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?

 

[Ron247]

Many thanks for the clarification.

like college, they're too generalized and hypothetical to be meaningful, and usually taught by less competent professionals/academics/consultants.

I am not sure how you are using "hypothetical" but if you mean not 100% accurate, I agree. Those courses do teach basic fundamentals with "some assumptions", not "imagined" fundamentals. If you are using it as "imaginary", then I disagree. I was not taught imaginary structures.

Its the reason many say they learned more in their training year(s) than they did in undergrad or could in a master's, which is why few pursue advanced degrees.

I agree you tend to learn more in the training years. But one reason is, the training is almost all in an area you need. College definitely is not. As a structural engineer, I had very little need for chemistry, Physic 2 (electricity and magnetism), humanities, many Civil courses not directed at structures and thermodynamics. But they are part of what you describe as "generalized".

The risk of doing as you suggest is that you're creating another credential of false-competency,

Since I am not proposing a "new credential", I can only assume you mean my proposal would take an existing credential that is competent and altering it to make it incompetent. But at the same time, reading your post, I get that you think the current system most of us operate under is not competent. I think the current system does not serve its intended purpose.

The plethora of highly-credentialed engineers in design-only companies who've never tested/validated anything yet believe their analyses are accurate/safe is simply mind-boggling. JMO but if we want to have licenses or other credentials let's set decent standards - completion of a recognized corporate training program; 20+ years in a niche across various design, analysis and testing roles; and research/patents/papers demonstrating that we're familiar with modern methods.

Your position at work sounds like it is very different from mine and possibly others who participate. Your comments make a lot of sense for many with similar facilities/freedoms at work. I don't have a testing facility, a client willing to pay for testing of my solution for their need, or a corporate training program. I do not know what you call a "niche", but if concrete is a niche, steel is another niche and foundations are another niche, I do not have that much collective time to allow 20 years per.

Personally, I expect juniors to be familiar with first-principles, regulation/code requirements, and standards but not reliant on them.

For a junior to be familiar with regulations/code requirements at your operation is somewhat the idea I was proposing. They do not learn them in college, you immediately need and expect them to know them, so there is a need for training in those topics, as soon as they go to work where you are.

Again, thanks for the input and clarification.