Your Opinions on ASCE 12

[B16A2]

To the civil engineers out there, how well do you feel ASCE represents the profession? What do they do well, and what not?

What do you wish they could do better?

 

[manym]

I've continued with my membership simply for the life insurance that I started in the 70's. That is about to come to a stop.

Let's change the discourse a little and talk about the ASCE BODY of KNOWLEDGE (BoK).

The Body of Knowledge is a document purposing a Master's degree as a requirement for P.E. licensing. (Yes, they have tweaked it a little to only require the equivalent hours for a master degree.) The document is a wordy, never-ending exposition of someone's arrogance.

The first level of arrogance is seen when you realize that a small clique of Civil Engineers assume the representation for all engineers, both present and future licensees. (Simply ask the question, how many mechanical, electrical, or general engineers are aware of ASCE's effort called 'BoK'?)

This clique is self appointed, is not elected, and the last time I looked, they had a majority of educators and one member was a new graduate, not yet a P.E.

The group claims that the BS degree does not offer enough engineering hours, that other subjects are crowding out the degree program. Keep in mind that these are educators talking. So I asked one of them why they are letting the curriculum become diluted? The answer I received was that they did not have control????

Educators seeking more education requirements... looks like a conflict of interest.

A sitting president on the NCEES board was a proponent for the ASCE-BOK. I challenged him to show a cost-benefit for the proposal. He talked about other things.

If the ASCE-BOK had been in effect at the start of my carrier, I would not have my P.E., nor my S.E., nor my Masters degree. Nor could I claim a satisfying career as an engineer, nor would I be able to cancel my life insurance as I near retirement age.

 

[LobstaEata]

Hi manym

I feel your pain and frustration. Having scanned through the big honkin 191 page BOK document, I came away with a differing account of committee personnel however than had been described. The current ASCE-BOK committee appears to have 9 academics and 6 in private practice. (See below) They seem a bit slanted toward the academic side as you said, but not overly so.

I would agree that there definitely is the appearance of a conflict of interest for academics to advocate an MSCE (or BSCE+30) as the base requirement for licensure, but do feel that in doing so will have the effect of limiting new entries into the profession. Consequently, this should have a buoyant effect on engineer salaries over time by reducing the supply...a positive thing for the profession to be sure. Once salaries are at an equitable level for engineers contributions to society, then more interest in the profession will result through market forces.

Does that force us all to raise our own bar and expend more money to keep up? Sure it does. Am I happy about it? Well, no. Does it improve the engineering profession and engineer's salaries? It seems so.

On the whole, it doesn't seem to be a bad thing.


Current ASCE BOK Committee

Richard O. ANDERSON, P.E., Hon. M.ASCE,
Somat Engineering,
Detroit, MI, (Chairperson)

Kenneth J. FRIDLEY, Ph.D., M.ASCE,
Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa, AL, (Vice Chair)

Stuart G. WALESH, Ph.D., P.E.,
Hon.M.ASCE, Consultant, Englewood, FL, (Editor)

Anirban DE, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE,
Department of Civil Engineering, Manhattan
College, Riverdale, NY

Decker B. HAINS, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE,
U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY,

Ronald S. HARICHANDRAN, Ph.D.,
P.E., F.ASCE, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, MI,

Peter W. HOADLEY, Ph.D., P.E.,
A.M.ASCE, Department of Civil Engineering,
Virginia Military Institute,
Lexington, VA,

Manoj K. JHA, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE,
Department of Civil Engineering, Morgan
State University, Baltimore, MD,

David A. LANGE, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE,
Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, IL,

Melanie L. LAWRENCE, A.M.ASCE,
Leonard Rice Engineers, Inc., Denver, CO

Timothy F. LENGYEL, P.E., M.ASCE,
Winzler & Kelly Consulting Engineers,
San Francisco, CA,

Daniel R. LYNCH, Ph.D., M.ASCE,
Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth
College, Hanover, NH,

Robert E. MACKEY, P.E., M.ASCE, S2L Inc.,
Maitland, FL

John M. MASON, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE,
College of Engineering, Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, PA,

Jeffrey S. RUSSELL, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE,
Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, WI, (CAP3 Chair)

 

[manym]

Regards comment by LobstaEata....

