New York Requirements - recently updated to a 4 year degree with some other options.
??7206-a. Requirements for a license as a professional land surveyor.
- To qualify for a license as a professional land surveyor, an applicant shall fulfill the following requirements:
- Application: file an application with the department;
- Education: have received an education, including a bachelor's or higher degree based on a program in land surveying, in accordance with the commissioner's regulations;
- Experience: Have practical experience satisfactory to the department and in accordance with the commissioner's regulations;
- Examination: pass an examination satisfactory to the board and in accordance with the commissioner's regulations;
- Age: be at least twenty-one years of age;
- Citizenship or immigration status: be a United States citizen or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States;
- Character: be of good moral character as determined by the department; and
- Fees: pay a fee of one hundred thirty-five dollars to the department for an initial license, and a fee of two hundred ten dollars for each triennial registration period.
- In lieu of the degree requirements specified in paragraph (2) of subdivision one of this section, an associate's degree in land surveying, or an associate's degree or higher in engineering, math, or related science with credits in land surveying acceptable to the department.
- 2-a. For admittance to the fundamentals of surveying examination, the applicant shall fulfill the education, experience, and examination requirements in accordance with the commissioner's regulations. Upon the successful completion of the examination, an identification card as an "intern land surveyor" shall be issued by the department. The fee for examination qualification and identification card as an "intern land surveyor" shall be seventy dollars.
- *2-b. In lieu of the degree and experience requirements specified in paragraphs two and three of subdivision one of this section, eight years of practical experience in work satisfactory to the department may be accepted, provided that each full year of college study in engineering or land surveying satisfactory to the department may at the discretion of the department be accepted in lieu of one year of the required eight years of experience.
* NB Repealed April 3, 2029
??68.4 Professional study of land surveying.
- To meet the professional study requirement for licensure, the applicant shall present evidence of:
- possession of a bachelor's degree in land surveying or the equivalent from a program approved by the department for professional licensure purposes and four years of land surveying experience acceptable to the State Board; or
- completion of an approved secondary course of study; and
- for those applying prior to September 1, 1987, the equivalent of six years of land surveying experience acceptable to the board, provided that each complete year of study in a land surveying program approved by the department for professional licensure purposes may be accepted in lieu of one year of such experience to a maximum of two years; and
- for those applying on or after September 1, 1987, the equivalent of eight years of land surveying experience acceptable to the board, provided that each complete year of study in a land surveying program approved by the department for professional licensure purposes may be accepted in lieu of one year of such experience to a maximum of four years.
- To meet the professional study requirement for certification as an intern land surveyor, the applicant shall present evidence of:
- possession of a bachelor's degree in land surveying or the equivalent from a program approved by the department for professional licensure purposes; or
- completion of an approved secondary course of study; and
- for those applying prior to September 1, 1987, the equivalent of six years of land surveying experience acceptable to the board, provided that each complete year of study in a land surveying program approved by the department for professional licensure purposes may be accepted in lieu of one year of such experience, to a maximum of two years; and
- for those applying on or after September 1, 1987, the equivalent of eight years of land surveying experience acceptable to the board, provided that each complete year of study in a land surveying program approved by the department for professional licensure purposes may be accepted in lieu of one year of such experience, to a maximum of four years.
This exactly.?ÿ Smart, motivated people should have non-university options to enter the profession.?ÿ I took the 4+4 route, and I still think it is best for most.?ÿ However, other options should exist, and a 4-year-degree does not a surveyor make
(In my home state) When there was a non-degree option, there were a few more people taking the exam than after the degree requirement, but the pass rate was sometimes as low as in the low 30% range.?ÿ Since the degree requirement a few less applicants take the exam (and that number has been slowly working it's way back up), but the pass rate is now in the low to mid 70% range.?ÿ So we end up with either 30% of 20 people or 70% of 10 people for about the same numbers entering the profession.
