CEbok

American Society
of Civil Engineers
Civil Engineering
Body of Knowledge
for the 21st Century
Preparing the Civil Engineer
for the Future
Prepared by the
Body of Knowledge
Committee
of the
Committee on
Academic
Prerequisites for
Professional
Practice
January 12, 2004
ASCE and American Society of Civil EngineersRegistered

in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
American Society of Civil Engineers
1801 Alexander Bell Drive
Reston, Virginia, 20191-4400
www.asce.org
Copyright 2004 by the

American Society of Civil Engineers.
All Rights Reserved.
Manufactured in the United States of America.
Contents
Abbreviations
Abstract
Executive Summary
Background
Purpose of Report
Committee Approach
Body of KnowledgeWhat Should Be Taught and Learned?
Body of KnowledgeHow Should It Be Taught and Learned?
Body of KnowledgeWho Should Teach and Learn It?
The Next Steps
Closing Thoughts
3
4
5
5
6
8
9
9
Introduction
11
Foundation for This Report: The Changing Civil Engineering

Landscape
A New Skill Set and Mind Set for a New Century
Education for a Complex Future
A Long Way to Go
Fewer Credits
Growing Complexity
Greater Accountability
Relevance to this Report
Formation of and Charge to the BOK Committee
Definition of B+M/30&E
Other Education Options
Purpose of Report
Audience
Guiding Principles
Orientation toward the Future
Broad Interpretation of Practice
Institutional Flexibility in Fulfilling the BOK
Approach
Work Plan
Correspondents
Conferences, Workshops, Articles and Papers
11
12
12
12
13
14
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
20
20
20
20
Body Of KnowledgeWhat Should Be Taught And

Learned?
21
BOK Defined by Outcomes

Levels of Competence Definitions
The 15 Outcomes
Attitudes
Prevailing Thoughts
21
22
24
29
30
CIVIL ENGINEERING BODY OF KNOWLEDGE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
iii
Civil Engineers and the Topic of Attitudes

Attitudes as Catalysts
Which Attitudes?
Can Attitudes Be Taught and Learned?
Connecting Attitudes to Outcomes
A Lifelong Effort
Comments on Outcomes 12 Through 15
Some Thoughts for Civil Engineering Educators
31
32
33
33
35
36
36
37
Body Of Knowledge How Should It Be Taught And

Learned?
39
BOK Teaching and Learning Modes

After High School and Before Licensure
The Beginning of Life-long Learning
Existing Graduate Programs
Development of New Undergraduate/Graduate Curricula
Compatible with the BOK
21st Century Education Opportunities
Distance Learning as a Means of Accessing Some of the BOK
Non-Traditional Education Providers
Experience and the BOK
Essential Role of Experience in Fulfilling the BOK
Minimum Competency Required for Each Outcome
A Graphic Representation of the Civil Engineering BOK and Beyond
Questions and Issues
Incorporating the Civil Engineering BOK and Additional
Educational Requirements into the Licensure System
Suggested Model Law Language Consistent with ASCE Policy
Statement 465
Graduate Engineering Program Accreditation
Alternate Undergraduate Engineering Educational Pathways
Bachelors Plus 30 Credits Option
Alternate Masters Programs
Determining BOK Attainment
Assuring the Quality of Graduate Education Institutions
Other Engineering Disciplines
Licensure Mobility
Continuing Professional Development
iv
39
39
41
41
42
43
45
47
49
49
50
53
54
55
55
56
57
58
59
60
62
62
63
64
Body Of KnowledgeWho Should Teach It?
65
Four Characteristics of Civil Engineering Educators

Scholars
Effective Teachers
Have Practical Experience
Positive Role Models
Summary
66
66
68
70
71
72
Body Of KnowledgeWho Should Learn It?
73
Taking Responsibility
Student Focus
Supportive Habits and High Standards
Liberal Perspective
Student Obligations and Expectations
Matching Students and the Civil Engineering Profession
73
74
75
75
75
78
The Next Steps
80
Closing Thoughts
82
Acknowledgements
84
Appendix AASCE Policy Statement 465
85
Academic Prerequisites for Licensure and Professional Practice

Policy
Issue
Rationale
85
85
85
86
Appendix BMembers of the ASCE Body of

Knowledge Committee
87
Individuals Providing Special Assistance to the Committee

Other Contacts
91
92
Appendix CKey Points about ASCE Policy

Statement 465
93

Note
93
94
Appendix DCivil Engineering Education and Practice

Statistics
95
4-year Undergraduate-Only Institutions Offering ABET-Accredited

Bachelors Degree in Civil Engineering*
96
Appendix EBibliography
97
Appendix FCorrespondents of the ASCE Body of

Knowledge Committee
101
Appendix GArticles, Papers, Presentations and

Workshops
103
Articles and Papers

Conference Presentations
Presentations and Workshops at Universities
103
104
105
Appendix HEngineering Program Outcomes

Established by the Accreditation Board for
Engineering and Technology
106
Appendix IResources for Improving Teaching

Effectiveness in Civil Engineering
107
Appendix JTypes of Masters Degree Programs

Available to Civil Engineers
108
Masters of Civil Engineering

Masters of Construction Management
Masters of Engineering Science
Masters of Engineering in Civil Engineering
Masters of Science
Masters of Science in Engineering Management
Masters of Science in Civil Engineering
Appendix KCurricula Design Project to Support

Implementation of ASCE Policy Statement 465
Project Purpose
Project Process
Agenda for Workshop 1: Policy 465 and Institution-Specific Ideas
on Implementation
108
108
108
108
109
109
109
110
110
110
110
Workshop Resources
Questions/Suggestions/Interested in Participating?
111
111
Appendix LUniversity of Louisville Five-Year Master

of Engineering Degree
112
Appendix MExploration of Potential Ways to Validate
Fulfillment of the Body of Knowledge
114
Introduction
The Challenge
Validation of ABET-Related BOK Attainment
Validation of BOK Attainment Through Non-Standard Programs
ABET B+30 Programs
Non-ABET Bachelors and Non-ABET Masters
Non-ABET B+30
No Quick Fix
Notes
114
114
115
115
116
116
117
117
117
Appendix NCharge to Curricula Committee
118
Notes
119
Figures
Figure 1. The 15 outcomes in the recommended BOK consist of the
ABETs 11 outcomes plus one depth outcome and three breadth
outcomes.
23
Figure 2. Success in teaching and learning and in applying the

15 outcomes will be highly dependent on supportive teacher and
learner attitudes.
35
Figure 3. Public and private universities across the U.S. are

participating in the curricula design project.
43
Figure 4. Future civil engineers will have access to many

education providers.
45
Figure 5. This BOK profile integrates outcomes, levels of

competence, formal education, and pre-licensure experience.
53
Figure 6. Lowmans two-dimensional model of effective college

teaching is based on interpersonal rapport and intellectual excitement. 69
Figure 7. The ExCEEd Model is consistent with well-established
teaching and learning principles.
70
Tables
vi
Table 1. A variety of institutions are leading the way by designing

undergraduate/graduate degree tracks intended to fulfill much of
the civil engineering BOK.
44
Table 2. Desired outcomes will be fulfilled by a combination of

formal education and experience.
52
Table L-1. University of Louisville Civil Engineering Curricula
113
Table L-2. Master of Science Requirements
112
Table M-1. Various means may be available to validate fulfillment

of the BOK
115
Abbreviations
AAEE
American Academy of Environmental

Engineers
ABET
Accreditation Board for Engineering and

Technology
ACEC
American Council of Engineering Companies
ASCE
American Society of Civil Engineers
ASEE
American Society for Engineering Education
An engineering baccalaureate degree
B+M/30&E The means to fulfill the BOK (Bachelors plus

Masters or approximately 30 credits and
Experience)
BS
Bachelor of Science
BOK
Body of Knowledge, that is, the knowledge,

skills, and attitudes necessary to become a
licensed professional civil engineer
BSCE
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
CCPE
Canadian Council of Professional Engineers
CEU
Continuing Education Units
CH
Credit hour
CPD
Structured and progressive post-baccalaureate

engineering experience accomplished before,
during, and/or after completion of the M/30
EAC
Engineering Accreditation Commission (of

ABET)
ECEI
Engineering Credentials Evaluation

International
EdAC
Educational Activities Committee (of ASCE)
ELQTF
Engineering Licensure Qualifications Task

Force (of NCEES)
vii
viii
ETW
ExCEEd Teaching Workshop
ExCEEd
Excellence in Civil Engineering Education
GPA
Grade point average
GRE
Graduate Record Examination
HEC
Hydrologic Engineering Center
IACET
International Association for Continuing

Education and Training
Formal post-baccalaureate education program

that leads to a masters degree and to the
fulfillment of the requisite BOK
MBA
Master of Business Administration
M.Eng.
Master of Engineering
MOE
Masters or equivalent
NACE
National Association of Colleges and

Employers
NCEES
National Council of Examiners for

Engineering and Surveying
NHI
National Highway Institute
NRC
National Research Council
NSF
National Science Foundation
PDH
Professional Development Hour
QBS
Qualifications-Based Selection
SAME
Society of American Military Engineers
TAC
Technology Accreditation Commission (of

ABET)
TCAP3
Task Committee on Academic Prerequisites

for Professional Practice
TCFPD
Task Committee for the First Professional

Degree
USDLA
U.S. Distance Learning Association
30
Post-baccalaureate educational program of

approximately 30 credits that does not lead to
a formal masters degree but leads to the
fulfillment of the requisite BOK
Abstract
Destiny is not a matter of chance,

it is a matter of choice.
William Jennings Bryan, American statesman
Todays world is fundamentally challenging the way civil

engineering is practiced. Complexity arises in every aspect
of projects, from pre-project planning with varied stakeholders to building with minimum environmental and community disturbance. Addressing this increased complexity
will require understanding and solving problems at the
boundaries of traditional disciplines. At the same time,
reductions in credit hours required for graduation are making the current four-year bachelors degree inadequate formal academic preparation for the practice of civil
engineering at a professional level in the 21st century. Recognizing the preceding, and in keeping with the leadership
role of civil engineers in the infrastructure and environmental arena and in protecting safety, health and welfare, the
ASCE Board of Direction acted.
ASCEs Board of Direction

acted in recognition of
increased complexity of
civil engineering practice
coupled with reductions in
credit hours required for
graduation.
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Policy

Statement 465, unanimously adopted by the Board of Direction in 2001, states that the Society supports the concept
of the masters degree or equivalent as a prerequisite for
licensure and the practice of civil engineering at the professional level. The ASCE created the Task Committee on Academic Prerequisites for Professional Practice (TCAP3) to
develop, organize and execute a detailed plan for full realization of Policy Statement 465. (In November 2003, in recognition of the long-term nature of implementing Policy
Statement 465, TCAP3 was changed to the Committee on
Academic Prerequisites for Professional Practice [CAP3], a
permanent Board-level committee.)
The Body of Knowledge

(BOK) Committee was
charged with defining the
BOK, addressing experience, and describing the
roles of faculty, practitioners, and students.
TCAP3 developed an implementation master plan for which

the Body of Knowledge (BOK) was the foundation. TCAP3
subsequently formed the Body of Knowledge Committee
and its charge included defining the BOK, addressing the
role of experience and describing the roles of faculty, practitioners, and students.
The BOK has what, how
and who elements.
The BOK Committee conducted its deliberations and presents its recommendations in this report arranged by these
three themes: 1) what should be taught to and learned by
future civil engineering students; 2) how should it be taught
and learned; and 3) who should teach and learn it. The
Committees primary focus was the what.
Included in the 15 outcomes are the 11 outcomes currently used by

the Accreditation Board
for Engineering and Technology.
The what recommendations are cast in terms of 15 outcomes that, compared to todays bachelors programs,
include significant increases in technical depth and professional practice breadth. Included in the 15 outcomes are the
11 outcomes currently used by the Accreditation Board for
Engineering and Technology (ABET). Each outcome is further described with a civil engineering commentary. The
outcomes include recognition, understanding or ability
competency levels in broad and deep areas essential to the
future practice of civil engineering at the professional level.
Attitudes are an essential

part of the BOK.
Knowledge and skill, while necessary, are not sufficient to be

a fully functioning professional civil engineer. A civil engineers attitude, that is, the manner in which he or she
approaches his or her work, will determine how effectively
he or she uses hard-earned knowledge and skills. Accordingly, attitudes are an essential part of the BOK.
Stressed in the how recommendations are existing and new
undergraduate/graduate tracks that help students fulfill the
BOK, the growth of distance learning and non-traditional educational providers, the essential role of experience in fulfilling
the BOK, and incorporating the BOK into the licensure process.
The who recommendations identify success factors for full
and part-time faculty. Teachers should be scholars, teach
effectively, have practical experience, and serve as positive
role models. Also addressed in the who recommendations
are student obligations and expectations and matching students to the civil engineering profession.
The preceding recommendations of the BOK Committee,
combined with those of the parallel Accreditation, Curricula
and Licensure Committees, are enabling CAP3 to move further ahead in carrying out its charge to implement ASCE
Policy Statement 465. By so doing, we prepare the civil engineer for the future.
The BOK will prepare

tomorrows licensed civil
engineers to proactively
function in the challenging national and global
environment of the coming decades.
The empires of the future are the empires of the mind.

Winston Churchill, British Prime Minister
Executive Summary
When we build, let it not be for present use alone. Let it

be such work as our descendants will thank us for.
John Ruskin, English philosopher
Background
of projects, from pre-project planning with varied stakeholders to building with minimum environmental and community disturbance. A 2001 ASCE report Engineering the
Future of Civil Engineering (www.asce.org/raisethebar) highlighted the significant and rapid changes confronting the
profession, while recent events have demonstrated our vulnerability to human-made hazards and disasters. The risks
and challenges to public safety, health, and welfare will continue to escalate in complexity, and the civil engineering
profession must respond proactively. The 2001 report also
concluded that the current four-year bachelors degree is
becoming inadequate formal academic preparation for the
practice of civil engineering at the professional level in the
21st century.
Todays world is fundamentally challenging the

way civil engineering is
practiced. The current
four-year bachelors
degree is becoming inadequate for the professional
practice of civil engineering.
Recognizing the preceding and in keeping with the leadership role of civil engineers in the infrastructure and environmental arena, the ASCE Board of Direction acted. In
November 2001, this fundamental preparation issue facing
the civil engineering profession led to the adoption by the
board of ASCE Policy 465, which supports the concept of
the masters degree or equivalent as a prerequisite for licensure and the practice of civil engineering at the professional
level. The board believed that education beyond the current
bachelors degree was needed to adequately prepare engineers for practice.
The Task Committee on

Academic Prerequisites for
Professional Practice
(TCAP3) was charged with
developing, organizing,
and executing a plan to
implement ASCE Policy
Statement 465.
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) created the

Task Committee on Academic Prerequisites for Professional
Practice (TCAP3) in October 2001 and charged it to
develop, organize and execute a detailed plan for full realization of ASCE Policy Statement 465. The essence of the policy is that ASCE supports the concept of a masters degree or
equivalent as a requirement for licensure and the practice of
civil engineering at the professional level. (In November
2003, in recognition of the long-term nature of implementing Policy Statement 465, TCAP3 was changed to the Committee on Academic Prerequisites for Professional Practice
[CAP3], a permanent Board-level committee.)
TCAP 3 developed an
implementation master
plan for which the Body of
Knowledge (BOK) was the
foundation.
TCAP3 developed an implementation master plan for

which the Body of Knowledge (BOK) was the foundation.
Therefore, the BOK Committee was formed and charged
with defining the BOK needed to enter the practice of civil
engineering at the professional level (licensure) in the 21st
century.
The BOK will be used to

prepare an aspiring civil
engineer for licensure and
practice of civil engineering at the professional
level.
The BOK will be used to prepare an aspiring civil engineer

for licensure and practice of civil engineering at the professional level. The charge to the BOK Committee included
addressing the role of experience and describing the responsibilities of full or part-time faculty, practitioners, and students in fulfilling the BOK.
Purpose of Report
The purpose of this report is to present the recommendations of the BOK Committee and, secondarily, to describe
the process used to arrive at those recommendations. The
Committees recommendations follow these three themes:

and who elements.
what should be taught and learned,
how it should be taught and learned, and
who should teach and learn it.
The Committees primary effort was the what. CAP3 and its
constituent committees will refine the what and focus on
further developing the how and who.
Committee Approach
The BOK Committee took a future-oriented approach
encompassing infrastructure and environmental problems
and opportunities for future decades. The committee
approach included making a broad interpretation of practice to include many roles and functions. Institutional and
individual flexibility was stressed. Committee correspondents were used to solicit concerns and ideas and to critique
draft materials. Committee members proactively participated in key conferences and workshops and presented and
published papers and articles to expand interaction with
stakeholders.
The BOK Committees

approach was futureoriented and involved
intensive interaction with
stakeholders.
BODY OF KNOWLEDGE
What Should Be Taught and Learned?

The committee selected an outcomes approach as the principal means of defining the what dimension of the civil engineering BOK for the 21st century. Relative to todays basic
programs, the outcomes collectively prescribe a substantially
greater depth and breadth of knowledge, skills, and attitudes
required of an individual aspiring to the practice of civil
engineering at the professional level (licensure) in the 21st
century. The 15 outcomes include and begin with the 11
outcomes of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology (ABET) and prescribe more technical depth and
additional breadth. The 21st century civil engineer must
demonstrate:
The recommended 15 outcomes for tomorrows civil

engineer broaden and
deepen ABETs current 11
outcomes.
1. an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science

and engineering.
2. an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as
analyze and interpret data.
3. an ability to design a system, component or process to
meet desired needs.
4. an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
5. an ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering
problems.
6. an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
7. an ability to communicate effectively.
8. the broad education necessary to understand the impact
of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.
9. a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in,

life-long learning.
10. a knowledge of contemporary issues.
11. an ability to understand the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.
12. an ability to apply knowledge in a specialized area
related to civil engineering.
13. an understanding of the elements of project management, construction, and asset management.
14. an understanding of business and public policy and
administration fundamentals.
15. an understanding of the role of the leader and leadership principles and attitudes.
In addition to the 11 ABET outcomes, which are included
verbatim in the 15 BOK outcomes, four entirely new outcomes (Outcomes 12-15) address technical specialization,
project management, construction, asset management, business and public policy and administration, and leadership.
Commentaries are provided and competency levels are specified for all outcomes.
Knowledge and skill, while necessary, are not sufficient to be a
fully functioning professional civil engineer. A civil engineers
attitude, that is, the manner in which he or she approaches his
or her work, will determine how effectively he or she uses
hard-earned knowledge and skills. Accordingly, attitudes are
an essential part of the BOK. Aspects of attitudes addressed by
the committee and presented in this report include the definition and impact of attitudes, examples, the wide range of
viewpoints regarding teaching about attitudes, and the relationship between attitudes and outcomes.

part of the BOK.
BODY OF KNOWLEDGE
How Should It Be Taught and Learned?

Formal undergraduate
education, graduate study
or equivalent, co- and
extra-curricular activities,
and experience will be
used to fulfill the BOK.
Having defined what constitutes the BOK, the committee

considered how it should be taught and learned. The teaching/learning modes are:
Undergraduate study typically leading to a BSCE;
Graduate study or equivalent;
Co-curricular and extra-curricular activities; and
Post-BS engineering experience prior to licensure.
The committee concluded that a BSCE would be the means

of initiating the teaching and learning of all outcomes. Furthermore, based on its breadth and depth of knowledge,
skills, and attitudes, that BSCE could provide an attractive
and appropriate liberal education for the 21st century both
for those on an engineering track and those aspiring to other
professions.
Both upper level undergraduate and graduate-level education, or its equivalent, and structured post-BS experience are
essential to achieving the BOK. Requisite competency for
ten of the fifteen outcomes is achieved by adding experience
to the educational components of a students learning.
While structured post-BS experience is essential, experience
interspersed within formal education is valuable. Additionally, the students formal education can be significantly
enhanced by participation in extra-curricular activities.
The committee began searching for existing undergraduategraduate programs that approximate, in terms of outcomes,
the BOK defined in this report. Additionally, the committee
began working with selected civil engineering departments
that want to be leaders in designing bachelors/masters
degree tracks that will provide the prescribed BOK within
the framework of each institutions culture, traditions and
strengths.
Curricula design projects

are a step toward implementation of the BOK.
The first ten departments to join this effort, in the order in

which they joined, are at Colorado State University; Iowa
State University; Case Western Reserve University; Bucknell
University; Western Michigan University; California State
University, Los Angeles; Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology; University of Louisville; Wentworth Institute of Technology; and University of Oklahoma.
The committee concludes that distance learning, especially
that which is web-based, will increasingly provide an effective means for developing the knowledge, skills, and attitudes included in the BOK. Finally, the committee expects
that the majority of civil engineers seeking licensing will follow a path that leads from an ABET/EAC-accredited baccalaureate through an accredited engineering masters degree.
Validating attainment of the BOK through an ABET/EAC
baccalaureate and approximately 30 hours of upper level
undergraduate work plus graduate work will be more
complex.
Distance learning will

increasingly improve
accessibility to high quality formal education.
BODY OF KNOWLEDGE
Who Should Teach and Learn It?

Tomorrows civil engineering faculty members
should be scholars, effective teachers, positive role
models, and have practical experience.
The following four characteristics of the model full or parttime civil engineering faculty member are evident to the
BOK Committee:
Scholars: Those who teach the civil engineering BOK

should be scholars. Faculty should acquire and maintain a
level of expertise in the subjects they teach. Being a
scholar mandates that engineering faculty be life-long
learners, modeling continued growth in knowledge and
understanding.
Effective Teachers: Student learning is optimal when faculty members effectively engage students in the learning
process. The development of engineering faculty as effective teachers is critical for the future of the profession.
Practical Experience: Educators should have practical

experience in engineering subjects they teach. Most civil
engineering faculty should hold a professional engineering license.
Positive Role Models: Regardless of personal desires or

choice, every civil engineer who is in contact with students serves as a role model for the profession. Those who
teach should be aware that students view them in that
light. The ideal civil engineering faculty member should
present a positive role model for our profession.
These are explicit success factors for those who will teach the
21st Century civil engineers. They reflect the need and the
opportunity to raise the bar in all three dimensions of the
civil engineering BOK: the what, the how and the who.
The success of tomorrows
civil engineering students
will be enhanced if their
aptitudes, interests, and
aspirations resonate with
the unique and special
attributes of civil engineering.
Although civil engineering faculty and practitioners must be

instrumental in advocating and teaching the BOK necessary
for 21st century professional practice, civil engineering students ultimately have the primary responsibility for their
own education. Students must be committed to excellence
in their education.
Success in the study and eventual practice of civil engineering is likely to be enhanced if personal aptitudes, interests,
and aspirations resonate with the unique and special
attributes of civil engineering.
The Next Steps

Having completed its work with the publication of this
report, the BOK Committee has been disbanded. While this
report is now completed in its first edition, updates are likely
and will be prepared as needed. The current version of this
report is available at the ASCE website (www.asce.org/
raisethebar).
Building on the BOK foundation, the newly formed Curricula Committee is finding and creating programs that will
help to fulfill the BOK and the Accreditation and Licensure
Committees are moving forward in essential Policy Statement 465 implementation efforts. The BOK presented in
this report is also being used in implementation of the ASCE
specialty certification program.
The work of the Accreditation, Curricula and Licensure Committees, as well

as the initial implementation of ASCEs specialty
certification, is building on
the BOK.
Closing Thoughts
ASCE recognizes that expanding the civil engineering BOK
through additional education and enhanced experience, as a
prerequisite for licensure, probably cannot be fully implemented without somewhat similar modifications affecting
other engineering disciplines. Engineering licensure in the
U.S. is typically generic, rather than discipline-specific, and
education and experience requirements are generally the
same for all engineering disciplines. The ASCE encourages
societies representing other engineering disciplines to also
consider the necessity for and ramifications of raising the
bar in the long-term interest of maintaining public safety,
health and welfare.
The ASCE encourages societies representing other

engineering disciplines to
also consider the necessity for and ramifications
of raising the bar in the
long-term interest of
maintaining public safety,
health and welfare.
The BOK Committee thanks TCAP3 and the ASCE Board of

Direction for the opportunity to serve. Defining the what,
how, and who of the BOK needed to enter the practice of
civil engineering at the professional level (licensure) in the
21st century was challenging, but also satisfying, because
implementation of the BOK will markedly strengthen the
civil engineering profession.
Increasingly, newly licensed civil engineers will possess a
broader and deeper suite of knowledge, skills, and attitudes
that will enable them to more effectively function in the
highly challenging civil engineering environment of the
coming decades. They will be better prepared to:
Hold paramount public safety, health, and welfare,
The BOK will prepare

tomorrows licensed civil
engineers to proactively
function in the challenging national and global
environment of the coming decades.
9
Participate in the formulation ofas well as the implementation ofprograms and projects related to their
expertise,
Guard the natural environment and create a sustainable

built environment,
Conceive, plan, design, and manage large civil infrastructure systems including transportation, water, wastewater,
structures, land use, energy, and security,
Integrate an increasingly diverse workforce,
Lead global technology development and transfer, and
Grow personally and professionally throughout their

careers.
It is a great profession. There is the fascination

of watching a figment of the imagination emerge
through the aid of science to plan on paper.
Then it brings jobs and homes it elevates the
standard of living and adds to the comfort of life.
That is the engineers high privilege.
Herbert Hoover, engineer, author, humanitarian
and 31st U.S. President
10
Introduction
The beginning is the most important part of the work.

Plato, Greek philosopher
Foundation for This Report:

The Changing Civil Engineering Landscape
In October 1998 the ASCE Board of Direction adopted Policy Statement 465, which began as follows: The ASCE supports the concept of the masters degree as the First
Professional Degree (FPD) for the practice of civil engineering at the professional level. The ASCE Board formed the
Task Committee for the First Professional Degree (TCFPD)
in October 1999 and charged it with developing a vision of
full realization of ASCE Policy Statement 465 and a strategy for achieving this vision.

developing and organizing a plan to implement
ASCE Policy Statement
465.
Policy Statement 465 focused on the designation of a masters as the first professional degree. However, in the
TCFPDs view, the question was not what should be the first
professional degree but instead what should be the educational prerequisite for the practice of civil engineering at the
professional level, that is, licensure. The TCFPD recommended that the focus should be changed to establishing the
prerequisite educational requirements for licensure and
practice at the professional level. Accordingly, Policy Statement 465 was re-titled as Academic Prerequisites for Licensure
and Professional Practice and revised to read: The American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) supports the concept of
the masters degree or equivalent (MOE) as a prerequisite
for licensure and the practice of civil engineering at the professional level. The ASCE Board of Direction unanimously
adopted the revised Policy Statement 465 in October 2001.
The entire policy, an issue discussion, and rationale are
included as Appendix A.
11
The current four-year

bachelors degree is
becoming inadequate formal academic preparation
for the practice of civil
engineering at the professional level in the 21st
century.
The TCFPD concluded in its report1 dated October, 2001,

that the fundamental issue addressed by Policy Statement
465 is that the current four-year bachelors degree is becoming inadequate formal academic preparation for the practice
of civil engineering at the professional level in the 21st century. Stated in another way, the TCFPD concluded that formal education beyond the bachelors degree would be
necessary to fulfill the BOK.
There are a number of important issues behind the adoption
of Policy Statement 465 and the TCFPDs fundamental conclusion that todays four-year bachelors degree is becoming
inadequate. These are summarized below.
A New Skill Set and Mind Set for a New Century

We must prepare for the
world that will be, not the
one that is or was.
Civil engineering must restructure its 150-year-old educational model to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Future practitioners must be prepared to recognize and
manage increased complexity. Education beyond the current
four-year bachelors degree will provide the next generation
with the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to ensure
the high standards of the profession and protect public
safety, health, and welfare.
Education for a Complex Future

of projects, from pre-project planning with varied stakeholders to building with minimum environmental and community disturbance. The 2001 ASCE report Engineering the
Future of Civil Engineering1 (www.asce.org/raisethebar)
highlights the significant and rapid changes confronting the
profession, while recent events have demonstrated our vulnerability to human-made hazards and disasters. The risks
and challenges to public safety, health, and welfare will continue to escalate in complexity, and the civil engineering
profession must respond proactively.
A Long Way to Go
Engineering graduates
need greater design proficiency, more knowledge of
technologys role, and
improved understanding
of business, economics,
and management.
The National Research Council (NRC) recently published a

report2 citing three serious concerns with engineering
graduates. Many have little knowledge of the design process, inadequate knowledge of the role of technology in
their professions, and little knowledge of business, economics, and management. These issues cut to the core of
civil engineering. Graduates who do not understand The
12
Big Picture may not be able to provide safe, practical

designs in a complex future.
Fewer Credits
Civil engineers are expected to simultaneously possess
broader capability and greater specialized technical competence than was required of previous generationsa nearly
impossible challenge with fewer required college credits.
Students earn at least 20 fewer credits than did their counterparts in the 1920s. While they take comparable proportions of mathematics, science, and general education,
todays students complete, on average, 18 fewer credits of
engineering topics. That is a whole semester less of technical
education at a time when, by almost universal agreement,
the complexity of the modern engineering project escalates.
How can tomorrows civil engineers design safe, cost-effective projects, accounting for greater complexity and uncertainty, with less formal education?
Credits required for graduation have decreased

while project complexity
has increased.
The reduction in technical education for civil engineers due

to declining credit hour requirements is evidenced in a
number of ways. First, the requirement for attaining core
engineering knowledge in other disciplines, particularly in
thermodynamics and electrical circuits, has been in decline
for a number of decades. Partly because of this reduction in
the breadth of technical education, the National Council of
Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) recently
initiated an evaluation of core knowledge attainment within
the engineering profession. NCEES wants to align education, examination and professional practice needs with technical knowledge across disciplines.
Second, there has been slippage in basic technical course
requirements within civil engineering sub-disciplines. An
example is transportation engineers who have not been
required to take surveying courses. Therefore, they lack basic
knowledge in geometrics, as pointed out recently by the
American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) in its
input to the Engineering Licensure Qualifications Task
Force (ELQTF).
Third, the practice of civil engineering has become increasingly more complex technically in the past 30 years, yet the
technical content of the undergraduate curriculum has not
changed substantially during that period. How can more
complex technical issues, resulting from decades of engineering research and technology-driven changes in professional
13
practice, be added to an otherwise over-full undergraduate

curriculum in the face of declining credit hour requirements?
Growing Complexity
To maintain what we have
as we plan and build for
the future, civil engineers
will have to apply creative
technologies and solutions.
The nations (and worlds) infrastructure has grown increasingly mature, dense, technically complex and interconnected, especially in urban areas. To maintain what we have
as we plan and build for the future, civil engineers will have
to apply creative technologies and solutions.
Fortunately, compared with a few decades ago, there are
numerous new tools and techniques to address project challenges. Yet the ever-expanding body of scientific knowledge
and resulting engineering technology is not without consequences. The vast increase in technologies, materials, and
processes available to the civil engineer has become daunting. While cost-effective technologies provide more accurate
and reliable information, someone must still interpret the
data in its ever-expanding detail while sufficiently understanding the consequences of its adoption and application.
Greater Accountability
This complexity emerges in an era when the public is playing a more active role in private and public projects alike,
through more open planning processes, environmental regulations, and elevated community expectations that place
greater responsibility on those executing project developments. To be sure, this involvement from end-users and
stakeholders provides valuable input, but it adds an element
of complexity to the way projects are conceived, planned,
designed, and built.
As the complexity in society and projects mounts,
the risk to public safety,
health, and welfare
increases.
Complexity and the difficulties of managing may contribute

to misapplication and unsafe practices. As the complexity in
society and projects mounts, the risk to public safety, health,
and welfare increases.
Relevance to this Report

More education for civil
engineers means a safer,
better future for the
greater public who rely on
the value, judgment, and
services the profession
provides.
14
To effectively manage the complexity of the future and to

make informed, ethical, and safe decisions in the face of rising uncertainty, ambiguity, and increased stakeholder
involvement, civil engineers require additional fundamental
knowledge. More education for civil engineers means a
safer, better future for the greater public who rely on the
value, judgment, and services the profession provides.
The preceding serves as background for the BOK work

described in this report.
Formation of and Charge to

the BOK Committee
The ASCE created the Task Committee on Academic Prerequisites for Professional Practice (TCAP3) in October 2001 to
build on the work of the TCFPD. TCAP3 was charged to
develop, organize, and execute a detailed plan for full
realization of ASCE Policy Statement 465. With the formation of TCAP3 Policy Statement 465 was moving from the
study phase to the implementation phase.

