assessing construction management higher education

8/7/2019 ASSESSING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT HIGHER EDUCATION

1/58

ASSESSING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT HIGHER EDUCATIONSTRATEGIES: INCREASED DEMAND, LIMITED RESOURCES,AND OVER-ENROLLMENTBy

Kristen Lea WynnA thesis submitted to the faculty ofBrigham Young Universityin partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree ofMaster of ScienceSchool of TechnologyBrigham Young UniversityDecember 2005BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY

GRADUATE COMMITTEE APPROVALof a thesis submitted byKristen L. WynnThis thesis has been read by each member of the following graduatecommitteeand by majority vote has been found satisfactory.__________________________________________________________________Date Jay P. Christofferson, Chair

__________________________________________________________________Date Kevin L. Burr, Member__________________________________________________________________Date Jay S. Newitt, MemberBRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITYFINAL READING APPROVALI have read the thesis of Kristen L. Wynn in its final form and have found

that (1) itsformat, citations, and bibliography were consistent and acceptable andfulfill universityand department style requirements; (2) its illustrative materials includingfigures, tables,and charts are in place; and (3) the final manuscript is satisfactory to thegraduate


2/58

committee and is ready for submission to the university library.______________________________________________________________Date Jay P. Christofferson

Chair, Graduate CommitteeApproved for the Department ___________________________________Thomas L. EreksonDirector, School of TechnologyApproved for the Department ___________________________________Alan R. ParkinsonDean, Ira A. Fulton College of Engineeringand TechnologyABSTRACT

ASSESSING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT HIGHER EDUCATIONSTRATEGIES: INCREASING DEMAND, LIMITED RESOURCES,AND OVER-ENROLLMENTKristen L. WynnSchool of TechnologyMaster of ScienceThe purpose of this research was to see how Baccalaureate ConstructionManagement Programs accredited by the American Council for ConstructionEducation

(ACCE) were managing increased enrollments within their programs. Thereview ofliterature identified related topics, comparable studies, and relevant issuessurroundingover-enrollment.Forty-nine of the 53 accredited ACCE programs responded to the surveyinstrument. Over two-thirds of the respondents stated that they wereeither approaching,or were at the limits of enrollment capacities. Most of the respondents

listed limitedenrollment, the use of adjunct faculty, and funding from industry asleading strategies formanaging or obtaining resources. Because CM programs will not be willingto sacrificequality, more and more CM programs will implement limited enrollmentcontrols.


3/58

The demand for Construction Management graduates will continue toincrease.As more CM programs initiate enrollment controls, it will becomeincreasingly difficult

for the construction industry to fill entry level positions with collegegraduates. Limitedenrollment will create a deficit of qualified CM graduates needed by theindustry.Because CM programs are having difficulties acquiring resources throughtheuniversity, it may be necessary to acquire additional resources throughindustry.According to a number of program directors, one of the best ways to raise

funds withinindustry is through the use of Industry Advisory Boards. Industry AdvisoryBoards canhelp in another critical aspect to the future expansion of CM programs;improveuniversity perceptions about Construction Management education.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSTo Dr. Newitt for giving me the idea, to Dr. Burr for always responding,and to

Dr. Christofferson for giving me his total attention. To my mom for alwaysnagging, tomy dad for never nagging, and to my sister who let me sleep in her roomwhen themidnight oils made the bugs too bad.

viiTable of ContentsList of Tables

......................................................................................................................... xList ofFigures....................................................................................................................... xi


4/58

Chapter One........................................................................................................................... 1Background of the Problem

.................................................................................... 1Statement of the Problem

........................................................................................ 2Statement of Purpose.............................................................................................. 3Delimitations........................................................................................................... 3Assumptions............................................................................................................

3Definition of Terms................................................................................................. 4Chapter Two.......................................................................................................................... 7Introduction............................................................................................................. 7Over

Enrollment...................................................................................................... 7AlternativeSolutions...............................................................................................8AdjunctFaculty....................................................................................................... 9viii

Teaching Assistants(TAs)..................................................................................... 10Night Classes........................................................................................................ 11DepartmentalReorganization............................................................................... 11


5/58

Limited Enrollment............................................................................................... 12Grade PointAverage(GPA)................................................................................. 14

Two-TierEnrollment.............................................................................................14EnrollmentVoucherSystems................................................................................ 15Chapter3.............................................................................................................................. 17Populationand

Sample......................................................................................... 17Subjects................................................................................................................. 17Instrumentation..................................................................................................... 18SurveyAdministration........................................................................................... 18

SurveyQuestions................................................................................................... 19Validation.............................................................................................................. 22DataAnalysis........................................................................................................ 22ChapterFour

........................................................................................................................ 25Resource Limitations............................................................................................ 27ix


6/58


7/58

AppendixA.......................................................................................................................... 49Appendix

B.......................................................................................................................... 55xList of TablesTable 3.1 - Data Analysis Database.23Table 4.1 - Current Program Enrollments26xi

List of FiguresFigure 4.1 - Program Capacities ...25Figure 4.2 - Resource Limitations....28Figure 4.3 - Resource Managing Strategies .29Figure 4.4 - Limited Enrollment Criterion301

Chapter OneIntroductionBackground of the ProblemA study performed by Robert W. Dorsey (1992, pp. 35-37) stated aprojected needof 10,000 new construction managers eachyear. Within his research,Dorsey discoveredthat more and more of these managers were no longer being pulled fromthe ranks to

management promotions, but rather recruited heavily from ConstructionManagementeducation programs.The marketability of construction management related graduates within theindustry is not in doubt. Most construction management educationprograms boast 100%


8/58

placement, indicating multiple offers (Bilbo, Fetters, Burt, & Avant, 2000).Thesegraduates fill entry level positions with multiple titles and duties within theindustry.

Such titles include estimator, field engineer, scheduling engineer, officeengineer, projectengineer, and project manager (Gunderson, Schroeder, & Holland, 2002).In addition, theBureau of Labor Statistics projected a 10-20% increase in constructionmanagementemployment between 1996 and 2006 (DOL, 2005). These statistics projectan annual,steady, growth rate that will provide predictable employment opportunities

for futuregraduates (Gunderson, Schroeder, & Holland, 2002).2Research at Texas A&M University provided further information on thedemandof college graduates in the construction industry. Based on their researchstatistics, thedemand for graduates in the industry will have increased almost 38% by2005. However,

based on constant enrollment statistics, a supply deficit of 5,880 graduateswill arise(Bilbo, Fetters, Burt, & Avant, 2000).With high industry demand and competitive entry-level salaries, it is nosurprisethat student enrollment in Construction Management programs areincreasingdramatically. Programs like Arizona State University have increasedenrollment by over

50% in the last fifteen years (ASU, 2005). Many programs are havingdifficultiessustaining current enrollments based on their resources. For example,programs likeBrigham Young University implemented limited enrollment in theirprograms by settingrestrictions in admissions (BYU, 2005).


9/58

Unfortunately, many Construction Management programs do not have theresources available to meet the dramatic increase in student enrollment.Several CMprograms are struggling with the inability to acquire adequate funding to

create newteaching positions, difficulties finding new faculty to fill available positions,and ageneral lack of resources for expansion options, including equipment andfacilities(Jakubowski & Keith, 1981).Statement of the ProblemThe demand for Construction Management graduates is on the rise. Theproblem

is that as a result of demand, a growing number of CM programs areexperiencing3increasing enrollments within their student populations that exceed theircurrentresources.Statement of PurposeBecause of increased demand and limited resources in CM programs, thepurpose

of this research is to identify what strategies baccalaureate ConstructionManagementprograms accredited by the American Council for Construction Education(ACCE) areusing to manage increased enrollment demand and limited resources.DelimitationsFor consistency, the research was narrowed to ACCE accredited programs.Thesubjects were limited to a list of names provided by the ACCE who would

best representthe status and philosophy of their Construction Management programs.The subjects heldtitles such as Program Chair, Department Head, Director, ProgramCoordinator, InterimChair, Interim Coordinator, etc. and for the purpose of this study will bereferred to as


10/58

program directors.AssumptionsThe following assumptions were associated with this study:1. Programs not accredited by the ACCE face the same enrollment

problems asaccredited programs.42. The individual responses provided by the program directors wereaccurate andtruthful.3. The varying times and dates of the administrationof the survey had noaffectonthe responses provided by the program directors.

