Tài liệu education of architects and engineers for careers in facility design ppt

The Na- tional Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of

1n Facility Design and Construction

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment

‘Committee on Education of Facilities Design and

National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine The members of the committee responsible forthe report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance

‘This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to proce- dures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National

‘Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine

‘This project was carried out under the technical program of the Federal Construction Council (FCC) The FCC is a continuing activity of the Building Research Board (BRB),

‘which isa unit of the NRC Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems The pur-

‘pose of the FCC is to promote cooperation among federal construction agencies and be- tween such agencies and other elements of the building community in addressing technical issues of mutual concern The FCC program is supported by 18 federal agencies: the Department of the Air Force (2 agencies), the Department of the Army (2 agencies), the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, the Department of the interior, the Department of the Navy, the Department of State, the General Services Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Endowment forthe Ars, the National Science Foundation, the US Information Agency, the U.S Postal Service, the US Public Health Service, the Smithsonian institution, and the Department of Veterans AMfairs Funding for the project was provided through the following agreements between the indicated federal agency and the National Academy of Sciences: Department of State Con- tract No, 1030-270106; National Science Foundation Grant No MSS-9208138, under master agreement 8618641; and US Postal Service grant unnumbered

‘Additional copies ofthis report are available from:

Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW

HA274

Washington, D.C 20418

202/334-3378

‘Copyright 1995 by the National Academy of Sciences All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF FACILITIES DESIGN AND

CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONALS

KENNETH F REINSCHMIDT, Chair, President, Stone and Webster Advanced Systems Development Services, Boston, Massachusetts RICHARD O ANDERSON, Senior Vice President, Soil and Materials Engineers, Inc., Plymouth, Michigan

REBECCA G BARNES, AIA, Planning Department, City of Seattle, Seattle, Washington

KWEKU K BENTIL, Chairman and Associate Professor of the

Department of Building Construction, College of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Washington, Seattle

WILLIAM J COAD, President, McClure Engineering Associates, St Louis, Missouri

ROBERT W DORSEY, Professor of Construction Science, OMI College

of Applied Science, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio

THOMAS L McKITTRICK, FAIA, Associate Professor, College of Architecture, Texas A&M University, College Station

CONSTANTINE E MICHAELIDES, Dean Emeritus, School of

Architecture, Washington University, St Louis, Missouri

WALTER P MOORE, President and Chairman of the Board, Walter P, Moore and Associates, Inc., Houston, Texas

MONTE L PHILLIPS, Professor, Civil Engineering Department,

University of North Dakota, Grand Forks

MICHAEL A PRICE, Director of Architecture and Engineering

Programs, Research Center for Continuing Professional and Higher Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman

JAMES E STICE, The Bob R Dorsey Professor of Engineering,

Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Austin

JON S TRAW, PE,, President, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California

ROGER B WILLIAMS, AIA, Managing Principal /Director,

International Projects, Mithun Partners, Inc,, Seattle, Washington Agency Liaison Representatives

DENNIS J FECK, U.S Department of Energy, Washington, D.C

THOMAS GROOMS, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington,

DC

WILLIAM MINER, US Department of State, Washington, D.C

RONALD JOHNSON, Navy Facilities Engineering Command, U.S De- partment of the Navy, Alexandria, Virginia

itt

ROBERT TYSON, U.S Department of State, Arlington, Virginia DWAIN WARNE, General Services Administration, Washington, D.C

NRC Board on Engineering Education Liaison

SAMUEL C FLORMAN, Kreisler Borg Florman Construction

‘Company, Scarsdale, New York

Project Staff

HENRY A BORGER, Senior Project Officer

LENA B GRAYSON, Project Assistant

MARY T McCORMACK, Project Assistant

LINDA VOSS, Consulting Editor

io

BOARD ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE CONSTRUCTED ENVIRONMENT

GEORGE BUGLIARELLO, Chair, Chancellor, Polytechnic University, Brooklyn, New York

CATHERINE BROWN, Director of Special Projects, Design Center for

‘American Urban Landscape, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis NANCY RUTLEDGE CONNERY, Consultant, Public Works

Infrastructure, Woolwich, Maine

LLOYD A DUSCHA, Consulting Engineer, Reston, Virginia

ALBERT A GRANT, Consulting Engineer, Potomac, Maryland

E R HEIBERG III, Heiberg Associates, Inc., Mason Neck, Virginia RONALD W JENSEN, Public Works Director, City of Phoenix,

Phoenix, Arizona

JAMES K MITCHELL, Charles E Via, Jr Professor of Civil

Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg

HAROLD J PARMELEE, President, Turner Construction Company, New York, New York

STANLEY W SMITH, McLean, Virginia

RAYMOND L STERLING, Shimizu Professor of Civil and Mineral Engineering, Director, Underground Space Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis

Stay

DEANS CHAMOT, Acting Director (through January, 1995)

RICHARD LITTLE, Director (from February, 1995)

HENRY A BORGER, Executive Secretary, Federal Construction

Council

SUSAN COPPINGER, Administrative Assistant

LENA B GRAYSON, Program Assistant

ing research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and

to their use for the general welfare Upon the authority of the charter

granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that

requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical

matters Dr Bruce M Alberts is president of the National Academy of

‘Sciences

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under

the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organiza-

tion of outstanding engineers It is autonomous in its administration and

in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of

‘Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government The Na-

tional Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and

recognizes the superior achievements of engineers Dr Robert M White

is president of the National Academy of Engineering

‘The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National

‘Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appro-

priate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the

health of the public The Institute acts under the responsibility given to

the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an

adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify

issues of medical care, research, and education Dr Kenneth I Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine

‘The National Research Council was established by the National Acad-

emy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and

technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and of

advising the federal government Functioning in accordance with gen-

eral policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the

principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the gov-

‘ernment, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities The

Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of

‘Medicine Dr Bruce M Alberts and Dr Robert M White are chairman

and vice-chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

Contents

Executive Summary 1

1 Introduction 5 Origin and Purpose of Study, 5

Study Procedures, 6

Scope and Focus of the Report, 8

Organization of the Report, 9

2 Background Information "1 Characteristics of the U.S Design and Construction Industry, 11 Role of Architects and Engineers in the Design and

Construction Process, 13

The Educational System for Architects, 15

The Educational System for Engineers, 18

3 Capabilities of Graduates of Architectural and

Engineering Schools 2 Quality of Graduates’ Skills, 26

Conclusions, General Discu:

Level of Specific Skills, 49

Appendix B The Educational System for Construction Managers 71 Appendix C Biographical Sketches of Members of the Committee

