I like the provision to give the legal right of entry, but the rest may end up driving potential surveyors away, as pay takes a race downward as a result. My time is nearing an end, but my oldest son has 6 years of mentorship with me, a 2 year degree, and has just passed the FS exam, and I can't but think how it will affect him.
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.
I do not know the regulations in all states, but I doubt that claim is true of any state even 15-20 years ago if you are using "couple" in the ordinarily understood meaning of two. Everything I have ever seen has been a minimum of 6-7 years (various combinations of formal education and supervised experience) to sit for the licensing exams.
So are you stating that a 2 -year degree plus 2 years experience was all that was required to sit for the licensing exam in some states 15-20 years ago? What states are/were allowing that short a time?
Keeping in mind, the Exams aren't changing,
They certainly are changing, both in terms of concentration of content and breadth of materials covered. The more modern review books cover much more than the material that was on the exams when I took them. Some topics that come to mind quickly, which weren't covered all that long ago might include LiDAR, BIM, drones, several sections in business practices, and more content on GIS and imagery than used to be included.
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.
On an individual level, I agree with some of your sentiment, but licensing has to cover a profession not an individual. Even passing the exam is not a good indicator of one's abilities as some people are able to pass such exams without really knowing what they are doing, just being good at test taking.
With three requirements (education, experience, examination) in place, licensing boards should be able to reasonably expect that there was development into a professional practitioner. Is that always so? No, but again it is a general case not an individual case.
As an aside, some places allow taking the fundamentals exam prior to completing a 4-year degree (based on having at least 12 hours of surveying coursework completed) on your way to the degree and the principles and practice exam can be taken prior to completing your experience, but a license isn't issued until the experience requirement is met. This timing varies by state.
Boundary Surveys are hands and knees in briars and 90 degree weather, digging a hole in the ground, behind a 6' fence that you just scaled: then finding 3 corners and deciding which one to put your seal behind. After hours of property research and calculations to prepare you for the project. And years of experience doing both. Never easy to do them right.
I wonder if E/O underwriters will be covering these fresh new boundary Surveyors? I'm sure whatever is said by PLS's and Societies will be seen by some as protectionism, but, there are common sense reasons for systems and practices that have been around for decades. I wish I had a solution to bring in more young folks to the profession.
Full deregulation would be better than what is proposed.
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.
As someone a year or so away from meeting the requirements for the state license. This fills me with dread and disappointment. Why did I waste all that time and money on school and studying on weekends. Hopefully the state goes the right way but I am not hopeful.
@dmyhill Be careful what you ask for. Our idiot Governor is crippling our Board more every day. Sad...
It’s time to have a license for those who do boundary surveying and a license for those who don’t. A construction surveyor has to have very little knowledge of the law. I can’t prove it but based on the trend towards pincushioning, I believe we have surveyors getting licensed who have spent the greater part of their career doing construction surveying and someone signed off on their experience when they shouldn’t have.
Young guys who want to get licensed as land boundary surveyor’s deserve to know what the odds are of them getting the experience they need beyond becoming expert technician’s.
@fairbanksls I agree. I know a PHD geodesist that can't pass the FS. His brain doesn't work that way. I have no problem recognizing him as a professional, but I don't want him winging mathemagical boundaries all over the place
I equate this to allowing open heart surgery without completion of the last high level courses of Medical School and only a third of a Doctors residency requirements. Post 2013 inclusion of CPs (tested) and GISP (pre2013 no testing requirement) by letter application, this is a continuation on the attack of the profession. I am doing my part by proctoring CST opportunities and bringing up younger PLS's, but this is just a axe to the knees...
I read this as also possibly moving from a High School Diploma plus 2 years Associates while concurrently gaining 1.5 yrs progressive experience at which "Limited" requirements are met. Imagine a 20 yr old with "Limited" License but not able to buy a beer.
@jon-payne Most major Geomatics Programs in the East have the Examination passing as part of Graduation requirements.
Here's an update from the North Carolina Society of Surveyors:
Update From the Executive Committee of NCSS Regarding Senate Bill 677
As most of you are aware by now, Senate Bill 677 (S677), which impacts surveyor licensure requirements, was filed on April 6th (see timeline below). The Executive Committee met again this morning with all 3 registered lobbyists through McGuireWoods: Kerri Burke, Sarah DuBose, and Dylan Frick to further discuss strategy moving forward as we address these concerns. We want to communicate openly with our membership so that you are assured that we are fervently working on your behalf. This demonstrates the need for professional associations and professional lobbyists.The Executive Committee has decided that the best strategy to prevent S677 from becoming law is to allow our lobbyists to use their expertise and contacts to address members of the North Carolina General Assembly (NCGA). They have a clear picture of the dangers of this legislation to the public and to the small surveying businesses across NC. Your lobbyists will contact NCGA members as soon as they return from their spring recess on Monday, April 17th.
