eapls2708, post: 435875, member: 589 wrote: What is the basis for that advice. It seems to me that psychometrician advice is largely based on the "defensibility" of the exam. If that is the basis here, then I don't think that it serves the public. Cut scores, together with pass rates are valuable indicators of whether there is a problem with the exam process. A low cut score together with a low or average pass rate indicates a problem. Determining whether that is a problem with the exam or a problem with the quality of the candidates requires a review of the exams of several years and a comparison of the statistics for those years.
Someone in another thread a couple weeks ago suggested that I might be a bit lacking in tact. I was trying to exercise a bit of tact by not pointing out that fact.
Dallas, the other surveyor in your office had good guidance coming up in the profession and probably exercised better sense than some others regarding assuming competency in different areas of practice because of it. One surveyor comes to mind who works in the county where Dallas and I both live. That guy passed on, IIRC, his 7th attempt (he was playing the license lottery and apparently matched enough numbers to get a free ticket) - of course the results of the first 6 opportunities were the fault of the exam writers and graders - and upon getting his license, presumed he knew everything he ever needed to know about surveying. This is the guy who thought another licensee in his office was stupid because he forced the bearings and distances of record lines to match the locations of found original monuments rather than, as was his (Mr. Lucky 7) practice, choose one monument to anchor the record figure to, and another to rotate to, calling everything else off. He would do this when retracing entire subdivisions.
Unfortunately, I believe that there are far more like him than you might care to acknowledge.
You say that providing a diagnostic report to a passing examinee would serve no purpose, but within the course of a few sentences talk about ensuring minimum competency and that it is the licensee's responsibility to recognize what areas he or she is competent in and where they lack competence.
The statement about self recognition is also an admission that while a new licensee may be, in broad contemplation, minimally competent, they can be and as a practical matter, always are at least minimally competent in some areas of practice yet not competent in others. Competence and comfort don't necessarily correlate. The new licensee may have barely made it over the cut score but have all the confidence in the world that they aced the whole thing. They may have answered one whole aspect of the exam according to what a poorly informed mentor taught them over several years and failed that whole area of the exam.
Unless they fail the exam overall, they may not learn of their incompetence for several years and after causing problems for many members of the general public.
Case in point: The pre-82 RCE in a N. CA mountain town who had been surveying for many years without anyone telling him he was doing much of it wrong. He was very conscientious about doing what he thought was correct, made careful measurements and created very good looking maps, but rejected original monuments because 1) some weren't shown on a filed map, 2) the surveyor who set them 40 years prior didn't appear to measure very carefully, and 3) his GPS was more accurate than the transit and tape used to set the existing monuments.
After more than 30 years of doing what he thought was the right way to survey after the State gave him a license that told him he was competent to survey, the State told him he wasn't competent and fined him in excess of $20k.
If the State is going to tell someone that they are competent to survey without supervision, and it is the State's responsibility to ensure minimum competence and to protect the public from incompetent practice, then it seems a very minor burden on the Board, and a useful communication not only for the new licensee, but far more importantly, for that new licensee's present and future clients, that he or she be put on notice that while they may be minimally competent in a broad sense, they may not be adequately competent in all the areas they think they are, and here is a breakdown for you to properly assess your strengths and weaknesses as we turn you loose on an unsuspecting public.
Providing the diagnostic to a candidate who failed the exam is primarily a benefit to the examinee in preparing for the next exam opportunity but has little or no benefit with regard to protecting the public. And while the new licensee would receive the benefit of being better able to identify their own training needs, providing the diagnostic would very much serve the Board's primary purpose of protecting the public to put new licensees on notice of where their professional weaknesses lie.
