The coveted orange hood

While I was in college, I was involved with the UNR ASCE/AGC student chapter (on a side note, here are some pictures from a 2004 Regional Conference I helped  organize).  At every national or regional ASCE event I attended, there was always a lot of discussion on ASCE Policy Statement 465, Academic Prerequisites for Licensure and Professional Practice.  In this post, I will explain what PS465 means, give some history, and give my opinion on how ASCE has changed their position on the issue of education and compensation.

What is Policy 465?

ASCE currently defines Policy 465 as:

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) supports the attainment of a Body of Knowledge (BOK) for entry into the practice of civil engineering at the professional level. This would be accomplished through the adoption of appropriate engineering education and experience requirements as a prerequisite for licensure.

Body of Knowledge is a little ambiguous, so ASCE defines it as the necessary depth and breadth of knowledge, skills, and attitudes required of an individual entering the practice of civil engineering at the professional level in the 21st century.

What all this says is that (taken from the Policy 465 Key Points): It is evident that the exploding body of science and engineering knowledge cannot be accommodated within the context of the traditional four year baccalaureate degree.

What I have gathered from reading the ASCE documents on the subject, ASCE is unsatisfied with the current level of education of civil engineers; they want to raise the bar for civil engineers, which will in turn raise the public’s perception of our profession!  They would prefer to see a model similar to that of lawyers and doctors, where a broader education is taught in series (i.e. 4 year undergrad more breadth, followed by 2-3 years specialization) in lieu of the current parallel education (all sorts of stuff crammed into 4 years).

More information can be found at ASCE’s 465 site http://www.asce.org/raisethebar.

The History of Policy Statement 465

1998 – ASCE adopts PS465 which states “The ASCE supports the concept of the master’s degree as the first professional degree (FPD) for the practice of civil engineering at the professional level.”

2001 – ASCE adopts revised PS465 which states “ASCE supports the concept of the master’s degree or equivalent (MOE) as a prerequisite for licensure and the practice of civil engineering at the professional level.”

2001 – Business Case for the Master’s Degree: The Financial Side of the Equation.  This was a paper published in Civil Engineering Education Issues by Professor Jeffery Russell at the University of Wisconsin.  The entire paper was on compensation of civil engineers and comparing that compensation to other professions.  One of the original drafts of PS465 (page 14) cited this paper as the foundation for future drafts.

2002 – Another great paper by Professor Russell expanding on the Master’s Degree case.  He sells the case better than ASCE sells the case.  Read this paper.

2004 – ASCE revises PS465 to be more consistent with the first Body of Knowledge document. read “The ASCE supports the attainment of a body of knowledge for entry into the practice of civil engineering at the professional level. This would be accomplished through the adoption of appropriate engineering education and experience requirements as a prerequisite for licensure.”

2007 – ASCE revises the definition of Body of Knowledge (reffered to as BOK2) to be more consistent with the The Vision for Civil Engineering in 2025.

2009 – ASCE releases latest version of 2025 Vision.

Opinion

In the current Body of Knowledge Document, ASCE states that “The ASCE Board of Direction has been consistent in its 1998 initial adoption and subsequent 2001, 2004, and 2007 refinements of the policy.  ASCE leadership strongly supports reform of civil engineering education and prelicensure experience.”

I disagree with this statement.   ASCE changed their position on two fundamental issues.

Compensation

ASCE backtracked on citing compensation as one of the major drivers for requiring additional education.  In the earlier drafts of the policy statement and the explanation, compensation was cited multiple times as one of the reasons for requiring more education.  There is not one mention of a compensation driver in the current Policy Statement, the FAQ’s or key points.  For an issue that seemed to be a fundamental part of the original argument, it strikes me as odd that there is no longer any mention of it.

Master’s or no Master’s?

ASCE backtracked on the issue of a master’s degree.  The 1998 Policy Statement recommended a master’s degree, with no other option.  This has gradually been decreased from a master’s, to a master’s or master’s equivalent to fulfilling a rubric of education/distance learning/experience requirements outlined in the BOK.  Per the BOK

The premise of PS 465 gradually shifted from a degree basis (for example, “the master’s as the first professional degree”) through the “master’s degree or equivalent” approach, finally settling on a BOK foundation. This provides flexibility for engineers who cannot or do not wish to pursue a master’s degree through traditional means.

I would love to see a 5 or 6 year program made mandatory for licensure, with more specialized licenses.  The extended education would broaden as well as add more depth to the education of an engineer and as Professor Russell cited, would only make better engineers.  I believe this was the intent of the original PS465.  It should have remained that way.

In Closing

One interesting quote from one of the first Policy Statements (page 30) was

The veterinarian who neuters your dog must have twice the formal education as the civil engineer who designs your community water supply system.

Advertising

This statement is inflammatory.  We should not devalue other professions in order to prove how valuable we are.  To ASCE’s credit, these kind of remarks are not found in the latest set of documents. If ASCE wants the public to value our services as much as the public values a veterinarian’s (or doctor’s or lawyer’s) ASCE should have remained strong on their initial Policy Statement of expanding education and not backtrack to accepting distance learning programs.  I doubt many veterinarians (or lawyers or doctors) take distance learning courses on how to neuter dogs.  I certainly wouldn’t want my brain surgeon to have taken online courses in surgery via Norwich University, which  conveniently enough advertises on the ASCE website.