‘on Education of Facilities Design and Construction Professionals 75

Executive Summary

A perception has arisen among many federal construction officials that recent graduates in architecture and engineering lack sufficient train- ing for professional careers in facility design and construction While similar doubts have been expressed in recent years by employers of engi- neers in a variety of industries, the Committee on Education of Facilities Design and Construction Professionals focused on the needs of the con- struction industries

The committee was charged with investigating general allegations of unpreparedness among graduates of engineering and architectural pro- grams Specifically, the committee considered the following educational areas: design; construction; technology; teamwork; business, economics, and management; and the liberal arts and communications skills In de- termining that improvement could be made in all of these areas, the com- mittee concentrated on areas directly affecting professional performance and requiring attention as part of a first-level professional degree pro- gram

‘The committee concluded that the following three areas are of serious concern:

* Most architectural graduates possess a good understanding of the design process and broad design concepts but lack a knowledge of the practical and technical aspects of construction, such as design- ing to a budget Many engineering graduates have little know/-

edge of the design process or of how to solve specific design prob- lems

‘© Most engineers and architects leave school with inadequate know/- edge of the role of technology in their professions This is espe- cially true for architectural schools that de-emphasize the use of technology in, for example, construction methods, materials, and systems in favor of teaching broad design concepts Technology has been largely eliminated from the engineering curriculum in most schools so as to focus on science, math, and basic engineering principles

‘+ Most architectural and engineering students leave school with little knowledge of business, economics, and management, adversely affecting graduates’ ability to serve their clients, understand the concerns of their employers, manage projects effectively, and qualify for more responsible positions

‘The committee recommended a follow-up study to explore solutions

to the problems identified in this report The committee stressed that fundamental issues need to be addressed, such as defining those areas that fall under the purview of the school and those that can be learned more efficiently on the job A follow-up study should investigate the need for integrating formal educational programs with continuing educa- tion and lifelong learning It should define what are the reasonable and realistic expectations of schools in teaching the desired skills within the basic degree programs

The committee looked at internal factors that may undermine the quality of professional educational programs, including faculty orienta- tion, curriculum development, teaching methods, and attrition The com- mittee concluded that teaching in many engineering schools suffers because the academic rewards system causes instructors to devote a dis- proportionate amount of time to research Architectural schools do not appear to have as serious a problem in this area Engineering education suffers in some schools because of an overreliance on teaching assistants and because many engineering instructors have little or no design experi- ence On the other hand, architectural instructors tend to emphasize the art of design over practical concerns important in actual construction Both the excessive research orientation and an institutional bias against the teaching of aspects relating to practical experience affect the quality of students education

In looking at curriculum development, the committee found that ex- isting engineering and architectural curricula do not adequately prepare graduates for professional practice in facilities design and construction Responsibility for this deficiency extends to the organizations that ac-

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

credit these programs Schools should appreciate requirements that stu- dents will be expected to meet upon graduation and provide for pro- gxams that teach those skills This encompasses teaching students the multiple aspects of the design process, including specialized technologies and designing to budget, and providing humanities courses that will be meaningful to engineers and architects in defining their place in the world The committee recommended that employers apply market pressure

by taking a more pro-active role by participating in internship programs and by selecting graduates from institutions that meet their needs

Problems with the system for educating engineers and architects will not be solved quickly A great deal may be achieved by direct action by employers The committee suggests that federal agencies consider the following interim measures to enhance their ability to find and retain qualified construction professionals:

* Improve recruitment methods

1 Investigate more thoroughly the schools producing candidates

to identify those curricula that match needs

2 Test candidates for competence in the desired areas

3 Depart from the practice of hiring only from professional-level engineering and architectural programs Recruit from schools

of construction and from schools of technology, many of which have good quality curricula that focus on applied knowledge

* Improve posthiring practices

Institute continuing education and mentoring programs after graduation

2 Conduct more frequent evaluations, tracking employees by col- lege, program, and testing prior to job selection

3 Clarify employers’ expectations of their design and construc- tion employees

* Communicate expectations to colleges

Provide more internship opportunities for undergraduates

ORIGIN AND PURPOSE OF STUDY

This study was initiated at the request of the Federal Facilities Coun- cil! (FFC), a National Research Council activity comprising 18 federal agencies that procure and operate federal facilities or conduct construc- tion-related research and meet to share information and sponsor studies

to address problems of common interest

The study was undertaken at the behest of federal officials who are concerned that colleges and universities throughout the United States may not be properly training graduates to design, construct, and manage the procurement of facilities Based on their experiences in dealing with young architects and engineers, both in their own organizations and in private firms that design government buildings under contract, these offi- Gials have observed that recent graduates are unfamiliar with practical problems of design and construction Federal officials fear that the situa- tion could threaten their ability to procure and operate essential govern- ment facilities

In requesting the study, the FFC emphasized that it was concerned not only about the education of federal employees Since most federal facilities are designed and constructed by the private sector, there was

‘Formerly the Federal Construction Council,

2 The idea that the federal government needs to take an interest in scientific and technical

‘education was emphasized in a 1990 statement on U'S Technology Policy by the President's, Science Advisor (Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1990)

5

6 EDUCATION OF ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS

equal concern about the education of engineers and architects working for private firms Noting that many private owners, contractors, and design professionals had expressed similar concerns about the education

of their professional employees, the FFC emphasized that the study should consider the needs of the entire design and construction commu- nity, not just federal agencies

A survey conducted by a committee of representatives of several trade and professional organizations verified that concern about the current educational system for architects and engineers is widespread This con- cern is also illustrated by the introductory paragraph of the Executive Summary in a recent report of a task force of the National Institute for Architectural Education (Task Force on the Post Degree Education of the

‘Architect, 1994):

‘There is serious dissatisfaction in architecture over the widening gap between theoretical and practical knowledge and the conflicting objec- tives of academic preparation and professional practice Practitioners complain that recently graduated architects are not well prepared to function adequately in today’s office environment New intern archi- tects are said to lack skills as well as a sensibility to the real world envi- ronment of professional practice

‘The FFC recognized, however, that not everyone concedes the exist- ence of a problem, and that many, in fact, believe that engineers and architects currently receive superb educations The FFC agreed, there- fore, that the study should be carried out in two phases: the first phase should assess current educational programs for architects and engineers

to determine if they are graduating adequately trained professionals, and the second phase (to be initiated only if the existence of problems is con- firmed by the first phase) should develop of recommendations to solve the identified problems (See committee Statement of Task, Appendix A.)

