Showdown in Texas: The BS +30 Debate
Publication: Leadership and Management in Engineering
Volume 9, Issue 1
Showdown in Texas: The BS +30 Debate
In Texas Professional Engineer (January/February 2008), two engineering professionals, Dean Pamela Eibeck, Ph.D., P.E., at Texas Tech and Clayton Yeager, P.E., chair of the Texas Society of Professional Engineers Licensing and Qualification to Practice Committee, expressed opposing views on the necessity and likely outcomes of the “BS +30” implementation by the Texas Board of Professional Engineers. (The premise is that licensure as an engineer should require a BS plus thirty hours of upper-division or graduate coursework.)
In the magazine article, Dr. Eibeck’s stance against the BS +30, also known as ASCE Policy 465, is very general and is in response to ALL engineering disciplines. She opines that students today are not less prepared for practice than in previous years, even though coursework hours have been dropping. She does state that “engineers should be prepared for a lifetime of learning if they are to be successful” (which is hardly controversial) and that companies, not licensing boards, should be responsible for determining the appropriate level of education for any particular job position (which is worth debating). Neither she nor the article’s other author address directly whether BS +30 will achieve the outcomes desired by ASCE. Dr. Eibeck’s commentary is reproduced in full at the end of the article with permission from Texas Professional Engineer, a publication of the Texas Society of Professional Engineers.
The article prompted a rash of e-mail responses, some of them emotionally charged, and most of them opposing her position. That is, most writers enthusiastically support BS +30. The tone of their e-mails, with only slight undertones of defensiveness, also reflected a certain pride felt by already licensed civil engineers as they discussed whether future civil engineers would benefit from the BS +30 plan. To an extent, the e-mail exchange, reproduced below, generated more heat than light. But it is worth reading, as it shows just how contentious the BS +30 plan is to those already in the field. It may be an issue that should be decided by dispassionate third parties, such as economists or public policy makers.
The BS +30 plan (ASCE Policy 465), would require civil engineers (or all licensed engineers if state boards adopt the policy for all disciplines) to have thirty hours of college credit hours beyond a bachelor’s degree in order to become licensed. The policy would be phased in over years, and has the support of the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES), which has been promoting it to state licensing boards.
Before reading the e-mail string, it might be helpful to review the ASCE policy (see www.asce.org/pressroom/news/policy̱details.cfm?hdlid=15). The e-mails begin with a rebuttal of Dr. Eibeck’s comments on the policy, which has now been elevated to a model law for the NCEES, and they are now making recommendations to the individual state licensing boards to follow suit.
The first e-mail responder spurred the discussion. Perhaps he was being an instigator, a provocateur, or even a devil’s advocate. In either case, he prompted the group discussion, one that is going to take place in at least fifty other states in at least fifty state licensure boards. Dr. Eibeck did respond to the e-mails and hers is at the end of the messages reproduced here. She did not back off her position. One e-mail dissenter expressed that the e-mails were so one-sided, that she did not believe a rational dialogue was taking place, but rather an emotional debate.
[Some contributions were edited for journal style or definition of terms. Salutations and the like were removed to preserve space.—Ed]
February 2008
Correspondent 1
The article by Dean Eibeck argues that engineering should not raise the bar noting that “Young people are already reticent to enter engineering [because it is] often perceived as the most demanding curriculum in a university.” Please help me understand the Dean’s argument.First of all, “perceived” by who [sic]? Some not too informed young people and others? The Dean’s statement is correct, provided that we exclude professions such as accounting, architecture, audiology, dentistry, law, medicine, optometry, pharmacy, and veterinary medicine, all of which have more demanding curricula than engineering, whether they are “perceived” to or not. What does that leave? What professions is Dean Eibeck referring to as offering “an easier and potentially more lucrative career path than engineering?” Looking forward five or ten years, when counseling a young person who says engineering is too demanding because it requires a BS + 30, where do I send them for a “lucrative career” that is easier to enter? And do we think the ones I mentioned and you might think of are all going to remain static?Today’s young people, especially the best and the brightest that we want to attract, are simply too smart to buy the argument that “more lucrative career path[s],” the best professions, and the most satisfying careers are those that require the least academic and other preparation. You cannot get something for nothing—never could, never will.And why the focus on numbers, on quantity? Will the economy of Texas really be stronger if that state has more engineers per square mile than say Rhode Island? Will our country’s economy, infrastructure, environment, and quality of life be better than that of other nations because we have more engineers per 100,000 population. Aren’t these body count arguments, in effect, the ultimate commoditization of our profession? As writer Paul Dickson put it, “If you want a track team to win the high jump, you find one person who can jump seven feet, not seven people who can jump one foot.”I can understand the parochial concerns of some employers and some engineering colleges (I’ve been an engineering manager and dean), but is that what we, as a profession and nation, are all about? Is our horizon that close and that narrow? Given the importance of the engineering profession, don’t we want to attract more of the best and brightest young people and give them a first class education? The engineer’s role in society seems too important to do otherwise. But, maybe I just do not get it. Please help me understand.
