Back Home Next
ASC Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference
University of Cincinnati - Cincinnati, Ohio
April 6 - 9, 2005         
 
A Survey of the Status of Baccalaureate Degree Awarding Construction-Related Programs within the United States
 
G. Bruce Gehrig, Ph.D., P.E.
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Charlotte, North Carolina
 
In an effort to strengthen enrollments and to enhance program offerings, faculty from the Civil Engineering Technology (CIET) program at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte recently completed an examination of a wide range of potential curricula improvement options including the development of an American Council for Construction Education (ACCE) accredited construction management program.   As part of the study, data from 56 ACCE accredited programs, 27 accredited CIET programs, 20 accredited Construction Engineering Technology (CNET) programs, and 8 National Association of Industrial Technology (NAIT) accredited programs was collected and analyzed. The survey showed that the total 2002-03 academic year undergraduate enrollment for all programs was 18,256 students with a total of 3,568 baccalaureate degrees being awarded. The results suggest that, on average, ACCE accredited programs generate the largest enrollments followed by CNET and NAIT accredited programs with CIET accredited programs having the smallest enrollments. However, the total number of graduates in 2003 was only 50% of the industry demand for construction-related graduates suggested by earlier studies. This would indicate that there is a strong continued need for growth and expansion in construction-related educational programs within the United States.
 
Key Words: Accreditation, Construction Education, Enrollments
 
 
Introduction
 
The University of North Carolina at Charlotte’s (UNC-Charlotte) Department of Engineering Technology currently offers four baccalaureate degree programs: Civil Engineering Technology, Electrical Engineering Technology, Mechanical Engineering Technology, and Fire Safety Engineering Technology.  In an effort to strengthen enrollments and to enhance program offerings, faculty from the Civil Engineering Technology (CIET) program recently completed an examination of a wide range of potential curricula improvement options including the development of an American Council for Construction Education (ACCE) accredited construction management program.  As the existing CIET program is currently accredited by the Technology Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET-TAC), the investigation included a comprehensive comparative analysis of the enrollment potential between the available accreditation options.  The data collected as part of the analysis provides an informative snapshot of the current status of construction education within the United States.
 
 
Data Collection Methodology
 
The initial step of the research methodology was to define the scope of the study.  As noted previously, the existing CIET program is ABET-TAC accredited, therefore, the faculty was interested in benchmarking the program against other ABET-TAC accredited CIET programs around the country in order to gain a clear understanding of how the program compared to other peer programs.  Next, as another closely related ABET-TAC accreditation option is Construction Engineering Technology (CNET), the decision was made to collect data on available CNET programs as well.  Finally, the faculty was interested in comparing data from ACCE accredited construction management (CM) programs so that an informed decision concerning the best available option could be made.
 
Once the scope of the study had been identified, the next step was to identify the various programs to be surveyed.  A preliminary list of programs was generated from published lists of accredited programs found on the websites maintained by both ABET-TAC (ABET, 2003) and ACCE (ACCE, 2003).  This preliminary list was then cross-checked against the directory of programs affiliated with the Associated Schools of Construction (ASC), as posted on their website (ASC, 2003), to verify that a complete and comprehensive list of programs had been developed.  One consequence of the cross-checking was the identification of another potential avenue for accreditation of construction-related programs, the National Association of Industrial Technology (NAIT).  As a result, the NAIT accredited programs identified through the ASC website were added to the list of programs to be surveyed.  In the end, a total of 111 accredited programs were identified as shown in Table 1 in the appendix to this paper.  As noted in the table, several institutions host multiple programs that hold different accreditations. 
 
Once the list of programs to be surveyed was established, the task of program specific data collection could begin.  For the purposes of the study, data of interest included total undergraduate enrollment, total undergraduate degrees awarded, and the number of full-time faculty at each program. Corresponding with the timing of the study, pertinent data was collected for the 2002-03 academic year.  To facilitate the ease of data collection, the decision was made to utilize readily available Internet based sources to conduct the survey.
 
