To Be a Transportation Engineer or Not?

How Civil Engineering Students Choose a Specialization

Asha Weinstein Agrawal

Assistant Professor
Department of Urban and Regional Planning
San José State University
One Washington Square
San Jose, CA 95192-0185
asha.weinstein.agrawal@sjsu.edu
phone: 408-924-5853
fax: 408-924-5872

Jennifer Dill
Associate Professor
Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning
Portland State University
PO Box 751
Portland, OR 97207-0751
jdill@pdx.edu
phone: 503-725-5173
fax: 503-725-8770

November 8, 2007

Word count: 7,405 (6,155 words + 5 tables)

Submitted for presentation and publication

87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board
Agrawal and Dill 1

ABSTRACT
The transportation industry faces a growing shortage of professional engineers. A key strategy
in solving this problem will be to encourage more civil engineering students to specialize in
transportation while completing their undergraduate degree, so that employers have a larger pool
of likely recruits. This paper examines the factors that lead civil engineering undergraduates to
specialize in transportation, as opposed to other civil engineering sub-disciplines. The primary
method used was a web-based survey of over 1,800 civil engineering undergraduates. The study
results are used to recommend steps that the transportation community can take to increase the
number of civil engineering undergraduate who choose to specialize in transportation.
Agrawal and Dill 2

INTRODUCTION
Public agencies and private firms face increasing challenges finding transportation engineers to
fill their job openings. The problem is particularly acute for public agencies. In 2001, nearly half
(46%) of all government workers were 45 or older (1). Also, a report for the NCHRP found that
many state DOTs may have even higher percentages of staff nearing retirement because so many
of their engineers were hired during the years of the significant growth of the Interstate Highway
System (2). In addition, many public agencies find it difficult to retain pre-retirement age
employees. In 2001, for example, state DOTs experienced turnover rates for engineers as high as
10 to 12% (3). As a result, the NCHRP report authors stated that “there are probably very few
industries where workforce concerns are more acute than in the transportation industry” (p. 3).
Employee recruitment and retention problems are not new, however—the Transportation
Research Board published research on this topic starting in 1984 (4).
Research on how to attract new employees to the transportation field has focused on
examining why current transportation professionals chose their job. For example, the NCHRP
study identified several effective recruitment incentives used by state DOTs, such as schedule
flexibility and engineer-in-training programs (3). The report also surveyed DOT employees to
find out what attracted them to their DOT and why they were staying. Similarly, Glagola and
Nichols identified methods used by DOTs to recruit engineers, including coop/intern programs
and contact with university faculty (5).
These research results can help DOTs to develop recruitment strategies, but even well
targeted recruitment strategies only succeed when there is an ample pool of qualified applicants.
A comprehensive approach to attracting engineers to the transportation profession must also look
further back, at the university system, to ensure that plenty of students graduate qualified for and
interested in a transportation engineering career. The NCHRP study noted that engineering
students today are more attracted to newer fields such as computer engineering rather than civil
engineering. “Hence,” warned the authors, “the competition for qualified personnel begins long
before a potential applicant even considers future employers” (3, p. 4). In a 2001 presentation to
the Council of University Transportation Centers, a FHWA representative identified a need to
“create a means for attracting more students to civil engineering and ensure that anyone who
wants to be a civil engineer has an opportunity to do so” (6).
There is some research on what transportation engineering and planning curricula should
cover (e.g., 7, 8, 9), which can help improve the quality of students who have chosen
transportation as a career, and a few other studies look at the characteristics of engineering
students who succeed in completing their bachelor’s degree (e.g., 10, 11). However, we could
not identify a single study that specifically examined the process of attracting students to
transportation disciplines. This paper begins to fill that gap by identifying the factors that
influence civil engineering students’ decisions to enter the transportation field. The larger goal
of the research is to use that understanding to recommend steps that the transportation
community can take to increase the number of civil engineering undergraduate who choose to
specialize in transportation.
The paper first reviews relevant literature, primarily from the field of vocational
psychology. We then. explain the study methods, including an internet survey of over 1,800
undergraduate civil engineering students. The following sections present the findings from the
Agrawal and Dill 3

survey and then recommendations for how the transportation community can encourage more
civil engineering undergraduates to focus on transportation.

