May 2008
Volume 33, Number 5

ABET, Inc., the body that accredits college and university programs in applied science, computing, engineering, and technology in the United States, recently rescinded its long-standing ban on accrediting both bachelor’s and master’s engineering programs at the same school. For many years ASCE and other organizations have attempted to convince the members of ABET’s Board of Directors that the ban was outdated and was impeding efforts to raise the standards of engineering education.

James J. Duderstadt, Ph.D., a professor at the University of Michigan and a former president of the university, also encouraged ABET to rescind the ban. “By relaxing this constraint, ABET has enabled the possible elevation of educational requirements of American engineers, enabling them to compete more effectively with the current trends toward global sourcing of engineering services,” he states in an e-mail. “The past restriction of ABET accreditation to only one level of a particular curriculum was a major roadblock in the further evolution of engineering education,” he writes.

On March 28 ABET’s board voted to change subsection II.B.8.a of the organization’s Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual, which addresses the ban on dual accreditation. Prior to the change, the section read as follows: “Engineering programs may be accredited at either the baccalaureate or master’s level. A program may be accredited at only one level in a particular curriculum at a particular institution.” The vote showed 28 in favor of the change and 12 against, according to Phillip E. Borrowman, P.E., F.ASCE, one of three asce representatives on the board. The other two representatives are Larry Feeser, Ph.D., P.E., Hon.M.ASCE, and Beverly W. Withiam, P.E., M.ASCE. (Since Withiam was unable to be present for the vote, Gregory Reed, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, represented ASCE.)

By rescinding the ban, ABET has opened up educational pathways to better prepare the engineering practitioners and leaders of tomorrow, a goal that coincides with ASCE’s Policy 465 and the second edition of its Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century: Preparing the Civil Engineer for the Future, which encourages engineering students to supplement their baccalaureate with either a master’s degree or 30 additional credit hours. (See “asce Releases New Edition of Body of Knowledge Report,” ASCE News, March 2008.) As that report explains, Policy 465 “recognizes that the profession’s principal means of changing the way civil engineering is practiced lies in reforming the manner in which tomorrow’s civil engineers are prepared—through education and early experience—to enter professional practice.”

According to ABET’s Web site, www.abet.org, accreditation in the United States is a nongovernmental process that is based on peer review and is designed to help ensure that the postsecondary education received by a student is of acceptable quality. Accreditation is voluntary, and quality assurance standards are set in collaborative efforts undertaken by various professional and technical societies.

According to Borrowman, no one currently with ABET knows why or when the ban was implemented. It is believed that the ban went into effect approximately 50 years ago. Borrowman speculates that it may have been implemented when ABET’s processes were more prescriptive or perhaps reflected an effort to reduce the workload on faculty members and administrators preparing for a visit from ABET accreditation teams.

Even though no one knows why the ban was implemented, rescinding it was not without opposition. The Engineering Deans Council of the American Society for Engineering Education expressed concern that lifting the ban might undermine programs not accredited by ABET. Nevertheless, according to Mickey R. Wilhelm, Ph.D., the dean of the University of Louisiana’s Speed School of Engineering, lifting the ban will help engineering students at his university achieve an accredited baccalaureate on the way to earning an accredited master’s degree in engineering through the school’s five-year program, which is focused on preparing students for professional practice. In addition to this program, the school offers a master of science that is not accredited, and that degree can be pursued by those who are pursuing a research-focused degree. Now that the ban has been lifted, Wilhelm says, “we want to continue to provide the leadership by taking whatever steps are necessary to get our programs accredited both at the undergraduate and the master’s level.”

Last July W.F. Marcuson III, Ph.D., P.E., Hon.M.ASCE, then the Society’s president, outlined other benefits that lifting the ban would confer in a letter to George D. Peterson, Ph.D., P.E., the executive director of ABET. He wrote that lifting the ban would enable the number of accredited programs to grow, which, he contended, would help engineering graduates meet the requirements outlined in the model law formulated by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. That law requires that those intending to sit for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Exam possess either an accredited bachelor’s degree or an accredited master’s degree. Marcuson argued that accredited graduate programs could provide an ideal path to licensure for U.S. students with nonaccredited engineering degrees or degrees in physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, geology, or other nonengineering fields, as well as for graduates of foreign institutions. “Accredited master’s programs will better assure long-term, enhanced protection of the public’s health, safety, and welfare. This is the bottom line,” Marcuson wrote.

Borrowman emphasizes that gaining ABET accreditation is not mandatory. “But we are very much in favor of allowing those programs that want to [become accredited] to be allowed to do it,” he says. According to a report prepared by ABET’s board, institutions will be eligible to request accreditation for both their baccalaureate and their master’s programs during the 2009–10 accreditation cycle. 