Definitionof TermsACCE The AmericanCouncil for ConstructionEducationwhos mission isto be aleading global advocate of quality constructioneducation; and to promote,support, andaccredit quality constructioneducationprograms (ACCE, 2005)ACCE Accredited - ConstructionManagement programs that are attestedand approvedas meeting a prescribed standard by the AmericanCouncil for Construction

EducationAdjunct Faculty - For the purposes of this research, adjunct faculty will bedefined parttime,industry personnelConstructionManagement Aneducational term that canrefer to numbera constructionrelated majors such as ConstructionManagement, ConstructionScience,ConstructionTechnology, etc.

5Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Faculty The count of full time instructors; thenumericalequivalent of multiple part-time instructors equaling one full-timeinstructor, includingadjunct faculty and full-time professorIndustry The ConstructionIndustry


11/58

67Chapter TwoReview of Literature

IntroductionThis chapterdiscusses the literature relatedtoConstructionManagementprograms andthe measures thatare implementedtomanage increasedenrollmentdemands. Little tonoinformationhas beenpublishedaboutover-enrollmentinCMprograms. The review of literature was extendedtouniversity programsthathaveexperienceda parallel lack ofresources basedonenrollmentdemands. The

literatureidentifiedrelatedtopics, comparable studies, andrelevantissuessurrounding overenrollment.OverEnrollmentConstructionManagementis notthe firsthighereducationprogram toencounterover-enrollment. Nursing, business, engineering, and journalism have allfacedsimilarsituations; andthe consequences are the same. A listofconsequences

associatedwithincreasedenrollments includes (Kraybell, 1981)8 Heavierteaching loads Reducedresearch activities Tighteroperating budget Reducedstudent-faculty interaction Increasedusedonadjunctprofessors Unavailability anddecreases inquality of facilities andequipment

Basedonthe consequences listedabove, increasedenrollments canpose aseriousproblem whenresources are notavailable tomeetdemand.Whendemandexceeds resources, the principles of supply anddemandoffertwooptions; eitherreduce the quality ofthe productby attempting tomeetincreasing


12/58

demand, or maintain quality by increasing the price and limiting theproduct (Jakubowski& Keith, 1981). The effects of supply and demand are not un-similar towhat is

happening in Construction Management programs across the nation. Inmatters ofinadequate resources meeting increasing demand, educators have achoice; either limitenrollment or create alternative solutions (Dixon, 1983).Alternative SolutionsWhen additional resources are not available and limiting enrollment is notanoption, universities can employ the use of alternative solutions. A list of

alternativesolutions available for educators could include the following; the use ofadjunct facultyand/or teachers assistants, increased night class enrollment, anddepartmentalreorganization. These options will be reviewed below.9Adjunct FacultyThe use of adjunct faculty is a popular alternative solution when additional

resources are unavailable. Adjunct professors are industry professionals,working fulltimein the field, who teach part-time at the university level. The use of adjunctfaculty ison the rise and is estimated to be as much as 40 percent of the nationwidepart-timefaculty (Gosink & Streveler, 2000). Unlike full-time faculty under contract,adjunctprofessors provide a means for quick responses to changing demands in

enrollment(Laxpati & Saad, 1996). Adjunct faculty can provide an assurance oftemporary coverage(Gosink & Streveler, 2000).Adjunct faculty can add variety and enrichment by bringing practicalexperiences


13/58

to the classroom setting, while providing current industrial applications andproblems(Gosink & Streveler, 2000). In addition, adjunct faculty can providevaluable links

between universities and industry. An adjunct instructors exposure to bothacademicsand industry can provide valuable research information for full-timeprofessors as well asvaluable insight in the development of current and viable goals for thedepartment.Industry connections within the program can also facilitate fundraising(Laxpati &Saad, 1996). Industry donations can provide the means necessary to hire

new faculty,provide facilities, purchase new equipment, etc. Finally, industryconnections arevaluable in future employment opportunities for graduating students. All ofthese aspectscan make adjunct faculty a valuable resource in the world of academia.There are, however, numerous opinions on the actual effectiveness ofadjunctfaculty. They may be hired with impeccable technical skills, but have little

formaltraining in education. The temporary nature of adjunct instructors presentsa number of10difficulties. Given that adjuncts are not a permanent fixture within theprogram,instructional training is not a priority. Due to their full-time professions,adjunct facultyhave a limited amount of time on-campus. This leaves little opportunity for

adjuncts toimprove their teaching skills or interact with their students (Gosink &Streveler, 2000). Itis the opinion of some that No matter how dedicated and responsible part-time teachersare, the practice of hiring, year after year, large number of transientworkers to teach the


14/58

courses central to an undergraduate education has already damagedhigher education andwill continue to do so (Franklin, Laurence, & Denham, p. 37).The use of adjunct faculty can be an effective resource in relieving the

temporarystrains of over-enrollment. It can provide a way to relieve the teachingloads of full-timeprofessors while bringing unique industry prospective to both students andfaculty.Nevertheless, the potential problems associated with the use of adjunctfaculty must beconsidered.Teaching Assistants (TAs)

The use of TAs is another resource in dealing with expanding enrollments.Anumber of universities and programs have developed a way of using bothundergraduateand graduate students to help teach classes. For example, a student whoreceives a B orbetter (actual qualifications depend on individual university requirements)can serve as ateachers assistant. These TAs can perform a number of duties for a

professor, forexample; paper/exam grading, preparing homework assignments, helpsessions, andstudent tutoring (Dixon, 1983).11According to research by Dr. John Dixon, in a class of about 150 students aTAprogram that adds 1 TA per 30 students can relieve a work load equivalentto one fulltime

professor. TA programs make additional time and resources available toprofessors;thus making it possible to create additional lectures and labs, as well asincrease currentclasses sizes (Dixon, 1983). Dr. Dixons study presented no evidence of adecrease ineducation quality due to TAs.


15/58

According to Dr. Dixon, the funds associated with creating a TA programareminiscule compared to its overall effectiveness. Still, many schools may findit difficult

to obtain the resources necessary to fund a TA program.Night ClassesThe University of Oregon established a pilot program that granted financialincentives to students who enrolled in non-traditional time slot classesstarting after 3 pm.The goal of the program was to maximize student capacity by encouragingenrollment innon-traditional time slots; thus relieving classroom overcrowding. Incentivehour classes

were also taught at a time at which more adjunct faculty were able toteach. This was nota perfect solution. There were questions as to the fairness of which classeswere offeredat the incentive hours and how accessible the classes were to studentschedules (Farrell,2002).Departmental ReorganizationOne mass communications program reorganized their department by

requiring aBachelor of Arts (BA), rather then a Bachelor of Science (BS) degree. Themove claimed12to increase diversity and cultural sensitivity within the program; but off therecord, thefaculty contributed the change to a desired decrease in student enrollment(Rawlins,Soenksen, & Jensen, 2002).