LITERATURE REVIEW
To begin this study, we reviewed research on how people choose their careers, with a particular
focus on how they might distinguish among different specializations within a single field. We
looked widely, across all disciplines, as well as looking intensively through the engineering
literature. The great majority of the studies uncovered come from the field of vocational
psychology. We found that there is very little literature addressing the choice of specialization
within any field, and none of it addresses career specialization within civil engineering. Existing
studies mostly examine the correlation between specific careers and certain psychological
profiles, or else examine how career choice may be related to socio-demographic characteristics
or formative learning experiences. Only a few studies focused on the more subtle question
addressed in this paper—how students choose a specialization within a larger field—and of these
only one looked at engineering in particular.
Researchers in the field of vocational psychology have developed many theories of how
people choose a profession, with an objective of matching people with the best career path. The
trait and factor approach to career selection is the oldest, most researched and most prevalent
way that career counselors assess whether a career path is a good fit for someone (12). This
approach emphasizes personal characteristics such as aptitudes, interests, values and personality
in relation to work environments. John Holland developed a widely tested and used typology to
match people to careers based on six personality/interest types: realistic, investigative, artistic,
social, enterprising, and conventional (13). Under this typology, transportation engineers are
more likely to be investigative, social, and realistic (ISR) (14), meaning they tend to value
fostering welfare in others and social service (S), development or acquisition of knowledge (I),
and material rewards for tangible accomplishments (R). This grouping is a unusual, as the social
and realistic codes usually do not show up on the same profession.
The trait and factor approach is commonly used as the basis for assessment instruments,
such as the Myers Briggs Type Indicator and the Strong Interest Inventory, that career counselors
use to connect a person with the best fit of a career and work environment. Some research shows,
however, that the model of matching people with a career “works better in distinguishing
between people in different career fields than in distinguishing between people in the same
career field,” such as trying to match doctors with particularly specialty (15, p. 357).
Other career theorists have taken a developmental perspective, looking at people’s life
histories to explain influences on career decision-making (16). One well-established
developmental theory considers people’s life-span and life-space. The life-span dimension
progresses from growth on through exploration, establishment, maintenance, and disengagement.
The life-space dimension categorizes what roles an individual plays, such as child, student,
worker, etc. Most college students are in the state of exploration (13, 15, 16). Developmental
theorists are often interested in whether a person had early exposure to occupational information
and whether parental relationships have a bearing on career choice and success (18). Several
researchers have found that role models are important, both over a life span and in the current
context (19). This is especially the case for women and cultural minorities who have chosen a
non-traditional career path.
Forms of human learning theory, including social learning theory and social cognitive
career theory, also play an important role in career theory (19, 20). These theories indicate that
Agrawal and Dill 4

both internal and external factors influence career selection, including personal cognitive
processes (knowing and thinking) and beliefs about the external world. Career preferences are
particularly influenced by learning experiences, including associative learning, when a stimulus
that was previously neutral is paired with another stimulus that is already considered negative or
positive (19). Social learning career theory states that reinforcement, role models, role playing,
and simulations all help career seekers with their decision-making process. Social cognitive
career theory is concerned with the strength of an individual’s belief that he/she can successfully
accomplish something (12). These theorists also find that contextual influences affect career
choices, such as one’s desire to study in the same area as one’s peer group, the level of faculty
engagement with students, and specific program strengths.
Researchers have also focused on career indecision. Germeijs and De Boeck outline three
key sources of indecision – lack of information, valuation problems, and uncertainty about
outcomes (21). The lack of information includes not knowing what possible alternatives exist,
not knowing the attributes of alternatives, and not knowing the possible outcomes of the
alternatives. For example, in the case of transportation engineering, students might not know that
the field exists (particularly before entering college), they may not know what transportation
engineers do (or have incorrect impressions of that work), or they may not know the types of
employers that hire transportation engineers, the hiring prospects, salary range, or potential for
upward mobility.
Much of the career theory research focuses on differentiating between a broad range of
careers, such as doctor vs. teacher vs. mechanic. A small amount of literature focuses on the
choice of a specialization within a broader career path, particularly in the field of medicine (22,
123). Although several studies have found associations between personality factors and medical
specialties, one review of the research concluded that “in terms of personality characteristics,
most medical specialties generally require the same pattern of personality characteristics, with
tolerance wide enough to allow a variety of personality types in each specialty” (22, p. 374). The
authors found more variation in personality traits within specialties than between them.
Nevertheless, they recommended continuing the use of personality assessment in counseling
medical students choosing a specialty, to narrow the choices, for example. In addition, Borges
and Savickas noted that jobs consist of two components, one related to the technical
competencies to perform specific tasks and the other related to the context of performing those
tasks, such as the social and organizational network of a work environment. They suggested that
personality traits might relate more to contextual performance than task performance. Savickas
et. al. looked specifically at indecision among medical students in choosing a specialty (15). A
key factor influencing indecision was the lack of information about specialties and ones’
interests and abilities.
We identified only one study of this type related to engineering. Shivy and Sullivan
explored engineering students’ perceptions of 11 engineering specialties, such as mechanical,
civil, electrical, etc., using a survey of 129 undergraduates (24). They found that “attributes that
individuals commonly use to make distinctions among occupations (i.e. people, things, data,
ideas, gender, and prestige) did not seem to be used by students in making distinctions between
the 11 engineering specialties” (p. 98). They suggested that engineering specialties shared many
features and that once students chose engineering as a career, they used more novel and perhaps
idiosyncratic attributes to choose a specialty within engineering. They identified three
dimensions that distinguished students’ perceptions of the engineering fields: (1) microlevel and
inert materials vs. macrolevel and human systems; (2) job availability after graduation; and (3)
Agrawal and Dill 5

clear paths towards management positions. They also found that gender, ethnicity, and vocation
exploration and commitment may influence perceptions.

