A Conceptual Modification to the Continuing Education Requirements

[Ron247]

I just got through fulfilling my CEUs for 2025 which made me look back at the entire concept and architecture of the CEU system. The 2 major positives of them are that it keeps all of us up to speed on changes/innovations and it provides a system where we have a needed formal educational process beyond college. The thing that stood out to me about the current methodology is that IMO, it’s a better system when I am a mid-range (age-wise) registered engineer than when I am an old geezer or fresh out of college with no registration.

I just wanted to hear others’ opinions on this. The diversity of Eng-tips should provide some good insight. The following has more to do with me, than others.

I most needed CEUs fresh out of college, but since I was not registered, there are no requirements to get them. On the other hand, ever since I got over 65 and glued my left turn signal into the “On” position as required by AARP, the CEUs are difficult to find that could really help me. Everything is either too basic, unrelated to what I do or something I just go through the motions on to meet a “requirement”.

From this point forward, I am talking as a structural engineer although the concepts apply to all of us who need CEUs in any field. In Civil, structures is one of 6 subsets of specialties that a 4-year degree does not completely encompass. I can easily think of 10 courses I could have used right out of college but were not part of the normal 4-year curriculum. Some are SE related, some are just general business related. The following are examples:

• Cold-formed steel design: I needed this on day 1 of my first job and the employer taught me over time
• Masonry-I needed this as soon as I went from Job 1 to Job 2. Learned on my own
• Light gauge steel framing; kissing cousin of cold-formed; needed on Job 2
• Building Code-Needed on Day 1 of first job
• Stiffness and FE Programs; got them with a Masters
• Problem Solving & Goal Achievement; created my own method eventually
• Working in Groups; still learning on this one
• Transitioning from Technical to Practical; still learning on this one

Looking back, I wish I could have used the old “Lay-Away” plan from the 60s. I wish I could have paid for really meaningful courses I needed when I was not registered BUT WORKING UNDER A PE, and then been allowed to ‘carry them forward” once I got over 60. I would have wanted to Lay-Away my CEUs. Get them when I need them the most and give me a 3 to 4 year break when I get older to pay me back for being motivated earlier. Even if I could only use them every other year it would still be an improvement in my warped way of thinking. I understand it would require changes to an existing system, but so was the initial creation of the entire CEU system.

The courses I am talking about would be in-depth courses equal to a 3 to 4 hour college course and the test would be proctored by my PE mentor. The cost of $200 to $400 for a single real “self-study” course that literally helps me at work right them and saves me an entire years’ worth of CEUs in the future may not sound good to a young engineer graduate, but they may want to do some critical thinking on the subject if they are serious about this as a “life-long” profession.

Any opinions, criticisms or modifications to the concept?

 

[JAE]

Carrying over a course you took at age 25 to a point 40 years later makes no sense. The information would be out of date/obsolete.

From your list of courses you stated would have been helpful - I see you ultimately studied on your own and took the proper initiative to better yourself.
This is called professional maturity and I commend you for it. All engineers should be doing this above and beyond the silly required continuing education rules.

The main thing I learned in graduate school was how to teach myself. My graduate professors went to great lengths to emphasize that self-learning was a key ingredient in my Master's program. I carried this into my first job and never stopped learning.

As far as after 65 goes (I'm not sure I understand your AARP left turn signal statement) - I think you are correct that the seminars and courses available to seasoned engineers can be tiring. But at the very least it red flags for you new code provisions, new systems, new products, etc. that you can then self-educate on after the event.

Just my few thoughts.

 

[Ron247]

Carrying over a course you took at age 25 to a point 40 years later makes no sense.

