Fair enough.?ÿ When they defunded and then eleminated the program at MSCD while i was attending, I wondered where this whole thing would go.?ÿ I didnt have the resources nor wanted to move to Grand Junction, and at the time the current program wasnt even an option.
New Mexico took a similar direction, formerly ANY science degree, augmented by the board approved survey/math classes. Now isolated to the same general and vague board approved BS. The lawyers are winning, and will eventually create a toothless career for only technicians and drafters to be overseen by someone that never dug up an original corner or even wanted to. ?ÿ Thanks for your effort, we need more surveyors that want the career to continue, not to continue the career.
Well, thanks for not being upset with my opinion. I was a bit grumpier than normal since you post under a nom de plume. Not that I think you should post under your real name, only that my grumpy prose could be targeted at no one in particular. Please follow-up with Tom before speaking to your better half so you have a good idea of what the cost and time investments will be.
I do think you will make a good PLS. I say that in part because you have a geology degree. We were both taught in college the prudence of formulating multiple working hypotheses before starting a geologic investigation. The other option is to lock yourself into a ruling hypothesis (in other words, you know what the answer is so you accept only the facts and evidence that supports that ruling and often erroneous hypothesis). Culling the working hypotheses that don't fit the gathered facts and evidence usually leads to a sound and defensible conclusion. I've found that holding that view works equally well for boundary survey problems.
Way back in 1984 as preparation for my exams I took a course in boundary law from Dave Pehr when he taught at Red Rocks Community College. He was a licensed land surveyor prior to becoming an attorney. He recently retired from teaching and giving conference seminars. He would often include this definition of a professional in his classes, "a professional is someone that provides answers to questions that don't have answers."
Good luck in your pursuit. I too wish there was still an apprentice-only path to licensure in Colorado. What the engineers and architects did was to make the four-year degree a far more easy path than the apprentice route. I wish surveyors would have seen the wisdom in that view.
I was an affiliate faculty member at Metro in 2010. I was responsible for the Route Surveying, Geodesy I and Map Projections distance learning courses. One of the reasons I testified against the elimination of the apprentice-only route was that the Metro program was ending and no other in-state option was available.
I know, you and Sphene and several others did a great job trying to right the sinking ship that academic administration gave up on.?ÿ So it goes.?ÿ I still wonder where all the gear went, all those bullet cases with the theodolites, the whole shebang.?ÿ I should have bought the DVDs when they were still available, Prof Stoughton was hard, but fair.
I'm not sure I did anything to right the sinking ship. I was one of several affiliate faculty that helped where we could to keep the program going after Dr. Stoughton retired.
As for the survey equipment and supplies, I got a call from Susan Call that other departments wanted the storage spaces that housed the survey equipment; otherwise it would all be "dumpsterized." Bryan Clark and I ended up rescuing the survey equipment housed in a storage room in the South Classroom (now Cherry Creek) and a shipping container on the south side of the Technology Building (now Boulder Creek). The six pickup loads ended up being stored for 6+ years in what was previously my two-car garage.
I eventually got all of the BLM gear that they loaned to Metro back to them so they could properly dispose of all their HP-3800s and Wild theodolites. After I catalogued the gear with Metro inventory tags, Metro donated everything to the PLSC. It finally ended up in the PLSC's storage unit when I moved in 2016. I imagine the PLSC still has the bulk of the survey gear.
Thanks again for your efforts.
At the very least you sharing the story helps to build a picture of how the survey education requirements were being indoctrinated as the only program in the state was being dismantled and the gear dumpster bound.
Reasonable people might find that odd.
😉
?ÿ
Edited: I think by that time the westwood college 2yr program had been discontinued too.
At the very least you sharing the story helps to build a picture of how the survey education requirements were being indoctrinated as the only program in the state was being dismantled and the gear dumpster bound.
Reasonable people might find that odd.
Did the PLSC not weigh in and express in clear terms the effect that dismantling the program would have on both prospective land surveyors and the profession in general? Go to several of the other states that both require a degree and have a geomatics program, and you will typically see strong support from the professional community.
I received my 4-year degree from the University of Alaska; for a state that is awash in public subsidies, it sure likes to try and cut education and critical services before anything else. The geomatics program has been under threat several times over the past 10-15 years, and each time the ASPLS, as well as individual surveyors and local firms, have pushed back hard to ensure the state understands its value.
Of course, having worked in states ranging from requiring a full degree, to some amount of college credit, to no education at all, I would not at all be surprised by a lack of enthusiasm from the professional ranks during the transition. Here in WA a degree will get you an upturned nose (and ironically enough an accusation of being elitist) from a good chunk of the survey community, but my coworkers in OR have quite a different view on the matter.
Perhaps KScott, Warren Ward and/or others that are knowledgeable of the recent history will chime in about this, Rover83. The WCCC surveying program started in 2017 and the PLSC was deeply involved in getting the program started and provided a large financial commitment. What I do know is that Tom Sylvester has worked very hard to develop, expand and improve the program.
@aliquot?ÿ That is an important fact for folks to check on and is not often brought up.?ÿ Many of the regulations in place provide for the surveying core curriculum to be from a board approved program.?ÿ So an ABET accredited program isn't the only path.?ÿ ABET accredited is pretty much automatically accepted by a board, but there may be several schools within a state that offer the course work and have been accepted by the board in the past.?ÿ Something folks looking to get licensed might want to talk with the board about.
This is not meant as a negative comment on ABET accreditation.?ÿ But, having worked on the forms for an ABET accreditation team to review during a visit for a regional university's re-accreditation, I did not see any meaningful assurances that the program was really imparting the knowledge that would be expected.?ÿ Reporting forms were filled out by faculty and administrators had the ability to "correct" items they wanted to correct.?ÿ Some statements made by a department chair during an engineering physics re-accreditation really make me question the whole matter of accrediting agencies.
For a long time, I was a proponent of an education requirement.?ÿ This past fall, I was teaching a standards seminar for the Kentucky Association of Professional Surveyors.?ÿ While covering the education requirements, a board member in attendance point blank asked my opinion on the degree requirement.?ÿ I'll briefly recap here what I told him -
From what I have been told by members who helped push through the degree requirement, it is meant to accomplish two main goals.?ÿ First, allow us (surveyors) the honor of being deemed professionals within the court system due to the higher education required.?ÿ Second, to standardize the education of up and coming surveyors so as to avoid potential issues where (as has already been noted in this thread by others) a mentor provides poor or incorrect training or even incomplete training due to a narrow focus of practice.
Point one I don't have the expertise to address because I've got limited legal proceedings experience.?ÿ It does seem that surveyors were in the court cases in the past providing expert testimony.?ÿ So, I am not sure how much difference that has made.?ÿ Maybe it is now easier to be recognized without having to provide further proofs of expertise.
Point two, I used to support with great enthusiasm.?ÿ However, the board and the education statutes in our state does nothing to minimally guarantee students are receiving "correct" training in their surveying courses.?ÿ We leave that to university administrators and I have not been impressed with their choices in such matters.?ÿ While some states address, in statute, that the teaching of university courses in surveying is the practice of surveying, most do not.?ÿ So, you can end up with people who have never performed any surveying work outside of their required few courses in college (and one instance where the degree said faculty had required no surveying course work) "teaching" people about surveying.?ÿ Some may be able to do so, but that seems an anomaly to me if they can.?ÿ I have seen this occur at three universities in Kentucky.?ÿ I have reliable student level knowledge about two of those cases and the information from students was a very poor review of the education they were receiving.?ÿ In one case, the student had more practice level surveying experience than the teacher.?ÿ I am not a fan of someone who has never had to resolve a boundary teaching a boundary surveying course.?ÿ And if you have had to resolve enough boundaries as to be at a level of being able to teach the topic, why are you not licensed unless you have little regard for the profession you are in.?ÿ Licensed faculty with professional practice experience used to be the norm in the state, but university administrators seem to value licensure and experience less than they used to.
You raise some good points. Some comments:
I think your point one is too narrow. Allowing surveyors to take there rightfull position as professionals is more than being expert witnesses. It is also learning how to act and communicate professionally, and overcoming the stigma of hobnobbing with other learned professionals without being "learned".?ÿ
Your concerns about point two ring true. One of the ways we counteract that is by requiring education AND experience. I think this is where ABET is doing us a disservice. The ABET requirments are great for budding geodesists, but that's not who State Boards ate concerned with. It is impossible to meet ABET requirements and train a Land Surveyor in four years.?ÿ
What do you mean by "resolving" a boundary? I agree that teaching the search for, and field evaluation of boundary evidence should only be tought by someone with ample field experience,?ÿ but that leaves many classes worth of material that can be tought by someone with a law background that need not have ever dug a hole or ever called themselves a land surveyor.?ÿ
You are right that even a much improved educational requirment doesn't provide any certainty, but it certainly increases the odds.?ÿ I think we could do much better with our tests to weed out the badly educated.?ÿ
learning how to act and communicate professionally, and overcoming the stigma of hobnobbing with other learned professionals without being "learned".?ÿ
Ok, this right here has no place in a licensing requirement - in my opinion.?ÿ
No offense, but it's basically a low self-esteem issue that some of us in our line of work have, and no one is going to look at us any differently even when told that we are all educated.
This type of reinforcement and confidence should've been taught by parents when kids are young, nothing for a licensing board to be dealing with
Here are a couple points to remember in this debate: in no state where formal education is not required in addition to apprenticeship e.g. California do young surveyors flood the classrooms. A steady 1% of licensees have 4 year degrees in surveying. In Colorados 40 plus years of having both a 4 year degree and 2 year associates but no education requirement there were never more than 3 graduates in a year but roughly 50 licenses granted.
Point 2: I promise and assure every surveyor on earth that the requirements I completed in 1989 were SCARY inadequate. Efforts at improvements were necessary. Of course all of us can figure out how to do this without ever seeing a classroom. The problem is that enough of us get licenses that shouldn't.
?ÿ
I forgot point 3 and 4: point 3 is that the bureau of land management only hires surveyors with surveying degrees (I think) and we actually now have great need for more qualified survey technicians these days
I'm a working surveyor, so I don't have time to go back through 10 pages of postings to find out if somebody already made this point, so forgive me if it's been said before....
For a lot of skill sets, including surveying, a four year degree is a very poor excuse for an education. Structured, formal, classroom learning? Sure, there is a place for it. But in this day, age, and state of technology there are much better ways to get the education of a surveyor done.
??To my astonishment I was informed on leaving college that I had studied navigation! ?? why, if I had taken one turn down the harbor I would have known more about it.??ÿ Thoreau, writing 170 yrs ago.
Totally agree.?ÿ Well, except for that, I'm a working surveyor, blah, blah, stuff.?ÿ See, we all kind of are
You have undoubtedly met the Kansas requirements.?ÿ Your next door neighbor would welcome you.?ÿ
Totally agree.?ÿ Well, except for that, I'm a working surveyor, blah, blah, stuff.?ÿ See, we all kind of are
I apologize if that sounded snarky. I feared that I might appear to be parroting a point long since made made by others quicker on the draw.?ÿ ?ÿ
Sorry I am late to the conversation, not having checked in for a few weeks.?ÿ
I agree with what Gene has stated regarding Tom Sylvester. He addition to his teaching he continues to perform surveys that are great examples of true professionalism. He is a dedicated instructor and the latest information that I have is all of the classes at WCCC are moving to online and on campus on a rotating schedule. A class on campus this semester will be online next semester and vise versa.
PLSC endowed this program to get it started and continues to support it through awarding scholarships, which is something one might look into if they are interested in pursuing the required education.
Regarding the required education requirement I am of mixed feelings. I have known good and bad surveyors from both sides of the equation. Mostly from the apprentice side as that is most surveyors I have known. I, myself, became a surveyor by happy accident. I lost my job and funded education with the USFWS to budget cuts under the Nixon Administration and had a roommate that was working for a Surveyor/Engineer that needed help. I was trapping prairie dogs outside of Denver on Friday and staking sewer lines in the same property on Monday. I am very happy it happened. It has been a great career.
I often wished I had a more formal education in the latest technology of surveying. Starting out on the tail end of a Lufkin highway tape didn't teach me much about GPS technology!
