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.

 

[Gr8blu]

I will be the first to admit that mentoring is a MUST - both during the school portion of becoming an engineer and afterward, in the practical experience realm. Looking back, I was incredibly lucky in both areas compared to a lot of my classmates - and even more so when compared to those other "new" engineers I worked with after graduation. One of the things that I realize now - but didn't then - was how important that "on the job" real world experience would be DURING my education. It not only introduced technical topics (and problems, and solutions, and tools) not covered in class, it also introduced new material (for example, the National Electrical Code). Better still, it introduced a level of confidence in my ability to solve difficulties - and developed contacts that I could use later on to further help me in technical and "professional development" areas.

As a result, I have never turned down a request for help if there was anything I could provide - whether that was a discussion on how to do something, why something should be done a certain way, or even simply where to look for an answer. Hopefully some of those I've helped along the way continue the trend.

The biggest change I would recommend to a modern engineering program (regardless of discipline)? Providing the students with enough quality real-world mentorship during their degree. This may occur as part of a specific curriculum course - or it may be during a non-school semester. The days of having good grades be enough to determine whether a student would be a good fit for a technical company are gone - if they ever existed in the first place. Rightly or wrongly, my own interpretation is that a good grade reflects the ability of the student to provide answers in a format that is recognized by their instructor(s) - not necessarily that they have a good grasp on the technical material itself (and the first principles behind it).

 

[CWB1]

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.

IMO the ABET curriculum cant get much further from reality bc:
1. Basic skills courses like drafting/print-reading, CAD, risk & failure analysis, PM, etc are not required, nvm advanced ones like FEA, CFD, etc. Many graduate with no useful skills bc of it.
2. Most of college is spent on paper studies of oversimplified problems involving matter that defies physics (ideal gases, infinitely rigid/damped bodies, frictionless surfaces, etc), using equations that are an approximation at best. That's the opposite of engineering.
3. College wastes a ton of time going needlessly deep with derivation/calculus about a small number of concepts/phenomena. Students would be better served with a few trend charts and high-level discussion of the practical application and interaction of a wide variety of concepts/phenomena.
4. Little if any time is spent teaching actual engineering - practicing thinking through complex 12d interactions, identifying failure modes at different conditions, creating rough models that follow trends correctly, designing experiments to refine the model/design, and ultimately proving your design fulfills specific requirements.
If I were creating a curriculum I'd focus ~70% on teaching engineering skills via real projects similar to trade school, and limit theory lectures to ~30% of the time.

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.

Niche is a combination of role and responsibility - Generalist or specialist in X. In my world there are separate generalists in automotive powertrain, chassis, and body; and specialists in combustion development, crash simulation, and other blackholes. In yours I'd assume there are generalists in short buildings, tall buildings, bridges, dams, etc; and specialists are needed for more complex systems like high-rise steel, bridge pilings, etc. I have no issues with certifying a generalist in a reasonably-specific X as being competent, but have major issues with those claiming competency in everything from medical devices to automotive transmissions. Licensing by degree is rather ridiculous IMO.

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.

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the intended purpose.
The issue I have against the current system is that it doesnt fulfill the stated purpose of protecting public safety. Many licensed engineers' only regulatory interaction is with local-yokel regulators who accept anything with a stamp, and do nothing to sanity check FMEAs, FEAs, etc. They produce garbage work based on having passed a general exam and four years "experience" under someone similarly incompetent. I have no objections to requiring a license/cert to submit work that poses risk to many lives&limbs (high rises, pipelines, vehicle crash, etc) but that responsibility should be thoroughly proven, and regulators should be doing reasonably sanity checks on work submitted. Lower risk projects should not require anything more than a degree.

 

[Ron247]

IMO the ABET curriculum cant get much further from reality bc:

I agree, ABET, does need to "re-imagine" their beliefs. I know this riles many in the academic world, but I have a problem spending almost as much time & money on Humanities electives than I did on my Core CE classes related to structures. I understand their concept of "well-rounded" education, but I do not agree that makes me well-rounded. It may make me more-rounded, but not well-rounded. They offer 600 hours of Humanities and I took 18 of them. Like many I chose the classes based on what was available that was easy, close to my main building of study and offered at a convenient time. That is how most of my friends picked theirs. My Greek and Roman Mythology pays off every time I am somewhere, and someone has had one too many drinks and starts claiming Apollo can beat up Zeus. I never pass up an opportunity to explain to them why they are wrong.

