Florida will let your crew sit for the exam if you sign a letter. Would you?

If the exam isn't able to test competence it should not be used and another method should be used to assure competence. If the exam is able to test competence, then let anyone take it. 

Are you guys saying that someone can take the test with no experience/education and stamp surveys upon passing the exam?

Here, some of the requirements have gotten absurd. I'm leaning for it, some of the ridiculous requirements are out of control. A local PE who was also surveying for an engineering firm under a PE/LS wanted to sit for the LS, had tons of boundary experience. He was also the surveying instructor at the local college. The board refused to allow him to take it until he took the classes he was teaching since he didn't have them in college. 

Once that happened I'm inclined to go with Florida. 

When I was a kid I had a next door neighbor who passed the bar exam without going to law school. Two of the best engineers I worked with never went to college. 

When I started, the precision of survey work was mostly determined by the physical skill level of the crew, which required years of experience. How could a registered surveyor teach these skills if he himself was lacking. I don't think that is true for today.

I vote with 'lurker', let them take the test. But if I designed the test it would have so much law questions that 90% would fail.

It takes less time to sit for the Bar than to sit for the LS exam. 

We are rapidly disappearing because of the standard being set so high.  Four years of experience or two years of experience plus two years of education would be adequate to sit for the exam.  If the exam is not passed on the first try, the applicant then has an idea of what areas they need to study to pass.

Imagine if the effort to design a test that 90% of the people fail was put into teaching them. I experienced that attitude when taking a study class  for my PA license. Very arrogant group.

Thanks for posting this. It gives us survey technicians hope that we could join the ranks of professional surveyors. My friend and coworker in the field is an outstanding party chief who excels at boundary work. He's also one heck of a computer draftsman. Eliminating the 4-year degree requirement for him would be a wise decision for the future of the surveying profession in Florida.

A fellow I know with close to 20 years of experience just resigned and went to work as a draftsman for a completely different type of firm.  Only his computer skills will transfer to his day to day responsibilities.  He had started trying to get the two years of coursework.  That really didn't work for him as he needed a standard classroom approach as opposed to a teach yourself model.  He is very skilled on the research side, has done a little everything on the equipment operation and maintenance side and drafting anything and everything.  He can handle clients quite well.  He has reached an age where the physical wear and tear has been adding up since his Marine days.  Will have kids at home for about 10 more years

Posted by: @wendell

↑

Say it's someone on your crew. Three years in, sharp, no degree, and they ask you for the letter. Do you sign it?

First, licensure is not a doorway to a bright new world that one passes through. It's just a milestone along the path.

If such a person came to me I'd pull one of those sample exam books off the shelf, select a couple dozen questions at random, and send them home for the weekend to answer them. The review on Monday tells me if the letter gets signed. Maybe they withdraw their request voluntarily. After all, it's not the years, it's the mileage.

California, historically, has allowed people to write exams with almost no experience. Their pass rates have been single digits, percentage wise. 

In recent years Oregon has allowed almost anybody to write the test. If they pass they still have to meet the experience/education requirements before being licensed.  

I am not in Florida so do not know about their professional responsibilities.  I am in Virginia and would sign as appropriate with Virginia APELSCIDLA regulations.  If I had an outstanding employee, I would encourage them to study, apply for, and take the exam and would sign such a letter.  I likely would not sign a letter if I did not think they were capable or knowledgeable to be a professional surveyor.

A major issue could happen if obtaining licensure by this method in one State would not be accepted for reciprocity in another State.

I am taking the position of being fundamentally opposed for the reason I am about to state. I have witnessed for years and seemingly more-so now with the shortage of Licensed Land Surveyors, firms that are willing to tolerate incompetence just to have a “stamp” in their office or organization.

I completely agree that there are opposing arguable points, and as some have mentioned above, there are some “ridiculous requirements” out there.  I just flat do not trust the integrity of some firms regarding this matter based upon my own observations.

There are issues to be resolved in the path to licensing, but putting the cart before the horse does not seem appropriate to me.

Not sure I would sign. I do believe in an apprenticeship option, but someone with just book study or just fieldwork makes me pause. I believe that the reason for the degree requirement has to do with the term "studied profession" as opposed to "licensed trade". Which do we want to be? Or maybe both options? My concern signing for the example employee would not be if he or she is competent, but what are the consequences if he or she makes a bad call that causes harm? I am licensed in Colorado and Boulder comes to mind with that fiasco about Edie's path.

Correction, September 22, 2026. A follower on our Facebook page reported that our article is incorrect. HB 339 died in the Commerce Committee on June 16, 2025, after being withdrawn from consideration in May. There is no First Step protocol in Florida. I based the item on the House staff analysis of the bill without checking the bill's status, which is exactly the mistake the staff analysis warns about — it describes what the bill would have done, not what the law is.

That's on me. The blog post has been corrected and I've noted the error there too.