Link zur deutschen Version: Überlegungen zur Entwicklung der Bauingenieurausbildung
Over the past few years, the modus operandi of higher education institutions has been disrupted in two distinct ways: first by restrictions on physical presence during the pandemic, and second, by rapid advances in Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI). The former disruption was abrupt, requiring swift adaptation to online teaching methods, while the latter is unfolding rapidly and unpredictably. Both developments challenge traditional approaches to learning, teaching and assessment. These shifts prompted me to reflect on my own educational journey, which coincided with an earlier disruption: the internet revolution of the 1990s and early 2000s. In this blog post1, I aim to frame those experiences within their specific temporal and institutional contexts, and to compare them with my more recent perspectives at ETH Zurich, both as a student and as a teacher.
My educational journey spans three public universities with long-standing traditions in Civil Engineering: undergraduate studies at the National Technical University of Athens (NTUA) from 1994 to 1999, postgraduate studies at the University of Texas in Austin (UT) from 2001 to 2003, and doctoral studies at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich) since 2020, all with a specialisation in Structural Engineering. While these institutions share common ground in their academic focus, they differ significantly in several respects beyond their geographic locations. In the sections that follow, I offer a comparative narrative and critical reflection on the distinct educational approaches of each.
Size, budget and funding sources, tuition fees
A key distinction between the three universities lies in their academic scope: while NTUA and ETH focus primarily on STEM disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), UT offers degrees across nearly all academic fields. This broader scope is reflected in the size of the institution—UT’s student population is roughly double that of NTUA and ETH—and also influences the structure of its curriculum, as will be discussed later.
In terms of budget and funding, two major differences stand out. First, the annual budgets of UT and ETH are roughly an order of magnitude higher than that of NTUA. Second, although all three institutions are publicly funded, their financial models vary: at NTUA and ETH, around two-thirds of the budget comes from state funding, whereas at UT, only about one-tenth is state-supported. This difference is reflected in tuition fees. While NTUA charges no tuition and ETH charges minimal fees, tuition at UT is significantly higher—especially for out-of-state students. These financial differences influence not only the composition of the student body but also, to some extent, students’ motivation and urgency to complete their studies.
Diversity
Diversity among students and faculty at each institution is shaped primarily by the language of instruction, but also by the research environment and employment opportunities offered by the institution and country. The following observations are based on my personal experience during my time at each university, with a focus on the Structural—and to a lesser extent, Geotechnical—disciplines.
At NTUA, where instruction was conducted entirely in Greek, nearly all students and professors were of Greek origin, with only rare exceptions. Most professors had completed their undergraduate studies at NTUA and pursued postgraduate education in the UK, Germany, or the United States.
At UT, the Master’s programme was notably diverse, with students from a broad range of countries, including China, India, South Korea, Japan, Kenya, Chile, Costa Rica, Turkey, Switzerland, and Greece. In contrast, undergraduate students were predominantly from Texas, a pattern driven by significantly lower in-state tuition fees. Most faculty members were U.S.-born and had completed their graduate studies domestically—many at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
At ETH, German is the official language of instruction at the Bachelor’s level, while the Master’s program officially switched to English last year — although many Master’s-level courses had already been taught in English before the change. Consequently, around three-quarters of Bachelor’s students are Swiss, but the proportion of international students increases at the Master’s level and reverses at the Doctoral level, where Swiss students comprise roughly one-quarter. In Civil Engineering specifically, the share of Swiss students is somewhat higher than the ETH average. Faculty members in the Structural and Geotechnical Institutes are largely of European origin, with Swiss nationals making up a minority. Their educational backgrounds span Switzerland, its neighbouring countries, and beyond—including Greece, Israel, and the U.S.
In summary, the most diverse student body I encountered was at UT, while ETH currently hosts the most internationally diverse group of professors. By contrast, NTUA had the most homogeneous student and faculty populations.
Admission process
The admission processes for undergraduate studies differ markedly across the three countries, reflecting distinct educational philosophies and institutional structures.
In Greece, admissions are centrally administered by the Ministry of Education through nationwide exams. While the details have evolved over time, the core structure has remained stable for decades. In the final two years of secondary education, students select one of four academic tracks: (a) Humanities, Law and Social Sciences, (b) STEM, (c) Health and Life Sciences, or (d) Economics and Information Sciences. Each track grants access to corresponding university programmes. For example, entry into Engineering requires completion of the STEM track. Upon finishing secondary school, students sit for nationwide exams in four subjects; in the STEM track, these are Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, and Language/Literature (the latter being common to all tracks). Students also submit a ranked list of preferred study programmes (e.g., Civil Engineering at NTUA). The Ministry then allocates placements based on exam performance, preferences, and available slots per programme. Universities have minimal influence over admissions beyond setting intake quotas and a minimum grade threshold. This process is largely anonymised and standardised, promoting fairness by relying on uniform national exams rather than variable school grades. However, its heavy reliance on a single exam day may favour strong test-takers and disadvantage others. It has also fostered a large private tutoring sector, potentially undermining the intended socio-economic inclusiveness of public education. Once admitted, students face no performance or time constraints, allowing flexibility in the pace of their studies and the option to work alongside their education.
