JPH, post: 436259, member: 6636 wrote: 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.
Not knowing your exact definition for your meaning of 'better surveying', that very well may be.
Ric Moore, post: 436250, member: 731 wrote: It has nothing to do with 'defensibility' and everything to do with what I stated previously...there is no benefit to the licensing process.
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.
If the only goal is cranking out paper I agree. If you want to help Professionals along a career path and protect the public the diagnostic is a good tool.
thebionicman, post: 436261, member: 8136 wrote: If the only goal is cranking out paper I agree. If you want to help Professionals along a career path and protect the public the diagnostic is a good tool.
What are the professional societies doing in that regard? I'm only asking this because I believe that it is the role of the professional community to grow their profession, not the licensing board.
When I passed I was told by an old-timer I worked with that your score was probably what you usually got in school exams.
If you passed exams with an average score of, say 85%, you probably got 85% of the questions right.
When I took the California exam in 1972 I was given the choice to do 100 points of the 150 points on the exam. It gave me the chance to be tested on my area(s) of expertise. I skipped the photogrammetry question because I felt I knew the other questions better. I actually chose only 97 points to work. I spotted the State three points!
I'm sure I was minimally qualified (knowing what I know now), so I had no area of expertise. It's been one long learning curve (going on 45 years now).
Dave Lindell, post: 436263, member: 55 wrote: When I passed I was told by an old-timer I worked with that your score was probably what you usually got in school exams.
If you passed exams with an average score of, say 85%, you probably got 85% of the questions right.When I took the California exam in 1972 I was given the choice to do 100 points of the 150 points on the exam. It gave me the chance to be tested on my area(s) of expertise. I skipped the photogrammetry question because I felt I knew the other questions better. I actually chose only 97 points to work. I spotted the State three points!
I'm sure I was minimally qualified (knowing what I know now), so I had no area of expertise. It's been one long learning curve (going on 45 years now).
Hmmm, not sure what the exact process was in 1972. However, you do bring up a very interesting point. Often, engineering exams provide several variations that the candidate can choose to tackle due to the broad manner in which that certain discipline of engineering is practiced. Normally this occurs on national examinations. Engineering candidates are typically not held to demonstrating a broad-based knowledge of their discipline in examinations while surveyors typically are.
Ric Moore, post: 436262, member: 731 wrote: What are the professional societies doing in that regard? I'm only asking this because I believe that it is the role of the professional community to grow their profession, not the licensing board.
No Professional Sociery I know of has the ability to issue a diognostic for the State Professional exam. While it may not be in mission statement of a Board to grow the Profession they are tasked with protecting the public.
With CBT it's a simple task to issue the diagnostic. Passing the opportunity because 'it's not our job' is short sighted at best.
thebionicman, post: 436269, member: 8136 wrote: No Professional Sociery I know of has the ability to issue a diognostic for the State Professional exam. While it may not be in mission statement of a Board to grow the Profession they are tasked with protecting the public.
With CBT it's a simple task to issue the diagnostic. Passing the opportunity because 'it's not our job' is short sighted at best.
I wasn't referring to the professional society or community issuing a diagnostic. I apologize for not being clear on my response to your statement. It's not a matter of being 'short sided' or being lazy. It is simply a misunderstanding of the separation between the licensing board and the professional community. As I mentioned previously, issuing a diagnostic to passing candidates does nothing to ensure that the licensee will practice appropriately throughout their career.
Ric Moore, post: 436273, member: 731 wrote: I wasn't referring to the professional society or community issuing a diagnostic. I apologize for not being clear on my response to your statement. It's not a matter of being 'short sided' or being lazy. It is simply a misunderstanding of the separation between the licensing board and the professional community. As I mentioned previously, issuing a diagnostic to passing candidates does nothing to ensure that the licensee will practice appropriately throughout their career.
If the Board isnt in the business of furthering the Profession then they should stop all discipline.
I agree the diagnostic doesnt 'ensure' anything. It is however an inexpensive tool that would help many along...
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.
