You nailed that. Then the line of I expect if I am paying Crew chief wages they should know. I am like you hired them. I personally spend a lot of time teaching and going over things. I am limited on knowledge but I give all I can to my crews. I loan out books mark up documents and on rainy days I keep a list of things and use those problems or phone calls how do I do this. And I show them a few different ways to solve the same problem. Hopefully the next time they encounter that they have the tools in the toolbox to do it. When I do go to the field I usually do a lot of planning on my own to get the job done way quicker so the extra budgeting time I can use to show in the field with them. The bean counter is happy the LS is and the crew gets more knowledge. We had a few days in a job that was done in a day really. I used the rest teaching. Now we have 4 more just like it coming up. They should blow these out of the water and do well.
I’m not asking for special treatment by being able to get an out of state license with a 2 year degree vs having a 4 year as the locals are required. There should be a 2 year path in any state, more experience required absolutely acceptable. As the other comments read, there’s definitely varying opinions on this, but there are enough states that either have a 2 year route or an experience only route that all states should at minimum have a 2 year plus experience route to a license, local or out of state.
I’m not asking for special treatment by being able to get an out of state license with a 2 year degree vs having a 4 year as the locals are required. There should be a 2 year path in any state, more experience required absolutely acceptable. As the other comments read, there’s definitely varying opinions on this, but there are enough states that either have a 2 year route or an experience only route that all states should at minimum have a 2 year plus experience route to a license, local or out of state.
Yes, that's your opinion. There are also plenty of states that have (re-)evaluated the license landscape and determined that the 4-year degree should be the standard.
Just because something was one way in the past does not mean that it should forever be that way in the future. That kind of thinking has caused us to shoot ourselves in the foot many times (think GIS and sUAS, or even the USFt vs iFt vs meters debate).
I'd even argue that this attitude has been a significant factor in the decline of licensed surveyors over the years. Technology, efficiency gains and less opportunity for mentorship would be the other one.
Younger, prospective employees don't want to just hear potential employers complaining about how terrible things are right now, and how awesome things (and they) were in the past. If all you got to offer the incoming generation is "everything was so much better before [GIS, GNSS, sUAS, formal education, etc.]", they ain't going to want to work for you.
I can see both sides of the argument. I've worked with college idiots and dip-spitting experience-only folks who know it all and have a large chip on their shoulder. I'm not a fan of the typical structure of ABET and other college programs for Geomatics. I'd like to see college paths that focused more on communication, business management, and legal principles and their underpinnings. When I meet accomplished PLSs with no college, I can't help but wonder if they'd be even better had they gone to college.
In any generation, there will be talented folks who never realize their potential due to life's circumstances. I have a great deal of empathy for these people but it doesn't seem relevant to discussions concerning the future of the surveying profession. If I had to make a decision about this, I'd make it a minimum of an A.S. in Surveying or related coursework or a minimum amount of college level survey classes and additional experience but no path to licensure without some college.
"Yes, that’s your opinion. There are also plenty of states that have (re-)evaluated the license landscape and determined that the 4-year degree should be the standard."
Yes, Rover, it is my opinion and a lot of other professionals' opinions around the country. We definitely differ in our opinions on the subject of education and what should be required and that's ok. What makes it easy for me to hold my stance on this is when I mentor guys that come from a 4 year degree, but they can sit for an exam in any state because of that 4 year degree. Also, I see engineers that sit for the exam that have zero experience in Land Surveying, while a 2 year guy might have more coursework in surveying than they do, then gains more experience because they begin surveying full-time out of school while Engineers go an additional 2-3 years of college, then work Engineering jobs, many not ever performing any field work at all or performing any surveying work, but can sit for an exam in any state. By the way, Mississippi State University only has 1 surveying class in their curriculum. Additionally, as has already been mentioned by another individual, you can sit for the exam with a 4 year degree that's not even focused on Land Surveying. Regarding productive office workers, there are many Engineers that come out pf school that can hardly draw a line in Autocad. If your motivation is there, you can learn it, but very few can do it out of school. The guys that I know that came from a 2 year program had a couple of cad classes and did really well comparatively producing office work out of school than the Engineers that I know. Engineers around here aren't really trained for that at all, actually. I do agree that good office help is hard to find....hard to teach too.
"Just because something was one way in the past does not mean that it should forever be that way in the future. That kind of thinking has caused us to shoot ourselves in the foot many times (think GIS and sUAS, or even the USFt vs iFt vs meters debate).
I’d even argue that this attitude has been a significant factor in the decline of licensed surveyors over the years. Technology, efficiency gains and less opportunity for mentorship would be the other one."