Initially, data was collected from on-line Factbooks and other similar publicly available reports published by each respective institution’s Office of Institutional Research (for example see Colorado State University, 2003 in references).  Unfortunately, many of the on-line reports contained only aggregated data and did not segregate the information by major or degree program.  Therefore, for these programs the data was obtained from the American Society of Engineering Education’s On-line Profile of Engineering Colleges (ASEE, 2003).  For the few remaining programs still lacking data, program information was taken from the ASC website (ASC, 2003).  The compilation resulted in a sufficiently complete characterization of all of the identified programs.
 
 
Results
 
As the purpose of the study was not to obtain a numerical ranking of programs or to draw conclusions concerning the quality or strength of any particular program, a conscious effort has been made to present the results in a generic format that allows for general conclusions to be drawn concerning the state of construction-related education as a whole.  This approach still allows interested individuals to compare their own program’s data to the overall survey and make their own assessment concerning the comparative status of their program.
 
Undergraduate Enrollment
 
The breakdown of the general program characteristics by accreditation type is given in Table 2. As can be seen, there were 56 ACCE accredited programs, 27 accredited CIET programs, 20 accredited CNET programs, and 8 NAIT accredited programs. The total combined 2002-03 academic year undergraduate enrollment for all programs was 18,256 students. The results produce an overall mean and median program size of approximately 164 and 134 students respectively.
 
Table 2
Variations in General Program Characteristics by Accreditation Type
Program
Accreditation Type
 
Programs
Student
Enrollment
Degrees
Awarded
 
Faculty
Average
Enrollment
ACCE
56
12,663
2,520
389
226
ABET-TAC (CIET)
27
2,065
436
99
76
ABET-TAC (CNET)
20
2,533
446
93
127
NAIT
8
995
166
46
124
TOTALS
111
18,256
3,568
627
164
 
The distribution of enrollment across program types is illustrated in Figure 1. Program size ranged from a low of 13 to a high of 594 students with the top ten programs having enrollments in excess of 375 students. Although only 50% of the surveyed programs were ACCE accredited, those programs accounted for over 69% of the entire student
Figure 1: Distribution of accredited programs by undergraduate enrollment
enrollment. The results suggest that, on average, ACCE accredited programs generate the largest enrollments followed by CNET and NAIT accredited programs with CIET accredited programs having the smallest enrollments. In fact, 19 out of the 20 top ranked programs, based on enrollments, were ACCE accredited programs with the other program being a CNET program. Although no formal research was conducted into the cause, a possible hypothesis for the lower CIET enrollment rates could be the additional competition from traditional civil engineering programs that CIET programs face when recruiting students. A summary of the descriptive enrollment statistics is provided in Table 3.
 
Table 3
 
 
Descriptive Statistics for Surveyed Program Enrollment Data
 
All
Program Accreditation Type
Statistical Parameter
Programs
ACCE
CIET
CNET
NAIT
Mean
164.47
226.13
76.48
126.65
124.38
Standard Error
12.17
19.44
9.63
15.15
21.01
Median
134.00
171.00
68.00
122.50
125.00
Mode
150.00
150.00
108.00
170.00
---
Standard Deviation
127.69
145.48
50.03
67.77
59.41
Sample Variance
16,304.00
21,163.97
2,502.64
4,592.66
3,529.70
Kurtosis
1.97
0.00
0.35
-0.63
0.67
Skewness
1.48
0.94
0.89
-0.06
0.70
Range
581
564
187
252
188
Minimum
13
30
13
0
48
Maximum
594
594
200
252
236
Sum
18,256
12,663
2,065
2,533
995
Count
111
56
27
20
8
Confidence Level (95.0%)
24.13
38.96
19.79
31.72
49.67
 
 
 
Geographical Accreditation and Enrollment Distribution
 
Based on the data collected, it was possible to analyze the variation in accreditation preferences and enrollment patterns due to differences in geographical location.  This was accomplished by segregating the surveyed programs based on their location within the geographical regions defined by the Associated Schools of Construction. A summary of the results of the analysis is shown in Table 4.
 
