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.

Here are some of the sessions I plan on attending.

Report Cards for Building Seismic Safety: A Proposed Rating System for Earthqauke Performance of Buildings

This session is being giving by the SEAONC Existing Buildings Committee.  This is right inline with the training I took in 2006 to become a Safety Assessment Evaluator.  This training, put on by SEAONC and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services is a 1 day course. From the SEAONC website:

When earthquake disaster strikes a community, there is an immediate need for damage inspections. The Structural Engineer’s Association of Northern California has teamed with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) to recruit, train, and maintain a group of licensed engineers who are ready to respond following a major earthquake to assess the safety of building structures. There are currently approximately 278 SEAONC members who are registered as Volunteer Safety Assessment Engineers. To activate such a large pool of volunteers, the SEAONC DES-ATC 20 Subcommittee has created a telephone and e-mail communication network in order to provide rapid response to the affected communities.

Best Design Practices for Seismic Evaluation and Preservation of Historic Buildings:  Distinct Structural Systems and Benefit Cost Analyses

This session is exciting to me because it takes the evaluation part and extends it to a value and cost dimension.  When is a certain structural system the most cost effective for the owner and occupants?  This session has the potential shed some light on this subject.

Structual Implications of Green Roofs, Terraces, and Walls

I have not designed a green roof as of yet, however, I have always wondered about their effects on the load bearing systems in a building.  What about water and rain retention?  How does these additional loads affect the lateral (shear walls, moment frames, etc.) systems?  This will be a very interesting session.

On a similar note, green is the hottest design item right now.  It is interesting to look back three or four years ago at the proceedings and not find a single paper or presentation researching the structural implications of green design.  However, you could find numerous papers (there seemed like there were entire afternoons devoted to the topic) on buckling restrained braced frames or unbonded braces.  Now, there afternoons devoted to green design and only one presentation on buckling restrained braced frames.

Numerous Local Flavor Topics

There are always a number local topics presented at each convention.  This is a neat way to become connected with the engineers in the area of the convention.  This year there are presentations on Microzoned Design Maps of Topographic Wind Effects and Exposure in the Building Codes of the State of Hawaii and Performance of the Kawaihae Harbor Port Facility Resulting from teh 2006 Earthquake.

Social Programs

On top of the technical sessions there are ample opportunities for socializing and networking.  There are themed welcome receptions and cocktail hours, younger member receptions, and the all important President’s Cup where the different sections (Northern, Central and Southern California as well as San Diego) compete against each other in mental and physical competitions.

I will report back after the conference to give everyone an update on the conference.  Stay tuned!  Additionally, if you will be in attendance, let me know in the comments what sessions you are looking forward to.