Continued Education - Pros and Cons?

[CBarrett]

I want to separate this topic out of the 1771 thread

For starters, I polled chat GPT to give me outline of benefits and concerns when it comes to CE. For the most part I agree what is being said there, it is a decent summary.

The question at hand is, how do we use the concept of CE to improve our field? How do we make it palatable, and useful???
Should it be legislated? To what degree?

From CGPT:
Continued education, also known as lifelong learning, refers to the process of pursuing education and skill development beyond formal schooling. There are numerous benefits to engaging in continued education, both personally and professionally. Here are some of the key advantages:

Career Advancement: Continued education can lead to improved job prospects and career advancement. Acquiring new knowledge, skills, and certifications can make you more attractive to employers and increase your chances of promotion within your current organization.

Enhanced Skillset: Lifelong learning allows you to acquire new skills or deepen existing ones. This can help you stay relevant in a rapidly changing job market and increase your overall productivity and effectiveness in your chosen field.

Increased Earning Potential: As you gain additional qualifications and expertise, your earning potential can increase. Many employers value employees who invest in their own development and are willing to reward them accordingly.

Adaptability to Change: Continuous learning helps you adapt to new technologies, trends, and methodologies in your industry. It keeps you agile and better prepared to face any disruptions or changes that may occur.

Boosted Confidence: The more knowledge and skills you acquire, the more confident you become in your abilities. This self-assurance can positively impact your performance and interactions with others.

Networking Opportunities: Engaging in continued education often involves interacting with peers, instructors, and professionals in your field. This creates networking opportunities that can lead to valuable connections and potential collaborations.

Personal Growth: Education is not only about gaining professional skills but also about personal growth. It broadens your perspectives, enhances critical thinking, and fosters a sense of curiosity and lifelong learning.

Improved Problem-Solving: Continuing education exposes you to new challenges and problem-solving techniques, helping you become more adept at finding innovative solutions.

Staying Relevant: In fast-changing industries, skills and knowledge can become outdated quickly. Continued education ensures that you stay relevant and up-to-date in your field.

Positive Impact on Health: Studies have shown that engaging in lifelong learning can have positive effects on mental health, memory retention, and overall cognitive function.

Inspiring Others: By pursuing continued education, you set an example for others around you, encouraging them to embrace learning and personal development as well.

Overall, continued education is a powerful tool that can enrich your personal and professional life, providing numerous benefits that can help you succeed in a dynamic and evolving world.


Legislating continued education is a complex issue that requires careful consideration of various factors. While the concept of mandating ongoing learning may seem beneficial at first glance, it also raises some potential challenges and considerations:

Pros of Legislating Continued Education:

Workforce Development: By making continued education a legal requirement, it ensures that the workforce remains skilled and up-to-date in a rapidly changing job market. This can lead to a more competent and productive workforce overall.

Addressing Skills Gaps: Legislation could target specific industries or professions facing significant skills gaps, encouraging professionals to acquire the necessary expertise to fill those gaps.

Professional Standards and Quality: Mandatory education can set minimum standards for professionals, ensuring a certain level of competence and quality in various fields.

Ensuring Lifelong Learning: Some individuals may be less motivated to engage in continuous learning voluntarily. Legislation could serve as a means to promote the importance of lifelong learning and create a culture of education.

Cons of Legislating Continued Education:

Individual Freedom: Some argue that mandating continued education infringes upon individual freedom and autonomy. People may have different life circumstances or preferences, and forcing them to participate in education programs may not be well-received.

Financial Burden: Making continued education mandatory could place a financial burden on individuals, particularly those who struggle to afford it. Adequate provisions and support systems would be needed to address this concern.

Administrative Challenges: Implementing and overseeing mandatory continued education programs could be resource-intensive and require significant administrative efforts.

Quality of Programs: Ensuring the quality and relevance of mandated educational programs can be challenging. Poorly designed or outdated programs could lead to a lack of enthusiasm and genuine learning.

Inclusivity and Accessibility: It's essential to ensure that any legislation accounts for the accessibility of education opportunities for individuals from diverse backgrounds, including those with disabilities or living in rural areas.

