subjects they teach, preferably through practical experience). BOK2 is requiring every CE graduate to learn about practical issues as part of several outcomes on our rubric. The expectation for CE faculty should, in my opinion, be set higher.

It can be argued that practical experience enhances “context” for engineering education, but field experience does not generally develop expertise in basic theory and analysis. Practitioners returning to academia from long terms in industry may be ill prepared to teach upper-division and graduate-level courses. Real-world designers greatly depend on engineering tools like finite-element software to simplify analysis and code provisions to govern decisions, but those same tools/codes also separate day-to-day experience from theory and fundamentals. Engineers functioning as project managers are even more removed from theory and fundamentals. On the other hand, faculty who are immersed in academic studies continue to deal with high-level mathematics and complex analyses, and their expertise is deepened. As a result, research-oriented faculty are more likely than practitioners to be well prepared to teach upper-division and graduate level courses. Would ten years in industry prepare someone to teach [courses such as] “Plates and Shells” or “Fracture and Fatigue”? These are not subjects easily “taught out of the book,” and they require substantial expertise that is enhanced by years in the academic enterprise.

I am among those who support “encouragement” of practical experience for its merits in providing context for engineering education. But to require practical experience of every CEE faculty member is to diminish the cultivation of deep expertise in basic science, fundamental theory, analysis, and other aspects of engineering that lie beneath but are not the focus of everyday professional activities.

If I may, let me combine some of the issues in recent posts. At an admitted risk of oversimplification, this discussion seems to boil down largely to a question of who teaches what and when.

Comments 2 and 4 both expressed concerns about the need for commercial/industrial experience, along with the P.E. registration usually associated with it, on the part of CE faculty. Perhaps they are partly correct. Faculty teaching purely analytical courses and/or directing purely theoretical research may well have only a secondary interest in application (i.e., “design”). Such faculty members, who likely moved directly from their PhD programs into university or research lab employment, have less need for commercial/industrial experience, but an ability to relate theory to practice is still necessary to teach CE well. Most students will not follow a pure research career path, so connection with the rest of the world is essential. Does this require industrial/commercial experience and a P.E.? In that limited context, probably not, but that context is unrealistic in today’s—and tomorrow’s—world.

For those who teach and research in any area of design, application, and professional practice, a working knowledge of the world outside the university is not only needed, but essential. Look at the breadth we are recommending for future CEs. Engineering is a practical, practicing discipline. It is beyond me how anyone can teach what they do not really know in such a discipline. If not required, industrial/commercial/governmental practice should be strongly encouraged for those who wish to teach and research these areas.

That being said, I think we must keep two ideas in mind in our evaluations. First of all, we are looking forward, not at the status quo. It may frighten some of us that we might not now qualify for what we want to see two decades from now, but isn’t that really a good thing? How else can the profession progress?

Second, we must think not only of how we view our profession, but of how the broader society views it. We ask considerable latitude from society in what and how we do things. This is particularly true in academia. If we wish to be a true profession and earn/maintain the public’s respect and trust, we have an obligation to demonstrate our suitability for them in return for some public authorization. Anything less is unacceptable, or at least highly suspect, in today’s society, and there is no indication that it will be any less so in the future. Currently, ideal or not, that public authorization is P.E. registration. Rather than being immune, a strong argument can be made that an engineering educator should be at least as “publicly authorized” as those he/she would teach. That is certainly the case with other professions. Physicians, lawyers, dentists, veterinarians, etc. do not permit the kind of “employer exemptions” to public authorization (i.e., examination and registration) that engineers have in industry or academia. Are we doing society a service by defending and perpetuating this? I think not. What alternative would any objector propose?

[It has been proposed] that we consider combining the B and M/30 requirements to eliminate confusion¹. While I don’t think I’d go so far as to say “extreme unbalance,” problems of practicality do still seem to exist. While it might be easy for us to lump these two categories into a single “education” requirement, I would anticipate considerable implementation problems on the part of colleges. In essence, such a requirement would abolish the BSCE degree, something I fear many (most?) schools would not be willing to do anytime soon, if at all. So someone has to allocate the various aspects of the curriculum to the bachelor’s, master’s, and even doctorate degrees. Since graduate engineering degrees have historically oriented students toward research and education careers instead of those in “industry,” we are already seeking a major change to require/recommend graduate study directed toward professional practice in design and application areas. Thus, we—ASCE, ABET, etc.—do need to offer some guidance that helps define what we have in mind for such a reform. Of course each school will establish its curriculum and standards for matriculation as it sees fit, and these will vary with the differing emphases at each institution, but some frame of reference will be valuable—probably essential—for any change to actually occur.