Table 4
Variations in General Program Characteristics by Geographical Region
 
 
 
 
Number of Programs of Each Accreditation Type
Geographical Region
Enrollment
Degrees
Faculty
ACCE
CIET
CNET
NAIT
Far West Region
1,590
343
47
8
0
1
0
Great Lakes Region
4,295
825
140
14
3
5
2
North Central Region
1,895
280
58
5
0
3
3
Northeast Region
1,940
336
79
4
11
5
0
Rocky Mountain Region
2,323
472
84
7
4
1
0
South Central Region
2,089
430
69
6
2
3
1
Southeast Region
4,124
882
153
12
7
2
2
Totals
18,256
3,568
630
56
27
20
8
 
The results indicate that geographical location has an influence on accreditation preferences. For example, it appears that programs within the Far West Region have a strong preference for ACCE accreditation while programs within the Northeast Region seem to prefer ABET-TAC accreditation. In addition, the Southeast Region has the most diversified accreditation while the Great Lakes Region has the greatest concentration of ACCE accredited programs.
 
It is interesting to note that the two largest population centers within the United States, the Far West and Northeast Regions, have some of the lowest aggregated construction-related student enrollments. Additional research is required to determine the reasons for this tendency. However, if the reasons were identified and addressed, the data would suggest that there is a large potential for growth in construction education within these regions, either through the expansion of existing programs or through the creation of new programs at other institutions. Finally, it is interesting to note that over 46% of all students are enrolled within just two regions; the Great Lakes Region and the Southeast Region.
 
Baccalaureate Degrees Awarded
 
The data indicates that a total of 3,568 baccalaureate degrees where awarded in the 2002-03 academic year. The distribution of degrees awarded across programs types is summarized in Table 2 and illustrated in Figure 2. The number of degrees awarded by program ranged from a low of 2 to a high of 133 with the top ten programs each awarding more that 70 degrees. Similar to enrollment data, ACCE programs accounted for over 70% of the all degrees awarded. A summary of the descriptive statistics is provided in Table 5.
 
It is interesting to compare the total number of degrees awarded with the demand projected for 2003 by a study published in the Spring 2000 edition of the Journal of Construction Education (Bilbo, et. al., 2000). Based on an industry survey, the study estimated that a total of 7,045 construction-related graduates would be required to satisfy expected industry demands in 2003. Therefore, it appears that the surveyed programs are currently producing only 50% of the graduates required by the report. Assuming that the demand projections are correct; this would indicate that there is a strong continued need for growth and expansion in construction-related educational programs. As noted in the Bilbo report, additional research is required to determine why the growth in construction-related education continues to lag behind industry demand and to identify how industry has compensated for the apparent shortage of construction graduates.
 
 
 
Figure 2: Distribution of accredited programs by bachelor degrees awarded
 
Table 5
 
 
Descriptive Statistics for Surveyed Program Undergraduate Degrees Awarded Data
 
All
Program Accreditation Type
Statistical Parameter
Programs
ACCE
CIET
CNET
NAIT
Mean
32.14
45.00
16.15
22.30
20.75
Standard Error
2.61
4.25
1.94
3.22
4.92
Median
25.00
34.00
15.00
20.00
21.00
Mode
30.00
30.00
14.00
32.00
30.00
Standard Deviation
27.35
31.77
10.06
14.40
13.93
Sample Variance
748.12
1,009.42
101.13
207.48
193.93
Kurtosis
3.33
0.85
0.27
1.38
-0.68
Skewness
1.80
1.22
0.71
0.91
0.31
Range
131
130
39
61
41
Minimum
2
3
2
0
3
Maximum
133
133
41
61
44
Sum
3,568
2,520
436
446
166
Count
111
56
27
20
8
Confidence Level (95.0%)
5.17
8.51
3.98
6.74
11.64
 
Full-Time Faculty
 
Data was also collected concerning the number of full-time faculty at each program. However, the level of confidence in the consistency of the data is low compared to the other data collected. This is because of the difficulty in easily determining the actual number of full-time faculty associated with a program. Many programs did not clearly differentiate between full-time, part-time and adjunct faculty. In addition, many programs are situated in departments or colleges where faculty is shared across different academic programs, making it difficult to determine the number of faculty actually responsible for delivering the construction program. Despite these difficulties, it was possible to make some general inferences concerning faculty resources within the surveyed programs.
 