The points raised are valid, but do not recognize some realities.

When engineer fees get high, non-engineers figure out how to do things on their own. That is the "engineer" in all of us.

Anybody can put up a stud wall to hold a roof UP. If you don't believe me, just ask the carpenter / homeowner who nails the last shingle on.

They never think about the day when the straight wind comes through at 100 mph. And the city inspector doesn't think about it either. After all, it never happened before. Besides, the city officials would rather pay for the new assembly hall rather than pay for the humdrum, day-to-day engineer / inspector who knows about lateral loads and uplift.

You can't create value where society doesn't value it. And that is exactly what the ASCE-BoK is trying to do.

By the way, thanks for publishing all of the committee member's names. Everyone should take note that these people have not been elected, but are making decisions that affect people outside of civil engineering.

 

[LobstaEata]

Your points are well taken, but living in real world, never claimed have I.

 

[lovethecold]

I learned recently that apparently if my engineering firm wanted to build a new building it would have to be desinged and approved by an architect. It seems funny to me that they have more clout and power than we engineers when it comes to building structures. Now, I think architects are a good thing, if I were to desing the building it might look like something from communist Russia (a bland and not pretty site). But is that not our choice to look bland and aren't engineers more qualified to design and build a structure?

 

[B16A2]

Manym, I think society values what we do.....they're just ignorant to the fact codes aren't enforced.

As an engineer who's worked since the 70's, do you agree that codes have become more complex or not?

BOK is in response to the increasing complexity in our work due to good ol Lawyers of America. Everything has to be proven on paper.

I dont know how many more design courses that can be jammed into an undergrad degree, but I probably would have cracked if I didn't have a gen ed or two per semester.

I think efforts would be better spent taking active roles in local SEI to get government code enforcement in line rather than fighting BOK.

 

[manym]

B16A2 -- Thanks for getting this back on track with good questions.

I believe you are partially right about our society values. Let's ignore industrical applications, and talk about homes, it is where we live.

Friends and family frequently ask me about their homes or new houses which they are getting ready to build. Generally, they want a sturdy structure, but they don't know how to get it. Why? Because the contractors are not willing to do it.

Many house contractors patronize engineering, but don't want to pay for it. Then when a home-owner asks, they charge two legs and an arm for something that is required by code. But, keep in mind a rule of thumb that says the structure is only 10% of the project cost.

Codes. Yes, they have become more complex, and without a cost to benefit justification. Yes, the complexity is justified when you build a hundred of something, but not for one or two of the other. Material is cheap, it is generally only 1/3 the cost with labor the other 2/3. So why would we want to strain at calculating an ounce of steel? I would imagine that some of the professor-types would struggle to answer this.

ASCE-BoK. So because lawyers are doing it, it justifies engineers doing the same? Give me a break, or better yet, give me some common sense. But take note, I have done all of my work with the view that it is ready to present in a court.

Your degree. Who told you an engineering education was anything less than rigorous?

SEI and enforcement. Let's just drop the ASCE-BoK. Then we can devote time to getting our governing bodies, politicians, etc. to enforce the laws, rules, regulations, that we already have on the books.

Now, here is the follow-on question. Do you ever hear any of this from ASCE?

 

[LobstaEata]

By the way, thanks for publishing all of the committee member's names. Everyone should take note that these people have not been elected, but are making decisions that affect people outside of civil engineering.

That's not why I pasted the BoK committee names, but an interesting side note is that although the Board of Directors is officially "elected" to their positions by the membership, how many times are their more than one choice for each BoD office? My point is even though the BoK committee is not elected, would it really make a difference to the final make-up of individuals willing to donate their time to this effort?

This collective of individuals (BoK committee) has chosen to take up very broad issues on behalf of the profession's future. The committee probably started off with noble intent, though once momentum had been gained toward an outcome, lots of (possible self serving) ideas foreign to the original intent have the tendency to jump on board and it then becomes very very hard to de-rail that train.

