Engineers often consider their foremost responsibility to serve the public good, seeing themselves as the translators of science to technology for the benefit of the public. Yet, engineers often find themselves as the villains in public/private conflicts. The public sees engineers as the despoilers of the environment, the diligent destroyers, the tools of the establishment. This image confuses engineers who believe that they perform the function for which they were educated and for which there is public demand. The present paper suggests that the confusion is the result of differing philosophical outlooks between the engineers and the public at large. The majority of the public believes that standard engineering tools such as cost/benefit analyses are unethical, whereas the engineers believe that these techniques allow for the most fair distribution of benefit and cost. The engineering codes of ethics are a mirror of the engineers' utilitarian nature, and promote this paternalistic nature of engineering. A modification and simplification of the codes of ethics is suggested that would include the public in engineering decision making.

The paper discusses the demands on civil engineers in the future and how the skills required of top‐quality professionals will be very different from those required in the past. The profession needs to be able to cultivate top‐quality students with varied backgrounds and be able to recruit from a diverse demographic pool of college graduates and a changing workforce. In addition to traditional technical knowledge, these professionals will need a strong background in people skills. To meet these demands, the profession must refocus its recruitment and outreach strategies to create an approach that is people‐oriented, innovative, and technically sophisticated. It must aim at students who are first starting to formulate ideas about their future, so they can get the training that they will need to compete and fulfill the needs of the profession. The TRAC (transportation and civil engineering) program, outlined in the paper addresses these challenges by focusing on bright young students as early as junior‐high‐school age and uses techniques that stress the skills that these potential professional engineers will need. TRAC nurtures these students through school with age‐ and grade‐appropriate techniques, including help with math and science skills (stressing profession‐related applications), a mentoring system, a summer‐jobs exchange, job opportunity information, and an electronic bulletin board informational network.

Deficiencies in seven key professional aspects are identified as being potentially responsible for the frequently reported decline in the well‐being of the civil engineering profession. These deficiencies are: (1) Public profile; (2) quality of entering class; (3) quality of graduating class; (4) supply/demand of good engineers; (5) professional fees; (6) professional income; and (7) innovation and R&D. These deficiences are demonstrated to be closely intertwined, and a professional well‐being chart modeling this closed‐loop interrelationship is proposed. Using this chart, a method is proposed to periodically monitor the well‐being of the civil engineering profession, as well as the evolution of this well‐being. Quantitative performance indices are formulated to achieve this objective. It is contended that the proposed monitoring activities are crucial to identify where corrective policies must concentrate if they are to enhance the well‐being of the profession. It is also anticipated that strategies to reach that enhancement and a proposed comprehensive action plan for immediate implementation can be formulated thereafter.

Whistle‐blowing is a corrective mechanism through which our practice is adjusted from time to time. The challenge is how our industry could benefit from those individuals whose criticism, when well founded and addressed, leads to significant improvements. A whistle‐blower tries to bring light to a murky environment marked by fear and intimidation, in which there is usually conspiracy to cover up incompetency, mistakes, and possibly criminal behavior. When the safety, health, and welfare of the public is involved, there is much at stake, and how we as a professional organization address this issue is important. A progressive method for addressing the grievances of whistle‐blowers is achieved in private industry. Among some of the Fortune 500 companies, managements have developed self‐policing mechanisms, that have proved to be successful. Whistle‐blowing is a courageous act; however, it is an act of wisdom that determines how we listen to the whistle‐blower's challenges. ASCE should take a clear position in support of whistle‐blowers, and in support of a process that constructively resolves whistle‐blowing conflicts. This paper explores the current status of whistle‐blowers, issues for further discussions, and recommendations for action.

A major portion of construction in the United States involves competitive bidding. Participants in the delivery of construction projects have an interest in the regularity of the bidding process. Bid shopping is a general contractor practice focused on lowering bid prices of trade contractors. This practice has the potential to affect the quality of construction delivered and the viability of individual trades. Such industry practices have given rise to control of bidding, in particular to bid depository, with overall beneficial results. The bid depository interjects a neutral party between the general contractor and the trade contractors to receive trade bids and present them in a timely fashion to meet overall project bidding. Where activities of the bid depository have restrained bidding, antitrust actions have been brought. As a consequence, bid depositories have had a checkered existence in this key area of the construction industry. This paper reviews the rationale for bidding controls, and the legal issues involved in bid depository operation. Guides for lawful operation of a bid depository are offered.