Given the potential pros and cons, legislating continued education should be approached cautiously and with a focus on collaboration between policymakers, educational institutions, and industry stakeholders. It may be more effective to encourage and incentivize continued education voluntarily rather than imposing strict mandates. This can be achieved through public awareness campaigns, tax incentives, employer-sponsored programs, and flexible learning options. Such approaches strike a balance between promoting lifelong learning and respecting individual choices and circumstances.

[CBarrett]

Well, I will take the silence for acquiescence.

[bryanmundia]

Connie,

I am a huge advocate for CE. Nothing you have mentioned strikes me as wrong or something that shouldn't be pursued.

The hardest part is convincing a group of professionals that didn't need to go to college and work for at least an associate's degree in order to obtain licensure that they need more schooling.

Hard to tell a high school GED earner/high school dropout that is making $100k+ as a licensed surveyor that they need to go learn something in a classroom setting.

[CBarrett]

Connie,

I am a huge advocate for CE. Nothing you have mentioned strikes me as wrong or something that shouldn't be pursued.

The hardest part is convincing a group of professionals that didn't need to go to college and work for at least an associate's degree in order to obtain licensure that they need more schooling.

Hard to tell a high school GED earner/high school dropout that is making $100k+ as a licensed surveyor that they need to go learn something in a classroom setting.

O.M.G., don't even get me started !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pls5528]

In my fifty years of surveying, I have to say the BEST Surveyor's I have ever known, did not have more than a two year degree (some no college at all). When I passed the Nevada exam in 1988, they were just starting out with that requirement. I did enjoy the NALS/CSLA conferences through the years and found they not only satisfied the CE's, but were very educating. However, I would have went to them anyway. In general the CE courses I took online were simply a rehash of fundamental surveying. I found those to be a waste of time and money.For that system to truly work, it will take money and professional support focusing on current law changes and new evolving technology. That would be the ideal CE training for Professional Surveyors.

[David Kendall]

However, I would have went to them anyway. In general the CE courses I took online were simply a rehash of fundamental surveying. I found those to be a waste of time and money.

My experience on this topic tells me that the true professionals are already doing their continuing education regardless of the legal requirements.

The rest don’t care and will fight back tooth and nail if someone tries to force them to care through legislation.

Minimum competency and a stamp is good enough for most of our licensees. We cannot legislate morality or ethical practices, we can only encourage, provide opportunities and model professional behavior. If they don’t care then they don’t care.

It’s a self centered existence but not surprising as I’ve found many licensed surveyors to exhibit antisocial behaviors. Shades of gray but I know those tendencies well and I have to fight them every day.

Same applies to participation in a professional association. The kooks are hanging out in the break room patting each other on the back saying things like “I’m not a joiner” or “they’re just a bunch of haters” as if the association is all about them. For me it’s about my personal commitment to the profession and being of service to the community.

I’d like to understand Jerry Brown’s reasoning for the veto

[CBarrett]

There is a lot more to continued education to technical prowess.

I find many surveyors lacking in essential business skills beyond just technical. It is concerning when other professionals eschew the very skills that separate one from a skilled tradesman.

How do we even explain to someone narrow minded and stuck just past highschool or AA education how much they are missing? I mean, sure, if someone doesn't want to expand past technical skills, by all mean take a refresher class on how to run least squares, but don't put up barrier for other, out of fear that you may have to, I don't know, learn about how to motivate employees, or write and actually understand a contract. I've seen many surveyors who have no "professional polish" beyond a stereotypical plumber - and fall easy prey to more political and business machinations of, let's say engineers, contractor, architects, unions etc...

At the current rate, I would settle for as little as an essay written on a self chosen topic (can be technical), with proper grammar and demonstrating college composition level writing. Even if someone cheats on it, they had to at least learn enough to "cheat". That means next time I see someone's proposal written for a QBS project, I won't have to wonder if their basic writing skills are not just the beginning of issues.

These professional, call them rituals are important. People powder up their faces and hand out their business cards and put on their white wigs, to demonstrate that they have the rest of the abilities to handle the project, and show in small ways that they care. Stereotypical "Country bumpkins" and stereotypical tradesmen, even when they care, don't fully understand why people do this, and tend to frown upon it. Even Junior college, inexpensive, psychology class explains this pretty easily.

