Education of Architects and Engineers for Careers in Facility Design and Construction (1995)

Since the Committee on Education of Facilities Design and Construction Professionals was formed because of a perception that new graduates from architectural and engineering programs are deficient in the fundamentals of design and construction processes, the committee examined specifically the quality of education aimed at preparing students for professional practice, whether there is a problem, and the causes of any existing problems.

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

In this chapter the committee primarily examines concerns expressed about architectural and engineering schools' programs and the capabilities of their graduates. It is not possible to examine graduates' capabilities or lack thereof without considering what can appropriately be expected of college graduates. Therefore, in examining the basis for professional 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 validity of expectations and attitudes of educators and professionals concerning the degree of education considered standard for an adequate architectural or engineering education. Considerations include expectations

about how much schools should do to prepare their graduates for professional practice and how much must be is learned outside of academia through supplemental experiences such as internships, co-ops, or summer work, or 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 prepare the student for continued learning outside the classroom should be expected?

Many architects and engineers consider design to be the defining feature of their professions. They believe that creative design work separates engineering and architecture from other technical and scientific activities. Even architects and engineers who are not primarily engaged in design generally concede that it is one of the key services performed by their professions.

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 production of something tangible and functional—such as a building or a system or a product. For financial and other reasons, many designs 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 disadvantages.

• Design is a creative process in which an individual or group of individuals with special technical and analytical knowledge consider a wide range of factors, including function, aesthetics, economics, technology, social, environmental, and legal requirements.

• Design involves the integration and coordination of multiple disciplines and often requires management, marketing, and communications 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

serve people and society at large. The task of working out the details of a design is often referred to as design development or detail design.

Because, as noted previously, architectural education is built around the design studio, architectural students get considerable exposure to design—especially broad design problems—throughout their years in architectural school. Consequently, architectural education has not been criticized heavily for failing to teach design. Architectural design courses, however, have been criticized for overemphasizing the art in architecture 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 teaching the practice of architecture, including such mundane aspects of design as designing to budget (AIA, 1993b.) For example, one paper reported that in a survey of 18 ing 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 happens before and after the [schematic] design drawings.” 1

Unlike architectural education, engineering education has not considered design central to the current educational process. But the importance of design to an engineering education is being increasingly recognized, and engineering programs in recent years are being criticized for ailing 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 important changes since World War II, leading to impressive improvements in the engineering graduate's knowledge of the engineering sciences, 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

become good designers and leaders and who will provide a lasting foundation for U.S. 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 serious problem. Industry continues to be dissatisfied with the design education 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 it is 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 expressed 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). 2 The results—based on the 888 completed questionnaires received—were ambiguous. In one section the respondents were asked to rate the preparedness of new engineers to practice in eight areas (teamwork, product/ system design, leadership, integrative thinking, social/ethics environment, 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

placed high value on preparedness for design work, but only about 35 percent of the respondents thought that new engineers were well prepared in design—a gap of 40 percent—indicating a significant level of dissatisfaction with design in engineering education. 3 In fact, the respondents 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 mentioned 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 realistically 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 provides 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 solving 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 problem, 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

that each understands and is ready to practice his or her chosen profession.

This “ability to identify and define a problem, develop and evaluate alternative solutions, and effect one or more designs to solve the problems” was ranked highest of 10 desirable attributes, including “breadth and depth of technical background,” by 80 Arizona State University faculty members, 104 senior undergraduates, and 14 industry representatives. 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 engineering 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 education include weak requirements for design content in engineering curricula.

Many engineering educators have begun trying to improve their design courses. In 1988, for example, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation sponsored a workshop on Design in Engineering Education (Department of Civil Engineering and Operations Research, 1989). The workshop focused 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 include more engineering science has pushed design out of the engineering curriculum. In the view of many engineering educators, the only alternative is to increase the undergraduate program to 5 years. In most instances 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 5-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 a 5-year curricula. Therefore, for competitive reasons few universities can afford to extend their undergraduate educational program to 5-years unless all agree to do so simultaneously. Employers are unlikely to offer

salary premiums to those from 5-year programs because employers believe that engineering schools do not adequately teach design and professional 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 incorporated 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 committee 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 problems 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).

