Based on the NCEES statement I believe that NCEES is writing the test with the assumption that you have a degree, and have successfully passed the required mathematics to get that degree.
There is a lot of information to be covered even in the FS test in limited amount of time. Retesting basic math skills may not be the best use of that time. I'm not talking about eliminating applied mathematics to solve a survey problem.
States without a degree requirement will need to test the basic math skills during the State specific portion of the exam.
The test is always evolving, and should keep evolving to keep up with changes in the profession. I'd be very surprised if the current test was asking you to solve the area of a parcel using DMD (Double-Meridian-Distance) but on the flip side about the closest thing I got to geodetic when I took the test was a couple of question on State Plane.
If I were preparing for the FS . I would be prepared to solve for area via the DMD. I would be prepared to adjust the lat and departure as well before solving. Hint always start with the westerly most point when utilizing this method. Of course every test is different so every one gets different questions etc. I took it only a few years back. For the math I would say I had a mixture of academic math problems and more of applying that to a survey type scenario. So here is a survey problem solve for X. It might take a few different formulas to get to the answer. I could tell it was written for a degree holder. However I think anyone that prepares and has performed these critical thinking and problem solving skills in the field should be able to navigate through the exam.
i haven't done the math but based on what your saying , I'm assuming is a 3, 4 , 5, triangle 30, 60, 90 triangle........the distance is 5 ft and the bearing should be S60W
I haven’t done the math but based on what your saying , I’m assuming is a 3, 4 , 5, triangle 30, 60, 90 triangle……..the distance is 5 ft and the bearing should be S60W
akuna matada it means no worries
No offense but the better course of action is to study the book and master it as much as possible, from cover to cover, as well as studying the other "bible" textbooks relating to boundaries, descriptions and case law.
Taking the test over and over and over again until you get lucky will not instill confidence in either the Board or your peers.
no offense but i know myself ....is either i pass or fail....and if anything ill ask the board for the results
theres no such thing as luck.
luck is a circumstance thats in your favor
I don't want to offend anyone . but if you guys want to know the truth is either I pass or fail. in everything that i do in life is either i pass or fail. there is no such thing as luck. Luck is a circumstance thats in your favor. If anything I'll ask the board for the results.
Luck is not what is being tested, knowledge and skills are what you are there to prove to the Board. You seem to be taking the roll the dice approach instead of doing the hard work that inspires confidence on the part of your peers.
This is not a game of chance that we are talking about. Taking your approach, I would encourage you to play the lottery and see if you get lucky with little effort.
I dunno what DMD is; unless it was called something else when I learned it.
You came here asking for opinions and have been unanimously told that your planned course of action is a bad idea. No matter, you know better. I get it - I remember when I was young and still knew everything.
One story, and then I'll go. I knew a fellow who had passed the FS many years previously but had never gone for the PS. When he finally did he failed. Tried again, failed again. Applied for third time and the board asked him to show some reason to expect that he would do any better. They don't like people just taking the test over and over. It makes them think that some of the questions are getting out of the exam room. It took this fellow some time and effort to get into the testing again. That time he took it more seriously, prepared properly, and passed.
DMD stands for "Double Meridian Distance", a means of calculating areas of irregular figures that was do-able with a slide rule. It was already out of use when I took the test in '98 but it was still in the curriculum. I was obliged to learn it well enough for testing and have not looked at it since.
If you remove the logic of having to manually calculate, that means that you assert that advanced mathematics in the degree program are not necessary.
I fully agree. For instance, when construction staking just because a curve is labeled a certain way and it all joins up in the picture...that doesn't make it true. And being able to manually calculate things has saved me more than once. But, I will also admit that I get rusty.