mr frymire, please clarify
Moe, the contradiction is because of the real problems I ran into with the education "business" that have still not been resolved. But I've come to understand that the only way to resolve them is through a degree requirement that would make surveying education worth developing.
The problem with requiring a degree has been problems with transfer due to lack of accepted core curriculum, along with minimum credit requirements put in place at colleges, and lack of programs available to attend. So, I was against requiring a degree that was so scarce and difficult to obtain and had no accepted common learning outcomes.
At the same time I came to surveying through a 2 year program and have been continually disappointed at having to work with and for others who didn't understand what they were doing. This is similar to your complaint in another thread. As a young crew cheif (before GPS was widely used) I had to deal with similar discussions about who's numbers to use on nearly every job. Those arguing with me were licensed (some dual PE,LS) who knew how to do things, but didn't know why or what they were doing as they didn't have a surveying degree. Since practically the first day I set foot on a real surveying job I have known there was a problem with the profession in lack of educated personnel.
Again, not to say there are not exceptions, but with technological advancement those exceptions are going to become almost impossible due to the nature of automated processes. The exceptions will not be people who have learned coordinate systems and transformations, but rather people who have learned the software functions very well of some particular collection or processing device (similar to having learned to traverse with steel tape and theodolite to a prceision of 1:30,000 but then setting a pin where it comes out 0.04' from the iron axle called for in the deed).
So I want to see an attainable, standardized curriculum degree requirement that is recognized at colleges across the country and, then implemented by licensing boards via either exams for licensure based on that curriculum and double time given for the degree (this is how engineering handles it) or a requirement for the degree itself (which I know will not work in NY). So, there can be exceptions still but they would be more difficult and time consuming to achieve than the standard degree path rather than less.
I should mention that most of the people I have worked for and with were excellent. It's just that when problems come up, it has always been with those without the education. Others may have had different experiences.
mr frymire, please clarify
Well stated, here's my view of this. Some guys out here choose to compartmentalize the profession and have determined Boundary Surveying is the end all and do all. Others have chosen to narrowly define the Profession based on their own experiences and assume that their little county's procedures are a Microcosm of the Surveying industry. They then wrongly assume that "that's it in a nutshell". Meanwhile there are so many facets and areas of specialization that the possibilities are endless. I personally have an AAS in Civil Engineering, went on to major in Mathematics (where I took all Calculus you can imagine and hell of a lot of Physics and other stuff) ran out of GI Bill and had to foot the rest out of pocket, couldn't afford it. Somewhere in the early 90s I got the itch to go back and get a Surveying Engineering Degree. It was on and off again until 2007 when I got Physically Sick, to the point I was hospitalized. I'm 2 classes short and don't have the time or energy at this point. One is photogrammetry and the other is the final Boundary Course (boundary line analysis). I realized a long time ago that I wasn't interested in becoming a boundary specialist (I've been surveying since I was 15 and have done more than enough boundary surveying to make a competent self determination), so instead of going back to that, I took a couple of more Geodesy and Adjustment courses elsewhere which have served me better in my career.
Now that's me, I have 2 licensed 4 year degreed Surveyors working under me, 1 Party Chief with a BS in Civil Engineering (Those 3 are all Cum Laude Graduates) , 1 Party Chief with a Degree in Forestry and A degree in Geography, 1 party Chief with an AAS in Surveying from Alfred State and one Mechanical Engineer, the rest of the gang are just technicians. None of that talent is applied to Boundary or Property Line work.
The breadth and scope of our projects require some form of scientific analysis, the kind you can learn from a mentor but you're not going to fully understand without some academic science.
That being said, I am going to respectfully reject Duane's notion of Standardized Curriculum. My experience tells me that there should be areas of specialization. I don’t think you need an Abet accredited Bachelors Degree to be a competent Boundary Surveyor, in fact I believe an Associates like the one they offer at Renton ( I believe it had 90 credits) and mentorship will suffice.
An SIU grad worked for me for 3.5 years. He is a credit to that program.
