ASCE can enhance our professional pride and share it with others by: 1) Seeking recognition for our commitment to continuous improvement in the quality of civil engineering practice and civil engineering education; 2) committing to lifelong learning; 3) participating in specialty certification; 4) addressing the issue of adversarial relationships among team members on projects; 5) supporting civil engineering research and telling the world about the results; 6) expanding the involvement of practitioners in education; and 7) increasing activities in construction inspection and code development and modification. It is presumptuous to assume that others will generate a broad respect for civil engineering works; we need to take the initiative ourselves. Encouraging more sections and branches to participate in the Outstanding Civil Engineering Achievement award is one possibility for sharing civil engineering pride. What ideas do you have?

This position paper, adopted unanimously by the Department Heads Council whose members represent the heads of the 222 civil engineering programs listed in the ASCE Official Register 1992, shows that the delineation between civil engineering practice and the practice of civil technology is not clear. The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) evaluates both engineering and technology programs, but the criteria are vastly different in four curriculum areas—mathematics and basic sciences, engineering (technical) science, design, and humanities/social sciences. Despite the major difference in the education of engineers and technologists, technologists can sit for the FE and PE exams in 41 states, and the American Society of Civil Engineers offers technologists membership at all society grades. This position paper argues that the present state of affairs does not serve to advance the safety and welfare of the public and urges ASCE to adopt the position advanced by the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE)—those who wish to be engineers should study engineering, and that a BS from an ABET/EAC accredited program be the minimum education requirement for professional engineering registration.

A case study is presented for a new, one‐year Coastal Engineering Education Program (CEEP) implemented by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the purpose of developing coastal engineers. The CEEP was developed jointly between Texas A&M University and the Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC) of the Corps' Waterways Experiment Station (WES) through the WES Graduate Institute, following meetings of the directors of WES and CERC with key Texas A&M University administrators and faculty, and with Corps headquarters representatives. The program was designed to include a combination of classroom, laboratory, and field instruction, with portions of the program conducted at Texas A&M University, CERC, and CERC's Field Research Facility. Senior CERC staff with visiting faculty appointments at Texas A&M University served as instructors in some of the courses, and as coadvisors to the students. A review of the program, including an exit interview with students completing the program, was carried out following the first session. The program curriculum was revised based on the review.

Strict liability was initially developed for persons who engage in dangerous activities. Strict liability means that the individual will be held liable for losses without regard to whether or not they were negligent. In some states, the concept of strict liability has been applied to developers who make mass‐produced houses and condominiums. The developer is held to a different legal standard than the subcontractors, which means that during a lawsuit, the defendants cannot provide a unified team of defense based on the plaintiff's need to prove negligence. This division often results in the subcontractors individually hiring experts to defend them, as well as being directly challenged by the developer during trial or mediation. In general, it is easier for a plaintiff's attorney to win a lawsuit for a mass‐produced housing project that has damage when the developer is held strictly liable for that damage. It seems that lawsuits are more common for projects covered by strict liability, and thus design civil engineers should evaluate this increased risk of a lawsuit prior to accepting the work.

The civil engineer's involvement in engineering failure litigation provides a basis for examining aspects of professional practice. Several case histories of civil engineering failures were discussed by a seminar group composed of civil engineering graduate students and engineering practitioners. The underlying theme of the seminar was the characterization of civil engineering failures in contemporary society, specifically the need for a more rational approach to the resolution of legal disputes. In the present (and likely future) system, most participants in an engineering project will probably be brought into the litigation process when a dispute arises. Recognition of this reality would lead the future practicing engineer to minimize the high transaction costs of lawsuits through active participation in efforts to resolve disputes, rather than defensively denying responsibility or blaming others. The civil engineering practitioner should understand the expectations of all the participants in a project and make realistic appraisals of the associated risks when the opportunity of participation, with all of its hidden long term costs, is first offered.