In fact, the public would be the prime beneficiary of that. It would probably have a noticeable effect on the number of future enforcement cases your staff needs to process. Just as usefully, if a licensee has a complaint filed against them related to an area of practice in which they did not prove at least minimal competency, and that licensee cannot show having participated in additional training in that area since taking the exam, the Board (and the complainant) will have the advantage by having put that licensee on notice of his or her lack of demonstrated competence in that area of practice. Having previously provided that notice, it puts the burden on the respondent licensee to show additional meaningful training. Without it, the licensee is presumed competent and the Board must prove the incompetence. Seems like that might help the enforcement program by encouraging more licensees to settle sooner, agree to pay their fine and get some training.
I wasn't aware of that. Perhaps Rob brought it to the CLSA Board of Directors attention during a meeting I missed. I'll ask him about it. Sounds like it would be a good tool for the chapters that offer review courses for the exam. I've also been suggesting to a few chapters that are complaining of dwindling numbers that offering more educational opportunities geared primarily to the LSIT and new licensee level members would be a great way to boost interest in chapter activities. Maybe your report would tie in to such efforts.
I absolutely agree that every examinee should get a diagnostic. Its nice to give candidates information on how to do better, but more than a few practitioners need the help more...
Scott Ellis, post: 435611, member: 7154 wrote: I would not say they won't let them sit for the test, I would say they do not meet the requirements to sit for the exam.
I would say it. State my first license is in, I would not be allowed to sit for the test today. There are guys out there who are as competent as me, they just started on the wrong side of the cut off line.
What would happen if the licensing of professional land surveyors was eliminated in your state? Milton Friedman implies in his lecture (thanks for the video!) that the income of formerly licensed surveyors would decrease as a result. Formerly unlicensed individuals would begin (or continue) performing surveying work. The market would become more competitive. Prices for customers would drop and choices would increase.
However, would capable, competent surveyors no longer be able to derive an income from the profession? I think not. The world still needs competency, whether practicioners are required to be licensed or not. Were the state to remove licensing as a requirement of practice, there would be, in the short term, an increased need on the part of the customer for some "measure" of competency. To a degree, that need already exists, as broad licensure as a surveyor is not necessarily a measure of competency.
In the long run, the customer would demand "certification" of competency, whether it be NSPS CST certifications, Consumer Reports type entities, Yelp, Angie's List, Google, or what have you. Regular purchasers of survey services (say engineering firms) would have a relatively good understanding of what level of competency would be required, and how to properly scope a job for their needs. They would tend to choose a surveyor based upon demonstrated capacity to do the work, on time, accurate, and for a reasonable fee. The regular purchaser of surveying services would tend to reject incompetent practicioners, hire based on reputation. However, some customers (the individual home owner for example) wouldn't know who to hire, as they don't regular purchase such services. Even today, with licensure in place, most of these customers don't rely solely upon whether a practicioner is licensed, but rather, or in addition, rely upon the advice of their friends, their attorney, their real estate agent, etc.
Some others may just pick a name out of the yellow pages, Google result, etc. and roll the dice. I suppose that licensure may be said to protect this type of customer, but in my opinion it is a relatively thin veil of protection.
I am licensed as a civil engineer and as a land surveyor. I consider myself to be competent in some areas, and lack competency in other areas. I choose to work on projects involving tasks that I feel competent to perform. It is a fluid and changing scene, as my competency waxes and wanes in various areas depending on what I've been working on.
If the licensing of professional land surveyors in my state was eliminated, I believe that I personally would see a decrease in income, and that I would be forced to work harder and longer to earn a living. Of course, it would therefore not be in my direct financial interest to favor the elimination of licensure. However, in the long run, I believe the measure would tend to give customers more options, and improve both the quality of available services, and reduce their cost. I think it would also tend to improve my skills as a surveyor. As a matter of public policy, I believe the arguments in favor of requiring licensure are pretty weak.
Big Al, post: 435936, member: 837 wrote: What would happen if the licensing of professional land surveyors was eliminated in your state? Milton Friedman says that the income of formerly licensed surveyors would decrease and I think he is correct. Formerly unlicensed individuals would begin (or continue) performing surveying work. The market would become more competitive. Prices for customers would drop.