If surveyors are going to function in the future, in the world, business and society which is getting more and more complex, these skills are very much needed. Not everyone aspires to be a one man show. For many, those are very limited business models.

Changes on Laws and Technology - we have people within CLSA who can teach that, easily. Just need an audience to show up.
Continued education is not there to grade one's performance. It is there to create a culture of wanting to be informed and nudge people to interact and learn from one another. Give them a few tidbits to aspire to, if they are so inclined, and put a tad of peer pressure on underperformers, to realize that being a part of a professional system they are not an island.

[pls5528]

"There is a lot more to continued education to technical prowess.

I find many surveyors lacking in essential business skills beyond just technical. It is concerning when other professionals eschew the very skills that separate one from a skilled tradesman."
I totally agree with this statement by CBarrett, however the institutions which create the "Curriculum" normally do not offer much in the way of business or management specific to the business. Perhaps it's the law of supply and demand which restricts this? I believe the Civil Engineers have the same problem with this. AutoCad is a good example of the supply and demand issue. It has really never really been ideal for most surveyor's needs?

[CBarrett]

Few more thoughts on Continued Education -
It appears that not having it has robbed us from cross disciplinary interaction - where we could disseminate topics such as site plans, subdivision map act requirements, monumentation, proper easement documentation...
Aside from having to take continued ed classes or seminars, we could also use them as an opportunity to educate other disciplines who have continued education requirements.

[Mike Mueller]

That is one of the niftier reasons for CE that I have heard. Wouldn't even need to get CE as a requirement for surveyors. I wonder how hard it is to set up a seminar that gives credit to other fields?

Real estate agents need CE, we could start working on a class that gives them credit? It would really have to be a labor of love, as it appears the CR industrial complex has cornered the market on it, at least thats what it seems like reading between the lines of this website:

https://www.carealtytraining.com/blogs/ ... expiration.
How Much Does a Renewing Your Real Estate License Cost?
There are only 2 costs associated with renewing your license. The cost of the continuing education courses and the renewal fee from the Department of Real Estate.

Most accredited real estate schools offer these courses for under $100. The average cost is between $59 – $89. This includes all the courses required by the Department of Real Estate.

Might be easier to work with an already accredited place and add a class?

A class about how to understand legal descriptions that incorporates the idea that surveyors are the ones that place them on the ground, teaching the other disciplines the legal limits of their license as a positive.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[CBarrett]

I wish I had come up with the idea myself, but as I was out on social media posting about surveying and boundaries, a realestate agent posted and asked if this qualifies as a CE credit.
Maybe CLSA needs to approach the department of real-estate and offer to prepare couple of CE videos, or something. Let's remember to bring that up at the next board meeting.
We need some sort of an idea repository....

[Rouring]

Hello, I want to join the discussion. I agree that there are people who are not very knowledgeable in their profession. And in order to understand it better, you need to study well in college. Sometimes people do not understand the importance of higher education and its value. You need to improve your writing skills. And so develop yourself. When interacting with someone who may have a narrow-minded perspective or limited education, it is important to approach the conversation with patience, empathy, and respect.

[LS_8750]

I don't care for mandated CE. Let the Benson disciples roam.
But understand this - voir dire. When you are testifying opposing counsel is going to grill you on your qualifications. Opposing counsel will ask you about high school, how you became licensed, who your references where, how many times you had to take the qualifying exam for licensure before passing. Then, opposing counsel will ask you about CE, what you've been doing since licensure, how often you attend CE seminars, etc., what those seminars, etc., where about, how your CE applies to your expertise in the matter at hand, and on and on....

Michael Pallamary posted some good stuff on voir dire:

viewtopic.php?p=47394#p47394

Participate in CE or not at your peril......

[CBarrett]

I don't care for mandated CE. Let the Benson disciples roam.
But understand this - voir dire. When you are testifying opposing counsel is going to grill you on your qualifications. Opposing counsel will ask you about high school, how you became licensed, who your references where, how many times you had to take the qualifying exam for licensure before passing. Then, opposing counsel will ask you about CE, what you've been doing since licensure, how often you attend CE seminars, etc., what those seminars, etc., where about, how your CE applies to your expertise in the matter at hand, and on and on....

