We had 62 scheduled to sit for the PS exam in California last Friday. Believe it or not, that's a slight increase from last April so we are hoping it has bottomed out though it's half of what tested 4 years ago. I tend to think it is lag time like Mark Mayer pointed out. Do I think it will rise back to the number from the early 2000's, no. But I expect it to rise.
But I do agree with those that are stating that the ROI for a 4 year degree is not reflected in the actual practice. Great knowledge, absolutely. Translates to more compensation or better image, not reflected.
Great post, Mr. Schrock.
Many things influence the need for survey projects and, logically, the need for licensed individuals to take responsibility for performing those projects. If we focus only on the technical equipment end of the spectrum, we see that Joe Schmoe can make a minor investment in technology and believe that he no longer needs professional services from a licensed surveyor. And, truth be told, many jobs are disappearing be cause people are doing more for themselves than ever before thanks to the power than can hold in their hand. Obviously, that does not mean they know what they are doing. But, because they think they can do it themselves, they will. Or they will until they hit some roadblock that dictates a professional be employed, such as a lender demanding the independent third party with a license be utilized. If the lenders stop worrying about it, then survey projects will disappear more rapidly.
This completely ignores everything else we do as boundary surveyors, especially the title issues. It may soon become a case where the surveyor is sought out more for the title issues than the measurement issues. How many of us have the experience on that end of things compared to the number of us who traipse through the woods and backyards pushing buttons?
Bow Tie Surveyor, post: 367771, member: 6939 wrote: From this month's Florida Board of Professional Surveyors and Mappers Newsletter:
Currently there are 2,630 registered Professional Surveyors and Mappers in Florida.
- 117 of these are female
- 174 are 40 or younger
- 1,111 are 60 and older (this is a large number that will retire around the same time)
- Each year 45-50 new licenses are issued in Florida
Sounds like it will soon become financially beneficial to become a surveyor in FL. The numbers then increase.
In some states the functions that are directly related to engineering design and follow through are also covered under the professional engineering licensee, as they should be. Boundary is the one defining element of the professional land surveyor. A study of how licensing of land surveyors came about in many states will show it was based on the lack of coursework in boundary-related topics within the engineering curricula.
I always find this topic interesting and there are a lot of good points.
Does anyone have a list of the states that require a 4 year degree for licensure? Or point me in the right direction? I have seen one somewhere before but can't seem to find it anymore.
I agree that we PLS's are "land-locked". I'm licensed in Washington, i can still gain licensure in my border state (20 minutes away in Oregon), but Idaho will NEVER let me gain tenure there without a 4-year degree.
After nearly 15 years of field and office experience, i sat for the PLS in my late 30's. I felt competent enough to sit for the exam and gained my licensure a couple of years ago. Had my home state (WA) changed regulations to only allow me to sit with a 4 year degree, i honestly would have taken my 15 plus years experience and bailed. I was sick of the profession, most people i worked forwith were jerks and there were no jobs - anywhere.
But i stuck with it and gained my license. I can say, with others, had i known then, I would have become an engineer - better pay for almost the same line of work, except i could blame the surveyors!
But i do love surveying, just ask my wife. I'm afraid, though, that out profession could be doomed. I believe schooling to be valuable, but not at the expense of field experience. We should be passing on the knowledge and passion of surveying by "doing" it not just theorizing it via classroom.
But I'm a one-person surveying crew, employed by a medium-sized enginnering firm (500 employees), who am i passing my skills and knowledge to?
One point to keep in mind regarding keeping a path toward licensure for those without a college degree is that is a demographic that is shrinking as well.
When I graduate high school in 1981 only 49% of U.S. high school graduates enrolled directly in college the semester following graduation. In 2013 it was 66%. As anyone who does any hiring can tell you, they ain't making high school graduates like they used too.
It amazes me that after 22 years in the field , I will never be able to sit for my own state exam because the degree will be a challenge until I am all most 50 years old. NJ may never be an option. But I am still going to try for neiboring states where a CST IV can sit.
Timberwolf, post: 367766, member: 10599 wrote: four year degree requirement, and then once I get that, my experience starts all over.
That's just wrong of them.
I have my license in one state but work in a state that requires a 4 year degree. There is only 1 school that offers a degree in surveying. They said I should quit and go to school for 2 years (have an associate's in surveying). I worked up through the ranks and might never get licensed in my state but would never work doing anything other than surveying.
Also to add I get interns that are civil/surveying and I have only had one actually enjoy the field work I think our society is just creating wimps that rather stay inside. The main reason I love surveying is getting paid to play outside all day every day.
Holy Cow, post: 367751, member: 50 wrote: Part of the problem is the elitism prevalent within the current list of licensed surveyors that discourages those with under 40 years of experience and 250 hours of college credit from applying for the exam in the first place. Another part of the problem is the stranglehold said elitists hold over keeping wages low for those who work for them. We must back off on licensing requirements or the profession will be killed off by its own stupidity. When the only surveying firms left are owned by Amazon and WalMart, the elitists will have won.
