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.

 

[JAE]

As I got older the main thing I gained from CE was seminars and talks on updated codes and standards. Those change all the time and it's good to hear what new (and improved?) features are appearing in ACI, AISC, etc. That type of info is good at any age.

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.

Well yes load paths are thankfully immune from the busybody code writers.
But I've never attended any seminar on topics that basic.

I think your premise that - I need CEU's when I'm young to make me a complete engineer - is not all that accurate.

Seminars are quick overviews of what's new and usually require additional self-study/learning on your own afterwards. They help all engineers keep up to speed with current codes and trends.

Younger engineers need to continue with self-study, raw project experience, and good mentors.

 

[Ron247]

As I got older the main thing I gained from CE was seminars and talks on updated codes and standards. Those change all the time and it's good to hear what new (and improved?) features are appearing in ACI, AISC, etc. That type of info is good at any age.

I agree.

Well yes load paths are thankfully immune from the busybody code writers.
But I've never attended any seminar on topics that basic.

While load paths may be basic to an experienced person, they are not that basic when someone starting out. But it was just one example. I also know I have been in some seminars that offer less useful info than load paths.

I think your premise that - I need CEU's when I'm young to make me a complete engineer - is not all that accurate.

I agree it is not accurate, but I never said that. I said I "more needed" the training and I do not believe there is a complete engineer. If there is, why are we discussing CEUs? For me (maybe not you), I more needed the training coming out of college than I do now. Code changes occur about every 3 years, not daily. But when they occur, I can go through the code on my own looking for changes, or I can attend a seminar. The seminar is the more prudent option, but only when there is a change and a seminar I can get into when it is offered.

Seminars are quick overviews of what's new and usually require additional self-study/learning on your own afterwards.

The "require self-study/learning on you own" is what I also said in a later post on this topic. Engineers who want to maintain the integrity of the profession are always learning new things, with or without CEU requirements. If I have 1,000 CEUs this year, I will still stay up to date with "codes I use" even if there are no CEUs involved in the seminar. I could take a seminar on Stainless Steel code changes, but I do not work in Stainless.

Younger engineers need to continue with self-study, raw project experience, and good mentors.

I agree. I note you said "good" mentors. The fact is, some mentors are not that good, so basic load path courses for example help those graduates. I do not recall any bachelor's level course even mentioning load path. I know several graduates who could not even give a rough definition of a load path, let alone trace one. These were not poor students, just never had it mentioned in their courses. I learned load paths via experience, but some initial direction on them would have been helpful.

I still appreciate the thoughts.

 

[Gr8blu]

There was always more to learn - it hasn't gotten less so as I've progressed through my career. In part that is because my level of responsibility (and therefore the areas covered by my responsibility) has increased, as well as the complexity within a given sub-category.

In a typical year, I obtain on average 50-60 CEUs from participation in organized industry technical conferences and other methods.
On top of that, as a subject matter expert, I teach enough to give others 40-50 CEUs in a year.
I also participate in (and sometimes chair) groups who write various consensus standards - both in North America and overseas. Thus, I am fully aware of upcoming Code and Regulation changes that may affect what I do.

My "load path" is entirely of my own making, particularly as my career has developed. I pursued interests, mostly, although there were a handful that fell more into the "necessity" category early in my career.

 

[Ron247]

There was always more to learn - it hasn't gotten less so as I've progressed through my career.

Sounds like your career path gives you more CEUs in a year than you would need for 3 or 4 years. Putting together training materials takes a lot of time and talent. One of the hardest things I find about teaching something is empathizing the level of the people in the audience and creating materials that mirror that but get the message out accurately at the same time. Being good at that is a skill, so my hat is off to you.

Strictly out of curiosity, do you recall the first time you ever heard the NEC mentioned or referenced relative to your early years in electrical engineering? I have a reason for asking, it is not a gotcha question.

 

[CWB1]

CPE is a form of recertification, not education. Govt needs to occasionally test that you still have some minimal depth and breadth of knowledge, and having you choose X small refreshers&retests is generally preferred vs retaking a licensing exam.