Actually, it kind of was. 1992, court case in FL. The FL Supreme Court, not the board or the legislature, decided a 4 yr degree was a requirement for a profession. Basically, the short form of the story, there was a surveyor being sued. He claimed 2 yr statute of repose as a professional. Court attempted to get legislature to define profession on the statute of repose. Legislature told them "no". So court decided that to be a professional that you must have a four year degree. Even though the statute called surveyors PROFESSIONAL, an arbitrary definition was applied by the court. Then the board yielded to the courts definition and required a 4 yr degree rather than putting pressure on the legislature to pass a code that if legislation calls you a professional them you are.
The 4 yr requirement was a court forcing its OPINION on a definition over what the statute declared.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
So, the FL-PS Board used the state supreme court ruling to justify moving forward with legislative change to the laws and presumably the legislature voted for this bill and the Governor signed it into law. I would refer to the court ruling as a strong justification to make changes, but not an arbitrary decision by the Board. The FL-PS Board is and has been for quite some time very much in favor of an educational requirement. Again, I never said it was a good decision...
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
It's not arbitrary. Someone who has a 4 year degree and passed the test has proved they know more than someone who has only passed the test. Some states do better than others, but I have not seen a test yet that is comprehensive enough to ensure everyone passing it is competent.
I suppose we could adopt a battery of 20 something tests and a long in person interview with the board, but short of that, as long as we trust the universities, we know that someone with a degree at least knows something.
I know there are people without the degree that could be good surveyors, just like there was in the "old days" before the requirement, but there were also a lot of really bad ones. Its unfortunate that those few people either have to go to school late in life or move to a state that still allows a licence without a bachelor's degree, but the licensing regulations are not put in place to provide a career service, they are put in place to protect the public and our reputation. The degree requirment is an easy way to do this.
Note: My degree is not in surveying.
Jawja, post: 436297, member: 12766 wrote: Actually, it kind of was. 1992, court case in FL. The FL Supreme Court, not the board or the legislature, decided a 4 yr degree was a requirement for a profession. Basically, the short form of the story, there was a surveyor being sued. He claimed 2 yr statute of repose as a professional. Court attempted to get legislature to define profession on the statute of repose. Legislature told them "no". So court decided that to be a professional that you must have a four year degree. Even though the statute called surveyors PROFESSIONAL, an arbitrary definition was applied by the court. Then the board yielded to the courts definition and required a 4 yr degree rather than putting pressure on the legislature to pass a code that if legislation calls you a professional them you are.
The 4 yr requirement was a court forcing its OPINION on a definition over what the statute declared.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
That's still not an arbitrary definition. The court looked at what the all proffesions have in common and one of the key things was a four year degree. It is a lot more arbitrary to claim a proffesion is whatever the legistlasture says it is.
aliquot, post: 436314, member: 2486 wrote: It's not arbitrary. Someone who has a 4 year degree and passed the test has proved they know more than someone who has only passed the test. Some states do better than others, but I have not seen a test yet that is comprehensive enough to ensure everyone passing it is competent.
I suppose we could adopt a battery of 20 something tests and a long in person interview with the board, but short of that, as long as we trust the universities, we know that someone with a degree at least knows something.
I know there are people without the degree that could be good surveyors, just like there was in the "old days" before the requirement, but there were also a lot of really bad ones. Its unfortunate that those few people either have to go to school late in life or move to a state that still allows a licence without a bachelor's degree, but the licensing regulations are not put in place to provide a career service, they are put in place to protect the public and our reputation. The degree requirment is an easy way to do this.
Note: My degree is not in surveying.
No, they haven't. The degree is an accomplishment but does not prove competence (or even knowledge). I know a few degreed licensees who prove my point well.
I disagree. The judges exceeded their authority. Legislation called them professionals. But a group of 9 individuals ignored what 100+ people stated and chose to look outside the law and decide to ignore what the legislature called them. In my opinion if the legislation says you are a professional, then no court had a right to ignore that and decide on its own what defines profession.
If you really believe that someone with a 4 yr degree is automatically better than someone without one, then we are done discussing. Continue your conversation with your person with a four year degree from the University of Northern Virginia.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
aliquot, post: 436314, member: 2486 wrote: It's not arbitrary. Someone who has a 4 year degree and passed the test has proved they know more than someone who has only passed the test.