developing, organizing,
and executing a plan to
implement ASCE Policy
Statement 465.
As one step in carrying out that charge, TCAP3 formed the

BOK Committee in May 2002. Members of the committee
are presented in Appendix B. The BOK Committee was
charged to:
BOK development is a key

early step in implementation of Policy Statement
465.
Define the body of knowledge (BOK) needed to enter

the practice of civil engineering at the professional
level (licensure) in the 21st century. Address the role
of experience in the licensure preparation process.
Design and/or identify bachelors plus masters or 30
credits (B+M/30) programs plus experience that will
implement the BOK in the early part of the 21st Century. Describe the role of faculty, practitioners, and
students in imparting the BOK by means of B+M/30
programs. Seek input from and support for the preceding from forward-looking academics and practitioners.
The committee defined the BOK as the knowledge, skills,
and attitudes necessary to become a licensed professional
civil engineer.
Definition of B+M/30&E
The BOK to be defined in support of ASCE Policy Statement
465 applies explicitly to those civil engineering educational
tracks intended to prepare tomorrows civil engineering student to become a practicing (licensed) professional engineer.
The committee expects that the majority of BSCE graduates
will want to eventually become licensed, and will, therefore,
plan formal education paths to help fulfill the BOK.
15
The BOK will be fulfilled by

a combination of prelicensure education and
experience.
Bachelors Plus Masters or 30 Credits and B+M/30 refer

to the total post-secondary education that helps to fulfill the
BOK required for licensing and entry into the professional
practice of civil engineering. Experience (E), which is also
part of the charge, refers to structured and progressive postbaccalaureate engineering experience accomplished before,
during, and/or after completion of the M/30. For additional
explanation of these terms, refer to Appendix C.
Other Education Options

The BOK is for those future
members of the civil engineering community who
want to practice at the
professional level, that is,
become licensed.
The CAP3 and the BOK Committee recognize that there has
been and probably always should be a richness and variety in
civil engineering education. Implementation of Policy Statement 465 should not detract from that valuable attribute of
the profession. Other bachelors and/or masters civil engineering options are possible and desirable but may not fulfill
the BOK needed for implementation of Policy Statement 465.
One example might be a BSCE followed by a traditional
engineering science-oriented masters degree. Such an
undergraduate-graduate program could meet an individual
career need while not providing the entire BOK. That would
not preclude the holders of those degrees from becoming
licensed engineers because there could be many paths to fulfillment of the total BOK.
Some practice-related outcomes of the BOK which might
not be part of a traditional masters program may be
achieved in the undergraduate program or perhaps in one or
more additional courses in the masters program.
Purpose of Report
The purpose of this report is to present the recommendations of the BOK Committee and, secondarily, to describe
the process used to arrive at those recommendations. Presented here are the committees BOK views and recommendations arranged by three themes; 1) what should be taught
and learned, 2) how it should be taught to and learned by
civil engineering students, and 3) who should teach and
learn it. Stated differently, the three elements of the BOK, as
recommended by the committee and described in this
report, are:

and who elements.
16
Content defined in terms of knowledge, skills, and attitudes;
Curricula and co-curricular and extra-curricular

approaches, methodologies, and techniques; and
Faculty and student characteristics.
The committees primary effort was the what because it is

needed before moving on to the how and the who. Using the
what as defined in this report, CAP3 and its constituent
committees will refine the what while focusing on further
developing the how and the who.
The committee devoted

most of its efforts developing the what element of
the BOK.
Audience
The BOK Committee hopes that the report, or portions of
it, will be read by a broad and varied audience including
ASCE leaders, ASCE members, civil engineering and other
educators, licensure officials, accreditation personnel,
employers, representatives of other engineering organizations, leaders of other professions, and other stakeholders.
Accordingly, the report is designed to be useful to a wide
range of potential users.
This report is designed to

be used by a broad and
varied audience.
The Abstract presents the reports essence. The Executive

Summary summarizes the essential recommendations and
supporting suggestions. A comprehensive description of the
committees approach and its findings, recommendations,
and suggestions form the body of the report. Highly detailed
information appears in appendices.
Guiding Principles
When embarking on its task of defining the BOK necessary
to achieve the goals of ASCE Policy Statement 465, the BOK
Committee established three primary principles in guiding
its work. First, the approach would be future-oriented, that
is, focused on the needs of civil engineers well into this
century.
Three principles guided

the committees work:
orientation toward the
future, broad interpretation of practice, and institutional flexibility.
Second, the committee adopted a broad interpretation of

practice to encompass the many and varied functions that
are performed by civil engineers. And finally, the Committee
recognized the need for institutional flexibility in fulfilling
the BOK. These three principles are described in more
detail, below.
17
Orientation toward the Future

The committee was charged with defining the BOK needed
for professional civil engineering in the 21st century. Therefore, while implementing its charge, the Committee considered the likely nature of infrastructure, environmental
problems and opportunities decades ahead. The Committee
avoided being overly bound by todays conditions.
The committee considered the likely nature of

infrastructure, environmental problems and
opportunities decades
ahead.
Possible scenarios include sea level rise, sharp decline in oil

supplies, increased globalization (clients, employees, partners,
projects), resurgence of nuclear power plants, mining of landfills, user fee-based transportation, privatization, increased
multi-modal transportation, technology breakthroughs (e.g.,
nano, biological and information technologies), a much larger
senior population, and the need to interact more effectively
with an increasingly sophisticated and demanding public.
To serve as benchmarks against which tomorrows possibilities could be based, TCAP3 assembled civil engineering education and practice statistics, which are presented in
Appendix D. As another means of understanding the past
and present, and thus being in a better position to prepare
for the future of civil engineering, the committee prepared
the bibliography included as Appendix E.
Broad Interpretation of Practice

The preceding charge includes the expression practice of
civil engineering at the professional level which is taken
from Policy Statement 465 (see Appendix A). As indicated in
the policy, practice of civil engineering at the professional
level means, practice as a licensed professional engineer.
Given the forward focus of the committees charge and the
changes that are likely to occur with movement well into the
21st century, the BOK to be defined by the committee must
be both broad and deep.
Subject to the licensure
stipulation, the practice of
civil engineering at the
professional level is
broadly interpreted.
The spectrum of possible interpretations of practice considered by the Committee ranged from a narrow view focusing on the design function to a broad interpretation
encompassing many and varied functions commonly
encountered within civil engineering. The committee chose
a position closer to the latter, recognizing that one of our
professions attractive attributes is the rich variety of important and challenging roles and functions it offers.
The committees definition of practice includesbut is not
necessarily limited toplanning, design, investigation,
teaching, applied research, management, public administra-
18
tion, construction, and operations. The civil engineering

professions BOK must support all of these functions.
The BOK Committee recognizes that some members of the
civil engineering community3 may not need or want to
practice civil engineering at the professional level, that is,
practice as licensed professional engineers. Therefore, they
need not fulfill the BOK. Examples are technicians; technologists; individuals who perform fundamental research;
holders of BSCE degrees who pursue careers outside of the
engineering profession (e.g., business, law, medicine, armed
forces, and pre-college teaching).
The BOK Committee recognizes that some members of the civil

engineering community
may not need to or want
to practice as licensed professional engineers.
Civil engineering community members who choose roles

and functions such as the preceding would not, if personal
or career changes require, be barred from licensure. However, if they decided to seek licensure, they would be
expected to acquire the additional education and/or experience needed to fulfill the BOK.
Institutional Flexibility in Fulfilling the BOK

From the outset, while the committee envisioned high
expectations in terms of defining a BOK consistent with the
broad and demanding future-oriented change, the committee also envisioned flexibility in many aspects of implementing the BOK. Examples of areas in which flexibility could
occur and, in fact, should be encouraged, as the BOK is
implemented are:
Teaching methods,
Faculty education and experience,
Modernizing curricula,
Course content and timing throughout the B+M/30

process,
Teaching and learning delivery and access systems,
Relative emphasis on technical depth (e.g., many structural engineering courses) or on professional practice
breadth (e.g., project management).
Knowledge will increasingly be the coin of the

realm with flexibility the
byword in acquiring it.
Flexibility respects and builds on each institutions culture,

traditions, and strengths. The litmus test for flexibility is
compatibility of the B+M/30 with the BOK.
For additional discussion of flexibility, refer to the section of
this report titled Comments on Outcomes 12 through 15
(pages 36-37). Institutional flexibility in designing B+M/30
19
programs and individual flexibility in selecting or assembling B+M/30 programs are stressed.
Approach
The BOK Committee
approached its assigned
project in a systematic
fashion.
The BOK Committee approached this BOK project in a systematic fashion. This section describes the process by which
this report was generated and by which comments on it were
solicited and incorporated.
Work Plan
The BOK Committee developed a project work plan, consisting of key tasks and target completion dates. The work
plan was updated and extended as the committees work
proceeded. It typically included completed, in-process and
planned tasks and deliverables.
The work plan included studying the BOK approaches used
by other professions and entities. For documentation of this
aspect of the Committees research see its white paper titled
Moving Toward a Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the
21st Century: Background.4
Correspondents
Correspondents contributed significantly to the
substance of this report.
The BOK Committee formed a correspondents group to

review draft materials, respond to questions, and otherwise
provide ideas and information for consideration by the
committee. The correspondents group provided a means of
feedback throughout the process and proved to be an effective feature of the committees approach.
Correspondents are mostly civil engineers from the public
and private sectors and academia interested in the BOK
aspects of ASCE Policy Statement 465. A list of correspondents is included as Appendix F.
Conferences, Workshops, Articles and Papers

Using a variety of mechanisms, the committee proactively interacted with
stakeholders.
20
Another element of the committees approach was participation in key conferences and workshops and writing BOK
focused articles and papers for selected publications within
and outside of civil engineering. These activities provided
another means of moving stakeholders from awareness to
understanding and soliciting input and broadening support.
Lists of completed and planned conferences and workshops
and articles and papers appear in Appendix G.
BODY OF KNOWLEDGE
What Should Be
Taught And Learned?
Engineers must be society-wise

as well as technology-wise.
Warren J. Viessman, Jr., environmental engineer
Defining and explaining the civil engineering BOK for the

21st century was one of the most difficult challenges facing
the BOK Committee. To help define the BOK, the committee first identified desired outcomes taking into account the
guidelines described above and studies4 of BOK models used
by other professions and entities.
By outcomes, the committee means knowledge, skills, and
attitudes necessary to become a licensed professional civil
engineer. The committee ultimately defined 15 outcomes
without consideration of the courses, semesters, faculty
expectations, cooperative education, co- and extra-curricular activities, access and delivery systems, and other administrative and logistical aspects of teaching and learning the
outcomes. For example, topics listed in the outcomes could
appear in more than one course, one course could contain
many of the outcomes, and, conceivably, one outcome could
encompass an entire course. This section of the report
describes the methods the committee used to define what
should be taught and learned and then defines the desired
outcomes.
To help define the BOK, the

committee first identified
desired outcomes, that is,
knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to
become a licensed professional engineer.
BOK Defined by Outcomes

The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology
(ABET) is an organization of member societies in engineering and engineering-related fields. As part of its mission, the
ABET accredits educational programs and promotes quality
and innovation in education.
The committee chose

ABETs 11 outcomes as the
starting point for its BOK
deliberations.
21
As the starting point for its BOK deliberations, the committee chose ABETs 11 outcomes5 (listed in Appendix H) for
four main reasons:
ABET outcomes are consistent with and partially fulfill

the intent of ASCE Policy Statement 465.
The outcome approach recently adopted by ABET places

more emphasis on desired quality results and less on prescriptive inputs.
The accreditation community invested considerable

effort in exploring options and moving to the outcomes
model. Building on this foundation was more prudent
than heading in a new direction.
The academic community is familiar with the outcomes

approach.
The draft ASCE commentary on program criteria6 was also

reviewed, as was the literature.
The committee soon discovered that carrying out
its charge required a
broader and deeper statement of outcomes than
that provided by the ABET
outcomes.
Although the committee began with the ABET outcomes, it

was not constrained by them in breadth and/or depth. The
committee soon discovered that carrying out its charge
required a broader and deeper statement of outcomes than
that provided by the ABET outcomes, even when existing
program criteria for civil and similarly named engineering
programs were considered. As shown in Figure 1, the final
set of desired outcomes consists of the 11 ABET outcomes, a
single depth outcome, and three breadth outcomes.
Much more of a future civil

engineering curriculum
would be devoted to the
single additional depth
outcome than to the three
additional breadth outcomes.
The amount of curricula that would be devoted to the single

additional depth outcome and the three additional breadth
outcomes is not proportional to the number of outcomes. In
fact, much more of a future civil engineering curriculum
would be devoted to the single additional depth outcome
than to the three additional breadth outcomes.
Levels of Competence Definitions

Integrating B+M/30 with E in BOK fulfillment begins with
the premise that B+M/30 lays the foundation for all outcomes and builds the superstructure for some. Experience,
that is E, builds the superstructure for the other outcomes.
In this section, the BOK committee proposed the competence level required for each of the 15 outcomes to attain
professional licensure.
Three levels of competence
further explain the BOK.
Knowledge, skills, and attitudes can exist at many different

levels of capability and usefulness. The BOK distinguishes
22
Figure 1. The 15 outcomes in the recommended BOK

consist of the ABETs 11 outcomes plus one depth
outcome and three breadth outcomes.
CE BOK
in terms of = 11 ABET +
outcomes
outcomes
3 Breadth outcomes
1 Depth
(project management,
outcome
+ construction, and asset
(specialized
management; business
technical area)
and public policy and
administration; and
leadership)
Note: Each outcome is supported by a commentary that elaborates on and

illustrates the outcomes intent for civil engineering practice. Commentaries and competency levels are essential parts of the outcomes.
the following three broad levels of competence for individuals intending to become licensed professional civil engineers:
Level 1 (Recognition) represents a reasonable level of

familiarity with a concept. At this level, the engineer is
familiar with a concept, but lacks the knowledge to specify and procure solutions without additional expertise.
For example, an engineer might recognize that a particular architectural plan poses significant construction difficulties without having the expertise to devise improved
construction or design alternatives.
Level 2 (Understanding) implies a thorough mental grasp

and comprehension of a concept or topic. Understanding
typically requires more than abstract knowledge. For
example, an engineer with an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility should be able to identify
and to communicate ethical issues arising from a practical case study.
Level 3 (Ability) is a capability to perform with competence. An engineer with the ability to design a particular
system can take responsibility for the system, identifying all
the necessary aspects of the design, and match objectives
with appropriate technological solutions. As an engineer
develops, the engineers abilities also develop so that more
challenging and difficult problems can be solved.
Although the words recognition, understanding, and ability

appear in the ABET outcomes, they are not defined there.
The committee determined that definitions were needed as
shown by subsequent discussion of how the BOK could be
taught and learned.
Given the importance of the pre-licensure BOK to maintaining competence and achieving career success, licensed civil
23
engineers would be encouraged to continuously enhance

mastery of the BOK by improving abilities in some outcomes and moving from recognition and understanding
toward demonstrated ability and beyond with other outcomes. In addition, new outcomes may be appropriate as
careers evolve.
The 15 Outcomes
The BOK is presented in this section in the form of outcomes and commentaries developed by the BOK Committee. The parenthetic notation at the end of the first 11
outcomes indicates correspondence to ABETs 11 outcomes.
Commentaries explain
outcomes; they are not
prescriptive.
The purpose of the commentaries is to elaborate on and illustrate each outcomes intent. The commentaries are not
intended to be prescriptive. The outcome-commentary format provides what the committee views as a desirable deliverable for stakeholders: a list of succinct outcomes, each linked
for illustrative purposes to an explanatory commentary.
Outcomes are viewed as being applicable over a long period
of time (e.g., years). In contrast, some illustrative topics
mentioned in commentaries will be ephemeral, requiring
modification in response to technological advances and
other changes.
The 15 outcomes broaden
and deepen ABETs current
11 outcomes.
The outcomes collectively prescribe the necessary depth and

breadth of knowledge, skills, and attitudes required of an individual aspiring to enter the practice of civil engineering at the
professional level (licensure) in the 21st century. Relative to
todays basic undergraduate civil engineering programs, the
outcomes prescribe additional breadth and more technical
depth. The 21st century civil engineer must demonstrate:
1. an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science,
and engineering. (ABET a)
Commentary: A technical core of knowledge and breadth
of coverage in mathematics, science and civil engineering
topics is stressed in this outcome. Underlying the professional role of the civil engineer as the master integrator
and technical leader are most of the following:
mathematics3 through differential equations, probability
and statistics, calculus-based physics, biology, chemistry,
ecology, geology/geomorphology, engineering economics, mechanics, material properties, systems, geo-spatial
representation, and information technology.
24
Increased exposure to or emphasis on biological systems,

ecology, sustainability, nanotechnology, and information
technology is expected to occur in the 21st century. In
imparting the common technical core, students should
understand the fundamentals of several recognized
major civil engineering areas. (Note: The portion of this
commentary which states students should understand
the fundamentals of several recognized major civil engineering areas differs from ABET Program Criteria for
Civil and Similarly Named Engineering Programs7 which
calls for proficiency in a minimum of four recognized
major civil engineering areas.)
2. an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as
analyze and interpret data. (ABET b)
Commentary: Civil engineers frequently design and conduct field and laboratory studies, gather data, create
numerical and other models, and then analyze and
interpret the results. Licensed civil engineers should be
able to do this in at least one of the evolving or current
major civil engineering areas. Examples are traffic, geotechnical, and water quality investigations.
3. an ability to design a system, component, or process to
meet desired needs. (ABET c)
Commentary: Critical design methodology and process
elements include problem definition, scope, analysis,
risk assessment, environmental impact statements, creativity, synthesizing alternatives, iteration, regulations,
codes, safety, security, constructability, sustainability,
and multiple objectives and various perspectives.
Other important design or design procurement elements are bidding versus qualifications-based selection
(QBS); estimating engineering costs; interaction
between planning, design and construction; design
review; owner-engineer relationships; and life-cycle
assessment. Understanding large-scale systems is important, including the need to integrate information, organizations, people, processes, and technology. Design
experiences should be integrated throughout the professional component of the curriculum.
4. an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
(ABET d)
Commentary: Licensed civil engineers should be able to
lead a design or other team as well as participate as a
25
member of a team. This requires understanding team

formation and evolution, personality profiles, team
dynamics, collaboration among diverse disciplines,
problem solving, and time management and being able
to foster and integrate diversity of perspectives, knowledge, and experiences.
5. an ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering
problems. (ABET e)
Commentary: Assessing situations in order to identify
engineering problems, formulate alternatives, and recommend feasible solutions is an important aspect of the
professional responsibilities of a civil engineer.
6. an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility. (ABET f)
Commentary: The civil engineer is to hold paramount
public safety, health, and welfare. A thoughtful and
careful weighing of alternatives when values conflict is
crucial to the responsible conduct of engineering.
Therefore, civil engineers practicing at the professional
level need to demonstrate an understanding of and a
commitment to practice according to the seven Fundamental Canons of Ethics and the associated Guidelines
to Practice Under the Fundamental Canons of Ethics.
7. an ability to communicate effectively. (ABET g)
Commentary: Effective communication includes listening, observing, reading, speaking, and writing and
requires understanding of the fundamentals of interacting effectively with technical and nontechnical or lay
individuals and audiences in a variety of settings. Professional civil engineers need to be versatile with mathematics, graphics, the worldwide web and other
communication tools.
8. the broad education necessary to understand the impact
of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.
(ABET h)
Commentary: Professional civil engineers need to appreciate, from historical and contemporary perspectives,
culture, human and organizational behavior, aesthetics
and ecology and their impacts on society including the
history and heritage of the civil engineering profession.
9. a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in,
life-long learning. (ABET i)
26
Commentary: Life-long learning mechanisms available

for personal and professional development include
additional formal education, continuing education,
professional practice experience, active involvement in
professional societies, community service, coaching,
mentoring, and other learning and growth activities.
Personal and professional development can include
developing understanding of and competence in goal
setting, personal time management, communication,
delegation, personality types, networking, leadership,
the socio-political process, and effecting change.
In addition to the preceding, professional development
can include career management, increasing discipline
knowledge, understanding business fundamentals, contributing to the profession, self-employment, additional
graduate studies, and achieving licensure and specialty
certification.
10. a knowledge of contemporary issues. (ABET j)
Commentary: To be effective, professional civil engineers
should appreciate the relationship of engineering to
critical contemporary issues such as multicultural globalization of engineering practice; raising the quality of
life around the globe; the growing diversity of society;
and the technical, environmental, societal, political,
legal, aesthetic, economic, and financial implications of
engineering projects.
11. an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice. (ABET k)
Commentary: This includes the role and use of appropriate information technology, contemporary analysis
and design methods, and applicable design codes and
standards as practical problem-solving tools to complement knowledge of fundamental concepts. Also
included is the ability to select the appropriate tools for
solving different types and levels of problems.
12. an ability to apply knowledge in a specialized area
related to civil engineering.
Commentary: For a professional civil engineer, specialized technical coursework (or the equivalent) is necessary. Examples of specialized technical areas include
environmental engineering, structural engineering,
construction engineering and management, public
works management, transportation engineering and
27
water resources management. Civil engineering specializations in non-traditional, boundary, or emerging

fields such as ecological engineering and nano-technology are encouraged.
13. an understanding of the elements of project management, construction, and asset management.
Commentary: Efforts of the professional civil engineer
often lead, in the context of projects, to construction of
structures, facilities and systems that, in turn, must be
operated and maintained.
Project management essentials include project manager
responsibilities, defining and meeting client requirements, risk assessment and management, stakeholder
identification and involvement, contract negotiation,
project work plans, scope and deliverables, budget and
schedule preparation and monitoring, interaction among
engineering and other disciplines, quality assurance and
quality control, and dispute resolution processes.
Important construction elements are owner-engineercontractor relationships; project delivery systems (e.g.,
design-bid-build, design-build); estimating construction costs; bidding by contractors; labor and labor management issues; and construction processes, methods,
systems, equipment, planning, scheduling, safety, cost
analysis and cost control.
Asset management seeks effective and efficient long-term
ownership of capital facilities via systematic acquisition,
operation, maintenance, preservation, replacement, and
disposition. Goals include optimizing life-cycle performance, minimizing life-cycle costs, and achieving maximum stakeholder benefit. Tools and techniques include
design innovations, new construction technologies,
materials improvements, geo-mapping, database management, value assessment, performance models, webbased communication, and cost accounting. Including
asset management recognizes that civil engineers, during
their careers, are likely to be involved with some aspect of
capital facilities management.
14. an understanding of business and public policy and
administration fundamentals.
Commentary: The professional civil engineer typically
functions within both the public and private sectors that
28
requires at least an understanding of business, public

policy, and public administration fundamentals.
Important business fundamentals topics as typically
applied in the private, government and non-profit sectors include legal forms of ownership, organizational
structure and design, income statements, balance sheets,
decision (engineering) economics, finance, marketing
and sales, billable time, overhead, and profit.
Essential public policy and administration fundamentals include the political process, public policy, laws and
regulations, funding mechanisms, public education and
involvement, government-business interaction, and the
public service responsibility of professionals.
15. an understanding of the role of the leader and leadership principles and attitudes.
Commentary: Leading, in the private and public arena
which differs from and complements managing
requires broad motivation, direction, and communication knowledge and skills. Attitudes generally accepted
as being conducive to leadership include commitment,
confidence, curiosity, entrepreneurship, high expectations, honesty, integrity, judgment, persistence, positiveness, and sensitivity. Desirable behaviors of leaders,
which can be taught and learned, include earning trust,
trusting others, formulating and articulating vision,
communication, rational thinking, openness, consistency, commitment to organizational values, and discretion with sensitive information.
Attitudes
As stated earlier, the BOK is defined as the knowledge, skills
and attitudes necessary to become a licensed professional
engineer. Knowledge, skills and attitudes are the essential
components of the what dimension of the BOK. Individual
experiences and review of studies prompted the BOK committee to include attitudes in the BOK.

component of the what
dimension of the BOK.
By attitudes, the committee means ways in which one thinks

and feels in response to a fact or situation. Attitudes reflect
an individuals values, how he or she sees the world, not in
terms of sight, but in terms of perceiving, interpreting and
approaching. As noted by John C. Maxwell,8 your behavior
follows your attitude. The two cannot be separated.
29
Some potential attitudes might be considered skills or be

heavily dependent on skills. Examples are creativity and assertiveness that, for purposes of this report, are viewed as skills.
Attitudes are explicitly mentioned in Outcome 15 (an
understanding of the role of the leader and leadership principles and attitudes). Many desirable attitudes are listed in
the Outcome 15 commentary.
Prevailing Thoughts
Attitudes were found to be
integral parts of the BOK
of other professions and
specialties such as architecture, accounting and
project management.
There is a wealth of study and professional opinion on the

role of attitude, that is, thinking and feeling, in individual
and group achievement. The BOK used these professional
opinions as support in its rationale for including attitudes as
one of the three essential components of the BOK.
As the committee reviewed the licensing and certification
practices of other professions and specialties4, attitudes were
found to be integral parts of the BOK and of other professions and specialties such as architecture, accounting and
project management.
Additionally, the committee reviewed studies that empirically investigate the role of attitude in life achievement. Psychiatrist and author M. Scott Peck8 claims that how one
thinks determines the workings of the unconscious mind.
According to Peck, the conscious mind makes decisions
and translates them into actions. The unconscious mind
resides below the surface; it is the possessor of extraordinary
knowledge that we arent naturally aware of.
Motivational author Napoleon Hill10 devoted decades to
studying successful people. He concluded that the only common denominator amongst successful people was the mental ability to vividly picture a goal. According to Hill, the
subconscious mind will translate into its physical equivalent,
by the most direct and practical method available, any order
which is given to it in a state of belief, or faith that that order
will be carried out.
Studies point to the essential role of attitudes in

individual and group
achievement.
30
English writer James Allen11 speaks of the power of the conscious mind in his book As a Man Thinketh. He refers to it as a
garden, which may be intelligently cultivated or allowed to
run wild and observes that regardless of whether the mind is
cultivated or neglected, it will bring forth. Allen goes to say,
thought-forces and mind-elements operate in the shaping
of a persons character, circumstances, and destiny. In other
words, as you deeply think so will you become.
Joseph Murphy12, a theologian and scientist using the conscious mind-subconscious mind nomenclature, focuses on
the power of how one thinks and feels. His book portrays
the subconscious mind as being receptive to the conscious
mind, impressionable, sleepless, non-reasoning, creative,
eager, action or execution-oriented, intelligent, idea rich,
and ageless. Murphy explains: If you imagine an objective
clearly, you will be provided with the necessities, in ways you
know not of, through the wonder-working of your subconscious mind.
Civil Engineers and the Topic of Attitudes

Relative to attitudes, knowledge and skills are typically more
comfortably and frequently discussed by civil engineers and
probably by many other professionals. This tendency is
explained, in part, by the objectivity and specificity of
knowledge and skills in contrast to with the subjectivity and
ambiguity of attitudes.
Knowledge and skills are,

relative to attitudes, more
comfortably and frequently discussed by civil
engineers and probably
many other professionals.
For example, mention knowledge of conservation of mass or

skill in using spreadsheets to civil engineering professionals
and most will understand the topics and agree with their
professional relevance. In contrast, engage civil engineering
educators and practitioners in discussions of attitudes such
as curiosity, integrity, and sensitivity, and the individual
words are likely to have highly-varied interpretations.
Some civil engineering educators and practitioners will question the relevance of certain attitudes to civil engineering
education and practice. Others will agree that while knowledge and skills are integral to civil engineering education,
attitude development lies outside of the educators responsibility. Some may argue that tomorrows civil engineering students need not develop constructive attitudes as an integral
and essential part of their education and experience.
A position taken by some is that an understanding of ethical
responsibility (Outcome 6) is sufficient to address the attitudes issue. Others counter this position with the argument
that attitudes associated with ethical behavior, while essential
to practicing civil engineering at the professional level, are not
sufficient. Finally, some will argue that attitudes are important but believe that attitudes, and the values they reflect, are
largely fixed by the time a young person enters college.
Clearly, attitudes appropriate to the BOK are difficult to
describe and articulate. Furthermore, attitudes and their
31
impactspositive and negativeare easier to see in others

than in ourselves.
As noted in the later sections of this report titled Body of
KnowledgeWho Should Teach It? and Body of KnowledgeWho Should Learn It?, the committee believes that
the success of implementing the future civil engineering
BOK will depend on the characteristics of those who teach
and those who learn. Those characteristics include recognition of the importance of attitude and the willingness and
ability to teach, learn and apply them.
Attitudes as Catalysts
Despite the complications of subjectivity and ambiguity, the
BOK Committee members are convinced that attitudes
must join knowledge and skills as one of the three essential
components of the what dimension of the civil engineering
BOK.13 The manner in which a civil engineer views and
approaches his or her work is very likely to determine how
effectively he or she uses hard-earned knowledge and skills.
Some attitude sets are
contagious and have productive catalytic and synergistic effects within the
professional practice of
civil engineering.
Certain attitudes empower individuals to find ways to apply

and build on their knowledge and skills. Furthermore, these
desirable attitudes increase the receptivity of team members,
colleagues, clients and other stakeholders to welcome and
work with the individual and/or accept his or her findings
and recommendations.
Some attitude sets are contagious and have productive catalytic and synergistic effects within the professional practice
of civil engineering. These attitude sets accelerate careers
and are essential to those who aspire to lead.
Other attitudes, or attitude sets, tend to limit an individuals
ability to fully appreciate the potential application of what
they know, that is, their knowledge and skills. These undesirable attitudes hamper the individuals effectiveness within
the typically complex team and stakeholder environments.
Certain attitudes tend to isolate an individual, stifle his or
her efforts, agitate others and deny everyone the full benefit
of the individuals knowledge and skills.
At the personal level, constructive attitudes enable each civil
engineer to practice enlightened stewardship with his or her
unique set of knowledge, skills and other traits. Sadly, we
sometimes see gifted individuals whose professional performance falls far short of their potential. Valuable knowledge
and skills are underutilized and careers are much less than
they could be. The missing ingredient? Constructive attitudes.
32
Knowledge and skill, while necessary, are not sufficient to

effect a fully functioning professional civil engineer. Because
of their catalytic effect, certain attitudes are also needed and
should be taught as part of the process of fulfilling the BOK.
Knowledge and skill, while

necessary, are not sufficient to effect a fully functioning professional civil
engineer.
Which Attitudes?
Having stated the critical role of attitudes in the civil engineering BOK, a question naturally arises, Which attitudes
should be included in the BOK? As a partial answer to the
question, the committee assembled the following list of attitudes, that is, value-driven feelings or emotions, possibly conducive to effective professional practice of civil engineering:
Commitment
Confidence
Consideration of others
Curiosity
Entrepreneurship
Fairness
High expectations
Honesty
Integrity
Intuition
The committee assembled

a list of attitudes possibly
supportive of effective
professional practice.
Judgment
Optimism
Persistence
Positiveness
Respect
Self esteem
Sensitivity
Thoughtfulness
Thoroughness
Tolerance
Professional attitudes are intimately linked with the corporate or professional culture in which a civil engineer operates. Therefore, the institution itself, whether it is a civil and
environmental engineering department at a university, a
corporation, or a governmental entity, should define the set
of attitudes it believes to be most appropriate to the most
effective functioning of its civil engineers. A given civil engineering department or employer might select that a subset
of appropriate professional attitudes and integrate them into
their education or development programs. The selected attitudes might be tailored to the departments or employers
principal focus or function such as design, construction,
research, or public works.
Can Attitudes Be Taught and Learned?