ASCE has been striving to have the ban lifted for several years, and the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), in its Engineer of 2020 initiative, joined the effort. “It was one of the recommendations of the NAE’s ‘2020’ reports, as was the notion that in the future more than a bachelor’s degree will be needed to be an engineer,” states William Wulf, Ph.D., the AT&T Professor of Engineering and Applied Science at the University of Virginia and a former president of the National Academy of Engineering, in an e-mail.

For more information about the change in policy, contact Jeffrey S. Russell, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE, who heads the civil and environmental engineering department at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and also chairs the Society’s Committee on the Academic Prerequisites for Professional Practice, via e-mail at russell@engr.wisc.edu. Inquiries may also be e-mailed to Tom Lenox, Ph.D., M.ASCE, an ASCE senior managing director, at tlenox@asce.org.

—Brett Hansen

Photos from the 2008 Opal Awards

The Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project—submitted by Potomac Crossing Consultants—was named the winner of ASCE’s 2008 Outstanding Civil Engineering Achievement Award (OCEA award) at this year’s Outstanding Projects and Leaders (OPAL) gala, which was held on April 30 in Arlington, Virginia. Established in 1960, the OCEA award annually recognizes the project deemed to embody the best in civil engineering and to make a significant contribution both to the civil engineering profession and to society as a whole. The project was one of five finalists chosen in January by the OCEA jury. The other finalists, which received OCEA merit awards, were the Tacoma Narrows Bridge; the Pasadena City Hall Seismic Upgrade and Rehabilitation Project; the Mission Valley East Light-Rail Transit Project; and the Arsenic Crisis in the Indian Subcontinent: Sustainable Engineering Solution, West Bengal, India. (See “Five OCEA Finalists Are Chosen,” ASCE News, February 2008, page 1.)

ASCE established the OPAL awards in 1999 to celebrate the achievements and recognize the contributions of civil engineers worldwide. Candidates may be nominated by any ASCE member but need not be members of ASCE. Five individuals are chosen each year to receive OPAL awards by the Society Awards Committee, which is composed of five past presidents of ASCE. The committee nominates one recipient in each of the five categories and then forwards the nominations to the Board of Direction’s Executive Committee for approval. This year’s honorees are Clyde N. Baker, Jr., P.E., Hon.M.ASCE, for design; John M. Dionisio, P.E., M.ASCE, for management; Gerald E. Galloway, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE, Hon.M.ASCE, for government; William H. Luyties III, P.E., M.ASCE, for construction; and Ernest T. Smerdon, Ph.D., P.E., Hon.M.ASCE, for education. (See “2008 OPAL Lifetime Achievement Honorees Selected,” ASCE News, January 2008, page 1.)

The Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project is revitalizing a crossing that has impeded travel in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area for decades. With new gossamer twin spans supported by gracefully curving V piers, the new bridge has been carrying traffic since 2006, and the second span is scheduled to open later this year. The structure, which crosses the Potomac River just south of Washington, D.C., to link Maryland and Virginia, has already improved traffic by providing shoulders for vehicle breakdowns and requiring fewer openings of its drawspans. Under construction since late 2000, the $2.47-billion program has remained on schedule and on budget.

The project involved much more than replacing a bridge: it rebuilt almost 12 percent of the Capital Beltway—the ring road around Washington, D.C.—and reconstructed four interchanges in its 7.5 mi (12 km) corridor.

A high-tech marvel, the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge features eight massive bascule leaves, each with a deck encompassing at least 11,800 sq ft (1,096 m²). The most striking innovations include employing movable falsework for the bascule piers; using carbon dioxide to neutralize concrete wash water and then reusing the water to promote the settlement of dust; and adapting an epoxy gel method to seal posttensioning ducts.

The Civil Engineering Forum for Innovation (CEFI) bestowed the 2008 Charles Pankow Award for Innovation on the Lightweight Modular Ceramic Composite Firewall System, developed by a team comprising Composite Support & Solutions, Inc., of San Pedro, California; Southern California Edison, a utility firm headquartered in Rosemead, California; San Diego State University; and the University of Southern California’s Center for Composite Materials. The firewall system was developed to protect utility transformers from catastrophic fires. The Pankow jury met in January.

The Pankow award was established by CEFI’s predecessor, the Civil Engineering Research Foundation (CERF), to recognize organizations working collaboratively to aid the design and construction industry by bringing innovative ideas into practice. The award is named for CERF’s founder, a leader and innovator in civil engineering for five decades.

CEFI bestowed the 2008 Henry L. Michel Award for Industry Advancement of Research on Carl A. Strock, P.E., M.ASCE, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant general and a former commander and chief of engineers of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who was chosen for his work with the Corps in promoting engineering innovations in research and technology. According to its criteria, the award “recognizes and acknowledges leaders of the design and construction industry whose dedication and aggressive vision for the industry have provided the cornerstones for improving the quality of people’s lives around the world through research in the design and construction industry.” It is named for a former chairman of CERF’s Board of Directors.