Sorry, but that's a load of crap.
aliquot, post: 436314, member: 2486 wrote: Someone who has a 4 year degree and passed the test has proved they know more than someone who has only passed the test.
I favor a degree requirement for a number of reasons, but that statement is so inherently illogical that it makes my brain hurt.
Individual A - four year degree and passed national exams.
Individual B - autodidact and passed national exams.
Without subjecting Individual B to the same battery of tests that Individual A took to graduate, there is no way to compare the two...nothing is "proved" at all it's all confirmation bias and conjecture.
Ric Moore, post: 436250, member: 731 wrote: It has nothing to do with 'defensibility' and everything to do with what I stated previously...there is no benefit to the licensing process.
Nothing to do with "defensibility"? That was a major theme in the development and grading processes during the few years I was involved. It was my understanding that was the case for the years prior to my involvement with the exam and the reason why a psychometrician was brought in to begin with.
You can ignore the obvious public protection reasons I stated, but that doesn't lend any truth to the idea that there is no public benefit.
If you want to limit your statement as worded - no benefit to the licensing process - then I will agree. But if you think that the primary mission of the agency you lead is simply to license engineers, surveyors and geologists, you've lost sight of the primary purpose of the agency you lead:
Business & Professions Code ??8710.1. Legislative Intent ?? protection of the public
Protection of the public shall be the highest priority for the Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists in exercising its licensing, regulatory, and disciplinary functions. Whenever protection of the public is inconsistent with other interests sought to be promoted, the protection of the public shall be paramount.
Licensing is not your primary purpose. It is your primary tool in achieving your purpose. If you can explain why providing a diagnostic report to a new licensee does not serve any purpose in protecting the public while providing that report to someone who is not licensed and may or may not ever become licensed is advancing the protection of the public, I'd really be interested in reading/hearing that explanation.
Also, if you could explain how providing a diagnostic report to a new licensee is either an undue burden on the State or somehow harmful to the public, please do.
Ric Moore, post: 436250, member: 731 wrote: 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.
Based on your responses, I don't believe you understand at all. I find your second sentence here very troubling. It demonstrates an attitude that licenses are mere commodities, just a numbers game to the agency which exists to protect the public by taking steps to help ensure that only the competent may practice.
You and I have spoken before about the fact that if someone passes the exam, they've only demonstrated that they had enough knowledge day to be considered at least minimally competent on that particular day.
Rather than showing a respect for surveying as a profession, your statements do quite the opposite. Everyone reading this thread knows that there are some licensees who have developed a great deal of advanced knowledge in in or more areas of practice, and we all know licensees who have never cracked a book, attended a conference or seminar, taken a class, or anything else to maintain their knowledge, much less advance it since passing the exam. The fact that the person who manages the day to day operations of our licensing board, a person who is himself a LS, sees no difference between one licensee and any other with the same license is quite disconcerting.
Ric Moore, post: 436250, member: 731 wrote: 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.
You can put it in these petty, ego-inflating terms if you like, but it says more about how you view it than how I or anyone else who has expressed support for providing a diagnostic report to new licensees.
Neither I, nor anyone else in this thread has said a darn thing about using the report for comparing ourselves to our peers. That kind of locker room size competition is a construct of your imagination.
All of the posts agreeing that a diagnostic report for new licensees have been in terms of public protection or by some recent licensees with the very professional purpose of wanting to know where their weaknesses lie. How you can twist that to the condescending "human nature to want to rank oneself" is beyond me.
I offered the suggestion with the ways in which it would benefit the public, the licensee, and the board. You respond with belittling.
Ric Moore, post: 436250, member: 731 wrote: 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".
Again, you are the only one to bring any aspect of "graduating X out of Y in their class." The diagnostic would be supplied only to the licensee to whom it pertains. It would not be posted publicly nor be public knowledge.
You say that the legislature wants and expects licensees to practice within their area of competence. A perfectly reasonable expectation. I'm sure that most, if not all states have a statute or section of administrative code that states that expectation, as they well should. An inexpensive and potentially very effective way to help the licensee recognize their areas of competence and areas of weakness. The ability to have passed the exam on a particular day does not and cannot magically imbue a person with this knowledge.
