70% of 50 is 35, 70% of 40 is 28. I now have 2 hours to correctly answer 28 questions not 2 hours to answer 35 questions correctly. You have also diluted the pool of questions to test the candidate on. Less questions, less breadth and depth of material a candidate risks being exposed to. The exam has been structured with 50 questions, for how long I cannot say. Why if the current pool of test takers cannot pass the exam is the solution to structure the exam in a less rigorous fashion? I could care less how many people have a license, the more the better. I am not in professional practice; it is not a business issue. Why is the solution to this issue to dilute the entrance to licensure? Suppose the American Medical Association dropped 20% of the Medical Licensing Exam, good idea? I just think it was a bad first reaction.
@jph From reading the Board's minutes there was a concern not enough people were passing the MA state specific exam. The passing rate was from 30% to 50% from what I can deduce from the minutes. The Massachusetts exam is not a recitation of statutes and regulations, I have heard it called a practical or applied exam. To solve the problem (so called) of people failing the exam the Board decreased the number of questions on the exam. The Board also stated this will not harm the quality of the exam. So now more people will pass and we will have more licenses. I guess if the passing rate stays low they will revisit the problem (so called) and drop another ten questions.
This is not an appropriate course of action according to all the test experts (psychometricians) I've ever worked with. If true, shows that MA Board does not produce a state exam which could be considered legally defensible by testing industry standards.
I'd rather have 50 easy questions than 40 hard questions. So, it all depends on how intense and comprehensive the questions are.
Most of the tests I've taken, time wasn't an issue. I had to force myself to sit for the entire time period, and went through the questions at least twice.
Usually, there isn't a lot of math on a LS exam, so it's judgement. And more time doesn't usually sharpen your judgement.
That said, if the reason for this action was to increase the passing rate, I agree, it was a bad decision.
That said, if the reason for this action was to increase the passing rate, I agree, it was a bad decision.
Unfortunately this seems to be the trend. Rather than targeting the root cause (if the same test is not producing the same rate of passing scores as in the past, clearly it's not the test that is the problem), we take the easy way out and change the test.
Washington recently went the other way and added questions instead of taking them away. But regardless of whether the decision is to add or take away, state codes and statutes change at a glacial pace, and so do the fundamental concepts that one needs to competently practice land surveying.
(I remember a question or two on the state-specific that was so poorly written, three out of the four answers could have reasonably been selected. But that's why they review and adjust before finalizing scores and posting results...)
It's worse than I thought. Senator McInnis is emotionally charged on this issue. He has done his research and fully understands the details of PLS licensure and I've been told that he's committed to throwing all his considerable weight at this issue. He's a particularly powerful majority whip and has indicated he'll leverage other politicians on this issue. This is all rumor, but it came from folks directly involved.
What is it about paying surveyors that is so galling to folks?
I'm not even fifty and I'm already worn out from constantly having to justify every action I make. I'm not sure I'd recommend land surveying to anyone with other options.
Another example of "legislators know best":
This is right next to one of our state universities that has a surveying program.
What is it about paying surveyors that is so galling to folks?
Because the lawyers, title companies, banks and realtors say it's supposed to only cost a couple hundred dollars, tops.
sounds like the legislative people need to start looking into the collusion of the whole housing and realty industry and oh wait the DOJ has been but it's still not prosecuted or grand juries the thing yet...hurry up dammit.
It started when Surveyors let the real estate industrial complex and banking industry define a work product commonly known as a “mortgage survey.” Just like a puppie mill those who chose to specialize in that market lowered the general public’s idea of what a quality work product should cost. Just say NO.
Good News from the NC Society of Surveyors:
Senate Bill 677 had its first hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee today at 2:00pm. We are pleased to inform you that the licensing changes we opposed were removed. Co-Chair Senator Danny Britt signed the amended bill upon the request of bill sponsor Senator Steve Jarvis. We would also like to thank Senators Warren Daniel, Buck Newton, and all members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Right of Entry proposal passed unanimously.
A win for now, but it surely won't be the last time we'll need to rally.
@tfdoubleyou Good news. Now somebody needs to get to work on Idaho and Nevada...
NCSS did a great job fighting for surveyors in this state. Thanks to everyone who worked on this.
The outer perimeter of a tract of land - Boundary - is often one of the most complex things a surveyor does.
Unfortunately, few understand that and think it is among the most simple.
Even more unfortunately, much of that misunderstanding is within our own ranks.
Feeling a bit cynical today but by the way I've seen many conduct their surveys and conduct their businesses in recent years, it often seems most licensed surveyors don't approach either in a professional manner, so maybe this legislation wouldn't make much difference in the big picture of surveying.