Me believing a 2 year degree with experience is sufficient doesn't mean that I believe that nothing should ever change. As the profession changes, I would hope that coursework in the 2 & 4 year programs would evolve with it. Also, there are continuing ed opportunities that help with staying up to date, if utilized, and certificate programs offered by certain universities. The current curriculums will look different, to some degree, than what will look like 20 years from now, but that doesn't mean that individuals that get a license now, under today's course work, can't learn and grow with advances made in the profession and equipment through other means of education, including real work experience.
I don't have any way to go back and check this, but when I went to college, I don't recall any 4 year surveying programs offered in my area. The availability of programs was more limited back then, and there was no online learning, which I have done and am not a big fan of personally.
My opinion, so take it for what it's worth, but there's a lot of holes in making a strong stance on requiring a 4 year degree. Obviously, it's widely disagreed upon, since we have many states that don't require it due to the fact that their Board members, who are in their positions because they are well respected, don't believe it's necessary. Then, you have many like the OP that have a high school diploma with experience that are able to sit for exams in the majority of the country because of when they got licensed, this route determined by the same Boards, even some that now require a 4 year degree. I have seen a low quality of work from individuals of all different education backgrounds. The quality of work is not determined by what degree you have. It's determined from your integrity, respect of the profession, and work ethic.
All I know is that now that I have my PLS, I think there should be a doctorate required.
(Yes, this is sarcasm. Yes, if it bites you a bit, it was meant to.)
The lack of professionalism has nothing to do with a degree. That is simply used as a gatekeeper or, if I am being cynical, possibly to increase the value of a limited entry situation. As a gatekeeper, we are not unique in this.
All sorts of industries do this. You have to get a masters degree if you want to work as a social worker making just above minimum wage, for instance.
Some vocations seem to make sense in a demand for a degree, teachers for instance. Of course, we all know that a degree is no proof of teaching ability. But, they get pushed to get a Masters...most will tell you there was no good reason.
My point is that we need to be honest about the reasons. But, if it is simply to keep those without the means to get the four year degree from being part of our club, that really is regrettable.
You want some real professionalism? Make it so that if you sign a recommendation for someone to get their PLS, then you will review a minimum of 12 of their surveys before they are no longer your mentee. And include the recommending surveyor's names in the record somehow.
Make us accountable, not CE, not degrees, but real accountability and working together. Of course, the powers that be do not really want that, because it will also push up our value in our own eyes.
Thanks for the chuckle about the doctorate requirement.
I don't really have anything to add that others haven't already, except my own observations. I recently retired from full-time surveying after almost 47 years. I obtained my license 37 years ago (at 27 years old with OJT experience only) and worked in both the private and public sectors.
From my experiences, much of which was supervising or managing survey programs, the most difficult "know-it-all" surveyors I have ever encountered were ones touting their "holier than thou" 4-year surveying degrees as somehow making them superior to non-degreed, yet licensed peers. They were basically incapable and/or unwilling to listen and learn from much more experienced and knowledgeable land surveyors because we couldn't possibly know as much or be as smart as them. I am NOT saying that all degreed surveyors fell into this category. But if I wrote down the top 5 most arrogant, difficult, and non-cooperative surveyors I ever encountered, they would all be of the degreed strain.
One of them still owes me $100 from losing a bet almost 30 years ago. He was happy to make the bet because he had gotten a "High A" in his college route surveying class. He wasn't as eager to pay it, however, after I proved him wrong in front of several witnesses and co-workers.
Just my observations from quite a large sample size.
" but they can sit for an exam in any state because of that 4 year
degree. Also, I see engineers that sit for the exam that have zero
experience in Land Surveying, while a 2 year guy might have more
coursework in surveying than they do, then gains more experience because
they begin surveying full-time out of school while Engineers go an
additional 2-3 years of college, then work Engineering jobs, many not
ever performing any field work at all or performing any surveying work,
but can sit for an exam in any state."
Because there are some newer people working towards licensure on the message board, it may be worthwhile to note that people do not get to take exams and become licensed just because they have a degree. They can sit for the exam and become licensed because they meet all of the requirements of the state they are applying to get licensed in.
How applicants apply to sit for the exams varies by state and by which exam is being discussed. For the national exam (PS), for some states you just sign up and take the exam. Then, when you apply for your license, your qualifications are confirmed. Other states still require you apply to the state board for approval before the exam. I do not think there is any state that currently accepts just having a degree with no experience to become licensed. I may be imagining this, but it does seem that one state was considering a degree only route (a mistake in my opinion) or this may have just been a nationally known surveyor writing in one of the publications.
The 2-year guy might have more coursework specifically in surveying than a 4-year engineering degree person or might not. Often, the 4-year degree requirement statutes require a number of surveying course hours if your degree is not specifically in surveying. The following assumes a civil degree as that is more typical of the engineers that would also survey, aside from that brilliant mechanical engineer from ?Arizona?. In addition to their engineering degree (which has very few open electives but should have coursework that relates to surveying such as at least a transportation design course), they would need to add an additional number of hours in surveying curriculum to meet the statutory requirements when a set number of surveying coursework is required.
