Certification or Licensing

It is an undeniable fact that deregulation breeds predarory and incompetent practice.

erwsdot, post: 435354, member: 6038 wrote: Pg.37 xtHt

"Licensure has never served the profession well, it was merely a facade for a weak framework that ultimately fails to define it."

I think this comment exposes the "don't know what you don't know" or Dunning-Kruger effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect&apos ;"> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunningƒ??Kruger_effect . The writer, not a surveyor, supposes that her knowledge is the standard knowledge not only of the profession, but about what the profession is.

Even Snoopy has this writer beat.

Al Butler has been whipping one of these articles out every couple of years for over a decade now.
http://www.aag.org/galleries/meridian-files/Meridian_guest_editorial_JAN_2011.pdf

Per Webster.....Definition of gadfly

1. any of various flies (such as a horsefly, botfly, or warble fly) that bite or annoy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/livestock&apos ;">livestock
2. a person who stimulates or annoys other people especially by persistent criticism a political gadfly

"I have often said, that all the misfortune of men proceeds from their not knowing how to keep themselves quiet in their chamber."
- Blaise Pascal

"Licensure has never served the profession well, it was merely a facade for a weak framework that ultimately fails to define it."

That's just an opinion, and I reject it. Probably brought forth by the engineering profession as a way to get around the necessary evil of having to use a licensed surveyor on projects.

We (surveyors) use to be "registered" in Oklahoma. Then they changed the statutes and now we are "licensed". Since someone pointed out that sex offenders are "registered" and dogs are "licensed" I suppose I prefer the latter.

Perhaps if there were certification in the location or geodetic "sciences" where there are certified experts in the measurement field. That could possibly free up construction staking, GPS locating and other services to those experts that don't have anything to do with boundary. I think the main protection of the public is in boundary location. Licensing could be a more rigorous understanding of boundary control and legal principles coupled with the needed measurement certificate. The primary "protection of the public" is in the protection of property rights as far as land surveying goes.

I've been "certifiable" for as long as I can remember... but that's common knowledge.

Tom Adams, post: 435371, member: 7285 wrote: Perhaps if there were certification in the location or geodetic "sciences" where there are certified experts in the measurement field. That could possibly free up construction staking, GPS locating and other services to those experts that don't have anything to do with boundary. I think the main protection of the public is in boundary location. Licensing could be a more rigorous understanding of boundary control and legal principles coupled with the needed measurement certificate. The primary "protection of the public" is in the protection of property rights as far as land surveying goes.

I only agree with a portion of your premise, licensing being more rigorous regarding boundary. I loathe the statement that only boundary surveying requires a license/certificate, while the other should just be a certification or no requirement what so ever. I never once seen another profession be so defeatist and quick to shed it's skin, except for land surveying. With the advent of computers and programs that model hydrology or can validate LRFD, I never once heard a civil engineer say, hey we should just allow a certificate to perform that work. I do understand they aren't exactly equal, but I believe everyone can think of an example where technology made it easier for the layman to perform the work.

Licensure has served the profession well, its just the licensee's that have not.

Also on page 37: "Through key cases in recent years, the current structure of state regulation and licensure of professions has been ruled unconstitutional by multiple courts..."

I sure wish they would cite their cases/sources as this is news to me; frustrating when they don't IMO. Especially with such a profound topic.

(ETA: one case is alluded to on Page 39)

I think that the idea of licensure for basic minimal competence, together with certifications for advanced knowledge in specific areas of practice is the way to go.

Bradl, post: 435382, member: 2848 wrote: I only agree with a portion of your premise, licensing being more rigorous regarding boundary. I loathe the statement that only boundary surveying requires a license/certificate, while the other should just be a certification or no requirement what so ever. I never once seen another profession be so defeatist and quick to shed it's skin, except for land surveying. With the advent of computers and programs that model hydrology or can validate LRFD, I never once heard a civil engineer say, hey we should just allow a certificate to perform that work. I do understand they aren't exactly equal, but I believe everyone can think of an example where technology made it easier for the layman to perform the work.