This not to say that the current B and M/30 recommendations are ideal and universal. They are demanding, to say the least, and I would be very surprised if they do not see future modification, but the overall content is sound. Historically, engineering students often take longer than the university catalog schedule to complete their degrees. I did some thirty-five years ago but, except for a couple of (then) quarters’ tuition, that made no difference in my getting a job or progressing in my career. With the ever-increasing body of technical and social knowledge needed to be an effective CE, I suspect this trend to continue. Students have a habit of ultimately doing what is expected of them. I don’t mean that this is a license to abuse them, but we must recognize that the greater depth and breadth of knowledge needed to practice CE, even at an entry level, cannot be achieved without greater educational rigor.

A very interesting note.

I would like to clarify my comment that you referenced. You are right that the B and M categories need to be defined. Currently the ABET accreditation process does define what the minimums are for the BSCE, and that is why I recommended we do not have to define it again in the BOK. I should have been clearer.

Thanks for your comments. While ABET does define the current BSCE minimum requirements, is it not likely that they will need to change over the next several years? If so, ABET will continue to look to ASCE for guidance. BOK2 is, I hope, looking over the horizon a bit, not just at the current state of affairs.

I think I understand you are also saying/implying that adding more material to the BSCE curriculum—in addition to that suggested for the M/30 program—will be counterproductive and/or not practically achievable. You may well be right here, unless quality or breadth is sacrificed—neither of which we want. As I said, there is already more material to be mastered than a good number of students can do in the “regulation” four years (eight semesters). At some point, I sincerely believe that all engineering disciplines should abandon the BS degree entirely, but that is not likely to happen anytime soon. It seems to me that what we are proposing takes a positive, but possible, step in that direction.

I must disagree with “softening” the language concerning the expectations of faculty holding P.E. licenses. Being “cognizant” is, quite frankly, not enough. Several thoughts:Finally, I am not advocating at all CE faculty hold a P.E. The BOK $1^2$ language of “most” and the NAE recommendation that states “for example” are not prescriptive. Yes, research is a big part of civil engineering and some faculty may not be eligible for the P.E. One of two things should come from this situation:Again, this is not to say that all should be P.E.’s; however, I think “most” is very appropriate. I am looking forward to the discussion this afternoon.

I will try to offer my limited comments on professional experience and education and from a career faculty’s perspective. I have spent seventeen years teaching in a research school where professional experience and good teaching are nice to have and never matter much in tenure and promotion consideration. About six years ago I had an opportunity to start the second civil engineering program in the state. With that opportunity, I was able to incorporate a lot of engineering practice in the curriculum. The program also receives a lot of industrial support such as seminar speakers, interaction with students, internships, and consultation in senior design projects. One main objective of the program is to prepare the graduates with sufficient rigor for graduate study and practical practice for those who pursue an engineering career upon graduation.

This past summer I had an opportunity to work in an architect firm as a structural engineer and learn all the details of design that are not in the textbooks. The experience was invaluable. As part of the criteria for continuing association with this firm after the summer, the owner asked me if I could bring anything I did during the summer to the classroom. And I gave him a resounding yes.

The biggest contribution my short experience offered to our students is in the senior design class where I could explain to the students how we did things in the field and how they compared to the theoretical part we discussed in class. I was able to pick out an incorrect soil capacity calculation during the design process because of my summer engineering work. Although we had a geotech faculty supervising the students in the soil portion of the project, the instructor did not have a feel of what capacity we should expect in our region. That is how practical experience affects the classroom.

I was able to incorporate what I learned from my few months of practicing experience to almost all the classes (statics, seminar, structural analysis) I teach—and the students appreciate it.

I believe we all know the benefit of having practicing experience and theoretical rigor when teaching our next generations of engineers. The issue comes to “the reward of faculty.” This issue has been around when I first started teaching over twenty years ago. At that time, I literally could not afford to acquire practical experience regardless how important it was because I would have been out of a job after six years. The same situation still exists. It may not be BOK committee’s position to determine how practical experience must be included in a faculty’s resume. However, I believe the committee should take that into consideration. A policy or idea that cannot be executed within the practical limitations is useless.

