Talk to each other

?ÿ

?ÿ

I see that Idaho has a similar statement in their Rules as my State:

Each Licensee and Certificate Holder shall exercise such care, skill and diligence as others in that profession ordinarily exercise under like
circumstances.ƒ?

?ÿ

On the face of it, that sounds good -?ÿ believe that Knud Hermanson may have originated this concept some years ago. The problem I have with it is that there is a sinking level of competency and performance by licensees. I see more and more infractions, infringements and total lack of care by licensees with increasing frequency. Doesn't this mean that the "ordinary standard of care" is dropping? I recently submitted a complaint to my Board involving what I considered to be an appalling lack of comprehension of extremely basic surveying principles (such as showing bearings and distances between found monuments, etc.) The review committee didn't seem to think there was all that much wrong with it, saying they thought that this was more a territorial difference in procedures that anything else, and may issue a letter of concern and a small fine. I am appalled - I?ÿ expected them to order the licensee to correct the survey and undergo peer review for the next year, if not impose an outright suspension. As I see a continual degradation in enforcement I can only reason that the "standards" are?ÿ decreasing - perhaps not on paper, but certainly in practice.

A good read from the ID Chairman.?ÿ But the problems go beyond an apparent unwillingness for licensees to talk to each other and attempt to resolve discrepancies.

I agree with Jim in AZ that there seems to be an overall steady decline in competence.?ÿ IMO, and speaking from my experiences and observations in CA, there are a few things that have led to this situation and continue to feed it.?ÿ

1) Declining exam standards.?ÿ One of the core, if not the core issue contributing to the decline in competence and increase in complaints is the prevalence among Board members and Board staff, as well as organizations like NCEES that the surveying profession's biggest challenge is the declining numbers of licensees.?ÿ

In response, they have steadily been making the licensing exams easier to pass.?ÿ Sometimes it is by making the exam questions easier to answer, sometimes it is by lowering the cut score (% of correct answers) which is considered adequate to pass.

When I first began surveying (early 80s), most licensing exams held the minimum passing score at or about 68%.?ÿ For a professional level exam designed to allow only those who possess and can demonstrate the minimum level of competence to be able to practice without direct oversight of another licensee, that seems reasonable.?ÿ Those who were competent passed on the 1st or 2nd try.?ÿ Those who didn't pass by their 2nd try usually realized that they weren't quite ready, and for those who couldn't see that on their own, after failing a 3rd time, were asked by the State to get more training and additional references before reapplying.

In recent years, the typical cut score, at least in CA has been near 50%, and dipped below that for at least one administration of the exam.?ÿ At the same time, the questions became increasingly easier to answer.?ÿ In the description writing problem, the first year I participated in grading, the problem instructions told them where to start from (Point of Commencement), which point to use as the POB (or True Point of Beginning for those of you who call the Point of Commencement the POB - I suppose that would technically be the False POB), and which direction to proceed around the parcel to be described.?ÿ Gosh, why not just give the examinees the full written description and tell them to just copy it into the answer book?

As if that hadn't been easy enough, in a subsequent year, the description was a strip description with the Point of Commencement specified by the Problem Setup, as was the POB and the Point of Termination.?ÿ The courses consisted of a straight line from POC to POB, then continued on that same line one course to the POT.

Still, no matter how incredibly simplistic the exam developers made it to correctly answer the problem by writing a proper description with the given parameters, 30% or less of the examinees were able to earn 30% or more of the points available.

In the year I was involved in Standard Setting (determining and recommending cut score to the Board), I was so frustrated with the percentages that the overall team considered reasonable for a pool of minimally competent to answer each question correctly that I could not bring myself to ever participate in that step of the exam process again.?ÿ

The one question that continues to stand out in my mind was something along the lines of "You have completed a boundary survey and have discovered a material discrepancy in one or more of the bearings, distances, or positions of points of the survey.?ÿ What document must you file?"?ÿ The question was practically a verbatim regurgitation of one of the five conditions enumerated in our recording law as requiring a record of survey.?ÿ The evaluation of each question began with asking members of the Standard Setting team what percentage of minimally competent licensees should be able to answer it correctly.

