texasamaggies.jpgFrom time to time, students visit this blog to determine the differences between construction management / engineering / sciences and other degrees. This link at the Texas A & M Website, offers one response to the differences between construction science and environmental design. A brief excerpt is below:

The focus of the Construction Science degree is on managing the construction process. Students graduating with an Bachelor of Construction Science degree can work for General Contractors and developers. Contractors and developers can be involved with building construction, road and bridge construction, industrial or commercial construction. The Department of Construction Science offers courses in project control systems. (scheduling and estimating), construction law and industry, soils and foundations.

Advertisements

texasamaggies.jpgI came across Texas A&M Strategic Plan for the Department of Construction Science. This plan is for the time frame from 1999 to 2005 and it provides interesting insight into the performance parameters for the large construction college. A portion of the introduction from the strategic plan follows:

Construction Science is an emerging field. Today, construction accounts for 8-9 percent of the nations GDP and employs about seven million workers. Historically, construction managers were trained “on-the-job”. Good engineers and architects became good project managers, good businessmen, and good leaders through trial and error. In the past, formal construction management training was available almost as an afterthought in engineering and architectural schools. Construction Science programs that have sprung up in other universities around the nation in the last ten years are an acknowledgement that formal education is essential to produce excellent construction managers and future leaders in the construction industry, one of the largest industries in the nation.

The Department of Construction Science at Texas A&M University, which celebrated its 50th anniversary in 1995, has long been known as one of the best programs of its kind in the world. It is THE LARGEST in terms of student population, the number of graduates produced, and the number of faculty. It can become, without question, THE BEST Construction Science program in the world if this Strategic Plan is implemented successfully.

The Department’s Strategic Plan is to provide purpose and direction for all actions of the Department. It sets priorities and provides a common vision that every member of the Department should consider in their day-to-day activities.

sm_student_comp_logo.JPGNow that the ASC Regional Student Competitions are coming to a close. The next step is for the regional winners to head to the national competition in San Antonio. The snippet below from the AGC Website provides an overview of the competition:

“The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) and the Associated Schools of Construction (ASC) have joined forces to form the Annual ASC-AGC National Student Competition (NSC). The competition is held every spring with competing teams from seven regions comprised of 6 students and 1 coach each. Students from across the country first participate in their Regional Competition. Those that win their division at the region qualify for the National Competition.”

A list of past national winners can be found on the AGC Website here. Per the website, the winners n 2006 were:

Commercial Division
First Place: Milwaukee School of Engineering
Second Place: California Polytechnic State University – San Luis Obispo

Design-Build Division
First Place: Arizona State University
Second Place: Milwaukee School of Engineering
Third Place: Clemson University

Heavy Civil Division
First Place: University of Cincinnati
Second Place: Sacramento State University
Third Place: Oklahoma State University

chicostate.jpgCheck out the article entitled, “Chico State students see little progress in Louisiana” which highlights Chico State student’s efforts to help rebuild homes in the New Orleans area that were damaged by Hurricane Katrina more than a year and a half ago.

Below you will find a table of the ranking data that was previously only available at a Google Spreadsheet link.

Refer to original link at: inaugural-ranking-of-the-top-undergraduate-construction-schools/

In the next several months, I plan to divide the rankings below into two categories:

1. Size of Program

a. Programs with 30 graduates or more

b. Programs with less than 30 graduates

2. Geographic location according to the seven ASC Regions

a. Northeast Region

b. Southeast Region

c. Great Lakes Region

d. North Central Region

e. South Central Region

f. Rocky Mountain Region

g. Far West Region

           

 

RANKING TOP UNDERGRADUATE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM BY RECRUITER INTEREST PER GRADUATE

 

         

 

NATIONAL RANKING INSTITUTION/SPONSOR/PROGRAM BS GRADS NO. OF ORGS. RECRUITING RECRUITING TEAMS PER GRADUATES

 

1 Virginia Polytech. Inst. & State U., Blacksburg 25 128 5.12

 

2 North Dakota State U., Fargo 24 93 3.875

 