Within a university, there are other departments that have the fundingnecessaryto compensate program expansion. By being under another department, aprogram mayfind the resources necessary to meet increasing student demand.Limited Enrollment


16/58

For those programs that do not expand their enrollment, there is a secondoptionavailable to mange increasing student demand. Limited enrollment cancontrol a

programs availability by limiting the enrollment of students to amanageable number(Jakubowski & Keith, 1981). Limited enrollment is not a new idea; for yearsit has been aviable option available to educators in preventing a loss of quality due toincreasedenrollment demands. It is used in both the private and public spheres ofeducation, and atboth the graduate and undergraduate level. It can be used as a way to

sustain educationalquality and prevent an oversupply of outgoing graduates within an industry(Jakubowski& Keith, 1981) (Boley & Marker, 1994).One of the most important steps in implementing limited enrollment is toestablishenrollment parameters. Parameters define the amount of students, faculty,and facilitiesdesired within a program based on resources. Deciding how many students

a college ordepartment can handle can be difficult. This decision should be based on anumber offactors. In his paper on enrollment, Dr. J. Meriam recommended thefollowingconsiderations when establishing enrollment parameters; enrollmentnumbers, the13number of teaching faculty, student credit hours, direct instructional costs,

availableequipment, funds, computers, and facilities (Meriam, 1970).An additional method of establishing enrollment parameters is the KeyCourseMethod. When using the Key Course Method, the amount of studentsallowed to enroll in


17/58

a program is based on the class capacity of the key courses that studentsmust take. Oncethe key courses are established and analyzed, future enrollment capacitiescan be

estimated (Jakubowski & Keith, 1981). After a university has instituted aconsistentmethod of establishing enrollment parameters, the next step is to establishenrollmentcriteria.While limited enrollment is not uncommon in many universities andprograms,establishing enrollment criteria is a sensitive subject. Dr Wallace Venablehas stated that,

While setting numerical limits is relatively easy, the establishment ofcriteria for theretention, rejection, or expulsion of individual students is difficult anddependant on awide variety of social, intellectual, economic, and ethical assumptions(Wallace, pg.128). When considering enrollment criteria, the real difficulty is to decidewhere, when,and how should the line be drawn (Jakubowski & Keith, 1981).

Limited enrollment criteria can come in many forms; it can be based onGPA(both high school and university), SAT/ACT scores, pre-requisite courses,vouchersystems, etc. These methods can also be combined to create a list ofadmissions criteria.Each method has unique advantages and disadvantages; and each systemis chosen basedon the individual needs of the university. The paragraphs that follow are a

review ofseveral methods used.14Grade Point Average (GPA)There are a number of ways to use a GPA based limited enrollmentprogram.


18/58

Some universities and colleges use GPA from either high school records orat theuniversity level as their only admissions criteria. Others choose a morecomplex

approach. For example, Michigan State University bases its admittance ona technicallyweighted average GPA, with a minimum of 3.00 (on a 4.00 scale). Basedon the numberof enrollment applicants, the Michigan States GPA has floated from a 2.7to a 3.2, withonly the top academic applicants admitted each semester (Jakubowski &Keith, 1981).Weighted average GPAs based on pre-requisite courses can be an effective

method ofpredicting future success within a program.Limited enrollment based solely upon GPA has a number of disadvantages.GPApadding can occur by taking easier classes. In addition, there are manyaspects to astudent other then their academic record. Future employers demandcharacteristics suchas leadership, communication skills, and work experience (Gunderson, Ra,

Schroeder, &Holland, 2002). Many of these attributes cannot be determined by astudents GPA.Two-Tier EnrollmentTwo-tier enrollment includes academically distinguished lower-division andupper-division courses. Pre-majors are invited to enroll in lower-divisioncourses,although they are not guaranteed admission within the program. Uponcompletion of the

lower-division courses, pre-majors are invited to apply officially to theirperspectiveprograms. Admitted students are free to enroll in upper-division courses(Parker &Haynes, 1985).15


19/58

Two-tier enrollment provides an effective way to limit student enrollment,whilesignificantly increasing the quality of students. Two-tier enrollment may notbe the best

solution for those who are searching to maximize limited resources.Programadministration is time consuming for faculty as they focus on tracking andadvising bothcurrent and prospective students (Parker & Haynes, 1985). In addition,conflicts can arisewhen students are rejected from the program after expending time andresources onlower-division classes.

Enrollment Voucher SystemsFor universities whose problems center around the inability to provideampleenrollment in key courses, there is another solution; a voucher system.When enrollmentsincrease, key courses often reach a demand level that is unattainable. Thiscreates anumber of problems, especially for students who need key classes in orderto graduate.

Students desperate to enroll create long lines at registration andfrustrations for bothstudents and faculty. A nursing program at the East Campus of IndianaUniversityattempted to solve this problem by creating a voucher system that gaveenrollmentpriority to the students who had the most completed credits (Boley &Marker, 1994).In attempt to distribute the vouchers fairly, the program established

prioritycriteria. Initially, those at the top of the list were full-time students alreadyadmitted intothe nursing program who needed the required pre-requisite science classesbefore theycould begin their core programs. The priority criteria digressed to sixdifferent levels,


20/58

ending with part-time students at the beginning of their programs. Basedon the schools16individual needs, the criteria were changed to meet the demands of part-

time students,etc.The voucher system can be an effective method of limiting enrollment tothosestudents whom priority deems are most in need. Overall, the universityseemed pleasedwith the changes. Students where content that there were no longerlengthy lines forregistration and faculty no longer had to deal with disgruntled students

attempting to addclasses. However, change does not come without a price. The time andeffort put intoranking students and creating vouchers can be toilsome on the programfaculty and staff(Boley & Marker, 1994).17Chapter 3Methodology

Population and SampleThe population within this research was Construction Managementprogramswithin the United States. In order to maintain consistency, the researchsample wasnarrowed to ACCE accredited programs. A list of the 53 ACCE accreditedprograms wasacquired through the ACCE official website (ACCE, 2005) and can be foundin

Appendix A.SubjectsThe subjects interviewed for this research where chosen based on theprogramcontact information provided by the ACCE. The subjects held the followingtitles:


21/58

Program Chair, Department Head, Director, Program Coordinator, InterimChair, InterimCoordinator, etc. For the purposes on this research, the subjects will bereferred to as

program directors. The program directors were contacted based on a list ofphonenumbers provided by the ACCE. They were then asked if they would beinterested inanswering questions concerning enrollment issues within their respectiveConstructionManagement programs. An example of the opening dialogue and questionscan be foundin Appendix B.

18InstrumentationThe instrument used for this research was a survey. The survey questionswerebased upon a review of applicable literature and interviews with associatesof the ACCE.The survey was designed to be both qualitative and quantitative in nature.Quantitative questions were derived from a review of literature surroundingsimilar

topics. This information provided much of the foundational aspects for thequalitativedata to be gathered.The qualitative questions where intended to be open-ended. As mentionedbefore,there is little to no literature currently published concerning ConstructionManagementprograms and over-enrollment. This implies that there is little to noinformation known as

to how CM programs are handling the documented increase of enrollments.By askingopen-ended questions, the researcher gathered information specific toeach school thathas not previously been published.Survey Administration


22/58

In discussion with a member of the ACCE Board, it was felt that the surveywouldbest be performed over the telephone. Due to the dual nature of thesurvey, a telephone

survey would allow the interviewer to discuss in detail the qualitativeresponses to openendedquestions. In addition, a telephone survey would provide the highestresponse rate.19The telephone survey was conducted in an office located in the School ofTechnology atBrigham Young University.Survey Questions

