eapls2708, post: 351240, member: 589 wrote: ...............
................. I wish CA had a 3 strikes rule.
Well, that's easy for some to look down their nose and say. Those of us who feel we worked hard and / or are bright enough to pass right off the bat. But I am not of that same belief. I grew up in a rural town and remember one of the kids a year ahead of me who had to take the bonehead classes all through school simply because it didn't come easy to him. He was a good looking athletic kid and was very sociable. Even though I was the top of class acedemically, looking back I now believe he was truly much brighter than me via his people skills.
Some 10 years or so after high school I was surprised to run across him at Cal Expo as I was taking the LS. He was too. I had no idea he had taken the same career. Found out his career path was considerably different than mine. Me being the college BS and him the school of on the job.
Long story short, I passed and continued on my careeer. Every year or so I would check the license board and would not see his name. Not until a good another 10 years had passed plus or minus.
Now, I'm getting kindof old and this post is dating me. Another 10 years has passed plus or minus. My friend eventually became part owner of a long established and highly reputable mid-sized engineering firm. Same firm he got his on the job schooling from.
He recently retraced one of my surveys. He disagreed with a solution and procedure for one of the corners I set on the job. He showed it to me and I am glad he did. He was right and I was wrong.
I'm glad he wasn't 3 and out. He is a credit to our profession and to hard work and pereservance when the math doesn't come easy.
Ric Moore, post: 351280, member: 731 wrote: There would be no point to since the odds of passing any exams at that point is closing in on the neighborhood of high single or low double digits...
There's no point in allowing them to continue taking the exam since the odds of passing is closing in on such low numbers. As you state, perhaps they just did not gauge their readiness well enough, in which case, the State should tell them to stop wasting their time and State resources by taking an exam they won't pass without more and better preparation. Since CA grades on a curve, the actual effect of having these people in the exam pool is that you end up tossing out or degrading the value of more questions and lowering the cut score to arrive at a pass rate that won't have DCA and the legislature breathing down your neck. You end up degrading the profession by letting them in.
If you could or would filter out those who are long-time exam veterans (3 or more tours) and set the curve based on the performance of the rest of the examinees, you would be much closer to what the level of minimum competence should be. If you could do that, then I would be all for letting them throw away their money year after year except that with the all pick-the-bubble exam format, you've provided just enough aspect of a carnival game that it is possible for an incompetent person to guess their way to a license.
I've spoken to a few who passed after several attempts, and you're right that most of the time the difference is that they finally got serious enough to set their ego aside, honestly assess their deficiencies, and study accordingly. However, I do know of one guy who passed on his 7th (or maybe 8th) time around. It was the first year he decided to not study at all and by his own admission, he got lucky because otherwise, he answered everything the same way he would have on previous exams.
clearcut, post: 351284, member: 297 wrote: Well, that's easy for some to look down their nose and say...
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying 3 and done for good. I'm saying 3 strikes then come back in 2 or 3 years after getting more and better training.
I know many good surveyors who didn't pass on the first or even the second time. Surveying is also not rocket science. A person of average intelligence but with wisdom and common sense will usually make a better surveyor in the long run than someone who never struggled to make good grades but had trouble finding their way around the block and can't communicate.
One person may need more time in the field and/or more time in a classroom than others to adequately learn the same material. OK. After failing the exam 2 or 3 times, you would hope they can recognize that what they've done so far hasn't worked and it's time to take an extra year or two to prepare, or to otherwise make some fundamental changes to their preparation efforts. But it simply doesn't make sense for that person to take the exam year in and year out until their biorhythms happen to align on exam day. If it takes them 10 years to learn what others typically learn in 6, that's fine. Take the exam after you've got the 10 years of experience and training.
It has nothing to do with looking down my nose at anyone. It has to do with ensuring that examinees are properly prepared coming into the exam, and if they are not, having a mechanism in law to tell them what they've demonstrated but won't recognize on their own. It's not a punishment. It's not a figurative dunce cap they are forced to wear.
eapls2708, post: 351287, member: 589 wrote: There's no point in allowing them to continue taking the exam since the odds of passing is closing in on such low numbers. As you state, perhaps they just did not gauge their readiness well enough, in which case, the State should tell them to stop wasting their time and State resources by taking an exam they won't pass without more and better preparation. Since CA grades on a curve, the actual effect of having these people in the exam pool is that you end up tossing out or degrading the value of more questions and lowering the cut score to arrive at a pass rate that won't have DCA and the legislature breathing down your neck. You end up degrading the profession by letting them in.
With CBT, very little resources are expended regardless of the population. Development is the same also. Refile applications are minimal to process. The state exam (and national exam) are not graded on a curve. Never have been while you and I were ever involved even though everyone inititually thought that it did. What you are describing is simply not the manner in which the process is performed. Knowing your experience in exam development from more than five years ago, I understand your perception on what occurred, but that perception is no longer valid as mine wouldnt be either if I continued to relate everything to that experience.
By the time a cut score is determined, it is what it is. There is no political pressure or involvement in that determination. The process has been refined, and continues to be, to the point it is many times better at being defensible than it ever was before.
You end up degrading the profession by letting them in.
That statement is simply not applicable to this discussion. The responsibility of maintaining, increasing, or decreasing the creditibility of a profession lies solely with the professional members of that profession.
If you could or would filter out those who are long-time exam veterans (3 or more tours) and set the curve based on the performance of the rest of the examinees, you would be much closer to what the level of minimum competence should be. If you could do that, then I would be all for letting them throw away their money year after year except that with the all pick-the-bubble exam format, you've provided just enough aspect of a carnival game that it is possible for an incompetent person to guess their way to a license.