Patrick J. Natale, P.E., F.ASCE, the Society’s executive director, offered testimony before the House Committee on Appropriations’ Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies on April 2. Natale outlined asce’s stance on appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

The executive director began by discussing the benefits of NSF and NIST programs in the area of hazard mitigation. He noted that “a number of small but critical programs” exist within the NSF and NIST that are designed to mitigate the effects of national disasters, including such initiatives as the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. He pointed out that, in addition to the loss of life, such natural disasters as hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, and earthquakes cause approximately $52 billion in damage and in disruptions to commerce and that a single major event can cause $80 billion to $200 billion in economic losses.

Under the auspices of the NEHRP, “there has been a constant source of funding for seismic monitoring, mapping, research, testing, code development, mitigation, and emergency preparedness,” Natale said. He stated that ASCE supports continued funding of the program and is urging Congress to appropriate $14.6 million to the NIST portion of the NEHRP funds for fiscal year 2009.

ASCE supports President Bush’s request for $4 million for NIST programs that seek to ensure structural safety during natural disasters, Natale stated. Moreover, the NSF has the responsibility to “advance fundamental knowledge in earthquake engineering, earth science processes, and societal preparedness and response to earthquakes,” he said. He also pointed out that the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES), which is operated by the NSF, employs experiments and computer simulations to gain a better understanding of earthquakes. Natale stated that ASCE supports the Bush admiNISTration’s request for $23.02 million in research grant money for the NEES program, which is a portion of the $64.7 million in funding allocated to the NSF portion of the NEHRP funding.

ASCE also recommends full funding of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, Natale stated. The executive director noted that in the fall of 2004 President Bush signed a law authorizing the formation of the program, which has been authorized for fiscal years 2006 to 2008. Nevertheless, no appropriations or budget requests for the program have been made. Natale stated that ASCE is hoping that Congress will fully support the program by authorizing—in accordance with the law—$9.4 million for the NSF, $4 million for NIST, and $2.2 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdmiNISTration.

The executive director then turned his attention to the country’s global competitiveness: “ASCE believes that technological innovation has been the engine that drove the nation’s economic expansion of the last fifty years. ASCE firmly believes that by maintaining strong, continuing, and steadily increasing support for research and education, we will continue to enjoy the rewards of economic expansion. If we do not continue to invest in research and technology, we will lose our position in an ever more integrated and competitive world. The basic research funded by NSF, in engineering and all other areas of science, is the foundation of that investment in the future.” He said that while ASCE is pleased that President Bush has requested funding for the American Competitiveness Initiative, the Society is hoping to see Congress and the Bush admiNISTration follow through and fund the initiative.

Natale emphasized the need to fund or continue to fund several other important programs overseen by NIST, including those that form part of its scientific, technical, and research services, those under the purview of its Building and Fire Research Laboratory, and those under the National Construction Safety Team Act. The scientific, technical, and research services encompass NIST’s core programs, which “provide the measurements and standards on which the nation’s industry stands and grows,” Natale said. ASCE supports the Bush admiNISTration’s request of $535 million to fund these programs. “If fully appropriated, the funding would permit NIST to carry out its core responsibilities and greatly enhance U.S. competitiveness,” he asserted.

NIST’s Building and Fire Research Laboratory provides services that are invaluable to the building industry, according to Natale. “The construction industry needs research and development to enhance international competitiveness and increase public health and safety. Funding for construction-related research, from all sources, is a fraction of that available to the health care and agricultural industries,” he said.

The purpose of the National Construction Safety Team Act is to investigate major building failures in the United States. Such investigations are designed to establish the technical causes of the failures and recommend improvements in building design, construction, operation, and maintenance, according to Natale. ASCE supported the act, but the Society believes that additional resources are now needed. ASCE recommends that Congress appropriate an additional $2 million for fiscal year 2009 to create an office for the team within the Building and Fire Research Laboratory, Natale stated.

ASCE supports the Bush admiNISTration’s request for $6.85 billion for the NSF for fiscal year 2009, said Natale, approximately $800 million more than the funds appropriated for the current fiscal year. Nevertheless, ASCE is urging Congress to appropriate $7.326 billion for the NSF, as authorized by the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act (better known as the America COMPETES Act), he stated. For Natale’s full testimony to the subcommittee, visit www.asce.org/files/pdf/pressroom/Commerce-testimony.pdf.

—Brett Hansen

SITUATION: Newspaper articles reporting on an indictment of an engineering firm and its officers are forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct (CPC) by members of the local