Alabama License Requirements

I doubt that you will see that change. When all of this nonsense talk of degree requirements started getting kicked around, back around 1990, I had the 10 years of field experience needed to sit for the exam before the before the four year degree requirement. I had a few people constantly pushing me to apply before it was too late and finally caved to stop hearing the constant squawking.

I never thought that I would use my license until I passed the exam in 1993. Since I got my license, that opened up a lot of doors for me and I have essentially been running survey departments for 30 years.

I am now being squawked at to get my Florida license, which I can do through comity, having been licensed in NJ for so long. All I have to do is file my application, and, once approved, go to a test center near me to take the 3 hour Florida State Jurisdictional Exam. I'll probably do that at some point this winter.

I have never been a proponent of the degree requirement. The logic behind the degree requirement is that the degree would make us more "Professional". What it really did was reduce the number of licensed surveyors by closing the door to licensure to very many very talented surveyors without a degree. Most of the people I have hired with a four degree in surveying have not been worth their weight in sand. Most have been book smart, with no sense of practicality in applying what they have learned. Most people would rather get an Engineering degree because the money is better down the road.

The logic behind the degree requirement is that the degree would make us more “Professional”.

No, the logic is that it requires professionals to have a unified, common body of knowledge to work with as they gain licensure. Without that, we'd have nothing better than a trade or ancient guild, with "mentors" who may have the depth and breadth of knowledge required...or whose "knowledge" may be outdated at best and quackery at worst.

Most of the people I have hired with a four degree in surveying have not been worth their weight in sand. Most have been book smart, with no sense of practicality in applying what they have learned.

Uh....that's what we are here for. To build upon that theoretical knowledge (which we have neither the time nor the money to transmit, that is the entire reason for formal schooling) and demonstrate how it is applied to real-world projects. The notion that college graduates should be able to instantly be assimilated into the workforce and be 100% productive, with no guidance whatsoever is asinine.

It's straightforward to teach someone with a strong formal mathematics and statistical background how to analyze data. The same goes for boundary analysis - someone who has a good grasp of priority of calls, junior/senior rights, etc. as taught by a licensed university instructor is a lot easier to guide toward professional development than someone who was taught "translate, rotate, slam the rods and jet" by some rando who go licensed simply by guessing well enough on the exams.

It's not a strike against those who have been working hard yet do not have a degree - give them the opportunity to get the formal education, too. Pay 'em to go to school. Experience, education, there's no set rule that one has to come before the other. But they are both critical to us maintaining the status of a profession. Because that's what other professions require. We're not special.

Most people would rather get an Engineering degree because the money is better down the road.

Hmmm, perhaps that is an argument for those of us in a related, but no less important, adjacent profession to pay better, no? Or at least to not sneer at the concept of higher education....education which is required of a whole lot of people whom we rely upon in our daily lives.

I used to work with a Surveyor that had a 4 year degree. He is a sharp guy and no doubt will be a good surveyor as he earns more experience, but he wasn't any more book smart than I am with a 2 year degree and relied on my experience in being trained in decision making. That said, even though he relied on me with my little Associate's Degree and seniority over him, he could go to Alabama and some other states and obtain a license, where I could not. I'm not saying a 4 year degree is worthless, but in some states, you can take a PS exam straight out of college with zero real-world experience, which I completely disagree with. An individual that has a 2 year degree, experienced, and licensed in another State would be much more desirable of an employee or licensee over an individual straight out of college with a 4 year degree, licensed or not. From the view of the state of Alabama, I could be licensed with the exact same experience and education as I have now....if I had taken and passed the test earlier (which I met the eligibility requirements in MS), which makes no sense to me. A lot of 4 year degrees have many courses that are not related to surveying, where a lot of 2 year programs are more specific to the profession, so I doubt there is a huge difference between a 2 year and a 4 year when it comes to actual surveying subject matter course work. Most states allow other 4 year degree, not surveying specific, to be accepted.

a Surveyor that had a 4 year degree. He is a sharp guy and no doubt will be a good surveyor as he earns more experience,

I mean....that's how it's supposed to work. Get the fundamental theoretical knowledge about how things work, and then your experience is that much more valuable, because now you're not just pushing buttons; you know what is happening when a button is pushed.