STUDY PROCEDURES

‘The committee met in 1993 and 1994 The first two meetings were spent clarifying the concerns of the agencies, and reviewing various re- ports, papers, and books on the subject These meetings identified the key issues and established the views of the committee members on these is- sues The agency liaison members of the committee participated actively

in this phase of the study Subsequent meetings were spent assessing additional data and discussing and editing report drafts

The challenge for the committee in phase one was to determine if the educational problems currently being experienced with architects and engineers in the United States—particularly as they affect the design and construction industry—are serious and widespread enough to justify ac-

tion To answer this question the committee carefully investigated the validity and seriousness of the problems that have been ascribed to the current educational systems for architects and engineers

Architects and engineers are justly proud of their professions They have worked exceedingly hard to gain their technical expertise and real- ize the importance of their work and its substantial contribution to soci- ety They are, therefore, intent on ensuring that their professions excel, and since the future of a profession depends on its new members, they are quick to express concern at any perceived shortcomings in the educa- tional process Consequently, countless articles have been written on architectural and engineering education, and professional societies have published education-related reports and studies The committee has re- lied heavily on past and recent writings while forming judgments on the state of architectural and engineering education

To obtain additional input, the committee sought the professional views of senior representatives from the following societies and associa- tions They were asked about the perception that problems exist in their field and to advance any possible solutions concerning such problems:

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology;

American Consulting Engineers Council;

‘American Council for Construction Education;

American Institute of Architects;

American Society for Engineering Education;

American Society of Civil Engineers;

‘American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning

Engineers;

American Public Power Association;

Associated General Contractors of America;

Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture;

National Architectural Accreditation Board;

National Institute for Architectural Education;

National Society of Professional Engineers; and

National Council of Architectural Registration Boards

‘The committee carefully selected this diverse group of academic and non-academic organizations in order to hear a broad spectrum of views Whenever possible the committee attempted to interview an elected or appointed officer of each organization, especially a high-level officer with

a knowledge of education?

3 In one case, a former president was interviewed because he had more knowledge of

‘education than the current president.

8 EDUCATION OF ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS

‘The responses were varied However, the committee found substan- tial agreement on the following specific points:

‘* The overwhelming majority of the professionals interviewed agreed that a significant percentage of the members of their organi- zations believe that there are serious problems with the current system for educating both engineers and architects This view was expressed by both academics and non-academics and by respon- dents who did not themselves necessarily agree with the idea that problems exist

+ A very large fraction of respondents agreed that one of the major problems their members see with the current educational system for both architects and engineers is the failure of schools to give students enough practical knowledge and instruction in solving real world problems This was the problem most frequently men- tioned among respondents

‘+ Two solutions to the problem of students getting insufficient prac- tical training were proposed by a number of the people inter- viewed: (1) include more professionals with practical industry ex- perience on the faculty and (2) revise the curriculum to provide more emphasis on design, practice, and practical problem-solving techniques

* No single recommendation that agencies might act upon was sug- gested by a majority of the respondents; however, there were sev- eral suggestions that agencies be urged to sponsor in co-op and internship programs

SCOPE AND FOCUS OF THE REPORT

This report deals with the education of architects and engineers who design, construct, and manage building projects Because architectural and engineering educations are markedly different from each other, they are discussed separately in many sections of the report Similarly, although many engineering disciplines include building design and con- struction processes, civil engineering is the discipline that the predomi- nantly encompasses these programs; consequently, the report concen- trates on civil engineering as opposed to other engineering disciplines

‘The committee concentrated primarily on the first professional level degree earned (usually a bachelor’s degree for engineers and a 5-year bachelor’s degree or a master’s degree for architects) Graduate programs for engineers are not addressed in detail because most engineers do not obtain advanced degrees and because graduate programs have not been

as controversial as undergraduate programs However, the report

dis-cusses the concept of the master’s degree as being the basic professional degree for engineers

The committee also focused more on traditional engineering educa- tion programs than on engineering technology programs largely because the former awards about eight times as many bachelor’s degrees as the latter (ASEE, 1992)

‘The report does not specifically address the various construction man- agement, construction technology, and building science programs that aim to train students solely for careers in the construction industry By orientation such programs are highly responsive to the needs of the in- dustry, and the agencies do not question their value or curricula (See Appendix B for a review of construction management programs.)

Finally, in analyzing the current educational programs for architects and engineers, the committee has focused on the alleged problems and shortcomings The committee's focus on negative aspects of these pro- grams should not be construed to suggest that there is nothing good about the current programs As evidenced from the high quality of ad- vanced technology in the United States—including construction technol-

‘ogy—and the attractiveness of U.S educational programs to foreign stu- dents, U.S schools produce some of the best engineers and architects in the world However, the committee was charged to assess the relative

‘weaknesses of the U.S educational system in these areas The committee believes that by focusing on the weaknesses, this report directly confronts the concerns that prompted the study and avoids devoting excessive ef- fort to matters that do not require attention

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Chapter 2 presents some general background information on the U.S construction industry and the type of technical professionals it employs

It also outlines the current educational system for architects and engi- neers in the United States This information is included for readers unfa- miliar with the design and construction industry Chapter 3 discusses concerns that have been raised about the capabilities of the students being produced by engineering and architectural schools The committee views the architectural and engineering programs from the standpoint of the consumer—the graduates as well as the design and construction industry

‘ Engineering technology has been defined by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) as “that part ofthe technological field which requires the applica- tion of science and engineering knowledge and methods combined with technical skills in support of engineering activities; it lies in the occupational spectrum between the craftsman and the engineer at the end ofthe spectrum closest to the engineer.”

10 EDUCATION OF ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS

that hires new graduates The report also views educational programs from the inside, looking at policies and practices that might contribute to the shortcomings of graduating architects and engineers Chapter 4 sum- marizes the committee's investigation, presents its conclusions on the state of architectural and engineering education in the United States, and recommends areas for further study

‘The report also contains three appendixes: the committee's statement

of task, a description of the educational system for construction manag- ers, and biographical information on the members of the committee

Early in the study the committee recognized that in order to address properly the education of architects and engineers for careers involving the design, construction, and operation of buildings and other constructed facilities, it would need a good understanding of both the design and construction industry, the roles of architects and engineers in that indus- try, and the academic systems under which architects and engineers are trained Accordingly, the committee analyzed on the construction indus- try and the relevant academic community

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE U.S DESIGN AND

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

The key characteristics of the design and construction industry ger-

mane to this study are described below:

1 The industry is very large and diverse, and its health is of vital importance to the nation’s economy and standard of living Therefore, anything that might adversely affect the industry (such as deficiency in the educational system for producing professionals critical to that indus- try) is of national concern

The size and diversity of the industry are demonstrated by the fol- lowing statistics:

1

1 EDUCATION OF ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS

The value of new construction put in place in 1991 (MacAuley, 1993) was $403 billion, of which $293.5 billion was private con- struction and $109.9 billion was public construction (of which

an estimated $51.7 billion was federally financed; see Construc- tion Review, 1991)

Private construction included (MaCauley, 1993): $157.8 billion

in residential construction, $97.8 billion in nonresidential build- ing construction, $2.6 billion in farm construction, and $32.4 billion in public utility construction

Public construction included: $49.2 billion in public building construction, $32.0 billion in highways and street construction,

$9.3 billion in sewer system construction, $4.6 billion in con- struction of water supply facilities, and $4.9 billion in construc- tion related to conservation and development

‘Construction currently represents about 7.3 percent of the gross domestic product and employs approximately 4.5 million people

‘The value of architectural, engineering, and surveying services totaled $73.7 billion in 1991 (Bureau of the Census, 1992) (An unknown fraction of this amount is included in the preceding statistics for the value of construction put in place.)