However, would capable, competent surveyors no longer be able to derive an income from the profession? I think not. The world still needs competency, whether practicioners are required to be licensed or not. Were the state to remove licensing as a requirement of practice, there would be, in the short term, an increased need on the part of the customer for some "measure" of competency. To a degree, that need already exists, as broad licensure as a surveyor is not necessarily a measure of competency.
In the long run, the customer would demand "certification" of competency, whether it be NSPS CST certifications, Consumer Reports type entities, Yelp, Angie's List, Google, or what have you. Regular purchasers of survey services (say engineering firms) would have a relatively good understanding of what level of competency would be required, and how to properly scope a job for their needs. They would tend to choose a surveyor based upon demonstrated capacity to do the work, on time, accurate, and for a reasonable fee. The regular purchaser of surveying services would tend to reject incompetent practicioners, hire based on reputation. However, some customers (the individual home owner for example) wouldn't know who to hire, as they don't regular purchase such services. Even today, with licensure in place, most of these customers are going to rely upon the advice of their friends, their attorney, their real estate agent, etc. But, some others may just pick a name out of the yellow pages, google result, etc. and roll the dice. I suppose that licensure may be said to protect this type of customer, but in my opinion it is a relatively thin veil of protection.
I am licensed as a civil engineer and as a land surveyor. I consider myself to be competent in some areas, and lack competency in other areas. I choose to work on projects involving tasks that I feel competent to perform. It is a fluid and changing scene, as my competency waxes and wanes in various areas depending on what I've been working on.
If the licensing of professional land surveyors in my state was eliminated, I believe that I personally would see a decrease in income, and that I would be forced to work harder and longer to earn a living. Of course, I don't like that. However, in the long run, I believe the measure would tend to give customers more options, and improve both the quality of available services, and reduce their cost. On the whole, as a matter of public policy, I believe the arguments in favor of requiring licensure are pretty weak.
Big Al, post: 435936, member: 837 wrote: What would happen if the licensing of professional land surveyors was eliminated in your state? Milton Friedman implies in his lecture (thanks for the video!) that the income of formerly licensed surveyors would decrease as a result. Formerly unlicensed individuals would begin (or continue) performing surveying work. The market would become more competitive. Prices for customers would drop and choices would increase.
However, would capable, competent surveyors no longer be able to derive an income from the profession? I think not. The world still needs competency, whether practicioners are required to be licensed or not. Were the state to remove licensing as a requirement of practice, there would be, in the short term, an increased need on the part of the customer for some "measure" of competency. To a degree, that need already exists, as broad licensure as a surveyor is not necessarily a measure of competency.
In the long run, the customer would demand "certification" of competency, whether it be NSPS CST certifications, Consumer Reports type entities, Yelp, Angie's List, Google, or what have you. Regular purchasers of survey services (say engineering firms) would have a relatively good understanding of what level of competency would be required, and how to properly scope a job for their needs. They would tend to choose a surveyor based upon demonstrated capacity to do the work, on time, accurate, and for a reasonable fee. The regular purchaser of surveying services would tend to reject incompetent practicioners, hire based on reputation. However, some customers (the individual home owner for example) wouldn't know who to hire, as they don't regular purchase such services. Even today, with licensure in place, most of these customers don't rely solely upon whether a practicioner is licensed, but rather, or in addition, rely upon the advice of their friends, their attorney, their real estate agent, etc.
Some others may just pick a name out of the yellow pages, Google result, etc. and roll the dice. I suppose that licensure may be said to protect this type of customer, but in my opinion it is a relatively thin veil of protection.
I am licensed as a civil engineer and as a land surveyor. I consider myself to be competent in some areas, and lack competency in other areas. I choose to work on projects involving tasks that I feel competent to perform. It is a fluid and changing scene, as my competency waxes and wanes in various areas depending on what I've been working on.