As used by the committee, the term “technology” means the application 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 concern is that students are not being given sufficient training in such practical matters as construction materials and systems, construction methods and practices, the cost of construction, specifications 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 boundary 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, spatial and theoretical aspects of design have dominated design education so far while the neglect of the technical component has slowly boiled up a crisis in architectural education with the NAAB and practitioners demanding quick changes and schools often slow to react. . . . Cultural and historical analyses yield the means to understand our present situation 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 condition, 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 concern about the graduate architect's knowledge of construction technology:

In a 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 architect 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 understanding of construction is the second best option.”

(AIA, 1993b)

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 engineering 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 concepts, 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 versus 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 promote more science and mathematics in engineering education. The ASEE succeeded in promoting this science-based engineering curriculum in the

mid-1950s with their publication of the report of the Grinter Committee. The report's recommendations, quickly adopted by schools hoping to receive research grants, called for elimination of “those courses having a high vocational and skill content” and “those primarily attempting to convey engineering art and practice” and suggested the establishment of courses in “six engineering sciences—mechanics of solids, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, transfer and rate mechanics (heat, mass, momentum), electrical theory, and nature and property of materials.” (Ferguson, 1992)

Again in the mid-1960s, the ASEE published a report by a committee chaired by Eric Walker of Pennsylvania State University on the goals of engineering education strongly advocating a science-based curriculum. This philosophy was adopted almost universally by engineering schools throughout the United States, and for more than two decades that philosophy was not seriously challenged. 4

John Alic of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment wrote in a 1990 letter published in Issues in Science and Technology:

Engineering educators in the United States . . . have long since won the 100-year-old debate with those, mostly in industry, who would have the schools turn out more practically oriented graduates. Since the 1960s, the theoretically based engineering science perspective has remained unchallenged.

(Alic, 1990)

However, in the last few years the debate has heated up again through a dissatisfaction in the industry with the current curriculum. For example, a 1990 article in the Engineering News Record reflected a desire on the part of industry for graduates who can “hit the ground running” and civil engineers who know infrastructure but with “a higher degree of specialization” (Schriener, 1990). The article also stated that “students who emerge from school with a thorough knowledge of high-tech systems and equipment will have their choice of jobs and companies. ”

There has also been considerable discussion in recent years of the desirability of introducing engineering students to practical engineering subjects early in their college years. Fromm (1992) and Sansalone (1992) discuss the value of balancing freshmen and sophomore mathematics and science courses with some engineering courses. Recent interviews with

three engineering professors and three professional engineers (one each from a manufacturing company, a consulting firm, and a government agency) elicited the following responses from two of the professional engineers:

The person coming out of school—unless he's had either a co-op program or fairly extensive internships in the summer—doesn't know what industry is all about.

The undergraduates are not well prepared for a job market . . . . They may understand some of the general principles in engineering, but they have difficulty in applying them from a practical standpoint.

(Katz, 1993)

Renewed interest in design would contribute to putting technology back in the engineering curriculum because engineering design is based far more on technology—in the form of empirical data and experience-derived knowledge—than on science. Engineers sometimes used trial and error to solve problems, and a designer must know and apply those solutions even if no scientific explanation exists for why they work. Also, the design of most products and systems involves the use of components and materials manufactured by others. Thus, an important aspect of design work involves learning about the use of products available in the marketplace.

In recognizing that a problem exists, a few schools—specifically, the architectural departments at Yale, Ball State, University of Oregon, Catholic University, and the University of Washington—have instituted programs in which students learn about construction by building their own designs (Branch, 1994). Except for the Yale program, instituted in 1966, and the Oregon program begun in the early 1970s, these programs are relatively new.

Both architectural and engineering education programs have been criticized in recent years for failing to give students experience working in teams. Critics generally note that as technology has become more sophisticated, specialization has increased in all fields, and as a result design work increasingly requires the joint efforts of many people.

Among architects, one of the foremost concerns is that architectural students do not get experience in dealing with the various engineering and construction specialties that play key roles in the design process or with the nontechnical entities that can influence a project, for example, zoning boards and financial institutions.