Being one of those people who can easily pass a standardized exam, I very much agree with Norman's idea of upgrading the testing.?ÿ Because some of that 30% were just lucky (AND I MIGHT HAVE BEEN ONE OF THEM).?ÿ Now, at least the 70%+ passing should be passing due to some knowledge instead of lucky guessing on sections of the exam, that they have no practical experience in, and they shouldn't be sitting for their 20th (exaggeration) go at the exam.
While I know that the Ky. Board looks pretty closely at the experience presented, they can not dedicate a full investigation into every minute of the individual's reported experience.?ÿ With a degree requirement (AND experience required as well), there should be some level of consistency in at least the education part.?ÿ Neither a 4-year degree nor 8 years of experience a surveyor makes, but one is easier to have expectations of verifiable exposure to required topics.?ÿ Whether the information was taken in will still vary by individual.
I started my career in British Columbia, where there are very few licensed surveyors because the standards have always been very high.?ÿ It just means that the typical BCLS will have quite a few technicians working under them.
Lowering the standards to become an LS in Alabama will not address the basic problem of their being a shortage of?ÿ people entering the field. It might tend to have exactly the opposite effect because of increased downward pricing pressure.?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ
Just this past session, in Kentucky, a bill was proposed to lower the degree requirement to include an Associate's degree.?ÿ It did not make it out of the committee on committees to be assigned anywhere for review.?ÿ So it died off for the time.?ÿ It may come up again.
As I understand it, it was brought up because an engineer in the state was either having a hard time hiring a PLS on staff or having a hard time getting survey work scheduled with a PLS.?ÿ So that person goes to their local representative who then sponsors the bill.?ÿ The thing I find silly about the situation is that we have been in an UNBELIEVABLE busy time the past few years.?ÿ Busier than I've seen in decades.?ÿ Every profession involving land or construction seems to be booked farther out than usual.?ÿ When this hectic time passes, we'll be back to being able to deal with projects in a more timely manner and life will go on.?ÿ I even presented a course at the KSPE conference a couple of weeks ago and everyone I spoke with was extremely busy.?ÿ So does that mean that if they can't turn around an engineering project within what I consider a reasonable time we should go back to allowing graduates of tech programs in civil engineering to become PEs (which was allowed in the 80s)?
My questions on reducing education requirements would be:?ÿ What good is reducing the licensure requirements when there are already a shortage of people willing to work as technicians??ÿ Would a path that required a 2-year degree and 10+ years of experience really be the path that makes a difference in the number of licensees (because it seems like I kept hearing about the dwindling numbers way back when I first started - pre any degree requirement)?
It puts too much power in the hands of university administrators, who know nothing of the surveying profession.?ÿ It amounts to state boards, and the members of the?ÿ profession itself, trying to fob off their responsibilities.?ÿ
I get that no one wants to cede power to unknowledgeable administrators, but this just doesn't make sense. Why are we so special compared to other professions?
Besides, that's why there are requirements for those teaching survey-specific courses to be licensed, and why advisory boards made up of currently practicing professionals work with department leadership to guide the program and keep curricula relevant.
?ÿ
Upgrade the testing and disciplining.
I agree, this needs to happen regardless of the future of degree programs.
?ÿ
Thoreau, Walden, 1850s.
Eh, Thoreau went to Harvard and his writings directly benefited from all the courses he took on philosophy and rhetoric, he was just too cheap to pay for the physical degree.?ÿ
Even with a PHD, two years experience is not enough.
The shortage is driven by customers trained to expect cheap service. Low prices plus low wages equals low recruitment (and respect).
My investigation experience tells me reducing qualifications is NOT the answer to our woes. If it was we would not have the same shortage in the experience only states?ÿ
?ÿ
Besides, that's why there are requirements for those teaching survey-specific courses to be licensed,
I would be interested in knowing where those requirements are located.
As of several years ago, there were less than a hand full of states that addressed the teaching of land surveying courses as the practice of land surveying by statute.?ÿ Many states address the teaching of engineering design courses as the practice of engineering, so a PE would be needed to teach those courses (not always followed).
