Rich., post: 350980, member: 10450 wrote: You had to apply after taking the FS? Are you completing/completed a degree in surveying? I know in NY they let you take the FS if you are within so close of graduating without needing board approval. Then you need board approval for the PS after gathering your work experience.
I as well had an unfortunate run in with the law when I was 21. Too much fun and drinking one night and I got pulled over. :-/ I paid for it dearly as the judge held nothing back on me. And I'm glad he did what he did.
I disclosed everything on the application and wrote a letter explaining what had happened.
It was not an issue.
I have enough education and experience to even take the PS exam.. Of which I will be taking as soon as possible.. I assume they have the application process after you pass so that they are only evaluating people that they need to instead of everyone. I'm sure that my past won't be an issue.. I am just getting impatient!
Ric Moore, post: 351245, member: 731 wrote: Ryan_K, currently the EIT/LSIT applications are taking about 30-45 days to process. If you have any questions, feel free to contact the EIT/LSIT Evaluator at 916-263-2232 or [email protected] for status as that will be the person that will have answers for you.
BPELSG was one of the last boards in California to implement fingerprinting and the legislature made that decision for us. Once BPELSG receives the confirmation reports back from the California Department of Justice, the certification can be issued if all other requirements have been met. In our short experience with DOJ, most of the reports are received within 1-2 weeks. However, we have experienced some intermittently that have taken longer and not necessarily due to the individual's background. While we continue to press DOJ on these delays, apparently FBI works at their own pace.
Thank you for your insight into this. That makes a lot of sense. They should explain some of that on the website though.
Ryan_K, post: 351453, member: 1150 wrote: I have enough education and experience to even take the PS exam.. Of which I will be taking as soon as possible.. I assume they have the application process after you pass so that they are only evaluating people that they need to instead of everyone. I'm sure that my past won't be an issue.. I am just getting impatient!
Different states different methods. In NY you have to apply first and can't take any exam until you have all the experience required.
Ric Moore said: Ô
That statement is simply not applicable to this discussion. The responsibility of maintaining, increasing, or decreasing the creditability of a profession lies solely with the professional members of that profession.
eapls2708, post: 351363, member: 589 wrote: 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.
Nope, afraid not. The profession is responsible for enduring that unlicensed individuals working in the profession and aspiring to become licensed are properly trained, mentored, and ready for licensure. The profession is responsible for endorsing, encouraging, and broadening the consistent standard of practice throughout the profession. You are correct that the Board is responsible for protecting the public's interests, but for not for the reason(s) you are stating. The Board is responsible for ensuring that the "profession-trained and mentored" individuals seeking licensure meet the requirements...in other words, ensuring that the profession is doing their job well. The Board is responsible for ensuring that licensed practitioners actually practice within their licensed authority which includes operating within the proper standard of care (practice).
We are nitpicking here to some degree but there is a distinction between these roles that is important to understand. I get where you are coming from though.
eapls2708 wrote: 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.
Very common misconception and yeah, one I've stated myself more than once for a specific purpose during meetings among California professionals. However, it is not necessarily correct in a national context which you have claimed. To my knowledge, no other jurisdiction that licenses land surveyors in the US requires a minimum of 12 months of responsible training in the field and a minimum of 12 months of responsible training in the office. Additionally, California's definition of land surveying is pretty robust compared to most of the country and the requirements additionally state that the overall work experience must be broad-based (as I mentioned in a previous post). While most other states require (or more accurately encourage) a BS in surveying and a minimum of 4 years experience in a general sense, there is little to no requirement to demonstrate that the applicant has obtained a progressively higher level of responsibility in performing their tasks. And quite a few allow some of the references to be unlicensed.
So, no the facts don't support that California has a lower bar.
eapls2708 (as much as I really like the quoting features, this is just getting too long to keep duplicating our posts so I decided to just simply respond to some of your other responses without quoting)
You responded describing in detail some of your experiences in the past working on exam development, all of which I understand, appreciate, and many times I was right there with you. In a previous post in this thread I recognized that you had that experience and I explained that while it was pertinent for the time, it is not necessarily so now. The exam development process has evolved (and continues to evolve) past many of the experiences that you and I first encountered and no amount of repeating that will change this fact.
The Board's (and the legislators) concerns with the process years ago was rooted in the inconsistency associated with the state exams which was primarily reflected in the repeated and dramatic up and down pass rates from administration to administration. Not just one low (or high) pass rate for one exam administration as some believe. The legislators are reasonable people and if you communicate properly with them in informative ways and have facts to support your efforts the pressure just simply isn't there. I continue to have no issues in that regard.
eapls2708, post: 351381, member: 589 wrote: 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.
There is no need to YELL, it's not appreciated and your input is valued without that. But, remember this is a national forum, one where international individuals also chime into, and others may be interested in how their licensing jurisdiction handles this issues or just wish to discuss the topics from what they encounter, including being located in a state that does prevent a candidate from further attempts. This is a dialectic, not a debate.
It's all good. Enjoying the discussion. Hope you and your family encounter a happy new year Evan.
Ryan_K, post: 351454, member: 1150 wrote: Thank you for your insight into this. That makes a lot of sense. They should explain some of that on the website though.
Glad to help. Good point, I will see what I can do.
Rich., post: 351466, member: 10450 wrote: Different states different methods. In NY you have to apply first and can't take any exam until you have all the experience required.
Yeah, it's not necessarily the NY staff or board members that are reluctant to consider different approaches. It is the manner in which their agency is organized which can be frustrating at times there.