From the data, it was estimated that a total of 630 full-time faculty where involved in delivering the construction programs. This translates to an average student-to-faculty ratio of 29.1 and a degree awarded-to-faculty ratio of 5.7. The student-to-faculty ratio for ACCE accredited programs is approximately 12% above the overall average with a ratio of 32.6. In comparison, the student-to-faculty ratios for the other program types were 20.9, 27.2 and 21.6 for the CIET, CNET and NAIT accreditation options respectively.  Thus, it appears that higher program enrollments come with the unfortunate tradeoff of higher student-to-faculty ratios and increased faculty workloads.
 
In the educational community, lower student-to-faculty ratios are often characterized as one indicator of higher program quality. However, care is required in drawing such inferences from the data as the ratios are naturally skewed in favor of programs with low enrollments. The reason is that there exists a minimum threshold for staffing any program, regardless of how small the enrollment, as even very small programs have to deliver essentially the same number of courses (not sections) as larger programs.  It is not until enrollment levels increase significantly that additional course sections must be added and additional faculty hired to maintain reasonable class sizes. Therefore, very small programs have, by default, much lower student-to-faculty ratios than larger programs.
 
It would be erroneous to automatically assume, however, that very small programs are of significantly higher quality than other programs. In fact, assuming prospective students, if given a choice, will select a higher quality program over a lower quality program, one could conclude that higher quality programs would be those with larger enrollments. Because of the contradictory manner in which the data can be interpreted, additional data would have to be collected and further studies performed before any definitive conclusions could be made concerning the relationship between program quality and student-to-faculty ratios. All that can be safely concluded is that ACCE accredited programs have, on average, higher student-to-faculty ratios than programs with other accreditations. As none of the accreditation bodies have explicit limits on allowable student-to-faculty ratios, the variations in ratios are a function of enrollment and institutional policies rather than accreditation standards.  
 
 
Conclusions
 
As part of the study, a total of 111 accredited construction-related programs were surveyed to collect enrollment, degrees awarded and faculty information. Of these, there were 56 ACCE accredited programs, 27 accredited CIET programs, 20 accredited CNET programs, and 8 NAIT accredited programs. The total combined 2002-03 academic year undergraduate enrollment for all programs was 18,256 students with a total of 3,568 baccalaureate degrees being awarded.
 
The results suggest that ACCE accredited programs, on average, attract larger enrollments followed by CNET and NAIT accredited programs with CIET accredited programs having the smallest enrollments. Although only 50% of the surveyed programs were ACCE accredited, those programs accounted for over 69% of the entire student enrollment and degrees awarded. However, the higher enrollments generated by ACCE accredited programs comes with the unfortunate tradeoff of higher student-to-faculty ratios and increased faculty workloads. The variations in student-to-faculty ratios between accreditation types are a function of enrollment and institutional policies rather than the accreditation standards themselves. 
 
The results also indicate that geographical location has an influence on accreditation preferences and enrollments. In addition, the two largest population centers within the United States, the Far West and Northeast Regions, have some of the lowest aggregated construction-related student enrollments. Additional research is required to determine the reasons for this tendency. However, if the reasons were identified and addressed, the data would suggest that there exists a large potential for growth in construction education within these regions, either through the expansion of existing programs or through the creation of new programs at other institutions.
 
The total number of degrees awarded in 2003 is only 50% of the industry demand for construction-related graduates predicted by earlier studies. This would indicate that there is a strong continued need for growth and expansion in construction-related educational programs throughout the United States. Additional research is required to determine why the growth in construction-related education continues to lag behind industry demand and to identify how industry has compensated for the apparent shortage of construction graduates.
 
