Another entry into the Education/Apprenticeship debate

I have been to association seminars where the speaker was a licensed surveyor.
When the discussion turned to nuts and bolts, the college professor was better.

Ben Buckner told me it would be better if college professors were the only ones
giving seminars.

you're probably right, generally speaking. however, I can state, with out a doubt, the worst seminar I ever attended was lectured by a practicing university professor of surveying.

Aloha, Shawn: Thank you for the link.

I really like this statement of his, "A surveyor is a translator from the world of abstractions to the world of hard physical reality, and also the other way around. Engineers and architects need the physical world to be presented to them in abstract terms: a topographic map or a boundary defined by bearings and distances, for example. Construction workers, on the other hand, need physical stakes to measure from. The surveyor is the one who can mediate between those two worlds, translating abstract construction plans into tangible reality, or transforming the natural slopes of a hillside into abstract contour lines. "

I agree Yswami. I've had the same thought, but never could put it to words like he has. I can tell he's spent some time formulating that.

Education versus Practice? Practice Versus Education?

This is not an age old, and has been a controversy just for a short period of time in today's practice of Surveying. We have a lot of very competent land surveyors in practice today that do not have a degreeed education and we have some that are not so competent today, just as we have many younger folks today that have a degree, are now registered land surveyors and when the pushed button supplies an answer, it is good info to take to the bank and vice versa.

His experiences, sentiments and observations are close to my heart.

I started at age 5 and a bit later getting paid tho' at age 14.

Cheers,

Derek

What debate?

For those that missed it; formal education in the topic to be practiced is a requirement for legal classification as a professional (for better or worse).

This idea that surveying can move on like it has been in the past is simply wrong headed. Doctors no longer apply leaches as their mentors trained them to do.

It is no longer an appropriate response to say "I held the fence because my mentor always held the fences and he was the best surveyor in the country". It is no longer an appropriate response to say "the position is correct because my edm or gps unit returned this number". Yes, these are the things my clients hear from surveyors without formal education. Sure, there are those who learn enough on their own or with the help of good mentors, but they are exceptions to the rule in surveying as with all other professions. Uneducated people don't know what they don't know.

Most states have exceptions to the rule within the licensing laws for all professions. But the standard is that one studies the topics of the profession they wish to practice, and then practices it, and then eventually takes a test to determine whether or not they should be set loose on the public. It is a three leg stool, not a one leg dance.

Sure education is a bar to entry. So are many other factors, but it's not about individuals, it's about the profession and the public.

And I beg to differ with this statement in the article: "A hard-working, intelligent young person of modest means could advance himself into a descent profession, the public could get a good survey for a fair price, and everybody stayed out of debt." These "good surveys" have cost landowners exponentially more in attorneys fees and lost sleep over neighborly relations gone bad than any possible increase in price due to retaining an educated professional can possibly justify.

No, it is long past time that a surveying degree of some sort is required before offering surveying services to the public. It is much more complex legally and spatially than it was for those in the past.

I'm sorry that people without the education feel less than adequate. However, if they would think about the future of the profession rather than their own circumstances they would have to agree with the legal definition of a professional in todays world. It is simply irrefutable that to service the public in a professional capacity today requires formal education in the profession to be eventually practiced. That doesn't mean you can't measure stuff, and add and subtract in your head, and give legal advice, and apply leaches. It just means you can't advertise those things as a service to the public for a fee without satisfying the statutory requirements.

Full disclosure: yes I am currently an educator, yes I argued against degree requirements at one time, no I never argued against formal education, yes I think there are problems with the formal education "business", no I don't think that makes it an excuse to not require formal education.

Surveying "Body Of Knowledge" Far Exceeds A 2 Year Degree

In fact some 120 credit 4 year degree programs are skimping on the required knowledge.

As the surveying plate gets larger with multi constellation GNSS, new forms of RTK, expansion of VRS, newer ranging methods, more complicated flood certifications, GIS (yes, I said it), LIDAR, Scanning and requiring a better understanding of the legal ramifications of surveying a 4.5 year (136 credits) degree should become the norm.