JMO but adding CPE courses to a corporate training program seems rather odd. You're suggesting adding the worst training of our careers to the best, and ultimately every CPE would be either redundant or unnecessary.

 

[Ron247]

I am not familiar with CPE. From an internet search, I see "Certified Principal Engineer" as a possible name for the acronym. I am referring to Continuing Education Units (CEUs) in this post. To my knowledge, in my field we do not have to recertify periodically, although I do see where there can easily be situations where it would be wise. I can see CEUs being a good way to meet the CPE needs.

You're suggesting adding the worst training of our careers to the best, and ultimately every CPE would be either redundant or unnecessary.

Can you elaborate on this statement, I am not following the context or intent.

 

[Pinwards]

Continuing Professional Education I think... too many acronyms in today's world.

#

 

[Ron247]

Continuing Professional Education I think... too many acronyms in today's world.

Thanks, I was associating Certified Principal with the "recertification" portion of their statement.

 

[Gr8blu]

Sounds like your career path gives you more CEUs in a year than you would need for 3 or 4 years. Putting together training materials takes a lot of time and talent. One of the hardest things I find about teaching something is empathizing the level of the people in the audience and creating materials that mirror that but get the message out accurately at the same time. Being good at that is a skill, so my hat is off to you.

Strictly out of curiosity, do you recall the first time you ever heard the NEC mentioned or referenced relative to your early years in electrical engineering? I have a reason for asking, it is not a gotcha question.

First time I heard the NEC mentioned was during the summer between my first and second year of my degree. I was working a summer "intern" type of job for the local utility to help pay for the following year's tuition. After I completed my degree, I had to verify one of our more complex designs met the Canadian version of NEC on my third day on the job.

 

[Ron247]

First time I heard the NEC mentioned was during the summer between my first and second year of my degree. I was working a summer "intern" type of job for the local utility to help pay for the following year's tuition.

Several years ago, I was talking to an EE friend about recent graduate hires and how it was not easy to remember what it was like when you graduate but really have no idea what you were and were not capable of doing. He shared with me his first day on his new job right out of college. He was included in a company meeting with a client and many of the clients' other subs, that included a large cross-section of electrical related companies. He said everyone kept mentioning the NEC, but he had no idea of what they were talking about. He was not sure what it was, but everyone would say something like, "the NEC says it is ok" or similar comments. He did not know if it was a company, a book, gov't agency or even a name that sounds like the 3 letters (InniSee for example). He got uneasy and prayed no one would ask him about it in the meeting. This agony went on for over an hour.

When the meeting was over, he tactfully found out what it was and breathed some relief. He said it was never mentioned all through college in the curriculum. He bought a copy and then had to spend many nights getting up to speed. We are talking the pre-internet days. I have come to find out over the years that this was more common than I thought. Most students who did know about it were like you, found out from a job, but not from college. Something like this happens in most curriculums.

About 10 years after that, I looked at a house that someone was looking at buying and noticed a breaker that was too large for the wire. No big deal. The Owner of the house called me that day and was chewing me out about being wrong. Told me his son was an EE and had done some calculations that proved me wrong. He suggested we meet at the house so his son could "set me straight" and that I was not qualified to comment on electrical since I was a CE. I told him all he needed was to get his son to write a letter and put his PE stamp on it, but I will still confident it was too large. That is when I found out the son was a senior in EE school, not a registered PE. I remembered what my friend had told me years earlier. I told the father to have his son meet us there the next day but "Bring his NEC". I then told him "If he does not know what the NEC is, he needs to find out before tomorrow or he may embarrass himself." But they needed to call me back and set the time for the meeting. Never heard back from them but my customer told me they replaced the breaker with no arguments.