We can teach about attitudes, just as we can teach about any
topic. The essential question is, Can attitudes be learned?
Furthermore, what does that learning mean?
While teachers and mentors can convey and students and
young engineers can understand the concept of a given constructive attitude, getting students to adopt and practice the
The essential question is:

can attitudes be learned
as a result of the teaching
and, furthermore, what
does that learning mean?
33
attitude is a different and more challenging matter. But this

is not new; moving students and young engineers from
understanding something to acting on it is also challenging
in other aspects of their educational and work experience.
Numerous attitude teaching and learning opportunities naturally occur, or can be made to occur, during the B+M/
30&E process. Such opportunities occur within formal education via lecture, case studies of exemplars and failures,
journaling, and faculty example; within co- and extra-curricular activities; and during pre-licensure experience.
Within formal education for example, consider an assignment to research and write a report on an existing major
civil engineering project. If cast in terms of high expectations and high support, we can teach attitudes such as confidence, curiosity, judgment. Possibly, some of these attitudes
will be learned.
In the extra-curricular area, encouraging civil engineering
students to run for elected office in student organizations
promotes attitudes such as confidence, entrepreneurship,
and positiveness.
Consider the civil engineers pre-licensure experience. A
civil engineering firms construction manager can offer to
take the young civil engineer to a construction site meeting
with an owner and the contractor. On the way to the meeting, the construction manager can describe the projects
challenges and opportunities and how the construction
manager will address them. The overall coaching experience,
including a post-meeting review of what actually happened,
will further expose the young civil engineer to helpful attitudes such as sensitivity, positiveness, and tolerance. The
preceding examples address the importance of teaching
about and possibly learning attitudes in a cognitive sense.
The extent to which we can teach such attitudes and cultivate, develop, and reinforce them within formal education,
within co- and extra-curricular activities, and during prelicensure experience is limited only by the commitment and
imagination of those who teach and mentor tomorrows
civil engineers.
The curricula design project described on pages 42-43 of
this report addresses attitudes. Within the framework of
each institutions culture, tradition, and strengths, those
projects identify desirable attitudes and explain how they
can be taught and possibly learned within the various institutions.
34
Figure 2. Success in teaching and learning and in

applying the 15 outcomes will be highly dependent on
supportive teacher and learner attitudes.
Commitment
Tolerance
Thoroughness
Confidence
Consideration of others
Thoughtfulness
Curiosity
Sensitivity
Self esteem
Entrepreneurship
15
Outcomes
Fairness
High expectations
Respect
Honesty
Positiveness
Persistence
Integrity
Intuition
Optimism
Judgment
The committee believes that civil engineering departments

and employers should adopt the approach that understanding the value and meaning of certain attitudes is a minimum
education and development goal. Perhaps some departments and employers will shoot higher, that is, strive to have
students understand, internalize and act on constructive
attitudes.14
In the absence of a proactive effort within universities and
employers to teach about desirable attitudes, many civil
engineering students and young civil engineers are likely to
miss the opportunity to acquire such attitudes. Some are not
mature enough to identify and pursue preferred attitudes on
their own. Worse yet, lack of focused attitude teaching and
learning efforts in universities and within employers may
lead to teaching and learning of undesirable attitudes to
the detriment of all.
Civil engineering departments and employers

should adopt the
approach that understanding the value and
meaning of certain attitudes is a minimum education and development
goal.
Connecting Attitudes to Outcomes

Successful demonstration and application of constructive
attitudes will underscore the achievement of most of the 15
outcomes. Figure 2 illustrates the idea of a set of constructive
attitudes surrounding and being available for teaching,
learning, and applying the 15 outcomes.
Learning about and hopefully embodying constructive attitudes will contribute

to the wholeness of tomorrows civil engineer.
35
The committee recommends that each employer and university civil and environmental engineering department
select a set of constructive attitudes, possibly calling them
professional attitudes. They may draw on the example list
provided earlier and use other sources. They should teach
about the selected attitudes within the B+M/30&E process.
By so doing, helpful attitudes will be available to support
individual outcomes as needed. More importantly, learning
about and hopefully embodying constructive attitudes will
contribute to the wholeness of tomorrows civil engineer.
A Lifelong Effort
Fulfilling the BOK is the
first step in lifelong professional learning for the
future civil engineer.
The 15 outcomes and the commentaries describe the level of

BOK ability, understanding and recognition, necessary to
become a licensed professional civil engineer in the 21st century. Given the importance of the BOK to maintaining competence and achieving career security, civil engineers would
be encouraged to continuously enhance their mastery of the
BOK by improving abilities in some outcomes and moving
from recognition and understanding toward demonstrated
ability and beyond with other outcomes. In addition, new
outcomes may be appropriate as careers evolve.
Comments on Outcomes 12 Through 15

Because outcomes 12 through 15, as described above, are
new relative to the existing ABET outcomes, the BOK Committee thought additional relevant comments were warranted.
Outcome 12 reflects the
additional technical specialization embodied in
ASCE Policy Statement
465.
36
Outcome 12 reflects the additional technical specialization

embodied in ASCE Policy Statement 465. That specialization can be in a technical or professional area. The manner
in which this outcome is achieved would vary widely among
educational providers and among future civil engineers. As
implementation of Policy Statement 465 proceeds, CAP3 is
collaborating with ASCEs institutes as they move forward
with specialty certification.15 Using the BOK, CAP3 is helping define discipline specific technical topics needed to fulfill
Outcome 12. Outcome 12 is the principal means by which
the civil engineering BOK presented in this report can be
tailored to each of the many and varied disciplines within
civil engineering.
A high degree of flexibility in meeting Outcome 12 is

expected at the institutional level. The specialty or specialties selected would reflect each institutions culture, traditions and strengths. For example, one civil engineering
department might select a technical specialization, such as
structural engineering or an emerging technology, while
another might select a professional practice topic such as
public works. (Refer to the earlier discussion of institutional
flexibility on pages 19-20.)
A high degree of individual and institutional flexibility is expected in

fulfilling the new technical
specialization outcome.
A high degree of flexibility in meeting Outcome 12 is also

expected at the individual level. That flexibility could occur
in two ways: first, in the choice between focusing on technical specialization or a broader professional practice area,
second, in the choice of the teaching/learning mode. With
respect to the second kind of flexibility, the future civil engineer would expect to find a wide variety of masters degree
programs which, when coupled with his or her bachelors
degree, would help provide the BOK. Or the individual
could design a program of approximately 30 semester credits
of acceptable graduate level or upper level undergraduate
courses to supplement his or her bachelors degree and help
provide the BOK.
Outcomes 13-15 reflect the additional professional and
practice knowledge, skills, and attitudes embodied in ASCE
Policy Statement 465. More specifically, these new outcomes
address project management, construction, asset management, business and public policy/administration, and leadership.
Outcomes 13-15 reflect

the additional professional and practice knowledge, skills, and attitudes
embodied in ASCE Policy
Statement 465.
Some Thoughts for

Civil Engineering Educators
As faculty leaders in civil engineering departments begin to
think about expanding their programs, or coordinating their
undergraduate programs with graduate programs at other
institutions, to meet the expanded civil engineering BOK for
the 21st century, they are urged to build on those program
elements that meet the current ABET criteria. Why? Because
the civil engineering BOK of the future includes the current
ABET outcomes as the foundation upon which the future of
our profession will be constructed.
37
Designers of tomorrows
curricula are urged to take
a fresh look at both undergraduate and graduate
programs.
In preparing curricula for the future, consideration should

be given to the whole, that is, both undergraduate and graduate experience in the context of the institutions culture,
traditions and strengths. Some desirable program elements
that are now in the undergraduate portion (e.g., a second
structural design course) might be more appropriate for the
graduate program. Similarly, many aspects of outcomes 1315 (e.g., leadership) might be introduced in the undergraduate program. Moving to B+M/30&E as the means to fulfill
the BOK provides an opportunity to broaden the undergraduate teaching and learning experience. This is essentially impossible, with the present baccalaureate degree
model, without sacrificing technical content. A holistic
approach provides an opportunity to take a fresh look at
undergraduate programs.
The new breadth outcomes might be incorporated largely in the

undergraduate curricula.
The 15 outcomes build on the ABET 11 outcomes by adding

technical depth and professional breadth both of which are
not typically included in undergraduate civil engineering
programs. Once additional engineering education requirements are implemented beyond the bachelors level for civil
engineers, as a prerequisite for licensure, a number of
opportunities for undergraduate curriculum changes would
be presented. This might include, for example, incorporating professional practice outcomes 13, 14 and 15 in undergraduate curricula to at least the recognition level. Other
potential undergraduate course changes are strengthening
the basic technical requirements in core engineering topics
in other disciplines and providing more technical breadth
within the civil engineering discipline.
The new depth outcome

could be largely fulfilled at
the graduate level.
Additional education beyond the bachelors level might be a

flexibly interpreted Outcome 12. As long as the full requisite
BOK is incorporated within the combined educational program, many possibilities arise for use of education beyond
the bachelors level. In structural engineering, that education might incorporate the many structural engineering and
related courses beyond the bachelors level currently
required to prepare a competent structural engineer for
practice. For an engineer pursuing a career in public works
management, the additional education might include some
additional technical coursework, but primarily focus on
additional professional practice breadth in the areas associated with Outcomes 13, 14 and 15 above.
38
BODY OF KNOWLEDGE
How Should It Be
Taught And Learned?
We know where most of the creativity,

the innovation, the stuff that draws productivity lies
in the minds of those closest to the work.
Jack Welch, Chairman of General Electric
BOK Teaching and Learning Modes

The 15 outcomes described in the previous section prescribe
the depth and breadth of knowledge, skills, and attitudes
that must be demonstrated by an individual desiring to
enter the practice of civil engineering at the professional
level (licensure). Having defined what constitutes the BOK,
consider how the BOK will be acquired, that is, how it
should be taught and learned.
After High School and Before Licensure

One way to approach the issue of how is to note the broad
means of teaching and learning available to the potential
civil engineer after high school but before professional practice. Four teaching and learning modes are:
Undergraduate study typically leading to a BSCE;
Graduate study or equivalent (e.g., the approximately 30

credits route);
Co-curricular and extra-curricular activities; and
Post-BS engineering experience prior to licensure.
Formal undergraduate
education, graduate study
or equivalent, co- and
extra-curricular activities,
and experience will be
used to fulfill the BOK.
The BSCE could provide an attractive and appropriate liberal education for the 21st century. On earning the degree, a
graduate would have many varied and attractive options.
Examples are:
The BSCE could become a

viable liberal education
for the 21st Century.
39
Working in the civil engineering public or private sector

in a support role not requiring a license.
Gaining experience creditable toward licensure with the

intent of eventually earning a practice-oriented masters
degree or approximately 30 appropriate credits as a full or
part-time student and doing so in a traditional manner,
via distance learning or in some combination of the two.
Studying and entering another field such as business, law,

or education.
If the student chooses to continue his or her education with

an ABET/EAC-accredited masters program, the undergraduate degree need not be accredited. Alternatively, if the student chooses to follow his or her BSCE with the
approximately 30 credits option, the undergraduate degree
must be ABET/EAC-accredited. The masters or approximately 30 credits can be accomplished by traditional campus-based courses or by distance learning delivery systems.
Post-BS experience is likely to be preceded by co-curricular
cooperative education and internships, summer para-professional employment, and part-time or full-time para-professional employment prior to earning a degree. Increased
university-employer collaboration can help ensure that
essentially all civil engineering students have the opportunity to participate in various types of experienced-based
learning and increase awareness of the depth and breadth of
the civil engineering profession.
The students formal education process, especially support
of Outcome 4 (multi-disciplinary teams), Outcome 7 (communication), Outcome 13 (the project management portion), and Outcome 15 (leadership), can be significantly
enhanced by participation in extra-curricular activities.
Some examples could be holding an office in a university
student organization, managing a project for the ASCE Student Chapter or Chi Epsilon Chapter, participating in a concrete canoe or steel bridge competition, helping with
Habitat for Humanity, running for a campus political office
and writing for the campus newspaper. Civil engineering
faculty and administrators should strongly encourage their
students to contribute, learn and grow through extra-curricular activities.
The post-BS period prior to licensure provides a rich opportunity to continue making voluntary contributions to the
community and profession. In so doing, the civil engineer
grows personally while helping others.
40
The committee assumes that forward-looking civil engineering faculty and their colleagues will continue to explore
improved pedagogy. The need to do so is driven, in part, by
ABETs shift from inputs to outputs; from what is taught to
what is learned. In the course of its work, the committee
assembled some resources for improving teaching effectiveness, included in Appendix I.
The committee assumes

that forward-looking civil
engineering faculty and
their colleagues will continue to explore improved
pedagogy.
The Beginning of Life-long Learning

The previously discussed four teaching and learning modes
address education and experience after high school and
before licensure. This is a relatively short segment of the civil
engineers professional life. Education and experience, however, should continue after licensure, and be a life-long
endeavor. Life-long learning might be viewed as a cyclical
process. New knowledge and skills are learned and lead to
new experiences. The experiences are evaluated, and, in
turn, lead to or stimulate acquiring new knowledge and
skills. The cycle repeats itself throughout ones career and
life.
Education and experience

should continue after
licensure and be a lifelong endeavor.
Existing Graduate Programs

The BOK Committee gathered information on a variety of
current masters degree programs. This was an initial
attempt to better understand the rich diversity of existing
graduate programs. (This effort was preceded by a TCAP3
sponsored study16 of BSCE programs in the U.S. One conclusion of that study especially relevant to this report is that
existing BSCE programs do not, nor could they be expected
to, provide the civil engineering BOK of the future.) One
purpose of gathering information about existing masters
degree programs was to develop ideas, supported by examples, on ways to organize and deliver graduate degrees or
graduate-level courses that, when combined with bachelors
programs, could provide the BOK.
Existing BSCE programs do

not, nor could they be
expected to, provide the
civil engineering BOK of
the future.
The BOK Committee gathered program details on entrance

and coursework requirements for over 90 masters degrees
programs throughout the United States, including masters
degrees offered in traditional (fulltime and part-time) and
distance learning modes. These details are presented in
Appendix J and summarized below.
The BOK Committee gathered program details on

entrance and coursework
requirements for over 90
masters degrees programs throughout the
United States.
There are a variety of masters degrees available in the civil

engineering fields including the following:
41
1. Masters of Civil Engineering

2. Masters of Construction Management
3. Masters of Engineering Science
4. Masters of Engineering in Civil Engineering
5. Masters of Science
6. Masters of Science in Engineering Management
7. Masters of Science in Civil Engineering
Each of the seven degrees typically has two options:
Option A coursework and development and presentation of a thesis/design project
Option B coursework only
Universities have generally required an undergraduate grade

point average (GPA) of 3.0 (a minimum in the last 60-90
semester credits). The Graduate Record Examination (GRE)
requirement is more subjective. The GRE requirements
range from 550 to700 and the 50th percentile to the 80th
percentile.
The entrance degree requirements also vary significantly by
university/college. The entrance requirements vary from a
BSCE to a degree in mathematics or sciences.
Development of New Undergraduate/

Graduate Curricula Compatible with the BOK
Curricula design projects
are a step toward implementation of the BOK.
The BOK Committee started the process of engaging civil

engineering faculty, other faculty, and administrators who
want to be leaders in educational innovation and reform.
These leaders are being asked to evaluate the BOK, determine how much of it is or could be included in their bachelors programs, and design on paper the additional
education necessary to fulfill the BOK, when supplemented
with pre-licensure experience. These leaders are also being
asked to identify challenges, barriers and opportunities associated with BOK implementation. Understandably, the preceding is occurring within the framework of each
institutions culture, tradition, and strengths.
An overview of the curricula design project is included as
Appendix K. It describes the projects purpose and process,
which begins with a workshop on each campus. Appendix K
also provides an example agenda for the workshop.
42
Figure 3. Public and private universities across the U.S. are

participating in the curricula design project.
Public
Private
California State
University,
Los Angeles
Colorado
State
University
Case Western
Reserve
University
Wentworth
Western
Institute of
Michigan
Technology
University
Iowa State
University
Rose-Hulman
Institute of
Technology
Bucknell
University
University of
Louisville
University of
Oklahoma
The committee strategy is to work closely with interested, varied civil engineering departments and then widely disseminate
their curricula designs to serve as examples of how to provide
much of the BOK. Partner institutions are shown in Figure 3
along with their public or private status. Additional information is provided in Table 1. The ten participating institutions
include public and private institutions that are either researchoriented or primarily undergraduate institutions.
In addition to more focused efforts with individual civil
engineering departments, the committee is also seeking
opportunities to work with groups representing a cross-section of departments. Regional meetings of department
heads provide one mechanism for this approach.
The committee strategy is

to work closely with interested and varied civil engineering departments and
then widely disseminate
their curricula designs to
serve as examples of how
to provide much of the
BOK.
21st Century Education Opportunities

For most of the last century formal civil engineering education was limited to on-campus work. However, in the future,
engineers completing a baccalaureate education and wishing
to obtain the BOK will find numerous opportunities available, opportunities that will permit obtaining additional
education in a number of ways, on a flexible schedule, and
tailored to individual needs and interests.
As shown in Figure 4, the advent of the computer age, the
mobility of the work force, a press for continuing education,
43
Table 1. A variety of institutions are leading the way by designing undergraduate/

graduate degree tracks intended to fulfill much of the civil engineering BOK.
Category
Institution
Department
Date of Initial
Workshop
Contact Person
Public
Research
Oriented
Colorado State
University
Civil
Engineering
11/25/02
Dr. Thomas Siller

Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
tjs@engr.colostate.edu
Iowa State
University
Civil and
Construction
Engineering
1/21/03
Marlee A. Walton, PE
Adjunct Professor
marlee@iastate.edu
University of
Oklahoma
Civil
Engineering
and Environmental Science
1/13/04
Dr. Robert Knox, PE

Director
rknox@ou.edu
Dr. Randall L. Kolar, PE
kolar@ou.edu
Graduate degree
accredited
University of
Louisville
(See Appendix L)
Civil
Engineering
10/16/03
Dr. Mark French, PE

Chair
mnfren01@gwise.louisville.edu
Dr. J. P. Mohsen
jpm@louisville.edu
Primarily
Undergraduate
California State
University, Los
Angeles
Civil
Engineering
4/28/03
Dr. Young C. Kim, PE

Chair
ykim@calstatela.edu
Western Michigan
University,
Civil and
Construction
Engineering
7/16/03
Dr. James Nelson, PE

Chair
jk.nelson@wmich.edu
Research
Oriented
Case Western
Reserve University
Civil
Engineering
3/31/03
Dr. Robert L. Mullen, PE

Chair
rlm@po.cwru.edu
Primarily
Undergraduate
Bucknell
University
Civil and
Environmental
Engineering
5/20/03
Dr. Jeff Evans, PE

Chair
Evans@antigen.bucknell.edu
Rose-Hulman
Institute of
Technology
Civil
Engineering
8/25/03
Dr. Kevin G. Sutterer, PE

Associate Professor
kevin.sutterer@rosehulman.edu
Dr. Michael A. Robinson, PE
Assistant Professor
Michael.robinson@rosehulman.edu
Wentworth
Institute of
Technology
Civil,
Construction,
and
Environment
9/30/03
Dr. Michael Kupferman, PE

Department Head
kupfermanm@wit.edu
Private
44
Figure 4. Future civil engineers will have access to many

Distance
Distance
For
Profits
On
Campus
Distance
NonProfits
Colleges &
Universities
On
Campus
Distance
Agencies
On
Campus
On
Campus
and opportunities to develop new educational experiences

outside the traditional settings will offer the 21st century
engineers rigorous, innovative, cost-effective, and convenient methods of increasing their knowledge.
It is possible today to obtain a masters in civil engineering
through distance learning, only rarely setting foot on a campus. Major engineering firms and governments agencies
operate their own universities and colleges, educating
and training their employees in both technical and nontechnical fields. Most or all of the post-baccalaureate education required for the BOK can now be accomplished
through distance learning delivery systems.
Distance learning will

increasingly improve
accessibility to high quality formal education.
In addition, in the future, part of the BOK might be delivered through high-quality, standards-based educational programs offered by firms, government agencies, professional
societies, and for-profit educational organizations. Engineers seeking to acquire the BOK will find many means
available to them.
Distance Learning as a Means of Accessing

Some of the BOK
The United States Distance Learning Association (USDLA),
a non-profit association formed to promote the development and application of distance learning, defines distance
learning as the acquisition of knowledge and skills through
mediated information and instruction, encompassing all
technologies and other forms of learning at a distance.
According to the Distance Learning Resource Network,17 a
Distance education is
instructional delivery that
does not constrain the student to be physically
present in the same location as the instructor.
45
dissemination project for the U.S. Department of Education,

distance education is instructional delivery that does not
constrain the student to be physically present in the same
location as the instructor.
Distance learning is ubiquitous. In some form or another, it
is part of almost every modern college course. Syllabi and
lecture notes now appear on the Internet. On September 30,
2002, MIT placed courseware from dozens of its courses
(including civil engineering) on the internet for public use
and it plans to eventually make material from over 2000
courses available.18 E-learning, web-based learning, online
learning, and distance learning are widely used as interchangeable terms, although there are meaningful differences
among them.
Audio, video, and computer technologies are more common
delivery modes. All of these methods are under constant
review and there are advocates and supporters of each.19
Over time, the best of electronically based distance learning
methodologies will emerge. Until that point, there will be
starts and stops, successes and failures.
Most colleges and universities today use distance
learning to supplement
classroom activity in oncampus undergraduate
and graduate courses.
Most colleges and universities today use distance learning to

supplement classroom activity in on-campus undergraduate
and graduate courses.20 Distance learning programs for graduate education have been operating for several years in nonengineering programs at prestigious schools throughout the
nation. For example, one can obtain a MBA from Dukes
Fuqua School of Business21 in this manner. A new medical
program being developed at the University of Dundee Scotland is developing the International Virtual Medical School,
which will combine distance learned course work with local
level clinical work to educate future doctors.22
By late 2002, 17 universities were offering masters or doctoral degrees in civil engineering through distance learning
and many others were considering joining this number. For
example, Georgia Tech now offers an ABET/EAC accredited
Master of Science in Environmental Engineering through
distance learning.23
Every distance learning program is different. Some require a
mix of on-campus attendance and Internet-based activity.
Others are entirely Internet-based. Some universities require
a period of on-campus residency. Most involve contact with
specific faculty members who grade the performance of the
students and mentor them as they move through courses
and programs.
46
No longer are there questions about the efficacy of such

delivery means as a part of the educational experience. Distance learning is making participation in on-campus courses
easier and is opening educational opportunities to those
who cannot, for a variety of reasons, participate in on-campus work.
Distance learning is opening educational opportunities to those who

cannot, for a variety of
reasons, participate in oncampus work.
Non-Traditional Education Providers

A variety of methods are employed outside of colleges and
universities to educate and train engineers. The high cost of
full-time education, the time demands of on-campus
courses and the need to more closely relate the course material to the needs of the student, have prompted government
agencies, engineering firms, and for-profit organizations to
develop and offer a variety of courses that do not now
receive any formal academic credit. They are joined by professional societies that offer continuing education courses to
their members and the public. As these latter courses
develop, they become closer in content and rigor to similar
courses offered by colleges and universities.
A variety of methods are

employed by government
agencies, engineering
firms, professional societies, and for-profit organizations to educate and
train engineers.
Large federal agencies have been in the education business

for decades. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
educates its personnel through a wide variety of short and
long duration courses offered at its research centers and centers of specific expertise.24 The USACEs world-renowned
Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) offers, as part of the
overall Corps program, more than 20 courses ranging from
risk analysis to use of the numerous models they have developed. The U.S. Army, in educating its officer corps, has had
long established programs that provide for officers attending
engineer professional military education programs to obtain
college credit for military courses taken in association with
local colleges and universities.
The Department of Transportation operates the National
Highway Institute (NHI) to develop and deliver training and
education to the transportation community.25 NHI offers
courses of its own and in affiliation with colleges and universities. Courses range from business oriented (e.g., forecasting demands) to technical (e.g., hydraulics).
Major engineering firms such as Camp Dresser & McKee,26
Jacobs Engineering, Parsons Brinckerhoff, and PBS&J27 have
established corporate universities and colleges or equivalents
to which they send their employees for technical and management education. Courses are taught by instructors
Employer corporate universities could, subject to

rigor provisions, help
tomorrows civil engineers
fulfill the BOK.
47
assigned to the college or university, outside experts or

members of the firm whose expertise is widely recognized.
The corporate college or university is able to focus the material where it is of most utility to its students, offer courses at
the most practicable times and dates for the employees, and
display to the employees attending the courses the talent
that exists within the organizations.26
While at present these courses are given as part of continuing professional development programs or for employee
development programs and not for academic credit, some
are no doubt of the same nature as those given for credit in
non-corporate universities.
With the advent of increased interest in continuing professional development, many professional societies offer distance learning or on-site instruction to their members or to
paying outsiders. ASCE itself advertises seminars, computer
workshops, on-site training and self-study/distance learning
opportunities.28 A number of private firms also offer tailored educational programs for organizations. To teach these
courses, the firms use a combination of in-house faculty and
faculty members brought in from business and institutions
of higher learning.29
The line is blurring
between traditional education offered at institutions of higher learning
and education provided
by firms, agencies, professional societies and forprofit educational organizations.
The line is blurring between traditional education offered at

institutions of higher learning and education provided by
firms, agencies, professional societies and for-profit educational organizations. If non-traditional education suppliers
are to become alternatives to traditional colleges and universities, the engineering profession will have to address the
challenge of certifying program quality.
Colleges and universities are accredited by regional accrediting agencies sanctioned by the U.S. Department of Education.
In addition, engineering programs frequently seek ABET
accreditation, which is recognized by most licensing boards as
a certification of the quality of the accredited program.
Most non-traditional education programs offer corporate
certificates of attendance or some record of continuing education units (CEUs) or professional development hours
(PDHs) obtained. There is no universal standard by which
to measure the quality of these programs although several
organizations have been established to bring rigor to these
programs.
The Accrediting Commission of the Distance Learning and
Training Council accredits 79 institutions that are in compliance with ethical, educational and business standards.30
48
The International Association for Continuing Education

and Training (IACET) has been reviewing courses for compliance with its educational standards since 1968 and has a
comprehensive program to carry out these reviews leading
to authorization for a course to be given an IACET CEU.
IACET considers itself to be the caretaker of the CEU.31
Other organizations, including the military, tie courses they
offer into courses offered by local colleges and universities,
greatly simplifying the accreditation and record keeping.
Non-traditional education providers may not immediately
become accepted as providers of the course work required
for the BOK. However, as the pressure to acquire the BOK
grows and recognition is made of the synergy that could
occur by having non-traditional education providers offer
courses, civil engineers should expect to see a move in that
direction. This movement should not represent any decrease
in quality or rigor of the course being offered, but should
represent a legitimate method for employers to assist both
the development of their employees and their obtaining the
post baccalaureate education needed to practice civil engineering at the professional level.
As the pressure to acquire

the BOK grows and recognition is made of the synergy that could occur by
having non-traditional
education providers offer
courses, civil engineers
should expect to see a
move in that direction.
One challenge will be to develop the means for participants

in non-traditional education programs to present to licensing boards the credentials that will permit the boards to
accept the work undertaken in these non-traditional programs. Some possible mechanisms are course equivalencies
and articulation agreements.
Experience and the BOK

Essential Role of Experience in Fulfilling the BOK
Formal education is one of the two principal modes for fulfilling the BOK. The other is experience. Learning via experience supplements learning via formal education. The latter
can effectively introduce the BOK and the former brings the
BOK to fruition. Knowledge is seasoned by experience.
Learning via experience

supplements learning via
formal education. Experience is essential to fulfilling the BOK.
There are many important reasons for including experience

in the BOK, such as:
Elements of the BOK cannot be completely fulfilled by

the B+M/30 or expanded formal education.
Experience can be an effective teacher. Both education

and experience are learning processes. While formal edu-
49
cation tends to be most effective in cognitive learning,

experience tends to be most effective in skill learning.
Learning via experience supplements learning via formal
education. The latter can effectively introduce the BOK
and the former brings the BOK to fruition. Knowledge is
seasoned by experience. Focused experience can be the
leaven that raises the B+M/30 to the level needed for successful completion of the licensing examination.
Professional knowledge and skill development (e.g., communication, leadership, management, teamwork) needs
to be improved within the civil engineering community.
These require learning and application via experience.
While a foundation for these knowledge and skills can
and should be laid in the classroom, it is not possible in
classroom settings to adequately teach the manner in
which these professional capabilities are applied in varying contexts and circumstances.
By better defining the role of experience in fulfilling the

BOK, the civil engineering profession provides guidance
to individual civil engineers in obtaining experience and
guidance to employers in providing experience.
The post-high school period during which the BOK is

being fulfilled includes the traditional four-year experience that now must be completed as a condition for licensure. If the four years of experience is not contributing to
fulfilling the BOK, what is its purpose? How can we not
mingle experience with the BOK? Another way of saying
this is to note that the BOK is defined so deeply and
broadly that experience must contribute to its fulfillment.
Minimum Competency Required for Each Outcome

There is some dissatisfaction with the current
licensing board approach
of focusing on the quantity, not quality, of experience.
50
Although quality of experience is considered, licensing

boards currently focus on assessing quantity, not quality.
There is some dissatisfaction with the current approach and
a growing desire to add more structure to experience.
For example, the Engineering Licensure Qualifications Task
Force (ELQTF) of NCEES recommended significant changes
in how experience is evaluated.32 The NCEES plans eventual
distribution of progressive engineering experience guidelines that will stress breadth of experience. Categories being
suggested by ELQTF are: practical application of theory,
management, communication skills, and social implications. The coincidental occurrence of implementation of
ASCEs Policy Statement 465 and ELQTFs experienceCIVIL ENGINEERING BODY OF KNOWLEDGE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
broadening initiative provides a unique opportunity to

raise the bar for the future engineers entire post-high
school to licensure learning process.
To reiterate, B+M/30&E expresses how an aspiring civil
engineer fulfills the BOK. Appendix M presents the Committees initial exploration of potential ways to validate BOK
fulfillment.
The committee position that experience is essential to fulfilling the BOK adds complexity to implementation of Policy
Statement 465. This complexity is similar to that introduced
by the decision to permit the approximately 30 appropriate
credits in B+M/30. However, complexity and how to deal
with it, should not be a major impediment to implementing
Policy Statement 465. The primary driver should be whats
best for the future civil engineer? The BOK Committee
believes that including E as an integral part of the process to
fulfill the BOK is in the best interest of future civil engineers.
The BOK Committee

believes that including E
as an integral part of the
process to fulfill the BOK is
in the best interest of
future civil engineers.
Integrating B+M/30 with E in BOK fulfillment begins with

the premise that B+M/30 lays the foundation for all outcomes and builds the superstructure for some. Experience,
that is E, builds the superstructure for the other outcomes.
BOK fulfillment is achieved through progression of up to
three levels; Level 1 (recognition), Level 2 (understanding),
and Level 3 (ability), as shown in Table 2.
All 15 outcomes (guided by the commentaries) would be
included, to varying degrees of thoroughness, in the B and/
or M/30. That is, responsibility for providing students with
the opportunity to advance to at least Level 1 (recognition)
in all 15 outcomes, and to Level 3 (ability) in some, would
reside within their formal education. For example:
Outcome 1 (an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering) would be achieved in the B
and/or M/30.
Outcome 13 (includes understanding of the elements of

project management) would be taken to Level 1 (recognition) in the B and/or M/30.
Certain outcomes would rely on experience to enable the

pre-licensed engineer to fulfill the BOK. Examples of outcomes that should be completed via experience are:
Outcome 7 (an ability to communicate effectively). Students would go from Level 2 (understanding) obtained in
their formal education to Level 3 (ability) via experience.
51
Table 2. Desired outcomes will be fulfilled by a combination of formal education and

experience.
Level(s) Achieved in
Additional Level Achieved
Formal Education (B+M/30)
by Experience (E)
Recognition
Understanding
Ability
an ability to design and conduct experiments, as
Recognition
well as analyze and interpret data.

Understanding
Ability
an ability to design a system, component or
Recognition
Ability
process to meet desired needs.
Understanding
an ability to function on multi-disciplinary
Recognition
Ability
teams.
Understanding
an ability to identify, formulate, and solve
Recognition
engineering problems.
Understanding
Ability
an understanding of professional and ethical
Recognition
Understanding
responsibility.
an ability to communicate effectively.
Recognition
Ability
Understanding
the broad education necessary to understand the
Recognition
Understanding
impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
a recognition of the need for, and an ability to
Recognition
Ability
engage in, life-long learning
Understanding
a knowledge of contemporary issues.
Recognition
Understanding
an ability to use the techniques, skills, and
Recognition
modern engineering tools necessary for

Understanding
engineering practice.
Ability
an ability to apply knowledge in a specialized
Recognition
area related to civil engineering.

