Of course there are exceptional people who can learn all they need to be a professional without a four year degree, but those who don't like the four year education requirements need to come up with an alternative way to measure competency.
No alternative is not compelling. If my job could be done by a good test taker with a high school education I am being paid to much.?ÿ
Am I correctly understanding your OP in which you stated you have taken and passed the State exam but were subsequently denied your license? Don't they review everything prior to allowing you to sit for the exam?
Which is very bizarre and offensive to me, since many of these proponents of education laws have no college education themselves.
?ÿ
Maybe they realized they made mistakes when they were starting their careers and think they could have had even better careers with a four year degree...maybe they would have gotten one if surveying education was more than a trig class tought by an engineer when they were young.?ÿ
@flga-2-2 No. I have passed parts 1&2 of 3 so to speak. Part 3 is the state exam that I applied to take but was denied.
That's fine for them to feel that, but using their own feelings of inadequacy is no basis for rules for others.?ÿ?ÿ
My understanding is, at least in New England, bad surveying isn't an issue as much as client communication.?ÿ Maybe seminars in that would be more in line with what we need.?ÿ?ÿ
I don't think that anyone is advocating for test only licensure, at least I'm not.?ÿ?ÿ
I'm saying that if someone qualifies to take an exam, then don't tell him after he's passed it that he wasn't qualified because he didn't have the education to take it. He obviously had a practical education enough to pass it.?ÿ?ÿ
And I still believe that a person can learn all he needs to become a professional land surveyor on the job. Unless someone proves that it results in an inferior surveyor, and we have a bunch of licensed idiots out there, there's no evidence that it's really needed.?ÿ?ÿ
Of course there are exceptional people who can learn all they need to be a professional without a four year degree, but those who don't like the four year education requirements need to come up with an alternative way to measure competency.
No alternative is not compelling. If my job could be done by a good test taker with a high school education I am being paid to much.
?ÿ
I would be amenable to tiered testing that takes candidates through all the higher level concepts that just can't be taught on the hood of a truck, or even on a drafting table. I have worked with some outstanding surveyors, and not a one of them could teach geodesy, statistics, error analysis, cadastral, projections, or spatial data adjustments on the job. Even boundary law takes a few semesters of class to really get one's head around. So those tests need to be the equivalent of a place-out exam that demonstrates mastery of the material.
When I was a trainer for an equipment dealer, one of the most frustrating parts of the job was taking surveyors through data analysis and trying to teach all of the above on the fly so I could actually get down to the analysis part. It's just not possible. Some concepts need to be learned in a structured environment with a dedicated instructor and a focus on just that single area, before moving on to practical application and learning through experience.
And at the risk of getting flamed, I'll just flatly state that without knowledge of all the above concepts, all you can do is collect data and regurgitate it without having any idea how good it is or what it represents.
And that's not surveying. That's data collection, or mapping, which is a part of surveying, but far from the most important part, and for sure isn't the reason there needs to be a license to protect the public.
I see it as being honest and not having an inflated ego, rather than a feeling of inadequacy.
I agree on the communication issue. Every bachelor's degree I have seen teaches communication skills.?ÿ
In Colorado applicants self attest that they meet the requirements for licensure. They do not apply to the board till after they pass the test,?ÿ no one told the OP that he wasn't qualified to take the test.?ÿ
We certainly do have a bunch of licenced idiots running around. Can you tell me with a straight face you haven't run across a few??ÿ
Of course some of the licenced idiots even have a college degree.?ÿ
There is no surefire way to keep out the idiots.?ÿ
I mostly agree with this, except I think that the math and statistics parts are the easy parts to teach and learn. Boundary law can't be mastered, even at an introductory level in two semesters and 4 years of experience.
The degree requirements have done a good job ensuring the measurement engineering stuff is getting through, but there are still many clueless boundary decisions.?ÿ
The experience only route has all but disappeared for a dew reasons. First and foremost is the me me me business models. We hire a greenhorn, teach him a fraction of the equipment then throw them out the doir to generate billable hours. We squandered the advances in tools and stopped building new surveyors. We dropped our prices to cover most of our time and forgot tge value of what we do.
A second issue is the quality of what has been passed down. Our forerunners taught the basic 'truth' of cheating your client because it's the neighbor that will sue you. Don't waste time monumenting those obscure corners a half mile up the ridge, nodmbody will ever know.
I see firms that mentor employees very well. They are the exception. So what do we do?
?ÿThe degree requirement is a solid solution. But it doesn't end there. Those technicians with experience can obtain credit for what they've learned. On-line students need mentors to do hands-on labs. This isn't charity but it is a profession. If you can't give back sell furniture, install carpet or some other commercial pursuit.