Why make someone interested in structures or mechanical engineering take 2 classes of chemistry. Let us take 1 very basic course and stop. All I remember from chemistry is everything is called something that starts with the word Sodium followed by some word that ends in "ate". Sodium Procrastinate, Sodium Infuriate, Sodium Hesitate.

Niche is a combination of role and responsibility

Under that concept, yes many of us tend to gravitate to one or more niches. I would not have a problem seeking additional certification in a few niches when possible, but not all jobs can refine to just a few. Many have to work a variety of areas.

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the intended purpose.

To me, the "stated intended purpose" of CEUs, is to keep engineers competent and up to date. Unfortunately, that is what the current system cannot even begin to succeed at. It operates to me more like something that sounds goods, but can't produce. I have no problems with the CEU concept, but make it where someone can get more actual benefit when they want. As an example, make certification that you promote something that accounts for a bunch of CEUs over an extended period rather than 15 hour carry over.

 

[jhnblgr]

IMO the ABET curriculum cant get much further from reality bc:
1. Basic skills courses like drafting/print-reading, CAD, risk & failure analysis, PM, etc are not required, nvm advanced ones like FEA, CFD, etc. Many graduate with no useful skills bc of it.
2. Most of college is spent on paper studies of oversimplified problems involving matter that defies physics (ideal gases, infinitely rigid/damped bodies, frictionless surfaces, etc), using equations that are an approximation at best. That's the opposite of engineering.
3. College wastes a ton of time going needlessly deep with derivation/calculus about a small number of concepts/phenomena. Students would be better served with a few trend charts and high-level discussion of the practical application and interaction of a wide variety of concepts/phenomena.
4. Little if any time is spent teaching actual engineering - practicing thinking through complex 12d interactions, identifying failure modes at different conditions, creating rough models that follow trends correctly, designing experiments to refine the model/design, and ultimately proving your design fulfills specific requirements.
If I were creating a curriculum I'd focus ~70% on teaching engineering skills via real projects similar to trade school, and limit theory lectures to ~30% of the time.

Niche is a combination of role and responsibility - Generalist or specialist in X. In my world there are separate generalists in automotive powertrain, chassis, and body; and specialists in combustion development, crash simulation, and other blackholes. In yours I'd assume there are generalists in short buildings, tall buildings, bridges, dams, etc; and specialists are needed for more complex systems like high-rise steel, bridge pilings, etc. I have no issues with certifying a generalist in a reasonably-specific X as being competent, but have major issues with those claiming competency in everything from medical devices to automotive transmissions. Licensing by degree is rather ridiculous IMO.

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the intended purpose.
The issue I have against the current system is that it doesnt fulfill the stated purpose of protecting public safety. Many licensed engineers' only regulatory interaction is with local-yokel regulators who accept anything with a stamp, and do nothing to sanity check FMEAs, FEAs, etc. They produce garbage work based on having passed a general exam and four years "experience" under someone similarly incompetent. I have no objections to requiring a license/cert to submit work that poses risk to many lives&limbs (high rises, pipelines, vehicle crash, etc) but that responsibility should be thoroughly proven, and regulators should be doing reasonably sanity checks on work submitted. Lower risk projects should not require anything more than a degree.

I think the issue is that you can’t teach someone to be an engineer, you can lead them down the path but for them to truly be an engineer they must be self motivated and have serious critical thinking skills.

Every mechanical engineer should work in a machine shop and also should work in a repair shop prior to entering the field, just as every civil engineer should work in fabrication, excavation, concrete, erection, plumbing, grading, and water and wastewater depending on the area they specialize in.

But the stuff you speak of should be covered under mentoring your staff. That is on senior engineers to train the junior. You aren’t going to be able to give that kind of knowledge in a classroom without spending a considerable amount of money and time.

 

[Ron247]

But the stuff you speak of should be covered under mentoring your staff. That is on senior engineers to train the junior. You aren’t going to be able to give that kind of knowledge in a classroom without spending a considerable amount of money and time.

In recent years, I have modified my concept of mentoring. Where mentoring to me used to be an experienced senior engineer's relationship to someone with considerably less experience from a time standpoint, now I consider it something even the experienced senior engineer has a need for. This forum is an example of us mentoring each other when we encounter something we have not done before. Not our years of experience but more out amount of experience with a particular issue or problem.

We encounter a new challenge like how to model some condition in FEM. We may be getting advice from someone who is not licensed yet, but has extensive training in that arena of FEM. So being mentored, goes on forever, thankfully and hopefully.