Environmental engineerin education: academia an an evolving profession
B
Key issues will be discussed next month at the fourth conference on this topic
James W. Patterson Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago, Ill. 60616 Although a faculty member in environmental engineering for more than I O years, during the past two years I have had a rare opportunity to achieve an appreciation of the history of, and. the current issues facing, academia in environmental engineering education. This opportunity arose in 1978 upon my selection as chairman of the Steering Committee for, and conference chairman of, the Fourth Conference on Environmental Engineering Education. In this article, I shall attempt to summarize some of the concepts, historical precedents, and pertinent data which explain the existing structure of environmental engineering education in the U S . , and to identify those issues which must be considered in planning the future directions of academia in educating the environmental engineer. Historically, environmental engineering education has been implemented at the post-baccalaureate level. In the early 1970s, on the threshold of the turbulent “Environmental Decade,” 69 U S . institutions of higher education offered post-baccalaureate degree programs in environmental engineering (Table I ) . Prior to that decade, and despite the lack of E C P D (Engineers Council for Professional Development) accreditation guidelines for the discipline, four universities also offered baccalaureate degree programs. Until 1973, the baccalaureate concept had been resisted by the environmental engineering profession, in524
Environmental Science & Technology
vironmental legislation, passed a t all governmental levels, expanded the role of the environmental engineer into new and sometimes esoteric aspects of environmental protection. With distressing frequency, newspaper headlines announced major new environmental problems and, by association, cast an unfamiliar spotlight of public attention on the activities of the environmental engineer. This attention was justified by, if for no other reason, an estimate by the U S . EPA in 1976 that national expenditures for air and water pollution control during the 10-y period 1975-85 will total $371 billion.
Evolution of this education In February 1979, the Engineers Council for Professional Development (now the Engineering Accreditation Commission) published a “Guide for Environmental Engineering Visitors cluding the majority of those environon E C P D Accreditation Teams” to mental engineers in academia. Today, according to surveys published in 1978 supplement ECPD generalized criteria on accreditation of engineering proand 1979, 27 universities offer either grams. This guide was prepared by a an environmental engineering major or joint committee of the American baccalaureate degree (Table 2), with Academy of Environmental Engitotal undergraduate environmental engineering degree e n r ~ ~ l l m e n t s neering (AAEE), the Association of Environmental Professors (AEEP), climbing from less than 300 students in 1971-72 to above 1000 by mid- and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). decade (Figure 1). That guide contains, as a definition The 1970s was a period of major of environmental engineering, the and sometimes unforeseen change in following: environmental engineering education “. . . that branch of engineering and practice. Federally sponsored which is concerned with (1) the prograduate fellowship programs, which tection of human populations from the had supported the majority of envieffects of adverse environmental facronmental engineering graduate stutors, ( 2 ) the protection of the envidents in the U S . , were essentially ronment, both local and global, from eliminated. Demand by high school the potentially deleterious effects of graduates for baccalaureate training human activities, and (3) the imin environmental engineering soared. provement of environmental quality Broad-ranging and innovative en0013-936X/80/09 14-0524$01.OO/O
@
1980 American Chemical Society
’
Fourth Conference on Environmental Engineering Education Focal issues, example subissues, and task group cochairmen Univ. of Toronto, June 19-21, 1980 Focal issues
Example subissues
Cochairmen
Baccalaureate criteria for araduate study Sources and types of student support
Dr. Perry L. McCarty Civil Enaineerina Dept. stanfora University ’ Stanford, Calif. 94305
Student: faculty balance Breadth of academic offerings Accreditation of the first degree The unique problems of programs of limited faculty size
Dr. Charles R. O’Melia of Environmental Sciences and Engineering Univ, of North carolina Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514
Curricular balance in environmental engineering education
Foundation science disciolines The role of internships The role of research and/or independent study The role of continuing education Building professionalism
Dr. E. F. Gloyna College of Engineering Cockrell Hall Univ. of Texas Austin, Tex. 78712 Prof, H. B, Cooper Dept. of Civil Engineering Univ. of Texas Austin, Tex. 78712
Relationship of baccalaureate to graduate environmental engineering education
