North Carolina bill would create a 'Limited' Professional Land Surveyor

LOL, Proof that in NC size matters. 

Is this a joke?  Why does how many lots in the subdivision matter?

If you dont need a full license to "conduct a perimeter survey of any tract of land." then what is the point? Level runs?  Construction staking? Let's give up now and let the GIS "proffesionals" tell people where their boundaries are. 

This makes zero sense, an Associates and a year and a half progressive experience?  How much "progressive experience" can a person have in that small of a time frame?

This proposal is absurd, at a year and a half of experience the applicant has not even scratched the surface of what they need to know and being book smart is no substitute for practical experience.

Tough to express in text how bad of an idea this is.

I'm sure the impetus behind this is somehow tied to the tantrum throwing rep that spearheaded the reduction in education/ experience requirements last year that *surprise* didn't result in a big wave of new licensees like they had hoped.

Higher average salary... that's the only thing that's going to entice more people into this profession.

I just hope there's no provision to allow a "limited licensee" to operate their own firm. We might be able to treat this as more of an upgrade for SI's rather than a downgrade for PLS's if NCSS can play their cards right/ not outright get this limited licensure removed from the bill entirely.

Like the bill sponsors, many legislators are involved in real estate-related businesses or investing. They want fast and cheap surveys. 

being book smart is no substitute for practical experience.

 

I agree, but would like to add that practical experience isn't a substitute for being book smart and this proposal assures neither. 

The bill doesn't require an associate degree, nor any experience.  In fact it doesn't require a high school diploma or equivalency either.  One could drop out of high school at 15, take an exam prep course, pass the exam, and go into business.

There is actually a good idea hidden in the bill.  If they get rid of the part about practicing, I mean that  defeats the rest of the law because it would be impossible to then get any progressive experience under supervision of an actual licensed surveyor.  But, if they got rid of that part, required all instead of just one of the degree/1 1/2 years/exam, called it a surveyor in training; then it would essentially reward someone for getting the degree and passing a technician exam after some experience.  Would reduce time to license exams (from 7 to 6 years) by 1 year for the effort of obtaining a degree and passing an exam, rather than merely working for someone for 7 years.  Sort of like they already do if in a recognized apprenticeship program rather than merely working for someone.

As written it basically eliminates land boundary surveying as a licensed profession.

This sucks.

As someone who is slowly climbing the ladder and in the middle now, I see this as the one darker reality I was wondering about when I was getting into the profession.

If they're allowed to lower the bar, as mentioned above, it basically will invalidate having a PLS PS RPLS.

Not immediately because it will take time (I predict 10 maybe 15 years tops) to roll out and validate across the country, but this is the direction I wondered that lawyers and realtors and title companies have been aiming for for the past few decades.

Luckily I've got a deep enough background in GIS I can matriculate or even just jump in and hit the ground running if need be, but would rather just go get a food truck if they're going to eliminate and dismiss the professional licensing for survey and let the engineers go deal with the work we will have been doing as all their own.  Good luck.

Horrible idea KILL IT NOW!

Prices have been so low, for so long, that NOBODY wanted to be a surveyor. Now, PRICES are going up, and the politicians and realtors are trying to get low grade surveyors back.

That's my explanation. (Kinda like Mtg Surveys.)

My answer is No. No way. Forever.

N

In an economic downturn they’ll get what they want and it won’t be just the old timers doing it.  I’m going to sit back and smile because I’ve seen it all before.

Doesn't seem so long ago, (15-20 years is a guess), that, in some states, an Assoc Degree and a couple years experience allowed one to take the exams for RLS. Why was it good enough then? There seems to be valid arguments for both - more/less stringent requirements, education and experience wise. Keeping in mind, the Exams aren't changing, allowing new surveyors into the profession would help some states'/areas' dire need for surveyors - particularly in the ballooning and fluctuating (and lucritive) real estate market - where i'm told, when they do get a sale, closing are backlogged Six Months because you can't find a surveyor to get the simple (no less important) lot survey done. I think the individuals' true desire and ambition to enter this unique field, and to stay in it, and their abilitities to grasp correct procedures, principles, practices, mathematics, and sound decision making - cannot be gauged by a 4 year bachelors and XXXX years experience - all Prior to even be allowed to take the Exams. People are different. Some know or have grasped more than others, before they take the exams, whether they studied 2 years or ten. Also, the apprenticeship depends on the surveyors/engineers they have trained (Worked) under. I stress worked, because, i doubt allot of training is going on - they are paid to do a job and it's basically up the the individual to persevere. Who gauges that training? How good of a surveyor was overseeing them. See, allot of factors.

Why do you think they have nurse practitioners? I think there is a place for improvement in the current requirements, and for those who can't get over their own ego long enough to see it, they can just sit on their throne and gripe.

Everyone is different, there are some so incompetent that they don't need to be practicing, some seem overwhelmingly knowledable on the trade, and some we don't know. As we judge Each Other, we all like to see ourselves in at least the upper tier of the profession. On the 'not so good' end of the 'lower requirements', i can see it creating more of a division and typecasting - "Look ive been doing this for 15 years and He's just a "Lite" Surveyor. Or, "Look, ive been doing this 3 years and know all the tricks and new tech equip, and He's an OLD Michelob "Lite" surveyor....

If it's like most every legislative decision, some will like it, some won't. You 'could' see it optimistically as having new life and interest in the field - Strengthening, and Keeping It a Field, - not merging it with GIS and other services. Or, you 'could' see it as have Somebody to scoff at, call Kid Lite, check subdiv plats to see if he's doing 12 lots instead of 11, and ridicule from your pedestal. "Small minds talk about people, greater minds, ideas".  Who knows, you Could' just try to do a Better Job at what You Do, and let it rock.

At least they will still have to get references from 3 surveyors. I wish it said 3 licensed surveyors from North Carolina, since this is the state they are trying to work in. Be a little easier to swallow. I worked here for 8 years before I got licensed and only knew 3 or 4 surveyors well enough to ask for their reference. 

Thanks NCSS for fighting.

I took some time early Easter Morning to write my State Senator and explain to him my concerns about the Bill. Our kids went to school together. We're not close or anything, but we are on a first name basis. In addition to voicing my concerns about the Bill I thought I should at least offer some suggestions to produce more PLSs in NC. I did not think very long about these but the idea was to give him something to think about other than the current proposal. Here is an excerpt from my email: