Beau_Immel, post: 351498, member: 8320 wrote: 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.
It all boils down to the one thing that drives everything; MONEY.
How much does an entry level surveyor, with a 4 year degree expect to make in your state?...That's what I thought; a lot less than they would make spending that same 4 years studying to do something else. Hell, they could make more testing video games; sitting at a desk, eating Doritos and drinking Mountain Dew sounds a lot better than cutting through thorny brush to get to a corner that might not be there; and make more money too!
Maybe in some sort of weird, backward way, you're right. If we tell someone that wants to be a surveyor; you need a 4 year degree before you can get a license. No one will want to be a surveyor; the numbers will dwindle down to a minimum and surveyors will be able to charge what they want, just because of supply and demand.
RADAR, post: 351508, member: 413 wrote: How much does an entry level surveyor, with a 4 year degree expect to make in your state?
I can't speak for the whole state, but in my part of the state a quick check of the interweb says private sector survey grads make about the same as teachers and public sector civil enginers; and more than social workers, journalists, and marine biologists.
It has been well demonstrated on this board that there is no such thing as a model surveyor. No matter what vision is created and labeled "SURVEYOR", most of us don't fit that depiction. Yet it is essential to have some process for licensure in order to have surveying listed among PROFESSIONS. No matter what standards are required, they will not conform to the day to day knowledge required for nearly all of us.
The 4 year degree requirement is relatively new here. I have yet to see anyone attempt to separate the effects of various forces on our numbers. It would take a serious divining rod and crystal ball effort to do so. It is safe to say that economic forces play a significant role in the drop. Any push for opening a non-degree path to licensure should be separated from our recruitment issues. A person is either competent or not.
thebionicman, post: 351552, member: 8136 wrote: ... A person is either competent or not.
I agree. I also agree that educational requirements are, at least in part, there to create support for college curriculum. When Oklahoma got rid of the ability to apply for examination without education, I tried to throw a fit. It all fell on deaf ears. I just wanted them to leave the ability to become licensed with experience only in the statutes. I am not against education at all.
But I will always believe, however, in our profession actual experience will always equal or exceed classroom time.
paden cash, post: 351556, member: 20 wrote: I agree. I also agree that educational requirements are, at least in part, there to create support for college curriculum. When Oklahoma got rid of the ability to apply for examination without education, I tried to throw a fit. It all fell on deaf ears. I just wanted them to leave the ability to become licensed with experience only in the statutes. I am not against education at all.
But I will always believe, however, in our profession actual experience will always equal or exceed classroom time.
I tend to agree. My point was the article was based on a cause effect relationship that hasn't been demonstrated. Regardless of how we measure competence we cannot simply change the definition until we obtain a predetermined number.
I stopped reading the article at the chart showing the annual numbers of surveyors in Texas. "The above list reflects a 10-percent drop in 20 years of Licensed Land Surveyors in Texas" Junk statistics at its finest. I'm not able to attach the graph of his data, but to imply state a 10% drop implies a linear trend; yet in 2015 there are the same number of surveyors as in 2001. In fact the Pearson correlation is 0.111 - meaning there is no trend or correlation from one year to another. He does not state what year Texas implemented the change to education but it appears from the examinee numbers to be after 2001 (looks like 2004 to me). Therefore, there has been a 0% drop in licensed surveyors. The author picked his numbers to prove his point, therefore losing all credibility.
If you are going to make a valid argument, first your assumptions have to be valid. There are a lot of valid arguments on both sides of this discussion, this is not one of them.
geonerd, post: 351587, member: 8268 wrote: I stopped reading the article at the chart showing the annual numbers of surveyors in Texas. "The above list reflects a 10-percent drop in 20 years of Licensed Land Surveyors in Texas" Junk statistics at its finest. I'm not able to attach the graph of his data, but to imply state a 10% drop implies a linear trend; yet in 2015 there are the same number of surveyors as in 2001. In fact the Pearson correlation is 0.111 - meaning there is no trend or correlation from one year to another. He does not state what year Texas implemented the change to education but it appears from the examinee numbers to be after 2001 (looks like 2004 to me). Therefore, there has been a 0% drop in licensed surveyors. The author picked his numbers to prove his point, therefore losing all credibility.
