So what? That means the oversight isn't done right. It doesn't argue against licensure.
Actually, the source material used in the IJ studies does argue that because licensing does not improve quality (based on some sketchy research IMO) forgoing licensure may be a better choice in favor of "...alternative methods of protecting the public health and safety.".
To be clear, I think deregulation would be a huge boon to my bottom line. Find a few good lawyers to work with and make tons of money. I would make sure my hourly rates were double the fly-by-night guys. They would work 80 hours a week, I would work 20 fixing their problems (for those that could afford it) and make more money in the end.
But, I do not think it would be better for the people of my state.
@jon-payne quality measured by Yelp star reviews??? In addition to the issues you pointed out with this, I would assume their are very very few Yelp reviews for proffesional lamd surveying services done by the unlicensed.
I would be very, very skeptical - if not outright dismissive - of anyone who claims that they can accurately compare quality of surveys during the pre-licensure days versus quality of surveys in current licensure environment.
Even if it were distilled down to boundary surveying only (which is a dodge considering how much the landscape of surveying and geomatics has changed since statutory licensure was enacted), how could one possibly determine a viable metric by which to judge the two eras?
Deregulation is often pushed by entities for whom "harming the public" means "I have to pay more money for services so I get less profit" rather than "practitioners are disregarding best practices and throwing established boundaries into question".
@jon-payne quality measured by Yelp star reviews??? In addition to the issues you pointed out with this, I would assume their are very very few Yelp reviews for proffesional lamd surveying services done by the unlicensed.
Just to clarify, the source material and the IJ published items on licensure DO NOT (as far as I've seen) look specifically at licensing for professional land surveying. We are just swept up in the same groups as every required license because they make no distinction in applying the conclusions of their cited sources in claiming that licensure does nothing and actually may hinder even when their cited sources only looked at specific licenses (and did that questionably IMO).
@jon-payne Another failure by those goofballs is lumping occupational and professional licensing together..
@ric-moore I'm not sure I understand the purpose of your question. Would it matter if the answer was 1 state or 12 states or 0 states?
I guess my question was that once you begin to practice boundary surveying in multiple states around the country, you may begin to notice that boundary laws which affect the location of property lines as it applies to methodology and evidence, differ quite a bit.
@ric-moore Absolutely! I track legislation, board activity, and major case developments where I am active. It's a huge commitment...
Another failure by those bureaucrats
@jon-payne Another failure by those goofballs is lumping occupational and professional licensing together..
I think perhaps we have done this to ourselves.
@jon-payne I was thinking KY already did this. At the TAPS convention this year someone came and talked about it. You have to have a NCEES record and they send you the State Specific Laws and your license. I haven't done it because I'm not sure I want to go through with making a record. I'd probably have to hire a PI to track down people I had worked for early on in my career.
@makerofmaps What you heard at the TAPS convention and what the original poster was discussing from proposed legislation in New Hampshire (and I mentioned was also being discussed in Kentucky) are two similar, but different items.
Kentucky has removed the state specific testing phase and replaced it with an affirmation that you have read and understand the state laws they send to you. Apparently, the state exam pass rate was virtually 100% and there was some concern with how statute language was written in regards to requiring the state exam once computer based testing became the norm for the FS and PS exams and the state specific was no longer being administered by NCEES. However, you still have to meet the requirements that were in place in Kentucky at the time you received your first state license in order to receive your license by endorsement. So we (Kentucky) already have a pretty easy means of recognizing another license, even if some folks may not like the increased level of requirements for qualification as the years moved forward.
The legislation the OP brought up goes further than that and states that as long as you have a license in one state, you only need apply and pay a small fee then you will be licensed in the state accepting the universal license idea (as long as the legislature does not include a clause that requirements for licensure be substantially similar).
Currently: a licensee from another state that received their first license in 2020 would be expected to meet the 2020 requirements in Kentucky - degree, experience, exams.
If a universal degree acceptance is enacted w/o a substantially similar clause: a licensee from another state could potentially (although I expect it is rare) receive their initial license in 2020 based on 6-years of experience and passing the two national exams. Then apply to get their license here and be accepted because universal licensure acceptance requires it. In state applicants going for their initial license would still be required to meet the statutory expectations for education, experience, and exams - or simply try to circumvent the current requirements by testing in another state with less stringent requirements.
For surveying and engineering it is, at worst case, a matter of if or which type of degree your state requires that might be cut out and possibly up to four years less experience when forced to accept out of state licenses. As far as I know, every state has some amount of experience required and the two exams required for either land surveying or engineering. For land surveying, it is more of a matter of if a degree is required, but for engineering, it becomes which degree is required (I think several states still accept a technology degree). Down the road, engineering might see a glut of applicants from engineering technology graduates who suddenly are allowed to become licensed based on bringing a license in from a state that recognizes their technology degree.
For other licensed occupations or professions, it might be much different as there are ideas of having practiced an occupation/profession that is licensed in one state but not licensed in another state. In those instances, proof of one year of unlicensed (because it wasn't required) practice in one state is enough to get a license in a state that requires licensing of that profession/occupation no matter what education, experience, or exams were required in the licensing jurisdiction.