In the United States, each university independently manages its admissions through a comprehensive application process. Students typically apply to multiple institutions in their final year of high school, submitting materials such as transcripts, personal statements, and optionally, test scores, recommendation letters, and records of extracurricular activities. Applicants generally declare a preferred major, which guides the review process, although changing majors later is often possible. This holistic approach aims to evaluate candidates beyond grades and test results, offering a more rounded assessment. Critics, however, argue that the process can lack transparency and may introduce bias. At UT specifically, about 75% of in-state positions are filled automatically by the top 6% of graduates from each Texas high school, a policy intended to promote diversity and represent regional demographics. The remaining positions are filled through holistic review.
In Switzerland, students who have completed secondary education within the country are generally granted direct access to the university programme of their choice. Regardless of background, admission to ETH is considered provisional and is confirmed only upon successful completion of the first-year examinations, which serve as a key academic filter. For international applicants, eligibility depends on their country of origin and may involve prior university admission in a related field or an entrance exam.
Study programmes
Study programmes vary considerably across the three universities, particularly in terms of format and duration. These differences can complicate transitions between institutions—especially for students wishing to complete undergraduate and graduate studies at different universities—and may lead to ambiguity regarding the relative standing of awarded degrees.
At NTUA in the 1990s, I completed a five-year programme leading to a Diploma in Civil Engineering. The programme comprised nine semesters of coursework and one semester dedicated to a Diploma thesis. After the sixth semester, students selected a specialisation—Structures, Transportation, or Hydraulics—guiding the final three semesters of coursework. The specific courses I attended within the Structures track are listed in Table 1.
The curriculum followed a three-phase structure:
- Semesters 1–4: Focused primarily on Mathematics and Mechanics, laying the foundation for later technical courses.
- Semesters 5–6: Offered core courses across all Civil Engineering disciplines, aiming to provide breadth and inform students’ specialisation choices.
- Semesters 7–9: Concentrated on the chosen specialisation, though still included some interdisciplinary content.
With the exception of the ninth semester, most courses were mandatory. Prerequisites were minimal, allowing students to take courses in flexible sequences. Lecture attendance was loosely enforced, except in laboratory sessions.
Comparing this with NTUA’s current programme (see Table 2), several updates are evident. While the overall structure remains similar, notable changes include:
- A condensed Mathematics and Mechanics curriculum, allowing earlier exposure to Civil Engineering topics.
- The introduction of a project-based course in the final semester.
- Annual laboratory courses in the first four years to reinforce theoretical content.
- A mandatory two-month internship in the final semester within a public or private sector organisation.
These revisions appear to address certain shortcomings of the earlier programme—more on this in the following section.
NTUA has no formal limit on the duration of study or on the number of attempts to pass a given course. Students can theoretically complete most coursework in any order, and performance is assessed in three annual exam sessions:
- Winter session: mid-January to mid-February
- Summer session: early June to early July
- September session: late August to late September (for retakes or grade improvements)
Graduates receive the Diploma degree, but must also pass an oral examination administered by the Technical Chamber of Greece to obtain a professional engineering license. This exam typically draws on the Diploma thesis; no supervised professional experience is required beforehand.
At UT, as is typical in the U.S., undergraduate studies span four years and culminate in a Bachelor of Science (BSc) degree. While many consulting firms prefer or require a postgraduate degree, it is still possible to begin a Civil Engineering career after earning a BSc. A sample BSc curriculum is shown in Table 3. The programme is structured around two types of courses: core courses, which provide a broad general education in subjects like history, literature, and government; and major courses, which align with the Civil Engineering degree. Students enjoy a degree of flexibility to tailor their studies, often with the guidance of an academic advisor. This may include pursuing a minor in another discipline. Summer breaks are typically used for internships, study abroad opportunities, or additional coursework.
Academic performance is closely monitored. If a student’s performance falls below a threshold, it may lead to academic probation or even dismissal. Attendance is usually mandatory and poor attendance can result in failing a course. Furthermore, most courses cannot be retaken more than once. Final exams take place in the week following the end of each semester. The autumn semester runs from late August to early December, while the spring semester begins in mid-January and ends in late April.