That is why I ask EE that question sometimes. Right now, about less than 40% that I have asked heard about it first from their school. School needs to at least clue-them in before they graduate. "Hey folks, look at this book, NEC stands for National Electrical Code, browse through it before you go to a job interview. It's like an electrical bible." Just those 2 lines of info would have been worth it.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[JAE]

School needs to at least clue-them in before they graduate. "Hey folks, look at this book, NEC stands for National Electrical Code, browse through it before you go to a job interview. It's like an electrical bible." Just those 2 lines of info would have been worth it.

Ron I'm not sure I agree with you here.

Engineering programs in college have not traditionally thought of themselves as "trade schools" that push out graduates ready to be producing engineers who rely on the published codes and standards. Maybe current students and some professors think so but in the past the goal of most engineering programs was focused on first principles and concepts. Rarely in my BS and graduate studies did I get introduced fully with the CODES.

My concrete and steel classes included ACI and AISC provisions but only so far as to teach some limited application of the engineering principles.

When I graduated I had this tool box of knowledge but had no clue on how to apply it to real problems... and how to use codes. That was OK.

To me - and this is key - our engineering profession is dependent (properly so) on mentoring and a sort of apprentice program of 4 years of experience under a licensed engineer. Most all of my practical knowledge came from me being placed on a project and gradually taught by my mentors.

To expect your engineering knowledge base to be flushed out and completed by college - or soon after via some seminars - isn't a good plan in my opinion and is certainly not the model career path that has existed for decades.

The medical field does this well with residencies. Crane operators do it well with apprentice programs. Going way back trades like masons, bookbinders, shoemakers, horologists, carpenters, barbers, and chefs all needed proper mentoring. Shoot even architects require it. (gasp!)

Anyway - I get that you see an awkwardness in the flow of learning from graduation through retirement and that seminars etc. don't get managed and applied well. I agree with your concern I really do. But the focus should always be on direct mentoring...which also doesn't happen in some cases.

 

[XR250]

Maybe current students and some professors think so but in the past the goal of most engineering programs was focused on first principles and concepts.

Mine too. I imagine today's curriculums are software heavy though. Which is a shame, IMHO, because software is easy to learn on the job, first principal stuff is not.
We had to write our own FEA software in FORTRAN with f'n punch cards! (did I just age myself?)

 

[Ron247]

Rarely in my BS and graduate studies did I get introduced fully with the CODES.

I agree 100% that schools cannot and should not add codes and other topics to their curriculum in an attempt to teach all you need before exiting college. The Masters and PhD programs provide you a little more, but again, not all, and don't need to. Eventually, you have to get out of school and go to work. When we go to our first job, it in itself will have things we need but have not had yet. At that early stage, learning gets directed more towards what the employer needs that we do not have. It would not help me to take an additional course while in college for drainage piping, when I am going into structures for example. That is why good mentors are so necessary. They are supposed to help direct you, but you have to be your own motivator. I am advocating for a more structured offering of additional after-graduation study partly steered by your employer but designed by a university for example. Good content, good depth and self-study is the best I can describe it. The content of the study needs to be a transition between typical classes and 3-5 hour CEU type courses (seminars, presentations, on-line etc.). I also think it will be 40 hours or more for something like masonry design. I much later in life, want to cash in that 40 hours for 20 hours and as I said in my original post, even if it is every other year. The every other year had to do with code changes more than anything else.

To expect your engineering knowledge base to be flushed out and completed by college - or soon after via some seminars - isn't a good plan in my opinion and is certainly not the model career path that has existed for decades.

I am not advocating changing college at all, but I am discussing a change in what is expected and available for new graduates while they are preparing to be a PE. Now my comment I made about the NEC was not a metaphor for teach the NEC in college, it was exactly what I said. Give them the 2 sentences before they graduate because when they get work, it is the first thing they will find out about in the EE world. Another simple statement that sounds ridiculous is "if your desire is to be a registered engineer one day, make sure you go to work under the direction of a registered PE in your desired field, and even wiser, quiz your potential mentor about as much as they quiz you in the interview." I found this out in grad school via a conversation with the #1 mentor professor I had.

all needed proper mentoring

This is where you and I are lock-step, good mentors. I had 2, and both were great. Sounds like you did too. I got lucky. Some don't get so lucky. That is also a major part of what I was considering in part of this concept I posted, bad mentors.