A lot of 4 year degrees have many courses that are not related to surveying, where a lot of 2 year programs are more specific to the profession, so I doubt there is a huge difference between a 2 year and a 4 year when it comes to actual surveying subject matter course work.

The curriculum difference between a 2-year and 4-year program in an engineering field is, if not "huge", at least "significant". Significant enough for, say, other professions to require the 4-year degree in order to get licensed.

A "degree" which only teaches the mechanics of doing a job isn't a degree...it's a trade school or a vocational certificate. I know I've talked about this in previous threads, but professionals need written and oral communication skills, business law, organizational theory, ethics courses designed for professional practice, and hopefully some history and literature in there so we're not churning out automatons with no sense of the world outside of their chosen profession.

One of the key differences - both practical and legal - between a profession and a trade is academic and theoretical knowledge. Over the past several decades, as private-sector organizations slashed training and mentorship programs and put the onus on employees, they have also promoted the false notion that the function of universities is to provide ready-made, 100% fully functional, plug-and-play workers.

When universities "fail" to deliver, they point the finger and say "see! higher education is useless and for suckers!" Then comes the push for lowering the bar.

I could not resist replying to this one. I do not have a degree, but I do have a high school diploma and about 1 1/2 yrs of general college courses (nothing specific to surveying). I entered the survey world at 18 (1996) as a seasonal tech for Cadastral as a summer job between college semesters (graduated high school at 17 in 1995). Ultimately I went back to school after first summer but the next summer I started fulltime and did not go back to school again. I have had some of the trainings by BLM and at State Society Conferences, but for the most part I have not had any formal education beyond the initial 1 1/2 years of college. My education became mentoring and self taught.

In 2006, after being highly encouraged by my co-workers/mentors I went to WI and sat for all 3 exams in one weekend under experience qualifications. I passed all three however WI would not license me due to the fact I never worked under a WI licensed surveyor (all of my experience was with Cadastral in multiple states). Since it was before Dec 31, 2007, I was able to apply for and take the AL state specific under experience and passed it. I took the test in December of 2007. AL licensed me in the beginning of 2008, which qualified me as a Cadastral Surveyor. Since I am in Idaho now I went ahead and applied for licensure. I was accepted and took the state specific which I passed and was licensed in late 2022.

In 2019 I entered the world of being a supervisor. I have had several surveyors that I supervise comment that they should not have spent the time on a 4 year degree and now regret it. I understand what they are saying, but I always reiterate that the education is a good thing and should not be discredited. They always come back with something along the lines of they have learned more from proper mentoring and OJT than school. Makes sense, but IMO it depends on the individual. Some learn better at school, whereas some, such as myself, are better off being mentored and self taught.

I am in the boat of barely beating the buzzer on state licensure and qualifying as a Cadastral Surveyor. Now our qualifications for a BLM Cadastral Surveyor require a 4 year degree if you are using licensure to qualify (uses the NCEES model). Otherwise education is required if not qualifying by state licensure, but it can be just 30 semester credits in specific courses not necessarily a full blown 4 year degree in surveying.

My opinion is that there are always exceptions to the rules, so States and Feds should keep a door open for experience only or a combo of experience/some education as qualifying. Of course I am biased😉

What I think is that testing by itself is stupid. Surveyors should be educated in order to be considered professionals. The entirety of surveying experience is being treated like a trade or at worse, a guild. The idea of mentors just being some old guy who picked up some secret body of knowledge that was passed from their mentor is a bad idea. All you get are the biases of the person that chose to be your mentor.