Each question in the survey instrument was designed to provide an overallandcomplete assessment of the current state of enrollment within individualConstructionManagement programs. The following is a breakdown and explanation ofeach questioncontained within the survey:Question 1 Do you have the resources available to admit every qualifiedstudent

that applies to your Construction Management program?This question sets the tone of the survey. It induces the respondent intocontemplating their programs current resources in conjunction with currentenrollmentdemands.Question 2 If not, do you feel limited by ______?This question is followed by a list of possible limitations including findingqualified faculty to fill positions, inadequate funding for expansion, lack ofuniversity

support, or other. The possible limitations were added to help guide theresearcher, inaddition to giving the subject a sense of structure while encouraging open-ended answers.20Question 3 What do you feel currently is the maximum capacity forstudent


23/58

enrollment within your program?This question establishes the size of the program.Question 4 How many students are currently enrolled in your program?This question is two-fold; it is used to establish how near the program is to

theirmaximum capacity. In addition, the response can be used to establish astudent to facultyratio.Question 5 How many Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Faculty do you have?The question can be used in conjunction with Question 4 to establish astudent tofaculty ratio.Question 6 Are you experiencing over-enrollment based upon lack of

resources?This question was developed to derive whether or not the program directorfeltthat, based upon the information provided in questions 3-5, they wereexperiencing anover-enrollment problem within their CM program.Question 7 If so, what strategies are you using to accommodate studentdemandbased on your resources?

This question was intentionally left open-ended. Due to the fact that thereis littleliterature available concerning this specific topic, this question wasintended to generate21new ideas as to what strategies Construction Management programs areusing to handleover-enrollment.Question 8 Are you using limited enrollment as one strategy to address

lack ofresources issues?This question was designed specifically to generate qualitative statisticsconcerning limited enrollment in Construction Management programs.Question 9 If not, do you expect to implement limited enrollment in thenextfew years?


24/58

This question addresses the future of limited enrollment in ConstructionManagement programs.Question 10 How do you limit your enrollment? What criteria do you useto

admit students?Like Question 2, this question is followed by a list of guidelines that directstheresearcher, in addition to giving the respondents a sense of structure whileencouragingopen-ended answers. The criteria guidelines included GPA, workexperience, SAT/ACT,minimum standard in order to apply, leadership, personal interviews, andother.

This question was established to see what criteria are being used by ACCEaccreditedCM limited enrollment programs. In addition, this question would bevaluable for futureresearch involving limited enrollment in Construction Managementprograms.22ValidationOnce desired topics and questions were established, the survey was

submitted forprofessional evaluation. Each question was examined by Dr. Jay Newitt, afacultymember at BYU with many years of service and experience with the ACCE.Thequestions where then analyzed by survey expert, Dr. Kevin Burr, also atBYU. Inaddition, the survey was presented to the Program Director of ConstructionManagement

at Brigham Young University to ensure survey clarity. Finally, the surveyinstrument wasapproved by the Brigham Young Universitys Office of Research & CreativeActivities(ORCA).Data Analysis


25/58

Upon completion of the interviews, the survey data was compiled into aMicrosoftExcel worksheet where the individual schools were listed vertically. Thesurvey questions

were then listed horizontally. The following is an example of the createddatabase:23Table 3.1 Data Analysis DatabaseQuestion 1Do you have the resources to admit every student?Yes At Limits Must Admit All NoIndividual School xIndividual School x

Individual School xIndividual School xIndividual School xIndividual School xIndividual School xIndividual School xIndividual School xIndividual School xIndividual School x

Individual School xIndividual School xIndividual School xIndividual School xTotals 5 4 2 9Average 10% 8% 4% 18%The survey results were examined to identify the individual answers fromthe open-endedquestions and then add them to the horizontal list. The surveys were then

re-examinedand marked according to the categories that applied to their programs. Atthe bottom ofthe horizontal list, cells were created to generate statistical averages basedon the totalnumber of participating programs and the number of programs that wereassociated with


26/58

that category. The data analysis is further expounded in detail withinChapter 4.2425

Chapter FourFindingsOf the 53 accredited programs in the United States, 49 responded to thetelephonesurvey conducted by the author. Question 1 of the survey inquired if theirConstructionManagement programs had all the resources available to admit everyqualified student thatapplied. In response to that question, 33 percent of the program directors

replied that theyhad all of the resources necessary, 26 percent felt they were approachingthe limits ofcapacity, and 41 percent felt that they could not handle any additionalstudents (seeFigure 1).Figure 4.1 Program Capacities41%26%

33%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%

40%45%Programs at capacity Programs approachingcapacityPrograms under capacity26


27/58

Over 67 percent of ACCE accredited Construction Management programswere eitherapproaching capacity or already at the limits of capacity.Questions 3-5 of the survey established the current enrollment, maximum

enrollment capacity and number of Full-Time Equivalent Faculty for each ofthe ACCEConstruction Management programs surveyed. The chart below breaksdown thosecapacities and provides the difference between many of the programscurrent andmaximum capacities. The bold numbers in parenthesis identify programsalready at, andbeyond, their maximum capacities. Also included is the number of full-time

equivalent(FTE) faculty in each program as provided by the program directors andthe student-tofacultyratio. The identity of each program was kept anonymous (see Table 4.1).Table 4.1 Current Program EnrollmentsMaxCapacityCurrentStudents Difference

FTEFacultyStudent/FTERatio200 204(4) 4 5180 90 (10) 6 15125 125 0 3 42400 400 0 11 36460 550 (90) 11.2 49

150 220 (70) 2.5 88120 165 (45) 6.5 25400 150 250 4 38145 145 0 3.5 41150 175 (25) 6 29560 530 30 13 41125 100 25 3.25 31


28/58

N/A 200 N/A 8 25N/A 350 N/A 7 50120 180 (60) 6 30200 215 (15) 6.5 33

200 160 40 5 3270 48 22 2.75 17312 400 (88) 7 57600 600 0 14 43130 110 20 3 3727Table 4.1 Current Program Enrollments continuedMaximum capacities listed as N/A were either unsure of their programscapacity or

confident that they could expand to meet demand.Resource LimitationsQuestion 2 of the survey asked the program directors what they felt limitedby.The program directors listed the following limitations:MaxCapacityCurrentStudents Difference

FTEFacultyStudent/FTERatio132 65 67 3.5 19500 450 50 12 38500 500 0 13 38170 165 5 4 41200 130 70 3 43

180 89 91 4 22220 240 (20) 4.5 53250 210 40 5 42257 257 0 2.75 93180 280 (100) 6 47500 540 (40) 17 32180 165 15 5 33


29/58

130 130 0 4 33600 900 (300) 24 38350 200 150 6 33287.5 230 58 7 33

300 80 220 5 16N/A 400 N/A 12 33175 175 0 5 35250 250 0 20 1375 35 40 3 12450 400 50 10 40N/A 290 N/A 7 4190 90 0 3 30262 300 (38) 6 50

2837%29%24%20%6% 6%4%0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%Lack of FundingLack of University

SupportInability to find QualifiedFacultyFacilities ConstrictionsDesire to Keep ProgramSmallNo Limitations


30/58

OtherFigure 4.2 Resource LimitationsLack of funding and university support constituted more then half of therespondents limitations. One program director felt that Construction

Management wasnot a priority in his universitys eyes, while another stated that otherprograms werebleeding worse then they were. Funding was also a concern in findingqualified faculty.One program director felt that the program was unable to afford the fewqualified PhDsthat were available.The Other category included one program director whose program

establishedclass sizes that would not allow for expansion. Another program directorexpressed adesire to establish consistent growth within his program before expanding.Resource StrategiesQuestion 7 inquired what strategies were being used by ACCE ConstructionManagement programs to accommodate increased student enrollmentdemand. Over two29thirds of the program directors listed limited enrollment, the use of adjunct

faculty, andfunding from industry as leading strategies for managing or obtainingresources (seeFigure 4.3).24%20%18%10%4% 4% 4%

6%0%5%10%15%20%25%


31/58

30%Limited EnrollmentAdjunctsIndustry Funds

Up Class SizeSlowed RecruitingLabsRequirementsOtherFigure 4.3 Resource Managing StrategiesEach of the strategies specified in figure 4 above is discussed in detail inthefollowing paragraphs.

