The issues of time and money often become interchangeable. Possible billable hours can be lost and courses often cost money.  Sticking to the profession of architecture, possibly 12 or more billable hours a year could be lost when preparing for, traveling to, and/or attending continuing professional education (CPE) courses.  It is easy to lose billable hours especially when the architect chases after required MCE hours without focusing their attention towards their practice.  Call it marketing research if you will, but when the courses sought are related to a project that the architect is working on or the work they are seeking, these hours are not wasted. 

A criticism expressed often concerning continuing education providers, they just want to make money.  Harvard University annually offers a wonderful summer continuing education series and generally the prices for such courses range from $1000 - $3000.  Last year from just the 2600+ AIA/CES Providers, collectively they offered more than 40,000 different CPE courses.  More than 60% of these continuing education were free.  These courses included both traditional instruction and a growing number of web based.  When we mention these facts, a response from architects generally comes back, “but the free courses are not of the same quality.”  As an architect you know, you get what you pay for.  How many pro bono hours can you as an architect afford to perform before those hours begin to affect your business?  The reality, there are some very poor high priced courses and there are some very good free courses.  Most important, does the course help you meet your needs?  You should take continuing education so that it will improve your projects, your research, or maybe your marketing.  If you are only spending money to meet an hour requirement, you are not making the best use of your time or money.  

We frequently hear from architects that the AIA only implemented the continuing education requirements to make more money.  From the AIA Components and universities we hear that the can not compete because there are too many CES Providers offering free courses.  And from the CES Providers offering free courses we hear that they have difficulty reaching the architects.  There must be a communication somewhere because personally, I am not sure where this circle starts or ends. 

Value

Is education a waste of time?  Most architects attend undergraduate school for 5 years.  They often spend 5- 10 more years as emerging architects in some type of intern program.  So let’s follow the logic here. Should someone be allowed to become and architect with out a college degree?  So, a college degree = knowledge and provides the basic foundation to be an architect.  The graduate then struggles for a number of years interning to learn the practical nuances of the architectural profession and gets registered.  This all takes 10-15 years.  Once the architect becomes registered, further education is no longer necessary and it then becomes a waste of time?

Did you ever stop to think why your insurance provider is willing to offer you a premium discount, as long as you take their risk management continuing education course?  The answer is simple, insurance companies are generous.  Most of us have experienced that generosity first had when we filed a claim with our insurance carrier.  What the insurance companies learned long ago was that continuing education works.  If you the architect take a continuing education course from your insurance carrier, your claims statistically will be reduced, more than the premium discount that you receive. 

The segment of the architect profession that has begun to gain the most benefit from the requirement of continuing professional education (CPD) is within the architecture firms.  For most of the later half of the 20^th century an architecture firm’s CPD consisted of which ever manufacturer who brought into the firm lunch was considered the training department.  The better the lunch the manufacture provider, the longer the training (sales) sessions they were allowed to provide.  In a rare instance the manufacturer timed it so that the lunch (training session) actually met the need of the firm.   We still see this practice in firms today. When the AIA introduced their learning units (LU) requirements in the mid 1990’s we began to document a change of behavior.  The change looked something like this: 

Lunch > LU’s > Need

As the states began to require MCE many of the architecture firms began to place more time and emphasis on their internal CPD.  The firms began to focus more on their mentoring programs, their staff retention efforts, their recruitment practices, and their staff development as it related to tasks, skills, and more recently, their projects.  The documented change looks something like this: 

Needs > Lunch > LU’s

Change of Behavior

What is the primary argument for not requiring mandatory continuing education?  It causes architects the burden of documentation and accountability. When the state licensing boards began to require mandatory continuing education, it changed the behavior of the architect, especially what courses they take.  For 25 years, the most popular, top 10 attended courses at the AIA National Convention has been marketing, presentation skills, working with clients, leadership, and how to improve your business practice.  These are all good subjects and important to the architect’s professional career. Only since the majority of the state licensing boards began requiring MCE have we see a change of what courses architects take at the AIA National Convention.  In 2007, the top 10 attended sessions started with Green Building, Preventing Moisture, Sustainable Design, America’s New Regionalism, 100 Years since the San Fran earthquake. Rarely did you ever see sessions attended on Sustainability and HSW prior to 2000.  If the state licensing boards want to change the behavior pattern of design professionals, mandatory continuing education is an effective way to do so.