Understanding
Ability
an understanding of the elements of project
Recognition
Understanding
management, construction, and asset
management.
an understanding of business and public policy
Recognition
Understanding
and administration fundamentals.
an understanding of the role of the leader and
Recognition
Understanding
leadership principles and attitudes.
Outcome
1. an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics,
science and engineering.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Notes: Fulfillment of the BOK is achieved through progression of up to three levels: Level 1 (recognition), Level 2 (understanding), and Level 3 (ability). Bold indicates the terminal competency level to be achieved by B+M/30&E as a condition of
licensure.
1. Some of the recognitions in the Column 2 could be elevated one level to understanding and some of the understandings in the last column could be elevated one level to ability. See Outcome 15 as an example.
2. Essentially all of the items in the last column are applicable to all engineering disciplines. Therefore, one application format and review procedure might be used for all licensure applicants.
3. In Outcome 10, knowledge is defined as equivalent to understanding.
52
Figure 5. This BOK profile integrates outcomes, levels of competence, formal

education, and pre-licensure experience.
3
Ability
Post-licensure Education
& Experience
2
Understanding
B + M/30
Postlicensure
additional
outcomes
8
Life-long learning
Professional and ethical standards
Impact of engineering
Outcomes
10 13 14 15
Portion of the BOK to be fulfilled by formal education, that is, by B+M/30

Portion of the BOK to be fulfilled by experience, that is, by E
Additional competency levels and/or outcomes beyond the BOK
Source: Format adapted from Massie33
Outcome 13 (includes understanding the elements of

project management). The students would go from Level
1 (recognition) obtained in their formal education to
Level 2 (understanding) via experience.
A Graphic Representation of the

Civil Engineering BOK and Beyond
The BOK is displayed graphically in Figure 5 as another
means of communicating outcomes, competency levels, and
the role of B & M/30 + E. Figure 5 flows directly from and is
an alternate way of presenting the information in Table 2.
BOK features illustrated in Figure 5 include:
53
Leadership
Business and public policy
Project management, construction

and asset management
Contemporary issues
Communication
Multidisciplinary teams
Engineering problems
11 12
Design
Specialized area of civil engineering
Engineering tools
Experiments/analyze and interpret
1
Recognition
Technical core
Levels of Competence
Post-licensure higher
competency levels
1. All 15 outcomes are to be taken to at least Level 1 (recognition) via formal education. That is, formal education
lays the foundation for all 15 outcomes.
2. The light gray and medium gray (the area below the
heavy line) represent the what dimension of the posthigh school, pre-licensure BOK. Of the 15 outcomes,
nine (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 12,) are to be taken to
Level 3 (ability) through education and/or experience,
and the remaining six (6, 8, 10, 13, 14, and 15) are to be
taken to Level 2 (understanding).
3. For five outcomes (1, 2, 5, 11 and 12), the target competencies for the BOK are fulfilled entirely through formal
education (B+M/30). This is shown with light gray.
4. For the remaining ten outcomes (3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13,
14, and 15), the target competencies for the BOK are
fulfilled through formal education and experience
(B+M/30 and E). The light and medium gray depict
education and experience.
5. While ten outcomes are heavily dependent on experience, the other five outcomes will be enriched by experience.
6. Competencies in some or all outcomes may grow, as
shown by dark gray, to and beyond Level 3 (ability) via
post-licensure experience and/or education.
7. The dark gray area also indicates that additional outcomes (beyond 15) are probable after fulfilling the prelicensure BOK.
Questions and Issues

Outlined in the preceding discussion is the essential role of
experience in fulfilling the BOK and ideas on implementation. Various remaining questions and issues include:
54
Some say experience, or the result of experience, is hard

to quantify or measure. That may be true. However,
knowledge and skills acquired or learned by experience
should be no more difficult to quantify or measure than
knowledge and skills acquired by education. Universities
routinely evaluate what is learned, primarily by examination. Licensing boards can formulate application formats
and review procedures to assure that the applicant possesses progressive and broad engineering experience.
What constitutes experience? What aspects of the BOK

can only and/or best be learned on-the-job and cannot
be effectively taught in a formal academic setting?
How can experience be useful during the B+M/30 experience? Should cooperative education and/or other paraprofessional experience gained during the B and/or M/30
process count toward experience? If so, under what
conditions?
After completion of the BSCE degree, how is experience

different? How is it useful in determining future career
plans? Could and/or should some academic equivalent
credits be given for extensive experience?
Incorporating the Civil Engineering BOK

and Additional Educational Requirements
into the Licensure System
The proposed civil engineering BOK is anticipated to be
incorporated, through ABET activities and otherwise, in both
undergraduate and graduate civil engineering curricula, in a
similar fashion to the current ABET EC 2000 Criteria. Information on the BOK would be provided as guidance by educational institutions and by professional and technical societies
to students who choose to comply with the additional educational requirements through the plus 30 credit route.
Other engineering disciplines will likely have somewhat similar engineering education requirements and Bodies of
Knowledge appropriate to that engineering discipline. The
requisite BOK would form the backbone of undergraduate
and graduate engineering education curricula.
The proposed civil engineering BOK is anticipated to be incorporated,

through ABET activities
and otherwise, in both
undergraduate and graduate civil engineering curricula, in a similar fashion
to the current ABET EC
2000 Criteria.
Suggested Model Law Language Consistent with

ASCE Policy Statement 465
The current NCEES Model Law provides the following as
the minimum educational requirement: the applicant
shall be a graduate of an engineering program of four years
or more accredited by ABET/EAC or the equivalent. Under
the current system, the BOK, evidenced by ABETs eleven
outcomes contained in EC 2000, is incorporated in the four
year ABET/EAC curricula.
Possible Model Law provisions reflecting additional engineering education requirements might be as follows:
55
The following shall be considered as minimum evidence that the applicant is qualified for certification
as an Associate Engineer (presently engineer intern)
with respect to engineering education. The applicant
shall possess:
a) A masters degree in engineering from an ABET/
EAC accredited graduate program, or; (this presumes
future dual level accreditation with a masters degree
from an accredited program becoming the primary
pathway to licensure)
b) A bachelors degree in engineering from an ABET/
EAC accredited undergraduate program, or the
equivalent, and 30 additional credits of upper level
undergraduate or graduate coursework in engineering and/or related professional practice topic areas.
All of the graduate engineering degrees and coursework
noted above could be accomplished in conventional oncampus settings, or could be completed via distance learning. Distance learning education will continue to play an
increasing role in the future education of engineers as discussed earlier in this report.
Implementation of these changes within the licensure system
will require a number of challenges be addressed. Some of
these challenges and potential solutions are discussed below.
Graduate Engineering Program Accreditation

Under current ABET rules, universities must choose
whether to accredit the undergraduate or graduate program.
Two programs having the same name cannot both be
accredited at the same institution. At the present time, most
undergraduate engineering programs in the U.S. are accredited, and most graduate programs are not.
The BOK Committee hopes
that, upon implementation of these changes, that
ABET would modify its
rules to allow dual accreditation of undergraduate
and graduate programs in
engineering at the same
institution.
56
Upon the adoption of new engineering educational requirements similar to those described above, a masters degree
from an ABET-accredited graduate program would become
of significantly more value, as such a masters degree would
necessitate that both the undergraduate and graduate curricula fully meet ABET criteria. A masters degree from an ABET
accredited program would become the new gold standard
for engineering education. The BOK Committee hopes that,
upon implementation of these changes, ABET would modify
its rules to allow dual accreditation of undergraduate and
graduate programs in engineering at the same institution.
Alternate Undergraduate Engineering

Educational Pathways
Many jurisdictions currently allow pathways to engineering
licensure for those who have undergraduate engineering
educations, which differ from the conventional bachelors
degree from an ABET/EAC-accredited program. These
include provisions for engineers educated in other countries, those having bachelors degrees in Engineering Technology, and those who have bachelors degrees in related
sciences, as described below.
Engineers educated in other countries need to be accommodated in the licensure system. At the present, graduates of
engineering programs from Washington Accord countries
are accepted as having the equivalent of an ABET/EAC bachelors degree. Graduates of programs from other countries
are commonly required to provide an equivalency review by
the Engineering Credentials Evaluation International (ECEI,
an ABET affiliate), based on a transcript review. In implementing the BOK, foreign undergraduate degrees would
continue to be treated in the same fashion in satisfying the
undergraduate education requirements outlined in the previously noted Item (b), and that such graduates would also
be required to possess a masters degree or the U.S. or foreign equivalent of 30 acceptable credits beyond the bachelors level. This may necessitate additional equivalency
judgments beyond those presently required.
Engineers educated in
other countries need to be
accommodated in the
licensure system.
Some, but not all, states provide a licensure pathway for those
having bachelors degrees in Engineering Technology accredited by the ABET Technology Accreditation Commission
(TAC/ABET), with added years of experience typically
required prior to licensure. NCEES has taken the position
that the Model Law standard shall be the ABET/EAC bachelors degree, and that the decision to incorporate pathways
for TAC/ABET graduates, and graduates from other degree
programs, is left to each individual jurisdiction. With the
incorporation of additional engineering requirements, the
states which currently recognize TAC/ABET degrees may
consider requiring a TAC/ABET bachelors degree and a masters degree in engineering (or engineering technology) from
an institution which has TAC/ABET-accredited programs.
Some states allow alternate pathways to licensure for those
who have bachelors degrees in related sciences, or other
fields in some cases, and who also have a masters degree in
engineering. This pathway could be fully satisfied by the
masters degree from an ABET/EAC-accredited graduate
57
program as in item (a) above. This would provide assurance

that all undergraduate and graduate engineering curriculum
requirements are met.
Bachelors Plus 30 Credits Option

A licensure pathway may
be created that requires
an EAC/ABET bachelors
degree plus 30 credits.
Item (b) references a licensure pathway based upon an

ABET/EAC bachelors degree plus 30 credits of undergraduate or graduate level coursework beyond the bachelors
degree from an institution or institutions that maintain
ABET/EAC accredited programs. The courses can be in
engineering or in related professional practice topic areas.
The credits earned in total through the bachelors program
and the 30 additional credits might be required to include at
least x credits in math and science, y credits in engineering,
and z credits in professional practice topic areas. This last
category would include, for example (but not necessarily be
limited to), courses in project management, business or
public administration, construction administration, contracts, economics, leadership, ethics, or engineering management.
This concept of including professional practice topic areas is
not included in the Model Law language presented earlier,
but is suggested for consideration to assure that the mix of
courses included in the 30 credits is sufficient to provide
some measure of assurance that the requisite BOK is
attained.
Although many engineering programs in the U.S. have
credit requirements for a bachelors degree in the range of
120-134 semester credits, there are still some engineering
programs that have much higher credit requirements. There
is a potential inequity if, for example, students who were
required to have 149 credits to graduate need to attain 30
additional credits, compared to a graduate required to have
130 credits. The important issue is whether or not the 149
credits would come closer to providing the requisite BOK
for professional practice.
Two concepts have been discussed to address this potential
inequity. The first concept, which has been implemented in
the accounting profession in the U.S., would entail setting a
minimum total number of combined undergraduate and
graduate credits (such as 150 or 160) required for licensure.
The second concept, consistent with the B+30 concept presented herein, would entail provisions for individual boards
58
to consider decreasing the 30-credit requirement if the bachelors degree required credits in excess of an established
threshold, say at 128. B+30 would be required for all bachelors degrees with credit requirements less than the established threshold.
Requests to proportionately decrease the 30-credit requirement might be evaluated by licensing boards on a case-bycase basis for those with credits in excess of the established
threshold. This evaluation would include confirmation that
the additional undergraduate credits earned were in technical and/or professional practice topic areas.
In the future, a variety of high quality educational service
providers (other than universities) may adequately provide
the requisite programs. These may include in-house educational programs sponsored for instance by engineering firms
or by Federal agencies, or educational programs offered by
professional societies. These programs might be considered
adequate to provide the 30 additional credits. However, such
programs would need to be of the same academic extent and
rigor as upper level undergraduate or graduate engineering
coursework.
Requests to proportionately decrease the 30

credit requirement might
be evaluated by licensing
boards on a case-by-case
basis for those with credits
in excess of the established threshold.
If such alternative educational service providers are to count

toward the 30-credit requirement, independent evaluation
and certification service, similar to that performed presently
by the ECEI for foreign degree evaluations, may be necessary. Such a service does not currently exist.
Requiring that each course be evaluated in detail in this
fashion may provide a constraint on the number of available
alternatives. Sufficient flexibility is desirable to allow for
high quality alternate learning modes, while there is a possibly competing desire to assure that the coursework is as rigorous as graduate engineering and engineering management
education, in terms of content, learning and assessment.
Alternate Masters Programs

Credits earned while pursuing a masters degree in a related
professional practice topic area, or an unaccredited engineering masters program, could count toward the bachelors plus 30-credit option. Acceptable related professional
practice topic areas might include, for example, public
administration, engineering management, planning, and
architecture, all of which, when combined with an ABET/
EAC bachelors degree, may be acceptable as a prerequisite
for licensure.
Credits earned while pursuing a masters degree in

a related professional
practice topic area, or an
unaccredited engineering
masters program, could
count toward the bachelors plus 30-credit option.
59
Determining BOK Attainment

TCAP3 deliberated the manner in which State Licensing
Boards would assess whether or not the expanded BOK has
been fulfilled. Under the current licensing system, licensing
boards typically require an applicant to possess an ABET/
EAC bachelors degree or its equivalent, with individual
jurisdictions allowing numerous variations on that theme.
The attainment of the requisite BOK, as evidenced by the EC
2000 criteria, is not a specific requirement of licensure, but
rather is implicit in the possession of the degree. Those
deemed having the equivalent of an ABET/EAC bachelors
degree, including those with foreign degrees, might not have
attained all of the components of the EC 2000 criteria, but
are typically deemed equivalent on the basis of a transcript
(course title) review.
After the implementation of ASCE Policy Statement 465,
attainment of the requisite BOK would be similarly implicit
for those obtaining an engineering masters degree from an
ABET/EAC accredited program. It would be presumed that
the expanded civil engineering BOK had been effectively
incorporated in the universitys accredited program.
Those with ABET/EAC bachelors degrees and a masters
degree from an unaccredited, science/research-based graduate engineering program might not necessarily fully attain
the desired BOK. Similarly, those with an ABET/EAC bachelors degree and a masters degree in a related professional
practice topic area might not attain the additional depth
component envisioned in the expanded BOK.
There is a desire on the part of some TCAP3 members to
include those whose graduate engineering educations are science-based, and who go on to research and/or teaching
careers, to remain on the licensure track to assure that faculty
licensure is encouraged. Any deficiencies in professional practice components in their academic curriculum would presumably be compensated by other strengths. Including many
or all of the non-technical BOK components in ABET/EAC
undergraduate curricula would help to mitigate this concern.
Those who choose to use
the plus 30 credit route
for the graduate education
would have the choice of
taking a variety of courses
from a number of different
60
Those who choose to use the plus 30 credit route for the
graduate education would have the choice of taking a variety
of courses from a number of different education providers.
Educational institutions and professional and technical
organizations would provide guidance as to the range of
courses necessary to provide the BOK. As course selection
would be at the choice of the individual, attainment of the
BOK might vary considerably among individuals. The minimum number of credits in mathematics and science, engineering, and professional practice topic areas might be
considered in order to provide some structure to overall
course selections.
Opinions differ within TCAP3 regarding methods used to
validate attainment of the BOK for those who do not obtain
an ABET/EAC masters degree. Some believe strongly that
BOK attainment should be the deciding factor for licensure
decisions, and that an independent evaluation service
should be provided within an organization such as ABET or
NCEES to assess BOK attainment, after the fact, for engineers who obtain the additional education by the plus 30
credit route.
TCAP3 members who are involved in the engineering licensure system contend that a decision not to license an engineer would not likely survive subsequent legal appeal if the
applicant, for example, possesses an ABET/EAC bachelors
degree, and an engineering masters degree from a major
U.S. university, but is lacking several professional practice
components.
The licensure system is likely to continue to involve decision-making on the basis of degrees, course titles and credits
rather than on a defined BOK. Thus, decisions affecting
applicants careers and livelihoods can be made and
defended on clear rather than subjective criteria. Continuing
to do so may be complicated in the future by the change in
ABET criteria toward outcomes and away from prescriptive
course requirements.
Overall, TCAP3 wishes to establish documentation procedures for the attainment of a requisite BOK as a prerequisite
for licensure as a long-term objective. TCAP3 members
familiar with the licensure system recognize that this is an
area where further analysis is needed.
NCEES is considering the establishment of a non-technical
professional practice examination to be taken immediately
prior to licensure. If such an examination is implemented
and is both rigorous and inclusive of all of the professional
practice topics in the civil engineering BOK, then the fulfillment of the BOK might be presumed by an applicant having
30 additional credits in technical and/or professional practice topic areas and by having successfully passed the professional practice examination.
61
Assuring the Quality of

Graduate Education Institutions
The BOK assumes that,
when implemented,
courses that count
toward the 30 credits will
be of equivalent rigor, content, learning and assessment to those offered by
institutions having EAC/
ABET accredited programs.
The BOK assumes that, when implemented, courses that

count toward the 30 credits will be of equivalent rigor,
content, learning and assessment to those offered by institutions having ABET/EAC accredited programs. It would also
be desirable that courses from high quality universities (e.g.,
a public policy course from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University) be acceptable.
However, it may not be desirable for graduate courses from a
local business education college or from a low-quality distance education provider to count toward the 30-credit
requirement if such courses were not of equal academic
rigor in comparison to universities that have ABET/EAC
accredited programs. There are currently no national
accreditation programs for universities in general which can
be used to judge differing levels of quality. The BOK Committee suggests that individual State Licensing Boards make
decisions on the acceptability of educational institutions.
Other Engineering Disciplines

Engineering licensure in
the U.S. typically is on a
generic basis in that engineers are licensed as professional engineers and
expected to practice
within their area of professional expertise.
Engineering licensure in the U.S. typically is on a generic

basis in that engineers are licensed as professional engineers
and expected to practice within their area of professional
expertise. This practice can and does cross discipline lines in
instances where the engineer is competent to practice in
multiple areas that are typically thought to be within different engineering disciplines.
In generic licensure states, educational requirements are
typically the same for all engineering disciplines. About
nine states currently have discipline-specific licensure,
where an engineer is licensed in a specific discipline, and
must practice only in that discipline, and not in others.
Even in these discipline-specific states, most, perhaps all
have common basic educational requirements for engineers
of all disciplines.
The examination and experience requirements typically
vary, reflecting the discipline in which engineers are
licensed. Within the generic licensure states, there is typically a very strong preference, among State Boards and
practitioners alike, for maintaining the generic licensure
structure.
62
Implementing additional engineering education requirements as a prerequisite for licensure will probably require
that such changes apply across the board to all engineering
disciplines. The ASCE is certainly not specifying what additional engineering education requirements might be appropriate in the long run for mechanical, electrical, and other
engineers.
However, the BOK Committee suggests that the ASCE
encourage societies representing other engineering disciplines to consider the BOK required to practice at a professional level in the future, and to work with the ASCE in
raising the bar in a manner which is effective for all engineering disciplines in continuing to protect public health,
safety and welfare.
Implementing additional
engineering education
requirements as a prerequisite for licensure will
probably require that such
changes apply across the
board to all engineering
disciplines.
Licensure Mobility
Significant progress has been made in recent years through
the NCEES Council Records Program and administrative
revisions in licensing board policies to allow for expedited
comity for licensed professional engineers. It is important to
maintain such mobility enhancements as engineering education requirements are increased. This could be accomplished by establishing a new Model Law Engineer category
for those meeting the increased educational requirements.
It is important to maintain
mobility enhancements as
engineering education
requirements are
increased.
It will also be important to standardize the educational

requirements sufficiently to ensure that an engineer deemed
to have satisfied the requirements outlined in Item (a) (ABET/
EAC masters degree) in any jurisdiction will be deemed to be
qualified in terms of education in all jurisdictions.
For those who follow the plus 30 credit route to licensure,
a decision would likely be required on an individual licensing board basis regarding the acceptability of the institutions
and/or courses. Mobility might be more limited for these
engineers if individual licensure decisions were required in
each subsequent jurisdiction.
Transition details regarding mobility will need to be
addressed. A transition period of five years or so from initial
adoption to full implementation should be considered. Of
particular interest and importance will be a decision to
require additional education for all new applicants as of a
date certain (thus denying licensure as of that date certain to
experienced professional engineers in other states who do
not meet the new educational standards). A grandfather
63
period of some duration applicable to professional engineers

from other states might reasonably need to be provided.

About half of the states
currently require continuing professional development (CPD) for renewal of
licenses for professional
engineers.
About half of the states currently require continuing professional development (CPD) for renewal of licenses for professional engineers. The CPD regulations typically allow credit
for college coursework as well as for activities such as seminars, conventions, conferences, obtaining patents, service as
an officer of a professional society, or publication of papers
or articles.
State regulations typically equate hours spent in these various activities to college semester credits (i.e., 45 professional
development hours spent in seminars or conferences is the
equivalent of one semester credit). Typically, licensing
boards do not evaluate and approve the service providers or
the content of the activities. Many of the activities used for
CPD by professional engineers are not equivalent in rigor,
content, learning and assessment to upper level undergraduate or graduate level engineering courses.
NCEES provides model rules and regulations for CPD that
have been used by many jurisdictions in order to provide
uniformity. The procedures for assigning and equating credits for various activities are therefore in place in many states.
The model rules require that the topic be relevant to the
practice of engineering and that the activities have technical,
ethical or managerial content.
The program described in

previous sections entails
additional engineering
education which is equivalent in rigor, content,
learning and assessment
to graduate engineering
education.
64
The program described in previous sections entails additional engineering education that is equivalent in rigor, content, learning and assessment to graduate engineering
education. The majority of continuing professional development activities presently available in the U.S. has not
reached that level. Some programs from alternate service
providers (firms, agencies, professional societies) may be
shown by independent evaluation to be of equivalent scope
to graduate level education, and might be incorporated in
plus 30 credit education programs as a result.
BODY OF KNOWLEDGE
Who Should Teach It?
A teacher affects eternity;

he can never tell where his influence stops.
Henry Adams, educator, traveler and writer
ASCEs 1995 Civil Engineering Education Conference34 recommended action in four areas: professional degrees, integrated curriculum, faculty development, and practitioner
involvement. ASCE Policy Statement 465, in a broad sense,
addresses all four. For example, the what and how of this
BOK report relate directly to professional degrees and an
integrated curriculum. The who, the subject of this section,
addresses faculty development and the complementary
topic of practitioner involvement.
As noted by ABET, The faculty is the heart of any education
program. Respecting the crucial role of teachers and in
keeping with its charge, the BOK Committee contemplated
the ideal civil engineering faculty of the future and their
even more important role. Who should they be, as individuals and collectively? What will enable them to be successful
in facilitating the accomplishment of the BOK? What are the
characteristics required of educators to aid them in motivating and guiding students to the mastery of the BOK?
Respecting the crucial role

of teachers and in keeping
with its charge, the BOK
Committee contemplated
the ideal civil engineering
faculty of the future and
their even more important role.
Interactions between students and teachers substantially

affect education positively and negatively. Fully 98 percent
of students switching from engineering to another major
cited poor teaching as a major reason for their departure.
Eighty one percent cited inadequate advising, while 55 percent cited curriculum overload.35
On the whole, frequent student interaction with faculty has
positive effects on student development, involvement and
retention. However, another study found that greater interaction with faculty may not have the same positive effect on
engineering students simply because these interactions are
less likely to be positive.36 Clearly, there is a need to
Clearly, there is a need to

strengthen civil engineering teaching.
65
strengthen civil engineering teaching. The following sections identify areas where this can be accomplished.
Four Characteristics of
Civil Engineering Educators
The following four characteristics of the model full or parttime civil engineering faculty member became evident to the
BOK Committee:
Scholars: Those who teach the civil engineering BOK

should be scholars. Faculty should acquire and maintain a
level of expertise in subjects they are teaching. Being a
scholar mandates that engineering faculty be life-long
learners, modeling continued growth in knowledge and
understanding.
Effective Teachers: Student learning is optimal when faculty members effectively engage students in the learning
process. The development of engineering faculty as effective teachers is critical for the future of the profession.
Have Practical Experience: Educators should have practical experience in engineering subjects that they teach.
Most civil engineering faculty should hold professional
engineering licenses.
Positive Role Models: Regardless of personal desires or

choice, every civil engineer who is in contact with students
serves as a role model for the profession. Engineering faculty should be aware that students are viewing them in that
light. The ideal civil engineering faculty member should
present a positive role model for our profession.
Each of the four characteristics is now discussed in more

detail.
Scholars
This use of the term
scholar goes far beyond
the traditional, restrictive
view of scholarship as
basic research.
This use of the term scholar goes far beyond the traditional, restrictive view of scholarship as basic research.
Instead, the Committee adopted the more inclusive view of
scholarship espoused by Ernest L. Boyer in his seminal work,
Scholarship Reconsidered, Priorities of the Professoriate.37
The four types of scholarships are teaching, discovery, integration and

application.
Boyer recognized that knowledge can be acquired through

research, synthesis, practice, and teaching. He defined the
four corresponding functions of scholars as the Scholarship
of Teaching, the Scholarship of Discovery, the Scholarship of
66
Integration, and the Scholarship of Application. Scholars are

true life-long learners, continually acquiring knowledge.
The four forms of scholarship are explained as follows:
The Scholarship of Teaching comprises developing examples, analogies, and images that form the bridge between
the teachers understanding and the students learning. It
clearly fits the expectation of expertise in faculty, as it
requires that faculty also be learners, always extending
their own knowledge and understanding.
The Scholarship of Discovery is the familiar, disciplined,

investigative research. It enhances the meaning of the
academy itself, discovering basic knowledge and continuing the intellectual climate of the university.
The Scholarship of Integration makes connections within

and between disciplines. As the master integrators of the
infrastructure, civil engineers are rightly very interested
in the synthesis of such multidisciplinary work.
The Scholarship of Application is the professional activity

of applying knowledge to consequential problems. The
civil engineer has clear ties to this scholarship, seeking to
solve the challenges and problems of our infrastructure.
To further define scholarly work, consider its standards.

Glassick38 defines those standards as clear goals, adequate
preparation, appropriate methods, significant results, and
reflective critique.
By pursuing a mix of the four scholarships to achieve personal and institutional missions and goals, faculty and institutions clear in their distinctive mission will provide a
more diverse graduate to the profession and will add to the
richness of the education of the civil engineering profession.
As stated by Boyer,37 who advocated diversity with dignity:
Broadening scholarship has implications not only for
individuals but for institutions, too. Todays higher
education leaders speak with pride about the distinctive missions of their campuses. But such talk often
masks a pattern of conformity. Too many campuses
are inclined to seek status by imitating what they perceive to be more prestigious institutions. We are persuaded that if scholarship is to be enriched, every
college and university must clarify its own goals and
seek to relate its own unique purposes more directly
to the reward system for professors.
By pursuing a mix of the

four scholarships to
achieve personal and
institutional missions and
goals, faculty and institutions will provide a more
diverse graduate to the
profession and will add to
the richness of the education of the civil engineering profession.
67
Effective Teachers
Appropriate teaching
education and training
are critical to enhancing
the effectiveness of faculty
in creating excitement for
learning by students.
Numerous studies indicate that student learning is enhanced

when engineering faculty are effective teachers. Under the
current system of studies, civil engineers do not become
effective teachers simply by advanced study leading to a
Ph.D. Furthermore, civil engineers do not become effective
teachers via experience obtained through practicing civil
engineering. Appropriate teaching education and training
are critical to enhancing the effectiveness of faculty in creating excitement for learning by students.
Effective teaching is a challenging task, requiring expertise
in the topic to be taught; effective two-way communication
with students; ability to promote clear, complex, and complete understanding; an awareness of learning styles; and
ability to relate with students in ways both positive and
inspirational. The teacher must motivate students by active
involvement in the individual students personal learning
process. Student learning is enhanced when the teacher is
highly effective with these skills.
The effective teachers skill

comes from creating intellectual excitement in and
interpersonal rapport with
the students in a variety of
classroom settings.
In his book, Mastering the Techniques of Teaching,39 Joseph

Lowman provides a two-dimensional model of effective college teaching. This model is shown in matrix form in Figure
6. Lowman notes that the effective teachers skill comes from
creating intellectual excitement in and interpersonal rapport
with the students in a variety of classroom settings.
Although outstanding abilities in either dimension can
result in adequate teaching for some students and success in
certain kinds of classes, both dimensions are required for
excellence in teaching. Faculty willing to learn and develop
can improve in either or both dimensions.
A teachers ability at creating intellectual excitement (as
shown by the vertical axis of Figure 6) has two components:
clarity of presentation and stimulating emotional impact in
the student. Lowman notes clarity deals with what the
teacher presents. Stimulating emotional impact stems from
the way it is presented.
Intellectual excitement is
apparent from a teachers
technical expertise, organization, clarity of communication, engaging presentation, and enthusiasm.
68
Intellectual excitement is apparent from a teachers technical

expertise, organization, clarity of communication, engaging
presentation, and enthusiasm. Descriptors associated with
teachers who are skilled at developing intellectual excitement include knowledgeable, organized, interesting,
humorous, clear, inspiring, and enthusiastic.
Figure 6. Lowmans two-dimensional model of effective college teaching is based on

interpersonal rapport and intellectual excitement.
Interpersonal Rapport
Intellectual
Excitement
Low
Moderate
High
High
6. Intellectual Authority
8. Exemplary Lecturer
9. Complete Exemplary
Moderate
3. Adequate
5. Competent
7. Exemplary Facilitator
Low
1. Inadequate
2. Marginal
4. Socratic
The development of interpersonal rapport (on the horizontal

axis of Figure 6) stems from the teachers ability to effectively communicate with students in ways that increase their
motivation, enjoyment and independent learning. The
teacher who demonstrates interpersonal rapport with students will show interest in students as individuals, interest in
students learning, and openness to students preferences
about classroom procedures, policies, and assignments.
Terms used to describe teachers who demonstrate interpersonal rapport include concerned, encouraging, caring, helpful, challenging, available, and approachable.
The teacher who demonstrates interpersonal rapport with students will

show interest in students
as individuals, interest in
students learning, and
openness to students
preferences about classroom procedures, policies,
and assignments.
Lowman39 suggests that the teacher who desires to improve

should focus on intellectual excitement first, then interpersonal rapport. He says, Unless traditional teaching skills are
mastered first, structural inventions are unlikely to lead to
exemplary instruction or optimal student learning. As evident in Figure 6, development of intellectual excitement
achieves higher levels of effectiveness for single step change.
Skills required to be an effective teacher can be learned. In
the course of its work, the BOK committee assembled some
references and resources that address improved teaching
effectiveness. These references are included in Appendix I.
The committee recommends that all prospective engineering
faculty members actively prepare to be effective teachers by
means of education and training courses preferably before
they teach civil engineering students. Many university campuses have teaching programs. Some are within the engineering college while others are housed elsewhere such as in the
education school. ASCEs ExCEEd Teaching Workshop
(ETW) provides a proven model for how to teach faculty to
teach.40-46 In this workshop, a detailed structure for success
in the classroom is provided for civil engineering faculty.
The committee recommends that all prospective engineering faculty

members actively prepare
by means of education
and training courses to be
effective teacherspreferably before they teach civil
engineering students.
As shown in Figure 7, the ExCEEd Teaching Effectiveness

Model is based on a structured organization to a class (and
69
Figure 7. The ExCEEd Model is consistent with wellestablished teaching and learning principles.
Structured organization
Based on learning objectives
Appropriate to the subject matter
Varied, to appeal to different learning styles
Engaging presentation
Clear written and verbal communication
High degree of contact with students
Physical models and demonstrations
Enthusiasm
Positive rapport with students
Teacher
As
Role
Model
Frequent assessment of student learning

Classroom assessment techniques
Out-of-class homework and projects
Appropriate use of technology
the course), presented in an engaging manner, demonstrating enthusiasm for the subject and maintaining positive rapport with the students, with frequent assessment of student
learning (not grading), and making appropriate use of technology (see http://www.asce.org/exceed).
This model is a useful tool as it is consistent with well-established principles of teaching and learning. Significant scholarship was devoted to its development and validation. For
the individual teacher, it provides a solid framework for
development of individual teaching styles and an opportunity for continued growth as an effective teacher.
The model provides specific and incremental areas to assess
current strengths and weaknesses for the teacher to focus
improvement efforts. For an institution, it provides a roadmap that may be used in developing a faculty development
program.
Have Practical Experience

Boyer37 states that teaching begins with what the teacher
knows. Those who teach must, above all, be well informed,
and steeped in the knowledge of their fields. To have a solid
mastery of their field, the committee maintains that civil
70
engineering faculty should have some practical experience

in the subjects they teach.
Practical experience may be gained as an employed engineer
for a consulting firm, industry, or government agency. Alternatively, practical experience may be gained, or supplemented, through continued consulting on engineering
projects while serving as faculty members.
The benefits of this practical experience should include
knowledge of the day-to-day operations of engineering
projects, including many of the business aspects not always
included in traditional civil engineering curricula but now
being recommended herein in the BOK. Also, faculty members with practical experience will be better prepared to
mentor students as they prepare to enter the engineering
workforce.
Faculty members with

practical experience will
be better prepared to
mentor students as they
prepare to enter the engineering workforce.
Students who aspire to practice civil engineering at the professional level will benefit from a heterogeneous group of
faculty ranging from some who are engaged in academia to
others who are fully engaged in the practice of civil engineering. While the majority of faculty will be full-time engineering educators, some should be part-time, leading-edge
practitioners.
While the majority of faculty will be full-time engineering educators, some

should be part-time, leading-edge practitioners.
Potential practitioner participants should meet the same criteria as the full-time faculty as described in this section,
namely, scholarship, teaching effectiveness, and positive role
modeling. Practitioner faculty might teach entire courses or
co-teach with full-time faculty.
Positive Role Models

For many students, the first civil engineer that they meet is a
civil engineering faculty member. Beyond that, every civil
engineering teacher continues to role model the profession
throughout the students academic career. Those learning
the BOK will look to civil engineering faculty for appropriate knowledge, skills, attitudes and behavior desired of civil
engineers.
It makes no difference whether a faculty member desires to
be a role model for the engineering profession. In every case,
students will hold each civil engineering faculty member as
an example to emulate or as an example to avoid. The ideal
civil engineering faculty will be a positive role model for our
profession.
In every case, students will

hold each civil engineering faculty member as an
example to emulate or as
an example to avoid.
71
Faculty who are life-long learners will model the continued

thirst for new solutions to the challenges within our profession. Effective teachers will stimulate the curiosity of their students and will exemplify the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and
behaviors that best reflect the civil engineering profession.
Summary
The answer to who should teach the civil engineering
BOK? is a faculty of scholars, all of whom have developed
as effective teachers, have an appropriate level of practical
experience, and are positive role models for the profession.
These are explicit success factors for those who will teach the
21st century civil engineers. These teachers will personify
the need and the opportunity to raise the bar in all three
dimensions of the civil engineering BOK: the what, the how
and the who.
72
BODY OF KNOWLEDGE
Who Should Learn It?
I will study and get ready and

someday my chance will come.
Abraham Lincoln, 16th U.S. President
Who should learn the BOKi.e., the studentis equally

important as who should teach it. The preceding section
explained the necessary involvement and focus of faculty
and practitioners. This section addresses the overarching
obligations of civil engineering students. Explored here are
the expectations and roles of civil engineering students, as
well as the necessity of diversifying the civil engineering student body, and, eventually, the profession. To serve as a
baseline for understanding the demographics of civil engineers with respect to their education and practice, the
TCAP3 assembled civil engineering education and practice
statistics, included in Appendix D.
The committee recognizes that potential civil engineering
students will be drawn from an increasingly diverse population. For example, very recent high school graduates have
traditionally been the dominant source of civil engineering
students, with some exceptions such as the influx of military
veterans immediately after WWII. However, a significant
fraction of tomorrows civil engineer candidates are likely to
come from a somewhat older group, many of whom are
making career changes or finally realizing career objectives.
More women and more ethnic diversity are expected. The
civil engineering education process needs to change to serve
this more diverse population. This includes advising and
course delivery options, especially distance learning.
Potential civil engineering

students will be drawn
from an increasingly
diverse population.
Taking Responsibility
In Building an Engineering Career (1946), Professor C.C.
Williams47 outlines skills, attitudes, and awareness needed
Students are responsible

for their own education
and development.
73
for success in engineering. For student success, he emphasizes good study habits, cooperation with instructors, learning factual material, thinking and logic, attention, and openmindedness. Most importantly, he argues students are
responsible for their own education and development.
Student Focus
Williams cautions educators that the student is not a vessel,
therefore, to be filled with knowledge; he [or she] is rather a
growing and expanding organism to be guided and trained
in his [or her] growth. In his formulation, the instructor
does not flunk or pass a student. Rather, among other
duties such as mentoring and composing effective learning
sessions, the instructor helps students seek out information,
compiles their marks on assignments, and provides feedback
and support through formal and informal channels.
The instructor serves the
student by carrying out his
or her teaching responsibilities in a competent and
caring manner.
This is a partner relationship, not a master-subservient one.