I was talking with an engineer and contractor I know that have to have CEUs, and like me, are finding it more difficult to find valuable ones the older they get. They both said it sounds crazy, but had no reasons why. I know both of them have a propensity to do things like they have always been done. So, I posted this to get some feedback. I know it is unorthodox, but I assume the primary intent of CEUs is to improve our professions, not occupy our time. My main thought was that at a time when I needed extensive additional training and there were far more materials available than I had time for, there were no requirements at all but should have been. The 2nd part of that is I think the earlier we get "well-grounded" in a topic, the better we are at some later distant time, therefore, improving the profession. But my employer had 1 or more I needed training in right then. Now we have the internet, but years ago we didn't. Getting additional training was up to us and our employer. Most employers have no real training programs to handle this. Everyone had a variety of methods. I don't think CEUs even started until the 90s, by then, I was already licensed. I really think, when we get more "grounded training" early, the better we will be in the long run as a profession. I think this early training needs to be more structured and cover longer topics than the typical 3 hour pdh. Steel is 45 contact hours in college. I would trade 40 hours actual study when I really needed it for 20 hours CEU, 40 years later in a heartbeat and think I would be better for it at that 40 year later mark.

The information would be out of date/obsolete.

Several topics (load paths, working in groups, communication) do not get obsolete in general and from posts we have all been involved in on Eng-Tips, some still have a need for them. My cold-formed training was ASD. Even though 40 years later, it is USD, been added to and modified, the basics of Cold-formed (buckling, buckling, buckling) have not changed. With an early grounding in the topic, I could keep up with changes over time easier. I do not want to add another 3 to 4 years of CEUs, I want to spend more time early and get a break much later. As I stated, the current system is good for those in the middle. The last CEU I took I needed was 3 years ago and it was for something a client had never needed before. In fact, it was a new requirement I think in their industry as you have pointed out.

As far as after 65 goes (I'm not sure I understand your AARP left turn signal statement)

Move to an area with a lot of retired people and be observant when driving.

Just my few thoughts.

Which is what I want, some reasons with thought behind them.
Thanks

 

[jmec87]

The requirement for a minimum number of hours incentivizes engineers to get the hours necessary to tick the box and doesn't ensure competency. I don't think it is effective or efficient for engineers at any stage.However, it allows for easy determination of compliance to the requirement.

Some jurisdictions are moving to more flexible continuous education requirements, but this might not have better results. For example, APEGA (Alberta, Canada) has drafted new continuing education requirements that would include 5 annual mandatory modules (provided by APEGA at no extra cost) and at least two additional activities as part of a continuing education plan to be defined by the engineer. There are some downsides with these new requirements, including the planned repetitive nature of than annual modules (which are supposed to be 2 hours each, so 10 hours per year are spent redoing modules that are identical or very similar to the previous year), and the lack of a clear standard for whether an engineer's plan meets APEGA's requirements.

I would prefer to stick with the requirements for continuing education hours - it avoids wasting time on repetitive modules, does not require spending effort to define a plan according to the regulator's requirements, and has a clear standard that is easily met.

 

[Ron247]

The requirement for a minimum number of hours incentivizes engineers to get the hours necessary to tick the box and doesn't ensure competency. I don't think it is effective or efficient for engineers at any stage.

I agree whole-heartedly. I can take 400 hours a year of CEUs, and still practice in something I know nothing about if my poor ethics make me think it does not matter. Making me take multiple ethics courses won't make me ethical, it does however, remove my ability to say, " I did not know". It appears to be someone problem solving; "What do we do with engineers who will not stay up to date and practice in areas where they are not competent". Seems a lot of things like this are created as a solution to a poorly worded problem definition. Even if I had 50 hours of CEUs this year, if I needed to learn something new to properly do my job, I would, even if I got no CEUs for it. And I think most readers of this post would do likewise. Most of us having been operating that way for years, learn what we need to learn, with or without CEU requirements.

Some jurisdictions are moving to more flexible continuous education requirements, but this might not have better results.

I think they need to revamp the system and view it as a goal to "improve the profession" rather than trying to problem solve how to force some to do what is ethically right. In trying to achieve a goal, there are multiple paths to success. Just one of many paths is what to do with those who refuse to maintain the integrity. That path should not involve the time and money of those who are attempting to maintain the integrity.

Self-study is generally limited to 5 to 8 hours max per year when it is permitted. I imagine most of us spend 100 hours or more per year on that. That is just 2 hours a week.