METHODOLOGY
The primary method used in this study was a web-based survey of undergraduate civil
engineering majors that asked students about their career goals, why they had chosen any
particular specialization within civil engineering, their views on the specialization they had
chosen, and their views on the transportation specialization (if they had not chosen it for their
own work).
Developing the survey questionnaire required understanding the likely factors that might
influence students’ choice of specialization. To develop this background knowledge, we
reviewed the literature on career choice, researched the structure of undergraduate civil
engineering curricula, conducted interviews with civil engineering faculty, and held focus groups
with graduate and undergraduate civil engineering students.
To begin, we interviewed ten faculty members at different universities and asked them
how their undergraduate curriculum is structured with regards to electives and student
specializations and their opinions about how students chose specializations. These interviews
were conducted either by phone or in person and lasted about 45 minutes each.
Another phase of the research involved researching the curriculum in civil engineering
programs to see how many departments required or allowed students to specialize within civil
engineering and whether or not transportation courses were required of all students. This
research was conducted for the 99 universities invited to participate in the student survey we
conducted.
Two student focus groups were conducted in winter 2007: one session with seven
undergraduates civil engineering students at the University of California (UC), Berkeley and one
session with six undergraduate civil engineering students at Portland State University. The focus
group participants were recruited through flyers posted around campus and email sent to student
lists. Students from all specializations within civil engineering were encouraged to join. (The
recruitment materials did not mentioned any particular interest in the transportation
specialization.) As compensation, students received a meal and a cash payment of $15. The
focus groups lasted 90 minutes and an assistant took notes. During the focus groups, students
discussed topics such as their impressions of different specializations within civil engineering,
what types of careers they hoped to have, their work experience in the field, and their
impressions of the transportation specialization within civil engineering.
The results of the interviews, curriculum evaluation, and focus groups were used to
develop a questionnaire that asked students about factors likely to have influenced their choice of
specialization, though the questionnaire also included open-ended sections where students could
add their own comments if the questionnaire missed factors important to them. In addition, we
used the literature review on career choice theories and assessment instruments used by career
counselors to develop questions addressing those theories. The resulting survey was
administered over the web.
Survey respondents were recruited entirely through email. We emailed the program
administrators in 99 civil engineering departments at U.S. universities and asked them to forward
to their students an email requesting that the students participate in the web-based survey.
Students were told that upon completing the survey they would be entered into a drawing to win
Agrawal and Dill 6

one $300 or three $100 gift certificates to Amazon.com. The email included a link to the survey
web site, which was a commonly-used, commercial on-line survey provider.
The civil engineering programs invited to participate were selected in several ways.
First, we sent the survey to 46 of the civil engineering programs listed by the American Society
for Engineering Education (ASEE) as the 50 institutions granting the largest number of civil
engineering bachelor’s degrees (25). (Of the 50 institutions, we excluded two universities
located in Puerto Rico, one that did not offer any formal or informal specialization in
transportation (UCLA), and Virginia Tech, which had just experienced a tragic shooting.)
Second, we sent the survey to those universities listed by the ASEE as offering bachelor of
science degree in civil engineering and at which the department web site indicated that
transportation engineering was available as an informal or formal specialization. Third, we used
a list of members of the Council of University Transportation Centers, including those that had
undergraduate civil engineering programs with transportation. From these efforts, we identified
an additional 53 universities to participate in the survey.

SURVEY FINDINGS

The Survey Respondents

The survey yielded 1,852 valid responses from undergraduate students who were majoring in
civil engineering (1,846 responses) or who intended to (6 responses). The method of distributing
the survey makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. However, the 1,846 responses for
civil engineering majors represents just under four percent of all full- and part-time
undergraduate students enrolled in civil and civil/environmental engineering programs in 2006
(26).
The responding students attended 56 different universities, with no single university
representing more than 6% of the responses. Ninety-five percent of the students were full-time.
One-fifth (20%) expected to graduate in Spring or Summer 2007, while 33% expected to
graduate the following year, 26% in 2008-09, and the remaining 21% in 2009-10 or later.
The survey also ask respondents about their socio-demographic information. Twenty-
nine percent were women, higher than the share of bachelor’s degrees in civil engineering
awarded to women in 2005-06 (22%) (26). Three-quarters of the respondents identified
themselves as being white/Caucasian only, 9% were Asian, 6% were Hispanic, 3% were multi-
racial/ethnic, 2% declined to state, and 1% were African American. This compares to 67% of all
engineering degrees awarded to Caucasians in 2006, 14% to Asians, and 6% to Hispanics, and
5% to African-Americans (26). Eleven percent of the students were married or living in a
domestic partnership, and 5% had children under 18 living with them.