My situation now is quite different from most faculty. I am tenured and a full professor. I have full support from my department chair and our industrial advisory board. I even receive support from our university president. I may add that we do have quite an influential advisory board.

One concern that I have relates to demographics. My son graduates from high school in 2010. It is my understanding that this will be the largest graduating class of seniors in the nation during the post-baby boom era. The 2010 date happens to also mark the point that the first of the baby boomers become eligible for retirement. I have read several studies that seem to indicate that 50 percent of all university professors will become eligible for retirement starting in 2010. Demographics appear to be marching us toward a supply and demand problem that is unparalleled in recent history.

Demographics may dictate that who, what, and when discussions are driven more by the who—and the who may not be framed as a P.E. versus non-P.E. debate. It really may be a much more fundamental definition of who.

There has been much discussion regarding whether civil engineering professors should be required to have P.E.’s. There is also much discussion of whether faculty should engage in teaching or research, as if these are mutually exclusive. I would like to caution that we should try not to be overly simplistic in our thinking and judgments related to these issues:

I think it is important that we do not lose sight of the big picture of preparing the next generation of engineers who are globally competitive. I agree that for teaching “traditional” engineering design, at the undergraduate level “real-world” experience does help to some extent. However, I would hesitate to use that as a criterion to allow someone to teach engineering. Relaying your professional experiences to students may spark some interest and you may be able to provide a few practical pointers. However, a teacher who has in-depth knowledge of the field and one who participates in the development of new knowledge and contributes to the progress of the profession through research or creative activities is probably more valuable.

Trashing researchers or marginalizing research that may not have immediate practical impact but could possibly revolutionize the profession is becoming a “mantra” of a few folks in the civil engineering profession. The big focus of this group as I understand it is to prepare our graduates to be globally competitive and prepare our engineers to do a “higher level of engineering” than their counterparts in places like China and India. I believe that getting students to be innovative and thinking outside the box, broadening their knowledge, having the ability to push the envelope, and developing strong scientific reasoning are some of the attributes that could separate our graduates from the competition. This is where research-oriented faculty can play a big role. I would also like to see discussion about encouraging integration of research (all kinds—applied and fundamental) into undergraduate education.

It is perceived by many that fields like mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, materials engineering, and electrical engineering are more open to embracing innovation and staying on the cutting edge of technology. While I agree that faculty members with real engineering experience are important, researchers who develop new knowledge could also substantially contribute to the learning of the next generation of engineering graduates.

The ongoing debate over whether educators do not need, should have, or must have practical experience does not consider how past, current, and future civil engineering educational institutions function. These institutions have been, currently are, and will be comprised of educators of various backgrounds and abilities. Stating that each educator is required to have practical experience is too narrow of a vision of the educational system and those who work in it. My opinion on this issue is based on past personal experiences and involvement in technical societies where there is a mixture of participants from academia and professional practice.

What do these examples mean? For Example 1, I am not sure that these students really obtained a full understanding of the basic technical knowledge of the course. The professor was an expert in his field and knew how to apply the technology, but was an educator of questionable ability (according to the students). In Examples 2 and 3, these professors are excellent educators (and P.E.’s) and able teach advanced technology that cover numerous practical applications. However, their ability to apply the technology, not to just practical applications, but to the field of practice, are at times very limited. As in Example 3, some practical experience is beneficial to the teaching of the technologies. However, the ability to relate practical experience to the coursework can be limited to the amount of practical experience the educator achieves over time and the area of the technology the experienced is gained. Sometimes this area of experience can be narrow in scope.

I do not believe that “every” educator in a civil engineering educational institution must have practical experience or a P.E. license. There is too much “upside” to those educators/researches that delve deeply into the development and advancement of technologies and can teach the basic fundamentals of a technology. However, the ability of the student to understand and retain knowledge of any “applied” technology is greatly enhanced if it can be related to practical applications. The educators with practical experience are more capable of a holistic view on the technology and a greater ability to communicate how the technology is applicable and functional, especially its restrictions and limitations to a particular application. Hiring practicing engineers to be educators is not necessarily a good solution. Their technical knowledge may be vast in a particular area of practice but insufficient in an associated area practice for the same field.