Although the need for teamwork in engineering design has been accepted for decades, engineering education programs, such as architectural programs, traditionally have stressed individual study and projects. There is a growing belief among engineers, however, that schools need to improve in conveying the importance of teamwork. This belief is reflected in several recent articles and studies discussing the benefits of teamwork in engineering and the need for schools to teach it (see NSPE, 1992; Katz, 1993).

A recent NSPE report presented the results of a survey of 888 professional engineers. The report revealed that when judging new engineering graduates approximately 85 percent of the respondent's organizations placed a “high value” on a candidate's “ability to work as part of a team”—the highest percentage among all factors on which candidates were judged. However, the respondents of the survey rated only 40 percent of new engineers “well prepared” to work as part of a team (NSPE, 1992).

Several schools have responded to the call more training in teamwork in engineering programs by announcing plans to introduce or expand courses aimed at promoting teamwork (see Engineering Curriculum Task Force, 1991; Pister, 1992).

Both architectural and engineering graduates have been criticized for lacking knowledge in business, economics, and management. In particular, critics charge that most students leave school with little awareness of business practices, especially relating to the manner in which business considerations affect the design of facilities. As a result, young engineers and architects do not understand the problems, motivations, and concerns of their employers and clients, often causing them to propose designs that do not reflect sound business practices. In addition, without a knowledge of management practices, graduates cannot manage the design and construction of projects so as to control costs and meet schedules. They often lack the organizational and managerial skills to efficiently operate a business—such as a design firm—so that it is profitable.

Critics cite many examples of industry dissatisfaction with architectural and engineering programs. A survey conducted for the AIA found that architects were perceived by their clients as being “insensitive to budget issues” (ENR, 1993). All 18 architects interviewed in the survey conducted for the AIA's 1993 Walter Wagner Education Forum cited the need for schools to stress the “practice of architecture. ” Among the specific practice-related topics that the respondents felt should be addressed

were marketing, proposal preparation, office management, and personnel matters (AIA, 1993b).

In a two-part report of a 1989 seminar sponsored by a local chapter of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers titled The Trouble with HVAC Engineering Education, one participant emphasized that graduates need to know how to handle budgets during both the design and construction phases of a project. Another participant observed that most consulting engineering firms have 15 or fewer employees and cannot afford to train new graduates, who must be productive immediately (Olivieri, 1989).

The validity of the criticism regarding many civil engineering programs was verified by the finding of a 1989 American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) survey that only 28.9 percent of civil engineering programs had required courses in engineering management, and only 27.4 percent had required courses in contracts and specifications. However, both percentages were up from 1978 (Ardis, 1990).

Graduates as well as clients have voiced some dissatisfaction with graduates' professional preparation. A recent civil engineering graduate was quoted in a 1991 Engineering News Record article as saying that it wasn't until he was on the job as a staff engineer at a consulting firm that he gained an appreciation for the extent to which cost considerations drive projects (Rubin and Rosebaum, 1991).

The results of a 1991 survey of 14,000 engineers in the Ford Motor Company, conducted to identify weaknesses in the skills of engineers so as to provide additional training, indicated the existence of deficiencies in several business-related skills, for example, financial analysis, cost and expense estimation, program and project management, execution of long range plans, and negotiations (Engineering Excellence Committee, 1991).

In addition, there is an important quality to management skills that cannot be addressed on a basic skill level, making advanced skill training necessary. The participants in a February 1994 ASCE forum on Developing Civil Engineers for Leadership Roles in Government were virtually unanimous in their belief that engineers need more training in leadership and management. William Badget probably reflected the views of many when he said, “Engineers are hired for their technical skills, fired for their lack of people skills, and promoted for their leadership and management skills” (ASCE News, 1994).

A number of schools have recognized the problem and have taken steps to correct it. For example:

• A 1989 ASCE survey found that 75.1 percent of civil engineering programs required students to take a course in engineering economics (up from 65.6 percent in 1978), and that 70.8 percent of the

programs had a required course in general economics (up from 56.3 percent in 1978).

An engineering curriculum task force at Arizona State University determined that engineering students at the university were not receiving enough education in business and economics and recommended the development of new required courses on the subjects (Engineering Curriculum Task Force, 1991).

