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.
There's no dead end if you meet the requirements to become a PLS. That's yet another strawman.
10 years of experience and mentoring is worth more than 4 years of university, where half is unrelated subjects. I know, I was there.
Cool, I'll just call up the boards of 25 states and the NCEES and tell 'em that this dude on an internet forum knows more than all of them put together.
And if you thought those other "unrelated subjects" were useless for personal or professional development, you probably didn't benefit from the related subjects either.
My licenses hang on the wall. No clue where my useless diploma resides.
It's only useless if you didn't want to get anything out of it.
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.
So...you are opposed to higher education, one of the central tenets of which is objective evidence-based methodology, but demand evidence that it is worthwhile, in your subjective and biased judgment? Got it.
My licenses hang on the wall. No clue where my useless diploma resides.?ÿ
Hopefully the knowledge you acquired is with you at all times.
You children better quiet down or I'm pulling this wood panel station wagon over and spanking the lot of you...
Easy up there boys and girls no need to get too wound up.
We're on the same team. Let's figure it out before the title companies lawyers and county clerk's find a way to eliminate the need for us.
This debate always starts out with the theory that if we merely added formal education to our great and proud tradition of apprenticeship then just maybe our society will respect us, and turns into an accusation that we are insulting perfectly good surveyors who can self teach anything they need to know to do this just fine. After about 20 years into this debate I still only know 2 facts: 1 is that me and my colleagues were and are still HIGHLY DISRESPECTED by society and 2 I have no definitive answer to change that perception?ÿ
No one implied any of those things. Not everybody in the profession needs to be, wants to be, or a has the ability to work at the highest level.?ÿTheses people should be recognized and paid for their skills and work.?ÿ
?ÿ
I made that much (adjusted for inflation) as an unlicensed crew chief/office technician and I was often the only customer facing survey representative of the company.?ÿ
Our problem is that we have such low standards for professionalism there often isn't much room below us. I think the idea is to raise the ceiling not crush those in the middle.?ÿ
Well, that's the way it struck me when I read it.?ÿ I agree with the rest, but how is that supposed to happen when the people in the position to affect such a change don't do so, and those people are the gatekeepers to that position?
The definition of TRADE is learning by apprenticeship then passing a test that by design proves that t we are minimally qualified to practice. We then demand that our Board refer to us as PROFESSIONAL land surveyors because none of us are so dumb that we can't teach ourselves anything we need to know. Still, our society rewards education and unfortunately are unwilling to respect us even though we know we can teach ourselves anything
Never hurts to use the consider the source angle, does it?
The fact that 25 states and NCEES are for a degree requirement doesn't necessarily mean that it's not an arbitrary requirement.?ÿ All the explanations that I've read here so far don't back up the need for one.?ÿ
The dead end is because there are people who are otherwise knowledgeable and qualified, and hold the same lack of degree status as many of those who are already licensed, yet are prevented solely on that lack of degree to obtain their license.
Maybe you got a lot out of drawing, sociology, earth science, basket weaving, etc, but I didn't see much value in many of the classes where I was in a lecture hall and the TA sat at the podium and just read out of the text book.
Regardless, you and others are still avoiding the issue, whether the degree requirement is making for better licensees and doing its job and preventing those who're unqualified from obtaining their licenses??ÿ Or is it just helping your self esteem so you can feel that we're on par with other professionals while also keeping out the riff raff?
I've written at least once here, probably twice, that I'm not opposed to higher education, just the presumption that it's something that's needed to become a good surveyor.
?ÿ
Not a popular opinion here, but I have no problem being thought of as a trade.?ÿ Maybe it would help us get out of some of the responsibility and liability that gets dumped on us.
I'm not sure that I remember that much about the chemistry, differential equations, thermo, oceanography, English lit, etc.
So, maybe not.?ÿ
I've learned more on the job surveying, and am obviously more proud of my licensing accomplishments than that degree
Yes, I'm wondering if Wendell will get tired of this bickering, and decide to pull the plug on this thread
Just some reference. PLSC formed in 1966 and one of their first accomplishments was to get the board to legally ADD "professional " so that prior to 1970 we were "registered land surveyor". In 2018 the board proposed some rule changes including dropping the word "professional ". Our board does not consider us professionals. Even though most of us have tortured through some college classrooms society doesn't know that. Society rewards education. BTW only about 20% of us p reactionary belong to PLSC.
I meant to add that most the original members of PLSC had related science degrees and very many had taken surveying in engineering school.. But there was no full college surveying program until 1971. Our founders never said we had to learn our craft in college. Education only proves to society that we are rounded individuals?ÿ
Healthy respectful heated discussion is ok.
Ad hominem attacks are not.
This is inside the lines I feel but I'm not the baby sitter, I'm a co conspirator.
I've been asked by random people "You need a degree to do that?".?ÿ I just say "Yes, that didn't used to be the case but it's grown in complexity to the point that it's beneficial to have one".?ÿ If I'm holding a rover or they see the data collector screen and/or a plan set I can usually tell they're immediately lost, so to me I don't doubt the public thinks we're on a different level than plumbers or electricians.
I also don't have a raggedy beard/goatee/pony tail, smoke, or wear the cheap T-shirts (untucked with beer guts sticking out) that most companies give their guys.?ÿ I buy button-down work shirts that look nice, blue jeans that fit and are without holes, rips, or stains, and I wash my boots and truck probably every week or two.
I know looks aren't everything but if you want to be treated like a professional then you need to make some effort to look and act that way.
My use of substandard is as compared to other LS's who have degrees.
I have no negative comments about the surveyors, surveying, or licensing exams in my area.?ÿ
I'm sorry that they're apparently substandard where you practice.
@jph?ÿ That not true in my area. Here, ALL of the jacklegs were grandfathered in. I am sorry that you went to a college that left you with that experience. What I learned from Dave Gibson (college professor) is just as worthy as what I learned from Buell Harper (ground surveyor) and just as worthy as what I learned from Ted Madson (legal surveyor).
Somewhere along in the middle of this now 12 page thread I mentioned having passed the examination to obtain the license that says I am a Professional Engineer.?ÿ I neglected to mention the other eight hour examination that came first.?ÿ At the time that was known as the Engineer in Training (EIT) exam.?ÿ It was recommended that one apply to take that test during their last semester of university training or as soon as reasonable thereafter.?ÿ That was a killer of an examination that very few could possibly pass without having four years of intense technical education related to the field of engineering.?ÿ The subject matter consisted of virtually every subject required to graduate in any engineering discipline.?ÿ Thus Civil Engineering majors faced questions from courses principally taken by Nuclear Engineering majors and Nuclear Engineering majors faced questions from courses principally taken by Civil Engineering majors.?ÿ It covered problems from physics, chemistry, biology, statics, dynamics, thermodynamics, metallurgy, fluid dynamics, soil dynamics, hydrology, nuclear vessel design, heat transfer, controls, simulation, optics and on and on.?ÿ No one was expected to be able to answer every problem correctly due to the wide range of curricula required for the multiple engineering designations. As I recall, one had to score a minimum of 75 or 80 percent to be considered as having passed.?ÿ I think the national passing rate was something like 60 percent on the first attempt.?ÿ The passing rate fell after that because it had been even longer since the applicant had taken the classes over which the testing was based.
Once one had passed the EIT exam there was a minimum of four years of progressive performance of engineering work that could be attested to by other licensed engineers required.?ÿ Only then could one begin to apply for the PE examination.?ÿ Eight or nine years of combined work experience and education, longer if parts of the work experience was deemed to not match up with what was considered to be engineering work.
The vast majority of engineers you encounter at your work sites are not Professional Engineers.