Spotteddotdog, post: 409349, member: 9158 wrote: ...Now that the "rules" have changed and you can take the FS without approval first, I think you will see the first time takers pass rate fall. This will be because of people wanting to take the test just to "see" how it will be and that the tests are being offered multiple times a quarter. Once you pass, you can then apply for your SIT designation. I believe the same will be for the PS too....
In the past a person without formal surveying education could apply to take the FS exam. NCEES is handling the FS as they have the FE(EIT) exam for eons (2+ years), which was offered to those at the threshold education level. So contrary to your statement I think the first time pass rate will rise because those with the education will not be restricted by having to wait for a board approval.
Paul in PA
Spotteddotdog, post: 409349, member: 9158 wrote: This will be because of people wanting to take the test just to "see" how it will be and that the tests are being offered multiple times a quarter.
I think this has something to do with the pass rates as well...I have a party chief who took the PS as soon as he was eligible to, even though he believed he wasn't really ready to pass, just to get an idea of what the exam was like.
When I was working in financial services my employer has a policy about the initial licensing tests...you had to take the Series 7 exam within eight weeks of when your training started and you had one shot to pass it or you got fired. That kind of incentive helps increase the pass rate
James Fleming, post: 409391, member: 136 wrote: ... you had one shot to pass it or you got fired. That kind of incentive helps increase the pass rate
[SARCASM]Employment based on performance. That model failed years ago.[/SARCASM]
Steve
I have no degree and have only taken 3 credit hours of survey related coursework. When I applied for the exams I had about 10 years in the industry working for an LS who was VERY encouraging to anyone interested in obtaining a license. I was toted around to every meeting he went to. I was called in to his office for every decision he made. His goal was to make a surveyor out of me. And I was ready to jump through any hoop to make that happen. Once I was accepted to take the exam, I spent roughly 3 months, at least 3-4 hours every day, 7 days a week, teaching myself as much of the real background of surveying as I could. We were a small but productive and popular firm, the president of which had nearly 50 years of licensure under his belt and had signed for most of the other surveyors in our area, or had at least some influence over those who signed the applications of many others. Many of the legal questions that were on the exams were situations that I had encountered or at least heard about during my career and I found the legal aspects pretty easy. Math was my weak point and that's what I focused my studies on. I took everything in one shot, two days, 8 hours each day, Friday and Saturday. 16 hours of testing in two days. Much of the material seemed redundant from one exam to the next so taking everything in one sitting felt like a benefit to me. I passed the FS and the PS on the first shot. I missed the NYS exam by a few questions. NYS lets you review your exam after you get the results. I did so, and passed on my next go round, 6 months later in the fall of 2011. I felt that all of the tests were difficult, having no formal education in the profession, but I still made a good showing. I thought the PS exam was the easiest of the three, having seen many business/legal issues in my training.
In my opinion, education is overpriced. There are two accredited programs available in NY (that I know of, but I could be wrong), Paul Smiths and Alfred. One year at PSC will run you somewhere in the neighborhood of $37k dollars (tuition, room/board, meal plan, books and supplies). So a four year degree, on your own dime, is approaching $150k. Then when you graduate you'll likely get a job as low man on a field crew for at least a couple years making about $15/hr (in my area).
I was lucky. I fell into the right spot under an excellent mentor who made it his goal to teach me everything he could. I wouldn't be where I am without that guidance and involvement. I also wouldn't be here without the fire that burned inside of me to succeed. You have to want it. Badly. You can't teach ambition or motivation. I feel like it would have been much easier to pass the exams had I gotten a degree, but I still did it.
So, again in my personal opinion, I would place more value on mentoring than I would on education. Your mileage may vary, but that's what got me through.
In NY, annually, they issue right around 30 licenses, give or take. In 2016 they were down to 19.
I was involved with grading the California State specific exam for several years, and worked on the development team that put together the last exam before computer based testing was implemented. The CA State specific has historically low passage rates (single digit in some years). However, based on my experiences, I believe a significant number of examinees were not actually qualified or ready to sit for the exam. That reflects a problem with other licensees who signed for them as references. Had the candidate pool only been composed of those who were ready and able, I believe the pass rate would have been much closer to 50%. Just my guess, but higher than what the record shows.
As to the National exam stats, I can offer no input. As of next Monday, January 23, I will have possessed my California license for 30 years and have never applied in another state. I do have an AA degree in general education and am NOT a proponent of the 4 year degree requirement.
My path was similar to that of Zoidberg. I started on day one holding an umbrella over the equipment with no knowledge of surveying. The PLS I worked with couldn't grasp CAD so I handled that end while he told me what he wanted and answered what seemed like a million questions from as to why we were doing what we were. I took the FS about 8 years later and the PS and State five years later passing all on the first shot. It is more about the individual willingness and desire to learn that prepares them for the test.
SPMPLS, post: 409770, member: 11785 wrote: I was involved with grading the California State specific exam for several years, and worked on the development team that put together the last exam before computer based testing was implemented. The CA State specific has historically low passage rates (single digit in some years). However, based on my experiences, I believe a significant number of examinees were not actually qualified or ready to sit for the exam. That reflects a problem with other licensees who signed for them as references. Had the candidate pool only been composed of those who were ready and able, I believe the pass rate would have been much closer to 50%. Just my guess, but higher than what the record shows.
I was involved with the grading and development of CA exam at the same time and totally concur with this assessment. I believe that the bar should be much higher to sit for the exam. I also believe that after three failed attempts, you should have to show some major amount of effort before re-taking the exam.