• Stanford University developed a graduate course that teams mechanical engineering students with business students in order to expose the former to the real world economic factors constraining designer' s and manufacturer's and to give the latter an appreciation of manufacturing processes (Mechanical Engineering, 1992).

• The University of Pennsylvania established the Executive Master of Science in Engineering Program in 1988 “on the premise that the successful mana ement of modern technolog requires a broadening of executive knowled e, skills, and erspectives, particularly for leading edge firms in highly competitive markets.” A partial aim of the program is to give students “a comprehensive understanding of economic, ethical, political, and social factors” affecting engineering (Bordogna et al., 1990). 5

• At Kansas State University architectural students are introduced to the business aspects of architectural practice by being required to form a hypothetical design firm and undertake the processes associated with a typical project, including preparing contracts and correspondence and conducting bid meetings.

• The previously discussed engineering curriculum task force at Arizona State University proposed the creation of a required course covering management, leadership, and strategy (Engineering Curriculum Task Force, 1991).

It is interesting that two of the schools elected to deal with the problem by establishing graduate programs rather than by modifying the undergraduate curriculum.

The ABET and the AIA also have recognized that a problem exists. Specifically, in a discussion of ABET's plan to begin accrediting advanced-level (5-year) engineering programs, Russell Jones (1990) noted that one reasons was to allow time in the curriculum for students to receive training in business and management and particularly in engineering cost analysis, project management and organization, resource budgeting, and

leadership theory and practice. Similarly, the AIA, in its Vision 2000 and Education Initiatives projects, expressed concern about the failure of schools to provide training in business (Stewart, 1989).

In recent years the importance of good communications skills—drawing, writing, and speaking—to the careers of engineers and architects has been widely recognized, 6 for example:

• Respondents to Design News magazine's 1992 annual salary and careers survey identified writing skills and public speaking as two of the seven most important skills needed for a successful career in engineering. In fact, skill in writing was judged to be second only to design skill in importance. (Other important skills identified were computer skills, team building skills, management skills, and marketing acumen; Gardner and Chamberlain, 1992).

• To demonstrate that the importance of communications skills for engineers has been discussed at length in the literature, Katz (1993) cited four papers on the subject published in the Journal of Engineering Education between 1983 and 1988. Nevertheless, her survey of engineering employers in 1992 found considerable dissatisfaction with the communications skills of engineers. One consulting engineer respondent told her that “engineers are probably the worst writers we've seen.” Another employer reported that the communications skills of entry-level engineers are “really bad,” and that this presents a problem because technical people need to participate in client presentations.

• Participants at an American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers symposium on engineering education complained that too many engineering graduates “cannot stand up and make a presentation or write a good report” (Olivieri, 1989).

• Industry representatives who participated in the previously men-

  6

  While the role of listening is seldom mentioned in discussions of communications, the committee believes it is equal in importance to other communications skills. Logic would suggest that most students develop listening skills by participating in classroom discussions and in everyday conversation; however, the committee suspects that this might not be the case and that deficiencies in listening skills might account for the academic difficulties experienced by some intelligent students. Nevertheless, the committee has not included listening in the discussion of communications because it knows of no solid evidence to support its suspicion that an inability to listen properly is a major problem.

tioned engineering curriculum study by Arizona State University rated communications skills second in importance among 10 skills that a graduating engineer should possess. Only-problem solving skills were considered more important. (Faculty and student participants in the study rated communications skills third and fourth in importance, respectively; Engineering Curriculum Task Force, 1991).

• Two recent surveys by the AIA (one conducted in 1990 involving large firms and the other conducted in 1992 involving small firms) identified communications skills as one of the two most important skills needed by architects (Franklin, 1992).

As recognition of the importance of communications skills has increased, engineering programs have been increasingly faulted for failing to teach such skills adequately.

Many engineering educators have acknowledged the presence of a problem exists and have proposed or initiated actions to give engineering students more training in communications. The necessity for schools to strongly emphasizes communications skills for engineers has been discussed (see Brown, 1993, Jones, 1990, and Sunder 1993). Further, the Gateway Engineering Coalition of 10 engineering schools recognized the importance of graphical, written, and oral communication skills to engineers and has incorporated training in such areas in its model curriculum (Fromm, 1992).