A comparison between the NTUA and UT undergraduate programmes reveals a relative lack of both breadth and depth in UT’s offering. This is largely due to the shorter duration of study and the significant portion of time devoted to general education. However, this gap is partly mitigated by two factors:
- Postgraduate education is the norm for those entering Structural Engineering.
- Professional licensure is tightly regulated in the U.S.
In the U.S., the licensure process typically begins with the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam, usually taken during the final year of the BSc. Passing this exam grants Engineer-in-Training (EIT) status. To progress to Professional Engineer (PE) licensure, one must complete several years of supervised work under a PE and demonstrate progressive responsibility. Requirements vary by state but usually include references and a formal application to qualify to sit for the exam. Some states require a further level of licensure, such as Structural Engineer (SE) status, for engineers leading complex projects like high-rise buildings or long-span bridges. This also requires several years of supervision under an SE. Moreover, most U.S. states mandate continuing education to maintain licensure. Despite these regulatory safeguards, I firmly believe that a postgraduate degree should be a minimum requirement to practice Structural Engineering. As one UT professor remarked (hopefully somewhat in jest): “It is possible to graduate with a BSc degree in Civil Engineering left with the impression that the world is static and elastic.”
Graduate studies at UT are highly customisable, tailored to the student’s background and goals. My own Master’s studies in the early 2000s (Table 3) were flexible, in part because of the comprehensive foundation I had from NTUA. I was free to select courses, provided I included at least two outside the Structures specialisation. In contrast, graduates of a typical U.S. BSc would follow a more rigid programme with required courses in mechanics, structural analysis, and concrete and steel design. A key component of the programme was the Master’s Research, which was conducted alongside coursework and culminated in a thesis. Although students could opt out of the thesis by taking extra courses, most chose the research route. Many of the research projects were externally funded, covering tuition fees and providing a stipend to help with living costs.
The study programme offered at ETH Zurich is philosophically quite similar to the one at NTUA, particularly in its strong technical foundation and academic rigor. A key structural difference, however, is ETH’s full implementation of the Bologna Process, which separates studies into a three-year Bachelor’s degree followed by a two-year Master’s degree. In contrast to the UT system, the Bachelor’s degree alone is not considered a professional qualification—this status is only attained after completing the Master’s. Nonetheless, many students choose to take a break between the two degrees to pursue internships or industry experience, a path that is both common and encouraged.
The BSc curriculum at ETH is composed almost entirely of mandatory courses, which are predominantly taught in German. These provide the theoretical groundwork necessary for Master’s studies. The programme culminates in a project-based thesis in the sixth semester. By contrast, the MSc curriculum is largely elective and taught primarily in English, allowing students to tailor their studies by selecting two out of six specialisation areas: Structures, Geotechnics, Transportation, Hydraulics, Materials or Construction Management. The courses, most of which are taught in English, are complemented by project theses and concludes with a research-focused Master’s thesis during the final semester.
Academic performance is strictly regulated. In general, students are allowed only one repeat attempt at a failed examination, and there is no option to retake a passed exam in order to improve the grade. These stringent assessment rules are somewhat balanced by the organisation of certain courses into blocks, where it is sufficient to achieve a passing average grade across the block. This means that poor performance in one course can be compensated by strong performance in another within the same block.
By comparing the three programmes, one could argue that—at least in theory—ETH offers a blend of the comprehensive curriculum structure of NTUA and the rigorous academic oversight characteristic of UT.
Personal reflections and retrospective evaluation
Overall, my experience at NTUA was positive and, in hindsight, I recognise that the programme provided me with the necessary foundation to pursue a successful career in Civil Engineering. Nonetheless, several aspects of the curriculum and its delivery detracted from that positive experience.
After two intense years in high school preparing for university entrance exams—primarily focused on mathematics and physics—I anticipated a change in perspective and an introduction to the applied world of Civil Engineering. Instead, the first two years at NTUA largely continued in the same theoretical vein, offering little to no contextualisation of how the material connected to engineering practice. This lack of integration was especially surprising given that all students in those classes shared the same disciplinary interest, which might have otherwise allowed for a more tailored, civil engineering-focused delivery of the content.