Michael Pallamary posted some good stuff on voir dire:

viewtopic.php?p=47394#p47394

Participate in CE or not at your peril......

My god, world is coming to an end, you finally said something I can agree with! LOL

I like mandated continued education, as I am weary of those who do not pursue it dragging down the profession.
Then since I won't be able to charge them for getting educated while mapchecking the RS's, I can charge for seminars. :p

[Jim Frame]

I've only been deposed twice, and on the stand twice, but I wasn't asked about high school, who my references were, how many times I took the exam, continuing education, or seminars.

Maybe it's because I'm older than the attorneys who were grilling me.

[TTaylor]

I'll chime in.

I am a long time advocate for CE requirements for those that are licensed. Many years.

It doesn't have to be classroom time. It can be attending seminars, webinars, conferences, chapter meetings among other things like writing articles and teaching LS related classes.

Many other professions have mandatory CE requirements.

Over a decade ago at a CLSA conference during the LSIT review sequence members of BPELSG presented and told the attendees that getting licenced meant they were "minimally qualified".

During the " full" session the BPELSG segment they opined the same thing.

So, I raised my hand and asked, "If you are passing people at the minimally qualified level then why doesn't the Board mandate CE?

IMO, conscientious licenced people would garner the necessary CE hours as a matter of course.

[Ric7308]

Over a decade ago at a CLSA conference during the LSIT review sequence members of BPELSG presented and told the attendees that getting licenced meant they were "minimally qualified".

This is generally true.

During the " full" session the BPELSG segment they opined the same thing.

Again, this is generally true.

So, I raised my hand and asked, "If you are passing people at the minimally qualified level then why doesn't the Board mandate CE?

For several reasons which usually does not involve the Board:

In the past, the Governor has generally opposed continuing education.
Other interest groups generally support the idea but oppose it being mandated.
There is no direct correlation which illustrates that those professions (and occupations) which have long required continuing education have less disciplinary matters due to the mandatory continuing education.

Need to not get stuck on "minimally qualified" concept. You, I, and everyone else were minimally qualified at one point despite what some think.

[TTaylor]

If possible I would like to see the research that states there is no correlation between EC and enforcement.

The fundamental assumptions are interesting to me.

Also, I do not know where the term "minimally qualified"
came from, I only know that I first heard the term in formal settings and subsequently from The Board.

TT, PLD

[E_Page]

In the past, the Governor has generally opposed continuing education.

I was on the Legislative Committee from about 2006 or 2007 to shortly before moving to ID. Back in 2007 or so, when I was still somewhat idealistic, I asked about why CA didn't have a CE requirement and suggested we draft legislation for it. The idea was met with reactions ranging from indifference to outright shock and shot down as quickly as if I had suggested legislation to raise the RS review fee to $5000.

The same reasons as Ric states here were tossed around then. However, there have been several Governor's administrations since then and complete turnover in both houses of the legislature several times as well. I don't know if the CLSA has ever actually tried to have CE legislation introduced but do know that the excuse that the governor and/or legislature wouldn't go for it has been the go to excuse since before I was licensed in CA.

I'm convinced that nobody in the CLSA can actually recall a time when the CLSA sought CE legislation, and further that no one knows if the politicians would hate it, love it, or not give a darn either way. But it does make for a great excuse to hide behind.

Other interest groups generally support the idea but oppose it being mandated.

That's probably the majority opinion in the CLSA. Reflective of comments by others in this thread, many surveyors seek out continuing education opportunities regularly and will continue doing so as long as they remain in the profession, but they don't want anyone telling them they are required to do what they're already doing.

I understand that. Kind of the same way as when I'm preparing to do some chore or fixit project around home, might have even been looking forward to it. Then Natasha comes along and tells me I need to do that very project before taking a moment to realize I'm already on it. Somehow, that project won't get done for several more weeks.

There is no direct correlation which illustrates that those professions (and occupations) which have long required continuing education have less disciplinary matters due to the mandatory continuing education.

While I don't necessarily doubt this, I too would like to see the data. Anecdotally, it seems like it's probably true but I wouldn't want this reasoning to become of the same nature as the legislature & governor excuse. That is, a factoid that seems generally accepted but no one knows if it's actually true.