Choosing a Specialization
Nearly one-third (30%) of the students stated that their program required them to select a formal
specialization or focus area, while 62% said that they could choose to specialize informally by
taking several electives within one of the civil engineering subfields. Those respondents were
asked if they had chosen a specialization for their studies. The remaining eight percent were
asked if they had identified a specialty that they hoped to work in after graduation.
Overall, 62% of the survey respondents had chosen a specialization for their program or
career. The most popular specializations were structural (23% of all students), transportation
Agrawal and Dill 7

(12%), construction/project management (9%), environmental (8%), geotechnical (4%), and

hydraulics/hydrology (3%). Two percent of respondents had chosen to be generalists. For this
analysis, the generalists were categorized as having chosen a “specialization,” since they had
made a decision, even if one to focus broadly rather than on a specific area.
Fifteen percent of all students, or 25% of those that had chosen a specialization, stated
that they had decided on their specialty before they started. Students focusing on environmental
engineering and structural engineering were more likely to have chosen their focus before
starting college (33% and 31% of all students who had chosen a specialization, respectively),
compared to transportation (22%) or construction/project management (17%). For most students,
the decision to specialize occurs by the end of their sophomore year. Of those that expected to
graduate in the next few months, 84% had decided on a specialization, compared to 67% of those
who would graduate in 2007-08 (juniors), 53% of those who would graduate in 2008-09
(sophomores), and 43% of those who would graduate in 2009-10 or later (freshman).
Transportation engineering succeeds in attracting students during their undergraduate
years at a higher rate than do other specializations. Of the students who expected to graduate in
2009-10 or later (freshman), 7% intended to focus on transportation, compared to 18% of those
graduating in spring or summer 2007 (seniors), a 168% increase (TABLE 1). This is a much
higher rate of growth than for construction/project management, environmental or structural,
indicating that transportation engineering students, to a larger extent than other civil engineers,
are learning about and deciding on their subfield while in school.

TABLE 1 Year in School and Choice of Specialization

Undecided and other specializations
Un- Construction/ Environ- Struc- Trans- Other or
Expected graduation date decided Project Mgt mental tural portation Generalist n
Spring or summer 2007
17% 9% 11% 29% 18% 18% 37575
(senior)
2007-08 (junior) 33% 9% 9% 24% 14% 12% 60505
2008-09 (sophomore) 47% 8% 8% 23% 9% 7% 48080
2009-10 or later (freshman) 57% 9% 6% 16% 7% 6% 39090
Percentage change from
-71% +1% +85% +79% +168% +212%
freshman to senior year

The Role of Personality: Interests and Values

The trait and factor approach to vocational psychology, including Holland’s typology, focuses on
matching a person’s personality to a career. The survey included several questions related to the
respondents’ interests and values, which play a part in defining that personality (TABLE 2).
Of the 16 questions included in the survey asking about factors influencing the choice of
specialization, transportation students gave the highest rating to the factor “improving the quality
of life in cities and towns,” with 83% saying it was important (rated 4 or 5 on a scale of 1 to 5).
Transportation students were significantly more likely than all but environmental specialists to
indicate this was an important factor in choosing their specialization. A separate section on the
survey asked students more generally whether the same factor was important in their future
career (vs. in choosing their specialization). Overall, similar shares of transportation students
said that a desire to improve the quality of life in cities and towns was important for their future
job than said it was important in choosing their specialization. For example, 89% of the
Agrawal and Dill 8

transportation students said it was important in their future job, compared to 83% saying it was
important in choosing their specialization, a difference of only six percentage points. The
differences were larger for construction/project management and structural students. This
variation among transportation and other students may indicate that the transportation students
are more closely matching this value with their choice in specialization or that the factor is truly
more important to them, as evidenced by their specialization choice.
Transportation students were less likely to place importance on improving the natural
environment. Only 47% of transportation students said this was important in choosing a
specialization, although 59% said it was important in their future job. Notably, 77% of students
who had not decided on a specialization said that this was important to them.
Transportation students place significantly less importance on salary and prestige than
students choosing to specialize in construction/project management and structural engineering.
Only about half of the transportation students state that these factors were important to them. In
addition, 80% of structural students felt that their specialization was prestigious (the highest of
any specialization), compared to 58% of transportation students. Transportation students were
also the least likely to want a job that involved helping, teaching, counseling or serving others
through personal interaction. They were less likely to want a job working with machines, tools,
and materials. Like other engineering students, they placed higher importance on analyzing data
to solve problems.
Agrawal and Dill 9

