This is not a self esteem issue. This is crucial for "protecting the public". When the surveyor involved in an issue can not communicate, debate, and present a complete and learned picture the public loses. The attorneys, engineers, and real estate professionals don't hesitate to to use their communications skills to push their "solutions".?ÿ
I can't count the number of issues I have cleaned up that were screwed up by others becasue either the surveyor was ignored, or the surveyor let decisions they should have been making be made by attorneys, title companies or planners.?ÿ
We can be expert measurers and drafters without an education requirement, and a few can be more than that, but most will need some help that can only be realistically provided through the education system.?ÿ
How can we call a surveyor who can't do legal research, or even interpret a court decision a professional? How many learn to convert their plane measurements into geodetic bearings through the mentoring process??ÿ
Of course our profession has a low self esteem issue. I would too if I didn't know how to do anything but measure and stake out things from construction plans, plats, and land descriptions.?ÿ
I think you are forgetting how little you knew when you first started, and how much you know now, and are assuming?ÿ that everyone else will have the ability and the opportunities to make that same journey without an education.?ÿ?ÿ
All nice things, but still not in the scope of the licensing board, in my opinion.?ÿ
I'm not sure if any of what you write is a glaring shortcoming in the surveying community, or something that really needs addressing.?ÿ
I don't have such an ego to think that others don't have the ability to go the route that I've gone.?ÿ And definitely couldn't justify excessive education requirements that would block someone who's already made a similar journey, but 20+ years after me.
The facts just don't support the need for a formal education requirement.?ÿ Hell, they don't even support the need for continuing education requirements.
"How can we call a surveyor who can't do legal research, or even interpret a court decision a professional? "
?ÿ
I'm not picking a fight here just pointing this out:
Because the licenses that signed off on them said " yeah we believe and attest that they are competent and deserve to be licensed... Based upon our professional opinions....."
Which is where I'm presuming the school based attachment developed and shifts the blame.
It's a complex and delicate discussion at times and isnt?ÿ just a broad brush stroke to fix.
My $0.02
You are certainly right, it is a complicated problem, and education requirements are overly simple solutions. We can talk about what the education needs to include, the quality of the experience used to meet the requirements, the content and form of the exams.....
Not to mention that licensure is supposed to ensure a minimum level of?ÿ competency is met. What should that level be?
A method of measuring competency that doesn't include a four year degree is certainly imaginable, but is it practical? Who would design it? It may turn out to be more onerous then a four year degree.
It doesn't matter where you draw the line, someone somewhere still isn't going to be happy with it.?ÿ IMO
What is in the scope of the licensing board then??ÿ
If we are going to bring up "facts" based on our own assessment of the situation here is mine.
The facts appear to show that many surveyors don't serve their clients or protect the public very well. We let others dictate how we do our jobs to the detriment of the public good.?ÿ Our focus on reducing our perceived liabilities reduces the value of our services ten fold. We like to point out that we are more than expert measurers, but don't offer much beyond measurements to our clients. We refer issues to the legal system that are within our power to solve, and when we don't even educate the attorneys that take up our issues in our areas of speciality, leaving them to reinvent the wheel and take our former clients along for the ride.?ÿ
Education will not solve any of these problems, but it is the single biggest step on the way.?ÿ
You're talking anecdotal and non-specific observations and perceptions.?ÿ Not facts, but feelings.
Facts would be along the lines of, if you could show that more complaints were filed against licensees who don't have college degrees.?ÿ Or if you could quantify that there are more mistakes or incorrect boundaries on plans recorded by the uneducated LS's.?ÿ
I'm not against education, just the presumption that we actually have a problem with licensed surveyors who don't have a degree, that they are doing a substandard job.?ÿ
Unless that is actually established, there is no real issue, and no reason for an education requirement.