If the licensing of professional land surveyors in my state was eliminated, I believe that I personally would see a decrease in income, and that I would be forced to work harder and longer to earn a living. Of course, it would therefore not be in my direct financial interest to favor the elimination of licensure. However, in the long run, I believe the measure would tend to give customers more options, and improve both the quality of available services, and reduce their cost. I think it would also tend to improve my skills as a surveyor. As a matter of public policy, I believe the arguments in favor of requiring licensure are pretty weak.
Surveyors have generally undervalued our services. Drive down prices and watch those with a propensity to succeed leave. That will not imorove quality.
If we look around with hinest eyes, we will see several types of folks in our ranks. Some are noble and upright. They will do a good job and treat people right. Others will grudgingly comply with policy, lest the evil Board club them with fines and such. Then we have the dirtbag factor. Those scuzzy lowlifes with an eye for a buck who perform crap work on a regular basis. Eliminating Licensure eliminates the ability to regulate. I predict the loss of quality people and the rise of scum to the surface. Essentially a return to the pre78 era. Not a good plan.
We started regulating this Profession to solve some very real problems. People were losing rights in the largest investment most of us ever make. Noboby will ever convince me we've outgrown that.
Friedman's problem, other then being totally wrong on the whole "you can steer the entire economy just by manipulating the money supply" thing, is that his behavioral economics arguments only works when a thrice married guy who believes in UFO's, eats at McDonald even though it's clogging his arteries, has half a dozen beers and still drives home, listens to rap music, watches network sitcoms, etc., suddenly turns into Aristotle and makes his economic decisions based solely on reason.
Friedman strikes me (and at one time I carried around a copy of Captialism and Freedom the way Chinese communists carries around Mao's Little Red Book) as a thinker of adolescence. Not in a demeaning way; just that he's all idealism and theory, in a certain way a right wing progressive, lacking a sort of practical world-weariness of a more "mature" thinker. To use a Christian analogy, thinkers like Friedman seem to gloss over the fact that we're all fallen, all sinners; I doubt he would understand what Tolkien was talking about when he spoke of history as a long defeat.
I think you get a much more realistic view, while still free market driven, from an economist like Roepke.
http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2012/07/ideal-economy-of-wilhelm-roepke.html
I am in favor of a diagnostic report for all who pay to take the licensing exams. In 1994 I received my notification in the mail from the NC Board that I was a NC Registered Land Surveyor. I called the board office to ask about my score. I was told they didn't give out that info. I asked if I could schedule a review of my exam with a reviewing official. I was told they only do that for those who failed the exam. I explained without a review I would never know what questions I missed on the exam and therefore may be inclined to believe I answered all of the questions correctly. I was told that I could rest assured that I did not answer all the questions correctly. I was congratulated for passing the exam and told to have a good day. A diagnostic report would have been more helpful.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jawja, post: 435930, member: 12766 wrote: I would say it. State my first license is in, I would not be allowed to sit for the test today. There are guys out there who are as competent as me, they just started on the wrong side of the cut off line.
The fact is they do not meet the minimal requirement to sit for the exam. I do not know what states you are licensed in, I do know many states gave plenty of years of notice to everyone when the cut off would be to have a degree to sit for the exam, and also allowed for them to go years past the deadline for having a degree. I agree with you there are guys out there who would pass the exam without a degree, as of today they do not meet the requirements, to take the exam.
Because the degree requirement is arbitrary. Boards don't want to deal with the task of actually reviewing the ability of the applicant so instead the put a requirement of a degree. And you still do not address the fact that states that I have licenses in would not let me sit today for the test. The fact that I have been licensed in those states proves the lie that they do not allow people to sit. The test did not change, they merely put an artificial barrier in place to lessen the applicants. It was not done to protect the public, the tests do that. The degree requirement is there to protect the licensed surveyors from competition, in my opinion.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Big Al, post: 435936, member: 837 wrote: What would happen if the licensing of professional land surveyors was eliminated in your state? Milton Friedman implies in his lecture (thanks for the video!) that the income of formerly licensed surveyors would decrease as a result. Formerly unlicensed individuals would begin (or continue) performing surveying work. The market would become more competitive. Prices for customers would drop and choices would increase.
