This is a continuing series of quarterly articles on lessons learned and best practices in civil engineering education. The intent of the series is to reinforce good practices, describe new or developing practices, and provide a forum for what works well and what does not. It is hoped that this series will be an important quarterly read for all civil engineering educators and all those interested in what’s going on in civil engineering education today. Authors and topics will vary from issue to issue. Contact the associate editor, Mark Evans, at [email protected] if you wish to contribute to an upcoming issue.

This Forum article is a continuation of a regular series of columns on engineering ethics. The column has been generated, in part, by an interactive discussion on the Internet. The focus of the Ethics Case program is to present real situations taken from professional practice in order to stimulate greater attention to ethical issues, and to allow Internet Web site visitors the opportunity to avoid similar pitfalls in their own careers. In addition to providing an opportunity for individuals to read and respond to the case histories, it may also provide a convenient focus for informal brown bag discussions in firms and agencies.Those interested in this program are encouraged to visit the Web site at the following Internet address: http://www.engr.washington.edu/epp/Pepl/Ethics (Use of the capitalized letters as shown is important.) Results and discussion will also appear in the Forum section of the Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice. A more detailed description of this program appeared in the January 1998 issue of this journal.

Congratulations to the four ASCE Student Member, who won the zone essay competitions for the 2001 Daniel W. Mead Prize for the Younger Members. Three of the winning essays appear in this issue. The other essay, the overall national winner, was published in the January 2002 issue of Civil Engineering.

Seven hundred and forty four professional engineers in training courses on engineering documentation were given two versions of a text containing identical information. One version was structured as a linear argument leading up to the main item of information at the end; the other was structured so that a document summary was placed at the beginning, and the remaining text formatted so that the detail lay under a series of section summaries. They were asked to choose the version that most aided their information retrieval and to analyze their methods of extracting detailed information from both texts. They unanimously preferred the second version. All participants first read the summary (Abstract in this case) then read the section summaries in sequence. They then regressed to read the detail associated with each section summary. It is proposed that when reading a technical document, we look for overview information at successive levels of detail. Using this principle, documents can be designed to incorporate a navigational route of overview information; this will aid both the expert and nonexpert reader to obtain the individually required level of detail.

In order to determine the industry perception of educational and licensing requirements for entry-level structural engineers, the Structural Engineers Association of Hawaii, in conjunction with the Civil Engineering Dept. at the Univ. of Hawaii, distributed a two-part survey to their 240 members. The first part of the survey provided feedback on the current and potential license requirements for structural engineers in Hawaii. Although the majority of respondents hold a master’s degree, they do not support the ASCE proposal that a master’s degree be required for professional engineering licensure. The second part of the survey requested feedback on both undergraduate and graduate educational requirements for entry-level structural engineers. Based on the results of this survey, the structural engineering faculty at the Univ. of Hawaii are considering modifications to both undergraduate and graduate curricula. The survey results are presented along with observations that will interest all engineering educators. It is hoped that these results will encourage other universities and colleges to poll their industry constituents to aid in evaluation of their engineering programs.

While it is commonly thought worldwide that the education and training of architects and civil engineers require different patterns of learning, the writers of this paper opine that the teaching and learning of management subjects for both groups should be combined. Architecture and civil engineering faculties have many aspects in common, but, even when residing in the same faculty, the two disciplines rarely integrate successfully. This paper examines integration issues at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, where, over a period of 4 years, partial integration of architects and civil engineers in management subjects has been tested. The paper discusses the problems of devising a curriculum designed to satisfy both architecture and civil engineering undergraduate degree courses. Within the paper, discussion focuses on the outline for an integrated curriculum, the problems of timing, and logistics, and will report on some student experiences. Comment is also included on administrative issues, class size, relative merits of saving resources versus consequential inconvenience, the problems of making assumptions about relative prior knowledge, and expectations of students. Discussion of the various system changes that need to be put in place before such a liaison can be totally successful is presented. The paper provides valuable insight into the workings of two university faculties at the University of Auckland, which will allow parallels with other universities worldwide to be made.

The brightest students entering postsecondary education are often attracted by routes other than engineering that are perceived more likely to yield careers of higher prestige and greater returns. For civil engineering in particular, this is further compounded by the fact that the field is not traditionally viewed as a high-tech discipline. Thus, student quality, enrollment, and research funding in civil engineering programs have been declining across North America. The conservative construction industry is part of the problem; adjustments of this aging cartel to the new economy are still at the embryonic level. Civil engineering educators are facing the question, How do we change the “hard hat down in the ditch” image of civil engineering in the minds of the new information technology generation? This paper presents an analysis of possible causes of this problem and a vision for potential future solutions.

At the beginning of the 21st century, there is a wider awareness that the civil engineering industry has become a global industry. The rapid increase in foreign ownership of firms in the United States along with the globalization of economic markets is reminding professionals that they must be aware of global events before they impact local operating conditions. In response to these developments, university programs must begin to broaden their focus to include subjects that address new economy realities. Specifically, the time to begin exposing students to management topics such as entrepreneurship, financial management, and global economics has arrived. If the civil engineering industry is going to evolve into a new economy business, it will require individuals who are as comfortable with the financial and technological components of the business as they are with design or construction fundamentals.