I've spoken to a few who passed after several attempts, and you're right that most of the time the difference is that they finally got serious enough to set their ego aside, honestly assess their deficiencies, and study accordingly. However, I do know of one guy who passed on his 7th (or maybe 8th) time around. It was the first year he decided to not study at all and by his own admission, he got lucky because otherwise, he answered everything the same way he would have on previous exams.
Same answers as above and in previous posts. Sometimes, the candidate is not as incompetent as their exam results appear to make them and their adjustment is how they approach the stress and management of the exam experience without being related to the actual content. Most who have set aside their egos, especially after being unsuccessful previous times, begin to express that luck plays some part in the eventual success. Many times, I've waited outside a CBT center on exam day and asked questions of candidates leaving the exam for how they felt. Your knowledge of this one guy may be precisely an example for why the legislature doesn't like limiting the number of attempts. Who are they to tell someone they can't pursue a chosen profession?
eapls2708, post: 351288, member: 589 wrote: You misunderstand me. I'm not saying 3 and done for good. I'm saying 3 strikes then come back in 2 or 3 years after getting more and better training.
I know many good surveyors who didn't pass on the first or even the second time. Surveying is also not rocket science. A person of average intelligence but with wisdom and common sense will usually make a better surveyor in the long run than someone who never struggled to make good grades but had trouble finding their way around the block and can't communicate.
One person may need more time in the field and/or more time in a classroom than others to adequately learn the same material. OK. After failing the exam 2 or 3 times, you would hope they can recognize that what they've done so far hasn't worked and it's time to take an extra year or two to prepare, or to otherwise make some fundamental changes to their preparation efforts. But it simply doesn't make sense for that person to take the exam year in and year out until their biorhythms happen to align on exam day. If it takes them 10 years to learn what others typically learn in 6, that's fine. Take the exam after you've got the 10 years of experience and training.
It has nothing to do with looking down my nose at anyone. It has to do with ensuring that examinees are properly prepared coming into the exam, and if they are not, having a mechanism in law to tell them what they've demonstrated but won't recognize on their own. It's not a punishment. It's not a figurative dunce cap they are forced to wear.
Example: guy qualifies with the minimum amount of experience and fails the exams on three successive attempts. At that point, and assuming the guy is continuing to work in the profession during this entire time, approximately 3 more years of experience has been gained since the original application has been submitted. What's the point of a board stopping the process to demand additional experience, after the fact when it has already occurred without board intervention? What is going to be gained by that? Many times in jurisdictions where this can occur, the candidate is required to appear before the board for an oral discussion. How would ANY members of that board, licensed surveyors included, have better insight than the candidate's own professional references into recognizing whether the candidate has effectively improved on his deficiencies? That's entirely unreasonable to think this is anything other than outdated thinking that hasn't been eliminated yet which is profession-based and outside the legislated purview of the board's mandate.
I'm not saying you are necessarily advocating for this exact example n its entirety Evan, I'm just relating what actually occurs in some jurisdictions.
clearcut, post: 351284, member: 297 wrote: Well, that's easy for some to look down their nose and say. Those of us who feel we worked hard and / or are bright enough to pass right off the bat. But I am not of that same belief. I grew up in a rural town and remember one of the kids a year ahead of me who had to take the bonehead classes all through school simply because it didn't come easy to him. He was a good looking athletic kid and was very sociable. Even though I was the top of class acedemically, looking back I now believe he was truly much brighter than me via his people skills.
Some 10 years or so after high school I was surprised to run across him at Cal Expo as I was taking the LS. He was too. I had no idea he had taken the same career. Found out his career path was considerably different than mine. Me being the college BS and him the school of on the job.
Long story short, I passed and continued on my careeer. Every year or so I would check the license board and would not see his name. Not until a good another 10 years had passed plus or minus.
Now, I'm getting kindof old and this post is dating me. Another 10 years has passed plus or minus. My friend eventually became part owner of a long established and highly reputable mid-sized engineering firm. Same firm he got his on the job schooling from.
He recently retraced one of my surveys. He disagreed with a solution and procedure for one of the corners I set on the job. He showed it to me and I am glad he did. He was right and I was wrong.
I'm glad he wasn't 3 and out. He is a credit to our profession and to hard work and pereservance when the math doesn't come easy.
In my experience, I believe there are just as many COMPETENT unlicensed surveyors as there are INCOMPETENT licensed surveyors.
One problem with any standardized testing is that some people simply have huge problems with taking tests. Everything from ADD/ADHD to whatever else you can think of. They can do the work. They know how to answer the problems. But, THE TEST does not conform to their inherent capabilities.
Universities have started to allow students with specific identified disabilities to have certain alternative testing situations. One example would be to allow an additional 50 percent to the standard time allotment. Another is to be in a room with no one but a proctor. I know one young engineer who nearly flunked out of elementary school but now has a master's degree in electrical engineering and a great job with Sikorsky Aircraft.
Holy Cow, post: 351304, member: 50 wrote: One problem with any standardized testing is that some people simply have huge problems with taking tests. Everything from ADD/ADHD to whatever else you can think of. They can do the work. They know how to answer the problems. But, THE TEST does not conform to their inherent capabilities.
Universities have started to allow students with specific identified disabilities to have certain alternative testing situations. One example would be to allow an additional 50 percent to the standard time allotment. Another is to be in a room with no one but a proctor. I know one young engineer who nearly flunked out of elementary school but now has a master's degree in electrical engineering and a great job with Sikorsky Aircraft.
The PE exam in NY has this. They allow extra time in a different room for people that need it. Where I took the PS, a room had one guy by himself taking the PE exam in it.
In NY I took the PS with 3 other guys. Not bc special accommodations, just because only 4 people signed up for the exam.