Surveys conducted by ASCE found that the percentage of schools requiring students to take a technical writing course increased from 31.3 percent in 1978 to 81.9 percent in 1989, and that the percentage of schools with a required engineering graphics course increased from 81.3 percent in 1978 to 98.7 percent in 1989. However, the percentage of schools with a required public speaking course dropped from 28.6 percent to 19.9 percent between 1978 and 1989 (Ardis, 1990).

Architectural schools also have been criticized for failing to put enough emphasis on speaking and writing skills (Kliment, 1991), but there is no documentation of attempts to correct the problem. Since architectural schools still require students to do considerable drafting and sketching, most architectural graduates have good graphics communication skills.

Few issues in engineering education have been debated as long as the question of the amount of liberal arts courses to be included in an engi-

neering curriculum. 7 Conversely, the subject has been discussed very little in connection with architectural education probably because architecture is, in some respects, as much an art as a technical profession, and many architects, including most of the architects on the committee, believe that architectural students receive a liberal education. Consequently, this section will focus almost exclusively on engineering education.

Colonel Sylvanus Thayer, one of the pioneers of engineering education in the United States, believed that engineers should be educated as gentlemen before being trained as engineers, and he followed his beliefs first as superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and later when he endowed an engineering school at Dartmouth College. 8 However, his philosophy did not gain wide acceptance. Instead, most engineering schools became primarily professional schools, for which the following explanation is offered:

Perhaps the most crucial event in the social history of American engineering was the passage by Congress of the Morrill Act—the land grant college act—in 1862. This law authorized federal aid to the states for establishing colleges of agriculture and the “mechanic arts.” The founding legislation mentioned “education of the industrial classes in their several pursuits and professions in life.” With engineering linked to the “mechanic arts,” and with engineers expected to come from “the industrial classes,” the die was cast. American engineers would not be elite polytechnicians. They would not be gentlemen attending professional school after graduating from college, as proposed by Sylvanus Thayer. Engineering was to be studied in a four-year undergraduate curriculum. And, as anyone might have predicted, when engineering became increasingly complex and demanding, liberal arts studies within this curriculum would be reduced to the verge of insignificance.

(Florman, 1991)

Although the Morrill Act ensured that engineering education in the United States would be primarily professional, concern about the dearth of liberal arts courses in the engineering curriculum has been voiced periodically over the years. Few if any members of the engineering education

community ever proposed the complete elimination of liberal arts courses from the curriculum. Rather, the debate has always revolved around the question of how much time should be devoted to liberal studies and the related issue of whether engineering programs should be lengthened to 5 years to provide time for such studies. Lately, the issue of appropriate, meaningful content for these courses has been raised. These issues were discussed in the 1890s in the SPEE. They were also addressed in several subsequent studies of engineering education, for example:

• The Mann Report, prepared for the Carnegie Foundation in 1918, urged more attention to values and culture in the engineering curriculum; however, the report also recommended elimination of foreign language requirements from the curriculum (Reynolds and Seely, 1993).

• The Wickenden Report, based on an extensive SPEE study conducted in the 1920s, viewed engineering education as a compromise between academic and professional study, and to provide a more balanced approach, the report recommended reducing technical specialization at the undergraduate level and the inclusion of some mandatory liberal studies, notably a year of economics and humanities courses, spread over the curriculum (Reynolds and Seely, 1993).

• The Hammond Report, the result of another broad SPEE study of engineering education initiated in 1939, concluded that colleges serve diverse functions and prepare students for a broad range of responsibilities, and it recommended that the undergraduate curriculum be made broader and more fundamental, emphasizing the basic sciences, humanities, and social sciences (Bowen, 1993).

• The Grinter Report, a 1955 SPEE report on engineering curricula, recommended, among other things, that engineering colleges increase the number of mandatory liberal arts credit hours.