Being able to hit the ground running is an asset for any young graduate engineer, and his or her employer. Can academicians do more than they do to prepare the graduate? Is there room for improvement? One area where we have fallen down is by not exposing the student to one of the most important aspects of civil engineering—contracts and specifications. The young engineer is often posted on the job site with a set of plans and specifications and does not have the foggiest notion how to read them or appreciate their importance. They never had any exposure in college! Even though a professor is not a lawyer, and time is limited, he or she can do a lot to impress on the student the importance of these documents. The purpose of this paper is to whet the appetite of the university professor who might be in a position to provide such exposure.

The pattern of engineering education, which typically requires four years for completion of a degree that allows entry to practice, is put in perspective by comparing it with educational requirements for other professions. Driving forces for change in the current pattern are examined, with accreditation proposed as the mechanism to effect appropriate change. The growth of engineering technology programs is seen as one major stimulus for change, and several possible scenarios for future development of these two interrelated fields are explored. One scenario, which recommends significant upgrading of engineering education, is proposed for adoption by the profession. The comprehensive engineering profession model proposed includes modifications to current norms in education, recognition, and practice.

Because of economic conditions and the favorable job market in many civil engineering (CE) disciplines, the number of CE graduate‐school applications from those lacking a CE undergraduate degree has increased substantially. What admission requirements should be placed on these applicants? An alternative at one end of the spectrum is to admit only those having a (B.S.C.E.) degree; this requirement would ensure uniform standards, but it would discourage many from pursuing their goal of a graduate CE degree. At the other end of the spectrum, minimal requirements such as completing differential equations and a junior‐level speciality course such as fluid mechanics may be imposed. The advantages and disadvantages of various levels of admission requirements are discussed. Considerations such as educational preparation for the Engineering‐in‐Training examination are also discussed. Recommendations for minimal requirements are presented.

Ethical dilemmas are widespread within professional engineering practice. To maintain high ethical standards of engineering management practice, companies should establish programs to educate their employees about ethical conflicts. The professional ethics training (PET) program described in this paper is designed to sensitize employees to the topic of ethics, clarify company policy, and establish a system for information and appeals. To implement the program, companies must evaluate their current programs, establish goals for a new program, prepare a company code of ethics, and establish a system of communication within the company. They should then conduct training sessions for the employees. The training sessions are individualized for each department and level of employee and include all employees, from new hires to executive officers. Follow‐up to the training sessions includes evaluation, alteration, and continuing education. A successful program will generate higher morale among employees, improved public relations, and lower incidence of ethical violations.

The long‐promised conversion to the International System of Units (SI) from the United States Customary System (USCS) has not yet occurred. To determine faculty attitudes about the anticipated conversion, a questionnaire was sent to civil engineering faculty throughout the United States. Numerous reasons for not teaching civil engineering courses in SI are cited; the main reason is that SI is not used in practice (cited almost three times as often as the next most important reason). Strong differences are noted among the several subdisciplines of civil engineering; almost 100% of the courses in steel, transportation, and concrete use less than 50% SI. Very few civil engineering departments or engineering colleges have policies about metrication. Attitudes about the relative value of the two systems, personal abilities with them, and appropriate time for conversion in the colleges and in practice are explored. A definite age bias is noted. A significant minority of civil engineering faculty do not like SI, or are opposed to a conversion to SI. Several possible causes for the general failure of a conversion to SI are discussed.

Geotechnical engineers typically face greater risks, such as injury or financial loss, than others do in the civil engineering profession. Subsurface exploration is probably the most dangerous aspect of geotechnical engineering. This risk requires that safety procedures be incorporated into engineering curriculum and that student engineers develop safety consciousness. Engineers must also constantly examine operations with a view to their own safety and the safety of the workers they supervise. Because geotechnical engineering has a potential of serious or even fatal injury, it is especially important that young engineers be trained to evaluate the safety of engineering operations in the field. Geotechnical engineers are particularly vulnerable to financial loss because of unknown soil conditions. This is because the geotechnical engineer is vulnerable to charges that he or she failed to perform a complete or diligent subsurface exploration. Two ways for geotechnical engineers to mitigate the potential of financial loss from lawsuits is through errors‐and‐omissions insurance and limitation‐of‐liability clauses in contracts.