Ric Moore, post: 351293, member: 731 wrote: .... What's the point of a board stopping the process to demand additional experience, after the fact when it has already occurred without board intervention? ....
In 3 years time some people get 3 years of experience, some get 1 year of experience 3 times. A person who has taken the test 3 times and failed it each time is failing to learn from his experience. The board is justified in asking why the 4th time would be any different.
Math comes fairly easy to me. In high school I was the top of my class and even got some awards/scholarships for my math and science. In college I found I was on a more even playing field as most of the other young men and women in my engineering classes also were the top math and science students in their high schools.
The other day I was in a room with some CA university phd types going over a pilot project for a new concept for pavement rehabilitation. I felt like a dumb idiot compared to that room of low level geniuses.
Recently I've been reading some books by Stephen Hawking. Talk about put me in my place. Some of the concepts in his books I doubt I'll ever understand. And I minored in physics in college and got A's in my classes.
Point being of all this as it is all relative. No 2 people take an 8 hour exam the same way. What seems easy for me and for which I can perform in an hour will take someone else 5 times more time and effort. And then there are those that can do it in 5 minutes.
I know a gal who is struggling to pass the 8-hr PE exam. I know at work she is one of the top civil designers and there are a number of licensed individuals who she runs circles around. She is very good at what she does and her greatest asset is communicating with others in the search for the correct solution. However, she basically locks up when she takes test. She over stresses and basically can't think straight when in the test. Myself, I'm just the opposite. I am very calm and methodical in my test taking. Then there are those who can walk into a test completely cold and ace it in 4 hours.
Everyone is different. I'm absolutely against hampering those who have difficulty passing the tests. Instead I encourage all to participate in providing workshops and seminars for exam preparation. There are no where near enough of them around and many who could really use the help are unfortunately unable to get it because the only offerings are too far, too infrequent and often too costly. I have organized them in the past through our local survey association and have been deeply rewarded by knowing that it made a difference. There are few feelings better than having someone thank you after they just received their license.
Norman Oklahoma, post: 351312, member: 9981 wrote: In 3 years time some people get 3 years of experience, some get 1 year of experience 3 times. A person who has taken the test 3 times and failed it each time is failing to learn from his experience. The board is justified in asking why the 4th time would be any different.
I hear you Norman. I don't take issue with a board asking and stopping there. I just believe the candidate and his/her professional references (should) have better insight into exactly what you just stated and the most effective means to evaluate how to improve on the deficiencies than a board does for that individual candidate.
What should a board do beyond asking? What would happen if a board, comprised generally of market participants (licensees in the same or related fields), went beyond simply asking and decided that his/her response just wasn't sufficient and decided that the candidate could no longer sit for an exam?
I could see an attorney or judge, versed in administrative law, thinking "So the candidate and multiple professional references think he/she is ready and the board previously decided he/she were qualified. What's makes this person not qualified now from a legal perspective? Is this an example of representatives of a profession policing its own profession?"
The exam determines the competency of that individual candidate, not the board. The board determines if the candidate has met all the requirements for licensure. There is a distinctive difference there.
I took the test a couple of times. Not sure if it is the same nowadays, but way back then the board allowed persons to come in and review their test if they failed. Basically gave them the chance to see if there was anything appealable.
For me it was a great advantage in that after failing the test I was able to see what I did wrong. Way back then, and as best as this senile brain remembers, the test involved working out problems and all the work was written out with points for different steps of the problem. Reviewing the test I failed revealed to me that I actually knew the solution but that I made a number of stupid math mistakes that carried through the problems. The light bulb went on and the next time I took the test I took my time and did not worry about answering all the problems. I simply focused on making sure that the problems I did do were absolutely correct. I also spent more time just prior to the test working on math problems just to get my mind fresh on mathematics. Whereas the year before I had been more focused on reviewing boundary and procedural law. Basically the first year I relied on "muscle memory" for the math skills and the second year I spent more effort in getting those math muscles back in shape.
Long story short and the point I'm really trying to make is that the first year I tried to beat the clock by trying to answer the whole test. The 2nd time I ignored the clock and focused on accuracy instead. For some, the clock is an insurmountable obstacle. An obstacle which imparts stress and diverts their focus. Have you ever been put on the spot in front of a group and asked a question you know you know the answer to, but your brain locks up and you can't think straight. I think that is what happens to some who are competent but have difficulty taking the test. For them I don't think the test so much tests competency as it does ability to focus while under stress.
Ric Moore, post: 351329, member: 731 wrote: ....What's makes this person not qualified now from a legal perspective? ...
Presumably, that would be failing to pass the examination. Which is only one part of the process of getting licensed but a very important part, indeed.
I've known several guys with plenty of years of service, doing good work, who have failed the test multiple times. Most were good people. All had certain holes in their knowledge. Their experience was too narrowly focused, perhaps. I either did or would have signed their experience forms for them because they would have made good LS's if they could pass the test. Knowing the answers to the test questions is not what would make them a good professional surveyor. Being able to study up and retain the information for long enough to pass the test is what would have done it. Tests aren't brain dumps. A person has to be studied and ready to answer a broad range of questions because they never know which areas of their knowledge will be sampled.
If a person has a clinical disability preventing them from performing in the exam room then special provisions are appropriate. But too often "not good at taking tests" is nothing more than an excuse for not being fully prepared. Phd Geodosists who know nothing about boundary. Construction surveyors who know nothing about topography. CAD techs who can't set up a tripod. Field guys who can't start up CAD. All good useful people who can qualify for examination but can't pass the test - and have no business being a PLS.
Passing is a big deal because many good people can't do it.