Undergraduate options, minors and majors; breadth vs. depth Baccalaureate education in environmental engineering, including baccalaureate degree programs Graduate training of the baccalaureate environmental engineer interfacing baccalaureate engineers with graduate environmental engineering programs
Dr. Donald Aulenbach Environmental Engineering Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, N.Y. 12181
Specialization vs. generalization at the masters level The credibility of nonengineering components of graduate environmental engineering programs Integration of air, water, and other environmental engineering subjects The proper role of the practicing professional in influencing educational directions
Dr. Daniel A. Okun Dept. of Environmental Science and Engineering Univ. of North Carolina Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 Dr. Paul L. Busch Vice President Malcom Pirnie, Inc. 2 Corporate Park Dr. White Plains, N.Y. 10602
Qualities of excellence in environmental engineering education
Micro vs. macro orientation in environmental engineering education
Dr. Patrick L. Brezonik Dept. of Environmental Engineering Sciences Univ. of Florida Gainesville, Fla. 32601
Volume 14, Number 5, May 1980
525
for man’s health and well-being.“ This definition was first articulated a t the Third National Environmental Engineering Education Conference in 1973 (Table 3). T h e accreditation guide sets goals, objectives, and minimum criteria for both undergraduate (“basic”) and graduate environmental engineering programs, and identifies four subdisciplines a t the graduate level: air quality engineering industrial hygiene engineering solid waste management water quality engineering. Historically and today, the last subdiscipline has been the dominant specialty of environmental engineering practitioners and graduate environmental engineering students. In the U S . and other industrialized countries during the 19th century, the first identified adverse effects of environmental pollution on human health were discovered to be associated with waterborne pollutants. These impacts were particularly severe in heavily populated industrial centers of activity such as London, New York, and Chicago. Purdom, in his introduction to the “Proceedings of the Third Education Conference” (Table 3), notes that. “As the designers and builders of public works, it naturally evolved that civil engineers assumed the responsibility for building the sewers and waterworks (required) to improve the sanitary conditions of (the industrialized) cities.” This arena of practice was termed “sanitary engineering,” and even today the nomenclature is sometimes applied to designate environmental engineers who specialize in water quality engineering. As a consequence of the early involvement of civil engineers in sanitation practice, most course work and, ultimately, graduate areas of specialization became established as sanitary engineering options in civil engineering departments. During the early 20th century, increased concern over air pollution from combustion processes, plus the discovery of the photochemical processes which produced smog, resulted in increased involvement of mechanical and chemical engineers in these aspects of environmental protection. In a few institutions, specialized air pollution control programs were established in chemical engineering departments. More commonly, particularly in the larger civil/sanitary programs, faculty with chemical engineering backgrounds were added. Initially, most specialized in air pollution control activities. However, the interests of others soon expanded 526
Environmental Science & Technology
TABLE 1
Academic institutions awarding graduate degrees in environmental engineering Department name
Agricultural engineering Bioenvironmental engineering Chemical and environmental engineering Civil engineering
Institution
Cornell University Oklahoma State University Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Akron State University University of Arkansas Auburn University Brigham Young University University of CaliforniaBerkeley California State UniversitySacramento California State UniversitySan Jose Colorado State University University of Delaware Duke University Georgia Institute of Technology University of Hawaii University of Idaho University of Illinois-Urbana Iowa State University University of Kansas Kansas State University University of Kentucky University of Maine-Orono Manhattan College Marquette University University of Massachusetts University of Michigan Michigan Technological University Mississippi State University University of Missouri-Rolla University of Nebraska North Carolina State University Northeastern University Northwestern University University of Notre Dame Ohio State University Oregon State University Pennsylvania State University
to physicochemical and biochemical aspects of water quality engineering. Thus, in the early evolution of environmental engineering education. the civil engineering component predominated, with program enrichment resulting from crossover, primarily from chemical and some mechanical engi-
US.