TABLE 2 Percent of Students Stating That Various Interests and Values

Were Importanta to Them in Choosing a Specialization and Career
Importance for choosing a All non- Undecided
Statement of specialization or in Trans- transportation on a
Interests/Values career/work portation students b specialization
Improving the quality of Choosing their specialization 83% 74% n.a.
life in cities and towns Their career and work 89% 84% 88%
The likelihood of getting
Choosing their specialization 79% 76% n.a.
a job in the specialization
Analyze data to solve Their career and work
76% 77% 77%
problems
Job security and stability Choosing their specialization 73% 71% n.a.
Create and use new
Their career and work 68% 78% 78%
knowledge
The potential for upward Choosing their specialization
65% 70% n.a.
mobility
Contribute to the
creation of large physical Their career and work 61% 68% 68%
structures
Improving the natural Choosing their specialization 47% 57% n.a.
environment Their career and work 59% 72% 77%
Lead and persuade others
to attain personal or Their career and work 59% 62% 56%
organizational goals
Explore, understand and Their career and work
predict natural and social 54% 55% 54%
phenomena
Get to be involved in
Choosing their specialization 53% 42% n.a.
public policy decisions
A job that is prestigious Their career and work 51% 57% 54%
The salary I will likely
Choosing their specialization 49% 60% n.a.
earn
Help, teach, counsel or
serve others through Their career and work 44% 58% 59%
personal interaction
Work with machines,
Their career and work 36% 49% 52%
tools, and materials
N 210 906 697
a
Students were asked two types of questions. One set of questions asked students, “How important for you were
the following factors in choosing your specialization?” and they were given a five point scale for the response (1 =
not important at all, 5 = very important), plus a “Don’t Know” option. Another set of questions asked about factors
that were important more broadly in their career or work. They were told, “Please indicate whether you agree or
disagree with the following statements” and given a five point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)
plus a “Don’t Know” option. Results from both sets of questions are included in this table.
b
Includes students that have chosen another specialization, including generalists.
Note: Bold indicates that the percentage of that group is significantly different than the percentage of
transportation students, two-tailed test, p<0.05.

The Role of Educational Experiences

Developmental theories emphasize how people’s experiences throughout their life span influence
career decisions. Many of those influential experiences may occur during college, such as having
a high-quality instructor who motivates interest in a topic. Of the factors that civil engineering
departments can reasonably expect to control, the two most important are what students learn in
Agrawal and Dill 10

classes and the teaching quality of faculty (TABLE 3). For example, 67% of transportation
students stated that what they learned about the specialization in a class was important in
choosing their specialization, and 59% thought the teaching quality of faculty was important to
them. Financial incentives, including scholarships and research assistantships, do not appear to
play a major role in the choice of a specialization. Overall, transportation and non-transportation
responded similarly to the questions about education experience.

TABLE 3 Importance of Educational Experiences in Choosing a Specialization

Percent Stating This Was an
Important Factor in Choosing
Specialization a
All non-
transportation
Transportation studentsb
What I learned about the specialization in classes
67% 72%
already taken
Teaching quality of faculty who teach within
59% 59%
specialization
Professional reputation of faculty who teach in
43% 47%
specialization
Availability of classes within the specialization
(e.g. times of the day/week, whether they have 36% 31%
space)
Availability of research assistantships working
21% 20%
with faculty in specialization
Availability of scholarships or other financial
14% 13%
support for students in specialization
a
Students were asked to rate on a 5-point scale the listed sources of information they may have
used to help decide on a specialization. The scale ranged from “Not helpful at all” to “Very
helpful.” Students were also given for each question the option to answer “Don’t Know” or a
response equivalent to “I did not use this source of information.” This table shows the percent
of students who chose either 4 or 5 on the scale.
b
Includes construction/project management, environmental, structural, other specializations,
and generalists.
Note: None of the percentages are significantly different, two-tailed test, p<0.05.

Sources of Information
Of the students who said that they had chosen a specialization, either formally or informally, the
survey asked a series of questions about how they learned about the specialization and what
sources of information helped them to choose it (see TABLE 4).
For transportation students, work experience and classes in transportation were most
useful. Sixty-eight percent said that a class was somewhat or very helpful. Work experience
(jobs or internships) was also particularly important for transportation students; 60% said that
work experience was somewhat or very helpful. For all the other students these two factors were
also the first and second most important ones. However, transportation students placed a
significantly higher priority on the importance of work experience: 60% for transportation
students versus 47% for all other students.
Transportation students found reading about the field on the web to be the third most
important source of information, with 43% ranking this as somewhat or very helpful. This is
similar to the importance placed on web materials by all other students.
Agrawal and Dill 11

A group of five other sources of information were found to be somewhat or very useful
by only a quarter to a third of transportation students—speaking with a faculty member (35%),
attending a career fair (34%), reading books or magazines (33%), guest speakers on campus
(32%), and learning from someone in the specialization before the student came to college
(27%). By far the least useful source of information for transportation and other students was
speaking with a career counselor—only 11% of transportation students and 12% of others found
this helpful. Most students (58%) had not used such a service. Of those who did, a greater share
indicated that it did not help than did help.

TABLE 4 Percent of Students Saying that Different Sources of Information Were Helpful
in Leading Them to Choose a Specializationa
Transpor- All Non- Difference
tation Transportation Between
Source of Information Students Students b Groups
A class that I took in my specialization 68% 70% -2%
An internship or job within my chosen specialization 60% 47% 13%
Information I read on the web about my chosen specialization 43% 45% -2%
Speaking with a faculty member for advice on choosing a
35% 42% -7%
specialization
Attending a career fair organized at my university 34% 33% 1%
Books or magazines I read about my chosen specialization 33% 35% -2%
Someone working in my chosen specialization who spoke as a
32% 33% -1%
guest in one of my classes or at an event I attended
Before I came to college, I learned about the specialization
27% 24% 3%
from someone that I knew who worked in the field
Speaking with someone at my university’s career center or a
11% 12% -1%
career counselor
a
Students were asked to rate on a 5-point scale the listed sources of information they may have used to help decide
on a specialization. The scale ranged from “Not helpful at all” to “Very helpful.” Students were also given for each
question the option to answer “Don’t Know” or a response equivalent to “I did not use this source of information.”
This table shows the percent of students who chose either 4 or 5 on the scale.
b
Includes all other specializations, and generalists.
Note: Bold indicates that the percentages are significantly different, two-tailed test, p<0.05.