Here is the most memorable bad mentor story I know, and I will go to my grave very happy I helped this kid. I did some work for a new industry that I thought the owner of was a registered PE in mechanical engineering. He had a new 4-year ME grad working for him. Every time I went to their site, the kid had several structural questions and I answered them when I was done with my original reason for being there. Always answered his questions best I could, never charged any time to his boss for it.

This went on over 1 to 2 months. Then he calls me but does not want me to tell his boss he called me. I asked why, and he said his boss says he should know how to do this without my help. I said Ok, but based on the depth of the questions, I suggested he come to my office that Saturday after noon and bring the drawings. He and his wife show up, on the way to someone's birthday (I think) once they leave my office. He makes it clear he is willing to stay as long as I am willing to help regardless of the birthday.

He shows me the preliminary drawings of 2 PEMBs his boss expects him to 100% design on his own. Not specify them, design them and do all the drawings. I chuckled and looked at him and said, "You nor I had a snow-balls chance of doing this straight out of college and I have masters and was in construction once." "Your boss should know you can't, he was straight out of ME school at some point in time." Then I found out, boss talks like he is an engineer and fancies himself one, but is not.

I told him, "Bet you've been feeling like you did not learn anything in college". He said; "apparently I did not". I said, man that has to be depressing. I noticed his wife vigorously shaking her head "Yes". She tells me the poor guy has been up to 1 or 2 AM every night for MONTHS going through his Strength of Materials textbook and other ME books, trying to find what he needed. Thought he kept missing what he needed. I rattled off a few courses I knew he did not have like structural analysis and steel design.

I told him about wasting his time because his boss was not a PE; kid did not know about that licensing requirement. Advised him to not say anything, quietly find another job with a PE mentor and GO TO IT. I also gave him some basic info to make it look like he was making progress until he could find a new job. Again, pre-internet days. He got lucky, quickly found a position in Pulp & Paper I think and had a "GOOD mentor" for once. He went from newlywed fresh out of college, tired, depressed, looking to get out of engineering to happy as a pig in slop. I still remember how good the phone call felt when he called to tell me, and how lucky I felt at the same time I didn't get a mentor like that. Funny thing is, I easily remember the mentors entire name, but not the kids. Guess I felt more lucky than good.

 

[RenHen]

I can't speak to today's curriculum, but I'm in my first registration period and my school refused to teach us how to use any software outside of a modeling and simulation course where we had to write our own FEA software (I think we used MATLAB though, can't imagine doing it with punch cards!).

I dunno if they're particularly effective but my understanding was that the CEU requirements are really just intended to prevent mid/late career engineers from checking out & falling behind the times as codes, standards, research, available materials & products, etc. change. I think what you're saying would be interesting! But also a different program with different intended outcomes than continuing education requirements. I will note though, the existence of these CEU/PDH/AIA courses benefits me either way because I still have access to them even if they're not required yet (or ever in the case of AIA).

 

[mtu1972]

I did not read every post, but I can echo a lot of what has been said. I got my BSCE in 1972 and did not have a good job offer, so I stayed on and worked on a Masters program until they replaced the main frame computer and my Finite Element Program quit working.

I started working in Southern Michigan in December of 1973. I started hearing terms that were never discussed in any of my classes. Things like girts, purlins, etc. This was the old days - so I bought a book on general building construction to look for these terms.

Four years later, I got my PE while working in Northern Minnesota and MN required continuing education, but without internet, they held conferences in regional areas and you could choose your discipline and get 6 to 8 credits on a Saturday. Did that until I moved back to MI and then to Wisconsin.

With the internet, it became much easier. As a member of ASCE, I got 10 free CE sessions each year. The last time I did it, some were even 2 CE credits. With seminars sponsored by my company, I easily got all the credits the various states that I was registered in required. The worst part was keeping the spreadsheet keeping track of each state’s requirements; as the PE renewals were mostly two years.