Ric Moore, post: 436250, member: 731 wrote: 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.
So if most examinees pass or fail by a narrow margin, how can you reasonably think that this slim margin of knowledge can make the difference between someone not expected to recognize their strengths from their weaknesses (such lack of expectation shown by providing a diagnostic), and someone who is expected to know their strengths from their weaknesses?
Of course the diagnostic does not ensure that licensees will strive to advance their knowledge, but it is a valuable tool for those who would.
Knowing the cut score is not a tool for the new licensee to evaluate himself or herself. It is a tool for the profession, together with other statistical data about exam performance, to judge whether the exam is working properly to test for minimal professional competency. By itself it means nothing, but it is an important part of a complete picture. Similarly, passing rates don't say anything about the quality of the exam without the other data.
When I took the OR exam, they provided percentage scores to the examinees, pass or fail. I assume they provided more info to those who failed. Seeing those scores gave me a sense of self satisfaction, sure. But I never used them in a statement of qualifications for a job or anything else. They weren't public knowledge, so I didn't know my standing compared to other licensees, nor did I try to find out. But beyond that sense of accomplishment of having done well, they were relatively useless. I would have preferred to know how I did in particular categories, particularly those areas in which I may not have done well at all.
Ric Moore, post: 436252, member: 731 wrote: 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.
There are licensees in this thread who have given very professional reasoning for a diagnostic report for new licensees and for other ideas and you have responded by characterizing their unstated motivation as being an adolescent competition. Perhaps for you, the license merely represents a ticket to open doors to positions that would otherwise not be available to you. For me, it represents a trust bestowed on me by the public. I and others here have a high regard for the professional surveyor's license and for its purpose.
I wish that our licensing board had as high regard.
Ric Moore, post: 436262, member: 731 wrote: What are the professional societies doing in that regard? I'm only asking this because I believe that it is the role of the professional community to grow their profession, not the licensing board.
I think I need to start another post, and perhaps a new thread for this one.
I've got to lean towards Ric's side of this discussion.
I have a close friend who has taken the PE exam several times. The diagnostic report and analysis on subject matters passed and failed is not a quality indicator of that particular individuals strengths and weaknesses. It is an indication of how that person performs in a testing environment. I have seen each of the analysis my friend received from those several tests taken, and there is not a consistency in subject matter strengths and weaknesses. In fact, this person is very competent in engineering, more so than a number of licensed engineers. The issue in this case is more a fact of how some persons, such as this, get "brain-lock" from the anxiety of test taking.
I myself, ( I know, hard to believe but true ), failed the CA LS exam the first time I took it. I was given the ability to go to Sacramento and review my failed test.
What I found was something a diagnostic report would not accurately report. I failed because I made a bunch of stupid math mistakes that carried through the problems. I knew how to answer the problems I missed, I just made bonehead math errors, enough so to miss passing. Reviewing the test I failed did help me in that the next time I did some practice math problems to get my basic math skills in tune instead of simply reviewing and reading as I had done previously. Again, the diagnostic report was misrepresentative of my actual knowledge strengths.
And I agree with Ric, there are those who will try to portray to the public that they are superior surveyors because of how they performed on the test. There is an OC surveyor who currently advertises that "all surveyors are not created equal" as a case in point. Knowing this individual's propensity for spinning, I am assured that he would portray his passing score in a manner which conveys to the public a sense of superior knowledge.
Lastily, I don't believe this is really an issue of "you don't know what you don't know" that will somehow be a great revelation to passing test takers. It is far more involved than a percent passed per area of subject matter than that. Much far more involved.
.
Clearcut (or is it JS?),
Not to be flippant, but test anxiety is a personal problem that must be overcome for a person to ever be able to perform on an exam so that it accurately reflects their knowledge. Although many people suffer test anxiety to varying degrees, for many it is minor enough or even negligible such that an exam is a very accurate indicator of their knowledge. If they don't get over it, then they're playing license lottery, hoping that their anxiety will clear just enough to answer just enough questions to pass one of these times.