2 The industry comprises a large number of mostly small, local, and very competitive establishments In addition, business activity in the industry is highly cyclical, especially at the local level, and employee turnover rates are high Consequently, survival in the design and con- struction industry depends on keeping efficiency up and overhead down Most design and construction firms are, therefore, reluctant to hire un- trained engineers and architects or to invest in expensive training, par- ticularly since the trainees are likely to leave in the near future The composition of the design and construction industry is indicated by the following statistics:

In 1987 the number of construction firms in the United States totaled 1.9 million, of which some 443,000 were general con- tractors engaged in building construction (both residential and nonresidential), 59,000 were general contractors engaged in heavy construction, and 14 million were specialty contractors

of various types Bureau of Census, 1987)

‘The American Institute of Architects (AIA) reports that in 1991 there were about 17,000 architectural firms owned by AIA members, and that the average annual gross billings of these

firms was $517,000 Thirty percent of the firms were sole prac- titioners; 56 percent had more than one but fewer than 10 em- ployees; and only 5 percent had more than 20 employees (AIA, 1992),

Authoritative statistics on the number of consulting engineer- ing firms involved in construction-related work in the United States are not available The July 1993 catalog of the American Business Lists Company, which sells mailing lists compiled from telephone listings, shows a total of 23,538 consulting en- gineers (firms and individuals) in the United States However,

it is not known how many of those are involved in construc- tion work or how many are duplicate listings for the same firm Members of the staff of the American Consulting Engi- neers Council estimate that there are now approximately 15,000 consulting engineering firms in the United States and that the average firm probably employs fewer than 10 professionals It

is believed that a large fraction of these firms are involved in construction-related work

ROLE OF ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS IN THE

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PROCESS

Architects and engineers are employed by a wide variety of organiza- tions that are involved in the design and construction process In most cases these employees play key roles as organizational technical special- ists or managers Specifically, architects and engineers are employed by the following organizations in the related capacities:

Design firms Planners, designers, cost analysts, specification writ- ers, drafters, project managers and field inspectors

Construction firms Superintendents, cost estimators, project man- agers, construction managers, and technical advisors

Building owners and developers Planners, designers (usually of small projects), writers of technical criteria, cost analysts, field rep- resentatives, project managers, and managers of operations and maintenance activities.!

Fabricators and manufacturers of building products Researchers,

‘Building owners” include other organizations in the list such as building product manu- {facturers, academic institutions, and government agencies, and they also employ architects and engineers in the capacity of building owners

“ EDUCATION OF ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS

product designers, applications engineers, sales representatives, technical service representatives, and manufacturing engineers

* Academic institutions Teachers and researchers

* Government agencies Planners, designers, project managers, building code officials, zoning officials, fire marshals, safety in- spectors, technical advisors, and researchers

* Professional societies, trade associations, and standards organiza- tions Technical coordinators, researchers, and information spe- cialists

+ Independent research and testing organizations Researchers and test coordinators

One important characteristic of the design and construction industry

is that a large fraction of the architects and engineers it employs are li- censed to practice by a state government Licensing is required for pro- fessionals in private practice, but many professionals in the industry also obtain licenses for reasons of prestige

‘Complete statistics on the number of architects and engineers em- ployed in their various capacities by organizations within the general design and construction industry are not available However, inferences can be drawn from available statistics

Statistics for the 56,000 members of the AIA indicate that:

82 percent are employed by architectural firms

5 percent are employed by other design firms

2 percent are employed by contractors or builders

3 percent are employed by government agencies

1 percent are employed by commercial, industrial, or institutional organizations

2 percent are employed by academic institutions

* 5 percent are employed by “other” organizations (ALA, 1992) Similar statistics are not available for the 30,000 or more licensed architects who are not AIA members o for the thousands of professionals who hold architectural degrees but are not licensed However, itis likely that many of these architects are employed in a capacity other than with architectural firms, since for them licensing and AIA membership are less important than for architects who stamp drawings Thus, while the ma- jority of graduates of architectural schools probably are employed as ar- chitects, a significant fraction of them undoubtedly are not working as licensed professionals

While statistics on the total employment of engineers by the overall design and construction industry are not available, an estimate would

suggest more than 200,000 professionals Just two engineering societies closely associated with the industry (the American Society of Civil Engi- neers and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Condi- tioning Engineers) together have more than 160,000 members (Russell, 1994), the vast majority of whom work in the design and construction industry Moreover, many thousands of engineers who work in the de- sign and construction industry are not members of these societies

Information on the construction portion of the industry only—spe- cifically general and specialty contractors that erect facilities—indicates that in 1989 there were 21,000 engineers employed in construction; of these, 7,000 were civil engineers; 3,000 were electrical engineers; 1,000 were industrial engineers; 4,000 were mechanical engineers; and 6,000 were classified as “other” engineers (National Science Board, 1991) (It is noteworthy that the total number of construction engineers dropped dra- matically during the 1980s, from 50,000 at the beginning of the decade to 21,000 at the end.) If the committee’s estimate of 200,000 is reasonably accurate, then approximately 10 percent of the engineers employed by the industry are involved exclusively in the construction phase of the design and construction process

Although statistics on the activities of engineers employed in the de- sign and construction industry per se are not available, statistics on the primary activities of employed engineers of all types were presented in a

1985 National Research Council report (NRC, 1985) The statistics, which were based on unpublished National Science Foundation data, indicated the following:

0.9 percent were in basic research

3.8 percent were in applied research

27.9 percent were involved in development (including design) 8,7 percent were research and development managers

19.3 percent were managers of other activities

2.1 percent were teachers

166 percent were involved in production or inspection

20.7 percent were doing other work, such as consulting, reporting, statistical work, and computing

THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM FOR ARCHITECTS

Architectural education programs in the United States are accredited

by the National Architectural Accreditation Board (NAAB), a private cor- poration with a board of directors composed of representatives of the AIA, the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, Inc., the

1 EDUCATION OF ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS

Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, the American Institute

of Architecture Students, and the public

Established in 1940, the NAAB sets criteria and procedures for evalu- ating architectural education programs that grant the first professional degree in architecture, either a Bachelor of Architecture degree, granted after at least 5 years of study, or a Master of Architecture degree, which requires an additional 2 or 3 years after a 4-year bachelor’s degree, de- pending on whether the bachelor's is related to architecture

There are currently 100 accredited architectural programs in the United States; 73 have 5-year professional bachelor’s degree programs?

