Friday, March 29, 2024

AdvertiseDonateSubmit
NewsSportsArtsOpinionThe QuadPhotoVideoIllustrationsCartoonsGraphicsThe StackPRIMEEnterpriseInteractivesPodcastsBruinwalkClassifieds

Engineering students, faculty debate report calling for increased coursework

By Dmitri Pikman

March 1, 2004 9:00 p.m.

Different opinions have emerged in the UCLA engineering
community concerning a report released by the American Society of
Civil Engineers. The report advocates significant changes to the
current engineering curriculum.

The report, entitled “Civil Engineering Body of
Knowledge,” recommends increasing the number of hours of
coursework students will have to complete before being eligible for
their civil engineering licenses.

The report also proposes that the majority of civil engineering
faculty members be required to have practical field experience.

According to the ASCE, this is the first-known effort by an
engineering discipline to redefine the “body of
knowledge” required for professional practice.

“Today’s world is fundamentally challenging the way
civil engineering is practiced. The current four-year
bachelor’s degree is becoming inadequate for professional
practice of civil engineering,” the report read in part.

Many members of the engineering community have agreed with the
report’s finding regarding student course hours.

Stanley Dong, UCLA professor emeritus of civil and environmental
engineering, said he believes an increase in hours would be
beneficial for civil engineering students.

“Undergraduates are just as bright and intelligent as any
time before, but somehow the curriculum is squeezed in such a way
that they do not seem to be prepared to do some work that I
consider to be the bread and butter to work in the field,” he
said.

He added that by increasing course load, the engineering field
would be returning to the way the subject used to be taught.

According to the ASCE, in the early 1900s, engineering graduates
completed 155 credit hours compared to the 125 credit hours earned
by most of today’s students.

Steven Margulis, assistant professor of civil and environmental
engineering, said adding more hours would help students in the long
run.

“Generally, adding a fifth year is a good idea. Currently
we cover a lot of courses in four years, and its not necessarily
clear if its beneficial,” he said.

Josh Cantrell, who graduated from UCLA in 2003 with a masters in
electrical engineering, said even though he is not a civil
engineer, he feels engineering students could benefit from an extra
year.

“As an electrical engineering student, I found that after
the four-year program … I still didn’t feel as though I had
learned enough to do much practical electrical engineering,”
he said.

However, the idea of adding a fifth year to the engineering
curriculum may prove difficult because, in light of the
state’s $14 billion deficit and with higher education going
through major fiscal cuts, university officials are encouraging
students to get their diplomas sooner rather than later.

“There is pressure from our dean to do just the opposite
and keep units as close to 180 as possible,” said Jonathan
Stewart, associate professor of civil engineering, referring to the
minimum number of units required for a student to graduate.

But William Yeh, the chair of the civil and environmental
engineering department, said 180 units worth of class provides
enough experience for civil engineering students.

“That’s a lot of units, compared with Stanford, for
example, which only requires about 150 or so units,” he
said.

Some believe a better way to improve the civil engineering field
is to follow a different recommendation made by the ASCE earlier
this month.

On Feb. 4, ASCE released a report recommending an increase of
requirements for civil engineers, making a masters degree, as
opposed to the current bachelors, necessary in order to become a
practicing civil engineer.

“Most professions ““ business, law and medicine
““ do not consider the bachelor’s degree a professional
degree, yet engineering does,” said William Wulf, the
president of the National Academy of Engineering, in a statement
released after the ASCE’s report. The NAE is a honorific
society which advises Congress on engineering issues.

Wulf also said he felt engineering faculty should have practical
field experience, as he said engineering faculty often “are
wonderful, dedicated, smart people, but their image of practice in
the field does not correspond to reality,” Wulf said.

However, not all agree with Wulf. Albert Gray, executive
director of the National Society of Professional Engineers, said an
engineering professor need only have a professional engineering
license.

“That’s a credential that shows that a professor is
equipped with the right background to teach students,” Gray
said.

Others, including Dong, do not believe more field experience for
instructors would translate into better prepared students.

Share this story:FacebookTwitterRedditEmail
Dmitri Pikman
COMMENTS
Featured Classifieds
More classifieds »
Related Posts