I do believe there are many surveyors in states with CE requirements who will attend conferences and seminars but have mastered the ability to be utterly unconscious while holding their eyes open. There will always be some who get nothing out of any session they attend and others who will find those same sessions interesting, informative and of benefit to their practice. The hope with the former group is that some of them actually develop an interest in learning to improve their knowledge and incorporate it into practice. Or at least that some will pick up some useful info subliminally as the sleep in their chairs.

Need to not get stuck on "minimally qualified" concept. You, I, and everyone else were minimally qualified at one point despite what some think.

Some were minimally qualified only on the day they took the exam and as they moved on with their professional "ticket" in hand, they've never studied for another test, never attended any formal CE session and never learned anything useful from their everyday practice in the years since.

I won't get started on the exam itself. That's a whole different topic. Beside that, I'll probably just be the old man yelling at the clouds for all the good griping about it would do.

The best, and perhaps only really good arguments I've heard against mandatory CE is that in states where they must be approved by the Board before being offered, as PLS 5528 said, they tend to be pretty basic and rather useless after a while. Some state boards only approve sessions that are purely technical in nature, so hoping for education in business management, contract law, etc. is out of the question. Closely related to that is that the same topics from the same speakers seem to keep coming around, so after 5 years or so, you only have reruns available to you.

A couple of participants commented on voir dire and how CEs might play into that. While I've never gotten the grilling going so far as high school, who my references were, whether I fold or wad, etc., I have been asked about participation in continuing education a couple of times. Typically though, it's been limited to how long I've been licensed, how much of my experience is related to the aspect of surveying at issue in the case, and sometimes whether I have a college degree and what my major was.

In one case, there were several experts involved. Each was asked how long they've been licensed, how much of their practice was focused on the aspect of surveying at hand, their formal education in surveying, and their participation in CE, including whether they do or have read professional magazines, journals or other texts. The answers ranged from 25 to 45 yrs licensed, 3% to 85% practice focus relevant to case, a few hours of union classes to BS in land surveying, haven't attended any CE sessions or read a word devoted to surveying topics since passing exam 34 yrs prior to 30+ hrs/yr plus presenting topics for CE plus regular reading of magazines and regularly updating personal professional library.

The few hrs of union training, 3% of relevant practice (over 34 years) and not a whit of any kind of CE or self-study since prior to passing the exam was all the same guy. The judge in that case seemed to tune out of the questioning for each after hearing that they currently have a valid license to practice. The opinions of the least and arguably no longer minimally qualified surveyor testifying were given the same weight as the most qualified in that case.

In my experience, most judges don't seem all that impressed beyond the point of "do you have a valid license to practice." Also in my experience, the amount of weight that most judges will give to one's testimony will hinge on how well one is able to articulate their opinion and able to make complex explanations understandable for a non-technical audience (which most judges are), and offer authoritative support for your opinion. In other words, your presentation typically matters far more than your qualifications.

Like most in this thread, I value and like to take advantage of continuing education opportunities. I know that many don't and even if they were forced to show up, still wouldn't take advantage (eyes open sleepers). Typically, discussions about CE requirements occur with everyone assuming that all licensed professionals have the option to go or not when there is no requirement. Strictly speaking in the broad sense, that's true.

As a practical matter, it may not be for some. I've had stingy employers in the past who were either very particular about what they were willing to send me to. I even had one who put such a low value on continuing ed that they not only would not pay, but wouldn't let me take vacation time to go and pay all expenses myself. I can't have been the only one to have experienced that. Yeah, I could have quit and looked for another job, but both money and the job market were tight at the time. Waddyagonnado?

Although I think a really good employer will recognize the value of CE for all of their employees who have a genuine interest in learning (I've had a couple of those too), a requirement for CEUs to keep your license active at least forces those stingy employers and those who place no value on education to send their licensees to CE opportunities. Or at the very least, allow them time to go get the CEUs on their own.