Multiple egineering disciplines are going to 2 day PE exams, while some of what was once done by any PE may require actually a new PE passing 3 or more 8 hour exams to cover the breadth of a discipline.

CFEDS will not become an oddity as more such surveying qualifications are developed.

Either that or become idiot button pushers, taking as fact whatever is output by computers.

The competent surveyor has to have sufficient knowledge to be able to reject when neccessary what the data collector, GPS receiver or computer spits out.

Paul in PA

What debate?

> For those that missed it; formal education in the topic to be practiced is a requirement for legal classification as a professional (for better or worse).
>
> This idea that surveying can move on like it has been in the past is simply wrong headed. Doctors no longer apply leaches as their mentors trained them to do.
>
> It is no longer an appropriate response to say "I held the fence because my mentor always held the fences and he was the best surveyor in the country". It is no longer an appropriate response to say "the position is correct because my edm or gps unit returned this number". Yes, these are the things my clients hear from surveyors without formal education. Sure, there are those who learn enough on their own or with the help of good mentors, but they are exceptions to the rule in surveying as with all other professions. Uneducated people don't know what they don't know.
>
> Most states have exceptions to the rule within the licensing laws for all professions. But the standard is that one studies the topics of the profession they wish to practice, and then practices it, and then eventually takes a test to determine whether or not they should be set loose on the public. It is a three leg stool, not a one leg dance.
>
> Sure education is a bar to entry. So are many other factors, but it's not about individuals, it's about the profession and the public.
>
> And I beg to differ with this statement in the article: "A hard-working, intelligent young person of modest means could advance himself into a descent profession, the public could get a good survey for a fair price, and everybody stayed out of debt." These "good surveys" have cost landowners exponentially more in attorneys fees and lost sleep over neighborly relations gone bad than any possible increase in price due to retaining an educated professional can possibly justify.
>
> No, it is long past time that a surveying degree of some sort is required before offering surveying services to the public. It is much more complex legally and spatially than it was for those in the past.
>
> I'm sorry that people without the education feel less than adequate. However, if they would think about the future of the profession rather than their own circumstances they would have to agree with the legal definition of a professional in todays world. It is simply irrefutable that to service the public in a professional capacity today requires formal education in the profession to be eventually practiced. That doesn't mean you can't measure stuff, and add and subtract in your head, and give legal advice, and apply leaches. It just means you can't advertise those things as a service to the public for a fee without satisfying the statutory requirements.
>
> Full disclosure: yes I am currently an educator, yes I argued against degree requirements at one time, no I never argued against formal education, yes I think there are problems with the formal education "business", no I don't think that makes it an excuse to not require formal education.

:good: awesome!

Doctors Still Apply Leeches For Reattachment Healing

of severed body parts.

What is true is doctors no longer apply leeches for every ailment.

Education allows you to sort out when any technique ancient or new is appropriate.

Paul in PA

> Aloha, Shawn: Thank you for the link.
>
> I really like this statement of his, "A surveyor is a translator from the world of abstractions to the world of hard physical reality, and also the other way around. Engineers and architects need the physical world to be presented to them in abstract terms: a topographic map or a boundary defined by bearings and distances, for example. Construction workers, on the other hand, need physical stakes to measure from. The surveyor is the one who can mediate between those two worlds, translating abstract construction plans into tangible reality, or transforming the natural slopes of a hillside into abstract contour lines. "

I like that statement too. Last year I made a very similar statement in a report I made on instructing surveyors and GIS techs in developing nations. I even used the word "translator". This particular assignment was for Liberia, but my sentiments are intended to be universal. Also, bear in mind that the dichotomy that I described was not between surveyors and the design professionals but surveyors and land administrators such as GIS managers.

"Finally, it is recommended that a technically oriented person be added to the project team on a semi-permanent basis. Most important endeavors of society involve an administrative and managerial side as well as a practical, boots-on-the-ground side. Likely, this was never more true than for the land administration industry. In land administration there are two separate worlds, the world of land records such as deeds, grants, and tribal certificates, and then there is the physical, tangible world that people live and work in. The world of land records is populated by points, lines, and areas and is characterized by numeric and geometric perfection. The physical and tangible world is characterized by noise, imperfection, error, and a finely-grained dissonance. Some of the errors and imperfections are glaring and possibly dangerous, but most of them are benign and barely discernable.