The exam being open book, and one of the references that examinees are told over and over again is indispensable being the Professional Land Surveyors Act, I blurted out "90%! Allowing for the stress of an exam setting."?ÿ That drew jeers from the team members more familiar with the Standard Setting process and eye-rolling from the psychometrician and his staff.?ÿ I didn't understand that the whole process was to come up with a cut score that would permit 20% to about 35% of the examinees to pass.?ÿ It's a process that assumes that at least 1 out of 5 are competent and that if at least that many didn't answer a question correctly, the question was bad.?ÿ The process used to at least balance that premise with the collective conscience of the Standard Setting team as to the minimal performance that could be accepted.?ÿ I've since heard but don't know for a fact that the cut score is developed only by the psychometrician and that the participation of licensees has been removed from that process.

The exam, when it was an actual written exam contained the component of testing the examinee's ability to effectively communicate in writing.?ÿ Now that it's an entirely multiple guess format, that aspect of an examinee's professional level abilities is no longer tested.?ÿ While multiple choice can be a good format for limited portions of a professional exam, IMO, it is not valid to be used as the entire format.?ÿ Never in my experience, is a professional surveyor approached with a potential project and given 4 or 5 possible results to choose from.?ÿ "The answer is 'B'.?ÿ Here's my invoice."

I'm also aware of at least on problem where the grading team chose an answer that comports with a misunderstanding and misapplication of one of the principles found in one of the recent editions of the Brown books, but is clearly contrary to both common and statute law.?ÿ

2) Little or no value placed on continuing professional training.?ÿ Many, possibly most licensed surveyors work in states that require a certain amount of continuing education or professional development per year or biannually to remain licensed.?ÿ Many licensees resent this requirement and feel it's not necessary.

The way most Boards administer the requirement significantly limits its effectiveness and relevance.?ÿ Some Boards only allow sessions and materials that are directly related to the practice of surveying that they regulate.?ÿ If the content is primarily regarding business practices, legal topics, or technology that is not exclusively survey related or is only tangentially related doesn't count.?ÿ Ridiculous!?ÿ Anything that helps a licensed professional serve his or her clientele better as a professional should be counted as proper topic matter.

That creates the situation where only a handful of session providers can get the required certification from the Board and licensees are essentially forced to attend sessions that they've attended several times in the past.?ÿ "You know, I learned quite a bit from the first six times I attended this speaker's sessions, but they really started losing the luster after the 10th or 12th time."

At the other extreme, some might allow licensees to turn in almost anything to count toward the requirement.?ÿ Taking a GIS class at the local community college should count as valid CEUs.?ÿ Taking the same GIS class every other year to list as CEU credits is questionable at best.

Last I checked, there were 4 states that do not have a CE requirement for licensed surveyors.?ÿ CA remains as one of those.?ÿ Part of the reason is that a high proportion of licensees don't want it.?ÿ Another part is that BPELSG says that they don't see any correlation between a CE requirement and decreased complaints in other states.?ÿ Golly, when a state dumbs down the entry requirements while either over regulating or under regulating the CE requirement to the point of uselessness, is it any wonder you can't find a correlation?

There will always be those who won't make any effort to learn anything new or to keep current skills sharp unless required to.?ÿ Even then, many of them will resent the requirement so much that they will refuse to be open to the learning opportunity but put in their time while refusing to learn so that they have something to put on the CE form at renewal time.?ÿ IMO, those folks shouldn't be a factor considered when considering the need for CEUs.

I also believe that the Board should provide a fairly wide latitude in topic, including the ability for a licensee to make the case of the relevance of a particular topic or course when it appears non-relevant yet questionable.?ÿ They should also require some minimal standard for a provider such as the course being sponsored by a recognized professional society, provided by an accredited college, or (not and) review/approval by the Board's Technical Advisory Committee.