Great thoughts Duane.
The biggest obstacle to understanding and better agreement in this debate is that many, primarily those with no degree, think of it as an either/or question.
If one came up via experience, he or she needs no formal education.
If one earned a degree, they must not have gotten any experience and so can't possibly have the same depth of experience as one who came up through experience alone.
While I've met plenty of educated knuckleheads, most are pretty intelligent people and are the type to make as much of their educational, training, and experience opportunities as they can. Accordingly, they tend to hold their employment while others are being laid off, tend to move up in responsibility in an organization faster, and tend to continue to add to their knowledge base throughout their careers, and often into retirement as well.
I worked my way through college. All of that being in surveying or closely related work. Formal education can give one width of knowledge over a broad spectrum of practice while experience can provide depth in a few specific areas that you happen to be working in. But either is only true if the person getting the education and/or experience is truly participating and engaged.
How many have you known who have worked in surveying for a decade but have only gotten one year of experience and then repeated it nine times? I've known a bunch of those. Some of those figure that sometime after having worked beyond the minimum number of years specified in their state's LS act, that they deserve to be licensed, and so apply to take the exam. It seems that there are plenty of existing licensees who don't exercise a whole lot of discretion when signing for someone's experience and so there are a lot (in CA anyway) of these people who have had one or two good year's worth of training through experience, repeated several times, but without the "good training" part, who become highly experienced at taking their state's exam through repeat experience. (at least they are consistent in how they approach their career)
By the time I graduated with my degree, I had about 10 years of on the job experience as well. Many of my classmates also had several years of experience by the time they graduated. Some came to get their degree after first having worked in the field for a few years. Almost all worked in surveying and/or closely related work during the summers and sometimes longer.
I recall a conversation I had with a survey manager a couple of months before the summer just before completing my degree. I had just moved to the Sacramento area and so sent out resumes to nearly every firm in the area looking for a job that would lead to a project surveyor position upon graduation in the late fall. One day I got a call from this survey manager to talk to me about summer employment.
A minute or two in, I got the distinct impression he was looking to hire a student for the grunt work on a field crew, so I stop him and tell him that if that's what he's about to offer me, I'm not interested, but if I've misunderstood and he's talking a position as a chief, then we're on the same page.
Youdda thunk I just told him I would settle for nothing less than Sr. V.P. He went off on me about the audacity of a student thinking he could be a party chief, that his chiefs had 10 or more years of experience, and that some were even close to being licensed. "Works for me" I said, "I have over 14 years of combined education and experience, the last 10 years at party chief or higher. And I am licensed."
Not only had he not read past the first sentence of my cover letter (1st sentence said I was a student looking for work leading to permanent employment, 2nd said I was an LS with 14 years ed/ex), but he hadn't heard a word I just said. Instead he continued going off on me for holding the absurd notion that a college student was anywhere near qualified to do anything but follow around his experienced field hands. I thanked him for the call but suggested that at that point we were wasting each others' time. He was still screaming as I put the receiver down.
Starting out in MI, a lot of the work was seasonal. I worked during the field seasons and went to school in the off seasons, also holding a part-time job with a local company during 2 of those winters. Some of my coworkers did likewise while others chose to do work in snow removal, cutting firewood, or nothing at all unless they got called in for a day or two for the occasional job that couldn't wait for Spring.
For some, the ability to get a formal education is dictated by circumstances. But for most it is a choice. If you made that choice or are currently making that choice, don't fool yourself that you will get better training over the course of 4 or 5 years through work experience alone vs. working toward a degree and getting work experience a few months at a time along the way. In almost all circumstances, there is no way that is true. You may fool a few who don't want to choose to get a degree, and you may even fool yourself, but you won't fool those of us who have gone down both roads.
There is no denying that there are many excellent surveyors who don't have a 4 yr degree, and maybe have no formal education at all beyond high school. But when you look at how they got to be such good surveyors, you will find that they had and continue to have the discipline to study and learn on their own and not simply rely on what comes their way on the job to bring them knowledge. They went and sought knowledge. Very few have the kind of discipline that education on one's own requires.