Professionalism extends beyond the mere knowledge of ethics. It includes applying to one's public and private life the laws, ethical codes, and moral standards that society expects professionals to uphold. People called professionals are characterized by high standards of behavior and attitude. In response to societal expectations, professionals have defined for themselves codes of ethics. Although these codes appear idealistic in comparison to the societal norm, professionals are obligated to conduct both their public and private lives in accordance with these standards. Professional engineers should work for the welfare of the public. They are responsible for observing societal needs, and often have the position and resources to improve society. As professionals, engineers are expected to set examples in the work field and to establish themselves as assets to society. Applying the codes of ethics to their lives enables engineers to fulfill these responsibilities.

Based upon a recent history of events, a close look is given to the meanings and the relationships between ethics, personal morality, codes of ethics and rules of professional conduct, and what is happening in the engineering profession. The behavior of some professional engineering societies versus their expectations of the behavior of their members is questioned as a possible double standard. It is suggested that codes of ethics have been, and can be, more than principles of behavior based on moral values that are good and right. It is demonstrated that it is the duty of every professional engineer to participate in the continuing development of enforced codes of ethics, and particularly rules of professional conduct adopted by their state boards of registration. This action is necessary to protect the public and themselves.

Explaining the impact of infrastructure on the economy requires more attention from civil engineers. Because the links between infrastructure and economic development are too complex to be fully measurable, civil engineers must explain them to policymakers and the public. Explanations are hampered by an ineffective economic accounting system and a cumbersome system for classifying infrastructure categories; thus, explanations remain largely conceptual. The accounting system remains ineffective because economists have not developed satisfactory methods of accounting for the economic impacts of infrastructure. Classification problems arise because infrastructure is an umbrella term for a collection of diverse public and private systems. Infrastructure will remain a highly political issue, and the environment and debt problems will be important public‐policy issues. Civil engineers also have key roles in management issues such as nondestructive evaluation, operations, and maintenance. Engineering education must rise to these challenges. Investments in education, research, and infrastructure are important keys to the future of America.

In April 1991, ASCE adopted a policy statement encouraging career‐guidance activities among its members. It was perceived by the society that programs are needed that describe the challenges and rewards of a civil engineering career to prospective engineering students. In addition, activities that encourage and promote the study of mathematics and science at all levels are believed to be required. Recently, ASCE has been quite active in developing career‐guidance information. Numerous sections and branches are also involved in career‐guidance activities. Comprehensive programs have been developed, which include middle‐and high‐school visitations, involvement with career days, development of slides and videos showing local projects, and participation in various elementary‐school/community‐college activities. It found that students are not only interested in specific engineering job characteristics. Questions often asked include salary, benefits, working conditions, engineering lifestyle, and interference with home life. The education of high‐school teachers concerning civil engineering was also determined to be an important aspect and benefit of career‐guidance programs.

Proficiency in written communication has become increasingly important for civil engineers. Employers, accreditation, and licensing organizations often criticize engineering curricula for the incompetency and poor writing skills of graduates. Recognizing this, an individualized writing instruction program was made available to a group of engineering students enrolled in a laboratory class. They were challenged to assess, address, and improve their writing skills by focusing on the abstract, discussion, and conclusion sections of the weekly laboratory reports. Evaluation of the program was then conducted in two ways. First, students were given an attitude survey at the beginning and end of the program to assess pre‐and postprogram attitudes about writing. Second, an independent panel of three technical writers rated preprogram and postprogram laboratory reports, assessing the quality of the student's writing skills. The results of the research confirmed that individualized writing instruction significantly improved student writing skills, but did little to change student attitudes about the importance of good writing and its impact on job success.

The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) evaluates 15 personality traits, which yields a personality profile. It is possible to construct a similar profile for various career or job environments. The profiles of various careers may be compared to an individual's personality profile to determine the best match. This, at least, helps students to objectively evaluate their career choices and produces more insight than most such tests.