There was a comment period on the draft BoK document (I missed it), but the higher truth is that comments seldom reframe a discussion. The most comments hope to do is to influence currently accepted thinking on individual narrowly focused provisions and placates memberhip into thinking that the document has evolve through a (quasi-) democratic process.

My comments appear to be a love-hate relationship with ASCE...right? I suppose if I didn't care about ASCE, I wouldn't bother offering an opinion toward its betterment. (I'm still a member after 24 years after all) I do think the organization has contributed a lot of valuable things and like I said previously, there are a lot of selfless people donating time to improving the profession. I also understand the frustation of individuals such as manym, but I recognize that if the BoK committee wasn't formed to provide a path for the future of the profession, then it probably would have been imposed upon our profession eventually by politicians or those of their ilk, similar to what happened when ASCE stuck its head in the sand when the engineering licensing issue reared its head years ago. Perhaps the lesser evil is to have the profession police itself, than have it done by those with little to no understanding of engineering issues.

 

[B16A2]

Manym,
I think a discussion regarding why and how our profession has become more complex can be a thread in its own. and further, why advanced degrees are required to deal with this complexity another.

 

[manym]

B16A2 -- I believe you must have a calling as a facilitator. Charge on.

For this thread, perhaps a little historical review would help us all understand ASCE -- what it does and does not do today -- in representing the profession.

LobstaEata, - we need your lead.

You refer to a history by stating:
... similar to what happened when ASCE stuck its head in the sand when the engineering licensing issue reared its head years ago.

What licensing issue? And what did ASCE not do?

I am not familiar or remembering what you refer to.

 

[LobstaEata]

At the risk of being proven inaccurate by someone much more knowledgable than I, (which includes a really really broad group of people) this is........the rest of the story.

During the years contributing to my Section's Board of Directors, we vigorously debated whether ASCE should attempt to undermine State certification of quasi-specialties such as wetland science and soil science, which were traditionally provided under a professional engineer's seal up to that point. We recently lost the battle for septic designer specialty certification. One of our senior officers recounted from stories of many years ago how ASCE national chose not to engage in what was then a vigorous public discussion of whether engineers should be licensed to ensure a minimum level of qualifications. Keep in mind that engineers "mid to late 1800's" were more commonly trained through mentoring as opposed to formal academic education. It was noted by this elder officer, that the result of ASCE's choice not to become engaged in the discussion and step forward to offer uniform licensing of professional engineers was that it lost control of licensing to the requirements of individual states, which is where we are today. (again this was taken from stories recounted by this senior officer, so I couldn't possibly vouch for its reliability, so take from it what you may)

It is my humble opinion that the BoK document, as imperfect as it might be, engages the question of minimum academic and experience requirements of the professional engineer for the 21st century. This seems to more fully address the more robust requirements needed for engineering specialties and prepares engineers for ever more rigorous code requirements and increasingly complex analytical knowledge. One opinion. Many more welcome.

 

[manym]

Without regard to the accuracy of LobstaEata's historical account, I will make some observations. And, it is interesting to consider that we are still including ASCE BoK in the discussion.

For ASCE to promote national registration would be a big thing. What California requires from engineers is different from that required in Kansas. For example, Kansas doesn't have Zone 4 seismic forces, but it certainly has expansive clays.

The phrase "lost control" is curious. Why would ASCE want to "control" any professional engineer?

The beauty of our mentoring system is that it has the ability to cull out the less desirable.

Over my career, I have reviewed a lot of work by engineers and early on realized that I was teaching the practical application of structural engineering. Just yesterday, I reviewed the work of an "experienced" engineer, and I have to wonder where he has worked, how he got his master's degree, and how he passed his P.E.

Now we are back to the ASCE BoK. From that 191 page document, how would ASCE control the quality of engineers? Do people think that ASCE can do something nationally that cannot be done locally, or individually?

I believe this sort of mentality is called arrogance.

 

[B16A2]

Manym,
As a seasoned structural engineer who's obviously thought a lot about these subjects, what do you think the older SE's need to do? What should the younger engineers be striving for? Abandon ASCE and start a new organization? Somehow make change?