If the engineer is able to get licensed as a surveyor without having gained the requisite experience (of which the engineering and surveying work are usually counted separately), then that is a failing of both the individual(s) who vouched for the surveying experience as well as the board of licensure that reviewed the applicant's qualifications. Again, they do not get to take the exams and become licensed just because they have a degree, they also have to gain the experience required.
"Additionally, as has already been mentioned by another individual,
you can sit for the exam with a 4 year degree that’s not even focused
on Land Surveying."
If this is reference to my discussion of degree alternatives, it needs the clarification (exactly as I pointed out earlier) that this would depend on the language of the statutes in each state. Some of the about 20% of states that require a 4-year degree refer to specifically a degree in surveying, engineering, or related science WITH a set number of surveying courses. However, there are some statutes that read as just a 4-year degree acceptable by the board (with the required surveying hours). Hence the caveat of MAKE SURE THAT IF YOU PURSUE AN ALTERNATE DEGREE ROUTE YOU HAVE CONFIRMED IT WILL BE ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD WHERE YOU PLAN TO APPLY. AND realize that just because one board has accepted an alternate degree, not every board has to if it doesn't meet their requirements.
"Then, you have many like the OP that have a high school diploma
with experience that are able to sit for exams in the majority of the
country because of when they got licensed, this route determined by the
same Boards, even some that now require a 4 year degree."
Ex post facto laws are not looked upon favorable. Board attorneys probably pointed out that removing the path of licensure that someone was prepared for before the time of the change in statute would most likely be a difficult challenge in a court. However, expecting applicants who did not meet the statutory requirements before enactment to now meet those requirements is exactly the way such laws should work. Hence the hard cut-off dates on who can apply for licenses under different routes.
"But if I wrote down the top 5 most arrogant, difficult, and
non-cooperative surveyors I ever encountered, they would all be of the
degreed strain."
I would actually have a rough time coming up with 5 names that fit that category, but the two who immediately popped into my mind would be individuals who gained their license by experience only. Probably has more to do with the individual than how they got their license.
Yes, Jon-Payne, I understand there are experience requirements in addition to the degree requirement that individuals must meet and that varies by state. The differential item from sitting for an exam is the degree though. That is my argument. You may have a 4 year degree individual with 2 years experience that can sit for an exam in most any state, then you have a 2 year degree individual with 30 years who cannot because he doesn’t have the 4 year degree. There are no certifications or course work other than obtaining that 4 year degree that allows them to site for the exam in that state. It is what it is, but I strongly disagree.
It's next to impossible to accurately assess the quality of mentorship and this is a big reason for requiring formal education.
I am only familiar with East Tennessee State University, White Mountains Community College, and University of Maine Orono's survey curriculum. I've not met a college track surveyor who has told me that the surveying program was a joke. I've met many who feel, as I do, that survey course work was quite challenging. While there are many metrics in which to assess coursework and professors, I've not come across a good test of mentorship. It'd be great to be able to compare the actual test scores of college track surveyors against mentorship surveyors, then follow it up in a decade or two with some earned income comparisons. Short of that, I'm just guessing when I say, the average PLS is not as good of a mentor as the average college survey instructor. Note I that I said average. If we were able to assess the mentorship ability of all PLSs who have signed an experience verification form for an employee, I'm doubtful we'd find that the average PLS compared well against professors or the folks posting on this thread.
I feel that the Certified Survey Technician program doesn't get enough love and it could be a good test of mentorship for the non-degree person. Could it be a good prerequisite before being allowed to take the licensing exams for non-degree route? My survey program required passing level 1 and 2 before graduation.
By the same token not every academic program is equal to another. Some are excellent some are not. some teachers are very good others well let's just say they should being something else. So no it's not an easy answer either way; but to say 4-year degree solves that problem is not accurate.
"Yes, Jon-Payne, I understand there are experience requirements..."
I was not suggesting you did not understand that. However, folks who oppose the 4-year degree requirement often phrase their arguments in such a way that the experience section is not indicated. As indicated before, there are yet to be licensed people who both read and participate on the message board, so making sure they do not see the degree as the end product was my intent with that portion of my post.
Out of curiosity, I just looked at the current Mississippi requirements for an associates degree holder to apply for licensure. Frankly, meeting those requirements (as I read them) is really great. 62 credit hours in surveying curriculum out of an associates degree seems like a lot of surveying course work as associates programs are usually only 60 hours to begin with and usually include about 15-20 hours of general education requirements as well. I've never seen an associates in surveying program that offered that much surveying coursework.
"I feel that the Certified Survey Technician program doesn’t get enough
love and it could be a good test of mentorship for the non-degree
person."
I think there is at least one state (and it may be one that also accepts other routes to licensure as well) that specifically recognizes the the CST program in some form in the statutes. Unfortunately, I don't recall which state that was.