As far as I am aware, criteria for the main accrediting agency for programs that would house a surveying option (ABET) does not have a requirement for licensure (although licensure may be used as in evaluation of faculty - note that it only specifically calls licensure as a Professional Engineer, doesn't even mention Professional Land Surveyor).?ÿ Decades ago, ABET used to at least suggest a minimal professional experience practice for faculty in TAC programs, but that isn't even in the language anymore.
I would almost wager some money that there is no written university policy that requires licensure in order to teach surveying course work.?ÿ There are sometimes administrators who understand the value of the license and try to get licensed people to teach.?ÿ But there are also programs where the people teaching the surveying course work are not licensed as either a PE or a PLS.
@jon-payne How is it not a free market solution? Study materials and experience are available to anyone who wants to prepare for licensing. Maybe I've missed something.
@jon-payne As far as I can tell, ABET determines what topics must be taught/covered in courses taken by those obtaining a surveying degree and does not determine the requirements of the teacher (which is left up to his or her employer-university). So the standard is on the material covered and not the person teaching it. As mentioned by you above, "whether the information was taken in will still vary by individual."
This sort of standardization makes sense to me.
When our program underwent ABET certification all faculty were required to provide CVs and were individually interviewed. This was in addition to providing course materials including exams, student test results (best, mean and lowest), and other assignments.
In a previous post on the other thread dealing with surveying education, I provided a list of program outcomes. Each course was evaluated on whether outcomes were addressed in a course and to what extent.?ÿ
As for this thread, I was on an advisory board for an A.S. program decades ago. The program coordinator resisted suggestions to increase the maths required due to his belief that if more math was required students would transfer to the C.E. program.
?ÿ
?ÿ
The program coordinator resisted suggestions to increase the maths required due to his belief that if more math was required students would transfer to the C.E. program.
@rover83 When asked, I always encourage students to take more math courses than merely those required.
@jmbsurvey2023 It is not a free market, because licensure requirements (by the government) are a market coercion which does drive pricing and supply.?ÿ Pricing for surveying would be much lower if there were not a requirement for licensure.
If it were a free market, then anyone should be able to offer surveying services (without the intervention of a government required license) and either their success or failure would be dependent on the work they did.
The biggest p problem with that model is that the quality or lack thereof in their product may not be revealed for years or decades.
As far as I can tell, ABET determines what topics must be taught/covered in courses taken by those obtaining a surveying degree and does not determine the requirements of the teacher (which is left up to his or her employer-university). So the standard is on the material covered and not the person teaching it. As mentioned by you above, "whether the information was taken in will still vary by individual."
This sort of standardization makes sense to me.
Exactly.?ÿ Which is why I pointed out to Rover83 that there is not likely to be any requirement of licensure for teaching.?ÿ Only a very few states even consider it as the practice of land surveying.
As for the standardization of the material, that is highly suspect (in my opinion).?ÿ I am probably very pessimistic on this matter.?ÿ But having participated in an evaluation and having seen (as an outsider to another department) another evaluation, I question just how 'standardized' programs are.?ÿ The outcomes are very generic in nature and can be proven with a minimal of course work presented.?ÿ The evaluation is not an examination of the entirety of the course/program (which would be unrealistic anyway).?ÿ What happens outside of the presented outcomes is not known and the presented outcomes can be selected from a variety of courses/assignments to "prove" all is done to a standard.?ÿ Where there is some integrity, that is not a problem.?ÿ When there is not integrity, the system of accreditation means little to nothing.
Because there is no requirement on faculty qualifications from accreditation agencies (although there are recommendations), it is solely up to administrators to choose.?ÿ That means that going to the same church as the department chair can be more likely to get you into a position than say... having pretty wide education and experience in the professional field to be taught.?ÿ In a hiring committee, I've seen all the other faculty go with the less qualified individual simply because they knew him (and it turned into a disaster for the students over the next year).
Just like licensing, accreditation just shows a program met a minimal requirement.?ÿ And just like passing the licensing exam - if you know how to answer the standardized question, it can be passed without any depth.