I'm asking because I'm in a position to make changes at a very large ASCE student chapter. It's great that students use the organization to build social skills and volunteer around the community. But with these fairly large professional issues looming, I think they're completely missing the purpose.

 

[LobstaEata]

The phrase "lost control" is curious. Why would ASCE want to "control" any professional engineer?

Didn't say control any professional engineer. Did say lost control of licensing. My opinion is that it would have been far better to have the engineering community (in this case ASCE as better understanding engineering concerns) establish the licensing rules than non-engineers, such as lawyers, politicians and government officials who sometimes have competing agendas and do not necessarily have the best interests of our profession in mind.

 

[FSS]

Every year I write my renewal check makes me wonder whether it is worth it. The thing that gets me is the high seminar costs and that an extremely high percentage of structural topics in their continuing ed courses are taught by the same guy. I have nothing against him per se, its just that I want an expert in each topic. I just don't think one guy can be that, especially when you add up all the seminars and webinars (where is the time for him to actually work and add to his experience?). Sorry for the rant, but when I complained to ASCE I received a reply that they did not need more experts because they had the special guy that covered it all.

 

[civilperson]

ASCE does not represent me or a majority of licensed practicing engineers. They have the Engineering Firms best interest at heart and are quite lacking in ethics as demonstrated by the Supreme Court's ruling about price fixing and low bid awards. Some parts of ASCE do good educational efforts and research but as a special interest group in politics, they are self serving and greedy.

 

[JackTrades]

I'm in complete agreement with civilperson. I've kept my membership for the last dozen or so years primarily for the group life insurance. But it's becoming less of a bargain as I get older. And the $200+ dues per year for two magazines (that were mostly showcases for the designs of their major corporate supporters until the free "Structural Engineer" magazine gave them some competition) and a newpaper (mostly about the leadership) is a bit much.
I'll probably bail on them next year and find life insurance somewhere else.

-Jack

 

[hokie66]

I never joined ASCE when working in the US, but the description of its activities sounds remarkably like the IEAust (Institution of Engineers Australia). Equally controversial.

 

[manym]

for B16A2 (Structural) question on 1 Apr 09 -- Let me see if I can provide an opinion.

You ask what can be done to correct some of the problems we see and in light of the younger engineers.

Let's start with what we do. We are servants. We provide counsel to the people who hold the capital that makes projects happen.

Yes, our counsel includes calculations, plans, and specifications. But it is still counsel, and our service is subject to acceptance or rejectance.

In most cases, law makes our stamped approval a requirement. But the law can be circumvented, which I know happens.

I once served on a committee to review a very large and complicated project. It was effectively an ad hoc jury to settle a political argument and this avoided years in a court room drama with lawyers sucking the money away. The politicians settled the political issues, also money issues, even before we concluded!

Engineers build the pie, lawyers cut it up.

ASCE and other organizations create a lot of laws, rules, regulations, etc. In recent years these laws are created by some bright wan-na-be who needs something to justify his existence or he wants to build a monument to himself. So, he writes a law, builds a more complicated equation, and then gets a committee of other like minded persons to sanction it. And the rest of us peons are considered know-nothings worthy to be controlled.

Here is the rub. Either we are knowledgeable professionals, or we are not. Either we have learned our lessons, developed experience and common sense, or we have not.

And if we screw up a project but follow all the rules, none of these wan-na-bees are going to stand in the courtroom with us.

So what should a young engineer do?

He should grab all of the experience he can. And, be cautious about stepping into projects where he is lacking in qualifications. And more than anything else, stop confusing managment with engineering.

What about the existing organizations?

As long as these organizations promote inexperience, minorities, and other social programs, they will continue to get everything but meritorious engineering. Lacking merit, these organizations will continue to have engineering problems.

Don't believe me? Then I will take you out and show you where the next generation lives and the shoddy structures being built. Same for the organizations that are being built.

The saving grace is that most structures never see their design loads. Same for the organizations being built. Same for the young careers being built. But, it only takes one event to wipe it all away.

 

[smwpe]

No problems here.

Doctors join AMA when they get their certification.

Civil Engineers join ASCE.

Tell me the problem here.