A colleague of mine at work asked me why I am always studying as though I am preparing to take another exam. However, I think that one of the worst things that we can do as security professionals is to pass the CISSP or other high-level security exam and study less thereafter. I think that we should hit the books harder AFTER we have been successful passing the CISSP. What makes a ‘paper’ CISSP or other security professional is that lack of follow through. The CISSP, at least, is an exam that one should treat like a PhD or any other terminal degree. Your body of work isn’t complete just because you have that certification framed, in fact, your journey has only begun. The security bodies of knowledge are forever changing, and we must be prepared to meet those challenges of tomorrow.
Michael @emb021, Diana @dcontesti, and Grandpa Rob @rslade have each challenged my position that leadership or service positions in professional society chapters should not qualify for CPE credit. Your posts have caused me to think more on the topic and modify my position. I have for years considered the professional education phrase as referring to education in the central aspects of the profession, defined for CISSPs in the domains of the CBK.
However, many in the technical fields have increasingly come to recognize that technical knowledge and skill is worthless without an ability to take action and implement the results of such skills. For this reason, many across the engineering, technical, and scientific arenas have been increasing the focus on balancing technical skills with so-called soft skills. In almost any environment, the leadership and management skills for planning, organizing, communicating, directing, coordinating actions with a team are essential to actual success. As Diana implied, these skills come to bear when involved in professional society service and leadership positions, both at the chapter and at the society level.
With the above logic I hereby withdraw my assertion of bribery for service as the basis for society service CPE credit. However, now I wonder should such service be identified as a third CPE category, Type C, and limited to a reasonable proportion of the total 120 credit requirement, just as Type B general skill credits are limited? It seem that some proportion of the 120 credits should always be Type A domain-linked education.
...should such service be identified as a third CPE category, Type C...
It might be instructive to review page 8 of the CPE handbook and then contrast your proposed Type-C vs the existing Group-B. At the moment, I struggle to understand how there would be sufficient distinction to make it worth managing a whole new category.
One might also note that page 18 uses "Chapter formation or management" as an example of an activity that already qualifies for Group-B. Given that Group-B caps at 33%, the official rules might just be at the position that you are proposing.
Incidentally, I have always had great respect for those that are willing to be swayed by a good discussion. It is an important and natural outcome of lifelong learning. Thanks for letting us know that Diana and others have swayed your opinion. I too am open to such swaying.
I don't see the value of created a "Group C" set of CPEs.
Softskills and leadership experience/training already falls into Group B, which is limited. That should be enough.
I wouldn't want anyone to get all their CPEs completed with non-technical CPEs. But they should get some credit for this.