Limited EnrollmentTwenty-four percent of the programs use limited enrollment as a methodfordealing with increasing enrollment demands. The use of limited enrollmentwithin aprogram was established in Question 8 by asking directly if limitedenrollment was oneof the strategies utilized by their program. Once the use of limitedenrollment was

determined, Question 10, How do you limit your enrollment? What criteriado you use30to admit students, established the following list of limited enrollmentcriterion used byACCE Construction Management:GPA 61%SAT/ACT Score 25%Work Experience 21%

Pre-Requisite Courses 21%High School Records 18%Essay 18%Leadership/Extra Curricular Activities 14%University Level Admission 7%Other 11%0%


32/58

10%20%30%40%

50%60%70%GPASAT/ACTWorkPre-Req.HS RankingEssay

LeadershipUniversityOtherFigure 4.4 Limited Enrollment CriterionGPA is the criteria most often used in determining admission to an ACCEConstruction Management programs. It can be used as the sole criteria foradmittance, orcombined with other criteria to create enrollment limitations. For example,one program

based admittance upon the GPA of required pre-requisite courses, workexperience, and aletter/essay. Another school based admission solely on the students ACTscore because31they felt that it was the best method of measuring a students aptitude andfutureperformance.Two different programs stated the use of a percentage-based combination

ofcriteria to limit enrollment. One school used a scale of 40 percent GPA, 30percent workexperience, 30 percent leadership, and an application resume. Anotherprogram used ascale of 50 percent GPA, 25 percent work experience, 25 percentleadership skills, and an


33/58

essay.The following were the top three combinations of enrollment criteria usedbyACCE Construction Management programs:

1. GPA and Pre-requisite Courses2. GPA and SAT/ACT Scores3. GPA and Work Experience.Other methods of limited enrollment were used as well. Based uponprevioussuccesses, one program was specifically looking for older students who hadcommunitycollege experience. Another program was planning on limiting enrollmentinto specific

cohorts in order to control enrollment demands. In addition, one programwas using twotierGPA based enrollment.Question 9 inquired which, if any, programs currently not utilizing limitedenrollment planned to implement the method in the next five years.Although 33 percentof the program directors responded to the affirmative, 24 percent statedthat they were notplanning on implementing limited enrollment any time soon. There were

three mainreasons stated for not implementing limited enrollment. One programdirector stated thatlimiting enrollment hurt the budgeting game by discouraging resourcesthat would32normally follow enrollment. Another respondent felt that their programcouldsuccessfully raise funds within the industry for additional support. One

respondent feltthat limited enrollment was subjective and open to accusations of bias.Adjunct FacultyTwenty percent of the schools interviewed use adjunct faculty as a strategyforaccommodating student demand. The use of adjunct faculty is a method ofdealing with


34/58

fluctuating semester enrollments. Their use can provide a way aroundhiring expensive,full-time PhDs. One program stated that only 50% of their faculty memberswere PhDs.

Additionally, a significant portion of their teaching load was handled bypart-timeindustry professionals with baccalaureate degrees. According to oneprogram director,however, it was difficult to find adjunct faculty that could accommodate theamount ofhours and time slots needed.Industry FundingEighteen percent of the respondents stated the use of industry funding to

supportstudent demand. The following is a list of resources provided by industryfundingaccording to the program directors interviewed: Personnel grants funded solely by industry donations - industry fundingprovideda number of different positions for these programs such as officemanagers, parttimeadjunct professors, and full-time professors.

33 Facilities - Programs have been successful in persuading the industry toprovidelabs, remodeled and new facilities, equipment, etc.One respondent stated that the industry within the geographic area was sodesperate for graduates that they were more than willing to help expandthe program byproviding resources. This program director said that industry relished intheir success

and were very supportive. This same programs industry advisory boardprovidedindustry connections for funding not only for the program, but forsponsored studentsevents as well.Increased Class Sizes and Teaching LoadsTen percent of the programs interviewed listed increasing class sizes and


35/58

additional course sections as a way to compensate for over-enrollment.According torespondents, increasing classes enabled these programs to accommodateadditional

students. Program directors did note the increased teaching loadsadversely affectedfaculty members and students.Diminished Recruiting EffortsFour percent of the program directors listed decreased recruiting efforts tocontrolenrollment. Previously these schools actively recruited high school studentsby printingbrochures, offering scholarships, and visiting campuses. With programs

now at capacity,program directors decreased or discontinued recruiting efforts.34LabsFour percent of the programs used labs as a method of controllingoverenrollment.Small labs were associated with large professor lectured classes, but taughtby either teachers assistants or vocational educators. This providedprograms the ability

to increase student capacity without placing excessive stress on facultymembers.Increased EnrollmentRequirementsFour percent of the programs indicated more stringent enrollmentrequirements asa strategy. Although technically a form of limited enrollment, someprogram directorsperceived a difference in the 2 categories. When increasing enrollmentrequirements,

minimum standards for admission are created. Students that meet thatstandard areautomatically admitted into the program. For example a minimum GPA,SAT/ACT score,or high school rankings were used to set a minimum standard. Thisquantitative method


36/58

was perceived by respondents as less biased then qualitative methods likeleadership,work experience, or essay writing.Other

One program director stated that program funding was a direct result oftheprograms academic research and status within the university; therefore,he felt the bestway to gain resources was to encourage more research by facultymembers. One programwas re-organized and transferred from the Engineering Department to theInformationTechnology Department. Following the transfer, the program director had

an increase of35available program resources. One program listed the use of TAs as a majorresource tomanage over-enrollments. Due to the schools large ConstructionManagement relatedPhD programs, there were a number of PhD candidates available to workas teachersassistants.

Another program director employed a hybrid method of curriculum thatcombinedthe use of electronic assignments and tests to alleviate resourcedeficiencies. This sameprogram was making use of vocational educators to teach some of theirlower leveltechnical classes. While high school vocational educators are not typicallyPhDs and areless expensive to hire, they do have an educational background.

3637Chapter FiveConclusion, Recommendations, Implications,and Recommendations for Future ResearchConclusionsEnrollment demands for ACCE Construction Management programs have


37/58

increased dramatically. Over 67 percent of ACCE Construction Managementprogramsare approaching, or at, the limits of enrollment capacity. Due to limitedresources, CM

programs are having difficulties meeting these enrollment demands. Two-thirds of therespondents felt limited by lack of funding and/or university support. Thesetwolimitations often are correlated; when there is a lack of university support,universityfunding is difficult to obtain. Construction Management education does notappear to be auniversity priority for additional funding.