I agree 100 percent. I am only 4 years less experienced than you are, but finished a 2 year program. I had met the eligibility requirements to take the exam, but did not before the date set by the State of Alabama. It makes zero since to me why I would not be qualified to become a licensee in the State of Alabama after passing the State specific exam given that I have a 2 year degree given that some individuals can apply with no degree at all with the same experience. I always tell guys that ask me about surveying degrees that I recommend them get a Civil Degree instead, if they are planning on a 4 year program because their options are greater after graduation. IMO, if any state offers a strictly experienced based path, they should offer a 2 year program path as well.

a Surveyor that had a 4 year degree. He is a sharp guy and no doubt will be a good surveyor as he earns more experience,

I mean….that’s how it’s supposed to work. Get the fundamental theoretical knowledge about how things work, and then your experience is that much more valuable, because now you’re not just pushing buttons; you know what is happening when a button is pushed.

I agree that is how it's supposed to work for sure. I think highly of this individual and am not out to insult him at all. I'm just saying what makes a 4 year guy with little to no experience more qualified than a 2 year guy licensed in another state with 20 plus years. If a state offers a zero experience path, why not a 2 year degree path? There's still education focused on surveying involved, plus experience, plus another State's license. It just doesn't make sense.

I suspect the Alabama 4-year/2-year/experience only thing is less about the value of a 2 versus 4-year degree and more about the need to set a sunset date when the 4-year degree requirement was implemented to not screw-over people who had been working in good faith toward licensure when the degree requirement was put in place.

If I remember correctly, Pennsylvania did this by keeping the experience only track available to candidates whose experience began prior to 1992, which is how I qualified without a degree.

On the other hand, West Virigina established a cut-off-date of original licensure before December 31, 2004, for comity applicants with no degree to quality to sit for the exam. I was originally licensed in Maryland eighteen days after that date - on January 18, 2005. So, an out of state PLS with a 2-year degree and four years of experience can currently sit for the WV state specific, but a PLS in three adjoining states with 36 years of experience, 19 of those licensed can't.

Does that make sense, or seem equitable, if the evaluations were done on a case-by-case basis, no. But for regulations to be usable, they generally have to be constructed for the typical case rather than for the exception.

Oregon went from 8 years experience to 4 year degree-or-bust in the late '90s. The number of new licensees dropped off to near zero, so they changed to 4 year degree or 12 years experience, but no credit for non-ABET degrees, degrees in subjects other than "Geomatics", or 2 year degree. Over the years they slowly implemented credits for such things. Last year - noting a huge drop in licensees over the last 25 years (from 2000 to 800, most of those over 60 yrs old) - the proposal was made to allow licensure with 9 years experience only. Why 9 years and not 8? I suppose they just couldn't bring themselves to fully close the circle.

Changing a requirement at any point to no longer allow a 2 year degree to be accepted for licensure directly says that it is not sufficient to that state any longer to consider them for licensure. It's absolutely about the 2 year vs 4 year degree and 2 year not being good enough from their perspective. The idea of allowing people that had already started the experienced based route to complete it by a certain date to keep from screwing them over, I would think, would go against any ethics course you will ever take. Either it's good enough or not regardless of how many people started it or when they started it, and, if it is, why wouldn't a 2 years and experience be? Personally, some of the worst work that I have come across is going behind older survey work, so experience being from an older time, is no reason to accept it IMHO. Not saying all past work has not been good, but in my area, an older survey is typically not a good thing.

I could not agree with you less. It is insane to think that guessing the answers is going to be enough to pass all of the exam parts. With 10 years of field experience and good mentors, you get the best of both worlds. With a lot of those degreed people that I have come acrost, most are stuck on theory with the lack of ability to apply logic. I had one person who had just recently graduated questioning my decisions at every turn and not willing to discuss the how and why that I arrived at my conclusions because that's not what the professor said.

As far as the rotate and translate thing, I don't even understand what you are getting at with that. Mathematic manipulations do not resolve a survey, the appliance of the knowledge, rules of evidence and boundary laws do. In today's world, most people in the field work in a two man crew where the PC, if he has the knowledge, does not have the time to walk through the processes.

No matter how you dice it, after 30 some years of the degree requirement, we are still seen as the necessary evil by our counterparts in civil engineering, despite providing the key elements for them to even begin their design work.

The idea of allowing people that had already started the experienced based route to complete it by a certain date to keep from screwing them over, I would think, would go against any ethics course you will ever take. Either it’s good enough or not regardless of how many people started it or when they started it, and, if it is, why wouldn’t a 2 years and experience be?