Every civil engineering educational institution must at least have a balance of educators that have various levels of technical/research abilities and practical experience. Each institution should have a program in which their educators can obtain “continued” practical experience (i.e., regularly scheduled sabbaticals). A civil engineering educational institution whose educators have limited practical experience must realize that their graduating students might find it more difficult or take longer to apply the excellent technical knowledge gained from the institution to real-world design problems, thereby increasing the amount of experience time necessary for these former students to enter into professional practice. Those working in a particular field of professional practice will value the graduating students from these institutions far less than the students who can more readily apply their technical knowledge and more quickly advance in their field of practice.

Comment 14 unintentionally caused another nasty old dragon to rear its ugly head…. Should college professors get formal education in teaching and learning before they are allowed in classrooms? Supposedly, at least tenure-track instructors are evaluated by the existing faculty after witnessing a lecture or two during the interview process, but this may well be the blind leading the blind if the existing faculty leave something to be desired in that department, not to mention how classroom abilities/inabilities are more than infrequently subordinate to a variety of political issues, such as subdepartmental hierarchy/influence conflicts (e.g., structures vs. environment), diversity requirements/preferences, ability to bring in research funding, professional cachet, and the like. In such situations, classroom performance will probably never be discussed at all.

Any such requirement would put a serious crimp in the use of adjunct instructors and graduate students, too, regardless of their teaching abilities, unless some practical means to ensure some minimum competency for them can be found.

We all want to say how students are our first priority, but the truth is often something else we wink at and conveniently forget. After all, it’s the same everywhere.

Anybody have the courage to slay this dragon…that roams and breathes fire far beyond the halls of engineering? Or should I ask which eye we want to wink?

I appreciate your comments and you raise a point I would like to emphasize. It seems that our goal is to have faculty who introduce undergraduates to design in an effective way. Requiring a P.E. may or may not accomplish that goal. I could share some anecdotal information supporting the claim but a more thorough investigation is necessary before making a conclusion.

I find Comment 13 interesting: “I agree that for teaching “traditional” engineering design at the undergraduate level “real-world” experience does help to some extent. However, I would hesitate to use that as a criterion to allow someone to teach engineering.”

According to the NCEES license board survey North Dakota is one of the few that lists a P.E. as required to teach design classes.

Could you please comment on this? I would be interested how this affects hiring, promotion, who teaches, etc. at your institution. What do you define as a design class? Do you consider this requirement or is it ignored?

The majority of faculty members in my department have P.E. just like any CE program at a land-grant institution in our country. Our faculty members also conduct research and advise graduate students (MS and PhD). The research varies from highly applied to highly fundamental and cutting edge. The undergraduate education is core to our institution and the faculty does a wonderful job producing world-class graduates who are sought after by companies all over the country. (Our ASCE steel bridge team has won four national championships.) It appears that what we and institutions similar to us are doing seems to be positive.

However, I do worry about the future for graduates from CE programs nationally. How do we differentiate graduates from U.S. CE programs with those graduating from countries like India and China (their CE curriculum is based on ours)? Why would clients and companies pay our graduates ten times more for essentially the same type of work? I am glad to see the BOK committee working hard on the issue of upgrading our undergraduate education to better prepare our graduates for the real world and global competition. When I look at the wonderful research going on at various institutions in our country and with the United States leading the world in research, I feel we are not doing enough to tap into that edge we have and bring some of that into undergraduate education. I believe that it would stimulate their minds, make students more innovative, and broaden their knowledge and with awareness about latest developments in the field.

I agree very much agree that “experience” is invaluable for a faculty member in CEE.

I expect many practitioners think of “experience” as working in a design office or in the field. While that is fine, it is one-dimensional. What about experience working in our incredible national laboratories? Working in government at state and federal levels to help influence policy decisions? Working in large industries not normally associated with CEE (the off-shore industry is a great example)? What about working with Boeing on the design of advanced airframes (ASCE does have an aerospace division), or with NASA on challenging structural problems with the Space Station and new launch systems? And the list goes on and on….

Many of our faculty engage in these types of opportunities and they add great enrichment to the classrooms in our universities.