3 California State Polytechnic U., San Luis Obispo (Arch) (ConM) 60 200 3.333

 

4 Florida International U., Miami 44 100 2.273

 

5 North Carolina State U., Raleigh 40 90 2.25

 

6 Purdue U. Calumet, Hammond, Ind. 19 40 2.105

 

7 California State U., Sacramento (CofE) (ConM) 19 40 2.105

 

8 U. of Nevada, Las Vegas 5 10 2

 

9 U. of New Mexico, Albuquerque 3 6 2

 

10 Alfred State College, Alfred, N.Y. 10 20 2

 

11 U. of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg 22 40 1.818

 

12 Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta 25 45 1.8

 

13 U. of Florida, Gainesville 130 205 1.577

 

14 U. of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 28 44 1.571

 

15 Milwaukee School of Engineering, Wis. 16 25 1.563

 

16 Roger Williams U., Bristol, R.I. 9 14 1.556

 

17 Central Connecticut State U., New Britain 26 40 1.538

 

18 U. of Arkansas, Little Rock 16 24 1.5

 

19 Purdue U., West Lafayette, Ind. (CofE) (ConE and M) 156 225 1.442

 

20 Purdue U., West Lafayette, Ind. (CofTech) (ConM) 29 40 1.379

 

21 U. of Nebraska, Lincoln 53 73 1.377

 

22 U. of Maine, Orono 15 20 1.333

 

23 California State Polytechnic U., Pomona (CofE) (ConE) 26 34 1.308

 

24 Murray State U., Murray, Ky. 4 5 1.25

 

25 Kansas State U., Manhattan 40 48 1.2

 

26 Michigan State U., East Lansing 64 75 1.172

 

27 Arizona State U., Tempe 46 52 1.13

 

28 Boise State U., Boise, Idaho 18 20 1.111

 

29 U. of Oklahoma, Norman (Arch) (ConScience) 32 35 1.094

 

30 Clemson U., Clemson, S.C. 54 58 1.074

 

31 Bradley University, Peoria, Ill. 29 31 1.069

 

32 Oregon State U., Corvallis 43 45 1.047

 

33 Iowa State U., Ames 59 60 1.017

 

34 Texas Tech U., Lubbock (CofE) (ConE) 20 20 1

 

35 U. of Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie 50 50 1

 

36 Wentworth Institute of Tech., Boston, Mass. 40 40 1

 

37 Auburn U., Auburn, Ala. 77 77 1

 

38 Colorado State U., Fort Collins 120 120 1

 

39 Ferris State U., Big Rapids., Mich. 40 40 1

 

40 Louisiana State U., Baton Rouge 86 85 0.988

 

41 U. of Southern California, Los Angeles 51 50 0.98

 

42 U. of Wisconsin, Platteville 51 50 0.98

 

43 Temple U., Philadelphia, Pa. 16 15 0.938

 

44 Washington State U., Pullman 39 36 0.923

 

45 Indiana State U., Terre Haute 22 20 0.909

 

46 California State U., Chico (CofE) (ConM) 93 80 0.86

 

47 Eastern Michigan U., Ypsilanti 35 30 0.857

 

48 Oklahoma State U., Stillwater (CofE) (ConM) 44 35 0.795

 

49 U. of Washington, Seattle 51 40 0.784

 

50 U. of Nebraska, Omaha 26 20 0.769

 

51 East Tennessee State U., Johnson City 19 14 0.737

 

52 Texas A&M U., College Station (Arch) (ConScience) 154 110 0.714

 

53 Penn. State Harrisburg 34 24 0.706

 

54 Central Washington U., Ellensburg 30 20 0.667

 

55 U. of North Florida, Jacksonville 30 20 0.667

 

56 Georgia Southern U., Statesboro 37 24 0.649

 

57 Indiana U.-Purdue U. Indianapolis 50 30 0.6

 

58 Pennsylvania College of Tech., Williamsport 19 10 0.526

 

59 Southwest Texas State U., San Marcos (CofScience) (ConE) 20 10 0.5

 