3) Little or no guidance on appropriate standards of care/practice.?ÿ?ÿMany state professional societies have a Canon of Ethics, and certainly licensees should practice ethically, but few provide much guidance for the licensee as to what they're basic duty is for different areas of practice or what the minimal expectations are in performing and providing services in various areas of practice.?ÿ I'm aware of a few states that have done this, and a few who have attempted to regulate by MTS.?ÿ

The problem with MTS is, as the name implies, they address standards of technical practice rather than the professional aspects of practice.?ÿ That doesn't necessarily make them useless IMO, but it renders them incomplete and often improperly restrictive for professional practice.?ÿ

IMO, professional practice standards cannot be effectively defined by regulation alone, and would be far too restrictive to be appropriate anyway.?ÿ Regulations should be written broadly to allow for appropriate differences in professional opinion, including decisions where it may be appropriate to deviate from standard technical practice in unusual circumstances.

Also IMO, it is up to the professional societies to provide more detailed guidance on acceptable professional practices.?ÿ The first reason is that the societies have wider latitude in how they determine and describe that guidance.?ÿ Second, it is guidance, not requirement which allows for no deviation.?ÿ That allows a professional to make a case for why a standard practice might be less appropriate than an alternative in a particular case.?ÿ It also allows for more frequent updating to reflect the state of law and technology and their effects on practice.?ÿ Such a guide would not have the force, or the rigidity of law in court (i.e. a negligence case), but would be highly persuasive.

4) Because standards are?ÿpoorly defined or pretty much undefined in publications readily available or commonly used by the profession, the Boards' enforcement of standards is often inconsistent.?ÿ The standard enforced is often the understanding held by a single "expert" retained by the Board to review a complaint.?ÿ There is no effective mechanism to measure the "expert's" understanding or the respondent licensee's actions against the true and valid wider standard as directed by case law or as recognized by the portion of the profession that possesses actual expertise in the area of practice considered.

In CA, I've seen examples where particular standards have been moving targets for particular licensees, partly due to "experts" retained by BPELSG lacking enough knowledge to be considered minimally competent, much less "expert" in the area of practice they are hired to decide if another violated.?ÿ The moving target has, in certain cases, also appeared to be due to personal animus toward the licensee who is subject of a complaint by members of the Board or members of Board staff management.

In CA, there is no vetting of those applying to be Board "experts" beyond checking to ensure that they have been licensed for at least 5 years and have had no complaints filed against them.?ÿ Beyond that, areas of expertise are self-certified by the "expert".?ÿ

?ÿ

I could probably come up with a few other issues that contribute to the decline in quality of practice and the muddying of standards of practice, but this is already a very long post.

There is a move popping up in several locations around the country to deregulate many vocations, and specifically surveying in a few instances.?ÿ complete deregulation would be the demise of surveying as a profession and lead to the further and more rapid decline of actual practice.?ÿ It is the decline in licensed surveyors who understand what they're duty is and not the decline in numbers of licensees that will lead to the eventual deregulation of surveying as a profession.?ÿ The attempts by the NCEES and various state licensing boards to boost numbers by making it easier to become licensed are severely misguided and will eventually lead to the destruction of surveying as a respectable profession if the trend is not reversed.

?ÿ

You are right about the exam standards. Most of the state exams I have taken are very bad measures of minimum competency. Just because you can regurgitate statues, doesn't mean you a competent at locating a boundary.?ÿ

The NCEES calculates the cut scores just like you described. I was on the commity once and I had similar criticisms.

I think drifting a multiple choice exam to accurately measure competency is impossible. There has to be some open format content, and it has to be graded in way that recognises that sometimes there is more than one acceptable answer.

I have taken and passed four state exams. Each one seems harder to me. Not because I don't know a right answer, but because I have to try to figure out what the exam writters think the right answer will be, and that gets harder and harder the more I learn.

I disagree with you about allowing non survey learning to count for continuing education. As you pointed out the skill level of practicing surveyors is not outstanding. The boards job is to ensure competent surveys are performed, not to ensure that a surveyor can run a profitable business.?ÿ

A separate issue is that?ÿ the quality of some of the pre approved credits is atrocious.