Perceptions of the Transportation Field

The survey asked all students a series of questions probing their perception of transportation
engineering as a specialization to identify differences in perception between those students who
had and had not chosen transportation as a field. The questions ranged from students’
perceptions of the transportation faculty in the program as teachers and scholars, to whether or
not the students felt they had the skills needed to succeed in transportation, to what kind of work
they thought transportation engineers do (see TABLE 5 for a complete list of the statements
tested in the survey). For each statement, students were asked to rate whether or not they agreed
with it (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) or didn’t know. For this analysis, students that
had not chosen a specialization yet were categorized based upon their stated likelihood of
choosing a particular specialization. Those who were “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to
choose transportation were categorized as transportation students.
Two questions elicited by far the largest difference in mean responses between
transportation students and non-transportation students. When asked whether or not they agreed
that transportation engineering classes are interesting, the mean score for transportation
Agrawal and Dill 12

specialists was 4.12 and for all other students 3.06, a statistically significant difference. When
students responded to the statement that “transportation engineering uses skills at which I excel,”
the different was almost as substantial, with a mean of 4.08 for transportation students and 3.28
for all other students.
These distinctions between transportation and other students were born out when we
looked at the data in a different way, analyzing the percent of students who agreed with each
statement about the profession. (We defined “agreeing” as rating the statement with a four or
five on the five point scale.) There was a 35 percentage point spread between the percent of
transportation students who agreed and the percent of other students who agreed to the
statements that “Transportation engineering classes are interesting” and “Transportation
engineering uses skills at which I excel.” In all other cases there was 21 percentage point or less
difference.
Other questions that elicited noticeable differences in the mean response rates were that
transportation students were 0.55 points more likely to agree that they are “like other people who
work in transportation engineering,” 0.43 points more likely to agree that “a career in
transportation engineering is prestigious,” and 0.41 points more likely to agree that
“transportation engineering classes are challenging.”
When looking at the difference in percentage points between transportation and non-
transportation students who agreed with the set of statements, seven stood out as having at least
a 15 percentage point difference. These included the three statements above, and also that “the
faculty teaching transportation engineering classes are excellent teachers,” “there are good
internships for students in transportation engineering, “working in transportation engineering
involves helping and serving others through personal interaction,” and “working in transportation
engineering involves creating and using new knowledge.”
For almost all the statements, the difference in the percentage of transportation and non-
transportation students agreeing was explained more by students who answered “Don’t Know”
than by high percentages of students disagreeing with the statements. This suggests that the non-
transportation students did not have negative feelings towards the specialization so much as that
they simply didn’t know much about it.
Finally, in one of the most striking findings from this section of the survey, only about a
fifth of students were aware before staring college of what transportation engineers do. There
was only a two percentage point difference between transportation and non-transportation
students who agreed with the statement that “Before I started college, I knew what transportation
engineers did.”
Agrawal and Dill 13

TABLE 5 Percent of Students Agreeing With Different Statements About

Transportation Engineering Education and the Professiona
All Non- Percentage
Trans. Trans. Point
Statement about the Transportation Engineering Field Studentsb Studentsc Difference
Transportation engineering is a strength of my school’s Agree 49% 36% 13%
engineering department Don’t know 20% 27% -7%
The faculty teaching transportation engineering classes are Agree 57% 39% 18%
excellent teachers Don’t know 22% 32% -10%
The faculty teaching transportation classes are doing Agree 37% 27% 10%
interesting research Don’t know 39% 51% -12%
Transportation engineering classes are challenging Agree 45% 28% 17%
Don’t know 24% 33% -9%
Transportation engineering classes are interesting Agree 62% 27% 35%
Don’t know 21% 29% -8%
Transportation engineering uses skills at which I excel Agree 62% 27% 35%
Don’t know 18% 30% -12%
There are scholarships targeted at transportation Agree 27% 26% 1%
engineering students Don’t know 41% 53% -12%
There are good internships for students in transportation Agree 65% 44% 21%
engineering Don’t know 19% 41% -22%
Before I started college, I knew what transportation Agree 24% 22% 2%
engineers do Don’t know 3% 6% -3%
Working in transportation engineering involves helping Agree 63% 44% 19%
and serving others through personal interaction Don’t know 7% 17% -10%
Working in transportation engineering involves machines, Agree 48% 43% 5%
tools, and materials Don’t know 6% 15% -9%
Working in transportation engineering involves exploring, Agree 72% 61% 11%
understanding, and predicting natural or social phenomena Don’t know 7% 14% -7%
Working in transportation engineering involves analyzing Agree 86% 77% 9%
data to solve problems Don’t know 5% 12% -7%
Working in transportation engineering involves leading Agree 86% 77% 9%
and persuading others Don’t know 6% 16% -10%
Working in transportation engineering involves creating Agree 76% 59% 17%
and using new knowledge Don’t know 5% 14% -9%
A career in transportation engineering is prestigious Agree 52% 32% 20%
Don’t know 8% 17% -9%
It would be easy to get a job in transportation engineering Agree 61% 55% 6%
Don’t know 14% 26% -12%
Transportation engineering seems open to women Agree 68% 55% 13%
Don’t know 18% 26% -8%
Transportation engineering seems open to people of color Agree 69% 58% 11%
Don’t know 20% 28% -8%
I am like other people who work in transportation Agree 38% 19% 19%
engineering Don’t know 30% 40% -10%
a
Students were asked, “Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements” and given a
five point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) plus a “Don’t Know” option.
b
Students had chosen to specialize in transportation either formally or informally, or were likely to do so.
c
Students had chosen a specialization other than transportation or were unlikely to choose transportation.
Note: Bold indicates that the percentages are significantly different, two-tailed test, p<0.05.

