Action | Develop regulations for a mandatory continuing education requirement for architect, professional engineer, and land surveyor licenses. |
Stage | Proposed |
Comment Period | Ended on 5/2/2008 |
May 2, 2008
Mark:
For example, what are the objectives of the new regulations? Do you think that we’re delinquent in “keeping up” such that you need to impose continuing education on us? Has something gone wrong with the system that requires this action? Do you have measurements to the effect that your 16 continuing education credit hours of “board-approved” study will trump our own “self-approved” study?
I also find that the document is full of wording that leaves one wondering as to whether or not we comply. The following are examples:
• shall be deemed . . .
• areas related to . . .
• which have demonstrated relevance . . .
• must be consistent with . . .
• must have sufficient resources . . .
• instructors must be competent in . . .
• has achieved the purpose and objective of the continuing education activity
I do believe in continuing education. I was told in 1960 when I graduated from college for the first time that the half-life of our then-current knowledge base was four years. I’m sure that it’s even less today. Can any engineer or architect remain in his or her chosen profession without the need for an effective continuous-learning program? Does not the phrase “continuous learning” apply to virtually every field of learning?
Is the program that you are proposing going to accomplish something that those of us in the professions are delinquent in accomplishing for ourselves? This reminds me of a long-ago situation in which an employee in our business of a thousand employees was taking advantage of his ‘exempt’ status by regularly coming in late and leaving early. Why should he be so lax in his attendance while the rest of us were working so hard including a lot of casual overtime? One solution was to force everyone to punch a clock. Wisely, however, we chose to deal with that one employee rather than to apply a punitive measure on the 999 who were working so hard to accomplish our business objectives.
Am I missing something so fundamental that I cannot see it even while looking at it?
Sincerely,
Dick Larson