I also expect the focus of many “experience” discussions lies on the senior-level undergraduate “design” courses. While some practitioners might do well in teaching these selected courses, our curriculum is far broader and much more theoretical/analytical, especially at the graduate level. I cannot imagine someone from design practice returning to a university and teaching advanced finite elements, continuum mechanics, advanced numerical methods, software engineering, fracture and fatigue, etc.

At our university, we are working to “blend” seasoned design professionals into the classroom in the appropriate courses (undergrad senior design) where there exists a good fit. Such “professors of practice” also participate in the academic life of the department and add diversity of experiences to our program.

I would like to add several comments to our ongoing discussion about teaching design courses and having hands-on design experience.

On the personal level, I think that my hands-on design experience made me a better structural engineer and I think that the design instructors should try to get some hands-on experience.

First of all I want to thank everyone for their well-thought-out opinions regarding this topic. I apologize if some of my points are reverberations of some of the previous comments.

We are the committee on the Body of Knowledge for Civil Engineering. We are a forward-looking group that is tasked with defining what the young person of $2025+∕-$ will need to enter the professional practice of civil engineering. We are not tasked with determining accreditation, licensure, curriculum, or anything that relates to “certifying” the process. We have been instructed since day one to put on “blinders” (credit here for Tom Lenox) with respect to these items. We have been tasked with writing a forward-looking document that is not hindered by the restraints of today. Our document is a top-level document that will influence all of those topics. I propose that we must keep the same “blinders” on with respect to research funding, promotion, tenure, or anything else that does not relate to the preprofessional experience. Tom Lenox’s “blinders” do not mean we are unaware of the real world; it simply means that we must be aware that we have some capacity to influence change and should propose what we think is best for the profession of civil engineering in 2025 and the new professional engineer in 2025.

That being said, I am aware that many, if not most, of the faculty teaching civil engineering are not rewarded for teaching. They are rewarded for research monies brought into their institution. As long as this is the case there will be tension between those who say that professors should spend some time in professional practice so they can better teach and those who say that time is wasted because it does not advance their research goals and career. This is a fundamental problem. All I can do here is outline why I believe the civil engineering student of 2025 needs instructors who have practical experience.

Focusing on what is best for the student of 2025: I personally advocate for language that says “All persons teaching civil engineering should strive and be encouraged to gain practical experience to supplement their academic knowledge and increase their effectiveness in the classroom. All civil engineering faculty should obtain professional licensure. All persons teaching civil engineering design classes must have real-world design experience in the topic they are teaching in addition to professional licensure.”

This raises the question: “What is practical experience?” In my opinion, practical experience is the application of engineering principals to the solution of real-world problems. It involves real-world constraints and all the hurdles that are inherent in executing an engineering solution. Practical experience is not limited to private consultancy. It can include government and industry experience. It should not include teaching experience. Practical experience does not necessarily include design, and it could be analysis. Practical design experience includes experience in design and constructing an improvement.

According to the NCEES license board survey, eleven states, or 22 percent, list a P.E. as required to teach design classes. I think this is encouraging that licensing boards around the country see the need to have licensed professionals with practical experience teaching design. (Additional information available at http://www.ncees.org/licensure/licensing̱requirements̱2005/). I am currently in conversation with NCEES to see if there is a trend in this statistic.

Though we are focused on the student who is seeking licensure, we must remember that not all civil engineering students will seek licensure. Some will pursue institutional, academic, research, or governmental jobs that do not reward or encourage licensure. The educators must also prepare these people for their future. I personally think that all students benefit from professors who have practical experience. However, we should recognize that certain nondesign classes would benefit from a person without practical experience, but great expertise in the subject area.

In response to those who think that I am asking educators to produce students who are expert designers from the moment they graduate, this is simply not the case. I do not believe there is any substitute for time spent practicing engineering outside of academia. That is why I am such a huge proponent of professors acquiring practical experience. If I thought you could be an effective civil engineer through education alone, I would not advocate for practical experience. What I am asking professors to do is provide the best and most well-rounded academic experience possible.

Research is a vital part of civil engineering. The skills that researchers learn through research and convey to their students are critical. The advanced research knowledge that is conveyed to students during their education is also a vital component of engineering education. It is one way to transfer that research knowledge from the researcher to the student to the student’s veteran first boss.

In conclusion, the civil engineering student of 2025 will be best served by educators who can bring real-world experience into the classroom in addition to cutting-edge research knowledge.