From the viewpoint of licensure boards (really any organization with "standards" of any type), it's critical to allow standards to be updated, modified, improved, etc. over time. Any organization that isn't looking at data metrics - and adjusting to suit - is going to fall behind as change occurs. Sometimes the first iteration of something (like licensing qualifications) is proven to be less than ideal several years later, after enough data has been gathered to come to a conclusion one way or the other. It takes a long time to spot trends.

If it's "less ideal" enough (to use an awkward phrase) then there needs to be a remedy. But unless things are really bad, inflicting undue harm to the public consistently and continually, the door doesn't need to be slammed immediately. Establish a grace period, but put everyone on notice that the door is closing slowly.

And as others have said, it is useful to keep a "back door" (experience-only or 2-year track) available that one can use if they are able to open the lock (waiver requests, case review, etc.).

Personally, some of the worst work that I have come across is going behind older survey work, so experience being from an older time, is no reason to accept it IMHO. Not saying all past work has not been good, but in my area, an older survey is typically not a good thing.

Many would say that is proof that stricter standards produce better work. In the states I have worked in, statutes have steadily been put in place to enforce more stable and durable monumentation, better documentation of procedures and boundary resolution, more detailed explanations of delegated responsible charge for licensure, etc. Degree requirements are just another facet of that.

Last year – noting a huge drop in licensees over the last 25 years (from 2000 to 800, most of those over 60 yrs old) – the proposal was made to allow licensure with 9 years experience only.

I wonder if the incredible pace of technology and corresponding massive boost to productivity was considered. Fewer people needed to perform the same amount of work means there is a smaller pool of folks available to be licensed, therefore the number of licensees is of course going to drop. I'd be hesitant to just make a U-turn without proof that the current number of licensees is harming the public.

I'm still not convinced that cutting the degree requirement will improve the profession. That doesn't change the fact that (a) it's tough to start out in surveying at current entry-level pay grades, (b) opportunities for supported growth and development are slim pickings, unlike many other industries, and (c) there are several other adjacent industries that have embraced the technology revolution and are more appealing to younger prospects.

Why 9 years and not 8? I suppose they just couldn’t bring themselves to fully close the circle.

"We weren't wrong - we were just off by one year."

Let's get serious, you seem to be a strong proponent for a college education. I'm not, as I made clear. Being an effective communicator, both verbally and in writing, are skills that every public grade and HS student should have been educated on. High schools offer advanced mathematics courses.

I simply did not do pass my exam because of working in the field for ten years. I spent thousands of dollars on books, studied before and after work and was taught how to apply what I have learned without stepping foot in a college or enrolling online. I did, however, take community college courses and am a few electives short of an associates degree but my focus was on computer programming and political science after I was already licensed.

Simply having a degree does not make you anymore professional and doesn't necessarily set you apart from "tradesmen". You don't need college courses to teach you professional ethics, and you certainly don't need college to teach you how to communicate clearly and effectively.

I dropped out of HS and got a GED. I started as a rodman shortly after that. I was working for and Engineering and surveying company that did a split between private and public work where I was exposed to entertaining clients and speaking publicly and here I am, 40 years from the start of my career, 30 years licensed, held in high esteem by every employer that I have ever worked for, being a minority company owner with zero financial investment, running six crews and a staff of 26 (in my department alone) and being compensated better than I would have imagined while having executive privileges.

I'm going to be 59 in a few weeks and will be eligible to comfortably retire at the age of 62 but I can't. I have people who I am mentoring for about five years, with two of them working on the degree program now, and realistically, it's going to take them eight to ten years to get their degrees. I would prefer to train my replacement and feel obligated to do so for the purpose of letting the legacy of the department that I founded live and succeed.

Again, no matter how you slice or dice it, aside from economic ups and downs, that degree requirement is hurting the profession, more licensed people are retiring and new licenses being granted to replace them, and, eventually, something will need to be done to turn the tide. Over regulation in many professions is leading to shortages and that's a fact.