Correspondent 2
Amen to all of your comments. You do get it, but unfortunately, too many others do not. Even some in high places.I mean no disrespect to Dean Eibeck, but:I have heard so many in our profession complain because we are not treated like professionals. They feel we are treated like commodities. I think that is true, yet few are willing to do anything about it. I guess the status quo and fear of change are strong deterrents. I too believe that many in engineering education have on blinders. They cannot or will not see the larger picture. Just some of my thoughts.1.She does seem to be very worried about the numbers. Many of the opponents seem to worry about this. They all see the need for lots of engineers, and that is true. But, we cannot stem the decline in the quality of engineering education for this fear. Or, if one doesn’t think the quality is lower, we cannot improve the educational standard of engineers for this fear. The National Academy of Engineering (NAE) says we better get over this fear and effect change. Also, [sociologist E. A.] Krause would say that this whole numbers issue is a concern of capitalism, not a profession. The profession must set its standards with the influence of business, not the other way around. The market will take care of the numbers.2.She doesn’t see anything to lead her to believe that graduates are less prepared for practice today. NAE seems to disagree. The educational standard needs to be raised. Maybe her programs have not declined, but clearly others have. At any rate, it is not just a matter of stemming a decline. It is also about preparing graduates to practice in a world that is becoming more complex, not less.3.She demonstrates a lack of understanding for the licensure exam process. That is not uncommon, but the exams cannot be used to compensate for deficiencies in education. Each has its own purpose. And, to say the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) or Principles and Practice of Engineering (PE) pass rates do not indicate a decline really shows a lack of understanding. Pass rates are not absolute standards.
Correspondent 3
Jim Duderstadt chaired a NAE committee that developed the report, “Engineering Research and America’s Future: Meet-ing the Challenges of a Global Economy,” published in 2005 by The National Academies Press (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?recorḏid=11393). It was a National Science Foundation-funded study. I had the good fortune to serve on that committee and got to know him well. Jim is a deep thinker, a former president of the University of Michigan, and I think a former dean of engineering there. He is really looking to the future and sees a serious downside for this country if we don’t seriously start addressing some basic problems. He has received the National Medal of Technology and many other awards. His research interests include nuclear fission reactors, thermonuclear fusion, high powered lasers, science policy, info technology, and higher education. His BS in environmental engineering (EE) is from Yale and [he has a] PhD in engineering science and physics from Cal Tech. He is a man that ought to be listened to. As far as I am concerned he is right on target.I think the concern that if changes are made, the number of engineers will be reduced is overblown. The same was said regarding fewer students opting for engineering if the college entrance requirements were increased. Experience at several institutions has shown that wasn’t the case.
Correspondent 1
. . . Based on your suggestion a week or so ago, I have reviewed the Duderstadt report. Refreshing and encouraging to hear an academic from outside of civil engineering calling for reform, not more fine tuning and tweaking of the current system. As he says, “resistance to bold actions will be considerable . . . many educators will defend the status quo, as they tend to do in most academic fields.”