Just do what Massachusetts did. In a few years perhaps you will go to a Board meeting so they can flip a coin to see if you get licensed.
- The Board discussed concerns about the state-specific jurisprudence exam for applicants for Professional Land Surveying licensure. In December 2019, the Board discussed the issue and the exam committee made an initial recommendation to reduce the number of questions on this exam from 50 to 40. Board member Dennis Drumm, PLS, made a motion to reduce the number of questions from 50 to 40, keeping the same 2 hour exam time. The motion passed unanimously with one board member recusing herself from the discussion and vote.
I do not know the regulations in all states, but I doubt that claim is true of any state even 15-20 years ago if you are using "couple" in the ordinarily understood meaning of two. Everything I have ever seen has been a minimum of 6-7 years
What you mean is, you don't know the History of the changes, to the regulations in all the states are/were - finding out the Current status would take minutes. Doubt is your perogative, but don't doubt it because it's not what you want to hear. I'm sure if you had enough time, and 4 paralegals, you could find where every state in the union made changes to their code of laws. I said it 'seems' and it was a 'guess' timewise, but you can pretend it was never so. And Yes, a couple is still 2 these days.
They certainly are changing, both in terms of concentration of content and breadth of materials covered. The more modern review books cover much more than the material that was on the exams when I took them. Some topics that come to mind quickly, which weren't covered all that long ago might include LiDAR, BIM, drones, several sections in business practices, and more content on GIS and imagery than used to be included.
Of course things can and will change. You take it out of context to try to make a the statement incorrect, or to tought your great knowledgable opinion. Maybe i should have said the exams aren't changing at present and in direct relation to the bill in the discussion, but i would assume you would already know what the discussion was about.
On an individual level, I agree with some of your sentiment, but licensing has to cover a profession not an individual. Even passing the exam is not a good indicator of one's abilities as some people are able to pass such exams without really knowing what they are doing, just being good at test taking
Not sure what point you're trying to make, but, No, licensing of a profession has to cover individuals. And the individuals it has to cover are Not Just the existing surveyors, the soon to be surveyors, or kids kicking daddy's transit. Licensing has to cover the whole tax paying, and tax evading populous, i.e. Everyone. The laws are constructed for everyone, not just the guy that scratched his way to the top (of what you might ask), and now 'may' sense a 'perceived' potential degradation in his/her self worth. If you think beyond the licensing issue, you will imagine that there are Laws intact to KEEP the practicing professional IN or OUT of this field - If, in fact, the individual is not up to the task of doing competent work. I'm sure you've heard of revoked licenses. Why not worry not so much about who, and how long it took, the poor joe, that doesn't realize he's entering into a field of no return, like falling through a trap door, that he will never get out of, like the twilight zone (with BB BD DD intersections, cadd rotate-render-explode), because i would think 99.xxxx% of folks don't carry the anti-change sentiment that the 'professionals' do. These 'folks' want good doctors (wonder why) and they want good engineers & surveyors, but, being you know more - about what they need, maybe you should decide for them. I'm just looking and both sides or the coin, and the ridges... and, back to 'Doubt', i dought requirements will revert, as much as i doubt you will take your computer to Goodwill, and find your lettering guide and hp41. Like i said before, ask yourself how good is Your work, before you predict how some individual's (that the licensing was Not about) work is going to spoil Your good name. Now, if that wasn't what you liked readin, why'd ya read it! lol x5.55
Thanks, I hadn't read a good word salad + random capitalization post in a while.
Other than the right of entry provision of the proposed legislation, I think the NC Board is heading to a real slippery slope and creating a workload and possible litigation defense on a lot of the registration requirements. While the concept of submitting past work examples for candidates sounds good, what judgement baseline would a board member or worse yet a state administrative clerk have to judge that the examples proved any competency. Like porn? "I can't tell you an exact definition, but I would know a good survey if I saw one" just like I know what a porn is. What happens when they fail an application registrant based on the submitted work? Back in the early 1980's when I got registered, I had to submit several essay responses to questions about boundary survey work. The AELS board got sued multiple times for denying applicants, and they dropped the requirements because it could not be defended as being anything but subjective and opinion and was a potential excuse to be an "old boy club" and be selective about who sat for the test.
I do however support a path to registration for those with an associate degree in surveying and suitable progressive land surveying experience including 2 years of being in responsible charge as well as the confirming 3 references of existing Land Surveyors. When Alaska last had that option in the registration requirements, I believe it was an associate degree and an additional 8 years of experience. IMHO I don't think the bachelor's degree is a save all guarantee that the graduate has much land surveying education as specific classes in these curriculums are pretty insignificant and on par with the associate degree requirements.