Moreover, the approach of “front-loading” theoretical knowledge before introducing practical applications felt counterintuitive. In high school, for example, our mathematical background often lagged behind the physics curriculum. Nevertheless, we managed to grasp core physics concepts—such as motion, energy, and electromagnetism—despite being limited in solving problems rigorously. Once we were taught more advanced mathematical tools, such as linear algebra or differential calculus, their practical relevance became immediately evident. In contrast, at university, this logic was reversed: abstract concepts were taught without accompanying applications. As a result, it was difficult to appreciate the utility of courses on computing (2nd & 4th semesters) and numerical methods (3rd semester), since most of the problems we had encountered up to that point had analytical solutions. To this day, I still struggle to understand the rationale for devoting an entire semester to the study of complex functions. This “front-loading” strategy had two main consequences:
- Some students lost interest in their studies altogether, while others treated these theoretical courses as box-ticking exercises, often deferring them to later semesters;
- By the end of the second year, most students did not “own” the material, which effectively forced professors of technical courses to revise their syllabi in order to re-teach essential prerequisites. As a result, we were “reminded” of statistics in the Hydrology course, of elasticity and Mohr’s circle in Soil Mechanics, and of strength of materials in the Concrete and Steel courses. While separating theory from applications may have some logistical benefits, I believe both student and professor time could be used more effectively through a more integrated and perhaps streamlined curriculum (further discussed in the next section).
This belief is further supported by the official course statistics, which often show pass rates below 15% in introductory mechanics courses—despite significantly higher pass rates (>50%) in later courses like Soil Mechanics or Steel Design, where the former is theoretically a prerequisite.
The workload and intensity of the programme increased significantly during the last three years. A typical semester included approximately 35 hours of lectures, exercises, or lab sessions per week. While attendance was usually not mandatory, it became increasingly essential. Assignments and semester projects—often completed during the Christmas and Easter breaks—added to the workload. A significant amount of learning took place during the month-long exam periods, as it was nearly impossible to stay on top of all courses during the semester. Consequently, only a small percentage of students graduated on time; most took six or seven years to complete the programme, a trend that likely persists.
One aspect I particularly appreciated was the range of practical projects we completed: a stretch of motorway, a small-scale hydraulic system, reinforced concrete residential and industrial buildings, a steel hangar, prestressed concrete and steel truss bridges, a timber house, and a harbour breakwater. These projects, although not fostering creativity, provided hands-on implementation of design and analysis principles. Notably, all calculations were done manually (except for some spreadsheets), and all drawings were hand-drafted.
Given Greece’s seismicity, many of the structural and geotechnical courses focused on earthquake-resistant design. Consequently, we studied dynamic and inelastic behaviour in depth, with strong emphasis on ductile detailing. Perhaps due to this seismic context, a conservative approach to conceptual design prevailed. Students were often steered toward simple and robust structural systems that could be analysed, designed, and built using relatively basic means. This likely aimed to ensure graduates would initially produce predictable and safe designs. However, this may have also contributed to the somewhat monotonous and uninspiring appearance of many Greek cities.
Some highlights of my studies included educational trips abroad—to Central Europe, Japan, and the northeastern US—during the third and fifth years. These experiences provided valuable exposure to different approaches in engineering practice, aesthetic values, construction materials, and environmental conditions.
Between my graduation from NTUA and the start of graduate studies at UT (1999–2001), the way information was accessed changed dramatically with the rise of the internet. Google had just launched (1998), the dot-com bubble was peaking, and the Web 2.0 era was beginning. At NTUA, information primarily came from professors, the university library, and a few nearby technical bookstores. My first systematic use of the internet was to research and apply to graduate programmes in the US. Upon arriving at UT, we were given a short course by a librarian on how to use online research tools—an experience that significantly transformed my study and research habits compared to the more sheltered academic environment at NTUA.
Many other differences between NTUA and UT were also striking. At NTUA, teaching was mostly one-sided and lecture-heavy, with little opportunity for active learning. Students worked individually, and studying mainly occurred right before exams, often with a short-term, memorization-heavy focus. Top grades were almost impossible to achieve; in some courses, even passing felt aspirational. In contrast, UT followed a more interactive teaching model. Lectures amounted to just 9–12 hours per week, supplemented by regular reading and mandatory homework, requiring three times as much effort outside class. Team projects were common. Because learning was continuous throughout the semester and midterms formed part of the assessment, final exams were often a mere formality for students who had worked consistently, where a cursory review of the material was normally adequate to achieve the maximum grade. Weekly seminars by industry professionals and alumni also provided useful exposure and networking opportunities.
Perhaps the most notable difference lay in the use of computers and industry standards in design courses. At NTUA, manual calculations were emphasized, and computer access was minimal. At UT, students were encouraged to use symbolic math software and had universal access to computers. Even at the undergraduate level, general-purpose finite element software was incorporated into structural analysis courses. Whereas NTUA taught fundamental behaviour alongside design code requirements, UT’s Bachelor-level courses focused on applying codes to design, reserving theoretical fundamentals for the Master’s level. This approach is partly shaped by industry expectations: US employers seek graduates—even at the BSc level—who are ready to contribute to design and documentation tasks using standard software and codes.