Correspondent 4
Not to belabor points that have been discussed all day long, but here’s my take on this article. If the curriculum is enough to scare someone from being an engineer, they should not be engineers. I knew I wanted to be an engineer, and I would have gone through more education if I had needed it in order to make it. Working full time while going to school full time for both my bachelor’s and master’s degrees I believe proves that I am not just making a clichéd platitude by saying that. To my knowledge, I was the only non-PE, corresponding member of the ASCE Committee on Academic Prerequisites for Professional Practice (prior to my licensure). I got involved with it even before I finished my master’s, because I felt that it was that important to the profession.As engineers we tend to be conservative, we put in factors of safety, and do things economically. We make the call as to when something meets the benefit-to-cost ratio or not. If there were no better reason than to be conservative, the argument for more education makes sense. Working while I took classes, I saw the duality of what was taught versus what was done. Things in the academic world are much different then private consulting. When I started on my master’s degree I thought that there was nothing else to learn and that I would know enough going in. It did not take me long to discover that there is much more to the education of engineers that can not take place inside the current 128± credit hours. Having a master’s degree made it easier to pass the PE exam. Is that because they graded it different, or because I knew more?What I have always found lacking (for people outside the engineering community) was an understanding of what a professional engineer is. I knew that doctors go to medical school, I knew that lawyers go to law school. I did not know I wanted to be a professional engineer when I started school, only that I wanted to be an engineer. I never knew what it took to be a PE until after I had already been in school for two years. No one emphasized their licensure, or explained it to me. It was only after I started working for an engineering firm that I learned how to do it. Not only do we need to raise the bar, we need to educate students, and prospective students, that there is a bar. Yes, if we tell prospective students that they need a master’s degree or thirty [hours of] graduate level classes to be licensed they may be scared away, but I don’t want to drive across a bridge built by someone who chose their career path based on what was the easiest way for them to graduate. If they do not want to be engineers because they have to spend longer in school, we do not need them as engineers. If it means there is a shortage, the marketplace will adjust. Which would you rather have, enough engineers to do all the tasks or fewer engineers doing the job well?
Correspondent 5
While I hesitate to chime in on this e-mail dialog, I cannot resist. I too appreciate the passion brought to this issue. We all should be passionate about our profession and, more specifically, our profession’s future—and it is indeed the future that we are truly discussing. Unfortunately, none of us can say with all certainly what the future will hold; however, looking at the past and projecting current trends into the future does provide us with a hint of what may come. The NAE along with many other organizations and individuals have done just this and come to the same conclusion: engineers of tomorrow need more education in order to practice competently and responsibly. This does not suggest that we are producing deficient engineers today, but rather we may indeed be in danger of doing so in the future unless we change.Looking at other professions and some recent experiences of our own, I also will say that I truly do not think that raising the bar will “reduce the number of licensed engineers.” First, evidence from the many other professions that have already raised the bar for licensure shows no decrease in interest by students or in those becoming licensed. In fact, the experience of other professions largely shows increased student interest and an increase in licensed professionals. Second, it will take many years (decades) to fully implement the additional education requirement for licensure. The current thinking of the NCEES BS +30 Taskforce is the earliest possible effective date for any jurisdiction would be 2020. This gives ample time for all those future engineers who will be affected to prepare accordingly.A bit more locally, five years ago, the civil engineering program at The University of Alabama embraced the vision and idea of additional education for professional practice and career advancement. We, of course, could not say it was required for licensure. Nonetheless, we changed our curriculum and recruiting approach completely. Our program has adopted the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge as advocated by ASCE, and we tell prospective students who are still in high school that, for their own professional preparedness, we strongly recommend they already plan on continuing their education beyond a bachelor’s degree. To make a long story short, our undergraduate enrollment has increased over the last four years by over 130 percent with an overall increase in student quality (measured by ACT scores and high school grade point average), and our graduate enrollment and degree production has also doubled. Surveys and interviews with our students suggest strongly that the future focus and vision was the deciding factor in selecting the program.The bottom line is that by raising the bar, I feel we will not only better prepare the future engineer to practice engineering, we will also be more likely to attract even more of the best and brightest into engineering and eventually on to professional licensure.
Correspondent 6
In my view, as we move forward, we will need to more clearly and concisely describe what is inadequate about the current bachelor’s degree for the minimally competent engineer in the simplest of professional practice. That is and will be the issue. I think we have the information, but perhaps we haven’t distilled it yet into its simplest explanation. We need to be able to respond specifically, and in a compelling fashion, to the problem with the status quo.
Correspondent 7
I do not necessarily agree with you. If we try to identify specific elements of a structural engineer’s (or geotechnical, hydraulic, etc.) body of knowledge that is missing from today’s curriculum, we will go nuts and never reach an end point. That assignment is clearly a moving target. I can go into any geotechnical class in the United States and find topics that are not covered that should be. Next year, I could do the same exercise and find more things missing. It is not our role to identify specific topics that make today’s curriculum deficient. It is our role to identify what general topics will be needed to practice in the future and it is the faculty’s responsibility to constantly adapt their curriculum to the needs of the future, consistent with their institution’s mission.I believe that we could go into any civil engineering program in the United States and find ways to improve the curriculum. That is way too prescriptive and no one wants to get that involved. We have provided a roadmap to the future. I suspect many will not like the route that we have suggested and they will determine their own route because they believe they know a shortcut or they want to visit their Aunt Matilda who does not live on the route we suggested. I am okay with that, as long as we all get to the same end point: that future civil engineering graduates are adequately prepared to enter the professional practice of civil engineering.