However, would capable, competent surveyors no longer be able to derive an income from the profession? I think not. The world still needs competency, whether practicioners are required to be licensed or not. Were the state to remove licensing as a requirement of practice, there would be, in the short term, an increased need on the part of the customer for some "measure" of competency. To a degree, that need already exists, as broad licensure as a surveyor is not necessarily a measure of competency.
In the long run, the customer would demand "certification" of competency, whether it be NSPS CST certifications, Consumer Reports type entities, Yelp, Angie's List, Google, or what have you. Regular purchasers of survey services (say engineering firms) would have a relatively good understanding of what level of competency would be required, and how to properly scope a job for their needs. They would tend to choose a surveyor based upon demonstrated capacity to do the work, on time, accurate, and for a reasonable fee. The regular purchaser of surveying services would tend to reject incompetent practicioners, hire based on reputation. However, some customers (the individual home owner for example) wouldn't know who to hire, as they don't regular purchase such services. Even today, with licensure in place, most of these customers don't rely solely upon whether a practicioner is licensed, but rather, or in addition, rely upon the advice of their friends, their attorney, their real estate agent, etc.
Some others may just pick a name out of the yellow pages, Google result, etc. and roll the dice. I suppose that licensure may be said to protect this type of customer, but in my opinion it is a relatively thin veil of protection.
I am licensed as a civil engineer and as a land surveyor. I consider myself to be competent in some areas, and lack competency in other areas. I choose to work on projects involving tasks that I feel competent to perform. It is a fluid and changing scene, as my competency waxes and wanes in various areas depending on what I've been working on.
If the licensing of professional land surveyors in my state was eliminated, I believe that I personally would see a decrease in income, and that I would be forced to work harder and longer to earn a living. Of course, it would therefore not be in my direct financial interest to favor the elimination of licensure. However, in the long run, I believe the measure would tend to give customers more options, and improve both the quality of available services, and reduce their cost. I think it would also tend to improve my skills as a surveyor. As a matter of public policy, I believe the arguments in favor of requiring licensure are pretty weak.
Big Al,
How would you feel if they decided to do away the Civil Engineer License and just have a Civil Engineer certification? Did you take a Land Surveyor Exam or just handed one?
This is what I think would happen if they did away with a Land Survey License, I feel every Civil Engineer and Architect would claim to be a Land Surveyor, allowing them to move the building and easement lines to fit their design project. You would have land owners shopping around to find someone who would move their property lines. Land developers would hire their brother n law to Survey for them, just to make sure nothing is over a line. The only people who would be helped if Land Surveyors went to a certification would be the Lawyers. Then every land owning citizens would be screaming why do we have people who are not Licensed deciding the land Boundary. In the long run they would restate the law requiring a Licensed Land Surveyor. Enough people are killed every year fighting over their property lines, it would just add more to the body count if a License was taking away.
ashton, post: 435502, member: 422 wrote: 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.
As I understand things your statement is accurate.
Licensed Land Surveyor
Finger Lakes Region, Upstate New York
I can't even believe we're even having this conversation. Even with licensing/certification we've got some bad surveying going on. Take that away, and there'll be lot stakings going on every weekend by unlicensed guys who know just enough to be dangerous.
And what repercussions are there without licensing, who enforces the rules and disciplines the negligent?
I don't want an unlicensed doctor working on me, and I don't think most people would like the results that unlicensed surveying would bring about.
Back to the exam pass rates. When did the NCEES start with the variable passing score? It sounds kind of like a bell curve now. When I sat for the exam it did not matter how many people failed, a passing grade was a straight 70% or higher. If I recall California was that way in the 90's and the Oregon specific is still that way. I remember when Washington commonly had pass rates in the single digits.
