To view the figures and tables associated with this article, please refer to the flipbook above.
I hear many discussions regarding the crisis of the engineering pipeline. And while I am not sure there is actually a crisis, I do think that the legacy format of university programs hurts overall retention of college students that are considering entering the profession.
As a structural engineering hiring manager for 25 years, and as an active university career advisor, I have seen many variations of college engineering programs. When reviewing the transcripts of job applicants, I have seen many cases where new graduates are missing courses that I consider fundamental to the structural engineering profession, and in some extreme cases I think the graduate was not appropriately prepared by their university to enter the workforce with their four-year degree.
I sit in the middle of the philosophical divide between supporting a classical engineering program that demands an expert knowledge of the fundamentals and a program that is progressive, inspiring, and inviting to the next generation. With this lens, collegiate engineering programs have two major challenges that should be reconsidered – general education and ABET requirements.
Maybe there was a time that needed the ‘weed out’ classes that are the majority of the first two years in engineering, but now with flashier, and possibly more lucrative, careers in all mainstream conversations—should programs still look to eradicate ‘unfit’ prospective engineers? And does success in a class like Ordinary Differential Equations provide a good barometer for the ‘fitness’ of a potential engineer?
Consider the stats of a representative engineering program:
- Credits required to graduate with a bachelor’s degree: 120-130 (or 15-16 per semester).
- General education credits required: 35-42 (roughly 30% of the total).
- And in the first two years of study, consider this representative course breakdown (23 total classes):
- Six chemistry and physics classes (including Statics and Dynamics)—These are a good portion of the weed-out classes and are required by ABET for accreditation. Remember back to your days in these classes. They are usually large, you and the other, generally introverted, engineers-in-training (EITs) are trying to make friends, so you are not completely on your own, and a student’s success is very professor-dependent.
- Four math classes—The other large portion of the weed-out duo with similar challenges, and again required by ABET for accreditation. But chemistry and physics classes at times have interesting units or labs, while math classes are generally uninspiring to young engineers. Also, in many instances they are taught through the math department whose students and staff can be very different from those in engineering.
- Six general education (GE) classes—While there are certainly some interesting class offerings, as a freshman and sophomore you don’t get an early selection slot. So generally, you wind up with GEs you don’t really want—they are just available and fit in your schedule. And again, back to the introvert not knowing anyone but with even more randomness in classmates.
- Two English classes—I am definitely in favor of technical writing and public speaking classes if geared specifically to engineering majors; I am not in favor of having them in freshman and sophomore years. I think these classes would be better suited in the latter two years as I see them more as preparation for capstone, interviewing, and your career, not your specialized technical engineering classes.
- One computer science class—Very useful to know Python and other programming applications.
- One statistics class—Debatable if useful, generally not fun for the EITs, but required by ABET.
- And finally, three classes (out of 23) that are representative of the actual practice of civil or structural engineering, generally a survey of engineering disciplines course, freshman design, and then Strength of Materials.
So, in the first two years of an engineering program, the pipeline students of our profession must fight through roughly a dozen ‘weed out’ classes and six general education classes, while seeing only three classes that give them an appreciation of their actual major. Is it a wonder why students leave engineering? In many cases students persevere because they have a relative or mentor that is an engineer and can coach them through these years explaining that ‘it gets better when you hit your major classes, keep going!’ Without this connection, or a great internship, it is hard to comprehend the amazing career at the end of the journey based on the first two years.
The NCSEA Recommended Structural Engineering Core Curriculum document (www.ncsea.com/engage/committees/academia-practice-partnerships/), which comes from the national 2021 NCSEA Practitioner Survey (www.structuremag.org/article/ncsea-2021-practitioner-survey/), consists of 12 core classes all new hires should have completed. In addition, I would include two classes in computer programming and computer analysis and two classes of capstone design.
So, that is roughly 50 credits, most of which must happen in years 3 and 4 in the representative system. I am sure you are seeing where this is headed. It is quickly obvious that after the 62-64 credits in your first two years, you would still need six more GE counting classes (18 credits) and 47 credits of core classes, for a total of 128 credits. I know this sounds like it is right on target, but it doesn’t account for the many tangential classes that employers consider important such as Engineering Economic Analysis, Construction Methods, Professional Ethics, or Sustainable Design.
So now the problem is clear. Either a fifth year/master’s degree is required or many key classes must be omitted, leaving the new graduate to learn on the job, saddling employers with this investment in the current era of squeezed schedules and fees.
I recommend that universities rethink general education requirements for engineering, and likely all, majors. Requiring 35-42 credits, roughly 30% of your classes, in the name of well-roundedness is a great disservice and misleading to the student about the adequacy of their four-year education. While courses like Visions of Nature, Historical Geology, and the History of Science could be very interesting, the far-reaching forced breadth of general education classes should be replaced with a slate of classes relevant to their desired career. With the average cost of college today, a student will spend over $50,000 on just general education courses, a tremendous investment! Compounding this, students become frustrated with engineering as a major since these GE requirements kept them from taking the classes that would have helped to reinforce their choice of major and profession.
The ABET requirements should be reconsidered because they represent the majority of the weed-out classes. This is where I will side a bit with the traditionalists of engineering curriculum. I appreciate that many of these courses are the foundations of the core technical classes, and this rite-of-passage learning should not be passed over. But these courses are very challenging to most future engineers, and they likely occur as they are making a difficult transition to living on their own for the first time. Shouldn’t we then be nurturing and inspiring these students with the best professors, ample teaching assistants, and targeted connectivity that makes sure they see the bigger picture and make it to the classes they will enjoy?
Colleges and universities are tasked with transforming young minds into adults that are ready to enter the workforce in a given profession. While it is important that students do not falsely believe they are adequately prepared for a career in engineering when they are not, it is also important to not drive students away from engineering as a career based on legacy principles and curricula. As with the field of engineering itself, it is critical that engineering programs always look to evaluate and improve their offerings based on feedback from employers and the evolving needs of today’s students.
About the Authors
Chris Cerino, PE, F.SEI, DBIA is the current President of the NCSEA Board of Directors, Vice President, and Technical Director of Structural Engineering at STV, and parent of two children in college STEM programs, one being Structural Engineering.