Just to echo what clearcut said: I personally don't think there should be a limit to how many times a person can take the test. A "limit" of 3 failed attempts with +6 months of additional review courses completed should be enough for retaking the test. What if the person is working for a company, getting experience not even related to the area they need to focus on the exam? Would they need to readjust their lives to find another job, say boundary survey so they can reapply for the exam?
I failed the FS once last year and felt pretty devastated with the clock, because the CBT FS gives you a mere 5 hrs for a math intensive test. I'm personally good with math but I take more time to figure out the visual exercises. Second time before I took the test I studied the visual math portion for a month and then another month to review the legal portion. I found that when I got back to practice the visual exercises I was quickly out of shape. If I took the test right then and there I would have failed it. How I fixed it? I covered many topics simultaneously for a few additional months until the exam came. I was glad to pass and then took the PS this year (in which they give you 8 solid hours to do, which is more than enough FOR ME) and passed first shot because I'm good with history, law, and ethic concepts.
Conclusion? No person is the same at test taking and the state shouldn't limit the amount of times the person is allowed to take an exam. Sometimes it's not simply what to study, but how to study. One smart dude once said: "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."
Norman Oklahoma, post: 351341, member: 9981 wrote: Presumably, that would be failing to pass the examination. Which is only one part of the process of getting licensed but a very important part, indeed.
I've known several guys with plenty of years of service, doing good work, who have failed the test multiple times. Most were good people. All had certain holes in their knowledge. Their experience was too narrowly focused, perhaps. I either did or would have signed their experience forms for them because they would have made good LS's if they could pass the test. Knowing the answers to the test questions is not what would make them a good professional surveyor. Being able to study up and retain the information for long enough to pass the test is what would have done it. Tests aren't brain dumps. A person has to be studied and ready to answer a broad range of questions because they never know which areas of their knowledge will be sampled.
And I still hear you. Once an applicant has been approved and deemed a candidate for examination, it is very difficult from a legal perspective to reverse that by stating that candidate does not now meet the requirements. I am not aware of any boards that have been successful in that effort and I haven't been the few times in which we've tried simply because they could not pass the exam(s).
If a person has a clinical disability preventing them from performing in the exam room then special provisions are appropriate. But too often "not good at taking tests" is nothing more than an excuse for not being fully prepared. Phd Geodosists who know nothing about boundary. Construction surveyors who know nothing about topography. CAD techs who can't set up a tripod. Field guys who can't start up CAD. All good useful people who can qualify for examination but can't pass the test - and have no business being a PLS.
Passing is a big deal because many good people can't do it.
The cases you mention in this example would most likely not be approved as candidates or "...qualify for examination..." in California simply because our laws require the applicant to provide work experience covering a broad range of surveying responsibilities. I concede that "requiring a broad range of experience" may not be prevalent in many other states (I'm not exactly sure) but in California, teaching experience and Phd doesn't count towards acceptable experience for land surveyor licensing. An applicant with only or predominately one-two types of experience don't meet the "broad range of experience" criteria.
Ric Moore, post: 351292, member: 731 wrote: With CBT, very little resources are expended regardless of the population.
It's not just about State resources. It's also about encouraging an examinee who has little prospect of success to take stock of their qualifications, deficiencies in their knowledge that need to be filled in, inherent weaknesses/mental blocks that need to be overcome or compensated for, and preparation methods which have not worked.
Ric Moore, post: 351292, member: 731 wrote: The state exam (and national exam) are not graded on a curve. Never have been while you and I were ever involved ...
By the time a cut score is determined, it is what it is. There is no political pressure or involvement in that determination. The process has been refined, and continues to be, to the point it is many times better at being defensible than it ever was before.
Not graded on a curve in the strict academic sense that there is a cutoff for As, Bs, Cs, Ds, & Fs each set to encompass a certain percentage in order to create a smooth bell curve. But the cut score is adjusted based upon the performance of the full population of exam takers, even those who score way down in the single digits and may have done so every time of the past 4 or 5 exam cycles.
Of all of the stages of the exam development and grading process as it existed when I was involved, although I was of the opinion that at times certain portions were brought down to a level of difficulty that was too low for a professional level exam, I also thought that the operating model, the goals, and the dedication of the participants at each level to achieving a fair exam and fair results was top notch. All that is except for Standard Setting, the process by which the cut score was developed.
The first thing that bothered me was that in calibrating the value (or the outright elimination) of individual questions, the performance of every examinee was factored into the measure of the "performance of the question". Although everyone participating on the Standards Team would acknowledge that there were probably around 20% of the examinees who were clearly unqualified to be sitting for the exam, even those who scored zero points on the exam had their results factored in to setting the cut score.
There is no written or spoken mandate to hit a certain pass percentage, but it was clearly understood that if the pass rate was too low, there would be a lot of uncomfortable questions that no one wanted to have to answer. When I and a couple others who were new to that part of the process would argue for higher percentages of examinees to expect to provide correct answers, there was a palpable fear among those who had done this a few times that our final cut score would be too high and the pass rate too low.
One question that sticks in my mind was a short answer question, something along the lines of "You have completed a boundary survey and discovered material discrepancies between your results and previous recorded surveys. What document must you file with the county relative to your survey?"