I hear more halftruth garbage about the testing and licensing of surveyors than I can stand. Quit discouraging candidates and help them find a path forward. They are there, even in States like Idaho with a degree requirement. It can be done. In the words of the great Ron White, I've seen me do it.
?ÿ
The reality these days is a surveyor has to wear a lot of hats. The days of three and four man crews and opportunities for mentoring have gone away. It's robots and GPS, one or two man crews doing the heavy lifting with little direct supervision or mentoring. Anyone relying on GPS has to have a grasp of geodesy as they are working on a world wide coordinate system, elevations are based on geoids that are based on gravity maps. This knowledge and experience isn't gained doing lot surveys. In order to have a solid foundation to build on, the degree route is just a necessity. With maybe a few exceptions most people are not going to be self taught in these advanced subjects. It's a delicate balance between cutting edge measurement tools and their precision and fundamental principles of boundary law where those precise measurements take a back seat over an accepted monument set a hundred years ago with transit and chain. I remember years back another older surveyor telling me that as a profession we are eating our young. He was right. But like everything, change is a constant and in order to adapt to that change, as a profession and not a trade, the education component is essential. There's just is no substitute, just as there is no substitute for mentoring and constantly challenging ourselves to learn and improve. We can't do that if we are egocentric, only focused inwards. I hire a geomatics student every summer for help during the construction season and interviewed a student yesterday and told him that a decade from now I were to retire and hand the keys over to him because he was successful in his schooling and getting licensed, I would consider that to be success of the highest order. He was me twenty plus years ago.?ÿ?ÿ
Thank you.?ÿ I forgot where this article was posted, and remember why I wanted to keep tabs on it.
Fuuny thing.?ÿ The Surveyor I work under, and incredible mentor, said to me this morning that ..."one of the most important things We do as surveyors, is teach..."
He's the reason i turned down jobs that paid 20-35k more than im making, to keep learning from someone that actually gives a $ht and isn't going to turn away any enthusiastic dedicated person wanting to chase the prize.
Agreed. A Guy asked me how he could learn to do what I was doing.?ÿ I said I can train you to push the button, and put the gear together, but you'll need to study the math, the error propagation theory, the legal aspects of the decisions you'll be working in, and then the whole other side of the business management part. He kind of lost interest at the study the math part, and got kinda that eyes glazing over look, so?ÿ i kept going.
AS I was required to take the CST 2 O/F exams to maintain my poorly paid position, I had friends and family asking me why If I took two 6 hours tests, didn't I have a license or better pay. I explained the field is in a weird transition, and test are just that, tests. The real tests are 8 hours, and way more difficult as they represent a higher benchmark of subject mastery.
Experience is the OJT I need to fully understand the depth and breath of the profession, no different than a Plumber, and Electrician, A Doctor, and ATP pilot, etc etc etc. this is just the starting point.?ÿ
?ÿ
You can't learn boundary law by doing a lot of surveys either, many mistakes dont come home to roost for decades.?ÿ
Surveyors without degrees seem to see the degree requirements as a personal attack. It's not. We don't want to take anything away from you. We judge you on your work and your communications skill not your lack of a degree. Every state I have looked into allows already licenced surveyors to qualify for new licenses based on the requirments in place when they were first licensed. You will not lose anything.
We want to move our profession forward. It is hard to prove forward momentum, but it is not hard to see the difference in respect from the public and other professionals between the surveyor who goofed a scale factor, refuses to form a legal opinion, justifies their decisions by, "I was always tought", or uses 6th grade writing skills in professional communications, and those who don't.?ÿ
When we are thought of as those dirty guys behind the camera on the construction site we lose opportunities to make a difference, and with that we loose pay and positions.?ÿ
Yes the degree requirment will mean fewer new surveyors, but we don't need as many any more. Degrees can be had online while working full time. These programs are not turning students away. The market is working.?ÿ
There are many, many good questions posed in that article. I totally support investigating the answers to those questions.
Let me add that I support a path to licensure that doesn't require a surveying degree.
But, I will say the tone of the article seems to be a put down of those who did take the degree path. The breadth of knowledge gained in a bachelor's degree survey curriculum is difficult to replicate with on the job training. To quote the article, "I am sorry, you just can't."
Now, is that breadth of knowledge necessary? I'd say, at minimum, it's beneficial.
I learned more than I could handle most times working with the guys that had no degrees, and 35-40 years of surveying experience. They never intended to matriculate the license, just not what they wanted to do. I stand on the shoulders of the people that came before me, knowing full well without that boost, I'd know little to nothing about the nuances that make a difference every day, that aren't being taught in schools I'm guessing.
Finding a righteous balance of the old/field with the new is the trajectory that makes the most sense, and I am still pursuing this path until I either make it there, or die trying.