For those who have the option (which is most who are at the front end of considering surveying as a career), getting the degree while getting as much actual experience as possible along the way is the best way to go.
It's not either/or. Education provides a great foundation for experience. Experience completes education.
Absolutely excellent post.:good:
I've never been a cheerleader for a compulsory 4-year degree (I just think the test should be way harder, and the experience requirements more rigorous), but in general, a 4-year degree correlates very highly with other characteristics that lead to success.
1. Deferred gratification and impulse control
2. Fiscal and Relationship Discipline
Damn near every survey program is at a public university, so it's not that expensive. Almost every complaint I hear or read about how "difficult" it is to get an education stems from the fact that someone has already screwed up his life. So yes, if you start a family too early and buy a house and two cars and run up your credit cards, college may not be an option. It's not the fault of the profession.
All that to say: Young crew members out there, Pay Attention! You may need to get an education. This will require planning and discipline. It is within your power to screw this up. Don't. Succeed instead.
mr frymire, please clarify
Good post Ralph. You don't need to reject standardized curriculum to have specialization though. For instance all civil engineering curriculums have a statics course, most have a surveying course, etc.. We should be able to agree on a core math, english, basics that can then be branched out from. All the other professions do it, why not surveying?
BTW, we have the two courses you need online this spring and there's still time to sign up this week for one or both:-)
Of course you probably need them at the degree granting institution to satisfy the minimum credits taken from them, given your story. One of my problems with the education "business".
Yes it's always going to be difficult, and it should be. I got my education commuting long distances, raising kids, working, going back time and again, changing majors and colleges and thereby losing credits. But I think we need to make education more accessible and transferable in this country, and not just for surveying.
> Damn near every survey program is at a public university, so it's not that expensive.
If you actually believe this than you haven't looked at how much school costs today.
mr frymire, please clarify
> Good post Ralph. You don't need to reject standardized curriculum to have specialization though. For instance all civil engineering curriculums have a statics course, most have a surveying course, etc.. We should be able to agree on a core math, english, basics that can then be branched out from. All the other professions do it, why not surveying?
>
> BTW, we have the two courses you need online this spring and there's still time to sign up this week for one or both:-)
>
> Of course you probably need them at the degree granting institution to satisfy the minimum credits taken from them, given your story. One of my problems with the education "business".
The Boundary Course is actually the third in a series, but you're right if I took them with you they would probably get rejected.
I agree on the core concept, but I don't think you can get a large enough Survey student body to offer the proper electives. Here's an example
The top one is a Baechler Sphere (Google it and see how many hits you get) and the other is a Taylor hobson sphere, they both belong to my company and we use them in our day to day operations. Metrology is no longer offered in any US College. My buddy had to go up to UNB in Canada and pursue a PHD in order to study it in an academic setting. Now if I go to Brunson in Kansas City, they will offer me a 40 hour intense course on industrial alignment. If I were to submit a certificate of completion to the NYS Board, what do you think the outcome would be? However, if I were to sleep through one of these BS wetland delineation courses I'd be good to go for the next three years. After which I can find out where they are giving it again and hit the cozy corner (out of sight-out of mind) nod out for another 4-8 hours and keep the dream alive. But if I were to go with my satff and study under my metrology guy in the Philadelphia Naval Lab for 2 weeks and learn about his sub millimeter measuring techniques I'd be wasting my time.
In order to have a PC (Professional Surveying Corp) in NYS, the word Land Surveying has to be included in your name. The name of my company is New York Geomatics, I called the Secretary of the board to discuss this matter, left a message and never got a reply (its been over a year now). I will not be changing the name of my company anytime soon.
I could go on and on, but I won't for now. (gotta make some money).
Ralph:-)
mr frymire, please clarify
I know, I'm with you all the way:-( And if you're making money I'm sure the board will tell you what you're doing is engineering and you're not qualified:-@