Even surveyors who are not familiar with CA state law but are aware that it is a recording state should have a better than 50% chance at guessing the answer. For the examinees, it was an open book exam that focused on state-specific matters and the answer was available to them in clear language that used the same technical terms as the question. When asked what percentage of minimally competent surveyors should be able to correctly answer this question, I said 90% (allowing that 10% would have examaphobia such that they might temporarily be unable to look up the most often cited section of the PLSA). The Standards veterans all tossed out numbers between 5% and 15%. I thought I was being more than reasonable when I compromised down to 70%, but the fear the others felt turned into near rage toward me. In the heat of that anger, it was explained to me that a professional (even minimal professional) competence wasn't really the overriding concern. The primary concern was to not repeat the results of 1998 (or was it 97?) for which the Standards team set the cut score as low as their consciences would allow and it still resulted in less than 2% passing. It was further explained that we were expected to work with the results of the examinees we had, even if none could right a description and less than half could single proportion a Qtr Cor or determine the slope between two points given N, E, & Z, and that we had better provide a cut score that resulted in a "reasonable" pass rate or there would be a crap storm starting with ticked off examinees complaining to the legislators, rolling down through DCA, BPELSG, and ending with us. That particular question was the most extreme example I recall, but several more went nearly the same way.
It nearly came to blows between me and the team leader (a guy about my size, roughly my same temperament, and from the same general area of the State), half of the team just wanted to go through the motions and get to an acceptable result, and the other half didn't want to rock the boat. Seeing that I wouldn't succeed at anything other than slowing the process and ticking off everyone in the room, I made a lot of compromises that left me feeling like I really failed the profession and the public.
So you can say it's not graded on a curve, and be technically right in the strictest sense of "grading on a curve". And you can say that there is no political pressure and be technically truthful in that no one is looking over your shoulder to ensure you hit a certain pass rate. But both are intellectual slight of hand because the cut score is set with the unstated goal of avoiding a rate that is too low because, as the experience of 1998 shows, when that happens, then there will be political pressure.
Ric Moore, post: 351292, member: 731 wrote: That statement is simply not applicable to this discussion. The responsibility of maintaining, increasing, or decreasing the creditibility of a profession lies solely with the professional members of that profession.
Wrong! BPELSG purpose is the protection of the public. To the extent that you are the gatekeeper, determining who gets in and who may get booted out, BPELSG is the primary party responsible for determining what is, and then measuring, minimal competence.
California has the lowest bar of qualifications to take the exam of any of the states. Should that translate into CA also having the lowest level of competence required to attain a license? I hope not, but that seems to be the direction BPELSG has chosen.
Ric Moore, post: 351292, member: 731 wrote: Sometimes, the candidate is not as incompetent as their exam results appear to make them and their adjustment is how they approach the stress and management of the exam experience without being related to the actual content. Most who have set aside their egos, especially after being unsuccessful previous times, begin to express that luck plays some part in the eventual success. Many times, I've waited outside a CBT center on exam day and asked questions of candidates leaving the exam for how they felt. Your knowledge of this one guy may be precisely an example for why the legislature doesn't like limiting the number of attempts. Who are they to tell someone they can't pursue a chosen profession?
In the case of that one guy, it was luck. I know how he practiced prior to attaining a license, and I still get questions from people who work with him about survey situations that indicate that he still practices in the same manner - except that now he has a license so no one is qualified or justified in questioning what he does. He has no concept of "practice within your area of competence" because he doesn't acknowledge that there are areas outside of his area of competence. In his mind, the luck wasn't so much that he managed to guess right as it was that the exam caught up with what he knows to be true for some of it and he was able to outsmart the graders on other parts by telling them what they wanted to hear, even if he remains convinced that the "exam" answer is the wrong answer when it comes down to how you should really do things.
I haven't spoken to enough folks who took more than a half dozen times to pass to know if that attitude is prevalent across that population, but it's not the only time I've come across that attitude.
That person is a prime example of why additional training should be required after several failures. and you are making the same mistaken inference that many others are making. It's not about limiting the total number of attempts, not 3 and done. It's about the legislature saying that 3 failures is a reasonably good indicator that either the examinee lacks the requisite knowledge or has significant flaws in their preparation, and that the examinee is welcome to come back and try again after demonstrating that they have done something to address those deficiencies.
Some states do (or used to) provide unsuccessful examinees with a brief report of their areas of deficiency on the exam. The appeals process that CA has done away with served that purpose for examinees that were within a few percentage points of passing. That, coupled with a two year hold on being able to take the exam pending a showing of additional training to address the deficient areas would serve those examinees and the public they would serve as licensees far better than giving them no feedback and allowing them to make the same mistakes over and over until they figure it out on their own or manage to hit the fill-the-bubble lottery.
Ric Moore, post: 351293, member: 731 wrote: Example: guy qualifies with the minimum amount of experience and fails the exams on three successive attempts. At that point, and assuming the guy is continuing to work in the profession during this entire time, approximately 3 more years of experience has been gained since the original application has been submitted. What's the point of a board stopping the process to demand additional experience, after the fact when it has already occurred without board intervention? What is going to be gained by that? Many times in jurisdictions where this can occur, the candidate is required to appear before the board for an oral discussion. How would ANY members of that board, licensed surveyors included, have better insight than the candidate's own professional references into recognizing whether the candidate has effectively improved on his deficiencies? That's entirely unreasonable to think this is anything other than outdated thinking that hasn't been eliminated yet which is profession-based and outside the legislated purview of the board's mandate.
In some jurisdictions, the Board may (or in some they used to, haven't checked the ones I was familiar with lately) allow examinees who were slightly below the cut score appeal the results by live conference, which would allow them to orally explain what they may not have been able to adequately express in writing. That may be of some value to some who suffer from test anxiety - and I think that was at least part of the rationale behind that appeal opportunity.
As Norman pointed out, the number of years of experience isn't necessarily an accurate indicator of the amount of on the job training they received as they may just be repeating their first year over and over. The results of 3 exams and an oral interview would be pretty reliable indicators for whether that is the case. Again, informing the unsuccessful examinee of their deficiencies would help them decide whether they need to find different experience and help the Board decide if they should require specific experience or specific formal training.
Don't reply about legal difficulties, I know this would need to begin as a legislated solution to give the Board the authority. Given that authority, it would be a useful tool for both the examinee and for the Board. It would also go a long way toward enhancing protection of the public from poor practice.