Administrators and managers are often versed in the world of land records, but experience shows that it is often the technocrat with a strong measure of practical field experience in surveying and mapping that is best suited to integrate elements from both worlds in service to the needs of land administration. In short, land surveyors and GIS technicians often serve in the uncredited role of ambassador or translator between the two worlds and as such often play a vital role in solving vexing problems with harmonizing land record information with the location and size of land parcels on the ground. Perhaps just as importantly, they are able to indicate and explain when many apparent problems are in fact extremely unlikely to disturb any of the processes or players in land ownership activities."

Stephen

What debate?

Duane,

I am fully in favor of a university education. Time spent there can provide you with literacy, a handy knack with which you might, just might, choose the better from the worse. But a truly educated man would know the difference between education and training. A trained man might not. It is possible to be both educated and trained. Good training can be had in many places; a university may or may not be the best place.

Do class attendance and tests make a better surveyor? If the job of surveyor requires judging evidence, how can uncritical acceptance of a class (which is necessary to pass the tests) make a good surveyor? How do you measure the ability to sort and weigh evidence? Do you think sitting for a test is the best or only way?

I wouldn't judge the worth of a surveyor by his college degree or board test any more than I would a heart surgeon.

Dave

Aloha, Stephen:
Thank you for sharing. It is really great when a concise statement is available to convey a clear idea what surveying is in nutshell. More like a mission statement.

I really enjoy reading all recent posts about education, experience and finally amalgamation of both for greater end results. For that I sincerely thank you and all other forum members for taking lead and sharing your thoughts in a very passionate way!

Aloha

What debate?

> Duane,
>
> I am fully in favor of a university education. Time spent there can provide you with literacy, a handy knack with which you might, just might, choose the better from the worse. But a truly educated man would know the difference between education and training. A trained man might not. It is possible to be both educated and trained. Good training can be had in many places; a university may or may not be the best place.
>
> Do class attendance and tests make a better surveyor? If the job of surveyor requires judging evidence, how can uncritical acceptance of a class (which is necessary to pass the tests) make a good surveyor? How do you measure the ability to sort and weigh evidence? Do you think sitting for a test is the best or only way?
>
> I wouldn't judge the worth of a surveyor by his college degree or board test any more than I would a heart surgeon.
>
> Dave

Dave
If you want a sure way to fail a State Licensure exam, just follow your own advice.

What debate?

Ralph,

If you thought I was giving advice, then my writing has failed miserably.

Dave

What debate?

> Ralph,
>
> If you thought I was giving advice, then my writing has failed miserably.
>
> Dave

Ok my bad

What debate?

Dave, not sure what your point is. Generally I think people are better at making their point (in writing or speech) the more formal education they have. This is important in surveying as it is not enough to be correct, a professional has to convince others they are correct. But I thought Ralph made a good point in response to your post and I think he has said he doesn't have a surveying degree, but has done a lot of studying. I see from posts that you do too. But studying alone lacks feedback (which one can choose how to take of course). I thought I was pretty clear that I think the three leg approach is a good one; I wouldn't scrap any of the three requirements. And I don't deny there can be exceptions to the rule. But I can answer your questions.

"Do class attendance and tests make a better surveyor?"

Yes, absolutely. And if my students want a recommendation from me they know these things are important. They can choose not to attend and not do well. But ones failure to learn or attend the classroom saves the employer the headache of finding out right? I think the chances of hiring a graduate that does not show up and knows nothing are much slimmer than hiring someone off the street. Education is a learning opportunity and a vetting process where students can choose other more fitting programs or show their true colors (at that time in their lives) either way.

"If the job of surveyor requires judging evidence, how can uncritical acceptance of a class (which is necessary to pass the tests) make a good surveyor?"

Well, see above. Uncritical acceptance can't. But then they wouldn't graduate and you wouldn't accidentally hire an uncritical thinker. Evidence has been judged and the process documented in texts and court rulings for a long time. We have no shortage of material in that regard; plenty of which was supplied by uneducated surveyors. There are rules of evidence that need to be learned and there are aids to interpreting evidence that need to be learned. The idea that there is some "best" surveyor in the state making up their own rules of evidence and passing them down to their lucky minions is part of the problem.

