I found this interesting.
Supreme Court Case on Dentists
The case boils down to whether the professional board is trying to limit competition based on self interest rather than protecting the public.
In a very few years I can see a similar argument being made about surveying boards. This particularly when there is a shortage of PLS's and the boards are trying to make it more difficult to obtain a license.
Now before anyone flames me let me be clear. I'm not saying standards should be dropped so just anyone can get a license, only that there are some arguments that some will make when they have real difficulty getting home loans closed because of a lack of surveyors.
Larry P
Larry,
If I read the case correct, the dentist board in question is elected from among the states licensed dentists. The argument being they are merely a self governing trade society.
In the case of the states I'm licensed in, the boards are appointed by the Governor and include members of the general public as well as Engineers and Surveyors.
> Now before anyone flames me let me be clear. I'm not saying standards should be dropped so just anyone can get a license, only that there are some arguments that some will make when they have real difficulty getting home loans closed because of a lack of surveyors.
There have been serious, if not whole persuasive (at least to me, but hey I'm no capitalist), arguments against professional licensure for al song as I've been alive.
The overthrow of the medieval guild system was an indispensable early step in the rise of freedom in the Western world. It was a sign of the triumph of liberal ideas, and widely recognized as such, that by the mid-nineteenth century, in Britain, the United States, and to a lesser extent on the continent of Europe, men could pursue whatever trade or occupation they wished without the by-your-leave of any governmental or quasi-governmental authority. In more recent decades, there has been a retrogression, an increasing tendency for particular occupations to be restricted to individuals licensed to practice them by the state.
-Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, 1962.
> Larry,
>
> If I read the case correct, the dentist board in question is elected from among the states licensed dentists. The argument being they are merely a self governing trade society.
>
> In the case of the states I'm licensed in, the boards are appointed by the Governor and include members of the general public as well as Engineers and Surveyors.
John, my understanding is similar to yours. While trade societies play a role in lobbying the Governor's Office for appointments, the final decision is still the Governor. In California our board is comprised of 15 members, 7 of which are licensed representatives, with the remaining 8 (majority) as public members which are not associated with licensees. I believe quite a few boards from other states may only have 1 public member if that.
While many in California are following these proceedings, the outcome should not affect us due to our laws and the makeup of the boards. In many ways, we already have the proper checks and balances in place. I expect your state would be similar.
I think there should be a basic surveying license, plus a requirement to also qualify for endorsements to that license in the areas you will practice in: boundary, construction, photogrammetry, hydrology, etc. The idea of passing one test on everything is not efficient. Surveyors are supposed to limit their practice to what they are qualified in, and separating specialties would help quantify that.
At a minimum boundary should be separated from other specialties and taught by law departments, not engineering departments.
>
> In the case of the states I'm licensed in, the boards are appointed by the Governor and include members of the general public as well as Engineers and Surveyors.
The same it true here. But that does not mean storm clouds aren't on the horizon. Licensing of many professions will come under increased scrutiny in the coming years. I believe this is particularly true with professions where the number of practitioners drops below the level required to fill the basic public need at a price the public equates to the value of the service provided.
Larry P
> >
> > In the case of the states I'm licensed in, the boards are appointed by the Governor and include members of the general public as well as Engineers and Surveyors.
>
>
> The same it true here. But that does not mean storm clouds aren't on the horizon. Licensing of many professions will come under increased scrutiny in the coming years. I believe this is particularly true with professions where the number of practitioners drops below the level required to fill the basic public need at a price the public equates to the value of the service provided.
>
> Larry P
Larry, I believe you are located in NC if I am not mistaken where you have a pretty active board and a very good and competent Executive Director. Even so, 7 of your 9 total board members represent the licensing seats with only 2 as public members. Many states only have 1 public member and very few have more than 2 or a majority like California does. It is my understanding that your state's dental board only has 1 public member and that person is not allowed to vote on board matters. It becomes very difficult for outsiders to view this board as thinking "protect the public" first rather than the licensed population. I'm not saying they are or are not doing this, it is just a matter of public perception and situations like this case are not helping matters. The board may be thinking they are conducting themselves appropriately.
To your other point about declining numbers, yes I believe I understand where you are coming from with that and there are states that are concerned with declining numbers entering the profession. It is a real concern but I don't believe it is to the level of the public not needing land surveyors yet. I know that several states, including California, still have a positive increase in the number of licensees in all of our engineering and surveying licenses but one. For some reason Mechanical Engineers have decreased pretty substantially over the last 10+ years most likely due to industrial exemptions.
Good discussion.
Good. The vast majority of state licensing is nothing more than forcing practitioners to bow before the cartel. Very few professions should be licensed.
George Will had a good column on this issue a few days ago:
I don't always agree with Will but as usual he makes some good points (why the hell
DO we license cosmetologists?).
Because someone got a bad makeup job and think that licensing will fix the problem.
The official reason, of course, is to protect the health of the public. However, I haven't seen the exams and somehow doubt that they are all about health.
:pinch:
I'd certainly prefer to have someone handling sharp objects near my face or putting chemicals on my head to be licensed.
Forty percent of the California test in on "scientific concepts" which includes questions on infection control, first aid, chemistry, anatomy, etc.
Nail care, because you can easily break the skin and cause infection, generally requires using new kits per customer, or serious disinfection/sterilization. Even though I don't bother to do it, I can see the point of them being licensed too.