John Putnam, post: 436200, member: 1188 wrote: Back to the exam pass rates. When did the NCEES start with the variable passing score? It sounds kind of like a bell curve now. When I sat for the exam it did not matter how many people failed, a passing grade was a straight 70% or higher. If I recall California was that way in the 90's and the Oregon specific is still that way. I remember when Washington commonly had pass rates in the single digits.
The NCEES cut score was 70, but they had a statement that it was 'not 70 percent'. They were very tightlipped about what that 70 meant. This was around 2000 when I took the exams.
In my opinion Washington has a very good exam. Oregon is top shelf. Comprehensive is a serious understatement.
Big Al, post: 435936, member: 837 wrote:
[ . . . ]
I am licensed as a civil engineer and as a land surveyor. I consider myself to be competent in some areas, and lack competency in other areas. I choose to work on projects involving tasks that I feel competent to perform. It is a fluid and changing scene, as my competency waxes and wanes in various areas depending on what I've been working on.
[ . . . ]
It is written in the California code that licensees shall only only perform work in field(s) they are competent in. Presently it's an honor system; the licensee determines his/her own competency. The only control over licensees' competence is Board discipline after the fact.
"415. Practice Within Area of Competence. A professional engineer or land surveyor licensed under the Code shall practice and perform engineering or land surveying work only in the field or fields in which he/she is by education and/or experience fully competent and proficient."
eapls2708, post: 435875, member: 589 wrote: What is the basis for that advice. It seems to me that psychometrician advice is largely based on the "defensibility" of the exam. If that is the basis here, then I don't think that it serves the public. Cut scores, together with pass rates are valuable indicators of whether there is a problem with the exam process. A low cut score together with a low or average pass rate indicates a problem. Determining whether that is a problem with the exam or a problem with the quality of the candidates requires a review of the exams of several years and a comparison of the statistics for those years.
It has nothing to do with 'defensibility' and everything to do with what I stated previously...there is no benefit to the licensing process.
eapls2708, post: 435875, member: 589 wrote: You say that providing a diagnostic report to a passing examinee would serve no purpose, but within the course of a few sentences talk about ensuring minimum competency and that it is the licensee's responsibility to recognize what areas he or she is competent in and where they lack competence.
The statement about self recognition is also an admission that while a new licensee may be, in broad contemplation, minimally competent, they can be and as a practical matter, always are at least minimally competent in some areas of practice yet not competent in others. Competence and comfort don't necessarily correlate. The new licensee may have barely made it over the cut score but have all the confidence in the world that they aced the whole thing. They may have answered one whole aspect of the exam according to what a poorly informed mentor taught them over several years and failed that whole area of the exam.
Unless they fail the exam overall, they may not learn of their incompetence for several years and after causing problems for many members of the general public...
...If the State is going to tell someone that they are competent to survey without supervision, and it is the State's responsibility to ensure minimum competence and to protect the public from incompetent practice, then it seems a very minor burden on the Board, and a useful communication not only for the new licensee, but far more importantly, for that new licensee's present and future clients, that he or she be put on notice that while they may be minimally competent in a broad sense, they may not be adequately competent in all the areas they think they are, and here is a breakdown for you to properly assess your strengths and weaknesses as we turn you loose on an unsuspecting public.
Providing the diagnostic to a candidate who failed the exam is primarily a benefit to the examinee in preparing for the next exam opportunity but has little or no benefit with regard to protecting the public. And while the new licensee would receive the benefit of being better able to identify their own training needs, providing the diagnostic would very much serve the Board's primary purpose of protecting the public to put new licensees on notice of where their professional weaknesses lie.
In fact, the public would be the prime beneficiary of that. It would probably have a noticeable effect on the number of future enforcement cases your staff needs to process. Just as usefully, if a licensee has a complaint filed against them related to an area of practice in which they did not prove at least minimal competency, and that licensee cannot show having participated in additional training in that area since taking the exam, the Board (and the complainant) will have the advantage by having put that licensee on notice of his or her lack of demonstrated competence in that area of practice. Having previously provided that notice, it puts the burden on the respondent licensee to show additional meaningful training. Without it, the licensee is presumed competent and the Board must prove the incompetence. Seems like that might help the enforcement program by encouraging more licensees to settle sooner, agree to pay their fine and get some training.