As an aside, informing the successful examinee of their areas of deficiency as measured by the exam would be helpful for them for both future professional development and for recognition of their strengths and weaknesses for purposes of compliance with BR å¤415 (practice within area of competence).
Ric Moore, post: 351294, member: 731 wrote: In my experience, I believe there are just as many COMPETENT unlicensed surveyors as there are INCOMPETENT licensed surveyors.
I entirely agree with that statement. The gatekeeper being more careful about who they let in should have a direct correlation to the number of those that they may later be faced with booting out. That is, better gatekeeping at the in-gate should result in a long-term decrease in costs and efforts to weed out the incompetent after they've brought harm to many clients and other members of the public.
Holy Cow, post: 351304, member: 50 wrote: ... some people simply have huge problems with taking tests. Everything from ADD/ADHD to whatever else you can think of. They can do the work. They know how to answer the problems. But, THE TEST does not conform to their inherent capabilities.
Part of the preparation is recognizing your personal difficulties and taking steps to mitigate the disadvantages. I was diagnosed with ADD long after attaining my licenses. When I was in grade school, no one knew or recognized ADD. It was called not paying attention.
At some point, I realized that it took more effort for me than for most to maintain continued attention in a classroom, at meetings, or on certain tasks and I had to develop ways to compensate. One of the ways my ADD manifests is that I might have a lot of knowledge in my head, may be able to remember having studied something but not remember enough to be fully confident in my answer, or may not remember just where I read the authority that would support my answer.
The most important part of my exam prep was to place tags, lots and lots of tags in every one of my references. I had a color coding system by subject matter, and each tag had 2 to 4 words to indicate the specific aspect of the subject addressed at the marked location. Flip to the page and the most important points were highlighted. My system allowed me to very quickly find the right references to address the question. Without a system to compensate for my memory issues and tendency to get lost in reading something I found interesting while looking for the reference I needed, I would have been able to do very well on an 8 hr exam given 12 hours to do it. With that system, I was able to complete and do very well on all of the fill-the-bubble portions of exams (LSIT, NCEES portions of LS) in roughly half the time allotted and to complete and do well enough to pass on the short answer and essay format exams (OR State-specific 1995, CA state-specific 1996) right at or just under the allotted time.
When someone has these types of shortcomings or disabilities, most of the burden to mitigate the effects, whether ADD, dyslexia, or test anxiety is and should be on the examinee having that condition. Allowing a person to take and fail the exam perennially without guidance to identify areas of deficiency and without requiring them to take steps they should reasonably be able to take to compensate is not helpful to anyone.
I had to adapt while in college. Really struggled my first 2 years, took a few years off to just work and gain experience, then went back and learned to adapt my approach to allow me to succeed.
clearcut, post: 351324, member: 297 wrote: In high school I was the top of my class... In college I found I was on a more even playing field...
Point being of all this as it is all relative. No 2 people take an 8 hour exam the same way. What seems easy for me and for which I can perform in an hour will take someone else 5 times more time and effort. And then there are those that can do it in 5 minutes.
I know a gal who is struggling to pass the 8-hr PE exam. I know at work she is one of the top civil designers and there are a number of licensed individuals who she runs circles around... However, she basically locks up when she takes test... Myself, I'm just the opposite. I am very calm and methodical in my test taking.
I'm not sure what your point is. Is it that you realize that you're way smarter than most surveyors so you feel bad about those who have more difficulty and the way to compensate for those poor souls is to give them an unlimited number of strikes until they manage to hit the ball? So carrying the kids t-ball analogy just a bit further, should we ignore the ignore that poor practice and mistakes that may be costly for their clients their first few years of practice the way some parents would encourage the more experienced players to make slow throws, dropped catches, and ignore that little junior missed stepping on 1st base on his way around the diamond, and then tell him how great he's doing?
What you described with the designer is simply test anxiety. That's a personal mental block that she needs to learn to get past by first having confidence in her actual level of competence, and secondly, by identifying any real issues that may be contributing to it and then figuring out how to compensate.
I don't see how retaking the test over and over helps such a person. Many people simply say "I'm not good at taking tests" and accept it, doing nothing to get over it. Taking a licensing exam must be a horrible ordeal for such a person. Why would you want to put them through that every year for several years hoping that they get a bit of luck or a random sense of relative calm that hits on exam day before the stress of preparing for and taking the exam pushes them into cardiac arrest? Wouldn't it be far better, and far less sadistic to inform them of the specific areas they did not do well on and recommend that they take an extra year to supplement those areas of their knowledge and also perhaps get some specific training on test taking strategy?
It sounds like you've been able to realize success in your academic and career without having faced any particularly difficult struggles along the way to either fist achieve success, or to ensure continued success. Your lucky as far as that goes, but it seems to me that you sell others short with a belief that others' lack of success is due to some inherent disability entirely beyond their ability to control or compensate for.
The licensing exam is supposed to be a very specialized aptitude test. For some, they may never have the knowledge, skills and ability to come together to form the aptitude to be a licensed professional surveyor. That doesn't mean that they're stupid or that they're bad people. It doesn't even mean that they need to get out of surveying altogether. There is a place for the skilled technician, and many such skilled technicians are more valuable to their organizations than are many licensees.
