Is It Time To Change Surveying Licensure?

From Adams' article:

"Our license is unique in that we are licensed to protect the public; are we really protecting the public? We deny a person who has 20 years of diverse experience working directly for a licensed land surveyor as a para-professional, but allow a person with an undergraduate in liberal arts and two years‰Ûª office experience to be qualified? How could this possibly protect the public?"

I disagree with the author's take on this situation. In most states a person with a "liberal arts degree and two years office experience" isn't necessarily qualified for licensure. They are qualified for examination. While I agree that "long established practice" should still be a possibility to allow an applicant examination, it is not in Oklahoma for just a few years now. Field experience is still a requirement.

My opinion is if we feel we are not producing surveyors that are qualified for existing cadastral maintenance, we need to make the examination tougher. I believe we are headed in that direction with the Public Domain AND Oklahoma specific portions of our exam.

I really don't think the problem is as large as the author indicates. None of us hit the ground after we passed our exam with the knowledge we now possess. The license, as it has been said, is merely a "license to REALLY start learning".

"Our license is unique in that we are licensed to protect the public;" aren't all licenses in order to protect the public? From hair dressers, to automobile drivers, to Engineers, to Doctors to Lawyers?

I don't know why we are so hell-bent on college education. In our state, as far as I know, you aren't required by statute to have a college degree to become a PE, or a Dr. or a lawyer, or a hairdresser for that matter. It isn't the degree, it's the knowledge.

Maybe it needs to be another form of education system. Maybe your minimum field experience requirements plus some kind of C-Feds equivalent of certification system to be come qualified to examine (and/or a certain amount of university hours). I certainly don't have all of the answers, but a program like a "land surveying" degree just doesn't seem sustainable in a college environment. You have hundreds of kids trying to become engineers, and not enough to become land surveyors to even have the instructor support to sustain it.

A few random thoughts:

"liberal arts degree and two years office experience" - is there anyplace where one can sit for the licensing exams with this combination of education and experience without references from licensed surveyors? If this is a problem it's not the regulation that is the problem (there may be a surveying savant out there that can get by with this) the problem is with the surveyors who sign for the applicant.

I'm not convinced that a decreasing number of licensed surveyors is intrinsically bad, or conversely an increase in the number of licensed is intrinsically good. I see more of a problem in the lack of para professionals than licenses. Perhaps we need to concentrate on expanding the training and certification of technicians; not every nurse, or radiologist, or lab technician needs the educational and experience to sit for their medical boards.

"know a tremendous amount about geoid models, technology and Geographical Information Systems (GIS), but have never stepped foot on the ground and never found a pit and mound" - the contrary is also true, try following the mapping and control for an engineering project that was prepared by a surveyor with no knowledge of geodesy or the technology behind the tools he/she used.

I see the need for expanding the educational requirements not so much as to provided professional credentials for land surveyors as to counteract the decline in the overall quality of education. High Schools are, in many cases, not much more than glorified daycare and most community colleges are just 13th and 14th grade. I've worked for some great surveyors that came out of two year programs in the 70's; some of the applicants I see today with the same education should be wearing helmets so they don't hurt themselves.

Lastly the phrase "licensed to protect the public" can be read "licensed to protect the public" or "licensed to protect the public". I believe most regulations are written with the intent that the emphasis is on the licenses; that setting a minimum standard to practice, and providing oversight and posible discipline to licensees protects the public. We are in no way unique in this.

DEREK G. GRAHAM OLS OLIP, post: 351178, member: 285 wrote: Thumbs up to this line of thought: http://www.pobonline.com/articles/97715-guest-column-is-it-time-to-change-surveying-licensure

IMVHO make it a "Head and Hands" education requirement that, in order to study to become a cadastral surveyor, require a mandatory two year work experience in the field (not sitting in an office) BEFORE going to a post secondary school of higher learning.

Views ?

YOS

DGG

To argue the other side. The author has an entire article based on assumptions that have no basis in reality, or at least the article gives no data to back up the premises that the author then proposes solutions for.

The only thing I can agree with is that college programs in surveying do not generally contain enough courses in the legal aspects or cadastral retracement surveying. Those that do, don't generally have people teaching those courses who have advanced knowledge about the material. Which in turn stems from a lack of degree requirements and degree content.

I disagree with the notion that retracement is so different in one state or region that one can not practice across the country if they have a proper education in those topics. Most of the local/regional differences have to do with creating new parcels and surveyors trained in research methods should/must be able to find and interpret these even in their own small working world, wherever that may be. It's only those without the proper education that think things are so different all across the country. Which brings up my second objection.

Experience is not the same depending on who one works for. Long Experience with someone who is doing things wrong can overcome and negate all the learning acquired in college about how to do things correctly.

What is this shortage people keep telling us about? In the next breath these same folks complain about low fees and low wages. These two things can not exist together. And you can't have strong education programs for a industry/profession that lets in uneducated people who perform substandard quality for low fees.

