A few of the threads over the past couple of weeks have drawn attention to the strengths and weaknesses of our profession. So, what say we punt.....and radically change the definition of the profession and the mandatory education required to apply to take the examinations.
First, let there be three categories. One would be the technician level with very specific coursework required to then take a Technician's Exam over the tools used, their uses and abuses, and maintenance and calibration. This could also cover all sorts of basics that are used almost daily in either construction staking or boundary surveying.
A second category would be at the professional level with very specific coursework required to take the Construction Surveying Ezam. This would address all sorts of topics except those directly tied to the specialty of Boundary Surveying.
The third category, Boundary Surveying, would include half or more of the Construction Surveying Exam topics plus subjects such as geodesy, real estate law, dendrology and advanced mathematics/statistical analysis.
The goal would be to establish a technician level exam and certification to document preparation to come into the survey business and do more than dig holes and cut trees on day one. Secondly, the two primary areas of the profession would be licensed and recognized separately.
In typical fashion, we would need to grandfather all those currently licensed and phase this in over a few years of lead time. It might also be time to institute a re-certification type exam on something like five-year intervals sort of like re-examinations for driver licenses. Basic enough that nearly everyone could pass if they have been actively engaged in surveying, but, rather challenging for those who are doing other things but merely like having an extra certificate hanging on their office wall.
Mr Cow/Digger, this is certainly a great conversation piece. I have never had any disagreement with anything you've ever presented. This is another one. Always on topic.
Well stated, and from a true statesman I believe many of us concur with. Myself included.
However, (there is always a "contrary can be shown", right) I just wonder how this could be legislatively accomplished. We are after all - legislated and regulated, as PLS's - of which many of those so called legislators and regulators are our clients.
First off, the GIS community is gonna shyte bricks. The realtors/lenders are gonna shyte bricks. Then we have the construction industry. (note: profession not stated). Not that there is a huge economy in those three industries, but I bet that there is.
Then we bring in the lawyers, et al... to further stir the proverbial pot of why surveyors need to be "less" regulated. Then again, they'll do anything to confuse the liability circle to further enable their existence.
Oh, and those pesky civil engineers we've all come to love and respect... no doubt they'll welcome placing that "necessary and incidental" baton back to us surveyors so they can just make crappy plans.
Oh yea, the equipment manufacturers must have a say in accuracy regulations (or would that be precision)
With the greatest amount of respect to the idea.... I hope I live to see it. I mean that one....
Very close to what I see in the future for the Profession. Don't see it happening willingly by the various states because of the good old boy network and protectionism. Don't expect the schools to push for such a thing either but economics will force it upon us by the Legislative Branch of our State governments, only take one state and Katy bar the door and a two level license system will be upon us. Kind of like the Rate of Gunners Mate, when I went in into the Navy in 59, we were expected to do it all, from the 782 gear up through guided missiles. Ended up with 3 different rates of Gunners Mate, Gunners mate Guns, Gunners Mate Technician and Gunners Mate Missiles, the Navy was served better and the fleet was protected from a Gun Plumber being assigned to a ship with weapons he was not prepared to deal with, bad thing in combat and a bad thing when surveying.
jud
Well, unless we implement a national licensing system, (something Shelby was discussing a few months back), then you have 50 sales pitches to make, or at least the state you practice in.
Personally, I'm not in favor of breaking the license into levels. Our scope of practice is not so broad as to warrant specialty subcategories.
Plus there is considerable overlap. I saw a good recent example where a civil engineer who was doing some construction topo and staking was making assumptions (albeit incorrect) about R/W. My point being is the civil engineer is not unlike the subcategory construction surveyor you mention. The civil engineer category here is not allowed to perform boundary work but can perform construction staking and topo. As he demonstrated, his practice and experience coupled with the overlap with boundary needs prompted him to go beyond his authority and make boundary determinations. This is not uncommon, both with civil engineers here, and with survey techicians. Its one of those cases where they are involved enough with boundaries as part of the scope of design and construction but they really don't know what they're doing and make assumptions based on limited experience. They may be good at figuring out slopes angles and curves, but their boundary experience has been: "Just enough to be dangerous."
They don't know what they don't know, but think they know enough and start making determinations they shouldn't.
Problem also is that the developers and contractors and owners encourage this as they find savings by not having to also hire a boundary surveyor since the PE or technician has already made the call on where the boundary "probably is".
I've seen it more than a few times.
Good ideas...would be hard to regulate and educate the public. What would the different levels be called? I am having enough difficulty in getting the definition updated here in NY, I know State Ed would not go for this...too many exams...too much money to regulate and keep track of.....other states are doing it and if they are, doesnt mean we have to do it in New York.....themes i have heard over and over and over again....no progressive thinking here in New York
Awesome!
> First, let there be three categories. One would be the technician level with very specific coursework required to then take a Technician's Exam over the tools used, their uses and abuses, and maintenance and calibration. This could also cover all sorts of basics that are used almost daily in either construction staking or boundary surveying.
Certified Survey Technician program
> A second category would be at the professional level with very specific coursework required to take the Construction Surveying Ezam. This would address all sorts of topics except those directly tied to the specialty of Boundary Surveying.
I agree that construction surveying should be supervised by a PS.
> The third category, Boundary Surveying, would include half or more of the Construction Surveying Exam topics plus subjects such as geodesy, real estate law, dendrology and advanced mathematics/statistical analysis.
We are supposed to be proficient in these subjects as professionals in this field currently.
The CST program won't really take hold until employers begin requiring employees or potential employees to hold these certifications. That would require employers paying a better wage for a better employee.