Reviewing the exam would be ideal, but probably would be an undue burden on the Board. In the case you describe, it sounds like you had a great deal of confidence in the area you failed. If you knew it that well, I suspect that you would have figured out that you blew it on the math.
Your review of the exam was the most informative form of diagnostic review, and that review allowed you to identify your area of weakness. You then describe your efforts to focus on that area of weakness to overcome it or make it an area of strength. That is exactly its usefulness to a new licensee.
You were able to review and identify your area of weakness to benefit you over the course of the next year, during which you were not practicing unsupervised directly for clients, to achieve your goal of attaining the license. You do not have the benefit of knowing how you performed to identify areas of continued weakness other than perhaps the assumption that any areas of weakness you may have identified in your review the year prior, and for which you did not focus additional study to, remain areas of weakness. Even in that assumptive regard, you have a benefit over the person who passed on their fist attempt and never received any detailed performance info.
The person you refer to in OC may or may not have used such info as a marketing tool. So what if he would have? All he would have had was his own performance diagnostic and wouldn't have had access to anyone else's for comparison, so I don't see 1) how the data could be used effectively for marketing, or 2) why you, I, or anyone else should care. I've agreed with that guy on many issues and disagreed with him on many other issues. One thing I can tell you is that he takes his duty seriously, has a great respect for the license and its purpose, regularly engages in efforts to add to his knowledge, and has given more than most back to the profession. Often his delivery sucks, but I respect his abilities and his efforts for the betterment of the profession. I also recognize the truth of that statement in his marketing materials and believe that his knowledge and manner of practice permit him to use that statement with credibility.
I believe that, first, the availability of performance data on other individual candidates would not be available such that any kind of ranking or meaningful exam performance comparisons would be possible, and second, that very, very few people would try. But then again, if they did, why would I even care. The meaningless misuse of the tool does not in any way negate the positive use of it by others to improve their knowledge more effectively and to better serve the public.
What the diagnostic report tells to the examinee doesn't need to be a great revelation. Apparently for you, it was just that. You failed in an area not because you didn't know the principles, but because your math sucked. The info merely needs to be useful as an indicator of performance. If the examinee performed more poorly than they expected, it may prompt them to go back to the books and study materials to try to determine where their shortcomings are in that area.
At one point, you say that it would be of no use to help the examinee to know what they don't know, but on the other hand, you describe that in your case, that's exactly the benefit you got out of your exam review, which is a more detailed (raw data) exam performance diagnostic.
So you used the opportunity to identify and correct your weaknesses. I said that I would have used it for that purpose. Are you trying to imply that you and I are the only licensees who are professional enough to make use of such info and that the vast majority of others would never think to utilize it? Or are you saying that had you gotten just a few points more and passed the first time, that you wouldn't have cared what your weaknesses were and would have never attempted to identify and improve in those areas?
It's my belief that there are those who would not use the report for anything. Those are the same people who never study another thing about their profession from the time they take and pass the exam to beyond the day they retire.
However, I believe that there are quite a few, and it may only be half of those who pass the exam, who will look at their performance data and at least try to figure out what they missed and why they missed it, and at least half of that number who will use the report as a planning tool for future professional development.
eapls2708, post: 436408, member: 589 wrote: Nothing to do with "defensibility"? That was a major theme in the development and grading processes during the few years I was involved. It was my understanding that was the case for the years prior to my involvement with the exam and the reason why a psychometrician was brought in to begin with.
You can ignore the obvious public protection reasons I stated, but that doesn't lend any truth to the idea that there is no public benefit.
If you want to limit your statement as worded - no benefit to the licensing process - then I will agree. But if you think that the primary mission of the agency you lead is simply to license engineers, surveyors and geologists, you've lost sight of the primary purpose of the agency you lead:
Business & Professions Code ??8710.1. Legislative Intent ?? protection of the public
Protection of the public shall be the highest priority for the Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists in exercising its licensing, regulatory, and disciplinary functions. Whenever protection of the public is inconsistent with other interests sought to be promoted, the protection of the public shall be paramount.Licensing is not your primary purpose. It is your primary tool in achieving your purpose. If you can explain why providing a diagnostic report to a new licensee does not serve any purpose in protecting the public while providing that report to someone who is not licensed and may or may not ever become licensed is advancing the protection of the public, I'd really be interested in reading/hearing that explanation.