As a result of such recommendations, by the late 1950s the place of the humanities in the engineering curriculum was well established; most schools were requiring between 18 and 24 semester hours of liberal arts courses for a degree. Subsequent studies of the engineering curriculum tended to focus on the relative emphasis to be given to mathematics and science versus engineering technology. The stability of the place of the humanities in the engineering curriculum is illustrated by the results of the previously discussed ASCE survey of civil engineering programs, which showed almost no variation between 1978 and 1989 in the average percentage of the civil engineering curriculum that was devoted to the humanities and the social sciences.

In the last few years, however, the question of the role of liberal arts in the engineering curriculum has resurfaced among several writers on engineering education. Samuel Florman (1991), for example, has written:

[W]e must admit that if engineers are to become leaders and leaders to become engineers, far-reaching changes will be required. . . . Most particularly, engineering education must be revitalized, liberalized, and enriched. If we want to develop Renaissance engineers, multitalented men and women who will participate in the highest councils, we cannot educate them in vocational schools—even scientifically distinguished vocational schools—which is what many of our engineering colleges are in danger of becoming. Georgia Tech, for example, has recently founded a School of Public Policy and has in many other ways demonstrated a determination to broaden its conception of what modern technology should be. But there are many engineering schools that do not share this vision.

Similar views on the value of a liberal education for engineers were expressed by Charles Beardsley in a column in the October 1991 issue of Mechanical Engineering and by N. Mawby in a May 1993 letter in Engineering Times.

Many of the views on education in the humanities stress the inclusion of more meaningful content in the existing curriculum rather than increasing the quantity of courses in the liberal arts. The Gateway Engineering Education Coalition (a consortium of 10 engineering schools) has proposed major changes in the engineering curriculum to ensure that baccalaureate engineering graduates are educated to recognize among other things, the relationship of engineering enterprise to the social, economic, and political context in which they live and work (Fromm, 1992).

The degree of unhappiness with the amount of humanities in the curriculum is less than with other elements of the curriculum that the committee has examined. In the previously mentioned NSPE survey of the opinions of employers on recent engineering graduates, for example, fewer respondents picked the humanities and ethics category as their first or second choice to get more time in the engineering curriculum than any of the other six categories listed. Conversely, more than 30 percent of the respondents recommended reducing the amount of time devoted to the humanities in the curriculum (NSPE, 1992).

Similarly, the Arizona State University study found that knowledge of the humanities, that is, an appreciation and understanding of world affairs and cultures, was ranked least important by both industry and student participants as being among the 10 attributes that an engineering graduate should possess. It was listed ninth in importance by faculty participants (Engineering Curriculum Task Force, 1991).

Although there have been many studies of the numbers of engineering and architectural graduates, and ample statistics, there are relatively little data on the issue of quality of education and the satisfaction of graduates and employers. Quality is notoriously difficult to define and to measure, and subjective expressions of satisfaction are imprecise and change over time. Nevertheless, there is sufficient expression of dissatisfaction by recent graduates, practicing engineers, professional associations, some educators, and public and private employers to suggest that a problem exists. Not all agree, of course, on the nature of the problem or on the solution; in some cases, solutions have been suggested before the problems have been defined.

That schools are taking industry's complaints seriously was indicated in a 1993 article in Business Week magazine stating that “one-third of the nation's 330 engineering schools are revising their programs to make them more practical and responsive to industry” (McWilliams, 1993).

The insularity of the academic world is valuable to a certain extent in contributing to the larger development of the student as an individual rather than stressing simply his or her professional career development. Endeavors that may lack practical application allow room for exploration and inquiry and provide an opportunity for students to test a larger range of abilities before committing to a life's work. Echoed in educators' complaints, viewpoints, and resistance to the influence of professionals is a staunch defense of the cloistered environment of academia that fosters a young person's growth without the immediate pressures inherent in the directed expectation of the work world.

On the other hand, particularly for professional degrees, schools have a responsibility to graduate students prepared to take on professional responsibilities. In order to serve the needs of students who choose a program in one of the professions, schools must to accommodate professional requirements. This requires input from and interface with professionals in order to stay responsive to the needs of the profession and, by extension, the needs of the students in preparation for the profession.