I'd just cut it all loose from licensing except for boundary. For boundary we need to increase the understanding, experience and such to a level that is valuable to society, stop mucking around as if their is no liability or responsibility. Might be best to just form a new group for boundary work and let the rest go. Without the need for a license to do most of the measurement work their should be plenty of people to do it. That's where it is going anyway, so why fight it. The real way to regulate all that is to make them pay for mistakes. That's basically how it works in construction. They don't want your license for a mistake they want to be made whole. Make those that hire measurment experts sort out the good from the bad, take that side of responsibility.
Maybe with all those over 60 who'll be retiring soon, will be the majority of the low-ballers.
The best way to increase the number of young people entering the profession, and those sitting for the licensing exams, is for the pay-scale to increase.
In most things, a shortage will increase the cost. Why not in surveying?
Steven Carper, post: 367824, member: 11249 wrote: I agree that we PLS's are "land-locked". I'm licensed in Washington, i can still gain licensure in my border state (20 minutes away in Oregon), but Idaho will NEVER let me gain tenure there without a 4-year degree.
After nearly 15 years of field and office experience, i sat for the PLS in my late 30's. I felt competent enough to sit for the exam and gained my licensure a couple of years ago. Had my home state (WA) changed regulations to only allow me to sit with a 4 year degree, i honestly would have taken my 15 plus years experience and bailed. I was sick of the profession, most people i worked forwith were jerks and there were no jobs - anywhere.
But i stuck with it and gained my license. I can say, with others, had i known then, I would have become an engineer - better pay for almost the same line of work, except i could blame the surveyors!
But i do love surveying, just ask my wife. I'm afraid, though, that out profession could be doomed. I believe schooling to be valuable, but not at the expense of field experience. We should be passing on the knowledge and passion of surveying by "doing" it not just theorizing it via classroom.
But I'm a one-person surveying crew, employed by a medium-sized enginnering firm (500 employees), who am i passing my skills and knowledge to?
If you practice 8 years as a licensee with no discipline you will qualify in Idaho.
I believe that at least part of the recent decline in examinee numbers is due to economic cycles. A lot of unlicensed people went on to something else with the last crash or left sometime during the painfully slow recovery. A lot of those who were the first party chiefs or experienced chainmen almost ready to move up to chief in 2008 would be taking the exam about now had they been able to find or keep a steady job surveying.
Once the techs who have their eye on eventually getting licensed have been able to make a decent living for 6 or 8 years in a row, we'll begin seeing the numbers increase again.
However, as technology continues to enable us to get more done with fewer people, the need for people in the profession will naturally decrease. While the need for the numbers to get the fieldwork, drafting and other technician level work has and will continue to decrease pretty dramatically, the need for trained professionals will not decrease nearly as rapidly, and with a little foresight (no pun intended, but there it is anyway), may actually stabilize or increase. Accordingly, to keep up with that demand, a greater percentage of the people who perform the purely technical work will need to be on the path toward licensure.
15 or 20 years ago, there was a steady place for the lifelong chainman who did his job very well but never wanted the responsibility of being chief, and for the chief that never decided to get his license because he knew he would start getting pressure to move from the field into the office. Nearly all of us who have been at this for more than 10 years know or can recall at least a couple of folks who fit in these categories. They were respected for the knowledge and skill that they brought to the job at the level they chose to remain at. A lot of those people stayed where they were by their own choice for their own reasons while most everyone around them wondered why they never made the next step in the normal career progression.
A lot of us, maybe most of us wish that there would always be a place for people like that. For now, there is, kind of for the skilled technician (formerly what was considered party chief level). We will need intelligent people to figure out and use the equipment and software so as to consistently achieve accurate results and to utilize the ever evolving technology to its maximum advantage. But as a lifetime role, that position is rapidly disappearing as well. Most of the people who currently fill those roles are going to be the same ones who go on to get licensed. As survey operations streamline, except for the most talented few, there isn't much room for an unlicensed person in many organizations who isn't able or willing to progress. They will be hired and laid off, hired and laid off, many times throughout their career or until they move on to some other career.
Your organization may still have one of those old party chiefs who knows surveying better than a lot of licensed people. After he retires, he won't be replaced by another such chief who is only a few years behind but equally sharp. That guy was laid off back in '08, and if he was worthy of taking the old party chief's place in terms of reliability, knowledge, and the respect he has of coworkers, he either found another job or a different career to put his talents toward before your organization was able to call him back. Anyone else that you have at the skilled tech level is either, if you're lucky, someone on the way to licensure or, more likely, someone that you don't have much confidence in that they will ever reach the competence of the old chief or that they will ever be able to pass a licensing exam.
That means that we should be selective in our hiring practices, looking for people who seem to have the intelligence and integrity to someday pass the exam and practice without constant oversight. Which brings us back to the problem of attracting such people to this profession. When we get to the topics of stability and salary in that discussion, I start running out of ideas. Neither of those can be adequately addressed without concerted efforts across the profession, a profession largely populated with people who aren't strong on cooperating with ideas they didn't come up with that are from people they didn't ask.
"....one of those old party chiefs who knows surveying better than a lot of licensed people...."
I used to believe in such things, but in my experience, its mostly a myth, today and maybe always. Typically it's a disgruntled older guy with a chip on his shoulder, who either failed the test or never bothered taking it. I've been out in the field with some of these legends, and often they're slow, take short-cuts, and miss things, because they don't want to make the extra effort.