Ph.D.
x
x
X X
X X
X X X X X
X X
X X
X X X
X
x
x
X X
X X
X X X
X
x
x
X X
X
x
x
X X X X X X
X
X X
X
X
x x
x x
X
X
X
X
x
x
X
X
X X X
X X X
neering faculty. This crossover ultimately encompassed environmental chemists and biologists, particularly in larger academic programs. Until the 196Os, the resulting programs had several characteristics in common. The great majority were located in civil engineering departments
M.S.
Ph.D.
X
X
X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X X
X X
X
X
Illinois Institute of Technology University of Florida
X
X
X
X
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Rice University Clemson University
X
X
X X
X X
Johns Hopkins University
X
X
i s
57
Department name
Civil and environmental engineering
Civil engineering and engineering mechanics Civil engineering and environmental sciences Environmental and resources engineering Environmental and water resources engineering Environmental engineering Environmental engineering sciences Environmental science and engineering Environmental systems engineering Geography and environmental engineering
Institution
Polytechnic institute of New York Purdue University Stanford University Syracuse University University of Tennessee University of Texas-Austin Texas A&M University Tufts University Utah State University Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University University of Washington Wayne State University West Virginia University University of Cincinnati University of Colorado Cornell University Rutgers University Washington State University University of Wisconsin University of Arizona Montana State University Florida Technological University University of Oklahoma University of Californiatrvine Vanderbilt University
TOTAL
X X
X X X X X X X X X
Sowce: “Register of Environmental Engineering Graduate Programs,” Association of Environmental Engineering Professors and American Academy of EnvironmentalEngineering, 3rd ed., July 1974.
(as they still are-’:rable 1 ) and were identified as sanitarg engineering options. Except for introductory course work i n undergraduate civil engineering programs, student specialization occurred a t the post-baccalaureate level; 3 masters degree was identified a s the first-level degree for professional
practice of sanitary engineering. Water quality engineering dominated the field of study. For example, during the period 1950-65, a t 56 institutions, 2305 advanced degrees were a u a r d e d to students specializing in water quality engineering, while only 8 0 (3.3%) were associated with spe-
cialization in air quality engineering (Table 4). These common characteristics can be traced through the titles of the first three conferences held to date, plus the fourth conference, scheduled for June 19-21. 1980, in Toronto (Table 3). T h e two conferences held in the 1960s addressed only graduate education. T h e first title specified “sanitarq engineering” while the second cited ‘‘env i r o n menta I a n d sa n i t a r y en g i neering.” At the second conference. t h e sanitary engineer was identified a s that traditionalist who evolved from the civil engineering profession arid who was principally involved in water quality aspects, while the environmental engineering designation encompassed all subdisciplines. By the 1973 conference. “sanitary” had been dropped from the title and. in recognition of the rapid evolution of undergraduate programs in the field, this conference for the first time addressed both baccalaureate and graduate environmental engineering education. T h e past tw’o decades, 1960-80, have been a period of transition for the environmental engineering prclfession and for university programs in environmental engineering. Modifications in curricula and shifts in patterns of student enrollment. student support. and employment of program graduates a r e apparent.
