The Problem of Indecisiveness in Civil Engineering: The Hidden Gap in Engineering Education

Recently, I have been reflecting on an issue that has particularly drawn my attention, and I would like to share it with you. Conventional civil engineering education has long been built upon a strong technical foundation. This approach aims to equip students with solid computational skills in core areas such as structural analysis, mechanics of materials, geotechnical engineering, structural design, and construction management. In other words, within this problem-oriented educational system, instructors typically present predefined problems, often specifying the method to be used, and expect students to arrive at a deterministic solution based on clearly provided data.

In my opinion, this approach is undeniably effective in developing analytical thinking, which forms the foundation of engineering practice. However, a critical question arises here: Is engineering really limited to this? To what extent does an educational approach—where even the method to be used is predetermined—help students develop the ability to decide which method to apply when they encounter real-world engineering problems after graduation? More importantly, does performing technically correct and complete calculations truly guarantee making the right decision?

The reality encountered after graduation is quite different from the one taught at university. Problems faced on construction sites are often shaped by incomplete information, time pressure, conflicting data, and a strong human factor. Problems are rarely well-defined; in many cases, even the problem itself is not clearly formulated. In this context, engineering emerges not merely as the ability to perform correct calculations, but as the ability to make effective decisions under uncertainty.

At this point, a significant contradiction becomes evident: A successful student trained under the conventional education system can analyze, calculate, and apply formulas correctly. However, the same student may struggle with decision-making, avoid taking responsibility, and become paralyzed in the face of uncertainty. To be honest, this is not a coincidence; rather, it is a natural outcome of the current educational system. This is because the educational process is largely built upon the idea of error-free performance. In contrast, in real engineering practice, errors are inevitable; what truly matters is the ability to manage them.

This issue can be concretely illustrated through an example from geotechnical engineering. Consider a student who has successfully completed courses in soil mechanics and foundation engineering, and who can interpret SPT-N values, perform bearing capacity calculations, and conduct settlement analyses accurately. After graduation, the student encounters a project where site investigation results indicate that the soil consists of loose sand or soft clay, with low bearing capacity and a high risk of settlement. The student performs all analyses correctly and arrives at the right conclusion: the soil is weak.

However, the most critical phase of engineering begins exactly at this point. When the same student is asked which solution should be preferred under these soil conditions—such as pile foundations, ground improvement techniques, or an alternative foundation system—they often struggle to make a decision. This is because the choice depends not only on technical calculations but also on multiple factors such as cost, time, constructability, and risk. The student finds it difficult to establish a cost–performance balance, compare alternatives, and determine the most appropriate solution.

The underlying reason is clear: Throughout their education, students are mostly exposed to problems with a single correct answer, and they are rarely trained in situations where multiple valid solutions exist and a decision must be made among alternatives. However, in the real world, there is rarely a single correct solution to a problem; instead, there are multiple “good enough” solutions. Choosing among these alternatives is, in fact, the most critical skill in engineering.

As a result, a profile emerges of engineers who can determine that the soil is weak through calculations but cannot decide what engineering solution should be applied. In other words, they fall short at the most critical stage of the engineering process.

In my opinion, if we truly aim to educate “engineers,” certain fundamental changes need to be integrated into the education system:

• Problems involving uncertainty should be introduced

• Scenarios without a single correct answer should be developed

• Greater emphasis should be placed on case studies

• Simulation-based learning should be encouraged

• Students should be required to actively make decisions

Because this is exactly how the real world operates.

I would like to clarify that these remarks are not directed at any specific university or department, but rather represent a general observation regarding the fundamental limitations of civil engineering education.

In conclusion, the key point I would like to emphasize is this: Civil engineering is not merely a discipline of calculations; it is also a discipline of decision-making under uncertainty. Unless we integrate this reality into our education systems, we will continue to produce engineers who can perform calculations but cannot make decisions.

Remember: A calculator or a computer can perform calculations flawlessly. But deciding which calculations to perform and how to use the results is entirely up to you.