Many members of the professions dispute the assumption of architectural and engineering educators that new graduates should learn technology, design, and other subjects not now included in the curriculum on the job. Industry professionals note that most employers have neither the time, the inclination, or the ability to conduct remedial education courses for young engineers and architects, and that the reality is that most young

architects and engineers learn critical aspects of their professions on their own, in a haphazard and unsatisfactory fashion.

As a respondent from the committee's survey, a member of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers stated:

In general, [professionals] want practitioners ready to start producing immediately. However, this is wishful thinking and is really not the issue. The problem is that engineering graduates are not adequately grounded in the fundamentals and in the relationship of those fundamentals to practical engineering work.

A member of the Associated General Contractors of America commented:

Many in the construction industry are dissatisfied with engineering and education programs. As a result, the industry is hiring fewer engineers than in the past. The main problem with engineering schools is that they are not providing graduates with practical training, which the industry wants. On the other hand, contractors generally are satisfied with construction management education programs, and they are hiring graduates of those programs instead of engineers. (The Northeast part of the country is an exception; there, contractors still seem to prefer to hire engineers.)

A 1991 Engineering News Record article advanced the notion that construction management and construction technology programs have been successful because of dissatisfaction in the industry with the graduates of traditional engineering programs, (including civil engineers; see Rubin and Rosebaum, 1991).

The structure of an education program helps determine its success. But even a program with a strong curriculum and highly capable students can lose students attracted to the profession if the teaching does not give them what they need to learn to practice.

Complaints about faculty focus on three perceptions: (1) many faculty members have become so research oriented that they have lost interest in teaching generally and teaching undergraduates in particular (2) many faculty members are unable to teach design and technology because they have little or no practical experience outside of the academic world and (3) many faculty are poor teachers because they have received no training in education.

For almost a century engineering educators have been concerned about high attrition rates in engineering schools. One of the earliest in-

depth reports on engineering education, the Mann Report initiated in 1907 and published in 1918, noted that 60 percent of entering engineering students did not graduate as engineers and recommended that a great deal more attention be paid to aptitude testing in the admissions process (Reynolds and Seely, 1993).

In spite of the adoption of high admissions standards based on Scholastic Aptitude Test scores and other criteria, engineering programs have continued to have higher drop-out rates than other educational programs. The high attrition rate after an increase in admissions standards indicates that engineering schools are losing many students who begin college with an interest in and an aptitude for engineering.

The seriousness of the drop-out problem was reflected in a recent study sponsored by the National Science Foundation to identify factors that affect a student's interest in studying science and pursuing sciencerelated careers (Astin and Astin, 1992). The results, based on data collected on more than 27,000 students at 388 4-year colleges and universities over a 4-year period, revealed the following:

Between the freshman and the senior years, the percent of students majoring in fields of natural science, mathematics, and engineering (SME) declines from 28.7 to 17.4, a 40 percent relative decline. Losses are greatest in the biological sciences (50 percent decline) and engineering (40 percent decline). The net loss in the physical sciences (including mathematics) is substantially less (20 percent decline) in part because these fields recruit substantial numbers of engineering dropouts during the undergraduate years. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that the presence of a very large program in the physical sciences can accelerate the loss of engineering students by attracting substantial numbers of these students away from engineering into the physical sciences and mathematics. . . .

Considered as a career, engineering loses more than half of its students (53 percent decline) during the undergraduate years.

The study revealed that a major factor in students' performance was their precollegiate preparation. Poorer preparation may mean lower grades and dropping out of a program. Grades in school are not considered a good indicator of how well a graduate engineer will do in later life (Olson, 1980; Stice, 1979); students dropping out because of bad grades may be a reflection of schools providing courses irrelevant to future career success.

However, pedagogical practices in college also were found to be very important. For example, it was found that having a strongly research-oriented faculty reduces the perseverance of physical science majors and fosters student dissatisfaction. This last finding can be explained in part

by the tendency for strongly research-oriented faculties to rely heavily on teaching assistants in their undergraduate courses.

The question of whether the faculty has become too research oriented has been analyzed at length in the literature from several perspectives. The roots of modern colleges and universities trace back to medieval universities, which were communities of scholars where study and research were the primary raison d'être. In the worst case, the philosophy of universities as a community of scholars translates into graduate students (especially Ph.D. candidates) being viewed as apprentice scholars in training to join the university community, whereas undergraduates are viewed as transients whose tuition is needed to keep the university operating.