Programs, faculty, and curricula T h e number of U S . programs offering graduate degrees in cnvironmental engineering is rather difficult to pin down. In conducting ;i 1977 survey of graduate program cnrollments, A E E P contacted I I 1 programs, all of which responded. I n 1978. i\EEP contacted 98 programs. but only 72 responded. The 1974 A E E P Register of Environmental Engineering: Graduate Programs lists 69 separate programs (Table I ) , Earlier registers. published in 1962 and 1969, listed 56 and 66 U.S. programs, respectivel!. However. the! rest r ic t ed I is t i n g s to those p rog r a in s having “two or more full-time sanitar) engineering faculty located i n a particular department of engineering.“ A further source of statiG,tics is provided: In 1970-7 I , EPA furidcd X X Office of Water Program Graduate Training grants to 82 institutions. I t thus appears that through the 19705, between 80 and 100 graduate programs in environmental engineering were active. There is a strong possibility, however, that as man! as onethird of these progr:inis were marginal. having limited faculty. student enVolume 14, Number 5, May 1980
527
FIGURE 1
Institutions offering and total enrollments in baccalaureate environmental engineering degree programs, 1971-77 Total enrollment in B S environmental engineering degree programs
Institutions offering B S degrees in environmental engineering
1000
800
1971-72
72-73
73-74 74-75 Academic year
75-76
Source Baccalaureate Programs in Environmental Engineering Educ ASEE 6 8 4 1978
7&77
J W Patterson and J W Male d Eng
FIGURE 2
Summary of graduate student enrollment in water pollution control studies GradiJate students enrolled 2500
A
2000
1500
1000 500
New M.S.; water and wastewater engineering
n 1971
1972
1973
1974 1975 Fall semester
1976
1977
1978
FIGURE 3
Profile of engineering enrollments by institution Nurnber of graduate programs 20
15
rollments, and course offerings. T h e institutions offering baccalaureate degree programs in environmental engineering have been more accurately identified, and total 14 (Table 2). T h e number of full-time faculty dedicated to environmental engineering education is also difficult to determine, and there have been no surveys conducted since 1970-71. In that year, a total of 654 faculty were associated with 8 4 of the 88 programs which received EPA Water Training grants for that year, according to data published in the “Proceedings of the Third National Conference.” However. the 1969 A E E P register listed only 281 full-time faculty, including 26 involved in the allied disciplines of hydraulics, hydrology, and fluid mechanics. This latter number is most likely accurate, since the greater number of 654 faculty includes parttime and adjunct faculty, plus faculty headquartered in departments other than that hosting the graduate program. Of the 28 1 faculty listed in the 1969 register, exactly two-thirds were affiliated with a water quality engineering option, and 10.3% were with air resources engineering. T h e remainder were distributed among other subspecialties. If there a r e in fact approximately 6 0 graduate programs of substance, and about 300 full-time faculty associated with those programs, the average faculty size is five per program. T h e 1969 register listed numbers of full-time faculty ranging from 2 to 22 per program. Because environmental engineering education involves primarily graduate programs, and E C P D accreditation of graduate programs is rare, there a r e few real restrictions on the format of environmental engineering curricula other than those imposed within the host institutions themselves. However, a t each of the three previous National Conferences on Environmental/Sanitary Engineering Education, general curricular guidelines have been proposed. For example, a t the 1967 conference. the following subject distribution was recommended for a masters program in water quality engineering:
10
Area 5
n” 0-5
528
6-10
11-15
16-20
Environmental Science & Technology
21-25
26-30
31-35
>35
Engineering Theory 20 Process lab 15 IO Design Chemistry Biology Other, incl. electives
7 , Of effort
45
I5 15 25