The instructor serves the student by carrying out his or her
teaching responsibilities in a competent and caring manner.
Ultimately, though, the responsibility for learning lies with
the student. It is the student who passes or masters a set of
material. As explained by Williams:
A student must recognize that learning, like eating,
breathing, and assimilating, is a function that everyone must perform for himself and for which he must
accept full responsibility. . . . It is important that the
student should recognize and accept this responsibility, for an engineer all through his professional life
will have to carry certain responsibilities, and the
responsibility for student accomplishment is therefore a vital beginning of the habit of responsibility
that will form a part of his life.
Clearly the habits learned

as a student carry over
into the habits of the
profession.
74
Clearly the habits learned as a student carry over into the

habits of the profession. What is exciting about Williams
formulation is that it empowers students. The student focus
does not pass the buck from professors to students, but
rather makes students partners in and accountable for their
performance and charges them with creating motivation
and seeking opportunities to grow.
Supportive Habits and High Standards

Williams calls for developing and nurturing certain intellectual habits (knowledge), motor/vocational habits (skills),
and emotional habits (attitudes). While the student is
dependent on the faculty and institution to help provide
guidance and emphasis, the student is clearly responsible for
developing his or her habits or abilities. Moreover, students are urged to seek excellence in all they do.
Williams refers to standards, by which he means general and
objective levels of achievement for the individual and for the
group:
While the student is

dependent on the faculty
and institution to help
provide guidance and
emphasis, the student is
clearly responsible for
developing his or her
habits or abilities.
Standards rank as a most important consideration in

securing an education. Discontent with any work of a
standard of excellence below the best that he [or she]
can do should be the engineers mental attitude. . . .
Such standards of workmanship should be established as a student, for student standards persist as
professional standards.
Liberal Perspective
In addition to striving for excellence, Williams challenges
the engineering student to expand his or her horizons: A
professional student should seek to liberalize his [or her]
education wherever feasible. Williams encourages students
to engage the arts and culture in order to appreciate the
intellectual achievements and emotional experiences of people at their best. This outlook is as important today as it was
when Williams penned these words in 1946. Given the growing complexity of engineering practice, the onset of the global village, and the challenges to civil engineering from
other professions, a holistic outlook beyond an engineering
focus is more important than ever.
Students should engage

the arts and culture in
order to appreciate the
intellectual achievements
and emotional experiences of people at their
best.
Student Obligations and Expectations

The following seven obligations and expectations for engineering students will help ensure that the BOK will be
embraced by the future of the profession. Students should
be encouraged to view the BOK as a foundation of and roadmap for life-long learning. As they progress through recognition, understanding, and ability with the 15 outcomes,
they will be able to assess their progress towards mastering
the evolving knowledge of the profession.
Students should be
encouraged to view the
BOK as a foundation of
and roadmap for life-long
learning.
75
1. Students must understand while it is their responsibility to actively engage the BOK, they are entitled to the
full support of their faculty, department, and profession in this endeavor. As Williams stated, the student is
responsible for developing appropriate study habits,
cooperating with instructors, learning factual material,
thinking logically, and paying attention. But the student
is also entitled to an environment that is conducive to
learning the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary
for civil engineering practice. This includes instructors
and mentors who want to help the individual student
develop and hone his or her unique qualities and abilities and a profession responsive to the needs of the
future and willing to create opportunities for meaningful success. Recall the earlier comments about a partnership relationship, not a master-subservient one.
2. Students must be committed to excellence in their education at all times. Students should not settle for passing
grades in any of their courses, but must attempt to take
full advantage of their natural gifts and the opportunities to learn and apply material presented to them. Students should master fundamentals, appreciate both the
big picture while paying attention to details, be aware of
and seek to understand nuances such as the difference
between precision and accuracy, and learn how to
present and defend ideas and their work products.
Commitment to excellence outside of the classroom is
also encouraged through cooperative education experiences, other paraprofessional work, student organizations and competitions, and campus and community
involvement outside of the engineering arena.
3. Students must understand that they are developing as
managers and leaders. Students of today are the practitioners, managers, and leaders of tomorrow. Every student must develop his or her management and
leadership skills and apply them in everyday situations.
They must view their development as part of an ongoing process of improvement that is continual and
integral to their engineering practice and engagement
with society.
4. Students must value a diverse perspective that includes
the liberal arts, tolerant attitudes, and active inclusion.
The civil engineering student is responsible for keeping
an open mind, being culturally sensitive, and engaging
76
the world that exists beyond the doors of the engineering classroom. As part of this charge, students should
strive to be liberally educated and well rounded in their
thinking and attitudes.
Over the span of an engineering career, students who
aspire to become professionals must understand that the
courses they take outside of engineering can be as
important as the courses they take within civil engineering departments. Students must learn to value and
assess diversity. Students should actively promote the
diversification and integration of their classes, campuses, and communities.
5. Students must understand that civil engineers are making and remaking the world every day. They are
involved in the action of the real world. The earlier this
is imparted to students the better. Civil engineering is an
exciting, proactive discipline that revolves around the
creation of the actual, practical, and possible. Civil engineers provide the backbone for the economy by helping
to plan, design, construct, and maintain the nations
infrastructure while protecting and restoring the natural
environment.
6. Students must understand that they can help maintain
civil engineerings vitality. Civil engineering students
should recognize that they are an integral part of the
continual revitalization of the profession. Their opinions and thoughts on the BOK must be taken into
account, and they must actively participate in the continual renewal and progress of the profession.
7. Students must understand the importance of life-long
learning and be committed to extending their education beyond the formal education they receive in college. Graduation is a first step towards professional
practice. Development within the profession demands
student commitment to continue education after graduation. This can be done in a variety of ways including
taking additional courses at a recognized college or university, attending professional meetings, and/or taking
approved continuing education courses through ASCE
or other professional societies. At a minimum, students
should get into the habit of reading professional journals in their areas of special interest before graduation
and continue this habit after graduation.
77
Matching Students and the Civil

Engineering Profession
Students are much more
likely to meet their responsibilities, obligations, and
expectations and are
much more likely to
achieve success and significance, if they are
informed about, attracted
to and excited by civil
engineerings unique or
special characteristics.
Success in the study, and eventual practice, of civil engineering is likely to be enhanced if a persons aptitudes, interests,
and aspirations resonate with the unique or special
attributes of civil engineering. Students are much more
likely to meet their responsibilities, obligations, and expectations (as described above) and are much more likely to
achieve success and significance, if they are informed about,
attracted to and excited by civil engineerings unique or special characteristics.
In the spirit of encouraging discussion of civil engineerings
unique or specific attributes, the Committee offers the following characteristics as possibilities:48
One-of-a-Kind Creations for the Public Good: Leading

civil engineers tend to design large, challenging, one-of-akind structures, facilities, and systems each typically tailored to the needs and constraints of a specific geographic
location. Not only are these structures, facilities and systems noteworthy and unique, they also contribute to
public good and overall quality of life.
Potential Catastrophic Results of Failure: Failure or substandard performance of civil-engineered structures,

facilities, and systems can have a great negative economic
and social impact. In addition to the obvious potential for
endangerment of health and life, there are negative economic impacts like errors and omissions claims and associated costs. Underwriter studies indicate that the
majority of claims are non-technical in nature. The four
most severe non-technical causes are negotiation and
contracts, client selection, project team capabilities and
communication.49
Greater Span of Functions and Expectations: About twothirds of all civil engineers work in consulting firms or
government; most other engineers are employed in
industry. Because of their place of employment, civil
engineers tend to work for smaller organizations and, at
almost any point in their early career, tend to have a wider
range of functions to perform.
For example, a young engineer at a small to medium sized
firm could expect to have the following kinds of varied
assignments: write portions of a report, accompany a
senior engineer to a meeting with a client or a public
78
meeting and make part of the presentation, attend a seminar and report on it to colleagues in the office, coordinate the work of surveyors, do field reconnaissance at a
potential construction site, and use one or more computer programs.
More Direct Contact with Clients and the Public: Most

engineers report to and interact primarily with professionals and other individuals within their organizations.
In contrast, civil engineers, working either in consulting
or government, tend to have much more direct contact
with the public.
Many, diverse participants: Civil engineering projects

tend to be fragmented and have a large number of players
such as an owner, architect/engineer, general contractor,
specialty contractors, but also many others such as risk
insurers, other disciplines, bankers, the public, federal,
state and local units of government, vendors, suppliers,
and labor (union and open shop). The large number of
specific players typically come together for one project
and may never work together again.
The committee recommends that the profession continuously seek to articulate these unique and special attributes
and communicate them to K-12 students and their parents,
teachers, and counselors. This recommendation is not
offered as a means of attracting more young and other people to the profession. This is not a matter of numbers.
Instead, the goal is to have a greater fraction of civil engineering students having qualities consistent with those of
the profession.
The goal is to have a

greater fraction of civil
engineering students having qualities consistent
with those of the profession.
The preceding unique or special attributes of civil engineering have implications for people contemplating studying, or
who are already studying, civil engineering. They should be
aware of the unique and exciting nature of most civil engineering projects, cognizant of the possibility of the catastrophic impact of failed projects, and recognize the
environmental stewardship inherent in the work of civil
engineers.
They should strive for an extra measure of written and communication skills and refine interpersonal abilities to function effectively within a varied group of co-workers, clients,
and the public at large. They should be prepared to interact
with a wide variety of individuals and groups who may not
be as analytically oriented as most civil engineers.
79
The Next Steps
Do not follow where the path may lead.

Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.
Anonymous
With the completion of Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge

for the 21st Century: Preparing the Civil Engineer for the
Future, the BOK Committee, which started its work in May
2002, has essentially completed its charge. That is, this
report:
Defines the BOK needed to enter the practice of civil

engineering at the professional level in the 21st Century;
Addresses the roles of education and experience in fulfilling the pre-licensure BOK;
Describes the process, initiated by the committee, that is

now being used to design and/or identify B+M/30 programs supportive of the BOK; and
Outlines the roles of full and part-time faculty, of practitioners, and of students in teaching and learning the BOK.
In keeping with the explicit request in the charge, the preceding was accomplished by intensely interacting with stakeholders within and outside of civil engineering.
This report is dynamic
and will evolve.
While the charge to the BOK Committee is essentially complete, the civil engineering BOK, as described in terms of
what, how and who, in this report is dynamic and, as such,
will evolve. That evolution will be stimulated primarily by
the curricular design projects that were initiated by the committee.
Expected refinements to
the BOK are the principal
reason this report is the
First Edition.
As of the completion of this report, ten diverse civil engineering departments are designing or otherwise creating, on
paper, B+M programs supportive of the BOK. As those
designs proceed, using the BOK defined in this report as the
design criteria, the designers are likely to offer suggested
refinements to the BOK. Expected refinements to the BOK
80
are the principal reason this report is the First Edition. CAP3
will provide addenda and/or reissue this report in the form
of additional editions in response to BOK refinements.
To facilitate continuation and expansion of the curricula
design projects, the BOK Committee, working with CAP3,
initiated the formation of a new constituent committee in
September 2003, namely the Curricula Committee. Appendix N is the charge to the Curricula Committee. The Curricula Committee is working with ASCE Institutes to ensure
that Outcome 12, the technical specialization outcome, is
addressed and integrated into the specialty certification
effort that is on going within the ASCE. Termination of the
BOK Committee in early 2004 preceded by formation of the
Curricula Committee in September 2003 means that the
BOK effort moves from focusing on defining the BOK to
creating B+M curricula that will, in combination with
focused and progressive experience, use the BOK to prepare
tomorrows civil engineering professionals.
This report also supports other initiatives needed to implement ASCE Policy Statement 465. The Accreditation and
Licensure Committees are leading these important efforts.
As noted, this report is also being used in the implementation of ASCEs specialty certification program. The BOK,
presented in this report, is the foundation on which implementation of Policy Statement 465 is being built.
The BOK is the foundation

on which implementation
of Policy Statement 465 is
being built.
81
Closing Thoughts
The mind is not a vessel to be filled,

but a fire to be kindled.
Plutarch, Greek priest
The ASCE encourages societies representing other

engineering disciplines to
also consider the necessity for and ramifications
of raising the bar in the
long-term interest of
maintaining public
health, safety and welfare.
ASCE recognizes that expanding the civil engineering BOK

through additional education and enhanced experience, as a
prerequisite for licensure, probably cannot be fully implemented without somewhat similar modifications affecting
other engineering disciplines. Engineering licensure in the
U.S. is typically generic, rather than discipline-specific, and
education and experience requirements are generally the
same for all engineering disciplines. The ASCE encourages
societies representing other engineering disciplines to also
consider the necessity for and ramifications of raising the
bar in the long-term interest of maintaining public health,
safety and welfare.
The committee appreciates the opportunity to

serve the profession.
The BOK Committee thanks CAP3 and the ASCE Board of

Direction for the opportunity to serve. Defining the what,
how, and who of the BOK needed to enter the practice of
civil engineering at the professional level (licensure) in the
21st century was challenging. This work was also very satisfying because gradual implementation of mechanisms for
teaching and learning the BOK will markedly strengthen the
civil engineering profession.
Increasingly, newly licensed civil engineers will possess a
broader and deeper suite of knowledge, skills, and attitudes
that will enable them to more effectively function in the
highly challenging civil engineering environment of coming
decades. More specifically, they will be better prepared to:50
82
Hold paramount public safety, health, and welfare,
Participate in the formulation ofas well as the implementation ofpolicies, programs and projects related to
their expertise,
Guard the natural environment and create a sustainable

built environment,
Conceive, plan, design, and manage large civil infrastructure systems including transportation, water, wastewater,
structures, land use, energy, and security,
Integrate an increasingly diverse workforce,
Lead global technology development and transfer, and
Grow personally and professionally throughout their

careers.
83
Acknowledgements
The BOK Committee gratefully acknowledges assistance received from the

earlier and contemporary
contributions of others.
84
The BOK Committee was profoundly influenced by and

willingly built on the work of others. Many individuals and
groups, working creatively and persistently over decades,
developed, documented and passed on influential ideas and
information. Engineering education and practice literature
record these efforts. The BOK Committee gratefully
acknowledges assistance received from the earlier and contemporary contributions of others. We also thankfully
acknowledge the input of our contemporaries and of our
colleagues serving on CAP3, and on the Accreditation,
Licensure and Curricula Committees.
APPENDIX A
ASCE Policy Statement 465

Approved by the Task Committee on the First Professional Degree on May 7, 2001
Approved by the Board Policy Team on August 16, 2001
Adopted by the Board of Direction on October 9, 2001
Policy
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
supports the concept of the masters degree or equivalent as a prerequisite for licensure and the practice
of civil engineering at a professional level.
ASCE encourages institutions of higher education,
governmental units, employers, civil engineers, and
other appropriate organizations to endorse, support,
and promote the concept of mandatory post-baccalaureate education for the practice of civil engineering
at a professional level. The implementation of this effort should occur through establishing appropriate
curricula in the formal education experience, appropriate recognition and compensation in the workplace, and congruent standards for licensure.
Issue
The practice of civil engineering at the professional
level means practice as a licensed professional engineer. Admission to the practice of civil engineering
at the professional level means professional engineering licensing, which requires:
A body of specialized knowledge as reflected by a
combination of a baccalaureate degree and a
masters or equivalent (MOE)
Appropriate experience
Commitment to life-long learning
The required body of specialized knowledge includes a technical core, technical electives, a nontechnical core and technical and non-technical
courses to support individual career objectives. The
current baccalaureate civil engineering degree is an
entry-level degree that may no longer be adequate
preparation for the practice of civil engineering at
the professional level.
The civil engineering profession is undergoing

significant, rapid, and revolutionary changes that
have increased the body of knowledge required of
the profession. These changes include the following:
Globalization has challenged the worldwide geographic boundaries normally recognized in the
past, primarily as a result of enhanced communication systems.
Information technology has made, and continues
to make, more information available; however,
the analysis and application of this information is
becoming more challenging.
The diversity of society is challenging our traditional views and people skills.
New technologies in engineering and construction
are emerging at an accelerating rate.
Enhanced public awareness of technical issues is
creating more informed inquiry by the public of
the technical, environmental, societal, political,
legal, aesthetic, and financial implications of engineering projects.
Civil infrastructure systems within the United
States are rapidly changing from decades of development and operation to the renewal, maintenance and improvement of these systems.
These changes have created a market requiring
civil engineers to have simultaneously greater
breadth of capability and specialized technical competence than that required of previous generations.
For example, many civil engineers must increasingly
assume a different primary role from that of designer to that of team leader. The knowledge required to support this new market is found in the
combination of an appropriate baccalaureate education and the completion of post-graduate courses
sufficient to attain a masters degree or its equivalent.
85
Rationale
Requiring education beyond the baccalaureate degree for the practice of civil engineering at the professional level is consistent with other learned professions. The body of knowledge gained, and the
skills developed in the formal civil engineering education process are not significantly less than the
comparable knowledge and skills required in these
other professions. It is not reasonable in such complex and rapidly changing times to think that we can
impart the specialized body of knowledge and skills
required of professional engineers in four years of
formal schooling while other learned professions
take seven or eight years. Four years of formal
schooling were considered the standard for three
professions (medicine, law, and engineering) 100
years ago, and while medicine and law education
lengthened with the growing demands of their respective professions engineering education did not.
Perhaps this retention of a four-year undergraduate
engineering education has contributed to the lowered esteem of engineering in the eyes of society, and
the commensurate decline in compensation of engineers relative to medical doctors and lawyers.
Current baccalaureate programs, while constantly undergoing review and revisions, still retain a
nominal four-year education process. This length of
time limits the ability of these programs to provide a
formal education consistent with the increasing demands of the practice of civil engineering at the professional level. There are diametrically opposed
forces trying to squeeze more content into the baccalaureate curriculum while at the same time reducing
86
the credit hours necessary for the baccalaureate degree. The result is a production line baccalaureate
civil engineering degree satisfactory for an entrylevel position, but which may be inadequate for the
professional practice of civil engineering. The fouryear internship period (engineer-in-training) after
receipt of the BSCE degree cannot make up for the
formal educational material that would be gained
from a masters degree or equivalent program.
The implementation of this concept will not happen overnight. While ASCE cannot mandate that it
be done in a specified time period or manner, ASCE
will be an active partner with other groups and organizations to accomplish this policy. The ultimate full
implementation may not occur for 20 or more years.
Appropriate grandfathering for existing registered
and degreed engineers would be a part of the implementation process. This concept is a legacy for future generations of civil engineers. However, perhaps
the most important aspect of the implementation of
this policy is already in place. Within the U.S. system
of higher education, high quality, innovative and diverse masters degree programs currently exist in
colleges and universities to support this concept. A
growing number of organizations now offer high
quality on-site and distance learning educational opportunities. The active support of this policy by all of
the stakeholders in this process, such as the educational institutions, the registration boards, and the
various employers of civil engineers, will be required
to develop and promote the elements necessary to
eventually implement this concept.
APPENDIX B
Members of the ASCE

Body of Knowledge Committee
MICHAEL J. CHAJES, PhD, PE, is a Professor and

Chair of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the
University of Delaware. Dr. Chajes is also a member
of ASCEs Department Heads Council Executive
Committee (DHCEC).
Chajes was an undergraduate civil engineering
student at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and graduated with honors in 1984. After receiving his bachelor's degree, he attended the University of California at Davis (UCD) and received his
M.S. in 1987 and his Ph.D. in 1990. Chajes taught
several classes and was twice awarded UCD's Outstanding Graduate Student Teaching Award.
In September of 1990, Chajes joined the faculty
at the University of Delaware as an Assistant Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering. He was
promoted to Associate Professor in 1996 and to Professor in 2002. He served as Acting Associate Chair
in 1996 and as Associate Chair from 1998-2001. In
July of 2001, Chajes was appointed Chair of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
His areas of specialization are bridge evaluation
and rehabilitation, including the use of nondestructive evaluation techniques and the application of advanced materials, primarily fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP). Chajes has developed an active research
program in these areas. He has served as PI or co-PI
for research grants funded by the National Science
Foundation, the National Academy of Sciences, the
Federal Highway Administration, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, the Delaware
Department of Transportation, and several industrial groups and foundations. These projects have allowed him to work with steel, concrete, and advanced polymer composite bridges. One of our most
noteworthy accomplishments was being among the
first to implement composites in the field, both for
bridge retrofitting and new bridges. Based on this research Chajes has published more than 60 papers
and presented his work through more than 40 talks.
Most recently he has been working in the area of

bridge assessment using nondestructive evaluation
techniques. The primary objective of this work has
been to evaluate bridge capacity for the purpose of
developing accurate bridge ratings and to implement long-term monitoring systems to perform ongoing "health monitoring" of novel bridges. This
work has allowed him to be involved in over 30
bridge field tests during the past five years. The
bridges have ranged from standard highway overpasses, to polymer composite bridges, to the Brooklyn-Queens expressway (a tri-level cantilever structure) and the Goethals bridge (a cantilever steel
truss) for which he was involved in an ambient vibration surveys needed for seismic evaluations. In
terms of long-term monitoring, he has been involved in implementing systems for monitoring the
performance of two advanced composite bridges, a
high-performance concrete bridge, and the Newburgh-Beacon bridge, a 7,855 foot steel cantilever
truss with a 1,000 foot main span crossing the Hudson River north of New York City.
Within the profession, Chajes is a member of the
ASCE, the American Concrete Institute, and the
American Society of Engineering Education. He
serves on several committees, including TRBs Committee A2C05, Dynamics and Field Testing of
Bridges. In 1993 he became a registered Professional
Engineer in Delaware, and served as a member of the
state's Professional Engineering Registration Board
from 1995 to 2000.
301 DuPont Hall
Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
Tel: 302-831-2442
Fax: 302-831-3640
Email: chajes@ce.udel.edu
ABBIE DEMENT, EI, is a Civil Engineer II at Lowe
Engineers in Atlanta, GA. She is an Engineer Intern
87
working toward her PE, LSIT, and PLS licenses. A

BSCE graduate of Tennessee Technological University, Dement is an active member of ASCE and the
NSPE. She has over two years total experience with
site plans, boundary plats, surveys, water and sewer
plans and profiles, and other related design work.
Project design work includes a variety of state, federal, and private clients. Dement is also proficient in
both AutoCAD and Microstation, along with various specifications and cost estimating programs.
Lowe Engineers
2000 River Edge Pkwy., Suite 400
Atlanta, GA 30328
Tel: 770-857-8403
Fax: 770-857-8401
Email: dement@loweengineers.com
GERALD E. GALLOWAY, Jr., PhD, PE, is Vice President, Enterprise Engineering Group, Enterprise Services and Solutions Sector, Titan Systems Corporation and is dealing with the interface between
engineering and Information Technology. Dr. Galloway most recently was Secretary of the U.S. Section,
International Joint Commission, U.S.-Canada. He
has served as a consultant on a variety of water resources engineering and management issues to U.S.
and international organizations and was a Presidential appointee to the Mississippi River Commission
and the American Heritage Rivers Committee. He is
a former dean of the Academic Board (Chief Academic Officer) of the U.S. Military Academy where
he also was founding head of the Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering. He is a
graduate of the Military Academy and served 38
years in the Army retiring as a brigadier general in
1995. He holds advanced degrees from Princeton,
Penn State, the U.S. Army Command and General
Staff College and the University of North Carolina.
He is a registered professional engineer in New York.
1267 Oakcrest Road
Arlington, VA 22202-2229
Tel: 571-334-2103
Fax: 703-383-4105
Email: gerry.gallowayg@titan.com
CHRIS T. HENDRICKSON, PhD, serves as ViceChair of the BOK Committee and is the Duquesne
Light Company Professor of Engineering and Head
of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. His research,
teaching and consulting are in the general area of engineering planning and management, including design for the environment, system performance,
project management, finance and computer applications. He has co-authored two textbooks, Project
Management for Construction (Prentice-Hall, 1989)
and Transportation Investment and Pricing Principles
(John Wiley & Sons, 1984) and two monographs,
Knowledge Based Process Planning for Construction
88
and Manufacturing (Academic Press, 1989) and