CONCLUSIONS
The results of the this study suggest that a higher percent of CE undergraduates could be
attracted to the transportation profession than the current 12% who graduate with a declared
Agrawal and Dill 14

focus on transportation. First, the survey found that 38% of freshman civil engineers had not yet
chosen a specialization, suggesting a large pool of students who should be reasonably open to the
transportation profession. Second, most CE majors are relatively ignorant about the
transportation engineering profession, rather than actively opposed to the idea of a career in
transportation. Three-quarters of all entering CE majors don’t know what transportation
engineers do; thus, they will not yet have formed strong opinions about the field that might
discourage them from a transportation career. Also, large percentages of students in the survey
selected “Don’t Know” when asked to characterize the nature of the field and educational
opportunities in transportation at their school—again, they were ignorant more than opposed.
The transportation profession thus faces the relatively easier task of educating students about the
merits of the field, not the more difficult task of overcoming negative feelings towards the
profession.
The survey also showed that transportation educators and employers can easily influence
many of the most important influences shaping students’ decision to specialize within civil
engineering. The paper concludes by laying out two strategies the transportation profession
should emphasize to increase the number of civil engineering students choosing to specialize in
transportation.

Recommendation 1: Show freshman and sophomores that transportation engineering

provides dynamic, varied career options

The survey found that the material students learn in class about civil engineering
specializations helps more than two-thirds choose a specialization. Therefore, it is critical to
incorporate transportation topics in the classroom early in the curriculum. Of the programs we
examined, 78% required students to take a class in transportation engineering, but 77% of these
programs required the class in the junior year and 16% in the senior year—too late. By this time,
most students have already chosen a specialization. For pedagogical reasons it may not be
possible to require a transportation engineering course earlier in the curriculum, so the challenge
for transportation educators is to integrate material about transportation engineering into broader
civil engineering courses required during the freshman and sophomore years. Transportation
research and professional organizations can help facilitate this process by developing dynamic
course modules on transportation topics that instructors (who may not be transportation
specialists) can easily insert into required lower-division courses.
The material on transportation that freshman and sophomores encounter should introduce
students to the diverse facets of the field that may not be apparent to them. They must
understand that transportation engineering jobs allow them to directly impact the world in ways
they care about—that transportation engineering isn’t just about counting cars and designing
freeway interchanges. More than three-quarters of students who had not decided on a
specialization said that improving the natural environment was important to them. Some of these
students might be persuaded to specialize in transportation if they knew that the transportation
profession offers significant opportunities to promote sustainable transportation systems, such as
through context-sensitive solutions or designing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Also,
many students may not realize that interacting with the public, other firms and agencies, and
teams of co-workers is a particularly important part of many transportation engineering jobs.
This job characteristic was more important to the non-transportation students than to those
Agrawal and Dill 15

specializing in transportation, suggesting that misconceptions or a lack of information about

transportation engineering may be reducing the number of students entering the field.

Recommendation 2: Increase and better publicize transportation internships

Sixty percent of transportation students stated in the survey that an internship or work experience
helped them choose their specialization, compared to just 47% of non-transportation students.
This finding suggests that employers in the transportation industry should prioritize making good
internships available to students – clearly these have a strong impact on students’ positive
impressions of the field. Another section of the survey found that transportation students were
21 percentage points more likely than others to believe that the field offers good internships,
indicating that if employers (and transportation educators) can help make students more aware of
the transportation opportunities available, then more students might be attracted to the field.

A report with more detailed results from both this survey and a companion survey examining
ways to attract more urban planning masters students into transportation will be published by
the Mineta Transportation Institute (http://transweb.sjsu.edu).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the Mineta Transportation Institute at San José State University for funding
this research and the institute’s staff for their support. In addition, thanks are due to research
assistants Tracy Braden, Arjun Thyagarajan, Carolyn McAndrews, and Peter Ballard; the student
focus group participants, the faculty who were interviewed for the research; and the civil
engineering program administrators who distributed notices about the survey to their students.
The views expressed are the authors’ alone, as is the responsibility for any errors or omissions.