Each State's BOR, no matter what it's precise title or scope of professions may be, routinely has seated Board Members who could not meet the designated requirements for application for licensure based on the current wording of those requirements.?ÿ The requirements are lofty goals set forth to upgrade the profession.?ÿ Thus, exceptions to those goals must be made or there would be very few new licensees.?ÿ It is the proven character of those Board members that has elevated them to hold such a position of power.?ÿ Character is learned at home, at work, in school, in church and many other places.?ÿ Character may also be learned from proper mentors during the work experience portion of the application requirement.
The educational requirement tends to cause the most heartburn, mainly because a high proportion of current members of the survey profession did not even intend to take on land surveying as a career when they were seated in classrooms.?ÿ I know I did not.?ÿ However, I had survived the requirements to receive a bachelor's degree in Engineering and had met the requirements and testing to become a licensed Professional Engineer.?ÿ Had I chosen a different curriculum for my university experience such as Horticultural Therapy, Economics or Journalism, I would probably have never applied for licensure as a Land Surveyor even with 10 years of field experience.?ÿ I might have become elevated to a position in the management of a survey firm, yet not possess the skills and education that one should have to hold a license to operate on my own.?ÿ Not everyone doing land survey work needs to hold a license.?ÿ It is only critical if one wishes to provide those services as the owner of the business.
For example, there are currently about 680 people holding a Kansas license for land surveying.?ÿ Approximately 340 live in other locations while about 340 live in Kansas.?ÿ There is not a need for 340 separate surveying companies in this state based on the volume of projects at any one point in time with another potential 340 waiting to swoop in and grab the plum opportunities.?ÿ However, there is plenty of work to be done, thus keeping the current group of providers very busy.?ÿ We need far more Intern Surveyors (or whatever the appropriate term may be in each state) than we do Licensed or Registered Professional Surveyors.?ÿ That is where the BOR should be focusing their lofty goals.?ÿ Provide one level of recognition based on various categories of skills and a very separate level of recognition for the four-year degree in a technical field plus four years of on the job training to obtain the title of Land Surveyor.
The course requirements should include some very high level courses if one wishes the Land Surveyor license.?ÿ The average person cannot pass those courses, just as I would not pass a class known as Greek III.?ÿ But, to truly grasp geodesy, land law and statistical analysis one needs courses far higher than College Algebra or General Mathematics to prepare them for the complexity required.?ÿ Today's version of Land Surveying does not involve learning the proper tension with which to hold a chain and plumb bob or hand calculation using trigonometric tables.?ÿ Tomorrow's version of Land Surveying will look differently from today's.?ÿ The changes will primarily be based on technological improvements but may also require far more study of legal matters.
We need far more Intern Surveyors (or whatever the appropriate term may be in each state) than we do Licensed or Registered Professional Surveyors.
That is nonsense, imo.?ÿ You don't pin guys in the middle of the ladder because you don't want to pay them, or teach them, or potentially compete against them.
That is nonsense, imo.?ÿ You don't pin guys in the middle of the ladder because you don't want to pay them, or teach them, or potentially compete against them.
No one's pinning anyone anywhere. HC is just pointing out that right now licenses are not really what most firms need.
Higher education is not a problem for other professions. The engineers I work with are absolutely gobsmacked that we are even arguing about this in 2021...and none of the EITs in any of the offices I work in are whining about being stuck in the middle.
Not everyone is going to make the cut. That's normal for professions. It's supposed to be that way.
As a side note, as a project surveyor who is also a trainer and SME on workflow and field/office procedures, I interface with all the high-level techs at my firm, and most of my professional network is made up of them. Right now they're all burned out, overworked, and frustrated, but we keep on acting as if hiring another license is the holy grail that will solve our problems. It ain't.
If it were up to me, I would pay a high-level tech 20-30% more than the average PLS. At least the tech can actually do 90% of the tasks required of surveyors; half of PLSs today can barely send something to the network printer, much less QA and process raw data, draft plats and generate deliverables. It may be an inconvenient truth, but there it is...as the profession advances it gets more complex, and we need people who can handle all aspects of it. That stamp, and the boundary solution, doesn't mean anything if the underlying data isn't solid.