If you are going to make a valid argument, first your assumptions have to be valid. There are a lot of valid arguments on both sides of this discussion, this is not one of them.
"Torture numbers, and they'll confess to anything."
- Gregg Easterbrook
geonerd, post: 351587, member: 8268 wrote: I stopped reading the article at the chart showing the annual numbers of surveyors in Texas. "The above list reflects a 10-percent drop in 20 years of Licensed Land Surveyors in Texas" Junk statistics at its finest. I'm not able to attach the graph of his data, but to imply state a 10% drop implies a linear trend; yet in 2015 there are the same number of surveyors as in 2001. In fact the Pearson correlation is 0.111 - meaning there is no trend or correlation from one year to another. He does not state what year Texas implemented the change to education but it appears from the examinee numbers to be after 2001 (looks like 2004 to me). Therefore, there has been a 0% drop in licensed surveyors. The author picked his numbers to prove his point, therefore losing all credibility.
If you are going to make a valid argument, first your assumptions have to be valid. There are a lot of valid arguments on both sides of this discussion, this is not one of them.
It also assumes if you have 3000 licenses in Year X you must need 3000 licenses in Year Y. That isn't necessarily the case.
It may be a good idea to have a sub-professional license scheme, like the medical profession has.
I think there's been some great suggestions on this thread and ones that should be considered. I finally read the article (thanks for the link) and don't entirely disagree with everything the author stated though I do agree that interpretation of the charts aren't necessarily accurate.
I've always been in favor of what I refer to as a tiered qualification system. One where education and actual work experience is balanced well while recognition is given towards alternate pathways to education aside from the traditional approach. I also believe that more focus is needed, both during education and while obtaining the necessary experience, on boundary surveying and the legal aspects. Education in land surveying has much less to do with engineering and more to do with legal aspects.
It's been my experience that those land surveyors (and engineers) being disciplined by their respective boards (and causing their clients major issues) are that way because they either have a lack of appropriate mentorship or consciously choose to cut corners or both. I cannot recall any discipline being imposed because someone had a lack of formal education.
I appreciate all the ideas as it's making me think.
RADAR, post: 351508, member: 413 wrote: It all boils down to the one thing that drives everything; MONEY.
How much does an entry level surveyor, with a 4 year degree expect to make in your state?...That's what I thought; a lot less than they would make spending that same 4 years studying to do something else. Hell, they could make more testing video games; sitting at a desk, eating Doritos and drinking Mountain Dew sounds a lot better than cutting through thorny brush to get to a corner that might not be there; and make more money too!
Maybe in some sort of weird, backward way, you're right. If we tell someone that wants to be a surveyor; you need a 4 year degree before you can get a license. No one will want to be a surveyor; the numbers will dwindle down to a minimum and surveyors will be able to charge what they want, just because of supply and demand.
Many people get a four year degree and don't get a decent job after graduating. They have no idea what they want to do. There are few degrees that "guarantee" a good job after graduation and most (if not all) are for fields that require the degree in the first place. I like to think that Surveying is one that provides a good job after graduation. Getting a degree is a long term investment in life, the real pay back should come later in life when you don't hit a glass ceiling.
Getting a degree in no way makes you an expert, and some graduates are better than others. If all you want is someone to cut brush then an employee with a degree is not needed. If you want someone that shows interest in the profession and a desire to progress then maybe it is a better choice and maybe they should be paid a little more?
RADAR, post: 351508, member: 413 wrote: It all boils down to the one thing that drives everything; MONEY.
How much does an entry level surveyor, with a 4 year degree expect to make in your state?...That's what I thought; a lot less than they would make spending that same 4 years studying to do something else. Hell, they could make more testing video games; sitting at a desk, eating Doritos and drinking Mountain Dew sounds a lot better than cutting through thorny brush to get to a corner that might not be there; and make more money too!
Maybe in some sort of weird, backward way, you're right. If we tell someone that wants to be a surveyor; you need a 4 year degree before you can get a license. No one will want to be a surveyor; the numbers will dwindle down to a minimum and surveyors will be able to charge what they want, just because of supply and demand.
