|
Learning Experience
We appreciate the
numerous letters and e-mails from readers in response to our
special issue, "Looking at Construction Education in
Colleges and Universities" ( ENR 10/21 p. 6). Many, particularly
alumni, were concerned about omissions in the separate listings
of U.S. architecture, civil engineering and construction schools.
We have already responded to individual concerns.
The civil engineering schools list,
new for 2002, is based on information taken from a survey
form mailed last spring to civil engineering departments and
programs in more than 200 colleges and universities. Our mailing
list was provided by the American Society of Civil Engineers.
The list of 117 schools included in the issue was compiled
from all institutions that returned a completed form to us
in time for deadline. It is not a quality-based ranking.
In an effort to be inclusive, we
invite civil engineering schools not on the print list to
provide us information that will allow them to be included
in the listings that are now available on the ENR Website,
enr.com. We will update the listings periodically aswe receive
information from additional schools. Please e-mail Barbara
Nathaniel at nathanie@mcgraw-hill.com to receive a copy of
the survey form that can be printed and returned to us by
fax.
The list of architecture
schools was adapted from a survey conducted by our sister
publication, Architectural Record magazine, earlier this year
that is also based on surveys returned. Results can be found
in more detail at www.archrecord.com.
The list of construction schools
is reprinted from ENR’s Oct. 29, 2001, issue and is included
in the education report as a service to students and others.
Information in that list may have changed since initial publication.
An update survey is planned in 2003.
Please direct questions and any
additional comment on the surveys to Managing Senior Editor
Debra K. Rubin, rubind@mcgraw-hill.com.
We appreciate suggestions as we revise the survey form for
the future and cover trends and issues in construction education.
Education In Construction
I found
the current trends described in the ENR issue on civil engineering,
architecture and construction education to be informative
about today’s university education environment.
The article covering design-build
trends and teamwork in education discusses how "students
gain an understanding of how difficult it is to build what
they draw." While difficult, we have found that teams
of civil engineering students love the challenge of designing
and building a steel bridge as evidenced by the Student Steel
Bridge Competition, now in its 15th year, and involving some
170 universities.
Sending out your 10/21 issue to
some 10,000 high schools will generate greater interest in
civil engineering, construction and architecture.
You could cut the
irony with a knife! After many pages of wailing and gnashing
of teeth over the fact that college students either drop out
or change their majors from civil engineering, you run three
full-page color ads from the National Electrical Contractors
Association/International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
telling young people to skip college altogether and make big
bucks by joining the electricians’ union!
What was immediately
noticeable in reading through the listings and the various
advertisements that are interspersed in the listings is the
extreme discrepancy between the starting salaries of civils,
with an educational investment of $20,000 or more, and the
technical trades in the construction industry.
Two ads from the NECA/IBEW show
salaries of at least 50% more, with no college education,
than the starting salaries of the civil engineers listed on
the facing pages. This discrepancy is mentioned briefly in
the article, but it appears that the salary potential may
have a much greater adverse impact on the number of civil
engineering graduates than is implied in the article. And,
when one analyzes the relative cost of living and tuition
against the salary potential, the impact is even greater.
As another young
female engineer, I was disturbed to see the picture of a Polytechnic
University student wearing her hard hat incorrectly. It was
too far back on her head, presumably so her hair wouldn’t
be messed up. Images like this perpetuate the "girly-girl"
reputation of not taking work or safety seriously that so
many of us are fighting.
Congratulations
on a tremendous issue. Hopefully, this will become an annual
event.
I read with interest
your articles about the drastic decline in civil engineering
enrollments. The articles did not specifically mention other
engineering disciplines, but I suspect that they may be experiencing
similar declines. This phenomenon appears to have caught some
people in the industry by surprise.
But it’s no surprise at all
to this former engineer. The current situation is merely a
symptom of our free market correcting itself. The best and
the brightest American-born young people today are aware that
there are simply better opportunities in areas other than
engineering. Your article is based on the assumption that
the cause of this phenomenon is primarily poorly trained instructors
or other academic failings. That is simply off target. The
fact that there is no generally accepted definition of an
"engineer" is a symptom of the problem.
Many schools do not have even 50%
of their faculty as licensed professional engineers. I would
be willing to venture a guess that the percentage of medical
school faculty or law school professors who are not licensed
to practice their professions is essentially non-existent.
I believe that engineering has
the potential to be on a par with the true, learned professions
in the U.S. But in its present condition, engineering is merely
a shell of what it could be. This fact is not unknown to our
young people in this age of information. If nothing is done,
I believe the current trend will worsen. But if the industry
gathers itself and makes necessary changes, the best and the
brightest will undoubtedly return.
I applaud your efforts
to promote architecture, engineering and construction [education]
programs. Your editorial concerning the relevancy of these
professional programs could not be more on target, but that,
unfortunately, is only the tip of the iceberg.
How many promising constructors,
engineers and architects have we lost well before their entrance
through those ivy-covered gates? How many young people have
given up, lost hope and altered their paths because their
high school curriculum lacked that same relevancy?
This industry must step up to the
plate and support the nation’s educational endeavor.
The time for talking has long passed. Our expertise needs
to be harnessed by educators at all levels to integrate the
real world into classroom instruction. The Associated General
Contractors of America learned this lesson decades ago and
has consciously developed educational programs and initiatives
to ensure that our expertise is available to all segments
of the educational community.
It is time we all commit to bringing
the real world of construction to the classroom and giving
future industry leaders a solid foundation upon which to build.
While I fully agree
there is a lack of interest in the construction industry for
high school students, that is not my main concern. For future
industry leaders, some basic courses should be added to introduce
these students to the role that education, safety and health
can play in benefitting a company’s bottom line.
In your own article, there is a
picture of students installing roof trusses (p. 27). Everything
in this picture violates present U.S. Occupational Safety
and Health Administration regulations. These are future leaders,
and they are learning the unsafe way to construct a building.
Several years ago, the National
Safety Management Society tried to have es&h programs
introduced into engineering schools, but educators made the
assumption was that these were not as valuable in the pursuit
of corporate excellence as other management courses, and the
programs were not considered.
CORRECTION
The following corrections should be made for
data contained in the listings of U.S. civil engineering schools
(ENR 10/21 p. 14):
The percentage of civil engineering
students who were retained from the freshman year to the sophomore
year at the Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.,
should be 90%, instead of 10%.
The percentage decline in the number
of undergraduate civil engineering students enrolled at the
University of Hawaii-Manoa in 2001-2002 vs. 1997-1998 should
be 28%, not 83%.
|