The following views on the subject were recently expressed in an editorial in the Journal of Engineering Education:

Perhaps the change in relative weight between teaching and research has gone too far and, rather than strengthening education, the significantly greater attention now accorded faculty research activities has eroded the quality of the undergraduate program. There seems to be much agreement that the culprit is the reward system that recognizes research and publications as the primary—often only—criteria for promotion, tenure and salary increase.

(Ernst, 1993)

There seems to be some agreement from industry that there is a problem. A member of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers gave the following response to the committee's survey:

Another problem is that our educational institutions are graded, rated, and funded with research grants. As a result, the knowledge, experience, and interest of academia is in research. This is inconsistent with the objective of most engineering students and the needs of society.

Jason L. Britzman, a senior from the University of Wisconsin referred in testimony to a congressional committee to the situation at the University of Wisconsin as the “Harvard of the Midwest syndrome.” He provided statistics showing that the average faculty member at the Univer-

sity of Wisconsin at Madison taught less than 5.5 hours per week. 9 He also reported that although student enrollment at the university had dropped 1.9 percent between 1986 and 1992, the number of faculty members increased 3.2 percent and the number of other staff increased 7.1 percent during the same period.

The pressure to increase prestige may also contribute to the rise in the cost of higher education. The same fact-finding report for the congressional committee found that:

During the 1980s, all revenue sources for higher education increased substantially. For example: Federal government contributions increased 125 percent, state and local government contributions increased 100 percent, endowment income and gifts increased 150 percent, and sales and services increased 155 percent. Yet, despite this healthy financial picture, parents and students have been forced to pay a continually increasing price throughout the 1980s and now into the 1990s.

The growing importance of research in civil engineering programs was documented in the previously mentioned ASCE survey, which showed that the percentage of programs in which some faculty members are appointed solely to conduct research had increased from 8.2 percent in 1978 to 13.1 percent in 1989 (Ardis, 1990). The report also noted:

The single biggest expense a college has is its faculty. Years ago, faculty taught 15 credits per semester and were expected to engage in scholarship, serve on committees, advise students, develop curricula, and perform a few other tasks. Over time, the teaching load was reduced to 12 credits, then to 9, and in many places it is 6 credits or lower. A number of faculty avoid teaching altogether by buying out their teaching time with the proceeds from research grants or outside consulting.

The reason that faculty teaching loads were reduced was to enable the faculty to devote more time to research. However, more than half of all professors devote fewer than 5 hours a week to research, while upward of a third admit to none at all.

Karl Pister, chancellor of the University of California at Santa Cruz, attributes the “unmistakable research bias” of the current faculty reward system to the fact that scholarship in the academic world has come to be synonymous with research, which, he believes, is wrong because the term scholarship encompasses much more than research (Pister, 1992).

Sheila Tobias in her book, They're Not Dumb, They're Different, found many shortcomings in the way math and science were being taught. She concluded that traditional lecture-style teaching—the kind of teaching

that involves students learning (1) primarily by reading the text, (2) secondarily by doing problems on their own and comparing solutions, and (3) by duplicating the professor's problem-solving—could not be considered teaching in “any complex or complete sense” (Tobias, 1990).

Similarly, Alexander and Helen Astin discovered that pedagogical practices contributed to the high drop-out rate among engineering and science students” (Astin and Astin, 1992).

Another disturbing trend in teaching is a decrease in the level of practical experience among faculty. Faculty members with practical engineering, design, and construction experience have been replaced by professors with Ph.D.s rather than industry experience. Many are from different cultures and may have little understanding of the operation of the construction industry.

Bassem Khafagi, in a student essay discussing the influence of foreign teachers on U.S. education, observed:

Another problem that may need careful monitoring is the current tendency of the graduate curriculum to stress engineering science rather than engineering practice. Many analysts argue that the United States needs faculty particularly interested in manufacturing, production and the practice of engineering. Young foreign-born faculty often excel in theoretical subjects, and may tend to de-emphasize engineering practice.

(Khafagi, 1990)