> A few of the threads over the past couple of weeks have drawn attention to the strengths and weaknesses of our profession. So, what say we punt.....and radically change the definition of the profession....
First step - self regulation.
Just about every other western country seems to be able to function perfectly well with the licensing and regulation of land surveyors performed by a private self regulatory agency rather than through governmental oversight.
I agree on certifying technicians. Most of the training is along the lines of "here is the on button and here is how to get a shot."
Heck the person that empties your bedpan when you are in the hospital is required to be certified.
Voluntary programs are nice but won't work. It has to be required.
Absolutely not. I could not disagree with Holy Cow any more on this. It is only further invitation for individuals to "step out of bounds" or be "out of your element" in order to cut out the professional. For Gods sake man, I am already attempting to compete with retired DOT and/or municipality employees drawing a pension from same, whom at least in my State until now, once over the age of 60 or 20 years practicing were exempt from Continuing Education requirements. Alas, the regulations have been changed and those formerly exempt must now have at least 1 (ONE) PDH in Standards of Practice every 2 (TWO) years! This isn't Dennys, Western Sizzlin' or the AARP! How can we say we are "protecting the public" when those of us that come up with these rules and regulations expect the ones trying to make a living in the profession to compete with those that "just survey enough to buy fishing worms"? And yes, that statement has actually been said to me.
Jeezus. I think I'll fire up the grill for a slab of COW!
Edit: Looks like cold chicken salad from a can. Again!
Disagree:
1.) There already is the CST program for certification at the technician level.
2.) The construction surveyor needs exposure to geodesy & advanced math / stats as much (or more) than the boundary surveyor, and IMO is hardly less or inferior to a boundary surveyor. Unless we make the license national, better to just keep it as it is I think.
> Disagree:
>
> 1.) There already is the CST program for certification at the technician level.
> 2.) The construction surveyor needs exposure to geodesy & advanced math / stats as much (or more) than the boundary surveyor, and IMO is hardly less or inferior to a boundary surveyor. Unless we make the license national, better to just keep it as it is I think.
Good points Butch.
Ralph
I'm just throwing some thoughts out there to get the discussion going. What areas of a formal education program would be best for those focusing on construction and what areas would be best for those focusing on boundary? Identify those differences and maximize each program of study to fit the two very different types of consulting.
> I'm just throwing some thoughts out there to get the discussion going. What areas of a formal education program would be best for those focusing on construction and what areas would be best for those focusing on boundary? Identify those differences and maximize each program of study to fit the two very different types of consulting.
Nothing wrong with that.
POLL w/in A Modest Proposal for the Future of the Profession
"dendrology"
how many had to look that one up?
one of the most interesting and useful classes that i took in college other than spelling. 😉
"First step - self regulation.
Just about every other western country seems to be able to function perfectly well with the licensing and regulation of land surveyors performed by a private self regulatory agency rather than through governmental oversight."
Amen James. You have eloquently stated the basic (root) problem and at the same time provided the solution.
No licensing board (certainly not many) comprised of a majority of engineers is ever going to allow the surveying profession to encompass any greater part of what they (the engineers) think they can do. Sorry, it just isn't going to happen. A few months ago I asked the people on this board to list all the licensed professions that operate under licensing boards made up of a majority of other licensed professionals. I can't remember any significant response.
> "First step - self regulation.
> Just about every other western country seems to be able to function perfectly well with the licensing and regulation of land surveyors performed by a private self regulatory agency rather than through governmental oversight."
>
> Amen James. You have eloquently stated the basic (root) problem and at the same time provided the solution.
>
> No licensing board (certainly not many) comprised of a majority of engineers is ever going to allow the surveying profession to encompass any greater part of what they (the engineers) think they can do. Sorry, it just isn't going to happen. A few months ago I asked the people on this board to list all the licensed professions that operate under licensing boards made up of a majority of other licensed professionals. I can't remember any significant response.
Self regulation?
How does self regulation work?
That's not the answer, because it's not working.
We are suppose to be a self regulating profession.
I ask you, how many PLS's have you notified the BOR due to work that does not meet minimum standards?
> A few of the threads over the past couple of weeks have drawn attention to the strengths and weaknesses of our profession. So, what say we punt.....and radically change the definition of the profession and the mandatory education required to apply to take the examinations.
>
You can't educate stupid. And even if you could, there would be surveyors doing stupid things. But practically speaking, the department of regulatory agencies that oversee the practice of professional land surveying will never pass such a requirement.
The overwhelming majority of PLS's that I know are very good land surveyors, however they are very, very bad businessmen.
> Self regulation?
> How does self regulation work?
The states pass enabling legislation mandating that a private surveyors organization set and maintain the regulations and standards for licensing. It's the way surveyors (and all other professions) are licensed in Great Britain, Canada, Australia, most of South America, etc.
>
> Self regulation?
> How does self regulation work?
>
> That's not the answer, because it's not working.
> We are suppose to be a self regulating profession.
>
Thats the whole point - we are not a self regulating profession!! We, for the most part are regulated by BOR's made up mostly of engineers. Self-regulated? We wish.
> I ask you, how many PLS's have you notified the BOR due to work that does not meet minimum standards?
What difference does that make? If I have "turned in" 1 or 100, that doesn't make us "self-regulated".
Here's an even better question: How many BOR's are comprised of a majority of professionals that know the minimum standards, are individually licensed to carry them out, are minimumly qualified to know what new laws need implemented and which old laws need to be modified or eliminated? Let alone are willing to even consider changing the activities that should be overseen by a licensed surveyor.