Also, if you could explain how providing a diagnostic report to a new licensee is either an undue burden on the State or somehow harmful to the public, please do.
Based on your responses, I don't believe you understand at all. I find your second sentence here very troubling. It demonstrates an attitude that licenses are mere commodities, just a numbers game to the agency which exists to protect the public by taking steps to help ensure that only the competent may practice.
You and I have spoken before about the fact that if someone passes the exam, they've only demonstrated that they had enough knowledge day to be considered at least minimally competent on that particular day.
Rather than showing a respect for surveying as a profession, your statements do quite the opposite. Everyone reading this thread knows that there are some licensees who have developed a great deal of advanced knowledge in in or more areas of practice, and we all know licensees who have never cracked a book, attended a conference or seminar, taken a class, or anything else to maintain their knowledge, much less advance it since passing the exam. The fact that the person who manages the day to day operations of our licensing board, a person who is himself a LS, sees no difference between one licensee and any other with the same license is quite disconcerting.
You can put it in these petty, ego-inflating terms if you like, but it says more about how you view it than how I or anyone else who has expressed support for providing a diagnostic report to new licensees.
Neither I, nor anyone else in this thread has said a darn thing about using the report for comparing ourselves to our peers. That kind of locker room size competition is a construct of your imagination.
All of the posts agreeing that a diagnostic report for new licensees have been in terms of public protection or by some recent licensees with the very professional purpose of wanting to know where their weaknesses lie. How you can twist that to the condescending "human nature to want to rank oneself" is beyond me.
I offered the suggestion with the ways in which it would benefit the public, the licensee, and the board. You respond with belittling.
Again, you are the only one to bring any aspect of "graduating X out of Y in their class." The diagnostic would be supplied only to the licensee to whom it pertains. It would not be posted publicly nor be public knowledge.
You say that the legislature wants and expects licensees to practice within their area of competence. A perfectly reasonable expectation. I'm sure that most, if not all states have a statute or section of administrative code that states that expectation, as they well should. An inexpensive and potentially very effective way to help the licensee recognize their areas of competence and areas of weakness. The ability to have passed the exam on a particular day does not and cannot magically imbue a person with this knowledge.
So if most examinees pass or fail by a narrow margin, how can you reasonably think that this slim margin of knowledge can make the difference between someone not expected to recognize their strengths from their weaknesses (such lack of expectation shown by providing a diagnostic), and someone who is expected to know their strengths from their weaknesses?
Of course the diagnostic does not ensure that licensees will strive to advance their knowledge, but it is a valuable tool for those who would.
Knowing the cut score is not a tool for the new licensee to evaluate himself or herself. It is a tool for the profession, together with other statistical data about exam performance, to judge whether the exam is working properly to test for minimal professional competency. By itself it means nothing, but it is an important part of a complete picture. Similarly, passing rates don't say anything about the quality of the exam without the other data.
When I took the OR exam, they provided percentage scores to the examinees, pass or fail. I assume they provided more info to those who failed. Seeing those scores gave me a sense of self satisfaction, sure. But I never used them in a statement of qualifications for a job or anything else. They weren't public knowledge, so I didn't know my standing compared to other licensees, nor did I try to find out. But beyond that sense of accomplishment of having done well, they were relatively useless. I would have preferred to know how I did in particular categories, particularly those areas in which I may not have done well at all.
There are licensees in this thread who have given very professional reasoning for a diagnostic report for new licensees and for other ideas and you have responded by characterizing their unstated motivation as being an adolescent competition. Perhaps for you, the license merely represents a ticket to open doors to positions that would otherwise not be available to you. For me, it represents a trust bestowed on me by the public. I and others here have a high regard for the professional surveyor's license and for its purpose.
I wish that our licensing board had as high regard.
I think I need to start another post, and perhaps a new thread for this one.
I'm sorry you took my observations and comments as derogatory. While I'm fine with what I said and how I view the situation, those were not offered with an intent to make you feel that way or to initiate the response you felt you needed to make.