60 New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark 20 10 0.5

 

61 Bowling Green State U., Bowling Green, Ohio 40 20 0.5

 

62 Northern Arizona U., Flagstaff 40 20 0.5

 

63 Brigham Young U., Provo, Utah 117 53 0.453

 

64 Northern Kentucky U., Highland Heights 45 20 0.444

 

65 John Brown U., Siloam Springs, Ark. 7 3 0.429

 

66 Montana State U., Bozeman 54 23 0.426

 

67 Illinois State U., Normal 48 20 0.417

 

68 Tuskegee U., Tuskegee, Ala. 5 2 0.4

 

69 Central Missouri State U., Warrensburg 25 10 0.4

 

70 U. of Wisconsin, Madison 50 20 0.4

 

71 U. of Nebraska, Kearney 24 9 0.375

 

72 Minnesota State U., Moorhead 27 10 0.37

 

73 East Carolina U., Greenville, N.C. 96 35 0.365

 

74 South Dakota State U., Brookings 22 8 0.364

 

75 Southern Polytechnic State U., Marietta, Ga. 56 20 0.357

 

76 Pittsburg State U., Pittsburg, Kan. 43 15 0.349

 

77 California State University, Long Beach (CofE) (ConE&M) 41 13 0.317

 

78 Southern Illinois U., Edwardsville 19 6 0.316

 

79 U. of Louisiana, Monroe 35 11 0.314

 

80 Minnesota State U., Mankato 32 10 0.313

 

81 U. of Maryland Eastern Shore, Princess Anne 10 3 0.3

 

82 U. of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls 16 4 0.25

 

83 Eastern Kentucky U., Richmond 25 4 0.16

 

NA State U. of New York, Syracuse 16 NA NA

 

NA Fairleigh Dickinson U., Teaneck, N.J. 13 NA NA

 

NA Southwest Missouri State U., Springfield 12 NA NA

 

NA U. of Denver, Denver, Colo. 25 NA NA

 

         

 

         

 

Base data (List of Schools, BS Graduates Per School, and Recruiting Organizations Per School) were taken from a 10/29/2001 Engineering News Record (ENR) Article entitled “The Nation’s C-Schools” By David B. Rosenbaum, Debra K. Rubin with Mary B. Powers

texasamaggies.jpgTexas A & M is looking to fill the position of Head of the Construction Science Department according to a posting at HigherEdJobs.com. Texas A & M has one of the largest construction programs in the country. According to the Texas A & M’s Website :

Texas A&M University is seeking a strong, visionary leader to be the Head of the Department of Construction Science. This position will be responsible for one of the largest and oldest programs of construction higher education in the world.

With 700 students and 25 faculty members, who have strong credentials in both academia and the construction profession, the Department of Construction Science is a world leader in construction higher education. The Program offers a Bachelor of Science in Construction Science and a Master of Science in Construction Management. The undergraduate program has been continuously accredited by the American Council for Construction Education since 1978 and is also accredited by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. The Department enjoys superb support from the construction industry via the Construction Industry Advisory Council; details can be found on the Department’s web site. A hallmark of the Program is the Internship requirement where every student must spend 4-6 months working with industry as part of their degree plan. Additional information concerning the Department of Construction Science can be found at http://archone.tamu.edu/cosc/

As promised, here are the inaugural rankings of the top undergraduate construction management and construction engineering programs in the nation. The Top 10 List follows:

#1 Virginia Polytech. Inst. & State U., Blacksburg Virginia Tech
#2 North Dakota State U., Fargo
#3 California State Polytechnic U., San Luis Obispo
#4 Florida International U., Miami
#5 North Carolina State U., Raleigh
#6 Purdue U. Calumet, Hammond, Ind.
#7 California State U., Sacramento
#8 U. of Nevada, Las Vegas
#9 U. of New Mexico, Albuquerque
#10 Alfred State College, Alfred, N.Y.

I hope a list like this will encourage discussion. A discussion similar to a College Football BCS debate of why a school should be ranked higher or lower; but, before we get started with that, let me explain a couple things – including my methodology.

