Number of people sitting for PS Exam

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.

rberry5886, post: 367758, member: 232 wrote: Personally, if I had to take 4 years of college to sit for the exam, I wouldn't waste my time on the surveyor's exam, I would go straight to the Engineers exam, more money, and then you can blame the surveyor for screwing up your project....

Until recently I would not have agreed with you, but the cost of a college education is so outrageous that your reasoning makes perfect sense...

gschrock, post: 367786, member: 556 wrote: Consider the possibility that there was a "surveyor bubble"; at least for surveying as the latter half of the 20th century saw.
Before anyone gets upset; here are few points to ponder:

The latter half of the 20th century saw:

The population of the country roughly doubled from 1955-2005.

The housing growth (the Levittowns of sprawling suburbia etc to meet these demographic needs) was unprecedented.

A corresponding boom in infrastructure (both public and private) was almost unparalled in history, and worldwide.

Crews were larger.

A lot more surveyors were needed, and were valued and utilized in many areas in addition to boundary.

The top-heavy numbers of surveyors (age wise) that became active in that era shows in numbers others have noted.

Then this happened:

The Baby Boom (that drove the booms noted above) gave way to a Gen X trough. Less demand. Housing churn tanked and could not support the same housing finance model.

Same with infrastructure. It became possible to extend the life of infrastructure; public spending on infrastructure fell out of favor (even to the extent some demonized it; but I won't go there).

New developments slowed, much boundary work drifted into transnational churn; reduced by the demographic trough.

Crews sizes got smaller. Automation and modernization does have consequences (but that is the same in any field of endeavor).

This does not bode well for mentoring or succession planning.

But:

There are places that have met this challenge and have been able to maintain a sufficient supply of quality surveyors (to meet proportional demand). Apprenticeship models are a bit more formal than legacy informal mentoring and not are always entirely bound to individual employers. This idea should be worth looking into.

You ever see those nature shows that state how many square miles of wilderness is needed to support each bear or gorilla. Has there been any studies to determine sustainability for "x" number of surveyors? Are we expecting to sustain bubble numbers? (if it was a bubble).

Good news:

Gen-Y/Millennials in their prime employment and spending demographic range, and are now exceeding baby Boom peak numbers. They will need housing. infrastructure, and services (some of which are in addition to those desired during the past boom).

Should the Profession:

Follow the lead of other professions (and related industries) and closely examine the changes in market for our services? This has worked well for those who have (at least in succession planning). Could our associations and officers get beyond ordering dinner (sorry, I did not say that) :woot: and commission an economic study? Could we examine succession planning models for surveying elsewhere, and for other professions that have faced the loss of mentors due to similar drivers? There are even grants from labor agencies to help pay for such studies.

The good news related to infrastructure is that there will be massive amounts of money expended to replace failing infrastructure in the east. So much so that many cities will bankrupt thenselves just trying to keep up (Flint, MI, et al.) This will pump unprecedented amounts of money into engineering and surveying.

JPH, post: 367870, member: 6636 wrote: 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?

At 63 my opinion of lowballing would be compared to giving up or givin' in and drinking their koolaid
It is mostly a startup game and for those that bait and switch, bid low and invoice 3xs that amount
I don't totally agree with the "must do" college requirements in place and really do not know how pro-bees will get the training without any real mentoring from those that can teach
Everyone that has a desire to be a surveyor or other professional must go thru a learning phase and be "willing to learn"
During that time there must be support from the industry and the pro-bee's dedication to the profession
The lack in either is the disappointment nobody wants
Demanding more pay before you have become a bread winning component of a surveying business has no merit
It takes a minimum of 6wks for someone to understand what tools are needed and the ones they need in their possession at all times
At 6mos to not ask what they need for each task and be able to supply the truck properly
Dedication and perseverance are simply a part of the attitude it takes and dodging the training doesn't get you a license
Don't give up, if you really want a license dig in and do the requirements and you will be given all the information to get there
Everyone with a license has put in the time, keeping it is the next step....
😉

rberry5886, post: 367758, member: 232 wrote: Personally, if I had to take 4 years of college to sit for the exam, I wouldn't waste my time on the surveyor's exam, I would go straight to the Engineers exam, more money, and then you can blame the surveyor for screwing up your project....

Due to the annoyingly strict requirements here, this is not the case. People with a PE license are a dime a dozen. Anyone under 50 with a surveying license here is a rare commodity. I have both licenses, and I have found the PLS to be far more valuable than the PE when looking for employment.