Why is there so much discussion about "the pincushion effect" if the prevailing method of experience and exam is such a good model? Again, a good model for licensing and poor performance by a substantial number of licensees can not exist together. And poor performance by a substantial number of licensees is not a situation conducive to productive on the job training requirements.

NCEES is worried about the decline in test takers because the low numbers mean they spend more on administering the exams than they take in, not because they care how mobile the license is. There, how's that for an undocumented assertion to write an article about?

We don't need to try to compare surveying with any other trade or profession to determine whether education is needed or not. Merely look at the numbers of court cases instigated by someone hiring a surveyor. Well, we could look at that if there were degree requirements because then there would be graduate students researching this stuff and coming up with course content to address the issues found in the cases. Of course that would require we can convince someone (anyone) that the legal aspects of surveying are every bit as complex, and every bit as teachable as the mathematical aspects. Something which attorneys and judges would agree with, but our closer cousins and handlers the engineers seem not to know or acknowledge.

Yes, one needs to get their boots dirty before being licensed, but not without first being prepared for that experience with the requisite advanced knowledge of topics they will encounter in the field. Surveyors can no longer afford to turn loose untrained technicians on the general public to learn from scratch on the job at the expense of the public. Same old same old is a recipe for the end of the profession. Two years surveying specific education is a good start and probably as far as a technician needs to go, but it's not nearly enough for a professional who will be offering services to the public as one with advanced knowledge in any area (surveying included).

I know I'm wrong about all this because the powers that be keep telling me so. Still, it's a good argument so I like to make it once in awhile (at least until the profession dies its slow death).

The problem is we are too tied in with the Engineering Profession to become a true quasi legal profession and really protect anyone, much less the entire public. There is always someone with close ties to NCEES and ABET that will disagree.

Legal problems are not black and white, yes or no questions. The is no Way to compute an answer with engineering certainty.

Dave Karoly, post: 351228, member: 94 wrote: The problem is we are too tied in with the Engineering Profession to become a true quasi legal profession and really protect anyone, much less the entire public. There is always someone with close ties to NCEES and ABET that will disagree.

Legal problems are not black and white, yes or no questions. The is no Way to compute an answer with engineering certainty.

Sure there is; keep denying that legal analysis is a complicated area that requires advanced educational study, so that engineers can easily obtain the stepchild surveyors license because a surveying degree is not required and even if it is it doesn't require legal education. In NY it doesn't work both ways of course. A BST surveying degree will get you 4 years toward a surveyors license but only 4 years toward an engineers license. On the other hand, an engineering degree will get you the same 4 years toward a surveying license but 8 towards an engineering license. How can I advise a young person to pursue a surveying degree instead of an engineering degree? To be fair, our one 4 year degree in surveying engineering is allowed 6 years toward engineering license. Still, the bias is obvious. The best course in NY is to become a PE. That way you can do everything surveyors used to be able to do, and then get a survey license to complete your credentials and your ability to develop a site. The relatively straightforward engineering technology needed for subdivision drainage design, road design, erosion mitigation/control is considered too complex for surveyors, but the complex legal issues involved in retracement are given little consequence. Engineer lobby has successfully convinced local municipalities that surveyors are not even qualified to perform "perk tests" and/or "deep hole test" anymore. Wetland scientists have convinced state agencies surveyors can't find wetlands or highwater marks anymore. Much of that may be true due to our lack of embracing educational programs that teach this stuff. But these are things surveyors traditionally did do, and our lack of keeping up with the times and educating surveyors in the new requirements in these areas leave only a land boundary to determine. Apparently we are not doing that well either. Hence, the decline in fees people are willing to pay, and the decline in those entering the "profession". I really can't help members of the public much if all I can do is the land boundary, and what I do there sends them to a court case that costs tens of thousands of dollars.

The answer is not to go along with the prevailing wisdom or my path to licensure or yours, of that I'm quite sure. Either we change things (which we may not have the political power to do anyway) or surveying as a profession goes away.

An interesting part of licensing in the real estate field is the requirement to obtain a certain amount of education in a specific area within the first so many months after passing the examination. You are licensed, but, you must do this followup education immediately or face losing your license.

Perhaps something similar would be beneficial for surveyors as well. It could be specific coursework or it could be proof of actual employment and performance of the work for which one became licensed during the first 12 months following receiving one's license. Either way it could require a commitment to advancing one's education immediately.

Holy Cow, post: 351263, member: 50 wrote: An interesting part of licensing in the real estate field is the requirement to obtain a certain amount of education in a specific area within the first so many months after passing the examination. You are licensed, but, you must do this followup education immediately or face losing your license.

Perhaps something similar would be beneficial for surveyors as well. It could be specific coursework or it could be proof of actual employment and performance of the work for which one became licensed during the first 12 months following receiving one's license. Either way it could require a commitment to advancing one's education immediately.

I just think they should make the test own up to the required legal knowledge about boundary law. Also a few years of experience in land boundary with real examples of the supervised work. This should be reviewed by a board of real land surveyors. Being employed doesn't mean mentoring in my experience. The problem of not enough licenses could be resolved by cutting loose all the things that really don't require a license to do in Geomatics, or create other licenses for this stuff if they insist.