'This recommended distribution of effort was reaffirmed a t the 1973 conference, and similar curricula were recommended for a i r resources and other subdisciplines of environmental engineering. Table 5 presents the results of three surveys on graduate curricular subject distribution, performed over the period 1964 to 1973. Each survey encompassed a different number of programs. so the results are only indicative. O n e clear trend which most academicians will acknowledge is the declining emphasis on traditional engineering course Ivork. This reflects the increasing pressure on academic programs to broaden the scope of exposure of graduate stltidents to science and allied courses essential to the practice of environmental engineering, without expanding total required degree credits. This expansion is often a t the expense of the mgineering component. T h e d a t a in T a b k 5 by no means indicate a uniform pattern of curriculum modification among all programs. since some schools continue to heavily e m p h a s i ze en g i nee r i ng p r i nc i pl es , while other programs have shifted toward a n applied science emphasis. The most recent data in Table 5 tuggest, however, that the engineering. chemistry, and biology components of the typical M.S. program in environmental engineering: a r e underemphasized with respect to published guidelines. Although this article focuses upon the environmental engineers and their education, mention should be made that most gradualc programs a r e structured to accommodate students from nonengineeririg backgrounds. T h e 1974 A E E P register lists only t u o institutions out of 119 which restrict graduate admission to baccalaureate engineers. Thus, 67 institutions will accept graduate students with a chemistry , biology , I:ir other appro pr ia t e science background. A t most institutions. there a r e two ;I 1tern a t i ves ava i 1a b 1 e to none ng i n ee r ing students who ,ire admitted to graduate environmental engineering programs. T h e nonenginl-er may enroll in a n environment a 1 en g i neeri ng cur r iculum and be experted to make up prescribed Undergraduate engineering courses in addition to completing the graduate engineering cur r i cu I u t i l . The student would then receive a n engineering degree upon completion of the program. T h e nonengineer may seek an applied environmental science degree. administered within ..he environmental
TABLE 2
Institutions offering baccalaureate major or baccalaureate degree program in environmental engineering University of California-Santa Barbara California Polytechnic State University -San Louis Obispo Clemson University Dartmouth University Duke University University of Florida Florida Institute of Technology-Melbourne Florida Technological University-Orlando Humboldt State University University of Illinois Marquette University University of Michigan Michigan Technological University University of Missouri-Rolla Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology Ohio State University Pennsylvania State University Purdue University Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Rice University Southern Illinois University Syracuse University Vanderbilt University University of Vermont Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University University of Washington-Seattle Worcester Polytechnic Institute
a
a
a a
a a
a
a a
a a a a a
Sources: "Baccalaureate Programs in Environmental Engineering," J W. Patterson and J. W. Male, J. €fig.€&c. ASEE, 68:4, 1978 "Undergraduate Education in EnvironmentalEngineering," D. Aulenbach, Clearwaters, Jour. NYWPCF, December 1979.
Institution awards B.S. in environmental engineering.
TABLE 3
Conferences on Environmental Engineering Education Date
June 27-29, 1960 Aug. 27-30, 1967 Aug. 13-15, 1973 June 19-21, 1980
Site
Conference title
Harvard Study Conference on the Graduate Education of Sanitary Engineers University Northwestern Second National Conference on Environmental and Sanitary University Engineering Graduate Education Third National Environmental Drexel University Engineering Education Conference University of Fourth Conference on Environmental Engineering Education Toronto
TABLE 4
Degrees awarded in sanitary engineering by 56 U.S. Schools, 1950-65 Yo Of all degrees
Category
M.S.
Ph.D.
Total
Air quality Water quality
66 2077
14 228
80
3.3
2305
96.7
Totals
2143
242
2385
100.0
Source: "An Evaluation of Sanitary Engineering Education," Report of the EnvironmentalEngineering Intersociety Board (EEIB) and the American Association of Professors of Sanitary Engineering (AAPSE), January 1970.
Volume 14. Number 5, May 1980
529
-
-
-
-
-
engineering program. This alternative for the nonengineer seems to be the preference of most environmental engineering program facult! members. A t the second conference. guidelines for such engineering-based environmental science programs u e r e presented, and the contributions to environmental protection bb the graduates of such programs were recognized.
Type suppart
'30students supported M.S. Ph.D.