Correspondent 8
Seems that we have varying points of views. To me, if you believe the current degree is fine to practice, I am not sure how you convince others that we need to change.
Correspondent 9
We just heard a voice of the future of our profession. We need to listen well. We need to get back to basics and stress professionalism and registration from the outset of the education of the civil engineer. Clearly we need to better brand our profession by stressing registration. It shouldn’t be optional in the civil discipline. While it may be difficult to return to the days of 144 semester hours to earn a BS, our profession requires more than the 128±hours for the average bachelor’s degree. Our individual successes are testimony to that fact. We’re asking the students of today to learn from a body of knowledge that has increased since we graduated thirty or forty years ago. It should take longer. It is a profession not for the faint of heart or someone looking for an easy way out.Personally, as a civil student at The University of Toledo, I had a three-hour senior level course called “Professional Practices in Civil Engineering.” The dual-purpose course was designed to acquaint civils with presenting and discussing projects with citizens and peers and preparation for the two-day Engineer-in-Training (EIT) and PE exams given by the state of Ohio. The first day’s exam was the EIT; the second the PE. Upon successful completion of the exam you were granted an EIT certificate. You then practiced under the watchful eye of registered engineers for the next four years and submitted proper documentation of your experience and were granted your PE, having previously passed the required sixteen hours of examination. However, during my four-year apprentice period, a national test was developed. To avoid any question regarding my passing the PE, I returned to Ohio and passed the national test. I have successfully completed twenty-four hours of testing, passing both the Ohio PE and the NCEES PE exams. I should note that I passed the Ohio EIT and PE exams with 150 undergraduate hours. I had approximately eighteen graduate hours under my belt when I passed the NCEES exam, as I was enrolled in the dual master’s degree civil engineering and city planning program at Georgia Tech.It appears that we arrived at 128 hours± for the bachelor’s degree to stay competitive with non-engineering curricula while the body of knowledge is increasing. The push to have the BS +30 seems to be a move to return to the greater number of hours with the master’s degree being the carrot.
Dr. Eibeck Responds:I appreciate the passion you bring to the issue of requiring an additional, unspecified, thirty credit hours to the BS degree for licensure. I share your commitment to assuring quality engineers are in the workplace. Where it seems that we differ is whether the BS degree alone is adequate for safe and competent technical practice as evidenced by licensure. In spite of the reduced credit hours from the “good old days” of 135 to 144 hours, engineering programs have condensed more material into courses with less credit hours such that our students are learning as much or more now in 128 credit hours than our graduates did in the past. Is 128 credit hours enough to know all of the expanding body of knowledge facing the engineer today? No. Is it enough to assure a BS engineer is prepared for a lifetime of learning new knowledge? Yes. Does every engineer need a graduate degree in engineering to practice effectively? It depends on their job.I would be compelled to support the NCEES model law if it (1) identified the deficiencies in knowledge for currently licensed engineers, and (2) proposed clear technical-related learning outcomes needed in the thirty additional hours. Requiring an unspecified additional thirty credit hours of coursework is simply adding a hurdle to licensure, rather than raising the bar of competency. It will, however, reduce the number of licensed engineers. Perhaps this is the desired outcome for the people advocating the change.. . . I have spent a considerable amount of time studying the Duderstadt article and interacting with Dr. Duderstadt regarding his proposals. I find his ideas exciting and timely. However, he and I disagree in one important area: I believe that the accredited BS degree has an important place in preparing engineers to enter the workforce.
—Dr Pamela A. Eibeck, P.E.
Correspondent 9
Over the years as I have received e-mails from this group, I have seen many dissenting opinions discussed. In most, if not all cases, the group has reached out to better understand the concerns of the individual or organization expressing the concern.This round of discussions has been largely driven by anecdote and opinion, and from it I have perceived this sense of “either you’re with us, or you’re not.” I personally don’t find this productive, and suspect others don’t as well. With the exception of [one] e-mail, there has not been much presentation of facts. I would say that better understanding of other opinions and providing facts rather than anecdotes—or even passion that is not underpinned by substance—is a higher, more productive road to travel.