Others may have the aptitude but have some personal issue that makes it more difficult to demonstrate that in an exam situation. In the vast majority of instances, those are not problems that an unlimited number of swings will fix and they are not conditions that are insurmountable. Many have to have some outside impetus to finally recognize and do something about their personal challenges, like being told to get additional training before reapplying. Once they do recognize and decide to address their personal challenges, whether it's something like ADD or simply not having studied sufficiently in particular areas, most are able to meet and overcome the obstacle. In the end, they will be better professionals and likely see more success in other areas of life as a result of the effort.
clearcut, post: 351324, member: 297 wrote: I'm absolutely against hampering those who have difficulty passing the tests. Instead I encourage all to participate in providing workshops and seminars for exam preparation. There are no where near enough of them around and many who could really use the help are unfortunately unable to get it because the only offerings are too far, too infrequent and often too costly. I have organized them in the past through our local survey association and have been deeply rewarded by knowing that it made a difference. There are few feelings better than having someone thank you after they just received their license.
Again, you are looking at it all wrong if you see a 3-strikes then get more training rule as hampering. I fully agree with you about the workshops and seminars. I have been participating as a presenter in the workshop series of two chapters of CLSA for 3 or 4 years now, and have accepted opportunities to present educational topics at the regular meetings of several chapters over roughly the same period. What chapter are you a part of? Is your chapter offering review courses this year and do you have all the presenters you need to cover all of the topics? For these types of presentations, I don't charge for my time, but depending upon distance from my home, my request compensation for a hotel room for a night. I know of several other knowledgeable LSs who would be willing to offer similar terms in order to help the next generation of licensees.
I will go well out of my way to help people prepare for the exam. I encourage those who are prepared to apply and those who have applied to prepare well. I will not encourage those who are not prepared or who are not willing to adequately prepare. Doing so serves no positive purpose for anyone involved.
Ric Moore, post: 351329, member: 731 wrote: I hear you Norman. I don't take issue with a board asking and stopping there. I just believe the candidate and his/her professional references (should) have better insight into exactly what you just stated and the most effective means to evaluate how to improve on the deficiencies than a board does for that individual candidate.
What should a board do beyond asking? What would happen if a board, comprised generally of market participants (licensees in the same or related fields), went beyond simply asking and decided that his/her response just wasn't sufficient and decided that the candidate could no longer sit for an exam?I could see an attorney or judge, versed in administrative law, thinking "So the candidate and multiple professional references think he/she is ready and the board previously decided he/she were qualified. What's makes this person not qualified now from a legal perspective? Is this an example of representatives of a profession policing its own profession?"
The exam determines the competency of that individual candidate, not the board. The board determines if the candidate has met all the requirements for licensure. There is a distinctive difference there.
We've spoken of these matters many times and you've expressed many times that you wish there were a means of holding the references to some level of account when someone they signed for has failed several times. I think that is a great idea. If you and your staff can come up with proposed legislation that allows BPELSG to do that in a reasonable manner, I would support it through the CLSA Legislative Committee.
One of the problems with the current reference forms and the way they are evaluated probably contributes to some portion of the problem of licensees endorsing applicants who are not ready, and could be fixed through a rulemaking action. The current form asks whether the reference believes the applicant is qualified to be licensed, Yes, No, or Don't Know. I recently had someone ask for a reference and had to check "Don't Know", realizing that under the evaluation criteria that I was last aware of (I think I reviewed applications in 2009 or 2010), that answer would cause the reference I provided to not be counted as a positive reference, and the applicant would be told to get one more positive reference. In his case, he began his career at 17 working for me as a chainman. He has since earned a 4-yr degree and gained several years of experience at another firm.
When he worked for me several years ago, he picked up knowledge at a reasonably good pace and progressed in both abilities and responsibilities from knowing absolutely nothing about surveying to being able to be sent out to be the lead worker on relatively simple stakeout, topo, or other location work. He performed very well for the level of experience and training he had at the time, but I knew and still know very little of how his knowledge and abilities have progressed since. I wrote to that effect in the comments section. It was a positive reference for the first part of his experience speaking as to the progressive nature of his knowledge and abilities during that time. As I understand it, it wouldn't have much mattered what I wrote, good or bad, that the reference would be used to tally his years of experience but not be counted as a positive reference with regard to the qualifications.
I believe that evaluation criteria like that causes some LSs to want to not provide what equates to a negative or relatively meaningless reference to a past good employee, so they check the "Yes" box. In this guy's case, I told him my understanding of how the form would be evaluated and so gave him an opportunity to show me what he's learned in the intervening years in a conference/interview type setting where I asked him questions of the type and difficulty that would typically be seen on the exam and he would answer or tell me where/how he would determine the answer by use of reference materials. In the end, I had to check the "Don't know" box, but gave him some direction for study and an invitation to have a similar interview after several weeks to see if he could demonstrate enough knowledge for me to feel comfortable checking "Yes".
With a little adjusting of the form and to the evaluation criteria, the LS reference wouldn't need to feel like their in a position of either having to check "yes" under the assumption that a past employee continued to progress at a reasonable rate, or be a hard ass and check "don't know", knowing it won't be counted as a positive reference. If 2 "don't knows" accompanied by positive description of the employees performance at that earlier stage of their career could count as a positive, that would remove the dilemma for some references.
Saying that the exam, and not the Board determines an individual's competency sounds like a transparent copout to deflect all responsibility. Again, the Board is the gatekeeper. The Board develops the exam and determines and approves the cut score, and in so doing determines what the minimum level of acceptable competency is. The Board administers the exam. Saying that "It's the exam, not the Board" is a lot like a careless driver using a defense that he didn't run over that person, his car did it. The exam is the means, the tool by which the Board determines whether a person has demonstrated sufficient competence to be issued a license.
vplayer, post: 351351, member: 9292 wrote: Just to echo what clearcut said: I personally don't think there should be a limit to how many times a person can take the test. A "limit" of 3 failed attempts with +6 months of additional review courses completed should be enough for retaking the test. What if the person is working for a company, getting experience not even related to the area they need to focus on the exam? Would they need to readjust their lives to find another job, say boundary survey so they can reapply for the exam?