To manage limited resources, a majority of ACCE CM programs are utilizingmany of the same strategies used by other over-enrolled higher educationprograms. Mostof the respondents listed limited enrollment, the use of adjunct faculty, andfunding fromindustry as leading strategies for managing or obtaining resources.Program directorslisted limited enrollment as the strategy most utilized by CM programs.Limiting

enrollment appears to be the best way to keep enrollment demands at alevel whereresource limitations do not compromise quality. Because CM programs willnot be38willing to sacrifice quality, more and more CM programs will implementlimitedenrollment controls.In reviewing the limited enrollment criteria used by the program directors,

it wasnoted that academic criteria such as GPA, SAT/ACT scores, high schoolrankings, etc.constituted for more then 80 percent of the criteria used for selectingfuture students.Work experience and leadership skills were the only non-academicattributes listed by


38/58

program directors and those characteristics were only used 18 percent ofthe time.Attributes such as communication, organization, and ethics are not listed atall. It can be

concluded that a majority of CM programs only take into consideration theacademicskills of students that apply to their programs.It is projected that 10,000 entry-level construction managers will berecruited eachyear from Construction Management programs (Dorsey, 1992). As moreCM programsinitiate enrollment controls, it will become increasingly difficult for theconstruction

industry to fill entry level positions with college graduates. Limitedenrollment willcreate a deficit of qualified CM graduates needed by the industry.RecommendationsBecause CM programs are having difficulties acquiring resources throughtheuniversity, it may be necessary to acquire those resources from industry.Already, 18percent of ACCE accredited CM programs are successfully using industry

resources tomanage increasing enrollment demands. According to a number ofprogram directors,one of the best ways to acquire resources within the industry is to use anIndustryAdvisory Board.39An Industry Advisory Board can be used to strengthen the bond betweenConstruction Management programs and the construction industry.

Industry AdvisoryBoards would be helpful in the following areas. They educate industry onthe extent ofthe problem surrounding over-enrollment and limited resources faced byCM programs.They can also educate the industry on the extent of the impact the industrywill


39/58

experience if a graduate deficit occurs. They can also be powerful forces inraising fundsand additional resources for CM programs. Finally, Industry AdvisoryBroads can work

with university administrators to improve their perceptions of ConstructionManagementeducation.Improving university perceptions about Construction Managementeducation iscritical to the future expansion of CM programs. Construction Managementeducationwill become a priority for university funding when they have gained therespect of

university administrators. This can be done through PR campaigns andadvertising withinthe community and the university.Another way to gain recognition from university administrators is throughprofessionalorganizations such as the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB),AssociatedBuilders and Contractors (ABC), and Associated General Contractors (AGC).These

professional organizations are associated with politics and legislation onboth the localand national levels. For CM programs within public education, professionalorganizationscan have a great deal of influence on university politics. Professionalorganizations canalso help with fundraising. There are several states where taxes or fees areadded tobuilding permits or contractors licenses where the proceeds are used for

constructioneducation.40ImplicationsIf limited enrollment continues to grow, in order to obtain the neededentry-level


40/58

managers, industry will have to increase support of CM programs withintheir geographicarea. If additional funding and resources are not provided, industry willhave to continue

to promote managers from within company ranks and provide in-housetraining.As demand for CM graduates increases, college-level recruiting will becomeprogressively more competitive. Construction companies will have tobecome morevisible within CM programs by sponsoring activities. Already, companies arevisitingcampuses and offering students free pizza to come to recruitmentinformation sessions for

their company. Companies will have to continue to sponsor student events,volunteerguest lectures, and provide job-site tours to market their name within thepool of futuregraduates.Recruiters will continue to increase entry level salaries to entice futureemployees.Benefits such as truck allowances, bonuses, relocation expenses, etc. willcontinue to

increase for companies to secure university educated constructionmanagers.In order to create working relationships with future graduates, morecompanieswill have to begin working with interns. Internships provide the employerwith theopportunity to create working relationships with students before theygraduate. When theemployment relationship is positive, post-graduate students will be more

likely to returnfor full-time employment with the companies they interned with duringtheir education.41Recommendations for Future ResearchAlthough this study was narrowed to the limited resource strategies within


41/58

Construction Management programs, it does bring to light further questionsand topicsfor future research. For example, according to respondents, the use oflimited enrollment

was the most popular method of managing limited resources. Many of theprograms usedGPA, ACT/SAT, work experience, etc. as enrollment criterion. However,success withinthe industry can not necessarily be predicted by one or two limitedenrollment criterion.A valuable study could be to research whether or not the admissionstandards used byCM programs are representative of future success within the construction

industry.There is another research topic that would be valuable to all highereducationprograms experiencing over-enrollment. Many university programs areprovided withadequate resources to expand according to enrollment demands. Othersprograms, such asConstruction Management, have growth restrictions imposed by universityadministrators. What criteria are used by university administrators to

determine whichprograms are growth-restricted? In addition, how does a program achievethe statusnecessary within a university to acquire resources for expansion?Another valuable research subject would be to expand on the averagestudent/teacher ratio in Construction Management programs. Is there asignificantdifference in the student-to-teacher ratio in programs that are have limitedenrollment,

programs that are at the limits of capacity, and programs that have ampleresources toexpand?Over half of the program directors that were not planning on implementingenrollment controls stated that enrollment limitations were not allowed intheir university42


42/58

policy. As demand increases, these programs will need to find alternativesolutions tomanage limited resources. When expansion and enrollment limitations arenot possible,

how will these programs maintain the quality of education that they arecurrentlyproviding?43BibliographyAmerican Council for Construction Education. (2005) AccreditedBaccalaureatePrograms [WWW document] URLhttp://www.accehq.org/programs092304.html#Accredited%20Bach

Arizona State University. (2005) Construction Management -UndergraduateEducation [WWW document] URLhttp://construction.asu.edu/undergraduate/ugcurrent.shtmlBilbo, D., Fetters, T., Burt, R., & Avant, J., (2000). A Study of the SupplyandDemand for Construction Education Graduates. [Online] Journal ofConstructionEducation, 5(1), 78-89

Boley, P., Marker, JR., (1994)., A Voucher System for AssigningUndergraduateNursing Students to Courses with Limited Enrollment. Journal of NursingEducation,April, 1994, 33(4), pp. 161-162Brigham Young University. (2005) Introduction to ConstructionManagement.[WWW document] URL http://www.et.byu.edu/cm/Department of Labor. (DOL). Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2005).

OccupationalOutlook Handbook 2004-2005 Edition [WWW document] URLhttp://bls.gov/oco/ocos005.htm.Dixon, J.R. (1983). Limit Enrollment Or Seek Alternatives? EngineeringEducation, November, 1983, 74, pp.84-8544


43/58

Dorsey, R. (1992). Evaluation of College Curricula which PreparesManagementPersonnel for Construction. Construction Industry Institute, Sourcedocument 71

Farrell, E.F., (2002). University of Oregon Offers Discount of Late-AfternoonClasses [Online] The Chronicle of Higher Education, July, 19, 2002,48(45), pp.A33Franklin, P., Laurence, D., Robert, D. (1988). Part-Time College Faculty;TheProblems They Pose. The Education Digest, November, 1988, 89, pp. 37-39Gehrig, G.B., (1994). Skills for the 21st Century: What Constructors Need

toKnow [Online] The American Professional Constructor, 18(3), pp. 8-11Gosink, J., Streveler, R. (2000). Bringing Adjunct Engineering Faculty intotheLearning Community. Journal of Engineering Education, January, 2000,89(1), pp. 47-51Gunderson, D., Ra, J.W., Schroeder, H., Holland, H.R., (2002). NeedsAssessment A Construction Management Bachelor of Science Degree

Program inAlaska. [Online] Journal of Construction Education, 7(2), 86-96Hynds, T., Smith, J., (2001). Strategic Planning for an AcademicDepartment ofConstruction Science: Fostering Change. [Online] Journal of ConstructionEducation,6(2), 99-102Jakubowski, G., Keith, T. (1981). Enrollment Limitations in MechanicalEngineering. 1981 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, June 21-25,

1981, pp. 618-623Kraybell, E.K.,(1981). Some Deleterious Consequences of IncreasedEnrollments. ASEE Engineering Education, February, 1981, pp 333-33545Laxpati, S., Saad, S.M. (1996). Adjunct Faculty As Agents for Re-Engineering