Take engineering, I think there are many more engineers working without licenses than not and many of them make lots more money. You don't need a PE to design cars, machinery, drill for oil, do all kind of research, design rockets and on and on.

LRDay, post: 351282, member: 571 wrote: Take engineering, I think there are many more engineers working without licenses than not and many of them make lots more money. You don't need a PE to design cars, machinery, drill for oil, do all kind of research, design rockets and on and on.

wikipepedia has some good information.

Hi I am a Party Chief in Texas with 9+ years of field surveying experience. To be licensed in TX I have to have a bachelor's degree. I would be interested in anyone's thoughts on the possibility of becoming licensed with appropriate field experience and college hours concerning the legal part of RPLS?

howdy Jesse06
glad you found your way here

If you have had any college and as you have found from 9yrs inthe field, all your learning don't come from a book, classroom or teacher.

Your mentors will lead you in the right direction and attending seminars, meeting other surveyors and asking professionals the answers to what you don't understand will get you farther down the road.

Researching, write it down, write it down and visit your state BOR website will pick a decent reading list and other info.

I had to shut off the TV, radio and live, hear and write and study surveying full time while not at work until I could do it in my sleep.

Yes, you can be licensed one day if you are willing to give what it takes..........

Jesse06, post: 351380, member: 10904 wrote: Hi I am a Party Chief in Texas with 9+ years of field surveying experience. To be licensed in TX I have to have a bachelor's degree. I would be interested in anyone's thoughts on the possibility of becoming licensed with appropriate field experience and college hours concerning the legal part of RPLS?

I think you need a bachelor degree of some kind with a certain number of credit hours in surveying, some of which should be in the legal aspects. You can get all this online these days. It's self learning just like experience is, except of course you pay for it instead of getting paid. So the degree needs to have a payoff on the backend and you should calculate if there is one and if it's worth it. On the experience end your employer is documenting what you do and giving you tips and mentoring. On the education side it is the teacher. But any learning is self learning. Sometimes the undocumented by others self learning is the best, but it is harder to calculate what the payoff of that is beforehand. You get to be an expert in some area within surveying and it will usually pay off, even if it's not something that requires having your own license. Lot of expert and unlicensed surveying technicians making more than licensed surveyors dealing with legal aspects. But money is not everything; if you really want to own and run a business with all that goes into that you will need the license, and some of your courses should be in business management.

Tom Adams, post: 351208, member: 7285 wrote: "...I don't know why we are so hell-bent on college education. In our state, as far as I know, you aren't required by statute to have a college degree to become a PE, or a Dr. or a lawyer, or a hairdresser for that matter. It isn't the degree, it's the knowledge..."

Colorado Medical Board: Physician Licensing Requirements
"...Colorado statutes (Section 12-36-107) set forth minimum qualifications for physician licensure. These requirements include: proof of graduation from medical school, passage of nationally recognized exams, satisfactory completion of postgraduate education, and submission of reference letters from previous practice locations..."

Rule 203.4 Applications for Admission by Colorado Bar Examination
"...Rule 203.4 (3) By the time of the examination, Colorado bar examination applicants must have received:
[INDENT=1](a) a J.D. or LL.B. degree from a law school approved by the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar of the American Bar Association..."[/INDENT]

"I don't know why we are so hell-bent on college education. In our state, as far as I know, you aren't required by statute to have a college degree to become a PE, or a Dr. or a lawyer, or a hairdresser for that matter. It isn't the degree, it's the knowledge."

I am not sure if the sarcasm font was supposed to be on or not? I think it was? I may be wrong but I am pretty sure that even hair dressers have an education requirement. And a doctor or lawyer without a degree? If would be amazed if a doctor told me he had a degree in anything other than the medical field. Same goes for lawyers.

Couple points about the education debate.

1) Do we really need to keep making the point that a college degree is not a replacement for experience? No one is arguing that point.

2) A land survey license does not make you lord supreme of surveying. It is minimum qualifications. Experience continues after acquiring it.

3) There is a bit of the chicken and the egg thing going on. Without an education requirement there is no need to go to college to become a land surveyor. That means low enrollment in classes which means no classes offered and no professors to teach the classes. People complain that classes are not taught properly or only geodesy and GIS classes are offered. Colleges do not hire people without degrees to teach! So that means no Land Surveyors can be professors. There are colleges with Boundary classes offered, but they usually have low enrollment and are in danger of being cut because of that.

I really think it is a poorly written article. Based mostly on the principle that education is not a replacement for experience. He really should be speaking for only Texas, too much mix up in points about the entire US that don't apply to other states. California for example has a field experience requirement. It does seem that Texas has its own thing going on and lacks a good four year degree? But how do you get to the point were a good 4 year program is in place? It is not going to happen over night. Education requirements are the only way to create support for college curriculum. I am amazed that some of the land survey community can not wake up to this fact.