One more time, I don't know if anyone in this thread advocated for 3 and done, but many have advocated for 3 then prove up more training and experience to cover one's areas of deficiency. That's pretty much what you are saying in your 2nd sentence. The only problem with your idea there is the time frame. 6 months is not enough time for the applicant to get the training and then for the Board (or most Boards) to process the application and verify the adequacy of the training. That's why you would have the examinee sit out one exam cycle. That gives them approximately 18 months to find and participate in some formal training, whether it be one or more seminars or one or more college courses, and to arrange for some adjustment in their experience.
If the applicant is lacking in experience in an important area of practice and that lack of experience is a source of difficulty in the examinee's performance, then that person needs to decide whether to switch jobs if the experience is not available where they currently work. I've known several people who did precisely that. If the applicant can't get that experience but does not want to leave that job, then the answer might be to seek out formal training for that aspect of practice. There are several community colleges as well as state universities that offer survey courses either as part of a degree or certificate program, sometimes as an extended learning course in cooperation with a local chapter of the state society, and there are several that offer distance learning. Many on this forum have used that last route to get the training they needed or wanted.
In this internet, Amazon and every other business delivering to your door, convenience oriented era, many came to the opinion that school should come to them and work to accommodate their life so that they are required to make only minimal changes to their circumstances and daily routines. Many schools have answered that demand. The excuse that there is no opportunities available in my area is no longer valid. Prior to that, people would research out where the training was available, plan for it as a priority, save enough to cover school expenses and then actually interrupt their lives and GO to school.
vplayer, post: 351351, member: 9292 wrote: I failed the FS once last year and felt pretty devastated with the clock, because the CBT FS gives you a mere 5 hrs for a math intensive test. I'm personally good with math but I take more time to figure out the visual exercises. Second time before I took the test I studied the visual math portion for a month and then another month to review the legal portion. I found that when I got back to practice the visual exercises I was quickly out of shape. If I took the test right then and there I would have failed it. How I fixed it? I covered many topics simultaneously for a few additional months until the exam came. I was glad to pass and then took the PS this year (in which they give you 8 solid hours to do, which is more than enough FOR ME) and passed first shot because I'm good with history, law, and ethic concepts.
For you, one failure was enough to prompt you to take a serious look not only at what you needed to study, but how you studied in preparing for the exam. For the person taking and failing 3 or more times, they typically haven't and don't recognize the need to do that critical self evaluation. They either think their failure is because they didn't study enough (without thought of focus on specific material or prep methods), had a bad day and were unable to adequately focus on exam day, or that the problem was not with them at all but with the makeup or grading of the exam. A statutory mandate to go get more and better training and/or experience might be the prompt many need to do what you did after just one failed attempt.
Congrats on the 1-shot success on the PS.
vplayer, post: 351351, member: 9292 wrote: Conclusion? No person is the same at test taking and the state shouldn't limit the amount of times the person is allowed to take an exam. Sometimes it's not simply what to study, but how to study. One smart dude once said: "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."
To use your quoted analogy, if the job is to climb trees, then the exam needs to be about one's ability to climb trees. If you're the fish, then maybe after conducting the kind of self-evaluation you described doing earlier in your post, you need to recognize that you're not suited to climb trees but are suited to a job that requires the ability to swim well.
As I said in an earlier post, not passing the LS exam, even several times does not meant that you are stupid or a bad person. It means either that 1) you were not adequately prepared for any of your attempts, in which case you need to evaluate what and how you study and maybe other methods of preparation, or 2) you simply are not suited to be a licensed professional surveyor, in which case you need to evaluate what it is you are suited for. For some, they may be well suited to continue as a highly knowledgeable and effective technician in a limited aspect of surveying. For others, it may be that they are better off finding a line of work to which they are better suited.
It seems like a lot of people view survey licensure as an entitlement that one has by virtue of having worked at it for a certain number of years, that it is theirs for the taking and that if it's not easy for them to take it, that the State should give them a boost, a head start, or simply drop the standard to a level the individual can attain without expending additional effort.
Yes, it will be easier to attain for some than for others. Yes, some of the people for whom it is difficult are very good surveyors in actual practice. But the license is not supposed to be a reward for a certain amount of service to one's employer or the profession. It doesn't exist as a certificate of achievement which in turn entitles the holder to a pay raise and loftier title. It exists for the purpose of assuring members of the public that the holder has demonstrated a level of professional competence to properly conduct land surveys without the required supervision of a more experienced surveyor.
That's it! If we lower that standard for any reason, or make it more likely that someone below that minimal level of competence to attain a license by good fortune rather than through adequate experience, training, and preparation, then we undermine the purpose of requiring licenses at all.
One last time:
NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT PREVENTING SOMEONE FROM TAKING THE EXAM MORE THAN 3 TIMES. WHAT WAS PROPOSED IS THAT AFTER 3 FAILURES, THE EXAMINEE RE-APPLY AND SUPPLY PROOF OF ADDITIONAL TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE TO SHORE UP WEAK AREAS, AND IN SO DOING, SIT OUT AT LEAST ONE EXAM CYCLE TO ADEQUATELY PROVIDE THE TIME TO ATTAIN THE REQUIRED TRAINING AND FOR THE BOARD TO VERIFY IT AND PROCESS THE NEW APPLICATION.
ASIDE FROM MISSING A YEAR AFTER EVERY 3RD FAILURE, THE APPLICANT CAN TAKE THE EXAM AS MANY TIME AS THEY WANT UNTIL THEY PASS OR RETIRE.
So let's stop arguing against preventing someone from taking the exam after a certain number of attempts, because no one has made the argument for it.