Elitist attitudes and policies bother me.?ÿ?ÿ
Nothing that's been said so far gives concrete reasons for these requirements.?ÿ It's all been squishy explanations an rationalizations.
HC is just pointing out that right now licenses are not really what most firms need.
So what's stopping firms from hiring a PLS to do that work??ÿ That's right, the pay.?ÿ I get it, why would a law firm hire an attorney when they can hire a paralegal to do the same thing for half the price.
I just find it strange how the left hand frets that there are more licenses retiring than being created while the right hand says we need more interns than licenses.?ÿ Something obviously doesn't add up.
The alternative is to approach a minimal number of licensed surveyors over time.?ÿ The expectations are for a licensed surveyor to have at least four years of university education with upper level classes in geodesy, calculus,?ÿ physics, hydrology, statistics, relevant law categories and possibly dendrology, geology and business management.?ÿ Anyone successfully passing those courses is rarely going to be someone who spends their days out in the field.?ÿ They have acquired the knowledge that allows them to pursue higher paying occupations in other or related fields.?ÿ Thus, there is a need to provide an identified level of licensure or certification that is more focused towards specialization than the broad scope of the professional license.?ÿ The Engineering Profession recognized that need 50 years ago and created curricula in Engineering Technology.?ÿ Those have become very popular programs around the country.?ÿ The Veterinary Profession recognized that need over 40 years ago and created Veterinary Technology or Specialist programs.?ÿ The Medical Profession has moved in the same direction.?ÿ A huge proportion of the population consults directly with Professional Assistants or Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners instead of the M.D.'s who used to staff every doctor's office and be the one on one person with the patient.
?ÿ
I agree that we could use a series of technician levels. But they shouldn't be a dead end to those who want to progress on to licensure.?ÿ?ÿ
10 years of experience and mentoring is worth more than 4 years of university, where half is unrelated subjects. I know, I was there.?ÿ
My licenses hang on the wall. No clue where my useless diploma resides.?ÿ
Again, I'll change my stance when someone produces evidence that a degree makes someone a better surveyor or that those LS's without one preform inferior work.?ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
I think part of our disagreement is illustrated well by the use of the term "substandard". My problem is not so much with the substandard surveyors but with the standard itself.?ÿ
If you are measuring the standard as being able to pass the garbage most states use for licensing exams and then being able to meet state minimum standards, then yeah,?ÿ we don't need education, but if that is going to be the standard I don't think we need licensure requirements either.
To quote a former POTUS, "That depends of what the definition of 'is" is."
According to TDD the ideal surveyor can work all day with no need for fluid replenishment and set up a tripod and instrument in under 10 seconds every time.?ÿ To someone else the ideal surveyor is someone who can run slope staking calculations in their head.?ÿ To someone else the ideal surveyor is one who understands spheroids, geoids, epochs, projections and datums, er, uh, I mean data, I guess. To someone else the ideal surveyor is the guy/gal who can oversee 20 or more subordinates working at several different job sites and ensure their work is correct.
?ÿ
A huge proportion of the population consults directly with Professional Assistants or Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners instead of the M.D.'s who used to staff every doctor's office and be the one on one person with the patient.
My sister is a RN, not even a nurse practitioner, and she makes $46 an hour.?ÿ If you can show me a CAD tech making that kind of money then I'll start buying what you're selling.?ÿ ?????ÿ
I just find it strange how the left hand frets that there are more licenses retiring than being created while the right hand says we need more interns than licenses.?ÿ Something obviously doesn't add up.
It's stubborn pride combined with protectionism, because if one PLS who perhaps wasn't as skilled as that LSIT saw his pay drop in comparison, it might happen to the others...
The so-called "free market" has never really been free, but in the case of professions, we are effectively handed a monopoly by statute, so the whole supply/demand thing doesn't work if those in charge don't want it to.