 
References
 
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, (Date retrieved: 2003). Accredited Engineering Technology Programs [on-line database]. URL http://www.abet.org/accredited_programs/engineeringtechnology/schoolall.asp
 
American Council for Construction Education. (Date retrieved: 2003). Accredited Baccalaureate Programs [WWW document]. URL http://www.acce-hq.org/programs092304.html#Accredited%20Bach
 
American Society of Engineering Education. (Date retrieved: 2003). Profiles of Engineering Colleges [on-line database]. URL http://www.asee.org/about/publications/profiles/search.cfm
 
Associated Schools of Construction. (Date retrieved: 2003). Membership [on-line database]. URL http://www.ascweb.org/asc/membership.asp
 
Bilbo, D., Fetters, T., Burt, R., & Avant, J. (2000). A study of the supply and demand for construction education graduates. Journal of Construction Education, 5 (1), 78-99.
 
Colorado State University. (Date retrieved: 2003). Enrollment Data Spring 2003 [PDF document]. URL http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/OBIA/pdf/ebk/ebksp03.pdf (Note: this is an example of type of website visited for all 111 surveyed institutions)
 
 
Appendix
Table 1
List of Surveyed Institutions with Accredited CIET, CNET and CM Programs 
Alfred State College
Arizona State University
Auburn University
Bluefield State College
Boise State University
Bowling Green State University
Bradley University
Brigham Young University
California Poly.  State University, Pomona
California Poly.  State University, San Luis Obisbo
California State University, Chico
California State University, Fresno
California State University, Sacramento
Central Connecticut State University
Central Missouri State University
Central Washington University
Clemson University
Colorado State University
East Carolina University
East Tennessee State University
Eastern Kentucky University
Eastern Michigan University
Fairleigh Dickinson University (CIET & CNET)
Fairmont State College
Ferris State University
Florida A&M University (CIET & CNET)
Florida International University
Georgia Institute of Technology
Georgia Southern University (ACCE & CIET)
Illinois State University
Indiana State University
Indiana University - Purdue University Fort Wayne
Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis
Jackson State University
John Brown University
Kansas State University
Louisiana State University
Louisiana Tech University
Metropolitan State College of Denver
Michigan State University
Middle Tennessee State University
Milwaukee School of Engineering
Minnesota State University, Moorhead
Missouri Western State College
Montana State University - Bozeman
Montana State University, Northern
Morehead State University
Murray State University
New Jersey Institute of Technology
New Mexico State University
North Carolina A&T State University
North Dakota State University
Northern Arizona University
Northern Kentucky University
Oklahoma State University
Old Dominion University
Oregon State University
Pennsylvania College of Technology
Pennsylvania State University, Harrisburg
Pittsburg State University
Point Park College
Purdue University
Purdue University, Calumet
Rochester Institute of Technology
Roger Williams University
Savannah State University
South Carolina State University
Southern Illinois University
Southern Polytechnic State University (ACCE & CIET)
Southwest Missouri State University
SUNY at Farmingdale
SUNY Institute of Technology at Utica/Rome
Temple University
Texas A&M University
Texas Southern University
Texas Tech University
The University of Toledo
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
University of Cincinnati
University of Florida
University of Houston
University of Houston, Downtown
University of Louisiana at Monroe
University of Maine
University of Maryland, Eastern Shore
University of Nebraska - Lincoln
University of Nebraska - Lincoln at Omaha
University of Nebraska at Kearney
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
University of New Mexico
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
University of Northern Florida
University of Northern Iowa
University of Oklahoma
University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown
University of Southern Colorado
University of Southern Indiana
University of Southern Mississippi
University of Washington
University of Wisconsin - Platteville
University of Wisconsin - Stout
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Washington State University
Wentworth Institute of Technology (ACCE & CIET)
Western Kentucky University
Youngstown State University