Point/Counterpoint: Has Mandatory CE Improved Product Knowledge?

Has mandatory continuing education improved product knowledge in the insurance industry?

YES.

When I first became licensed in 1984, there was no mandatory CE requirement. Sadly, some agents seemed satisfied to learn no more about insurance than what it took to pass a basic pre-licensing course.

Perhaps that helps explain why for years, insurance agents have barely ranked above car salesmen and politicians in occupational prestige. That all begin to change in the mid-1990s when most states began to require CE.

Let’s face it: Ours is a complicated business. In an effort to make policy forms easier to read, they have become harder to understand. Who hasn’t struggled to explain co-insurance, define what constitutes a flood, prepare a business income worksheet, understand the “faulty workmanship” exclusion or wrestle with the meaning of
a “third party over” action?

Insurance professionals need to understand the policies they sell—especially since they are often sued for not providing the coverage their customers need or expect. This demands product knowledge that CE provides.

I have attended many CE classes over the years. I can attest that no matter how boring the instructor or the subject, I have learned something every time—sometimes a little; sometimes a lot. I have also taught more than 600 classes over the past 25 years. Based on the reactions I routinely get from seasoned insurance professionals, I can unequivocally state that CE has improved the product knowledge of those agents.

Without a mandatory CE requirement, there would be little motive or opportunity to gain that crucial knowledge, apart from costly trial and error. By attending challenging classes taught by competent instructors, agents become more informed and knowledgeable than they would otherwise be.

—Michael Gay, president, Michael Gay Consulting LLC

NO.

Mandatory CE has become a victim of its intrinsic shortcomings and some unintended consequences—resulting in a system that fails to provide the requisite results for three reasons:

Regulatory shortcomings. Snopes, a website designed to verify urban legends and popular rumors, has evolved into the de facto source and final word on the validity of any claim made online. But who “Snopes” Snopes? Research the team behind the phenomenon and you discover a husband and wife with no background in research or investigation.

Likewise, many in the insurance industry consider regulators—including contract service providers—to be the final authoritative word on whether a CE outline is correct. Often, the “authorities” reviewing the courses don’t have the necessary background to verify the information’s accuracy.

Provider apathy. Guitar players, banjo pickers and standup comedians have thrown their hat into the insurance CE ring. Sometimes these acts are a PR gimmick, but sometimes these “education providers” entertain because they don’t have any real substance to offer. Some states have even ceased vetting individual instructors, intensifying this problem.

Another source of provider apathy: web-based CE. Theoretically, it’s a great idea—technology should be used to accomplish training goals. The problem is not the use of technology, but how agents “play” it. Agents earning six or more hours of CE while spending only one or two hours online is a corruption of why mandatory CE first came to be.

Student apathy. The true culprit here is us. Under the current scheme, the only requirement to maintain an insurance license is the ability to endure CE classes or online CE training. “Students” are not required to prove they learned anything—the sole requisite is to stay awake and feign attention for a certain number of hours.

Today, CE is a cash cow for regulators and providers, and it’s the path of least resistance for agents. If this failed system goes unchanged, the “dumbing down” of agents will continue—ultimately leading to the total commoditization of insurance.

—Christopher J. Boggs, director, Big “I” Virtual University