44/58

Engineering Education. [Online] FIE 96 Proceedings, pp.1223-1226Meriam, J.L., Administrative Planning Factors in Engineering Education,ASEE Engineering Education, February 1970, pg. 459-466Northern Arizona University. (2005) Construction Management Entrance

Requirements [WWW document] URLhttp://www.cet.nau.edu/Academic/CM/admission.shtmlParker, C.E., Haynes, J.J, Two-Tier Enrollment Control, Civil EngineeringEducation, 1985, pg. 357-363Rawlins, B., Soenksen, R., Jensen, M., (2002). The State of EnrollmentManagement in Journalism and Mass Communications Programs. [Online]SSCAAnnual Convention, April 3-7, 2002Williamson III, K. & Bilbo, D. (1999). A Road Map to an effective Graduate

Construction Education Program. [Online] Journal of ConstructionEducation, 4(3) 260-277.4647Appendix4849Appendix A

ACCE Accredited UniversitiesAlfred State CollegeConstruction Management TechnologyDepartment of Civil Engineering TechnologyAlfred, NY 14802Professor Jeffrey Marshall, Program Coordinator607-587-4215 [email protected] Accredited to: February 2008

Milwaukee School of EngineeringConstruction Management ProgramDept of Architectural Engineering& Building ConstructionMilwaukee, WI 53202-3109Dr. Randy Rapp, DirectorPhone: (414) 277-7595


45/58

e-mail: [email protected] Accredited to: July 2009Arizona State UniversityDel E. Webb School of Construction

College of Engineering & Applied SciencesTempe, AZ 85287-0204Dr. William W. Badger, DirectorPhone: (480) 965-3615E-mail: [email protected] Accredited to: July 2005Minnesota State UniversityMoorheadConstruction Management

Department of TechnologyMoorhead, MN 56563Professor Scott C. Seltveit, Coordinator(218) [email protected] Accredited to: July 2010Auburn UniversityDepartment of Building ScienceCollege of Architecture, Design & Construction

Auburn, AL 36849-5315Dr. John Murphy, Dept HeadPhone: (334) 844-4518E-mail: [email protected] Accredited to: July 2008North Carolina A&T StateUniversityConstruction Management/SafetyDepartment

Greensboro, NC 27411Dr. David Dillon, Interim ChairDr. Robert B. PylePhone: (336) 334- [email protected] Accredited to: February 2008Boise State University


46/58

Construction Management ProgramDepartment of Construction Management &EngineeringBoise, ID 83725

Dr. Robert Hamilton, Interim ChairPhone: (208) 426-1447Program Accredited to: July 2000North Dakota State UniversityConstruction Management &EngineeringDepartment of Civil Engineering &ConstructionFargo, ND 58105

Dr. Gary Smith, DirectorPhone : (701)231-788050Bowling Green State UniversityConstruction Management & TechnologyDepartment of Technology SystemsBowling Green, OH 43403-0301Professor Wilfred Roudebush, Interim Coordinator1-419-372 -8275

[email protected] Accredited to: February 2005Northern Arizona UniversityConstruction Management ProgramCollege of Engineering & Applied SciencesFlagstaff, AZ 86011Dr. Thomas Rogers, DirectorTom Rogers: 928-523-4679email: [email protected]

Program Accredited to: February 2005Bradley UniversityDepartment of Civil Engineering & ConstructionCollege of Engineering & TechnologyPeoria, IL 61625Dr. Amir Al-Khafaji, Chairman(309) 677-2942


47/58

[email protected] Accredited to: July 2005Northern Kentucky UniversityConstruction Technology Management

Department of TechnologyHighland Heights, KY 41099-0839Dr. Paul D. Cooper, Program Coordinator(859) [email protected] Accredited to: February 2005Brigham Young UniversityConstruction ManagementSchool of Technology

Provo, UT 84602Professor Jay Christofferson, Program ChairProgram Accredited to: July 2007Oregon State UniversityConstruction Engineering ManagementProgramDept of Civil, Construction & EnvironmentalEngineeringCorvallis, OR 97331-2302

Professor David Rogge, ProgramCoordinator1 541 737 [email protected] Accredited to: July 2008California Polytechnic State UniversityDepartment of Construction ManagementCollege of Architecture & Environmental DesignSan Luis Obispo, CA 93407

Professor Allan Hauck, Dept Head(805) [email protected] Accredited to: July 2008Purdue UniversityBuilding Construction ManagementSchool of Technology


48/58

West Lafayette, IN 47907-1414Professor Stephen Schuette, Dept HeadPhone: 765.494.2465Email: [email protected]

Program Accredited to: July 2007California State University, ChicoDepartment of Construction ManagementCollege of Engineering, Computer Science, &TechnologyChico, CA 95929-0305Professor Tom Huestis, Department Chair(530) [email protected]

Program Accredited to: February 2007Roger Williams UniversityConstruction Management ProgramSchool of Engineering, Computing, &Construction ManagementBristol, RI 02809-2921Professor Fred Gould, Program DirectorPHONE - (401) 254-3314 Ext. [email protected]

Program Accredited to: July 2005California State University, FresnoConstruction Management ProgramCollege of Engineering & Computer ScienceFresno, CA 93740-0094Professor C. Dennis Spring, Program Coordinator559-278-4452.Program Accredited to: July 2006Southern Illinois University,

EdwardsvilleConstruction Management ProgramDepartment of ConstructionEdwardsville, IL 62026-1806Dr. S. Narayan Bodapati, ChairPhone: (618) 650-2825Email Address: [email protected]


49/58

Program Accredited to: July 200651California State University, SacramentoConstruction Management Program

Department of Civil EngineeringSacramento, CA 95819-6029Professor Keith Bisharat, Program Coordinator(916) 278-6616 CM [email protected] Accredited to: July 2006Southern Polytechnic State UniversityConstruction Management ProgramSchool of Architecture, Civil Engineering,

Technology & ConstructionMarietta, GA 30060-2896Dr. Khalid Siddiqi, Dept Head(678) [email protected] Accredited to: February 2009Central Connecticut State UniversityDept of Manufacturing & ConstructionManagement

School of TechnologyNew Britain, CT 06050Dr. Jacob Kovel, Program CoordinatorOffice Phone: (860) 832-0192E-mail: [email protected] Accredited to: February 2010Texas A & M UniversityDepartment of Construction ScienceCollege of Architecture

College Station, TX 77843-3137Dr. James W. Craig, Interim Dept HeadOffice: [email protected] Accredited to: February 2006Central Missouri State UniversityConstruction Management Program


50/58

Department of Industrial TechnologyWarrensburg, Missouri 64093Dr. John Sutton, ChairCampus: (660) 543-4439

Email:[email protected] Accredited to: July 2010University of Arkansas, Little RockConstruction Management ProgramDonaghey College of Information,Science &Systems EngineeringLittle Rock, AR 72204-1099Professor Michael Tramel, ProgramCoordinator

(501) 569 [email protected] Accredited to: July 2009Central Washington UniversityConstruction Management ProgramDept of Industrial & Engineering TechnologyEllensburg, WA 98926-7584Professor David Carns, Program Coordinator(509) 963-1762

[email protected] Accredited to: July 2009University of CincinnatiDepartment of Construction ScienceOMI College of Applied ScienceCincinnati, OH 45206Dr. Benjamin Uwakweh, Dept HeadPhone: (513) 556-5322mailto:[email protected]

Program Accredited to: July 2005Clemson UniversityDepartment of Construction Science &ManagementClemson, SC 29634-0507Dr. Roger W. Liska, ChairPhone: (864) 656-0181