41 have 4-year pre-professional bachelor’s degree programs; 32 have 2- year master’s degree programs; and 39 have 3-year master’s degree pro- grams (The sum of different degree programs exceeds the total number

of accredited programs because many schools offer more than one de-

gree.)

The number of architectural degrees of various types awarded in

1992 by accredited schools was as follows:

* 3,008 five-year professional bachelor’s degrees;

* 2,677 four-year pre-professional bachelor’s degrees; and

* 1,427 two-year and three-year master’s degrees

In 1992 the average architectural program had 19 full-time and 16 part-time faculty members, plus three related faculty members (ie., fac- ulty from other departments who taught courses in the architectural pro- gram), and 10 graduate teaching assistants

‘The NAAB conditions for accreditation do not include specific cur- riculum requirements other than the following:

+ For 5-year (bachelor's degree) and 6-year (master’s degree) pro-

‘grams at least 20 percent of the total credit hours must be devoted

to liberal arts studies outside of the school of architecture, not more than 60 percent of the total credit hours can be in required architec- tural courses, and at least 20 percent of the total hours must be in elective architectural courses

+ For 3-year (master’s degree) programs, at least 20 percent of the required hours must be in elective courses related to architecture Instead of specifying course requirements, NAAB has adopted

Ten of these have “4 years pls 1 year” undergraduate programs

Sunpublished statistics fom NAAB.

“achievement-oriented performance criteria,” which describe knowledge considered necessary for the practice of architecture The criteria are set forth in 54 statements describing what students should learn prior to graduation in terms of three “levels of accomplishment”: awareness, understanding, and ability The criteria statements are grouped under four major headings: Fundamentals (social, environmental, aesthetic, and technical); design; communications; and practice (project, process, eco- nomics, business practice and management, and laws and regulations)

To be accredited an institution must provide documentation that its graduates satisfy the performance criteria and its program meets other broad requirements regarding faculty, physical and information resources, enrichment opportunities, and financial resources An institu- tion’s written report is validated by an NAAB visiting team, which con- ducts an on-site evaluation of the program

‘The NAAB criteria do not mention the design studio, an element which has been the cornerstone of the architectural education system in the United States and elsewhere for more than 100 years The design studio’s importance for this report derives from its being a unique feature

of architectural education that sets it apart from engineering education The design studio approach, developed by the Ecole des Beaux Arts

in Paris in the 19th century, stresses learning by doing Typically, a group

of students is assigned a design problem early in the school term, which they work on with the help and guidance of instructors At the end of the term, the completed designs are judged and criticized by ajury of profes- sors and guest architects (Steward, 1988) Although aspects of the design studio approach have been criticized, there are no serious proposals to abandon it.4 Others believe its value lies in its holistic approach to the design process

Another important aspect of architectural education is the AIA In- tern Development Program Recognizing that academic training does not and cannot fully train an architect to obtain a license and practice his or her profession, the AIA created the program for architectural interns to receive practical experience in a systematic manner under the guidance of

a member of the AIA sponsor (AIA, 1993a)

“The aspect ofthe studio approach that has received the most criticism is they method

of ertique, which many students and facalty believe tends to discourage students rather than to educate them ‘The problem alleged is that too many jury members seem lo cơm pete with one another to see who can give the harshest criticism, often without giving any Eonsiructive suggestions (Anthony, 1991).

18 EDUCATION OF ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS

THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM FOR ENGINEERS

Engineering education programs in the United States are accredited

by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), a private corporation founded in the early 1930s The Membership of ABET comprises 27 professional engineering societies, 21 of which are “partici- pating bodies,” meaning that they have responsibility for evaluating “15,

or more ABET-accredited programs leading to degrees in engineering, engineering technology, or engineering-related fields.” The other six member societies are either associate or affiliate bodies The governing body of ABET is the Board of Directors, which includes at least one, but not more than three, representatives of each participating body

ABET accredits three broad categories of programs: engineering pro- grams, engineering technology programs, and engineering-related pro-

‘grams (see box below; also see ABET, 1990)

ABET, like its architectural counterpart, establishes accrediting crite- ria and procedures and evaluates programs based on written reports from the institutions seeking accreditation and on-site inspections by visiting teams ABET is also similar to its architectural counterpart in that it accredits only basic professional degree programs, which in most cases are bachelor’s degree programs but in a few instances are master’s degree programs ABET does not accredit master’s degree programs unless the master’s degree has been designated the primary professional degree for

DEFINITION OF ENGINEERING Engineering is defined as a profession in which a knowledge of the mathematical and natural sciences gained by study, experience, and practice is applied with Judgment to develop ways to economically utlize the materials and forces of na- ture for the benefit of mankind

DEFINITION OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY Engineering technology Is that part of the technological field that requires the appli- cation of scientific and engineering knowledge and methods combined with techni Cal sls in support of engineering activites: It les in the occupational spectrum between the craftsman and the engineer at the end of the spectrum closest to the engineer

DEFINITION OF ENGINEERING-RELATED PROGRAMS Engineering-related programs in higher technical education are mathematics and

‘science-based programs that do net fit the strict definitions of ether engineering or

‘engineering technology but have close practical and academic tes with engineer- Jing With appropriate participation from societies representing specific engineer- ing-related professional disciplines, engineering-related programs may be struc- tured to prepare graduates for entry into professional practice in a discipline that is

‘nether engineering nor engineering technology

the program ABET refers to such programs as “advanced-level” pro- grams All other programs are referred to as “basic-level” programs, varying in length 4, 45, or 5 years, at the discretion of the institution

‘ABET delegates responsibility for developing accreditation criteria and evaluating programs to three subunits called accreditation commis- sions—one each for engineering programs, engineering technology pro- grams, and engineering-related programs

The 29 program areas for which the Engineering Accreditation Com- mission was responsible in 1991 are listed in Table 1 (ABET, 1991) The table also shows the number of accredited programs as of September 30,

1991, totaling 1,432 basic-level programs and 30 advanced-level programs The current accreditation criteria of ABET are very specific compared

to the criteria of NAAB For example, the ABET criteria for faculty ad- dress the size and competence of the faculty, standards and quality of instruction, and evidence of concern about improving teaching tech- niques Similarly, the ABET criteria for curricular content specify the number of years that must be devoted to mathematics and basic science, engineering science, engineering design, and the humanities and social sciences However, ABET is considering replacing its current detailed criteria with lists of competencies expected of engineering graduates, simi- lar to the NAAB approach (Hogg, 1993a)