I too noticed, that when I took the exam a few years ago there were about 450 people at that test site sitting for the PE exam and 7 sitting for the PLS. To me that's a good thing....less competition.

One thing I will say about the degree requirement that I think a lot of the older guys overlook is that they got a chance to watch all this new technology develop. I'm pretty sure there were no geoid model questions or GPS double differencing problems on the PLS exam back in the 1970s. You guys from that time period had the chance to watch these things come along, learn them, and incorporate them into your tool kit gradually. For someone starting out now, you have to learn a good portion of that knowledge just to be able to pass the test. I think there pretty much has to be some level of formal education required.

JPH, post: 367870, member: 6636 wrote: 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?

Because most surveyors are too damn stupid to raise ther rates. They have no business background and don't understand that if they doubled their rates they would only have half the work and half the liability. They're the same folks who charged less for their services because they could buy more expensive equipment and complete the work faster. They have no business acumen and have severely damaged what used to be a profession.

JPH, post: 367970, member: 6636 wrote: "....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.

I've got a party chief that I would trust more to correctly survey a lot than at least half a dozen licensees in the area.

JPH, post: 367970, member: 6636 wrote: "....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.

It's true that many get this reputation simply by nurturing the reputation among those who don't know any better rather than on their knowledge and abilities. If you've only met that type, you're very unfortunate. I've known a few (very few, granted) old unlicensed party chiefs who understood the principles behind and requirements of different survey tasks far better than most new licensees, and better than several who had their license for many years.

For many individuals, their reputation as the wizened, knowledgeable & skilled surveyor may be a myth, but the existence of individuals who have actually earned the reputation but have chosen to not become licensed is not a myth. Such people have and do still exist.

eapls2708, post: 367957, member: 589 wrote: there isn't much room for an unlicensed person in many organizations who isn't able or willing to progress.

I occasionally see field guys working (outside construction sites) and stop to watch what they are doing. If the circumstances seem reasonable I'll talk briefly to them (maybe I risk becoming a nuisance). I find quite a range of knowledge. Some seem to understand what they are doing, but some are just button pushers.

Today I saw a maybe 50-year-old guy doing topo along a street not far from my home, and the truck bore the name of the company who laid out a drainage improvement at the end of our street. I had elevations from their stakes but never found anyone to ask about the datum. Today I asked this guy whether work in that neighborhood would have been done using NGVD29 or NAVD88, and with leveled elevations or GPS. He said most of their work was done using the total stations, not GPS, they and worked in NAD83 state plane. Like NAD83 defined the elevations. Definitely a button pusher.

Bill93, post: 368052, member: 87 wrote: I occasionally see field guys working (outside construction sites) and stop to watch what they are doing. If the circumstances seem reasonable I'll talk briefly to them (maybe I risk becoming a nuisance). I find quite a range of knowledge. Some seem to understand what they are doing, but some are just button pushers.

Today I saw a maybe 50-year-old guy doing topo along a street not far from my home, and the truck bore the name of the company who laid out a drainage improvement at the end of our street. I had elevations from their stakes but never found anyone to ask about the datum. Today I asked this guy whether work in that neighborhood would have been done using NGVD29 or NAVD88, and with leveled elevations or GPS. He said most of their work was done using the total stations, not GPS, they and worked in NAD83 state plane. Like NAD83 defined the elevations. Definitely a button pusher.

I know licensed land surveyors who don't know any better. Unfortunately the curriculum in many programs won't get them much further. They learn what metals are in the clocks and the formula for computing distances based on signal, but not what goes wrong when you RTK in canopy. Don't even dream of learning establishment doctrines or fact pattern analysis. Case law? All but unheard of...
IMO we can structure a 2 year degree that will lay a better foundation than many 4 year programs. We have forced a requirement with no foundation in reality and no infrastructure to meet the need. We top that off by paying grads 12 bucks an hour. We deserve whatever fate delivers..
I'm feeling a bit grumpy tonight. See you all tomorrow...

thebionicman, post: 368072, member: 8136 wrote: I know licensed land surveyors who don't know any better. Unfortunately the curriculum in many programs won't get them much further. They learn what metals are in the clocks and the formula for computing distances based on signal, but not what goes wrong when you RTK in canopy. Don't even dream of learning establishment doctrines or fact pattern analysis. Case law? All but unheard of...
IMO we can structure a 2 year degree that will lay a better foundation than many 4 year programs. We have forced a requirement with no foundation in reality and no infrastructure to meet the need. We top that off by paying grads 12 bucks an hour. We deserve whatever fate delivers..
I'm feeling a bit grumpy tonight. See you all tomorrow...

Amen Brother.