10.8 42.7
13.7 0.9 1.7
530
Environmental Science & Technology
3.2 57.7 39.5
12.5 7.3
Enrollment, support and placement Figure 1 indicate3 rapid increase i n u nder g r ad u ~te. en ro I 1men t 5 in b accalaureate degree programs during 197 1-77 This phenomenon is viebed b i t h mixed feelings bq man! environmental engineers. including those in academia, u h o feel that the traditional pattern of praduate education of the knvironmeital engineer is preferable. During the past eight years, A E E P has conducted a n annual survey of enrollments' in graduate environmental engineering programs. Results of the three most recent surveqs (1976-78) are presented in Table 6, scaled to the number of institutions reporting in 1976. the base year. Historical enrollment figures, back to 1971. are shown for the subdiscipline of water qualit) engineering i n Figure 2. Enrollinent patterns for other subdisciplines are similar. The enrollment data presented in Table 6 reveal several interesting features. In 1976, almost half of the total enrol 1 men t in graduate environment a 1 engineering programs involved nonengineering students. This declined to 17% by 1978. which accounts for the reduction in total graduate program enrollments during that 3-5, period. E ng i ne e r i n g en r o I Imen t s exhibited a
slight increase from 1976 to 1978. Among the enginec ;s, about 90% were i n the \+Liter qualit) engineering options. Approximately 10% of t h e engineering students \rere enrolled in air resources engineering, and in 1978 less than 1 % ~majored i n solid waste inana g c ni c TI t . T h c precipitous decline in engineering enrollment:; l'rom I972 to 1975 indicated in Figure 2 involves two explanations. Prior tcI 1970, the majority o f all students enrolled in the graduate programs were engineers: and during the early 1970s. the survey did not d i f I'e r en t i a t e between none n g i n e e r s and engineers enrolled in air. ivater. or other program options. During later s 11r v e b.5 engineers ;L n d none n g i ne er s \v e r e co u n t ed s e pa r ;i t e I y . A iiiore drastic impact. particularlq on enrollment of engineers. occurred w hen EPA and other federallg spons o r ed t r;i i n i n g gra 11ts were di scon t i nucd. PhLiseout of E P A training grants \+;is initiated in t:ie 1970s. and all training grants are ic) be terminated by 19x0. T h e results ,.Lre sholvn in Table 7. In 1965. prior to the boom i n program enrollments. aver 80% of the total g a d u a t e students uere supported on federal training grants. By 1979. thc percentage d-opped to I O . According to a 1975 !stud> b> the N a tional Research Council. EPA funding m ;I n power - r c 1a t ed p r og r a m s C) f dropped from over $11million i n 1973 to below $3 million in 1977. This rapid a n d radical reduction i n federal training support has placed a severe strain upon the griiduate programs in cnL ironmental engineering. triggering reductions i n studcnt enrollments and forcing ii restructuring of programs to seck clther sources of student support (T;iblc X ) . T o t a l graduatc enrollments ;ire d i s p ropor t ion ;I t el!. d i s t r i bu t ed to sinallcr programs (Figure 3 ) . I n the 1 0 7 8 A k E P Survc: of Graduate Enrollmsnts. 69 of 7 9 schools reported soiiic engineers e r rolled i n their program. Over halfof..he institutions ( 3 4 ) h;id 10 or fewer graduate engineering \tudcnts enrolled. I L uould appear that thc n;irro\v base of graduate enginccring students i n those programs \\auld scverell constrain the scope of ac;idcniic offering:, justified. Thcre have bees-i ;I number o f enviro ri nie n t ;i I e ng i n c': r i n g a nd science i m n p o u cr project ,3115 performed over thc I;i\t 20 years. Although each used ;I diflerent data I:~;ise and projected d i I'fc r c n t ma n pow er de ni ;i nds, t h cy \*.ere uniform in 7r:dicting ;I continued demand for well-t +aincd enLironmental engineers and !$Aentistssomewhat
TABLE 9
Initial placement of program graduates, Baccalau-
YOdistribution M.S. and Ph.D. 1967 1971 la) IC)
reates, 1972-76
Type position
{ai
Government Industry and consulting Teaching and research Further education Other fields Unknown Sources: (a) same as (a),Table 5.
10.3 45.1
31.8 28.9 9.0 18.7
0.0
24.2 6.2 14.3
34.2 20.5
14.7 12.6
0.0
0.0
11.6
18.0
(b) Same as (b), Table 5 (c) Same as (d), Table 5.