Not all engineering programs are accredited by ABET—some pro- grams are unacctedited by choice and some because they do not meet ABET requirements.> In 1988, for example, the National Science Founda- tion counted 370 institutions awarding bachelor’s degrees in engineering (National Science Board, 1991), while ABET accredited programs in only

261 institutions during the 1990-91 academic year (ASEE, 1992)

Total enrollment in traditional engineering undergraduate programs (both accredited and unaccredited) in the United States in 1989 was 378,000, of which approximately 339,000 were full-time students and 40,000 were part-time students (National Science Board, 1991)

Civil engineering programs are, of course, particularly relevant to the design and construction industry In 1991, 256 institutions had ABET- approved civil engineering programs, collectively awarding 7,767 bachelor’s degrees in civil engineering* The average program had ap-

SUnscrredited schools are not necessarily small, poor, of disreputable, For example, Engineering News Record reported in November 1991 that two renowned institutions in Calfomdia-Stanford University and California Institute of Technology—dropped their

‘ABET accreditation due to “discontent” with ABET (Rubin and Rosebsuim, 1991)

‘These statistics on civil enginecring programs come from the ASEE (1992) The statistics

do not agree with ABET statistics because ASEE includes other diciptines in the civil engi neering category for example, architectural engineering, constriction engineering, and en- vironmental enginecring

20 EDUCATION OF ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS

TABLE 1 Total Accredited Engineering Programs as of September 30,

1992, by Program Area

*Programs interspersed among these disciplines are dual programs (e.g, aeronautical and mechanical engineering) and are counted

proximately 15.7 full-time-equivalent faculty members Five of the pro- grams were nominally 5-year programs; five were nominally 45-year programs; and the rest were nominally 4-year programs (However, the average student took more than the standard number of years to get a degree.)

‘The American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) is another important organization in engineering education ASE is the successor

to the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education (SPEE), formed

in 1893 to improve classroom instruction techniques and promote accep- tance of the idea that engineering education should concentrate on teach- ing scientific and mathematical principles rather than giving hands-on experience.”

The history of the SPEE/ASEE has been marked by a continuing debate over many of the same issues that prompted this study: How should an engineering curriculum be divided between technical, profes- sional, and general education? How much practical engineering work is needed? How long should an engineering education take?

‘Over the years SPEE/ASEE has made repeated efforts to resolve these questions by sponsoring ot participating in studies on the subject The results of one of the earliest studies were presented in the Mann Report published in 1918 with financial support from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement in Teaching The report called for (a) educators to define what engineering students needed to learn (b) a common curricu- lum for the first 2 or 3 years, covering both engineering in industry and basic science and mathematics (c) more attention to values and culture (d) dropping foreign language requirements (e) making shop courses more meaningful (f) teaching theory and its application to practice simulta- neously (g) promoting cooperative education and (h) using aptitude test- ing as part of the admissions process (to mitigate the 60 percent dropout tate in engineering schools) Those familiar with recent discussions of engineering education will note that many of these recommendations are still being made

The Mann Report was followed by the Wickenden Report? which was completed in the early 1930s Like the Mann Report it included recommendations still under debate; for example, it proposed that (a)

”This and much of the material that follows was drawn from a review of the history of SPEE and ASEE by Terry 5 Reynolds and Bruce E Seely, which was published in the July

1993 issue of the Journal of Engineering Education (Reynolds and Seely, 1993)

Named for the study coordinator, Dr C.R Mann, a physicist from the University of Chicago

Named for the study director, Wiliam Wickenden, a vice president of AT&T

2 EDUCATION OF ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS

engineering programs not be made longer than 4 years, (b) technical spe- cialization be reduced at the undergraduate level, and (c) studies of eco- nomics and the liberal arts be added to the engineering curriculum The study resulted in the establishment of an accreditation organization for engineering programs, which became the ABET

‘Subsequent SPEE studies were conducted in 1935 in conjunction with the U.S Office of Education and in 1940 by H.P Hammond, dean of engineering at Pennsylvania State University The former examined grad- uate engineering programs, and the latter addressed the aim and scope of engineering education

‘After World War II, additional studies were undertaken, including two headed by L.E Grinter—one on methods of instruction completed in

1952 and another on engineering curricula completed in 1955 The report

of the latter study was especially influential because it recommended increased emphasis on fundamental science and mathematics, legitimiz- ing and encouraging a trend already underway

‘The next major ASE study, under the direction of Eric Walker, then dean of engineering at Pennsylvania State University, concerned the goals

of engineering education A preliminary report of the study was pub- lished in 1965 It recommended (a) strengthening liberal education for engineers (b) basing engineering curricula on engineering science (c) im- proving work in analysis, synthesis, and design (d) encouraging coopera- tion between industry, government, and universities (e) increasing fund- ing for research (f) improving continuing education and (g) making the master’s degree in an engineering specialty the basic professional degree for engineers, with the bachelor’s degree being a general engineering degree The last recommendation was met with considerable opposition; however, it was not dropped from the final report of the committee (in 1968) although it was softened

Reynolds and Seely (1993) note that since 1968 ASEE has continued to focus on teaching, whereas many engineering faculty have become more interested in research Reynolds and Seely suggest that this is the reason the National Science Foundation charged the National Research Council rather than ASEE to conduct a major study in the mid-1980s of engineer- ing education and practice in the United States The results of this study were published in a set of nine reports—eight panel reports plus the report of the basic committee The panel reports covered education sys- tems, undergraduate education, graduate education and research, tech- nology education, continuing education, infrastructure diagramming and modeling, engineers’ employment characteristics, engineering in society, and support organizations and the engineering community

The report of the basic committee (NRC, 1985) included 23 recom- mendations The committee essentially recommended against actions

that could fundamentally alter the current educational system for engi- neers; however, the committee also noted that there were serious prob- lems relating to financial support, curricula, and policies and practices that needed to be addressed Accordingly, the committee presented spe- cific recommendations on these topics One recommendation called for using retirees as teachers to alleviate the engineering faculty shortage and another endorsed the idea that the bachelor’s degree should be the gen- eral engineering degree with specialization postponed until graduate school

About the same time that the National Research Council reports were being published, the ASEE initiated another broad review of engineering education by a task force headed by Edward David The task force pub- lished its report (National Action Agenda for Engineering Education) in

1987 The report called for more emphasis on design and manufacturing

in the engineering curriculum and for more practice-oriented (rather than research-oriented) master’s programs

3

Capabilities of Graduates of Architectural and Engineering Schools

Since the Committee on Education of Facilities Design and Construc- tion Professionals was formed because of a perception that new graduates from architectural and engineering programs are deficient in the funda- mentals of design and construction processes, the committee examined specifically the quality of education aimed at preparing students for pro- fessional practice, whether there is a problem, and the causes of any exist- ing problems