Concurrent Computer Integrated Building Design
(Prentice-Hall, 1994). In addition, he has published
numerous articles in the professional literature.
Hendricksons education includes Bachelor and
Master of Science degrees from Stanford University,
a Master of Philosophy degree in economics from
Oxford University, and a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Hendrickson received
the ASCE Turner Lecture Award (2002), the ICES
Fenves Systems Research Award (2001), an AT&T
Industrial Ecology Fellowship (2000), a Lucent/NSF
Industrial Ecology Fellowship (1998), the ASCE
Frank M. Masters Transportation Engineering
Award (1994), the Outstanding Professor of the Year
Award of the ASCE Pittsburgh Section (1990), the
ASCE Walter L. Huber Civil Engineering Research
Award (1989), the Benjamin Richard Teare Teaching
Award from the Carnegie Institute of Technology
(1987) and a Rhodes Scholarship (1973).
His professional career includes research contributions in computer-aided engineering, transportation systems, construction project management and
environmental systems. Central themes in his work
are a systems wide perspective and a balance of engineering and management considerations. His doctoral work included the development of a travel distance formula for random stops still in use for home
service planning (1978). He pioneered models of dynamic traffic equilibrium, including time-of-day departure demand models. He was an early contributor to the development of probabilistic network
analysis for lifeline planning after seismic events.
His work in construction project management emphasized the importance of the owner's viewpoint
throughout the project lifecycle, rather than the construction contractors partial viewpoint as had been
customary. This owners perspective led to work on life
cycle costing methods and explicit analysis and allocation of construction risks among different parties. His
project management work is summarized in his text
(with T. Au), Project Management for Construction.
With others at Carnegie Mellon's Engineering Design
Research Center, he developed a pioneering, experimental building design system in the early 1990s that
spanned initial concept through construction scheduling and animation of construction sequences.
Since 1994, Dr. Hendrickson has been Co-Director of the Green Design Initiative at Carnegie Mellon
and has concentrated on green design, exploring the
environmental life cycle consequences of alternative
product and process designs. He has contributed
software tools and methods for pollution prevention
and environmental management. With several colleagues, he developed a systematic approach to life
cycle assessment based on a general equilibrium eco-
nomic model. With doctoral student Markus Klausner, he developed management models and a datalogger chip for use in electro-mechanical devices
that informs cost effective re-manufacturing and reuse. These dataloggers have been implemented in
power tools and automobiles. He also contributed a
widely cited analysis of the life cycle consequences of
lead acid battery powered vehicles.
Dr. Hendrickson has been active in several professional and civic organizations. He was head of the
Civil Engineering Department Heads Executive
Council for the American Society of Civil Engineers.
He served as a committee chair for the Transportation Research Board and co-founded a continuing
international symposium on advanced technologies
in transportation engineering. He has received
teaching awards, published extensively on engineering education, and led the very successful undergraduate engineering curriculum reform at Carnegie
Mellon in 1989/90.
Dept. Civil & Environmental Engr.
Porter Hall 119
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890
Tel: 412-268-2941
Fax: 412-268-7813
Email: cth@cmu.edu
RALPH J. HODEK, PhD, PE, earned a BSCE from
the Michigan College of Mining and Technology, an
MS from Michigan Technological University, and a
Ph.D. in geotechnical engineering at Purdue University. Since that time he has been at Michigan Technological University where he teaches in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. He is
licensed to practice in the State of Michigan and
consults in the area of geotechnical engineering to
owners, engineers, and contractors.
Hodek serves as vice-chairman of the Michigan
Board of Professional Engineers, and he also serves
as a member of the Michigan Board of Land Surveyors. He is a Fellow of ASCE and has been active in its
Technical Council on Cold Regions Engineering
where he chaired the executive committee and participated with the Committee on Frozen Ground
and the Committee on Education.
Hodek is active in the accreditation process for
engineering programs. He serves as a program visitor for the Educational Activities Commission of
ABET. Hodek is also a member of ABETs Applied
Science Accreditation Commission on which he represents ASCE.
Michigan Technological University
Route 2, Box 455
Chassell, MI 49916
Tel: 906-487-2797
Fax: 906-523-4572
Email: rjhodek@mtu.edu
THOMAS A. LENOX, PhD, has over 33 years of experience as a leader, team builder, and manager in
diverse professional and academic environments.
During his 28-year military career, he spent 15 years
on the engineering faculty of the United States Military Academy (USMA) at West Point including five
years as the Director of the Civil Engineering Division. As Director, he supervised 19 faculty in the
ABET-accredited civil engineering program.
Upon his retirement from the U.S. Army on October 1, 1998, Lenox became the Director of the Educational Activities Department for the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). As Director of
Educational Activities, he led several new educational initiatives collectively labeled as Project ExCEEd (Excellence in Civil Engineering Education).
He continues to be very active in ASEE and other associations which foster teaching excellence and has
written numerous papers, made presentations, and
run workshops dedicated to teaching and teacher
training. Lenox is currently serving as ASCEs Managing Director of Professional and Educational Activities.
He received a BS degree from the USMA, a MS
degree from Cornell University, an MBA degree
from Long Island University, and a PhD from Lehigh
University.
ASCE
Reston, VA 20191-4400
Tel: 703-295-6000
Fax: 703-295-6222
Email: tlenox@asce.org
JAMES J. OBRIEN, PE, has over 29 years of experience as a leader, team builder, and manager in diverse professional and academic environments. During his 26-year military career in the US Army Corps
of Engineers, he spent 13 years on the teaching faculty of the United States Military Academy (USMA)
at West Point, the US Armys Command & General
Staff College, and the University of Notre Dame. He
taught numerous engineering mechanics, civil engineering, and leader development courses. OBrien
received a BS degree from USMA and a MS from
Stanford University.
Upon his retirement from the U.S. Army on November 1, 2000, OBrien became the Director of the
Educational Activities Department of ASCE. During
his time with ASCE, he had staff responsibility for
influencing, initiating, and implementing appropriate activities throughout the formal education process of civil engineers. OBrien continued to develop
and refine the educational initiatives of ASCE collectively labeled as Project ExCEEd (Excellence in
Civil Engineering Education). A notable example is
the ExCEEd Teaching Workshop, a nationally recog-
89
nized workshop that develops inexperienced faculty

into effective teachers and role models for the civil
engineering profession. OBrien has taken the lead in
developing a comprehensive career guidance/ outreach program to interest K-12 students in civil engineering. His responsibilities include ASCEs Diversity Programs.
ASCE
Reston, VA 20191-4400
Tel: 703-295-6055
Fax: 703-295-6132
Email: jobrien@asce.org
DALE W. SALL, PE, LS, is liaison with the Licensure
Committee of the ASCE Task Committee on Academic Prerequisites for Professional Practice. He is
the Branch Office Manager at JEO Consulting
Group in Hastings, NE and has been in the consulting business for 36 years. Sall serves as Chairman of
the Board of USCIEP (United States Council for International Engineering Practice) and is Past President of NCEES (National Council of Examiners for
Engineering and Surveying). As a member of the
State Board of Engineers and Architects in Nebraska,
he has been involved in licensure issues since 1981.
During this time, Sall served on the Civil Engineering Committee in preparing the PE examinations
from 1982 until 1997. He continues to serve on various committees with NCEES and stays in close
touch with licensure issues nationally and internationally.
JEO Consulting Group
5210 West Highway 6
Hastings, NE 68901
Tel: 402-462-5657
Fax: 402-461-3305
Email: dsall@jeo.com
JOHN S. SHEARER, PE, DEE, is an Executive Vice
President at PBS&J and serves as National Director
of the firms environmental engineering and environmental science business units. As a member of
PBS&Js Board of Directors, he has corporate responsibilities for its information technology activities and chairs the firms Editorial Board. Earlier in
his career, Mr. Shearer served as Assistant Secretary
of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. During his tenure he helped secure passage of
significant legislation by the Florida Legislature in
areas dealing with watershed planning, solid waste
management, stormwater management, and air
quality. After graduation from college he worked in a
variety of engineering capacities at the City of
Tampa in the Public Works and Water Departments.
He has served ASCE as President of the Student
Chapter at the University of South Florida; President, West Coast Branch and Florida Section; and
has served on several ASCE committees over the
90
years. Mr. Shearer holds a BSE in Engineering from

the University of South Florida, has taken graduate
level course work in management, and is a member
of many professional organizations.
PBS&J
482 S. Keller Road
Orlando, FL 32810
Tel: 407-647-7275
Email:jsshearer@pbsj.com
Fax: 407-740-8958 Website: www.pbsj.com
THOMAS SILLER, PhD, liaison with the Colorado
State University Curriculum Design Project, is Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at CSU. He joined the
Department of Civil Engineering at Colorado State
University in 1988 after obtaining his Ph.D. from
Carnegie Mellon University. Since joining the faculty
at CSU, he has won several teaching and advising
awards, including the Chi Epsilon Gold Key Award.
Siller has been actively involved with curricular reform issues in the department of Civil Engineering
and assisted with the creation of the new All University Core Curriculum. He recently co-authored an
ASCE book on the Civil Engineering Profession in
the 21st Century. Recently he spent a year on sabbatical as a visiting professor at the National Technical
University. During this sabbatical, he coordinated
the First Electronic International Conference on Engineering Education. Sillers research interests include the seismic design of earth structures and understanding the role of technology in engineering
education.
102 Engineering Building
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523-1301
Tel: 970-491-1058
Fax: 970-491-3429
Email: tjs@engr.colostate.edu
JOHN TAWRESEY, PE, is a licensed Structural Engineer and the Financial Vice President for KPFF
Consulting Engineers. He has 32 years of experience
in structural engineering and is currently the President of the ASCE Structural Engineering Institute.
Tawresey is Adjunct Professor at the University of
Washington. In recent years Tawresey has been active in the code development process as chair of the
Structural Engineers of Washingtons Code Advisory
Committee. He has been a leader in the Masonry Society, a member of the Masonry Building Seismic
Safety Council, and served on the Board of Directories of the Structural Engineers Risk Management
Council. Tawresey has also been active in the design
of notable Seattle projects including the Seattle Art
Museum, AT&T Gateway Tower and the Washington
Mutual Tower.
Tawresey has special expertise in the design of
curtain wall and masonry structures and is recog-
nized internationally for his expertise in masonry

design. He received a BSCE degree and an MS in
Theoretical and Applied Mechanics from Cornell
University, and an MBA from the University of
Washington.
KPFF Consulting Engineers
1601 Fifth Avenue Suite 1600
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: 206-622-5822
Fax: 206-622-8130
Email: JohnTaw@aol.com
STUART G. WALESH, PhD, PE, Chairperson of the
Body of Knowledge Committee, is an independent
consultant to engineering firms and other organizations. He previously held positions in government,
consulting, and academia. Walesh has functioned as
a project engineer, project manager, researcher, department head, discipline manager, marketer, professor and engineering dean. Water resources engineering is Waleshs technical specialty. He has led or
participated in watershed planning, computer modeling, flood control, stormwater and floodplain
management, groundwater, dam and lake projects.
Other experience includes research and development, engineering economics, stakeholder participation, and expert analysis and witness services. Areas
in which he has provided management and leadership services include TQM, re-engineering, technical
and nontechnical education and training, distance
learning, corporate universities, writing and editing,
marketing, facilitation, mentoring, coaching, and
team building.
Walesh is Past Chair of the ASCE Hydraulics
Committee and the Urban Water Resources Research
Council, served as Special Issues Editor of ASCEs
Committee on Publications, and was a member of
the ASCE Task Committee on the First Professional
Degree. He was a member of the Indiana Board of
Registration for Professional Engineers and the advisory board for the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of WisconsinMadison. In 1995 Walesh received the Public Service
Award from the Consulting Engineers of Indiana; in
1998, the Distinguished Service Citation from the
College of Engineering at the University of Wisconsin; and in 2003, the Excellence in Civil Engineering
Education Leadership Award presented by the ASCE
Educational Activities Committee.
Walesh authored Urban Surface Water Management (Wiley, 1989), Engineering Your Future, Second
Edition (ASCE, 2000); Flying Solo: How to Start an
Individual Practitioner Consulting Business (Hannah
Publishing, 2000); and Managing and Leading: 52
Lessons for Learned Engineers (ASCE Press, 2004). He
is author or co-author of over 200 publications and
presentations in the areas of engineering, education,
and management and has facilitated or presented

over 150 workshops, seminars, and meetings
throughout the U.S. Walesh received a BSCE degree
from Valparaiso University, his MSE from the Johns
Hopkins University and his PhD from the University
of Wisconsin-Madison.
S.G. Walesh Consulting
6610 Gasparilla Pines Blvd., Unit 235
Englewood, FL 34224
Tel: 941-697-5512
Fax: 941-697-5513
Email: stuwalesh@aol.com
MARLEE WALTON, PE, LSI, is an adjunct professor
in the Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering Department of Iowa State University (ISU).
She assumed that position nearly two years ago
when ISU implemented a revised, integrated civil
engineering curriculum to better prepare BS graduates for the workplace in the 21rst Century. Walton
provides oversight and teaches courses in the revised
curriculum.
She has over 15 years of industry experience in
the transportation area. Walton has functioned as a
researcher, planner, designer, program manager,
project manager, discipline manager, and company
owner. Areas in which she has provided management and leadership services include surveying,
photogrammetry, program management, total quality management, and transportation operations. A
BSCE and MSCE graduate of ISU, Walton is a member of ASCE, ASEE, the Construction Institute, and
Society of Land Surveyors of Iowa.
Civil, Construction and Environmental
Engineering Department
496 Town Engineering
Iowa State University
Ames, IA 50011
Tel: 515-294-4861
Fax: 515-294-8216
Email: marlee@iastate.edu
Individuals Providing Special

Assistance to the Committee
BRANDON PIERCE, Design Engineer, V3 Consultants, Tel: 630-724-9200, Email: bpierce@
v3consultants. com. Assistance provided: Inventory
and analyze existing civil engineering masters degree programs. Refer to pages 41-42 and Appendix J
of this report.
AMROU ATASSI, EIT, Project Engineer, Camp
Dresser and McKee, Chicago, IL, Tel: 312-346-5000,
Email: AtassiA@cdm.com. Assistance provided: Develop and maintain bibliography. Refer to Appendix
E of this report.
91
Other Contacts
Jeffrey S. RUSSELL, PE, Chair, ASCE Task Committee on Academic Prerequisites for Professional Practice (TCAP3), Tel: 608-262-7244, Email: russell@engr.wisc.edu.
Members of TCAP3, who served while this BOK
project was being conducted, were:
Richard O. ANDERSON, PE, Email:
Roape1@aol.com.
Norman L. BUEHRING, PE, Email:
normbuehring@msn.com.
Angela DESOTO-DUNCAN, PE, Email:
Angela.L.Desoto@mvn02.usace.army.mil.
John E. DURRANT, PE, Email: jdurrant@asce.org.
Jonathan C. ESSLINGER, Email:
jesslinger@asce.org.
Gerald E. GALLOWAY, Jr., PE, Tel: 571-334-2103,
Email: gerry.galloway@titan.com.
92
C. Gary KELLOGG, PE, Email: gkellogg@

delonhampton.com.
E. Walter LEFEVRE, PE, Email: ewl@engr.uark.edu.
Thomas A. LENOX, Tel: 703-295-6000, Email:
tlenox@asce.org.
David G. MONGAN, PE, Email:
dmongan@wbcm.com.
Craig N. MUSSELMAN, PE, Tel: 603-431-6196,
Email: Cmusselman@cmaengineers.com.
James J. OBRIEN, PE, Tel: 703-295-6055, Email:
jobrien@asce.org.
Bobby E. PRICE, PE, Email: bprice@
tcainternet.com.
Ernest T. SMERDON, PE, Email: EJ6721@aol.com.
Stuart G. WALESH, PE, Vice-Chair, Tel: 219-4641704, Email: stuwalesh@aol.com.
TCAP3 was reconstituted, including some new
members, as the Committee on Academic Prerequisites for Professional Practice (CAP3) in late 2003.
APPENDIX C
Key Points about ASCE Policy

Statement 465
Academic Prerequisites for Licensure

and Professional Practice
Prepared by the Committee on Academic
Prerequisites for Professional Practice (CAP3)
1. The overall purpose of PS 465 is to prepare the
future civil engineer for an increasingly complex
world by significantly increasing the technical
depth and breadth of future civil engineers as
they move through their education and practical
experience.
2. Formulation and adoption of PS 465 was a decade long process and practitioner-driven. The
bottom-line problem statement being addressed by PS 465 is The Body of Knowledge
(BOK) necessary to enter the practice of civil engineering at the professional level in the future is
beyond the scope of the traditional bachelors degree and industry experience.
3. Sections of Engineering the Future of Civil Engineering describe the why of PS 465: A New Skill
and Mind Set for a New Century, Education for a
Complex Future, Fewer Credits, Growing Complexity, and Greater Accountability. A more complete description of Engineering the Future can be
found at www.asce.org/raisethebar.
outcome and three additional breadth outcomes

as illustrated by:
CE BOK
in terms of = 11 ABET +
outcomes
outcomes
3 Breadth outcomes
1 Depth
(project management,
outcome
+ construction, and asset
(specialized
management; business
technical area)
and public policy and
administration; and
leadership)
7. Each outcome is supported by an explanatory

commentary. The commentary is not meant to
be prescriptive but illustrative.
8. It is envisioned that the BOK would be fulfilled
via the Bachelors Plus Masters or approximately
30 credits & experience (B+M/30&E). The E
in B+M/30&E refers to progressive, structured
engineering experience which, when combined
with the educational requirements, results in attainment of the requisite Body of Knowledge.
B+M/30 represents two different, but related,
paths to fulfilling the formal educational requirement for entry into the professional practice of
civil engineering:
5. The Body of Knowledge (BOK) is the foundationeverything builds on it. The BOK is the
knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to enter the practice of civil engineering at the professional level. The report, Civil Engineering BOK
for the 21st Century: Preparing the Civil Engineer
for the Future is available at www.asce.org/
raisethebar.
Path #1. The B+M path refers to a formal educational program consisting of a baccalaureate
degree and an ABET/EAC accredited masters
degree1 once the proposed dual-level accreditation is implemented. Dual-level accreditation
will allow universities to voluntarily seek ABET/
EAC accreditation for both undergraduate and
graduate programs in the same engineering discipline. While it is not required that the baccalaureate degree (the B within the B+M path) be
an ABET/EAC accredited degree, the masters degree (the M within the B+M path) must be
ABET/EAC accredited. In all cases, the overall
B+M program should lead to the fulfillment of
the requisite Body of Knowledge.
6. The BOK consists of 15 outcomes which include

ABETs 11 outcomes plus one additional depth
Path #2. The B + 30 path refers to an educational program consisting of an ABET/EAC ac-
4. PS 465 is in the implementation stage; not a

study stage.
93
credited baccalaureate degree and approximately

30 semester credits of acceptable graduate-level
(or upper-level undergraduate) courses in technical and/or professional practice topic areas. It is
required that the baccalaureate degree (the B
within the B + 30 path) be an ABET/EAC accredited degree. The 30 program does not have
to lead to a masters degree. Some or all of the
courses taken as part of a masters program in a
related professional practice topic area may
count towards the fulfillment of the 30. In all
cases, the overall B + 30 program should lead
to the fulfillment of the requisite Body of Knowledge.
The M or the 30 can be accomplished by traditional campus-based courses or by distance
learning delivery systems. In the future, all or
part of the 30 might be delivered through independently-evaluated, high-quality, standardsbased educational programs offered by firms,
government agencies, and for-profit educational
organizations. It is expected that the role of distance learning will become more prevalent and
important in the future for both degree and nondegree granting programs.
9. University civil engineering departments are
partnering with the BOK Committee to undertake curricula design projects. The purpose of
these BOK design projects is to critique the
B+M programs relative to the fulfillment of the
BOK. Current partners are Colorado State University; Iowa State University; Case Western Reserve University; California State University, Los
94
Angeles; Bucknell University; Western Michigan

University; Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology; and University of Louisville.
10. PS 465 is not about us and now, it is about them
and then, i.e., the engineer of the future. A ten to
twenty year implementation period is expected.
11. Members of the various PS 465 implementation
committees are available to meet with, speak to,
and work with academic leaders. Some contacts:
Jeffrey S. Russell, PhD, PE, Chair, CAP3, russell@engr.wisc.edu.
Stuart G. Walesh, PhD, PE, Vice-Chair, CAP3,
stuwalesh@aol.com.
Craig N. Muselman, PE, Chair, CAP3 Licensure
Committee, Cmusselman@ cmaengineers.com.
Ernest T. Smerdon, PhD, PE, Chair, CAP3 Accreditation Committee, EJ6721@aol.com.
Thomas A. Lenox, PhD, ASCE Staff Contact
Member to CAP3, tlenox@asce.org.
Note
1. Within the context of this document, the various
forms of the term ABET/EAC accredited degrees
refer to engineering degree programs accredited by
ABET and programs commonly considered to be
comparable. Typically, comparable programs have
included Washington Accord programs, Substantially Equivalent programs, and ECEI-assessed
programs. Please see http://www.abet.org for more
information.
APPENDIX D
Civil Engineering Education

and Practice Statistics
Number of U. S. Engineers1
Number of U.S. engineering graduates per year10
Rank of U.S. as a producer of undergraduate engineering

degrees2
Ratio of U.S. undergraduate engineering degrees to the rest of
the Top 10 global producers of undergraduate engineering
degrees2
Number of U.S. civil engineers (1997)3
Percentage of civil engineers who are male4
Percentage of civil engineers who are female4
Number of licensed engineers
Approximate percentage of practicing engineers who are
licensed
Number of licensed civil engineers
Percentage of civil engineering candidates passing all modules

of the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam9
Percentage of civil engineering candidates passing the
Principles and Practice of Engineering (PE) exam9
Number of ABET-accredited civil engineer programs5
Number of CE programs predominately 4-year
undergraduate5
Ratio of MS degrees awarded to BS degrees awarded (expressed
as percentage)6
Average number of students graduating per year with BSCE6
Average number enrolled in BSCE programs6
Number of states requiring continuing professional
competence7
2.6 Million (1.0 Million in other fields, 300,000

retired, 100,000 un-employed, 1.2 Million
working in the engineering field of which
400,000 do not have an engineering degree)
BS 61,000
MS 25,000
PhD 8,000
4th
1:9
210,000
90%
10%
380,000 resident licenses (2002)
24%
Lists not maintained by discipline;
approximately 50%-60% are licensed CEs;
67% of those taking PE exam take civil exam
81% (36% repeat)
58% (31% repeat)
218 programs (67 private, 148 state, and 3
federal)
35, or 16%
44%and this has been consistent for about
25 years
about 8,500 (2002)
about 35,000 (2002)
22
95
Percentage of entering engineering students who complete an

engineering degree and are practicing engineering 5 years after
graduation
Average starting salary for BSCE4
Average starting salary for MS4
Average salary after five years (all degrees)4
Average salary after 10 to 15 years (all degrees)4
Salary growth in real dollars (i.e., adjusted for inflation) for
civil engineers from 1976-19948
approximately 50%
$36,000 (1999)
$42,300 (1999)
$70,000 (1999)
$90,000 (1999)
2.8%
Sources:
1. National Science Board, Science & Engineering Indicators 2002, Vol. 1, http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind02/start.htm
2. Sanoff, A.P. (2003). Americas Newest Export, Prism, March, 19-23. The top 10 global producers of engineering undergraduate degrees are China (196,340), Japan (103,440), Russia (82,409), U.S. (60,914), South Korea (45,145), Germany
(32,663), India (29,000), France (22,828), United Kingdom (22,012), and Mexico (21,358).
3. Appendix 5-1. Scientists and Engineers in the U.S. Labor Force, by Occupation, Sex, and Highest Degree, http://
www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf00327/pdf/appb.pdf
4. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/profile/career/civil.html. Other sources of salary data, not used here, include the
NSF database (http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsrca/start.htm) and the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE).
5. http://www.abet.org/
6. AAES (2002), Engineering & Technology Enrollments and Engineering & Technology Degrees.
7. http://nspe.org/lc1-cpc.asp
8. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Recent College Graduates surveys and Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study, First Follow-up survey.
9. http://www.ncees.org/exams/pass_rates/
10. Bruce Kramer, Time to Rethink Engineering Education?, Pres. at Univ. of South Florida, March 6, 2003.
4-year Undergraduate-Only Institutions Offering ABET-Accredited

Bachelors Degree in Civil Engineering*
Alabama A&M University, Alabama
California State University-Chico, California
Carroll College, Montana
Christian Brothers University, Tennessee
Citadel, South Carolina
Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, Florida
Gonzaga University, Washington
Idaho State University, Idaho
Lafayette College, Pennsylvania
Merrimack College, Massachusetts
Northern Arizona University, Arizona
Norwich University, Vermont
Ohio Northern University, Ohio
Oregon Institute of Technology, Oregon
Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico
Roger Williams University, Rhode Island
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Indiana
Santa Clara University, California
Seattle University, Washington
Southern University, Louisiana
Tri-State University, Indiana
96
University District of the Columbia, District of

Columbia
University of Evansville, Indiana
University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth,
Massachusetts
University of the Pacific, California
University of South Alabama, Alabama
University of Tennessee-Chattanooga, Tennessee
University of Wisconsin-Platteville, Wisconsin
Union College, New York
U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado
U.S. Coast Guard Academy, Connecticut
U.S. Military Academy, New York
Valparaiso University, Indiana
Virginia Military Institute, Virginia
West Virginia University Institute of Technology,
West Virginia
*For a current listing of ABET-accredited programs
see http://www.abet.org/accredited_programs/
EACWebsite. tml.
APPENDIX E
Bibliography
As part of their work, the ASCE Task Committee on

Academic Prerequisites for Professional Practice
(TCAP3), its constituent committees (Body of
Knowledge, Accreditation and Licensure) and
TCAP3s predecessor committee (Task Committee
on the First Professional Degree) researched the literature and other sources. Ideas and information resulting from that collective search have contributed
significantly to the work of the various committees.
The research continues.
Presented here, for the possible benefit of others,
is a list of papers, articles and other sources. Some are
annotated as a further aid to potential users. If you
are aware of useful sources not on this list, please
share that information with the editor of this bibliography, Mr. Amrou Atassi, EIT, Project Engineer,
Camp Dresser and McKee, Email: AtassiA@cdm.com, Tel: 312-346-5000, Fax: 312-3465228.
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Engineering Accreditation Commission. Engineering Criteria 2000. Third Edition.
Akay, Adnan. 2002. The Renaissance Engineer: Educating Engineers in a Post-9/11 World. ASEE/IEEE
Conference in France. October.
ASCE. 1995. Summary Report. 1995 Civil Engineering Education Conference (CEEC 95).
ASCE Body of Knowledge Curricula Committee of
the Task Committee on Academic Prerequisites
for Professional Practice. 2002. Moving Toward a
Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st
Century: Background. October.
ASCE Committee on Curricula and Accreditation
and ASCE Department Heads Council. 2002.
Commentary ASCEProgram Criteria for
Civil and Similarly Named Engineering Programs. Draft 7. May.
Baecher, B. Gregory and Dean, J. Clay. 2002. Civil
Engineering Education: The Future. The Military
Engineer. Vol. 94, No.617. May-June, pp. 33-34.
Barker, J.A. 1989. Discovering the Future: The Business
of Paradigms. ILI Press, St. Paul, MN. (This book,
while acknowledging the advantages of paradigms, cautions against becoming trapped in

them; that is, preferring paradigm paralysis over
paradigm pliancy.)
Bella, A. David. 2003. Plug and Chug, Cram and
Flush. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice. January, pp. 32-39.
Bordogna, Joseph. 1998. Tomorrows Civil Systems
EngineerThe Master Integrator. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and
Practice, Vol. 124, No. 2. April, pp. 48-50.
Boyer, E.L. 1990. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of
The Professoriate, A Special Report. The Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Brenner, R. Brian; Rogers, R. Jerry; and Tener, K.
Robert. The National Practitioner Education Partner (P.E.P.) Award. Forming Civil Engineerings
Future. Proceeding of the 1999 National Civil
Engineering Education Congress. October 16-19,
1999. Charlotte, NC. pp. 109-110.
Canadian Engineers Qualifications Board. 1995. Canadian Council of Professional Engineers Interpretation Guide: Assessing the Suitability of Engineering Experience of Candidates Being
Considered for Admission to the Practice of Engineering in Canada and Structured Engineer-inTraining Programs.
Cleary, B. Douglas and Sun, C. Carlos. 2003. Course
in Professional Practice Issues. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice. January, pp. 52-57.
Conley, C. Ressler, Lenox, S. T., and Samples, J. 2000.
Teaching Teachers to Teach Engineering. Journal
of Engineering Education. ASEE. January.
Council for Higher Education Accreditation
(CHEA). 2002. Looking Back and Looking Forward: CHEAs Fifth Anniversary 1997~2002. Fifth
Annual Report of CHEA.
Cranch, T. Edmund. 1994. The Next Frontier in Engineering Education: The Masters Degree. Journal
of Engineering Education. Vol.83, No.1. January,
pp. 63-68.
97
Daniel, E. David. Advantages of the Masters Degree as

the First Professional Degree. Forming Civil Engineerings Future, Proceeding of the 1999 National
Civil Engineering Education Congress. October
16-19, 1999. Charlotte, NC. pp. 185-189.
Davis, E. James. 2002. Preparation for Practicing in a
Shrinking World. ASCE Journal of Professional
Issues. March.
Davis, Rachel. 2002., Exam Trends Reflect Changes in
the Profession. NSPE Engineering Times, Vol.24,
No.4. April, p. 12.
Dennis, N. 2001. ExCEEd Teaching Workshop: Taking It
on the Road. Proceedings of the American Society
for Engineering Education. Albuquerque, NM.
Director, W. Stephen. 2001. Licensure vs. Professionalism. NSPE Engineering Times. December, p. 5.
Director, W. Stephen. 2002. Time for a Change.
Prism. Vol. 11, No. 7. March, p. 60.
Dorato, Peter and Lyons, William. 2002. Master of
Engineering: Past, Present, Future. Proceeding of
the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, American Society for
Engineering Education. June 16-19.
Douglas, E. 2001. A Comprehensive Approach to
Classroom Teaching: Does It Work? Proceedings of
the American Society for Engineering Education.
Albuquerque, NM.
Dowell, Earl; Baum, Eleanor; and McTague, John.
1994. Engineering Education for a Changing
World. A joint project report by the Engineering
Deans Council and Corporate Roundtable of the
American Society for Engineering Education.
October, pp. 12-13.
Engineering News-Record. 2002. Looking at Construction Education in Colleges and Universities.
Vol. 249, No. 17. October.
Ernst, W. Edward. Review of Reports, Studies, and
Conferences on Engineering Education 1981-1997.
National Science Foundation.
Estes, A., and Ressler, S. 2001. ExCEEd Teaching
Workshop: Fulfilling a Critical Need. Proceedings
of the American Society for Engineering Education. Albuquerque, NM.
Fauerbach, M. Shanon. 2002. Lessons in Licensing.
CE News. Vol.14, No.4. May, p. 6.
Feisel, L. D. and G. D. Peterson. 2002. A Colloquy
on Learning Objectives for Engineering Education Laboratories, Proceedings of the 2002 ASEE
Annual Conference and Exposition. (Reports on
the early stages of a project intended to determine if remote, that is, distance learning, laboratory experiences can accomplish the goals of educational laboratories in engineering. Presents a
preliminary list of 13 learning objectives for engineering laboratories. Points to distance learning
laboratory projects and evaluation of them.)
98
Fromm, E. 2003. The Changing Engineering Education

Paradigm. Journal of Engineering Education
ASEE. April, pp. 113-121. (Begins by noting that
the post-World War II engineering science movement in engineering education had progressed to
the point where engineering undergraduate education was becoming largely disassociated from
the practice of engineering. Describes a totally
clean slate approach to undergraduate engineering education which began at Drexel University in
1987. This project included defining a set of characteristics which future graduates should possess
to become leaders of the profession. The 12 characteristics (quoted) are:
1. A strong foundation in basic sciences, mathematics and engineering fundamentals;
2. A capacity to apply these fundamentals to a
variety of problems;
3. Knowledge and experience in experimental
methods;
4. Knowledge and skills in the fundamentals of
engineering practice;
5. Advanced knowledge of selected professional-level technologies;
6. Strong oral and written communication
skills;
7. A sense of corporate and business basics;
8. A sense of social, ethical, political, and human responsibility;
9. A historical and societal perspective of the
impact of technology;
10. A unifying and interdisciplinary broad view;
11. A culture for life-long learning; and
12. A creative and intellectual spirit, a capacity
for critical judgment, and enthusiasm for
learning.
Science, engineering and humanities faculty designed and implemented the more holistic educational experience.)
Glassick, C.E.; Huber, M.T; and Maeroff, G. I.. 1997.
Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. Special Report of the Carnegie Foundation
for the Advancement of Teaching, Jossey-Bass
Inc. San Francisco, CA.
Heidebrecht, Arthur. 1999. Evolution of Engineering
Education in Canada. December.
Hornbeck, E. David. 1999. Needed: An Improved
Definition for Engineering Technology. Forming
Civil Engineerings Future, Proceeding of the
1999 National Civil Engineering Education Congress. October 16-19. Charlotte, NC. pp. 45-50.
Jones, C. Russel and Oberst, S. Bethany. 2002. Are
Current Engineering Graduates Being Treated as
Commodities by Employers?. Engineering Times.
April. Vol. 24, No. 4, p. 5.
Kassop, M. 2003. Ten Ways Online Education Matches,

or Surpasses, Face-to-Face Learning. The Technology
Source, May/June. (http:// ts.mivu.org/default.asp.show=article&id= 1059). (Based on experience at 19 community colleges, the author asserts
that online courses may surpass traditional F2F
(face-to-face) courses in quality and rigor. Ten
ways in which online education excels are: 1) Student-centered learning (learning on their own and
teaching each other), 2) writing intensity (much
more student writing), 3) highly interactive discussions (many more students participate and the discussion is of higher quality), 4) geared to lifelong
learning (students learn how to learn using electronic means), 5) enriched course materials (students have virtual access to the world), 6) on-demand interaction and support services (assistance
is just a click away at almost any time), 7) immediate feedback (students can interact almost any time
with their instructors), 8) flexibility (formal study
can be integrated with family, work and other responsibilities), 9) an intimate community of learners (students get to know each other), and 10) faculty development and rejuvenation (as a result of
using a new teaching medium). The author notes
that teaching online is more workfrequently
much more workthan teaching in a classroom.)
Keller, D. Brant. 2002. Who Says You Have to Be an
Engineer to Be a Stormwater Utility Manager?
Stormwater. July. Vol. 3, No. 5, pp. 10-11.
Knapp, K. 2000. Learning to Teach Engineers: The
Applicability and Compatibility of One Approach.
Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education. St. Louis, MO.
Korman, Richard and Illia, Tony. 2002. The Shaw
Group Branches Out As his Stone & Webster deal
pays off fast, James M. Bernhard Jr. wins a slew of
contracts. Cover Story Companies. April. Engineering News-Record. Vol. 248, No. 12.
Kowel, T. Stephen. 2002. Letter from Dean Stephen T.
Kowel. The University of Cincinnati. Cincinnati,
Ohio. The Quadrangle. p. 8.
Kraft, R. G. 2000. Teaching Excellence and the Inner
Life of Faculty. CHANGE. May-June, pp. 48-52.
Lemay, Marie. 2001. Meeting the Challenge of Continuing Relevance for the Engineering Profession. Presented to the Board of Directors. May.
Lowman, J. 1995. Mastering the Techniques of Teaching, Jossey-Bass, Inc. San Francisco, CA.
Mangan, K. 2002. Colleges in 16 Countries Work to
Create Virtual Medical School. Chronicle of Higher
Education. Chronicle Daily News. Wednesday,
October 9.
McGuire, William and Berth, F. Donald. 1965. Cornells New Engineering Degree Programs. The Cornell Engineer. January, pp. 7-10.
McGuire, William. 1996. Structural Engineering

Some Trends and Future Directions. The Fourth
Annual Thomas C. Kavanagh Memorial Structural Engineering Lecture. April.
McVearry, D. Rachel. 2003. Education Initiative May
Raise the Bar for Licensure. NSPE Engineering
Times. May
MIT. 2000. Using Technology to Melt Educational
Boundaries. Open Door, Ideas and Voices from
MIT. November (http://alumweb.mit.edu/opendoor/200011/).
Nadine, M. 2002. ASCE shaking up status Quo with
new programs, Leaders. Engineering NewsRecord. November 11th. Vol. 249, No. 20, p.12.
Nowatzki, A. Edward. 2002. Model for Education,
Professional Preparation, and Licensure of Civil
Engineers.
NSPE Engineering Times. 2001. Engineer Prestige
Climbs in Poll. December.
Pennoni, C. R. 1998. Managing Your Career in an
Era of Change, Journal of Professional Issues in
Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 124,
No. 3, July, pp. 75-77.
Pfatteicher, K.A. Sarah. 2003. Depending on Character: ASCE Shapes Its First Code of Ethics. Journal
of Professional Issues in Engineering Education
and Practice. January, pp. 21-31.
Phillips, Win. 1999. First Degree Is of Primary Importance. Civil Engineering. January. Vol. 69, Issue 1,
p. 96.
Pritchard, Chris. 2003. Make It A Double. Teaching
Toolbox.
Reich, R.B. 1991. The Work of Nations. Knopf, New
York, NY. (In writing about the future, Reich predicts the rise of symbolic analysts in the global
economy. This is a category of workers who will
have the most productive, secure and satisfying
careers. The symbolic analysts strength is not
knowledge per se, but the ability to quickly and
creatively use knowledge to solve problems. Although Reich doesnt speak explicitly to civil engineering, the critical skills he identifies-abstraction, system thinking, experimentation, and
collaboration-might be the substance of progressive civil engineering.)
Ressler, J. Stephen. 1999. An Integrated EC 2000Based Program Assessment System. Forming Civil
Engineerings Future, Proceeding of the 1999 National Civil Engineering Education Congress. October 16-19, 1999. Charlotte, NC. pp. 103-108.
Roesner, L. and Walesh, S. 1998. Corporate University: Consulting Firm Case Study. ASCE Journal of
Management and Engineering. March/April.
Rubin, Robert; Quintas, Bettina and Roth, Deborah.
The Changing Role of The Civil Engineer in Society. Personal Communication.
99
Rubin, K. Debra; Rosenbaum, B. David; and Barnes,

Johnathan. 2002. U.S. Civil Engineering Schools
Schools Seek New Ways to Retain A Most Valuable
Assets-Student. Engineering News Record. October 21.
Russell, J. and Stouffer, W. 2003. An Analysis of Existing Civil Engineering Programs. Presented at the
International Conference/Workshop on Engineering Education honoring Professor James T.P.
Yao, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
February 21 & 22, 2003.
Sanoff, P. Alvin. 2002. A Quiet sort of Revolutionary.
Prism. September. Vol. 12, No. 1, p. 30.
Saperstein, W. Lee. 1999. Models for Engineering Education and ABET. Forming Civil Engineerings
Future, Proceeding of the 1999 National Civil
Engineering Education Congress. October 16-19,
1999. Charlotte, NC. pp. 7-10.
Schneck, J. Daniel. 2002. Educating Students to be
Creative Problem Solvers as 21st Century Engineers. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice. July. Vol. 128, Issue
3, pp. 100-106.
Schwartz, Jr. H. Gerard. 2002. Raising the Bar. ASCE
News. March. Vol.27, No. 3, p. 4.
Smerdon, T. Ernest. 2000. National Engineering Education Developments and Challenges. Forming
Civil Engineerings Future. Proceeding of the 1999
National Civil Engineering Education Congress.
October 16-19, 1999. Charlotte, NC. pp. 1-6.
SEER Campaign. 2003. Commentaries on the SEER
(System Engineering Education Reform) Campaign. April.
Stadler, T. Alan. 1999. Assessment Tools for ABET Engineering Criteria 2000. Forming Civil Engineerings Future. Proceeding of the 1999 National
Civil Engineering Education Congress. October
16-19, 1999. Charlotte, NC. pp. 101-102.
Strong, A. Brent. 2003. Beat Back the Nerd and
Awaken Your inner Leader. Composites Fabrication. February, pp. 24-27 and 40-42. (Rather than
whine about the growing influence of other professions, the author urges engineers to take control and develop their own power. How? By
broadening education and experience without
sacrificing technical depth. Otherwise, engineers
risk being trapped in the nerd zone. Graphically
presents a leadership model consisting of a foundation of values; technical, business and general
education columns; and a creativity roof. Advocates linear creativity (advancing the project at
hand) and lateral creativity (based on innovation,
intuition and broad vision). Lateral creativity requires breadth of education and experience.)
Tsai, S. and Machado, P. 2001. E-learning, Online
Learning, Web-based Learning, or Distance Learn-
100
ing: Unveiling the Ambiguity in Current Terminology. Elearn Magazine (http://elearnmag.org).