I'm at a point where I can tell an employer that I'm going to a seminar or a conference and tell them to stuff it if they try to prevent me. However, I'd be willing to wager there are many who are in a position similar to the one I was in 20ish years ago and can't get away with that and remain employed. While I recognize that there are several very valid arguments against a CE requirement, because of that last reason, I am in favor of mandatory CEs. As long as those who show up to nap rather than listen aren't snoring and drooling, I don't care if they get anything out of it or not. I just want to ensure particularly that newer and younger licensees have the opportunities to go learn.

[TTaylor]

Thank you, Evan, for your well
Stated response.

I've asked RIC for info supporting his statements around no correlation between CE and enforcement and have not received a response.

The reason I'm interested in Ric"s response is that many states have CE requirements for Land Surveyors and PEs not to mention many professions in CA and beyond have that requirement to maintain their license.

I want to know the basis for no correlation.

At the end of the day, I see no down side with professional LSs putting the effort in maintaining and upgrading their current knowledge on legal, boundary, and geodetic issued.

In the past, a previous governor didn't want CE requirements for a perceived hardship/shortage on the current
Licenced people.

The LS profession can be on the path of a trade or ..

[Ric7308]

I understand that. Kind of the same way as when I'm preparing to do some chore or fixit project around home, might have even been looking forward to it. Then Natasha comes along and tells me I need to do that very project before taking a moment to realize I'm already on it. Somehow, that project won't get done for several more weeks.

Haha, I love this and glad its not just me who reacts this way.

While I don't necessarily doubt this, I too would like to see the data. Anecdotally, it seems like it's probably true but I wouldn't want this reasoning to become of the same nature as the legislature & governor excuse. That is, a factoid that seems generally accepted but no one knows if it's actually true.

I've asked RIC for info supporting his statements around no correlation between CE and enforcement and have not received a response.

The reason I'm interested in Ric"s response is that many states have CE requirements for Land Surveyors and PEs not to mention many professions in CA and beyond have that requirement to maintain their license.

I want to know the basis for no correlation.

I wish I had research which correlates this so I could share it. I personally have queried my counterparts in the other 68 engineering/surveying boards which require continuing education for their licensees as to what led their Board/jurisdiction into implementing this requirement and the ones which responded all pretty much stated that the requirements had been in place so long, they no longer had information as to exactly why. And subsequently, they could not explain if better compliance with the practice had occurred or not since they did not have sufficient information from prior.

From what I recall, the little bit this Board had ever done to see if there was any correlation, very little if anything was found.

[Ian Wilson]

I believe Knut Hermansen had a graduate student who collected data from Boards across the country and found no difference between disciplinary actions before or after continuing education. I used to have that paper but have mislaid it over the years since I went on this same kick.

Bottom line: trades get seminars from their vendors; professionals get continuing education. Guess where most of our compatriots get their "larning'" from?

BTW - I've been at map reviews, interviews, and meetings for more than 9 hours, now. Put in 6 hours yesterday to help catch up on the backlog. For those tracking how much time the CS spends on here.

[TTaylor]

I suppose enforcement could be one bench mark provided all underlying assumptions are examined.

It is NOT the only factor in having CE for Land Surveyors.

For example, many proffesions require it to stay on top of the ever changing aspects to their profession both legally and new advances.

Also it enhances the perspective of the public and other professionals on the quality of Land Surveyors.

IMO, doing the ostrich thing while watching the demise of our profession is a bad approach.

[Ric7308]

I suppose enforcement could be one bench mark provided all underlying assumptions are examined.

It is NOT the only factor in having CE for Land Surveyors.

For example, many proffesions require it to stay on top of the ever changing aspects to their profession both legally and new advances.

Also it enhances the perspective of the public and other professionals on the quality of Land Surveyors.

IMO, doing the ostrich thing while watching the demise of our profession is a bad approach.

Not discounting your thoughts on other reasons why its important, it's really all about what the Legislature and Governor think are the primary factors.

[TTaylor]

Thanks, Ric.

I get that the governor and legislature has been the roadblock.

However, I don't get it.

A quick internet search of mandatory CE requirements of other professions in CA turns up doctors, nurses, architects, and lawyers to name just a few.
So, the governors and legislatures are not opposed to CE requirements for professionals just not for engineers and surveyors.

If legislation is needed for CE requirements I think good arguments could be made for those laws.

TT, PLS

*just interested in the sustainability of our profession and the increased positive perspective of what we do*