At UT, I also encountered more open-ended assignments, where students were tasked with conceiving structural systems under given constraints and evaluating alternatives holistically. My US-educated peers demonstrated qualities that stood out: effective teamwork, initiative, presentation skills, and confidence in proposing concepts—even when not always grounded in strong technical rationale. I attribute these strengths to the US educational system’s emphasis on initiative and innovation, early exposure to industry, and an overall entrepreneurial culture.
ETH’s teaching philosophy closely mirrors NTUA’s, with semesters structured around lectures and most learning concentrated before exams. Participation during the semester—lecture attendance or homework submission—is typically optional. ETH lectures tend to be even less interactive than those at NTUA, with students inclined toward passive rather than active learning. The shift to online, on-demand lectures during the pandemic may have further influenced learning habits. Innovation and critical thinking are highly encouraged at ETH, however. Students can engage in practice- and research-oriented projects, particularly during their Project and Master’s theses or through assistant roles in laboratory research.
During my involvement in teaching activities at ETH, primarily focused on bridge design but also supporting colleagues from the Department of Architecture in structural design courses, it quickly became evident that a significant emphasis is placed on designing structures with high aesthetic quality—far more so than at NTUA or UT. This can be observed by comparing the visual qualities of many Swiss bridges to the more utilitarian counterparts in Greece and the US. Additionally, concepts of efficiency and sustainability have moved to the forefront of the curriculum, a shift from the 1990s and early 2000s.
A key difference between UT and ETH is the role of doctoral students in teaching. At UT, teaching assistants mostly handled grading and labs, while professors supervised Master’s theses. At ETH, doctoral students are more heavily involved: they develop course material, lead exercises, design assessments, and supervise Bachelor, Project, and Master’s theses. Master’s students also support teaching at the Bachelor level. As a result, doctoral candidates at ETH typically gain far more teaching and supervision experience than those at UT. At NTUA, doctoral responsibilities varied widely depending on the supervising professor, but generally resembled the ETH model more closely.
Ideas for the future
Looking ahead to the future of civil engineering education, recent discussions have increasingly focused on technological developments in Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence (ML/AI), and how these might shape both the teaching and practice of engineering. In my view, however, such advances only reinforce the importance of a strong foundation in fundamental concepts, taught through a classical curriculum rooted in engineering mechanics and theory of structures, with an emphasis on manual and intuitive calculation methods. While material science, construction processes, and computational tools will continue to evolve—transforming how we analyse, design, construct, and monitor structures—the core principles will remain essential and serve as the basis for meaningful innovation.
When designing future study programmes, it is important to distinguish between subjects best suited to academic instruction and those more appropriate for continuing education or on-the-job training. No academic programme can be fully tailored to the wide range of possible career paths, nor can it keep pace with every technological development. What it can do, however, is equip students with a deep understanding of fundamentals and cultivate a mindset of lifelong learning—enabling them to adapt to emerging challenges and embrace new methodologies with confidence.
Regarding course sequencing, I would question the conventional approach of “front-loading” the curriculum with theoretical courses in the early semesters, often delivered without real-world context. I believe it is both feasible and more engaging to introduce courses that do not require advanced mathematics or computational tools—such as introductory mechanics and statics, as well as topics in general building design, infrastructure elements, and associated construction methods—already in the first year. Doing so would expose students early on to the kinds of problems they will encounter throughout their studies, providing context for the more rigorous courses that follow. This approach has the potential to boost student engagement and improve learning outcomes.
Finally, given that most of us learn better by doing than by listening, I would support a relative reduction in lecture hours and a corresponding increase in active learning through assigned readings, lab work, and mandatory individual and group assignments. At the same time, I would shift the focus away from high-stakes end-of-semester exams, placing greater weight on continuous learning. This could be achieved by decreasing the final exam’s influence on the overall course grade and placing more emphasis on weekly assignments and semester projects.
In closing, I would be very interested to hear how my university experiences compare with those of others around the world and across different time periods, as well as to exchange thoughts on how civil engineering education might continue to evolve in ways that better serve our communities.
Albert Einstein
“Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school.”
“Education is not the learning of facts, but the training of the mind to think.”
Disclaimer
Without loss of generality, the information and statistics provided regarding the aforementioned university programmes have been simplified and/or rounded for ease of comparison and readability. They may not reflect the most current data available at the time of publication of this blog post.
George Klonaris
- The cover image was created on 16.10.2024 with DALL-E. ↩︎