What can one glean from this sometimes contentious exchange?This same scene is going to play out in public and behind closed doors at state boards across the country. This is as much a debate about economics and livelihood as it is about statutes and regulations. There are no clear-cut answers to this issue and no amount of discussion is going to convince people otherwise. Unfortunately, only the passage of time will expose the positive and negative effects of the BS +30 plan.
•
Clearly, the body of engineering knowledge is growing at an accelerating pace. Continuing education is a reality for all engineers, whether they get their postgraduate education in a classroom, online, in seminars, or on the job.
•
It’s possible that some engineers, particularly civil engineers, feel defensive as their profession gets less positive coverage in the press, they perceive themselves as losing ground on compensation, and their role shifts away from managing impressive new construction to maintenance of woefully ignored infrastructure.
•
We may just be seeing the growing pains of a vocation as it struggles with standards of professionalism. Or, we may be seeing evidence that, while a high school diploma was the ticket for entry into the U.S. economy a generation ago, a bachelor’s degree is now the baseline, and postbaccalaureate education will become more and more necessary as we continue into this millennium and compete with countries who are churning out engineers at a much higher rate than the United States.
Below is Dr. Eibeck’s commentary from “To Be or Not to BS +30?” (Texas Professional Engineer Jan./Feb. 2008; 67[4]: 14-15.)
The National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES) Model Law, endorsed by their membership in both 2006 and 2007, recommends that states require at least thirty credit hours of additional coursework to the baccalaureate engineering degree for licensure. According to Dr. Gene Corley, president of NCEES, the model law is to address concerns about the decline in graduation requirements for engineers.The deans of engineering in the state of Texas have expressed our opposition to the model law in a letter to the Texas Board of Professional Engineers in August of 2007. Our state’s workforce and its economy need more engineers. If the NCEES Model Law is adopted in Texas, it will potentially decrease the number of bright young people who choose engineering as their profession and the number of engineers that will become licensed.The importance of continuing education for engineers is undeniable. NCEES is to be applauded for its recognition of the need for engineers to pursue further education after they receive their baccalaureate degree. The expanding necessary bodies of knowledge, as well as the rapid changes in technology are staggering. Engineers must be committed to a lifetime of learning if they are to be successful and remain current in their field of engineering practice.However, Corley suggests that NCEES presumes that engineers with a bachelor’s degree today are less prepared for practice than they were during the previous generations when the number of credit hours for a BS was higher. The engineering deans have not seen any evidence, statistical or anecdotal, that our graduates are less prepared for licensure than in the past. There is no evidence that the passing rate is dropping for the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam and/or the Principles and Practice of Engineering (PE) exam, or that the nation’s licensed engineers lack the technical knowledge to ensure the public’s health, safety, and welfare or to practice their profession. If a deeper or broader skill set is needed for licensure, then the FE or the PE exam should be modified to reflect the enhanced competencies, rather than simply requiring thirty hours of extra coursework.Young people are already reticent to enter engineering, often perceived as the most demanding curriculum in a university. If entering freshmen are told that they cannot become licensed engineers without an additional year of coursework, they may choose an easier and potentially more lucrative career path than engineering;Those students who continue to major in engineering discover that only a subset of engineers actually becomes licensed, mostly civil engineers and those engineers whose practice will have a direct impact on the public. Texas deans are working hard to encourage a broader range of students to seek licensure. However, the additional thirty credit hours of coursework proposed for licensure will discourage many recent engineering graduates from pursuing an engineering license, thereby decreasing the number of professional engineers in the workforce.There are many career paths for graduate engineers, ranging from high-level technical work to sales and marketing. The free enterprise system allows an organization to hire engineers with the level of education and experience they need for the job. If an organization needs a higher level of technical expertise for its employees, it should be a requirement of the organization for employment, not a mandate of the licensing boards.
The author would like to thank Stuart Walesh, Ph.D., P.E., for providing the e-mail strings and encouraging open debate on the BS +30 issue.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Volume 9 • Issue 1 • January 2009
Pages: 3 - 8
Copyright
© 2009 ASCE.
History
Published online: Jan 1, 2009
Published in print: Jan 2009
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.