Actually, that's not true either. Those graduating from the program in NY typically get 50k-65k starting. That's with public and private sector, but not in upstate NY because of lack of degree requirements.
Some people like to cut through thorny brush; I'm one of them. But when I decided I wanted to stick with surveying and get the license to operate on my own, I was smart enough (in the life experience way) to know I would need formal education (even though not required) to be the best surveyor I could be. The State knows this as well, but political lobbying gets in the way. Those in control want to keep surveying cheap and they don't care about quality (another undocumented article:)). It's not easy to get degrees late in life or at any time, lots of sacrifices. But it's the right thing to do if you work in an area that affects the public in a dramatic way.
I have found (again undocumented, but that's what we're doing right?) that most of those arguing against degree requirements are either employers looking to keep up a supply of cheap labor to sustain their low pricing schemes, or those who have worked many years as technicians for sub-standard wages looking for a way to make a bare living competing with their employers. Most technicians would happily stay with the company if they could earn a decent living, and most employers would happily charge more if they could. But there's this vicious cycle going on that prevents realistic pay for the work in many areas. A degree requirement addresses that, but takes a long time to have an effect.
[USER=8320]@Beau_Immel[/USER]
I can agree with most of what you are saying...
Beau_Immel, post: 351622, member: 8320 wrote: If all you want is someone to cut brush then an employee with a degree is not needed. If you want someone that shows interest in the profession and a desire to progress then maybe it is a better choice and maybe they should be paid a little more?
Cutting brush is a part of what a surveyor does; at least where I live it is, I cut some blackberry out of my way yesterday. An entry level surveyor can expect to cut a lot of brush here in Western Washington; whether he has a degree or not; and showing an interest doesn't take a degree either.
As far as getting paid a little more; if he/she doesn't like to, or can't cut brush; they'll have a hard time keeping a job; at least around here they will.
Doug
RADAR, post: 351629, member: 413 wrote: [USER=8320]@Beau_Immel[/USER]
I can agree with most of what you are saying...Cutting brush is a part of what a surveyor does; at least where I live it is, I cut some blackberry out of my way yesterday. An entry level surveyor can expect to cut a lot of brush here in Western Washington; whether he has a degree or not; and showing an interest doesn't take a degree either.
As far as getting paid a little more; if he/she doesn't like to, or can't cut brush; they'll have a hard time keeping a job; at least around here they will.
Doug
I agree with a lot of what you are saying too. And a person with a degree can be just as good at cutting brush. I was trying to show that the matter is not a good argument against degree requirements.
Duane Frymire, post: 351626, member: 110 wrote: Actually, that's not true either. Those graduating from the program in NY typically get 50k-65k starting. That's with public and private sector, but not in upstate NY because of lack of degree requirements.
Some people like to cut through thorny brush; I'm one of them. But when I decided I wanted to stick with surveying and get the license to operate on my own, I was smart enough (in the life experience way) to know I would need formal education (even though not required) to be the best surveyor I could be. The State knows this as well, but political lobbying gets in the way. Those in control want to keep surveying cheap and they don't care about quality (another undocumented article:)). It's not easy to get degrees late in life or at any time, lots of sacrifices. But it's the right thing to do if you work in an area that affects the public in a dramatic way.
I have found (again undocumented, but that's what we're doing right?) that most of those arguing against degree requirements are either employers looking to keep up a supply of cheap labor to sustain their low pricing schemes, or those who have worked many years as technicians for sub-standard wages looking for a way to make a bare living competing with their employers. Most technicians would happily stay with the company if they could earn a decent living, and most employers would happily charge more if they could. But there's this vicious cycle going on that prevents realistic pay for the work in many areas. A degree requirement addresses that, but takes a long time to have an effect.
Public sector surveyors (working for NYS), fresh out of college with a degree and not yet licensed would start as a grade 13. Starting pay is $38,934 and top of grade, after 7 years on the job, is $49,821.
There are only 2 colleges in NY that offer an accredited program for surveying. One being Paul Smith's and the other is Alfred. Paul Smith's tuition (just tuition, not room and board, no meal plan, no books...) is $23,500/year. According to their website regarding tuition and fees a starting survey student can expect to pay $37,850 (rough numbers, obviously) for their first year of college there.