"How do you measure the ability to sort and weigh evidence?"

Test questions on the basic rules and aids to interpreting evidence.

"Do you think sitting for a test is the best or only way?"

As I mentioned above, there is no only way, it takes differing forms of evaluation to reach a conclusion about an individual or an evidentiary problem. I use multiple choice, short answer, essay, case briefs, fact patterns from court cases, discussion, projects, and probably some others I'm not thinking of right now. That is the advantage of formal education over a mere test for the license. The formal education process gives us an opportunity to present new information, then build on that, then reflect on it, over the course of the program. This is basically the learning process. Then with the addition of applying and reflecting more on those basics through good and bad mentors, the final test can weed out those who just have not gotten it.

"I wouldn't judge the worth of a surveyor by his college degree or board test any more than I would a heart surgeon."

Well no, you would (hopefully) judge the surgeon on whether they have been certified or licensed in that regard via a process of education, experience under qualified mentors, and passage of exams. The difference is that the surgeon is required to fulfill the same process as their peers, and surveyors are not. There's no telling how a surveyor got their license and what they might know because of all the run around ways to gain the license. Surgeons have long been required to take certain courses; surveyors have not and it shows, just as it showed for surgeons before those requirements.

One of the problems is a graduate surveyor (as well as the public) has no idea what qualifications a licensed surveyor has under the current system. And if they are not a graduate and they get a mentor who doesn't know what they are doing, that mentor still becomes "the best surveyor in the state" and the apprentice carries on a new generation of substandard practice believing they are doing everything correctly (hence pin cushions, etc.). This is much less likely if the student has been exposed to teachers of surveying and more employers that getting an education usually leads to.

My analysis of the available evidence is that the indentured servitude model of working for the boss and worshipping their ways until they retire or until the employee can pass the test has not produced surveyors that have kept up with changing laws, regulations, measureing technology. In fact the surveying profession has lost many of the areas of traditional service due to others recognizing the lack of advancement. I am confident boundaries and highly technical construction surveying operation will go as well, if surveyors do not demand formal education for licensure.

As always, I could be wrong, but that's my take on it for what it's worth.

Disclaimer: I am a young educated surveyor from Southern Illinois University (Thank you Roy Frank)

I completely agree with the education requirements that are being put in place (I would like there to be a national standard.) With the way our profession is going today with GPS and Robotic Total Stations etc. education is only going to become more important. Survey crews are smaller today than they were in the good ole days. Having someone who already has some knowledge of the profession when you hire them helps greatly with the learning curve. The days of staring out clearing line then moving to rod-man and on up to crew chief are becoming a thing of the past and with them so is the time it takes to truly mentor someone. So to keep the profession moving forward we need to supplement this with education.

There are always exceptions to every rule. You are going to find educated surveyors that aren't worth the paper the license is printed on and you will find uneducated guys that could be rocket scientist, They are the exception though.

Also, education can help change the perception people have about surveyors. A few years ago I moved out of IL. and hired on with the company I work for today and on the first day I was asked - so you're a surveyor? to which I reply yes. the follow up question was - so which are you an alcoholic or a pothead? when I replied neither their come back was that can't be true all surveyors are one or the other. Is this really how we want people to perceive our profession?

As for the cost of the education there is always a way to get educated. I am the first person in both of my parents families to receive a college degree and I did it without 10's of thousands of $ in debt. It is call the UNITED STATES ARMY. If you really want an education Uncle Sam will pay for it for you.

So I say lets keep moving forward and make the education requirements a national standard that transcends state lines and makes it easier for us to come together as a profession.

mr frymire, please clarify

Full disclosure: yes I am currently an educator, yes I argued against degree requirements at one time, no I never argued against formal education, yes I think there are problems with the formal education "business", no I don't think that makes it an excuse to not require formal education.

mr frymire,
please clarify; if you argued against degrees minimums in the past, but also claim you never argued against formal education in the next statement. to me, these statements contradict one another