51/58

Email: [email protected] Accredited to: July 2007University of FloridaME Rinker, Sr. School of Building

ConstructionCollege of Design, Construction & PlanningGainesville, FL 32611-5703Dr. Abdol L. Chini, Director(352) [email protected] Accredited to: July 200952Colorado State University

Dept of Manufacturing Technology &Construction MgmttCollege of Applied Human SciencesFort Collins, CO 80523Dr. Larry Grosse, Dept HeadPhone: [email protected] Accredited to: July 2008University of Louisiana at Monroe

Dept of Construction ManagementCollege of EngineeringMonroe, LA 71209-0540Dr. Keith Parker, Director(318) 342-1860e-mail: [email protected] Accredited to: July 2009East Carolina UniversityDepartment of Construction Management

College of Technology & Computer ScienceGreenville, NC 27858-4353Dr. Douglas Kruger, ChairmanPhone: 252.328.6707e-mail:[email protected] Accredited to: February 2005University of Maryland, Eastern Shore


52/58

Construction Management TechnologyDepartment of TechnologyPrincess Anne, MD 21853Dr. Leon L. Copeland, Chairman

Phone : 410 651 6468Email: [email protected] Accredited to: July 2008Eastern Kentucky UniversityConstruction Technology ProgramDepartment of TechnologyRichmond, KY 40475-3115Professor John Stratman, Program CoordinatorTelephone: (859) 622-1185

[email protected] Accredited to: July 2010University of NebraskaConstruction Management ProgramCollege of Engineering & TechnologyLincoln, NE 68588-0500Professor Paul Harmon, ChairPhone: (402) 472-3742E-Mail: [email protected]

Program Accredited to: July 2007Eastern Michigan UniversityConstruction Management ProgramSchool of Engineering TechnologyYpsilanti, MI 48197Professor Mike Ferber(734) [email protected] Accredited to: February 2009

University of Nevada, Las VegasConstruction Management ProgramDepartment of Civil & EnvironmentalEngineeringLas Vegas, NV 89154-4015Dr. David Shields, Director(702) 895-1461


53/58

Program Accredited to: July 2007Ferris State UniversityDept of Construction Technology & ManagementCollege of Technology

Big Rapids, MI 49307-2292Professor Dave Hanna, PE, [email protected] Accredited to: February 2005University of New MexicoConstruction Engineering/CMDepartment of Civil EngineeringAlbuquerque, NM 87131-1351

Dr. Jerald L. RoundsPh: (505) 277-3658Email: [email protected] Accredited to: February 2006Florida International UniversityDepartment of Construction ManagementCollege of EngineeringMiami, FL 33174Dr. Irtishad Ahmad, PE, Chair

Tel: (305) 348-3045E-mail: [email protected] Accredited to: February 2008University of North FloridaDept of Building Construction ManagementCollege of Computing, Engineering, &ConstructionJacksonville, FL 32224-2645Dr. Jerry Merckel, Interim Chair

904-620-1354gmerckel[at]unf.eduProgram Accredited to: July 200553Georgia Institute of TechnologyConstruction Management ProgramCollege of Architecture


54/58

Atlanta, GA 30332-0680Dr. Roozbeh Kangari, DirectorPhone: (404) 894-2296E-mail: [email protected]

Program Accredited to: February 2006University of OklahomaConstruction Science ProgramCollege of ArchitectureNorman, OK 73019-0265Professor Ken Robson, DirectorOffice: 405.325.6404Email: [email protected] Accredited to: February 2007

Georgia Southern UniversityBuilding Construction & ContractingAllen E. Paulson College of Science & TechnologyStatesboro, GA 30460-8047Professor Gary Duncan, Program CoordinatorPhone: (912) 681-5010E-mail: [email protected] Accredited to: February 2006University of Southern Mississippi

School of ConstructionCollege of Science & TechnologyHattiesburg, MS 39406Professor Desmond Fletcher, Coordinatorphone: (601) 266-5185e-mail: [email protected] Accredited to: February 2010Illinois State UniversityConstruction Management Program

Department of TechnologyNormal, IL 61790-5100Professor Richard A. Boser, Program Coordinator(309)[email protected] Accredited to: July 2009University of Washington


55/58

Department of Construction ManagementCollege of Architecture & Urban PlanningSeattle, WA 98195-1610Dr. Clark B. Pace, Undergrad Program

[email protected] Accredited to: July 2007Indiana State UniversityDept of Manufacturing & ConstructionTechnologyCollege of TechnologyTerre Haute, IN 47809

Dr. Joe Huber812/[email protected] Accredited to: February 2009University of Wisconsin-StoutConstruction ProgramCollege of Technology, Engineering &ManagementMenomonie, WI 54751

Dr. Hans Timper, Program DirectorPhone: 715/232-2416E-mail: [email protected] Accredited to: February 2005John Brown UniversityDepartment of Construction ManagementDivision of Engineering & TechnologySiloam Springs, AR 72761Professor Jim Caldwell, Dept Head

877.528.4636 Admissions [email protected] Accredited to: July 2009Virginia Polytechnic Institute & StateUniversityDepartment of Building ConstructionCollege of Architecture & Urban Studies


56/58

Blacksburg, VA 24061-0156Dr. Yvan J. Beliveau, Dept [email protected]

Program Accredited to: July 200854Kansas State UniversityConstruction Science & ManagementDept of Architectural Engineering &Construction ScienceManhattan, KS 66506Professor David R. Fritchen, Dept Head(785) 532-5964

[email protected] Accredited to: February 2009Washington State UniversityConstruction Management ProgramCollege of Engineering & ArchitecturePullman, WA 99164-2220Professor Darlene Septelka(509) 358- [email protected]

Program Accredited to: July 2009Louisiana State UniversityDepartment of Construction ManagementCollege of EngineeringBaton Rouge, LA 70803-6419Dr. George M. Hammitt, [email protected] Accredited to: July 2005

Wentworth Institute of TechnologyConstruction Management ProgramDepartment of Civil, Construction, &EnvironmentBoston, MA 02115Professor Michael Kupferman, Dept Head617-989-4590 Admissions Office


57/58

Program Accredited to: July 2007Michigan State UniversityConstruction Management ProgramEast Lansing, MI 48824-1323

Dr. Robert von Bernuth, DirectorPhone: (517) 432-6379Email: [email protected] Accredited to February 201055Appendix BSurvey QuestionnaireConstruction Management Limited Enrollment MeasuresA Thesis Study by Kristen Wynn

Name of University ____________________________________Point of Contact Person_________________________________Title________________________________________________Date________________________________________________1. Do you have the resources available to admit every qualified studentthat applies toyour Construction Management Program?2. If not, do you feel limited by: (note all that apply)a. Finding qualified faculty to fill positions?

b. Inadequate funding for expansion?c. Lack of university support?d. Other Explain?3. What do you feel currently is the maximum capacity for studentenrollment withinyour program?4. How many students are currently enrolled in your program565. How many Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Faculty do you have?

6. Are you experiencing over enrollment based on lack of resources?7. If so, what strategies are you using to accommodate student demandbased on yourresources?8. Are you using limited enrollment as one strategy to address lack ofresources issues?YES NO


58/58

9. If not, do you expect to implement limited enrollment in the next fewyears?a. YES NOb. If yes, when do you predict to do so?

10. How do you limit your enrollment? What criteria do you use to admitstudents?a. Guidelines for Questioningi. GPA?ii. Work Experience? How Much?iii. Standardized test scores, SAT, ACT, etc?iv. Minimum standard in order to apply?v. Leadership?vi. Personal Interviews?

vii. Other?57

assessing construction management higher education

Documents