s addressed at first three nation
Graduate curricula (common core) General course content Accreditation of M.S. degree Period of graduate study for M.S. d M.S. thesis requirement Role of the engineer in environmentat engineering Activities of personnel in the environmental engineering fields Chemistry in environmental engineering curricula Biology in environmental engineering curricula Social sciences in environmental engineering curricula Planning of environmental systems Nonengineeringstudents in environmental engineering programs Criteria and mechanisms for accreditation of professional curricula Graduate curricula for professional and research careers in environmental engineering Environmental quality goals and chatlenges,
X X X X X
1975-2000 Manpower needs in environmental engineering Educational needs for graduate programs Educational needs for undergraduate programs Educational needs for two-year technician and four-year technology programs Educational needs for continuing education
exceeding the current rate of supplg,. Emplog,mcnt demand for program graduates has remained strong over the past 90 >ears. supporting that forecast. Table 9 presents statistics on the initial placement of program grad u ;I t es . Directions for the future T h e past 20 >ears hJve represented a period of major changes i n environ-
X X
mental engineering practice and education . En v i ro n m c n t ;I I e n g i n ec r i n g educators m u s t now look toward t h e next t\vo decades and the Zlst {century. This requires evaluation of progress to date. consolidation of resources. including the pool of students available for environmental engineering studies. I nd forecast i ng ;i nd i in pl cine n t i ng necessar) future changes i n program structure and focus. Volume 14. Number 5, May 1980
531
The principal tool +I hercb> the environniental engineering profession has formall) addressed critical aspects of education sincc I960 are the previous Conferences on En\ironmental Engineering Education (Table 3 ) . These three conferences. held at approximate 7 - > intervals. h:ive had ;I subtle but appreciable influence on the directions and qualit) of cnvironniental engineering educution. Each conferencc has been organi7ed to address ;i set of focal and subissues perceived by the profession a s critical to the educ:ition of the en\~ironniental
engineer. Table 10 summarizes the issues addressed a t the first three conferences. Some issues have been addressed only a t a single conference: if the consensus of the profession was clear. guidelines were established. Other issues, such as accreditation of graduate degrees, or desirability of baccalaureate degree programs in environmental engineering, have been addressed more than once, but, lacking a consensus position, \till require further study and discussion. The Fourth Conference on Envi-
Produced by J. T. Baker, these reagents are quality controlled to provide low analytical blank values for more than 25 trace elements,. , low enough to make them suitable for most multi-element trace metals analysis via emlssion spectroscopy, atomic absorption and ICP. Examine the label.
f 7 lb(3.2 kg)
3.9598
Nitric Acid 'Baker Instra.Analyzed' Trace Mslal Anaiysir ..hi,?
Products Available Baker lnstra-Analyzed Acids Acetic Acid Hydrochloric Acid Nitric Acid Sulfuric Acid Also-Ammonium Hydroxide
If your work requires even lower irnpurlty levels, we recommend our ULTREX" acids . . the standard for reagent purity throughout the world.
.
CIRCLE 23 ON READER SERVICE CARD
532
Environmental Science & Technology
JIBaker ~
ronmental Engineering Education is planned for June 19-21. 1980 a t the University of Toronto, Canada. This conference immediately precedes the 10th International Conference on W a t e r Pollution Research ( J u n e 23-27, 1980. Toronto) and the Annual Conference of the Air Pollution Control Association (June 23-27. 1980, Montreal). The timing and site of the fourth conference was selected to promote maximum attendance b) U S . and foreign engineers and scientists desiring input to the conference. T h e proximit) of these air pollution and water pollution conferences should enhance the opportunities for participation. Planning for the fourth conference was initiated in earl) 1978. and the conference Steering Committee has selected four focal issues to be addressed. Those issues. together with typical subissues. are presented in the box material. A draft position paper on each focal issue is currently under development by a work group, cochaired bl the individuals identified in the box material. Concerned readers ~ h wish o to provide input on any of these issues are urged to direct11 contact one of the irork group cochairmen charged +I ith that issue. .At the fourth conference. the participants \ + i l l evaluate and debate the draft position papers and develop recommendations and guidelines for future directions in environmental engineering education. The effectivene\s of environmental engineering educational programs in training those fut u re pro fessiona Is dedi cu t ed t o en1.iron m e n t a I q ual it J, ti1a nage me n t depends upon productive participation in both preconference development and conference actions b! toda)'s concerned environmental engineers and scientists.
