I believe most of us who earn our living in the engineering field would agree that once the engineering and science fundamentals are acquired and understood, first hand experience is the most effective teacher.  If not true, why the emphasis on getting on the job experience after taking the EIT but before taking the PE exam? 

Over the years I have acquired more than my share of advanced education, attended symposia, participated in professional organizations, kept up with technical journals, etc.  All of this is voluntary on my part.  I would not say that continuing education has less standing than the examples just cited but I don't place any higher value on it.  In my opinion and in my experience, continuing education is too often over rated, minimally effective, overly costly, under regulated and generally not time efficient.  Who will certify the classes, to what standard, ensure quality of instruction, etc?  The quality control part of the instruction always seems to get most overlooked.

The general assumption here seems to be that more is better.  Well sometimes more is just more.  The professional student or those who just seem to have excessive time on their hands for endeavors other than work, will probably welcome the time away from work, especially if they get paid to do so.  Fortunately, I don't know many engineers that fit those categories.  Most I know are hard working individuals advancing the craft through hard work in research, development and application.  I've learned far more on the job than in any classroom and I've given back a hundred fold by training and mentoring younger engineers on the job.

By their very nature, regulatory agencies feel they must regulate to remain relevant and engaged.  I have no doubt that those who envisioned this initiative are well intentioned and making a positive impact.  However, I don't believe there is a problem of significance here requiring a solution.  More likely, this concept will create many problems and hardships for individuals forced to comply with the new rule, while gaining litle tangible benefit.  And you get to look forward to repeating the process regularly for the balance of your profesional career.  As a professional educator, my wife is already subjected to this and knows the down side.  On the other hand, academia will reap a huge windfall with many thanks to the regulators.  As  a fellow public servant, I think I can speak with more than than a little credibility on this subject.

There is an economic aspect as well.  Outlays for tution, books, transportation, etc may or may not be reimbursed.  The full value cannot always be offset on taxes.  I doubt anyone's salary will go up as a result of taking continuing education.  Some may have to take vacation time away from work or, worse, take unpaid time off from work to comply.  Where's the incentive or return on investment?

Should this rule enter force, I for one would probably let my license lapse, even though I plan to remain active in the engineering discipline for at least another decade.  That would be both a shame and an injustice.  I worked very hard to achieve my license, I have never abused it, and I've carefully maintained it most of my adult life.  Now I'm being told that is not enough and I may not have any choice in the matter.  Where's the fairness in that?