Vesilind, P.A. 2003. Engineering and the Threat of
Terrorism. ASCE Journal of Professional Issues in
Engineering Education and Practice. April, pp.
70-74. (Argues that reducing terrorism threats
requires a combination of technology and an improved understanding of diverse cultures. For engineers, the latter requires a broader education.)
Walesh, G. Stuart. 2001. Engineering the Future of
Civil Engineering in the U.S., Educating the Engineer for the 21st Century: Proceedings of the 3rd
Workshop on Global Engineering Education,
Aachen, Germany, October, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, London. pp. 163-172.
Wankat, Phillip and Oreovicz, Frank. 2002. A Certain Standard In addition to research, grad school
programs need to teach their students how to communicate, work in groups, and solve problems.
Prism. Vol. 11, No. 7. March, p.36.
Weisstuch, N. Donald and Lanzer, K. Gwendolyn.
1999. Engineering Education in the 21st CenturyA practitioners Perspective. Forming Civil
Engineerings Future. Proceeding of the 1999 National Civil Engineering Education Congress.
October 16-19, 1999. Charlotte, NC. pp. 95-100.
Welch, R.; Baldwin, J.; Bentler, D.; Clarke, D.; Gross,
S.; and Hitt, J. 2001. The ExCEEd Teaching Workshop: Participants Perspective and Assessment.
Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education. Albuquerque, NM.
Welch, R.; Baldwin, J.; Bentler, D.; Clarke, D.; Gross,
S.; and Hitt, J. 2001. The ExCEEd Teaching Workshop: Hints to Successful Teaching. Proceedings of
the American Society for Engineering Education.
Albuquerque, NM.
Wheeler, D. Claudia. 2002. A Workplace Perspective.
Workforce Diversity. Summer. pp. 34-37.
Willenbrock, F. Karl. 1989. Imperatives in Undergraduate Engineering Education Issues and Actions. July.
Wisconsin Professional Engineer. 2001. Where does
the Education Requirement stop? How much education is enough in the practice of engineering?
Sep.-Oct., pp. 12-19.
Wulf, A. William and Fisher, M.C. George. 2002. A
Makeover for Engineering Education. Issues in Science and Technology. Vol. 18, No. 3. Spring. pp.
35-39.
Yao, J. T. P. and Roesset, J. M. 1999. Civil Engineering
Curricula For the First Professional Degree. Forming Civil Engineerings Future. Proceeding of the
1999 National Civil Engineering Education Congress. October 16-19, 1999. Charlotte, NC. pp.
89-94.
APPENDIX F
Correspondents of the ASCE

Body of Knowledge Committee
Listed below are 60 individuals, most of whom were

invited or volunteered to serve as Correspondents,
agreed to do so, and then responded to one or more
queries from the Body of Knowledge (BOK) Committee. Also included, for illustrative purposes, are
some other individuals who responded to articles,
presentations and other forms of communication
about the BOK (denoted by *). Of the 54 Correspondents and other individuals for which affiliations are known, 22 were in academia, 24 in business, and nine in government. The parenthetic
number at the end of each persons content information indicates the order of initial input. Being listed
in this appendix does not necessarily mean that an
individual endorses this report.
Academic, business, and government affiliations
are indicated by the following:
A: Academia
B: Business
G: Government
William ARCHDEACON, PE, PLS, Vice President,
Site Civil Program Lead, Entranco, Barchdeacon@
Entranco.com, B, (20)
Amrou ATASSI, EI, CDM, Chicago, IL, AtassiA@
cdm.com, B, (7)
T. Al AUSTIN, University Professor, Iowa State University, (deceased), Ames, IA, austin@iastate.edu,
A, (deceased), (35)
Lynn E. BARR, PE, President, Underground Construction Company, Benicia, CA, lynn@undergrnd.com, B, (6)
Warren P. BASS, PE, Vice President Engineering,
Ohio Ready Mixed Concrete Association, Columbus, OH, warren@ohioconcrete.org, B, (60)
N. Catherine BAZAN-ARIAS, PhD, EIT, GAI Consultants, Monroeville, PA, n.bazan-arias@
gaiconsultants.com, B (48)
Mark BERGUM, Clark Dietz, Chicago, IL,
markbe@clark-dietz.com, B, (12)
Frank BRACAGLIA, PE, Senior Project Manager,

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., Watertown, MA,
fbracaglia@vhb.com, B, (1)
William B. CRANSTON, Profession Emeritus, University of Paisley, Scotland, UK, bill@cran-ce0.
.co.uk, A, (49)
Don DARNELL, (referred by C. Keyes) (29)
Daniel P. DIETZLER, PE, President, Patrick Engineering, Lisle, IL, ddietzler@patrickengineering.
com, B, (21)
Peter DORATO, Professor and Director, Center for
Intelligent Systems Engineering, the University of
New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, peter@
eece.unm.edu, A, (14)
Kevin EADES, (referred by C. Keyes) (25)
Bruce P. ELSNER, PE, U.S. Department of Energy,
belsner@doeal.gov, G, (54)*
Robert M. EVETTS, PE, Program Manager, Abandoned Mine Land Bureau, NM, revetts@
state.nm.us. G, (24)
Harry FARCHMIN, Camp Dresser & McKee, Milwaukee, WI, FarchminHJ@cdem.com, B, (41)
John FARR, PhD, PE, Professor, Stevens Institute of
Technology, jfarr@stevens-tech.edu, A, (16)
Eric FISHER, Brown & Gay Engineers, Houston,
TX, efisher@browngay.com, B, (55)*
Michael FISHMAN, Vice President, Sam Schwartz
Company, New York, NY, mfishman@ samschwartz.com, B, (19)
Lincoln FORBES, PhD, PE, Supervisor of Facilities
Planning, Miami-Dade County Public Schools,
Miami, FL, Conqualrsh@aol.com, G, (9)
Harvey GOBAS, Brown and Caldwell, Irvine, CA,
Hgobas@BrownCald.com, B, (47)
Johannes GESSLER, PhD, PE, Professor of Civil Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, gessler@engr.colostate.edu, A, (42)
Jonathan GIFFORD, Director, Masters in Transportation Policy, School of Public Policy, George
101
Mason University, Fairfax, VA, jgifford@

gmu.edu. A, (34)
Ed HALTENHOFF, PE, retired practitioner and university lecturer, ehaltenh@up.net, B, (56)*
Stephen HARDIN, retired from federal government,
(referred by C. Keyes), G, (28)
John A. HARDWICK, PE, General Manager, Valparaiso Department of Water Works, Valparaiso,
IN, jahvwd@netnitco.net, G, (18)
Hank HATCH, Hankhatch@aol.com, B, (37)
Bill HAYDEN, Jr., PE, Wendel Duchscherer Architects & Engineers, Amherst, NY, Whayden@
wd-ae-com, B, (11)
Mel HENSEY, Principal, Hensey Associates, Cincinnati, OH, MHensey@aol.com, B, (39)
Michael HIGHTOWER, (referred by C. Keyes) (26)
Robert J. HOUGHTALEN, Professor and Head, Civil
Engineering, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Terre Haute, IN, robert.j.houghtalen@ rosehulman.edu, A, (13)
Jeff JAROSZ, Research Assistant to the Dean of Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
MD, jjarosz1@jhu.edu, A, (44)
Jonathan E. JONES, PE, Vice President, Wright Water Engineers, Denver, CO, jonjones@
wrightwater.com, B, (17)
Timothy P. KAISER, PE, tim.kaiser2@verizon, B,
(53)*
William KELLY, PhD, PE, Catholic University of
America, Washington, DC, Kellyw@cua.edu, A,
(40)
Robin KEMPER, PE, Assistant Director Structural
Division, consulting firm, Robin.Kemper@
fpawww.com, B, (22)
Conrad G. KEYES, PE, Mesilla Park, NM, ckeyes@
nmsu.edu, A, (36)
Merlin KIRSCHENMAN, Professor Emeritus,
Construction Division of Civil Engineering Department, North Dakota State University,
M.Kirschenman @ndsu.nodak.edu, A, (51)
Debra LARSON, PhD, Northern Arizona University,
Flagstaff, AZ, Debra.Larson@nau.edu, A, (38)
Jim LIGGETT, Professor Emeritus, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, jal8@cornell.edu, A, (3)
Andrew MARTIN, sandymartin@core.com, (45)
Alan F. MCNAB, President, Geo-Institute Board of
Governors (2003), (referred by Thomas Jackson),
(31)
Stuart A. MORING, PE, Director of Public Works,
Roswell, GA, smoring@ci.roswell.ga.us., G, (57)*
102
Wilfred NIXON, Professor, University of Iowa, Iowa

City, IA, wilfrid-nixon@uiowa.edu, A, (46)
Edward A. NOWATZKI, Professor Emeritus, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, eanowatzki@
msn.com, A, (52)
Jason M. OBERGFELL, PE, Watershed Engineer,
Lake County Stormwater Management Commission, Libertyville, IL, Jobergfell@co.lake.il.us, G,
(10)
Robert A. PERKINS, PE, Associate Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks, ffrap@uaf.edu, A,
(59)*
Mike PORTS, PE, HNTB, Kansas City, MO,
mports@ hntb.com, B, (30)
Rick RAMPONE, PE, Office Manager, Earth Tech,
Indianapolis, IN, Rick_Rampone@earthtech.
com, B, (33)
Douglas G. SCHMUCKER, PhD, PE, Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, Valparaiso University,
Valparaiso, IN harvey@valpo.edu, A, (4)
David SCHWEGEL, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Kent, WA, dschwegel@barghausen.com, B,
(43)
Bradford SPRING, PhD, Civil Engineering Department, Valparaiso University, Valparaiso, IN,
Brad.Spring@valpo.edu, A, (15)
Bernard Ray TILLERY, PE, Amarillo Testing and Engineering, Inc., Amarillo, TX, ray@amatest-nengr.com, B, (58)*
Jose M. URENA, Professor, City and Regional Planning, Civil Engineering, Universidad de Castillo
La Mancha, Cindad Real, Spain, josemaria.
urena@uclm.es, A, (50)
Randolph VIDEKOVICH, PE, Earth Tech, Milwaukee, WI, Randy_Videkovich@earthtech.com, B,
(32)
Coy D. WEBB, PE, Holloman AFB, NM,
Coy.Webb@holloman.af.mil, G, (23)
Michael B. WILKINS, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ft. Bragg Area Office, michael.b.wilkins@
sas02.usace.army.mil, G, (2)
Clinton WOODWARD, (an educator referred by C.
Keyes), A, (27)
Al WORTLEY, PE, Madison, WI, wortley@
engr.wisc.edu, A, (5)
J.T.P. YAO, Professor, Texas A&M University, College
Station, TX, jyao@civilmail.tamu.edu, A, (8)
APPENDIX G
Articles, Papers, Presentations

and Workshops
Articles and Papers

BOK Committee members and others authored or
co-authored articles and papers for ASCE and targeted non-ASCE publications whose readers would
be likely to be interested in major improvement of
civil engineering education. The articles helped to
move readers from awareness to understanding, to
solicit input and to broaden support.
Organizations outside of the ASCE that have
published relevant articles and papers include the
American Academy of Environmental Engineers, the
ABET, the ASEE, the Boston Society of Civil Engineers, and the Society of American Military Engineers. The following articles and papers, listed in
chronological order, have been or will be published:
a. Schwartz Jr., H.G. 2002. Raising the Bar: The
Future of Engineering Education, Environmental Engineer, January, pp. 7-10.
b. Task Committee on Academic Prerequisites for
Professional Practice. 2002. Policy Statement
465: Why We Must Raise the Bar, Civil Engineering ASCE, April, pp. 60-65.
c. ASCE Policy 465: Academic Prerequisites for Licensure and Professional Practice, Part I of II:
What Does the Policy Say? 2002. BSCESNEWS,
April, p. 5.
d. ASCE Policy 465: Academic Prerequisites for Licensure and Professional Practice. 2002. Newsletter of the CE Division of ASEE, April.
e. Task Committee on Academic Prerequisites for
Professional Practice. 2002. ASCE Policy 465: Academic Prerequisites for Licensure and Professional Practice, Georgia Engineer, April-May, pp.
36-37.
f. ASCE Policy 465: Academic Prerequisites for Licensure and Professional Practice. Part II of II:
How Does This Policy Impact Current Students
and Practitioners? 2002. BSCESNEWS, May, p. 5.
g. Anderson, R.O. 2002. Structural Engineers Are

Raising the Bar, The Structural Connection,
Structural Engineers Association of Michigan,
May.
h. Walesh, S.G. 2002. The Future of Civil Engineering, The Military Engineer, May-June, pp.
39-40.
i. Anderson, R.O. 2002. Civil Engineers Raise the
Bar, Communications Link, The ABET Quarterly
News Source, Spring, pp. 8-9.
j. Task Committee on Academic Prerequisites for
Professional Practice. 2002. Why Raise the Education Bar for Civil Engineering? Proceedings of
the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Montreal,
Canada, June 16-19.
k. Walesh, S.G. 2002. Implementing ASCEs Masters Policy, Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Montreal, Canada, June 16-19.
l. ASCE Task Committee on Academic Prerequisites for Professional Practice (TCAP3) and
Brewer Stouffer, 2002. ASCE Policy 465: Academic Prerequisites for Licensure and Professional Practice, APWA Reporter, September.
m. Civil Engineering Education: Alternative Paths
by James Liggett and Robert Ettema. 2001. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering ASCE, Vol. 127,
No. 12, December, pp. 1041-1051. Discussions by
the members of Task Committee for Academic
Prerequisites for Professional Practice (TCAP^3)
and Brewer Stouffer, publication date not yet
known.
n. ASCE e-newsletter bi-weekly starting August 8,
2002.
o. Task Committee on Academic Prerequisites for
Professional Practice (TCAP^3). 2003. We Are
Listening: A Progress Report on Policy Statement
465, Letters, Civil Engineering ASCE, January,
pp. 10-11.
103
p. Task Committee Developing Implementation

Plan for Policy Statement 465. 2003. ASCE
News, January, p. 5.
q. Walesh, S.G., G. Galloway, T.A. Lenox, and J.S.
Russell. 2003. Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge: Preparing for the Future. Presented at the
International Conference/Workshop honoring
Professor James T.P. Yao, Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX, February 21-22.
r. Russell, J.S. and W. B. Stouffer. 2003. CEM Faculty: A Leading Opportunity for the CE Profession. Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for
Civil Engineers, Construction Congress, Honolulu,
Hawaii, March 19-21.
s. Walesh, S.G. 2003. Draft Body of Knowledge
Available for Comment. Civil Engineering Division of ASEE Spring 2003 Newsletter.
t. Walesh, S.G. 2003. Preparing for Future Practice
by Raising the Civil Engineering Education Bar.
Compendium of Conference Materials, American
Council of Engineering Companies Annual Convention, Boston, MA, May 11-14.
u. Task Committee on Academic Prerequisites for
Professional Practice. 2003. ASCEs Raise the
Bar Initiative: Master Plan for Implementation.
Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Nashville, TN, June 23-26.
v. Russell, J.S. and W. B. Stouffer. 2003. A Bit Too
Liberal: Electives and General Education. Proceedings of the 2003 American Society of Engineering Education, Nashville, TN, June 23-26.
w. Walesh, S.G. 2003. ASCEs Raise the Bar Initiative: Body of Knowledge for the Future. Proceedings of the 2003 American Society of Engineering
Education, Nashville, TN, June 23-26.
x. Smerdon, E. and R.O. Anderson. 2003. ASCEs
Raise the Bar Initiative: Accreditation and Related Barriers and Other Critical Issues. Proceedings of the 2003 American Society of Engineering
Education, Nashville, TN, June 23-26.
y. Walesh, S. G. 2000. Preparing the Civil Engineer
for the Future: A Broader and Deeper Body of
Knowledge, CE News, September, pp. 38-42.
z. Task Committee on Academic Prerequisites for
Professional Practice ASCE, A Progress Report
on Policy Statement 465, Letters, Civil Engineering, September.
aa. Policy Statement 465 Subcommittee Makes Recommendations Regarding Body of Knowledge,
Seeks Additional Comments from Members,
ASCE News, October, 2003.
bb. Fauerbach, S. 2003. In Your WordsReaders
Respond to Proposals for Professional Civil Engineering Requirements, CE News, October, 2003.
104
cc. Russell, J. S., W. B. Stouffer, and S. G. Walesh.

2004. Changing Civil Engineering Education: A
Systems View, Proceedings of the 2003 ASCE
Leader and Manager Construction Congress, Hilton Head, SC, March 25 26.
Conference Presentations
BOK Committee members and others participated
in conference sessions devoted or related to the civil
engineering BOK and/or curricula. Active conference participation provided additional opportunities to move stakeholders from awareness to understanding and to solicit input and broaden support.
Conference participation completed or planned is as
follows:
a. June 2002 ASEE Annual Conference, Montreal,
Canada (Lenox, Russell, Walesh).
b. July 2002 Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems Conference, Glen Cove, NY (Walesh).
c. July 2002 North American Engineering Education Workshop, Cleveland, OH (Russell).
d. October 2002 Global Changes in Engineering
Education International Colloquium, Berlin
(Russell).
e. November 2002, Department Heads Council,
ASCE Annual Conference, Washington, DC
(Russell, Walesh).
f. February 2003, International Conference/Workshop on Engineering Education (Yao Conference), Texas A&M University, College Station,
TX (Russell, Galloway).
g. April 2003, New Mexico Section ASCE, Spring
Meeting, Las Cruces, NM (Walesh).
h. May 2003, ACEC, Annual Convention, Boston,
MA (Walesh).
i. June 2003 ASEE, Annual Conference, Nashville,
TN (Lenox, Russell, Smerdon, Walesh).
j. June 2003, ASEE Engineering Deans Council,
Nashville, TN (Smerdon, Walesh).
k. September 2003, International Congress on Civil
Engineering Education, Spain (Walesh).
l. September 2003, Michigan Section ASCE,
Kalamazoo, MI (Galloway).
m. October 2003, Oklahoma City Branch ASCE,
Oklahoma City, OK (Russell).
n. October 2003, ASCE Committee on Water Resources Certification, Las Vegas, NV (Walesh).
o. November 2003, ASCE Annual Conference,
Nashville, TN (Lenox, Russell, Walesh).
p. November 2003, SunCoast Branch, Florida Section ASCE, Sarasota, FL (Walesh).
q. February 2004, UW-Plateville ASCE Student
Chapter (Russell).
r. February 2004, Dayton Branch ASCE and Student Chapter (Russell).

s. February 2004, Cincinnati Branch ASCE and
Student Chapter (Russell).
t. April 2004, Indiana Section ASCE, Indianapolis,
IN (Walesh).
u. June 2004, ASEE Annual Conference, Salt Lake
City, UT.
v. October 2004, ASCE Annual Conference, Baltimore, MD.
Presentations and Workshops

at Universities
BOK Committee members and others arranged and/
or facilitated BOK-focused presentations and workshops for various groups of faculty, administrators,
and other stakeholders. Completed or planned
workshops:
a. October 2002, Faculty, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Carnegie Mellon
University, Pittsburgh, PA (Russell).
b. November 2002, Faculty, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, University of
Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL (Walesh).
c. November 2002, Curricula Design Workshop,
Department of Civil Engineering, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, CO (Lenox, OBrien,
Russell, Walesh).
d. January 2003, Curricula Design Workshop, Department of Civil Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA (OBrien, Russell, Walesh).
e. February 2003, Faculty, Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX (Russell, Galloway).
f. March 2003, Curricula Design Workshop, Department of Civil Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (OBrien, Russell).
g. April 2003, Chair of the Department of Civil Engineering, South Florida University, Tampa, FL
(Shearer, Walesh).
h. April 2003, Faculty, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois,
Champaign-Urbana, IL (Walesh).
i. April 2003, Civil and Environmental Advisory
Board, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, IL (Walesh).
j. April 2003, Curricula Design Workshop, Department of Civil Engineering, California State Uni-
versity, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA (OBrien,

Russell).
k. May 2003, Curricula Design Workshop, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA (Lenox,
Walesh).
l. July 2003, Curricula Design Workshop, Department of Civil and Construction Engineering,
Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI
(Russell, Walesh).
m. August 2003, Curricula Design Workshop, Department of Civil Engineering, Rose Hulman Institute of Technology, Terra Haute, IN (Lenox,
Russell, Walesh).
n. September 2003, Faculty, Engineering and Technology, Wentworth Institute of Technology, Boston, MA (Walesh).
o. October 2003, Faculty and students, Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Oklahoma State University, Oklahoma City, OK (Russell).
p. October 2003, Faculty, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK (Russell).
q. October 2003, Curricula Design Workshop, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Louisville, Louisville, KY (Lenox, Russell).
r. January 2004, Curricula Design Workshop, Department of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman,
OK (Lennox and Russell).
s. January 2004, Faculty, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Penn State University, University Park, PA (Lenox and Russell).
t. February 2004, Faculty, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA (Walesh).
u. February 2004, Curricula Design Workshop,
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, Norwich University, Northfield, VT
(Walesh).
v. March 2004, Curricula Design Workshop, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH (Lenox and Russell).
w. April 2004, Curricula Design Workshop, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Washington State University, Pullman, WA (Lenox and Russell).
105
APPENDIX H
Engineering Program Outcomes

Established by the Accreditation
Board for Engineering and
Technology
ABET states that Engineering programs must demonstrate that their graduates have:
(f)
an understanding of professional and ethical

responsibility.
(a)
an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics,

science and engineering.
(g)
an ability to communicate effectively.
(h)
(b)
an ability to design and conduct experiments,

as well as to analyze and interpret data.
the broad education necessary to understand

the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.
(c)
an ability to design a system, component, or

process to meet desired needs.
(i)
a recognition of the need for, and an ability to

engage in life-long learning.
(d)
an ability to function on multi-disciplinary

teams.
(j)
a knowledge of contemporary issues.
(k)
(e)
an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
an ability to use the techniques, skills, and

modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.
106
APPENDIX I
Resources for Improving

Teaching Effectiveness in Civil
Engineering
1. A Bibliography from the Eberly Center for Teaching Effectiveness at Carnegie Mellon: http://
www.cmu.edu/teaching/documents/bibliography.html
2. An Education Resources Page from a Master Engineering Educator, Richard Felder: http://
www.ncsu.edu/effective_teaching/
3. The National Science Foundation sponsored several Engineering Education Coalitions which
have developed large amounts of material on improving teaching and specific courses. Websites
for the coalitions are:
Gateway: http://www.gatewaycoalition.org
Greenfield:
http://www.mie.eng.wayne.edu/research/greenfield/greenfield.html
SUCCEED: http://www.succeednow.org
Synthesis Coalition:
http://www.synthesis.org
4. The American Society of Civil Engineers ExCEEd
(Excellence in Civil Engineering Education)
Teaching Workshop (ETW) for improved teaching: http://www.asce.org/exceed/
Foundation:
http://www.foundationcoalition.org
107
APPENDIX J
Types of Masters Degree

Programs Available to
Civil Engineers
Masters of Civil Engineering
Masters of Engineering Science
Coursework Program option: 30-33 semester course

credits
Thesis or Design Program option: 20-28 semester
course credits, 3-6 thesis semester credits
Timeline: 12 to 24 months
Entrance Degree: bachelors in engineering, mathematics, or science
Example Design Program: University of Minnesota
Twin Cities
Student graduates with a BSCE.
Student completes at least 14 civil engineering
graduate credits and 6 graduate credits outside of
the civil engineering department.
Student demonstrates professional competency
by preparing a design project that incorporates a
full project lifecycle with at least 10 graduate design credits.
Student will convene a committee and submit for
a final oral examination in one of two topic areas;
design project or coursework.

credits
Thesis Program option: 20-28 semester course credits, 3-6 thesis semester credits
Timeline: 12 months
Entrance Degree: bachelors in chemistry, physics,
mathematics, geology or life sciences
Example Thesis Program: Georgia Institute of Technology
Student graduates with a bachelors degree in engineering or physical sciences.
Student completes at least 24 civil engineering and
appropriate physical sciences graduate credits.
by preparing a research or application thesis
project with at least 6 graduate thesis credits.
Masters of Construction Management

credits
Timeline: 12 months
Entrance Degree: bachelors in engineering
Example Design Program: University of Southern
California
Student graduates with a bachelors degree in engineering, allied fields, or sciences and experience
in capital management and statistics.
Student completes at least 26 program specific
graduate credits and 6 elective graduate credits
outside of the civil engineering department.
108
Masters of Engineering in
Civil Engineering
credits
Design Program option: 20-28 semester course credits, 3-6 thesis semester credits
Example Coursework Program: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Student graduates with a bachelors degree in engineering.
graduate credits.
Student may elect to do a thesis or design project
with 3 or 6 graduate credits.
Masters of Science
credits & design project
Entrance Degree: bachelors degree
Example Thesis Program: University of Central Florida
Student graduates with a bachelors degree in engineering, allied fields, or sciences.
graduate credits in a specific field.
project with at least six graduate thesis credits.
a final oral examination that will defend the thesis.
Masters of Science in
Engineering Management
Coursework Program option: 33 semester course
credits
Timeline: 24 months
Example Thesis Program: University of California,
Berkeley
graduate credits and six graduate credits outside
of the civil engineering department.
project with at least nine graduate thesis credits.
Masters of Science in Civil

Engineering
credits
Design Project: 30 semester course credits, 2-6 design project semester credits
Example Thesis Program: Purdue University
graduate credits and six graduate credits outside
of the civil engineering department.
project with at least nine graduate thesis credits.
The masters of science degrees often increases
the students timeline by twelve months. While the
masters of science degree typically requires a significant contribution to the field in the form of a thesis
or scholarly paper, the masters of engineering provides a more condensed alternative. Students will
take courses for nine to twelve months and complete
an individual and/or group design project. These
projects are often a life-cycle analysis of a professionally completed project.
Based on its studies, the Committee learned that
University of Louisville (UL) is the only civil engineering program in the U. S. accredited by ABET at
the masters level. Appendix L is a summary of this
program which, after five years of study and cooperative education, leads to a M.Eng.
109
APPENDIX K
Curricula Design Project to

Support Implementation of ASCE
Policy Statement 465
Project Purpose
Engage faculty and institutions with a goal of being
leaders in major educational innovation and reform
in the design of B+M programs that will substantially provide the Body of Knowledge (BOK) needed
to satisfy the educational portion to implement
ASCE Policy Statement 465. That policy states The
American Society of Civil Engineers supports the
concept of the masters degree or equivalent as a prerequisite for licensure and the practice of civil engineering at a professional level.
Project Process
The suggested project process consists of these eight
steps:
1. Identify a small number of diverse civil engineering departments attracted to the opportunity to
lead in the design of B+M programs supportive
of ASCE Policy Statement 465.
2. Inform CE and other faculty, college administrators and possibly others at a particular institution
about ASCE Policy Statement 465, the status of
its implementation, the BOK needed to enter the
practice of civil at the professional level in the
21st century, and the opportunity to lead by developing exemplary B+M curricula.
3. Engage faculty, so that their interests, education
and experience help to refine the BOK and set
the stage for curriculum design and implementation of ASCEs Policy Statement 465.
4. Encourage faculty, as they become aware of the
curricular need and opportunity, to re-examine
the entire current curriculum and then brainstorm ideas, identify possibilities, and create options.
110
5. Design, on paper, one or more B+M tracks,

consistent with Policy Statement 465, that reflect
the institutions culture, traditions and strengths.
6. Develop a set of exemplary B+M designs consistent with Policy Statement 465 that can be used
to stimulate the design and eventually implementation of additional curricula at other institutions.
7. Identify and explore resources, such as faculty
and administrative time and expenses, needed to
move from curricula design to implementation.
Explore potential sources of support within and
outside of educational institutions, such as foundations and NSF.
8. Share the exemplary curricula by means such as
presentations, papers, and workshops within
ASCE, ASEE, and other education-oriented organizations.
Agenda for Workshop 1:

