This proposal seeks to identify and implement improvements to the education and licensure process for civil engineers in the United States of America.
[4] In 1908, the committee initially invited the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the General Education Board to appoint delegates.
Notwithstanding financial assistance from ASCE, the committee approached the Foundation to assume the project and fully fund a comprehensive report.
[3] These concepts, first advanced in the early part of the 20th century, remain the "...general organization of most engineering education today.
"[3] Foreshadowing the emergence of the total quality management initiative, Mann argued that "the ultimate success of any organization depends on ... the manner in which those in control coordinate and interrelate the intelligences and imaginations of men.
As to the question of the appropriate length of the engineering curriculum, the Board recommended staying with the "usual distinction between undergraduate and graduate programs where the undergraduate degree was an accredited engineering degree of fours years as the normal length (unified process).
[12] The conference attendees resolved the earlier BIC recommendation of four years as the curriculum norm be changed to a five-year undergraduate degree in civil engineering.
[13] The preparation for the 1995 conference focused on four topics: technical competence, communication skills, management concepts and teamwork.
Attendees noted that educators must balance depth versus breadth in developing engineering curricula.
Conferees reported out from the conference on proposed initiatives, barriers and recommended actions in eight areas, namely: faculty development, communication skills, project management, teamwork and leadership, project based learning, practitioner participation, pre-professional and professional degrees and implementation of National Science Foundation recommendation for engineering education.
[14] Formed out of recommendations from the CEEC 95 conference, the committee was chartered to investigate four areas: faculty development; integrated curriculums; practitioner involvement in the education process and the adoption of the master's degree as the first professional degree necessary to enable practice of civil engineering.
Ultimately, the Committee recommendation to ASCE in 1998 was that the "first professional degree" become the new paradigm of engineering education, replacing the earlier BIC model from 1930.
[12] In this manner, it had identified the fundamental issue as the increasing inadequacy of the four year bachelor's degree as "... formal academic preparation for the practice of civil engineering at the professional level in the 21st century.
"[12] The report cited examples of this were inadequate communication skills, inability to manage projects profitably and failure to meet stakeholder expectations among others.
"[16] There was an intense competition for desired leadership positions that was shared in common with other engineering disciplines, as well as from non-engineers.
"[16][17] In order to fully implement its vision of civil engineering, the committee recommended that the policy focus on the core principle that (A)dmission to the practice of civil engineering at the professional level occurs at licensure and requires a body of specialized knowledge as reflected by a combination of a baccalaureate degree and a master's degree or equivalent, appropriate experience, and a commitment to lifelong learning.
)The committee's report in addition to strategies also included recommendations for an implementation plan consisting of four major action items to implement the ASCE policy over the next twenty years:[16][12] In 2001, ASCE accepted the 1999 task committee recommendations on policy.
"[12] ASCE accepted those recommendations and in 2004 and modified its policy to state that "the attainment of a body of knowledge for entry into the practice of civil engineering at the professional level" .
[18] Accomplishing this aspirational vision required these future professionals to possess attributes such as formal education, work experience, and professional achievement and attitudes supportive of orchestrating "... solutions to society's most pressing current needs while helping to create a more viable future.
[18] In discussing these future aspirations, the report also acknowledged the past efforts to reform engineering education noting that there had been "...broad changes to the academic prerequisites to professional practice..."[18] where future civil engineers must provide evidence of competency with "...the appropriate body of knowledge through education and experience.
Its tiers are further divided into blocks that represent competency areas (i.e., groups of knowledge, skills, and abilities), which are defined using critical work functions and technical content.
[20] Competency models such as the ECM produced by the Department of Labor communicate a vision of business and industry requirements essential for the "...development of curriculum, skill assessment instruments, and certifications. "
"[20] ASCE recognized in the 1999 Committee's work that a body of specialized knowledge was required for the practice of civil engineering.
[24] NCEES considered the implementation of the BOK at their 2008 annual meeting and decided to establish a task force.
The task force is provide an analysis of "(1) the potential educational, professional, regulatory, and economic impact of the master's or equivalent; and (2) any alternative solutions besides the master's or equivalent that could potentially address the challenge of better preparing engineering licensure candidates to enter the profession.