Licensure has served the profession well, its just the licensee's that have not.

I certainly don't have all of the answers, but I have seen a huge loss in Engineers' abilities to be able to go out and do a topography or stake their own design. We have specialists in Geodetic Surveying who know much more than most licensed surveyors in using GPS and spherical coordinates. Many engineers don't understand significant digits and some of the concepts related to different datums. We're often asked to do pretty ridiculous things by engineers that might be more practical if they understood how to do the same things. In my little (possibly warped) world, there are a lot of other people that should be certified and qualified to understand ground measurements (including some professional land surveyors). I certainly don't want to "take away" from the qualifications to be a licensed professional land surveyor, but maybe the professional should be certified in different measuring techniques prior to (or after) getting licensed.

I like that someone that is a Planner, GIS professional, and "Project Management Professional" is telling Surveyors what is best for their profession. 🙂

Bradl, post: 435382, member: 2848 wrote: I only agree with a portion of your premise, licensing being more rigorous regarding boundary. I loathe the statement that only boundary surveying requires a license/certificate, while the other should just be a certification or no requirement what so ever. I never once seen another profession be so defeatist and quick to shed it's skin, except for land surveying. With the advent of computers and programs that model hydrology or can validate LRFD, I never once heard a civil engineer say, hey we should just allow a certificate to perform that work. I do understand they aren't exactly equal, but I believe everyone can think of an example where technology made it easier for the layman to perform the work.

Licensure has served the profession well, its just the licensee's that have not.

I think his point is that, at least in my state, ONLY boundary experience qualifies as experience required to sit for the exam. I have MANY more years of experience in engineering surveys than in boundary surveys, but NONE of that counted. I don't know how it is in other states, but PA only seems to care about how much boundary work has been done by the applicant.

SellmanA, post: 435387, member: 8564 wrote: Through key cases in recent years, the current structure of state regulation and licensure of professions has been ruled unconstitutional by multiple courts..."

I too wish the author had cited specific examples. I can't fathom how professional licensure could be considered unconstitutional unless it's through some warped interpretation of the Commerce Clause... which wouldn't be the first time...

On the contrary, this seems to me to be the type of thing remanded to the States by the Tenth Amendment.

Because some states require a license for things like construction staking and some don't, I don't think that there's a one-size-fits-all solution to this.

Texas provides the venue to be licensed as surveyors of boundaries.
That means that if anyone is surveying and it shows, locates, ties to or has anything to do with a boundary they are required to have a Texas Registered Professional Land Surveyors license.

They are gonna have to keep on redefining laws and such till the end of time because someone always comes along that is reading jin some new meaning for the current wordings of laws.

John Hamilton, post: 435400, member: 640 wrote: I think his point is that, at least in my state, ONLY boundary experience qualifies as experience required to sit for the exam. I have MANY more years of experience in engineering surveys than in boundary surveys, but NONE of that counted. I don't know how it is in other states, but PA only seems to care about how much boundary work has been done by the applicant.

I don't know how it works in PA, buy in some states the only work that can only be done by a land surveyor is boundary work, so it makes sense to focus on boundary. There are two other tests that include measurment and engineering surveying.

It would be irresponsible to grant a licence to do boundary work without ensuring the applocant has the experience and knowledge neccisiary. This is why there seems to be growing support for a seperate boundary licence and a measurment certification. I don't think someone should be denied the ability to provide measurment services because they don't know how to subdivide a fractional section or don't know how what a gradient boundary is.

Are engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc, going to have voluntary certification also? Plumbers, electricians, etc.....

JPH, post: 435496, member: 6636 wrote: Are engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc, going to have voluntary certification also? Plumbers, electricians, etc.....

As near as I can tell, electricians in New York State (NYS) are not licensed (although various cities, and maybe other political subdivisions of NYS license them. That surprised the heck out of me; maybe I read it wrong.

[MEDIA=youtube]8q71hrwUcu0[/MEDIA]
Another perspective.