Policy 465 and Institution-Specific
Ideas on Implementation
The preceding process can be initiated by a workshop for civil engineering and other faculty facilitated by members of ASCEs Committee on Academic Prerequisites for Professional Practice
(CAP3). The workshop, which requires about onehalf day, is intended to move from Step 2 well into
Step 4 in the preceding eight-step process. A suggested workshop agenda follows, with approximate
times to indicate the relative importance of topics:
1. Introduction: Participants, purpose, outcomes,
format, logistics.
2. Policy 465 Introduction/Background/Status.
3. Draft BOK.
4. Faculty questions/concerns/ideas/tasking focusing on the BOK. Possible group discussion or

breakouts addressing topics such as barriers, lessons being learned as a result of ABET outcomes,
stakeholder concerns, and resources needed.
5. Recap and plan post-workshop communication/
tasks. One or more additional workshops might
focus on options/alternative designs, estimates of
resources needed, discussion of means of sharing
the results, and possible implementation.
3. BOK Committees Moving Toward a Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century:
Background (one copy for the department)
4. Accreditation Committees strategic issues paper
(one copy for the department)
5. BOK Committees Civil Engineering Body of
Knowledge for the 21st Century: Preparing the
Civil Engineer for the Future (one copy for the department and excerpts for all participants)
6. Other selected presentations, papers, articles, reports, etc.
Workshop Resources
Provide copies of the following for all participants,
except as noted:
1. Hard copies of PowerPoint presentations used
for agenda Items 2 and 3
2. Engineering the Future of Civil Engineering (one
copy for the department)
Questions/Suggestions/Interested in
Participating?
Contact Jeffrey S. Russell, Chair, ASCE Committee
on Academic Prerequisites for Professional Practice,
Tel: 608-262-7244, Email: russell@engr.wisc.edu.
111
APPENDIX L
University of Louisville Five-Year

Master of Engineering Degree
This program is an excellent model of how 5-year
professional education can be facilitated within civil
engineering and across engineering disciplines. The
chemical engineering department, which offers a 5year masters-level degree, has found that the degree
provides students with a firmly anchored education
which has depth, breadth and independent work.
The University of Louisville (UL) is the only civil
engineering program in the nation accredited by the
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) at the masters level. Students graduating with an accredited civil engineering degree from
UL earn a Master of Engineering (M. Eng.). This
curriculum is designed as an integrated five-year
program, with a significant cooperative education
component, culminating in a M. Eng. degree accredited by the ABET/EAC. On entering the Professional
School, or the fifth year of study, in consultation
with a faculty advisor, students choose an area of
concentration by selecting appropriate civil and environmental engineering elective courses.
The Speed Scientific School of the UL was
founded in 1925. In 1970 the School began its 5-year
M. Eng. professional program. The first degree offered was the Master of Chemical Engineering. Currently, the school offers programs in chemical, civil
and environmental, computer and electrical, industrial, and mechanical engineering. The school has
kept a strong tie with industry through a cooperative
education component.
The curricula for the BS and the M.Eng. are presented in Table L-1. Undergraduate civil engineering
students complete an eight-semester program in the
Basic Studies Division to earn the Bachelor of Science (BS) degree. This includes four semesters in the
General Engineering Studies Division and a further
period of study in the Professional School of Engineering. Students earning a grade point average of
2.5 on a 4.0 scale qualify for a fifth year of professional education. Those students who do not qualify,
or who otherwise elect not to complete the fifth year,
earn an unaccredited BS degree.
112
During the fifth graduate/professional year, students take a set of specialized courses in the Higher
Studies Division and earn the Master of Engineering
Degree (M. Eng.). During the first term of the graduate/professional year, a regularly enrolled full-time
student is required to select an approved M.Eng.
thesis topic, and the members of the students thesis
committee.
The five-year total for the BS plus the M. Eng. is
162 semester hours, 132 for the BS and 30 for the M.
Eng. Two specialty areas are offered through the
Higher Studies Division, Facilities Engineering and
Public Works Engineering. Both areas meet ABET
criteria requirements for engineering topics. At the
discretion of the students advisor, certain environmental engineering courses may be substituted to
fulfill program elective requirements for either Facilities Engineering or Public Works Engineering.
Additionally, the department offers Master of Science (MS) and Doctor of Philosophy degrees. The MS
degree is more research oriented than the M. Eng.,
and slightly more difficult to enter. Students must
earn a 2.75 undergraduate grade point average (on 4.0
scale), and earn a combined score of 1000 on verbal
and quantitative portions of Graduate Record Exam.
Curricular requirements for the MS are presented in
Table L-2. UL also offers a joint Master of Engineering/Master of Business Administration program.
Table L-2. Master of Science Requirements

Course and Thesis Requirements
Civil Engineering Courses (at least 9 hours
at the 600 level)
Other 500- to 600-level courses (at least
two courses outside civil engineering)
Thesis for Master of Science OR
Non-thesis option is available and requires 600level Civil and Environmental Engineering
courses to replace 6 credit hours of Thesis
Minimum Total
Hours
12
12
6
30
Table L-1. University of Louisville Civil Engineering Curricula

Course Name
Credit
Hours Total
General Education
ENGL 101 College Writing I, 102 College
Writing II
6
CHEM 201 General Chemistry
3
EMCS 101 Engr Analysis I, 360 Prob. & Stats
7
PHYS 295 Intro. Lab I, 298 Mech., Heat & Sound 5
CEE 370 Engineering Hydraulics
401 Civil Engineering Seminar on Professional
Practices
530 Construction Materials
9
Arts, Humanities, Social & Cultural Studies
15
General Engineering Studies Division
CHEM 203 Gen. Chem. Lab I
1
EG 105 Engineering Graphics I
1
EMCS 102 Engr. Analysis II, 104 Computer
Algebra
5
GES 100 Campus Culture
1
PHYS 299 Intro. Electricity, Magnetism
And Light
4
Basic Studies Division
CEE 201 Programming for CEE
205 Mechanics I: Statics
254 Mechanics of Solids
255 Mechanics of Materials Laboratory
260 Civil Engineering Field Measurements
288 Civil Engineering Co-op Seminar
289 Civil Engineering Co-op Internship I
320 Fundamentals of Structural Analysis
360 Transportation Systems Engineering
389 Civil Engineering Co-op Internship II
400 Applications in Civil Engineering Program
402 Professional Seminar in Civil Engineering
421 Fundamentals of Concrete Design
422 Fundamentals of Steel Design
450 Geomechanics
470 Surfaces Water Hydrology
471 Water Supply and Sewerage
488 Civil Engineering Co-op Internship III
551 Foundation Engineering
45
CHEM 202 Gen Chem II
3
Program Elective (CEE 420 Matrix Structural
Analysis or 460 Transportation Systems
Design)
3
EE 252 Intro to Electrical Engineering
3
EG 214 Computer Graphics
1
EMCS 201 Engr. Analysis, 205 Matrix Methods,
307 Numerical Methods, 330 Linear Algebra 10
GEOS 201 Physical Geology, 203 Physical
Geology Lab
4
IE 570 Engr. Design Economics
3
ME 206 Dynamics
3
Minimum Total (from above Divisions)
Course Name
Total
Higher Studies Division

CEE 680 Civil Engineering Capstone Design
697 Master of Engineering Thesis in Civil
Engineering 1
45
12
In addition, at least 21 semester hours of coursework must

be completed in one of the following specialty areas:2
Facilities Engineering (includes courses in
geotechnical/structural)
CEE 520 Advanced Design of Structural Systems
522 Fundamentals of Prestressed Concrete
550 Measurement of Soil Properties
552 Earth Pressures and Retaining Structures
604 Interaction of Soils and Structures
620 Advanced Mechanics of Solids
621 Finite Element Analysis for Structural Engineers
625 Structural Dynamics
652 Advanced Earth Pressures and Retaining Structures
653 Design of Earth Structures
654 Rock Mechanics
21
OR
Public Works Engineering (includes courses in
geotechnical/ transportation/ water resources)
CEE 550 Measurement of Soil Properties
552 Earth Pressures and Retaining Structures
560 Traffic Engineering
570 Applied Hydraulics
572 Open Channel Hydraulics
604 Interaction of Soils and Structures
652 Advanced Earth Pressures and Retaining Structures
653 Design of Earth Structures
654 Rock Mechanics
660 Transportation Planning and Urban Development
662 Airport Planning and Design
665 Pavement Design
670 Advanced Hydraulics
673 Advanced Hydrology
674 Water Resources Systems
21
At the discretion of the students advisor, the following
Environmental courses may be selected to fulfill program
elective requirements for either Facilities Engineering or
Public Works Engineering
75
132
CEE 509 Environmental Processes and Systems

534 Industrial Waste Management,
535 Solid Waste Management
561 Environmental Analysis of Transportation
Systems I
573 Groundwater Hydrology
675 Surface Water Quality Modeling
694 Special Topics in Civil and Environmental
Engineering
303
Minimum Total
A regularly enrolled full-time student is required to select an approved M. Eng thesis topic and the members of the thesis committee
during the first term of the graduate/ professional year. Non-thesis option is available and requires 600-level Civil and Environmental
Engineering courses to replace 6 credit hours of CEE697.
2
Both specialty areas meet the engineering topics criteria of the ABET/EAC.
3
The five-year total for the M. Eng. degree is 162 semester hours.
113
APPENDIX M
Exploration of Potential Ways

to Validate Fulfillment of the
Body of Knowledge
Introduction
This appendix does not constitute a committee recommendation but instead was created to stimulate
discussion of possible ways to validate fulfillment of
the BOK. Once the BOK is fully defined and accepted, the challenge will be to match an individuals
record against the defined BOK, and make a judgment as to whether or not the individual has met the
requirements. The BOK Committee hopes that these
future-oriented ideas will serve as a catalyst for creation of other possible approaches to a difficult issue.
The committee believes that there will be many
approaches and that ultimately state-licensing
boards will adopt the approaches that best meet
their needs. As discussion of the increased educational requirements continues, the committee expects to engage the breadth of experience that exists
within ASCE and the engineering community in
dealing with this challenge. The committee does not
expect that ASCE or state licensing boards will immediately adopt one approach or another, rather
that as the dialogue continues, the most appropriate
approach can be developed.
The Challenge
As the explanation of the B+M/30&E process in Appendix C indicates, there may be many paths to fulfilling the BOK. While the Committee expects that the
majority of civil engineers seeking licensing will follow a path that leads from an ABET/EAC-accredited
baccalaureate through an accredited, engineering
masters degree, it does recognize that many may pursue fulfillment of the BOK through post-baccalaureate, non-degree, course work; that many may come
into civil engineering following graduation from nonABET baccalaureate programs; or that many may
114
combine an ABET bachelors with some form of a

non-engineering masters. Approaches need to be developed to address each of these situations.
Based on discussions with several licensing
boards and NCEES members, it is clear that boards
are currently not staffed to carry out detailed examination of each applicants qualifications. Instead,
boards typically rely on either the applicants completion of an ABET-approved program or, in some
jurisdictions, completion of a program within the
jurisdiction that is known to and recognized by the
board.
In the case of applicants with engineering academic credentials from non-US institutions, boards
turn, at the applicants expense, to Engineering Credentials Evaluation International (ECEI), a part of
the ABET organization, to assess these credentials.
For those cases where the applicant does not have a
recognized (ABET or other) engineering bachelors,
but does possess an engineering masters degree,
many boards give, under established rules, partial
credit for the non-ABET work (e.g. equating four
years of non-ABET engineering undergraduate education to three years of ABET education) and pair it
with a graduate engineering degree from an ABET
institution to fulfill the educational requirement.
The key, however, is the boards faith that the ABET/
EAC-accredited university granting the graduate degree took into account the undergraduate record of
the applicant and ensured that any deficiencies in
the undergraduate program were remedied during
the graduate experience, thus creating the equivalency of educational experiences1. When the graduate degree is not from a university granting ABET
undergraduate degrees, the boards are much less
likely to accept the combination of experiences due
to the difficulty of evaluating the mix of individual
course.
Table M-1. Various means may be available to validate fulfillment of the BOK
Undergraduate
ABET Related Degree Programs
1. ABET-accredited BS; Washington
Accord
2. Non-ABET; accredited BS; TAC/ABET
accredited Engineering Technology BS
3. ABET-accredited BS
Non-ABET or Non-Degree Programs
4. ABET-accredited BS
5. Non-ABET accredited BS; other
Engineering programs
6. Non-ABET accredited degree
Post-Graduate
Validating Means
ABET-accredited masters
ABET university
ABET-accredited masters
(program satisfies BOK)
ABET university
Non-ABET accredited masters at

university with ABET CE program
ABET university (CE

department)
Approximately 30 credit hours

Non-ABET accredited BS
Licensing boards, universities; mentors; ASCE; ECEI

ECEI
Approximately 30 credit hours
ECEI
The above entries represent the most likely cases; however, there are other combinations that could be considered.
Validation of ABET-Related BOK

Attainment
When an individual attempts to satisfy the BOK requirement by attending an ABET/EAC-accredited
baccalaureate program or one that is accredited under the Washington Accord2 and follows this with
participation in a graduate engineering program
that is either ABET/EAC-accredited or is offered by a
university that grants an ABET/EAC-accredited
bachelors degree, the responsibility for validating the
attainment of the BOK most logically would fall to
the university granting the masters degree (see Table
M-1). The graduate faculty would understand its responsibility to identify programs that provide the
BOK and to so indicate in some official manner (e.g.
inclusion of a notation in the program description.).
This recognizes that not all masters programs would
necessarily satisfy the BOK. Licensing boards could
rely on this combination of degrees and institutions
as having met BOK requirements.
Validation of programs combining an engineering degree from non-ABET program or an ABET
engineering technology degree with an ABET masters, would rely again on the masters granting institution to ensure that its program, when matched
with the baccalaureate experience, satisfied the BOK.
The same approach would be taken when an individual with an ABET bachelors tied this degree to a
non-ABET masters at an ABET institution. However, in the latter case, the program approval would
have to come from the ABET engineering department. Since not all masters degrees would necessarily need to meet the BOK requirement, programs
designed to fulfill BOK requirement would have to
be appropriately identified for the licensing boards.

Again, because boards recognize ABETs role in engineering education, licensing boards could rely on
this combination of degrees and institutions to provide a credible BOK validation.
In these three combinations, the licensing boards
could and perhaps would rely on the reputation and
experience of ABET institutions.
Validation of BOK Attainment Through

Non-Standard Programs
The previous section described the validation of
BOK attainment in cases where the applicant for licensing had obtained his or her final degree from an
ABET institution. Validating attainment of the BOK
becomes more difficult when the work is not part of
a specific program or is not at an ABET institution.
As previously noted, there are a number of possible
combinations of an ABET baccalaureate and nonengineering, science, or other masters that might be
able to meet the academic requirements for a BOK,
but each combination would require close review by
someone or some activity with appropriate knowledge of the civil engineering profession.
Clearly, the BOK and any specific criteria pertaining to education would have to be defined. These
BOK requirements would have to be detailed in
guidelines prepared by ASCE or another appropriate
body and, as indicated elsewhere in this report, carefully coordinated with the ABET and the NCEES.
These guidelines might further amplify the expectations for each of the outcomes and provide examples
of courses that might fulfill the requirement. They
would also detail possible matches of existing bacca-
115
laureate programs and practice-oriented masters

programs that would outwardly seem to satisfy the
BOK requirements.
ABET B+30 Programs

The most simple of the non-standard cases involves
individuals who obtain an ABET bachelors and
complete approximately 30 credit hours of work beyond the standard bachelors. It is conceivable that
someone who obtains a 150 credit hour bachelors
degree would require considerably less than 30 postgraduate credits. Validating attainment of the BOK
through this combination of undergraduate work
and/or graduate work will be complex as will the
eventual validation of programs involving non-traditional education delivery entities. Since such programs, by their nature are tailored to an individuals
needs and time availability, they will require close
monitoring by responsible individuals to prevent
someone from investing time in 30 hours of graduate work, only to discover that the courses taken did
not provide the requisite BOK
From a conceptual standpoint, the responsibility
for validation of BOK attainment would not significantly different than the validation of experience
now accomplished by professional engineers for engineers under their charge. For most licensing
boards, a professional engineer must indicate that
the candidate has in fact accumulated a certain
number of years of engineering experience while operating at designated levels. This requires the professional engineer to compare the criteria provided by
the licensing board with the performance of the candidate, and to attest that the requisite level of experience was attained. One approach to dealing with attainment of the BOK would be to parallel this
approach in the validation of B+30 programs.
Those seeking to obtain the BOK through this
route would have to obtain an ABET/EAC accredited
baccalaureate degree in civil engineering and followon courses that would satisfy the previously mentioned BOK requirements.
Using these BOK requirements, an engineer
mentor, a professional engineer, would assist a new
engineer in developing his or her program so that it
would meet the BOK requirements, follow the engineer through the program, and, on completion, certify that the engineers program succeeded in attainment of the BOK. The certification would
accompany the application for the license. This role
for the mentor is in keeping with Canon 7 of the
ASCE Code of Ethics which states: Engineers shall
continue their professional development throughout
their careers, and shall provide opportunities for the
professional development of those engineers under
116
their supervision. Similarly, the Canadian Council

of Professional Engineers (CCPE), in its publication,
Admission to the Practice of Engineering in Canada,
requires professional engineers to serve as mentors
and evaluators for new engineers3.
If licensing boards were not comfortable with
certification being delegated to individual professional engineers, an intermediate organization could
further validate the BOK attainment (i.e., that the
approximately 30 hours beyond the ABET bachelors
were appropriate). The ASCE could establish a feebased clearance center within its headquarters to review and validate the submissions from the engineers and their mentors. Since ASCE is the professions constituent society member of the ABET, it
would seem appropriate for it to serve as the clearinghouse for licensing boards on post baccalaureate
education. A negative aspect of having individual
professions involved in B+30 validations is that this
could easily involve several professional societies.
Such an arrangement might be unwieldy. Another
approach would give this vetting responsibility to
the ECEI, already recognized by the licensing boards
as an effective arm of the ABET. A third approach
would be to require the program to be cleared by the
civil engineering faculty of an ABET institution.
This latter approach would require the mentor and
the applicant to establish a fee-supported relationship with such an institution.
Admittedly, the above procedure would place a
new burden on professional engineers to become familiar with the educational guidelines, to mentor a
new engineer and to validate that the program followed by the engineer did in fact attain the BOK.
However, the committee believes this burden reasonable and would represent a commitment by professional engineers to become engaged in their professions educational and the licensing processes.
Non-ABET Bachelors and

Non-ABET Masters
While it may be possible for someone to obtain the
BOK through a combination of a non-ABET bachelors degree in engineering and a non-ABET masters
degree of some type (engineering or non-engineering), the validation of such a combination would be
extremely difficult. If a non-engineering masters
was obtained at a university that granted ABET degrees, the student could seek the guidance and approval of engineering faculty within the masters
granting university, even though the degree would
be from another college at the university. While validation by an ABET engineering department might
be acceptable to licensing boards, it is doubtful that
engineering departments would be interested in
dealing with these cases. It is also very unlikely that

licensing boards would find non-ABET department
faculty qualified to make judgments on BOK attainment. Given this, it is apparent that an applicant following the non-ABET bachelors and masters route
would need very special attention. Most logically,
applicants, on a fee for service basis, could seek the
advice and approval of a recognized body such as the
ECEI to review and validate their credentials. It is
also possible that a specially constituted element of
an ASCE institute, or a specially constituted body
within ASCE as a whole, could also perform this
function on a fee for service basis.
Non-ABET B+30
Some individuals possessing a non-ABET bachelors
degree in engineering may wish to pursue attainment of the BOK through the 30 credit hour route.
The difficulties described in the previous section
would be exacerbated with this combination. While
obtaining the BOK by this approach is theoretically
possible, based on the complexities of evaluating
non-standard programs, validation or certification
of such programs would appear to be an action that
would be taken on a very exceptional basis. Such validation would most logically be accomplished by the
ECEI. Individuals should be discouraged from following this path.
No Quick Fix
As with all parts of the movement to increased education as a licensing prerequisite, options like those
described above would not be instituted overnight.
Each would have to be carefully examined and carefully discussed with NCEES and, eventually, state licensing boards.
Notes
1. The evaluation of courses from different programs and institutions is carried out as a routine
part of modern higher education. The Joint Statement on the Transfer and Award of Credit issued by
the American Association of Collegiate Registrars
and Admissions Officers, the American Council on
Education, and the Council for Higher Education
Accreditation notes that, it is important for reasons of social equity and educational effectiveness
for all institutions to develop reasonable and definitive procedures for the acceptance of and transfer of credit among institutions. With the development of appropriate guidelines, organizations such
as the ASCE could carry out the validation (and certification) of non-standard programs that seek to
satisfy the BOK.
2. The Washington Accord is an agreement between the bodies responsible for accrediting professional engineering degree programs in Australia,
Canada, Ireland, Hong Kong, New Zealand, South
Africa, United Kingdom, and the United States. It
recognizes the substantial equivalency of programs
accredited by those bodies, and recommends that
graduates of accredited programs in any of the signatory countries be recognized by the other countries as having met the academic requirements for
entry to the practice of engineering.
3. Canadian Engineers Qualifications Board. 1995.
Canadian Council of Professional Engineers Interpretation Guide: Assessing the Suitability of Engineering Experience of Candidates Being Considered
for Admission to the Practice of Engineering in
Canada and Structured Engineer-in-Training Programs.
117
APPENDIX N
Charge to Curricula Committee
1.
2.
3.
4.
Coordinate Curriculum Design projects (that

is, review the development of new undergraduate-graduate curricula compatible with the
Body of Knowledge (BOK) with participating
institutions.
Identify and communicate curricula-related issues, challenges, opportunities, and obstacles to
the implementation of ASCE Policy Statement
465. Suggest refinements to the BOK, based
in parton the Curricula Design projects.
Facilitate communication of the B+M/30 curricula developed under the Curricula Design
projects and the lessons learned in the process
via presentations, publications, workshops,
websites, a final report, and other means. Ensure communication with stakeholders inside
and outside the civil engineering community.
Be alert for existing B and/or M/30 programs
that contain elements supportive of the BOK
and share what is learned.
118
5.
Encourage implementation of new B+M/30

curricula supportive of the BOK.
6.
Increase the number and expand the diversity

of institutions participating in Curricula Design projects.
7.
Support the existing curricula design partners,

including finding funding as may be needed.
8.
Stimulate discussion of and movement toward

accreditation of masters programs supportive
of the BOK. Coordinate with the Accreditation
Committee on necessary modifications to or
creation of basic and advanced general and
program criteria.
9.
Prepare written annual status reports suitable

for briefing the ASCE Board of Direction.
10. Provide a final report documenting the Curricula Committees work and results.
11. Complete the preceding in two years.
Notes
1. ASCE Task Committee on the First Professional

Degree. 2001. Engineering the Future of Civil
Engineering, October 9. (http://www.asce.org/
raisethebar)
2. National Research Council Panel on Undergraduate Education, Committee on the Education
and Utilization of the Engineer, Commission on
Engineering. 1986. Engineering Education and
Practice in the United States: Engineering Undergraduate Education, National Academy Press,
Washington, DC.
3. The idea of a civil engineering community that
includes, but is not limited to, licensed engineers, graduate engineers who are not yet licensed or do not plan to become licensed, technologists, technicians, and others is not new. For
example, ABET accredits engineers and technologists and employers routinely rank engineering
and other technical personnel in many ways.
Furthermore, the draft NCEES model law includes these four classifications of engineers
with undergraduate degrees: Graduate Engineer,
Associate Engineer, Registered Engineer and
Professional Engineer. The community concept
is used in this report to emphasize that the BOK
is intended for those members of the civil engineering community who aspire to practice civil
engineering at the professional level, that is, become licensed.
4. ASCE Body of Knowledge Committee of the
Task Committee on Academic Prerequisites for
Professional Practice. 2003. Moving Toward a
Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st
Century: Background, January.
5. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Engineering Accreditation Commission.
Engineering Criteria 2000, Third Edition, Baltimore, MD.
6. ASCE Committee on Curricula and Accreditation and ASCE Department Heads Council.
2002. Commentary ASCEProgram Criteria
for Civil and Similarly Named Engineering
Programs, Draft 7. May.
7. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. 2002. Criteria for Accrediting Engineering
Programs. Baltimore, MD.
8. Maxwell, J. C. 2003. Thinking For A Change.
New York, Warner Books.
9. Peck, M. S. 1997. The Road Less Traveled and Beyond: Spiritual Growth in an Age of Anxiety. New
York. Simon and Schuster.
10. Hill, N. 1960. Think and Grow Rich. New York.
Fawcett Crest Book.
11. Allen, J. (no date). As a Man Thinketh. White
Plains, NY. Peter Pauper Press.
12. Murphy, J. 1963. The Power of Your Subconscious
Mind. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice-Hall.
13. For a similar view, see Angelides, D. C. 2003.
From the Present to the Future of Civil Engineering Education in Europe: A Strategic Approach, Proceedings of the International Meeting
in Civil Engineering Education, Ciudad Real,
Spain, September. (Advocates a European civil
engineering educational system that provides
civil engineers with a set of knowledge, skills and
attitudes needed to meet societal needs.)
14. The United States Military Academy strives to
have students understand, internalize and act on
constructive attitudes. See: U. S. Military Academy, 2002. Cadet Leader Development System.
West Point, NY.
15. ASCE Task Committee on Civil Engineering
Specialty Certification. 2003. Report of the Task
Committee on Civil Engineering Specialty Certification, September.
16. Russell, J. and W. Stouffer. 2002. An Analysis of
Existing Civil Engineering Programs, presented
at the International Conference/Workshop on
Engineering Education honoring Professor
James T.P. Yao, Texas A&M University, College
Station, TX, February 21 & 22, 2003.
17. www.dlrn.org/
18. www.ocw.mit.edu
19. Tsai, S. and P. Machado. E-learning, Online
Learning, Web-based Learning, or Distance
Learning: Unveiling the Ambiguity in Current
119
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
Terminology
Elearn
Magazine
2001
(elearnmag.org).
MIT. Using Technology to Melt Educational
Boundaries. Open Door, Ideas and Voices from
MIT, November 2000 (alumweb.mit.edu/opendoor/200011/).
fuqua.duke.edu/admin/
Mangan, K. 2002. Colleges in 16 Countries
Work to Create Virtual Medical School. Chronicle of Higher Education, Chronicle Daily News,
Wednesday, October 9.
www.gradinfo.ce.gatech.edu/distance_learning
www.pdsc.usace.army.mil
www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov
Roesner, L. and S. Walesh. 1998. Corporate
University: Consulting Firm Case Study. Journal of Management and Engineering ASCE.
March/April.
Brewer, M. PBS&J University. Personal communication, September 2002.
ASCE 2002. Continuing Education Fall/Winter
2002-03. Reston, VA.
For an example, see www.aticourses.com
www.detc.org
www.iacet.org
National Council of Examiners for Engineering
and Surveying. 2003. Report of the Engineering
Licensure Qualifications Task Force. A Task Force
of the NCEES.
Massie, W. W. 2003. An Industrys Guide to the
Offshore Engineering Curriculum. Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
(Massies graph presents knowledge and skill
(similar to the knowledge, skills, and attitudes in
this report) on the vertical axis, using four
knowledge levels (similar to the three competence levels in this report). Stages of a project
(e.g., set design criteria, select best solution) appear on Massies horizontal axis. The space defined by the two axes shows the origin (e.g.,
bachelors degree, masters degree) of the knowledge levels and project stages.)
ASCE. 1995. Summary Report 1995 Civil Engineering Education Conference (CEEC 95).
Adelman. 1998. Women and Men of the Engineering Path: A Model for Analysis of Undergraduate Careers, U.S. Department of Education,
Washington, DC.
Astin, A. W., and Astin, H. S. 1993. Undergraduate Science Education: The Impact of Different
College Environments on the Educational Pipeline
of the Sciences. Los Angeles Higher Education
Resource Institute, UCLA
Boyer, E.L. 1990. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of The Professoriate, A Special Report. The
120
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of

Teaching.
Glassick, C.E., M.T. Huber and G. I. Maeroff.
1997. Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate, Special Report of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, JosseyBass Inc., San Francisco, CA.
Lowman, J. 1995. Mastering The Techniques of
Teaching, Jossey-Bass, Inc., San Francisco, CA.
Conley, C., Ressler, S., Lenox, T., and Samples, J.
2000. Teaching Teachers to Teach Engineering,
Journal of Engineering Education, ASEE, January.
Dennis, N. 2001. ExCEEd Teaching Workshop:
Taking It on the Road, Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education, Albuquerque, NM.
Douglas, E. 2001. A Comprehensive Approach
to Classroom Teaching: Does It Work? Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education, Albuquerque, NM.
Estes, A., and Ressler, S. 2001. ExCEEd Teaching Workshop: Fulfilling a Critical Need, Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering
Education, Albuquerque, NM.
Knapp, K. 2000. Learning to Teach Engineers:
The Applicability and Compatibility of One Approach, Proceedings of the American Society for
Engineering Education, St. Louis, MO.
Welch, R., Baldwin, J., Bentler, D., Clarke, D.,
Gross, S., and Hitt, J. 2001. The ExCEEd Teaching Workshop: Participants Perspective and Assessment, Proceedings of the American Society
for Engineering Education, Albuquerque, NM.
Welch, R., Baldwin, J., Bentler, D., Clarke, D.,
Gross, S., and Hitt, J. 2001. The ExCEEd Teaching Workshop: Hints to Successful Teaching,
Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education, Albuquerque, NM.
Williams, C.C. 1946. Building an Engineering
Career, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New
York.
Walesh, S.G. 2000. Engineering Your Future: The
Non-Technical Side of Professional Practice in Engineering and Other Technical Fields, Second
Edition, Appendix A, Special Features of Civil
Engineering, ASCE Press, Reston, VA.
Levan, N. G. and C. W. Kopplin. 2003. Nontechnical Risks: A Root Cause of Claims and
Drains, Compendium of Conference Educational
Materials. American Council of Engineering
Companies. Boston, MA, May 11-14.
Based in part on ideas contributed by Albert A.
Dorman and other members of the ASCE Task
Committee on the Future of Civil Engineering
during their 2002 deliberations.

CEbok

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CEbok

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

American Society

ASCE and American Society of Civil EngineersRegistered

Copyright 2004 by the

Foundation for This Report: The Changing Civil Engineering

Body Of KnowledgeWhat Should Be Taught And

BOK Defined by Outcomes

CIVIL ENGINEERING BODY OF KNOWLEDGE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

Civil Engineers and the Topic of Attitudes

Body Of Knowledge How Should It Be Taught And

BOK Teaching and Learning Modes

Body Of KnowledgeWho Should Teach It?

Four Characteristics of Civil Engineering Educators

Body Of KnowledgeWho Should Learn It?

The Next Steps

CIVIL ENGINEERING BODY OF KNOWLEDGE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

Appendix AASCE Policy Statement 465

Academic Prerequisites for Licensure and Professional Practice

Appendix BMembers of the ASCE Body of

Individuals Providing Special Assistance to the Committee

Appendix CKey Points about ASCE Policy

Academic Prerequisites for Licensure and Professional Practice

Appendix DCivil Engineering Education and Practice

4-year Undergraduate-Only Institutions Offering ABET-Accredited

Appendix FCorrespondents of the ASCE Body of

Appendix GArticles, Papers, Presentations and

Articles and Papers

Appendix HEngineering Program Outcomes

Appendix IResources for Improving Teaching

Appendix JTypes of Masters Degree Programs

Masters of Civil Engineering

Appendix KCurricula Design Project to Support

CIVIL ENGINEERING BODY OF KNOWLEDGE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

Appendix LUniversity of Louisville Five-Year Master

Appendix NCharge to Curricula Committee

Figure 2. Success in teaching and learning and in applying the

Figure 3. Public and private universities across the U.S. are

Figure 4. Future civil engineers will have access to many

Figure 5. This BOK profile integrates outcomes, levels of

Figure 6. Lowmans two-dimensional model of effective college

Table 1. A variety of institutions are leading the way by designing

Table 2. Desired outcomes will be fulfilled by a combination of

Table L-1. University of Louisville Civil Engineering Curricula

Table L-2. Master of Science Requirements

Table M-1. Various means may be available to validate fulfillment

CIVIL ENGINEERING BODY OF KNOWLEDGE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

American Academy of Environmental

Accreditation Board for Engineering and

American Council of Engineering Companies

American Society of Civil Engineers

American Society for Engineering Education

An engineering baccalaureate degree

B+M/30&E The means to fulfill the BOK (Bachelors plus

Body of Knowledge, that is, the knowledge,

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering

Canadian Council of Professional Engineers

Continuing Education Units

Continuing Professional Development

Structured and progressive post-baccalaureate

Engineering Accreditation Commission (of

Engineering Credentials Evaluation

Educational Activities Committee (of ASCE)

Engineering Licensure Qualifications Task

CIVIL ENGINEERING BODY OF KNOWLEDGE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

ExCEEd Teaching Workshop