You're looking at this from a licensee's viewpoint and I understand that. However, from the licensing board's standpoint, a licensee is a licensee, is a licensee. Everyone is either licensed or not licensed. It is normal human nature to want to rank oneself for whatever reason. Some wish to do it because they have a inherent desire to be considered superior in knowledge/skill in comparison to those they believe do not measure up. Some wish to do it because their own self identity is based on a comparison to others around them. Some wish to do it because of ego. And yes, some most likely just want to measure themselves against their own ideal wanting to constantly strive to improve. Members of professions tend to think in this manner. The licensing board (in reality it is the legislature that wants this and the licensing board is tasked with doing it) expects all licensees to practice equally in accordance with the laws that govern their practice and, at a minimum, to meet the normal standard of practice. The public doesn't care whether one surveyor scored a few points higher or lower on an exam any more than the real world cares about a person "graduating number X out of Y in their class".
As I've stated many times in public settings, the vast majority of us that became licensed passed within 5-10 points of the passing score. The vast majority of those that failed an exam, did so by 5-10 points below the passing score. You, I, and most of us discussing this subject pretty much passed in this manner all grouped together. Occasionally someone passes with more points, but it is far less often then the number of people that score far fewer points. For those that pass, knowing the cut score, the individual passing score, or the diagnostic does nothing to ensure that licensees will strive to gain a better, more knowledgeable skill set as they advance in their career. I realize this may not be popular amongst the licensed population, but it is what it is.
Mike Marks, post: 436240, member: 1108 wrote: It is written in the California code that licensees shall only only perform work in field(s) they are competent in. Presently it's an honor system; the licensee determines his/her own competency. The only control over licensees' competence is Board discipline after the fact.
"415. Practice Within Area of Competence. A professional engineer or land surveyor licensed under the Code shall practice and perform engineering or land surveying work only in the field or fields in which he/she is by education and/or experience fully competent and proficient."
I believe this is stated in the laws or regulations for every licensing jurisdiction in addition to model laws developed by national organizations. It is my opinion that the legislature believes that licensees are 'Professionals" and they should act like one. Which includes the self driven nature to continuously strive to better themselves and practice in accordance with the laws that guide their profession.
John Putnam, post: 436200, member: 1188 wrote: Back to the exam pass rates. When did the NCEES start with the variable passing score? It sounds kind of like a bell curve now. When I sat for the exam it did not matter how many people failed, a passing grade was a straight 70% or higher. If I recall California was that way in the 90's and the Oregon specific is still that way. I remember when Washington commonly had pass rates in the single digits.
To my knowledge, the California state land surveyor exam was never scored as 'raw score' and 'scaled score' (other than the take home exam which is scored on a pure 70% to pass). At least as far back as the last 30 years.
Jawja, post: 436090, member: 12766 wrote: Because the degree requirement is arbitrary. Boards don't want to deal with the task of actually reviewing the ability of the applicant so instead the put a requirement of a degree. And you still do not address the fact that states that I have licenses in would not let me sit today for the test. The fact that I have been licensed in those states proves the lie that they do not allow people to sit. The test did not change, they merely put an artificial barrier in place to lessen the applicants. It was not done to protect the public, the tests do that. The degree requirement is there to protect the licensed surveyors from competition, in my opinion.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
The decision to require a degree is not arbitrary. It may not be the best decision in certain circumstances, but it certainly was not an arbitrary one undertaken by the licensing board or the legislature.
Ric Moore, post: 436255, member: 731 wrote: The decision to require a degree is not arbitrary. It may not be the best decision in certain circumstances, but it certainly was not an arbitrary one undertaken by the licensing board or the legislature.
Maybe not arbitrary, because it wasn't decided randomly, but possibly because no one has ever demonstrated that there's a correlation between college degrees and better surveying.