Concerns about the capabilities of recent graduates of architectural and engineering schools center around several areas that may have vary- ing importance It is feared that graduates lack knowledge in design, practical skills involving the technology of building, business skills, com- munication, teamwork, and the liberal arts,

In this chapter the committee primarily examines concems expressed about architectural and engineering schools’ programs and the capabili- ties of their graduates It is not possible to examine graduates’ capabili- ties or lack thereof without considering what can appropriately be expected of college graduates Therefore, in examining the basis for pro- fessional dissatisfaction with the skills of architectural and engineering graduates, the committee examined specific skill areas and developed a larger framework from which to evaluate graduates’ preparation

‘This larger framework provides a context in which to judge the valid- ity of expectations and attitudes of educators and professionals concern- ing the degree of education considered standard for an adequate architec- tural or engineering education Considerations include expectations

25

about how much schools should do to prepare their graduates for profes- sional practice and how much must be is learned outside of academia through supplemental experiences such as internships, co-ops, or sum- mer work, of on the job after graduation How much can be fit into an undergraduate degree before the level of work should be considered graduate level? How much individual initiative and motivation to pre- pare the student for continued learning outside the classroom should be

For purposes of discussion the committee agreed on a definition of design stated in terms of key features of the design process as it relates to engineering and architecture:

‘* The ultimate goal of the design process is the creation or produc- tion of something tangible and functional—such as a building or a system or a product For financial and other reasons, many de- signs are never executed; however, every true design effort begins with the goal of developing a design that could be executed

+ There is no single correct answer to a design problem; there is a range of solutions, each having both advantages and disadvan-

es

Diện is a creative process in which an individual or group of individuals with special technical and analytical knowledge con- sider a wide range of factors, including function, aesthetics, eco- nomics, technology, social, environmental, and legal requirements + Design involves the integration and coordination of multiple disci- plines and often requires management, marketing, and communi- cations skills

By this general definition architectural and engineering design are essentially the same However, in practice, many architects apply the term “design” primarily to the process of developing the broad concept of

a building or site plan, the process of organizing space into a volume to

to the detriment of such matters as client needs, constructability, costs, and technology

Seven of the 29 papers prepared for the AIA’s 1993 Walter Wagner Education Forum on “the single most important change necessary in the education of architects” indicated that schools need to improve on teach- ing the practice of architecture, including such mundane aspects of de- sign as designing to budget (AIA, 1993b.) For example, one paper re- ported that in a survey of 18 practicing architects more than 50 percent of those interviewed “commented on their own lack of understanding as a graduate architect regarding how a project gets developed and what hap- pens before and after the [schematic] design drawings.”

Unlike architectural education, engineering education has not consid- ered design central to the current educational process But the impor- tance of design to an engineering education is being increasingly recog- nized, and engineering programs in recent years are being criticized for failing to teach design A 1991 report by the National Research Council compared engineering science education to engineering design education

as follows (NRC, 1991):

Engineering education in the United States has undergone many im- portant changes since World War I, leading to impressive improve- ments in the engineering graduate’s knowledge of the engineering sci-

‘ences, mathematics, and analytical techniques These changes include restructuring to emphasize the engineering sciences as a coherent body

of knowledge, the introduction of new disciplines, the creation of an extensive system of research and graduate programs, and the partial integration of computers into curricula

‘While these improvements were taking place, the state of engineering design education was steadily deteriorating with the result that today’s engineering graduates are poorly equipped to utilize their scientific, mathematical, and analytical knowledge in the design of components,

processes, and systems Strengthening engineering design education is critical to the long-term development of engineers who are equipped to

‘he authors ofthe papers prepared forthe forum were anonymous.

become good designers and leaders and who will provide a lasting foun- dation for USS industry's international competitiveness

John R Dixon, professor of mechanical engineering at the University

of Massachusetts, also contrasted the progress in engineering science with the stagnation in engineering design education in a February 1991 paper

in Mechanical Engineering magazine:

Engineering design education is not successful; this poses a very seri- ous problem Industry continues to be dissatisfied with the design edu- cation of engineering students

Though a great deal has been said and written over the years about design education problems, there has been no real infrastructure change

in engineering design education in at least the last 40 years that comes close to matching the dramatic and intellectually solid developments in engineering science

This professional failure has had serious national economic, security, and social consequences, and itis well past time for a reformation if not

a revolution, in our approach to engineering design education

(Dixon, 1991)

Professor Dixon’s paper inspired many letters to the editor debating whether design is an art or a science and whether it can be taught That a large number of people responded to the paper is indicative of the keen interest among engineers in this subject The same views are also ex- pressed frequently by individuals in the facilities design and construction community However, the disparity of views expressed in the letters shows that a consensus does not exist on the importance and nature of engineering design

‘The question of design education was addressed in a recent survey by the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE, 1992)? The re- sults—based on the 888 completed questionnaires received—were am- biguous In one section the respondents were asked to rate the prepared- ness of new engineers to practice in eight areas (teamwork, product/ system design, leadership, integrative thinking, social/ethics environ- ment, math and science, market environment, and social sciences) and then indicate the value their organization places on preparedness in each area Regarding design, approximately 75 percent of the respondents

2The NSPE conducted two surveys The first involved a very short questionnaire sent 10 engineering deans, engineering employers, and engineering societies The second survey , for which a much larger questionnaire was used, went only to engineering employers The discussion here relates to the second survey

CAPABILITIES OF GRADUATES 29

placed high value on preparedness for design work, but only about 35 percent of the respondents thought that new engineers were well pre- pared in design—a gap of 40 percent—indicating a significant level of dissatisfaction with design in engineering education? In fact, the respon- dents rated new engineers as well prepared in only one area: math and science

In spite of these views, when respondents were asked which areas would merit more time in a revised curriculum, only 27 percent men- tioned design as first or second priority Conversely, 30 percent of the respondents mentioned an increased emphasis on basic science as first or second priority, perhaps reflecting a belief that design cannot be realisti- cally taught in schools

‘ABET has reemphasized the importance of design in its curricula criteria (ABET, 1990) so much so that in recent years deficiencies in design courses are the most common deficiency cited in ABET evaluations of engineering programs (Jones, 1990)

‘A:1989 survey of civil engineering education suggested that there has been no substantial increase in an emphasis on design in civil engineering (Ardis, 1990) Specifically, the survey results indicated that the median percentage of the bachelor’s degree curriculum devoted to design had increased to 16 percent in 1989 after dropping from 16 percent in 1978 to

14 percent in 1985 The difference is not significant and merely indicates

a return to the 1978 level

A 1990 survey of Arizona State University faculty and students pro- vides further evidence that design still is not receiving much emphasis in engineering schools (Engineering Curriculum Task Force, 1991) In the survey, seniors in the engineering program were asked to indicate the number of courses they had taken that required “creative problem solv- ing skills” applicable to “design.” More than 60 percent of the students indicated that such work had been required in four or fewer courses

