The education of civil engineers who will continue to fulfill the societal demands of the 21st century has been the subject of a number of workshops and conferences in recent years. The writers believe that the role of civil engineering faculty in the education of future engineers is extremely important. Faculty will be required to teach new topics in different ways and with different tools. Yet in a research university, teaching is often only one of four or five activities a faculty member must perform. In a typical faculty reward system for research universities, teaching is not considered as important as paper publication or research marketing. In this paper, faculty needs are outlined, the roles of faculty members are discussed, and the current faculty reward systems are critically reviewed.

Leadership is a key element in meeting the needs of the civil engineering profession in an era of heightened global competition. Consulting and construction executives intent on maintaining a competitive edge are calling upon educators to produce civil engineers capable of leading multidisciplinary teams, combining technical ingenuity with business acumen, and effectively communicating narrow engineering endeavors within a comprehensive social framework. Our industry is challenging undergraduate schools to broaden curricula beyond the intellectual endeavors of design and scientific inquiry to the greater domain of professional leadership. Many agree that formal leader development must be incorporated into engineering education programs to respond to the professional demands of practicing engineers; however, the means of achieving the objectives within tightly constrained curricula are debated. This paper explores the changing nature of civil engineering in a globally competitive environment, reviews the issues in realigning civil engineering education, identifies key leadership skills relevant to engineering, and proposes solutions for developing leaders at our undergraduate institutions.

As with any voyage, the successful transit of a university engineering education requires foresight knowledge of curricular objectives and structure. This simple requirement, which often seems overlooked, is especially important at the undergraduate-degree level, where contemporary engineering curricula are becoming increasingly complex in order to provide greater opportunities for subtrack specialization, degree minors, and joint degrees with non-engineering programs. This paper argues that, without foresight explanation of curricular objectives and structure, significant numbers of students soon find themselves effectively adrift in the curriculum, unsure as to where they are headed, undermotivated, and, consequently, underperforming. Foresight explanation also benefits faculty engaged in curriculum subtracks. It prompts them to monitor sequencing of course contents, to better appreciate the context of their own courses, and to coordinate textbook use. Two fairly straightforward ways are suggested to augment student-guidance techniques already used by colleges: course-direction lectures to indicate whence-and-whither guidance at key points throughout the curriculum; and an Internet Web site to help guide students (and faculty) through the curriculum.

A case study is presented to illustrate how an undergraduate hydraulic engineering course was refined to address student concerns, meet educational requirements and departmental goals, serve employer needs, and satisfy alumni interests. The refinement process was influenced, in part, by ABET 2000 criteria for program outcomes and assessment. This paper documents how several of the ABET 2000 criteria are satisfied and how they are in turn used in continuous improvement of the course. Alternate measures of FE Exam results and other current and proposed tools used in assessing and documenting the outcome of the changes implemented are presented.

Communication courses are often given low priority by engineering students and faculty alike. This is mainly because they are perceived to be, and often are, divorced from the realities of the engineering world. Credible and relevant communication courses demand the integration of language and engineering content so that the tasks reflect the sort of problem solving that students will face in real-life engineering contexts. One problem that language specialists face in designing such courses arises from the fact that they hail from a discipline very different from engineering in purpose, subject matter, and pedagogical approach. To work effectively in the different “subculture” of engineering, they need to assimilate and attain the cultural literacy of the discipline. In our institution, the “acculturation” process of language specialists has been helped along by the fact that they are based in the engineering school. This provides greater opportunities for assimilation into the discipline and allows the interfacing of communication skills and civil engineering to take place more effectively. This paper describes how this setup has been instrumental in providing a communication course that students perceive to be relevant and therefore an integral part of their engineering studies.

Civil engineers are increasingly adopting computer and communications systems to conduct business. Engineering relies on computer-aided design, simulation, project management software, electronic funds transfers, automated control processes, satellite communications, geographic information systems, electronic mail, and digital records. The transformation of engineering by information technology holds out much promise in revolutionizing the way engineers do business. However, the technological progress also introduces vulnerabilities that threaten engineering enterprises. Aside from the touted Y2K threats, competitors, criminals, and disgruntled employees threaten our computerized information systems. This paper examines the role of civil engineers in this contemporary information age by identifying trends in the use of computer and communications systems, examining vulnerabilities of these systems, and providing insights for protection. To be truly effective, information defense must begin at the root level—in each engineering organization.