REFERENCES
1. Abbey, C. W. and D. J. Boyd. The Aging Government Workforce. The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute
of Government, July 2002.
2. Gilliland, C.A. Weatherby, “Managing Change in State Departments of Transportation, Scan 5 of 8:
Innovations in Work Force Strategies,” NCHRP Web Document 39, Prepared for NCHRP, TRB,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., May 2001.
3. NCHRP, Synthesis 323: Recruiting and Retaining Individuals in State Transportation Agencies, TRB,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2003.
4. Transportation Research Board, Transportation Education and Training: Meeting the Challenge.
Special Report 210. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1984.
5. Glagola, C.R. and C. Nichols, “Recruitment and Retention Of Civil Engineers In Departments Of
Transportation,” Leadership and Management in Engineering, Winter 2001.
6. Toole, J.S., FHWA, Director of Professional Development. "Transportation Workforce Development:
A Briefing to the CUTC Summer Meeting," FHWA National Highway Institute web site, 2001,
http://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/transworkforce/articles.asp, June 2001 (accessed March 4, 2004).
7. Handy, S., L. Weston, J. Song and K. M. D. Lane. The Education of Transportation Planning
Professionals. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No.
1812, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 151-160.
8. Khisty, C. J. and S. Kikuchi. Urban Transportation Planning Education Revisited: Reading the Dials
and Steering the Ship. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 1848, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 57-63.
9. Sussman, J. M. Educating the ‘New Transportation Professional.’ ITS Quarterly, Summer 1995.
Agrawal and Dill 16

10. Takahira, S., D.J.Goodings, and J.P. Byrnes. Retention and Performance of Male and Female
Engineering Students: An Examination of Academic and Environmental Variables. Journal of
Engineering Education, Vol. 87, No. 3, 1998, pp. 297-304.
11. Zhang, G., T.J. Anderson, M.W. Ohland, and B.R. Thorndyke. Identifying Factors Influencing
Engineering Student Graduation: A Longitudinal and Cross-Institutional Study. Journal of
Engineering Education, Vol. 93, No. 4 (2004), pp. 313-20.
12. Sharf, R.S. Applying career development theory to counseling (3rd Ed) Brooks Cole, Pacific Grove,
CA, 2002.
13. Brown, D., L. Brooks, and associates, Career Choice and Development, 3rd Edition. Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, 1996.
14. Gottfredson, G. and J. Holland. Dictionary of Holland Occupational Codes (3rd.ed.). PAR, Odessa,
FL, 1996
15. Savickas, M. L., D. E. Alexander, S. H. Osipow, and F. M. Wolf. Measuring Specialty Indecision
among Career-Decided Students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 27, 1985, pp. 356-367.
16. Fouad, N. A. Work and Vocational Psychology: Theory, Research, and Applications. Annual Review
of Psychology, Vol. 58, 2007, pp. 543-564.
17. Super, D. E., M. L. Savickas, and C. M. Super. A life-span, life space approach to career
development. In Brown, D., L. Brooks, and associates, Career Choice and Development, 3rd Edition.
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1996.
18. Blustein, D.L., M. S. Prezioso, and D. P. Schultheiss. Attachment theory and career development:
Current status and future direction. The Counseling Psychologist, Vol. 23, No. 3, 1995, pp. 416-432.
19. Mitchell, L.K., and J. D. Krumboltz. Krumboltz’s Learning Theory of Career Choice and Counseling.
In Brown, D., L. Brooks, and associates, Career Choice and Development, 3rd Edition. Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, 1996, pp. 233-280.
20. Lent, R.W., S. D. Brown, and G. Hackett. Toward a unified social cognitive theory of career and
academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 45, 1994, pp. 79-
122.
21. Germeijs, V. and P. De Boeck. Career Indecision: Three Factors from Decision Theory. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 62, 2003, pp. 11-25
22. Borges, N. J., and M. L. Savickas. Personality and Medical Specialty Choice: A Literature Review
and Integration. Journal of Career Assessment, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2002, pp. 362-380.
23. Borges, N. and W. Osmon. Personality and medical specialty choice: Technique orientation versus
people orientation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 58, 2001, pp. 22-35.
24. Shivy, V.A., and Y. N. Sullivan T.N.. Engineering Students’ perceptions of engineering specialties,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 67, 2003, pp. 87-101
25. Gibbons, M. T. The Year in Numbers. In Profiles of Engineering and Engineering Technology
Colleges. American Society for Engineering Education. 2005. American Society for Engineering
Education. www.asee.org/publications/profiles/upload/2005ProfileEng.pdf. Accessed October 3,
2006.
26. Gibbons, M. T. Engineering by the Numbers. In Profiles of Engineering and Engineering Technology
Colleges. American Society for Engineering Education. 2006, pp. 11-46.
http://www.asee.org/publications/profiles/upload/2006ProfileEng.pdf. Accessed July 29, 2007.