I became interested in generating a list of top construction schools several years ago when I came across an Engineering News – Record (ENR) article entitled, The Nation’s C-Schools. This article provided me with the base data for my rankings and also the C-School term (like B-Schools for Business Schools) that I currently use for my blog title.

I was interesting in developing a list of top construction schools that I could use as I was relocated about the nation to work on healthcare construction projects. I wanted to find the best schools that would yield a consistently high level of entry-level construction professionals. A ranking list would help me focus my limited recruiting resources (time and money) as efficiently as possible.

I decided that a good way to gauge the construction industry’s interest in a particular C-School was to see how many construction firms were competing for the students graduating each term. I was able to come up with a numerical representation of construction industry interest for my rankings by dividing the number of construction firms recruiting from a particular program by the number of students graduating each term. Using this methodology, the Number #1 C-School was Virgina Tech which scored an impressive 5+ construction firms competing for each graduate.

I realize this list has numerous limitations, including:

– Rather “ancient” 2001 data is used to generate the list

– The difficulty of larger schools to compete with smaller schools when dealing with a ratio driven ranking system

– Schools that did not provide the data on number of graduates and recruiting organization where not included on the list (Refer to the bottom of the list for a few of these schools)

– I’m sure that the readers of this list can provide several more.

As mentioned above, my main intent with publishing this ranking list is to initiate the discussion of how construction schools stack up against one another, as I believe this can lead to improving the state of construction education. I hope you enjoy the rankings and please share your idea on a better ranking methodology and more current sources of information.

You can find another link to the rankings below, followed by a list of the Top 50 Programs:

Top Undergraduate Construction Programs

INSTITUTION/SPONSOR/PROGRAM
1 Virginia Polytech. Inst. & State U., Blacksburg
2 North Dakota State U., Fargo
3 California State Polytechnic U., San Luis Obispo (Arch) (ConM)
4 Florida International U., Miami
5 North Carolina State U., Raleigh
6 Purdue U. Calumet, Hammond, Ind.
7 California State U., Sacramento (CofE) (ConM)
8 U. of Nevada, Las Vegas
9 U. of New Mexico, Albuquerque 8
10 Alfred State College, Alfred, N.Y.
11 U. of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg
12 Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
13 U. of Florida, Gainesville
14 U. of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
15 Milwaukee School of Engineering, Wis.
16 Roger Williams U., Bristol, R.I.
17 Central Connecticut State U., New Britain
18 U. of Arkansas, Little Rock
19 Purdue U., West Lafayette, Ind. (CofE) (ConE and M)
20 Purdue U., West Lafayette, Ind. (CofTech) (ConM)
21 U. of Nebraska, Lincoln
22 U. of Maine, Orono
23 California State Polytechnic U., Pomona (CofE) (ConE)
24 Murray State U., Murray, Ky.
25 Kansas State U., Manhattan
26 Michigan State U., East Lansing
27 Arizona State U., Tempe
28 Boise State U., Boise, Idaho
29 U. of Oklahoma, Norman (Arch) (ConScience)
30 Clemson U., Clemson, S.C.
31 Bradley University, Peoria, Ill.
32 Oregon State U., Corvallis
33 Iowa State U., Ames
34 Texas Tech U., Lubbock (CofE) (ConE)
35 U. of Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie
36 Wentworth Institute of Tech., Boston, Mass.
37 Auburn U., Auburn, Ala.
38 Colorado State U., Fort Collins
39 Ferris State U., Big Rapids., Mich.
40 Louisiana State U., Baton Rouge
41 U. of Southern California, Los Angeles
42 U. of Wisconsin, Platteville
43 Temple U., Philadelphia, Pa.
44 Washington State U., Pullman
45 Indiana State U., Terre Haute
46 California State U., Chico (CofE) (ConM)
47 Eastern Michigan U., Ypsilanti
48 Oklahoma State U., Stillwater (CofE) (ConM)
49 U. of Washington, Seattle
50 U. of Nebraska, Omaha