As an architect in practice I believe the mandatory continuing education requirement is not practical and unnecessary.  Architect practice increasingly involves many specialty areas with little commonality.  Today most architects have to specialize.  In my view it is impracticable to design a curriculum that meets the needs of more than a small minority of architects with two exceptions: (1) the Building Code, and (2) professional ethics.  The former is being met by every architect as a matter of professional survival; the latter is not teachable. Of necessity then, to met the requirement, most architects would simply be subscribing to the most convenient, least time-consuming, or most inexpensive courses.  This is exactly what has happened with the similar requirement imposed by the AIA.  Few professions require such extensive hours of work as architecture or offer one which is so financially unrewarding.  This requirement adds one more demand for time and cost, especially in that it will involve additional travel for most architects.  Further, the requirement is unnecessary -- architects are professionals who will keep themselves updated on technologal and regulatory developments and changes.  Beyond the pride as a professional, self-preservation in practice requires it.  Despite today's litigious climate, I am aware of almost no cases of architectural malpractice and none that resulted from a failure to keep abreast of developments in the field.  If that is perceived to be a problem, surely there are less burdensome means of solving the problem.