‘The Arizona State University report concludes:

Instilling within each graduate the “ability to identify and define a prob- Jem, develop and evaluate alternative solutions, and effect one or more designs to solve the problem” must be a highly desirable goal of any engineering curricula It is, after all, the purpose of the engineering profession to define and solve problems for society and various subsets within society Attaining this ability within each graduate thus ensures

“One aspect of the situation is that engineers who ae castified as designers ae the lowest paid of eight categories of engineers (sed on job-function classification) in the latest NSPE salary survey (Hogg, 19530)

that each understands and is ready to practice his or her chosen profes-

This “ability to identify and define a problem, develop and evaluate alternative solutions, and effect one or more designs to solve the prob- Jems” was ranked highest of 10 desirable attributes, including “breadth and depth of technical background,” by 80 Arizona State University fac- ulty members, 104 senior undergraduates, and 14 industry representa- tives The report goes on to say:

Reaching such an attribute has always been a fundamental aim of

‘engineering education [but] evidence is mounting that engineering

‘curricula nationwide are doing an inadequate job of attaining it

Undergraduate and graduate engineering education is the foundation for successful practice, effective teaching, and relevant research in engi- neering design The current state of that foundation is attested to by

‘employers who find recent engineering graduates to be weak in design Reasons for the inadequacy of undergraduate engineering design edu-

‘cation include weak requirements for design content in engineering cur- ricula

Many engineering educators have begun trying to improve their de- sign courses In 1988, for example, the Alfred P Sloan Foundation spon- sored a workshop on Design in Engineering Education (Department of Civil Engineering and Operations Research, 1989) The workshop fo- cused on developing new teaching materials for an integrated freshman engineering course and sought to introduce design and decision-making into engineering courses

It appears from the evaluations cited above that the pressure to in- clude more engineering science has pushed design out of the engineering curriculum In the view of many engineering educators, the only alterna- tive is to increase the undergraduate program to 5 years In most in- stances where this has been tried, it has not succeeded because students avoid 5-year programs in favor of 4-year programs It would appear from the evidence that, given a choice between a 4-year bachelor’s degree and

a S-year bachelor’s, students do not view the extra year as worth the effort, time, tuition, or loss of professional income Notable exceptions are cooperative programs that typically require at least 5 years for a bachelor’s degree, but also offer opportunities to earn income and gain professional practice on the job

‘As long as graduates with 4-year degrees are as marketable as those with 5-year degrees, students will see little economic incentive to choose 5-year curricula Therefore, for competitive reasons few universities can afford to extend their undergraduate educational program to 5-years un- less all agree to do so simultaneously Employers are unlikely to offer

(CAPABILITIES OF GRADUATES 3

salary premiums to those from 5-year programs because employers be- lieve that engineering schools do not adequately teach design and profes- sional practice and; therefore; do not consider 5-year graduates to be more valuable than 4-year graduates, Firms that value technical and scientific education typically employ graduates with master’s degrees, making the combination of a 4-year bachelor's plus 1 year in graduate school more valuable to the employer and the employee than a 5-year bachelor’s, although both require the same time and expense

How then can more design, management, and other subjects be incor- porated in an undergraduate curriculum of 4 years without displacing other valuable material? Clearly this is impossible so long as one defines the curriculum as a zero sum game in which discrete subjects must be taught as individual, autonomous courses with no interaction The com- mittee does not necessarily accept that this paradigm cannot be changed; indeed, economic conditions may force it to change

It is not the function of this report to provide solutions to the prob- lems defined herein, but the committee is confident that new solutions will be found One possibility is to increase the design and management content of the undergraduate curriculum and defer some engineering science courses to a master’s degree year, for those who choose to pursue

it, Another possibility is a paradigm change to integrated, problem-based learning, as has been done in some medical and business schools, as well

as in some engineering schools; for example, the Gateway Engineering Education Coalition (Fromm, 1992)

Technology

‘As used by the committee, the term “technology” means the applica- tion of the practical or industrial arts to the solution of problems; it also suggests applied or empirical science in contrast to pure science

Both architects and engineers have expressed concern that schools are not adequately training students in technology However, as with so many issues being addressed in the report, the specific concerns of the two professions are somewhat different

With architects, the concer is that students are not being given suffi- cient training in such practical matters as construction materials and sys- tems, construction methods and practices, the cost of construction, speci- fications writing, codes and standards, and the design and functioning of mechanical and electrical systems in buildings Peters (1986) attributes the problem to a perception of technology as “an annoying, minor bound- ary condition” rather as than an integrated aspect of design:

In our culture, technical subjects have always been the stepchild of

ar-chitectural education and have been largely neglected The formal, spa- tial and theoretical aspects of design have dominated design education

50 far while the neglect of the technical component has slowly boiled up

a crisis in architectural education with the NAAB and practitioners de-

‘manding quick changes and schools often slow to react Cultural and historical analyses yield the means to understand our present situa- tion in and attitudes toward construction and materials in architecture

‘Only when we understand the creative complexity of construction and see it as formal design and not as an annoying, minor boundary condi- tion, will any real integration be attainable

‘The previously mentioned survey for the AIA’s 1993 Walter Wagner Education Forum of 18 practicing architects also found significant con- cern about the graduate architect's knowledge of construction technol- ogy:

Ina world of “generalized specialists” and “specialized generalists,” the architect must approach design with a fundamental grasp of building materials and methodology To reduce conflicts between the trades in the field as well as to satisfy the executives in the board room, the archi- tect must have an expertise in construction along with design ability

‘One architect noted, “In the current economy, many architectural offices cannot afford to employ graduates with no experience A strong under- standing of construction is the second best option.”

(AIA, 19936)

Similar arguments about scientific theory versus practice surface in engineering Like architects, many engineers are concerned that students are receiving too little technical education in school In a 1991 survey by the American Consulting Engineers Council, chief executive officers of approximately 1,200 consulting engineering firms found recent graduates

to be “well prepared for the work place from an academic standpoint

{but] the minimal emphasis on practical experience in today’s engineer-

ing curricula is reflected by the students’ lack of technical knowledge” (Lewis, 1991)

However, whereas architects are concerned about excessive emphasis

in schools on broad as opposed to practical design and engineering con- cepts, engineers tend to be concerned about the complete elimination of technical courses from the engineering curriculum in favor of courses in mathematics, pure science, and engineering science

The debate about the relative value of science-oriented education ver- sus technological training has been going on for decades As noted in Chapter 2, the SPEE (now the ASEE) was formed in 1893 in part to pro- mote more science and mathematics in engineering education The ASEE succeeded in promoting this science-based engineering curriculum in the