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.
People scare me when they say stuff like this. I have a 2-year degree and a 4-year degree. That does not mean I know more than someone who has neither. It might only mean I had easier access to education.
My first employer taught me more about surveying than I ever learned in school. I mean I learned the basics of surveying in school, and a lot of math. But actual surveying knowledge comes from experience. Don't be so fast to discount the importance of experience and mentorship.
Ric Moore, post: 436456, member: 731 wrote: 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.
Ric,
eapls2708 took a statement I made, and turned it all around and added words to it. Don't feel to bad about it. When I corrected him, he didn't even acknowledge it.
Evan,
at this point we'll just have to agree to disagree.
BTW, some of your assumptions I believe are incorrect, others are truly incorrect.
Scott Ellis, post: 436462, member: 7154 wrote: Ric,
eapls2708 took a statement I made, and turned it all around and added words to it.
Scott,
I apologize for not acknowledging your clarification. Your original statement seemed to me to imply by the way you spoke of dirt volumes in answer to others who previously mentioned construction more broadly that you were characterizing it is all simple work.
I didn't address that aspect of the discussion again because I felt your clarification was enough, but my comments were still valid for any who think all construction is exceedingly simplistic.
If you feel that I turned Ric's words around, I invite you to correct me there as well by pointing out specifically how I did so. I will acknowledge that post as soon as I see it so that you know I'm not ignoring you.
Ric Moore, post: 435863, member: 731 wrote: You didn't receive a diagnostic because you never failed the exam. Issuing this for passing candidates serves no purpose from a licensing board perspective.
I believe, given the way professional licensing exams are generally administered, the policy of not giving diagnostics to those who passed is fair. If the result is available, third parties are going to ask for it (whether from the state, or from the professional). Thus it becomes a competitive score, just like one's GPA in school, or one's SAT score.
The difference is, if you disagree with a grade given in a class at university, you can go to the professor and ask the professor to review the grade. You might, for example, be able to show that your answer to a question was correct and the professor's model answer was wrong. The same applies (or used to apply) to challenging professional licensing exam results; you have an opportunity to challenge the scoring of the exam. Similarly, one can retake the SAT, and if one scores dramatically better the second time around, the lower score is apt to be dismissed as just having a bad day.
But since one can neither challenge nor repeat a passing score on a professional licensing exam, it is not fair to provide any opportunity for it to be treated as a competitive score; the result should just be "PASS", period, full stop.
As for the point of view of the public vs. the point of view of the professional, enshrining uncorrectable and potentially misleading results serves no one.
clearcut, post: 436463, member: 297 wrote: Evan,
at this point we'll just have to agree to disagree.
BTW, some of your assumptions I believe are incorrect, others are truly incorrect.
By all means, correct me where I've made incorrect assumptions. I'd like an open and honest discussion, and if I'm wrong, fine, keep me accountable. So far, Ric has ignored points of discussion I've made and responded with condescension and dismissal. You, in my view, undermined your own view in the description of your own experience, which is, IMO, a great testimonial as to how that type of info would be helpful. Otherwise, you were also dismissive by assuming what one person who you dislike might have misused the info had it been available to him, and not really addressing the substance of what either Ric or I said.
thebionicman, post: 435358, member: 8136 wrote: It is an undeniable fact that deregulation breeds predarory and incompetent practice.
It's also a fact that regulation gives government approval to incompetent practice.
[MEDIA=youtube]mEB7WbTTlu4[/MEDIA]
So far I have only seen one remotely valid argument against giving passing examinees a diognostic report. The Board could easily deal with the 'superior' attitude. Make it confidential just like the exam. Use of the results in advertising or marketing gets penalized the same as exam subversion. Fixed.
The fact that some won't use it is a ridiculous argument. If not the entire Board and system of regulation should go away. There are after all folks who will never accept Board authority or work within the rules.
It boggles my mind that a simple tool with great potential meets with objection. Is it a panacea for all that is wrong with us? No. It is however a low cost, high potential tool.
ashton, post: 436471, member: 422 wrote: I believe, given the way professional licensing exams are generally administered, the policy of not giving diagnostics to those who passed is fair. If the result is available, third parties are going to ask for it (whether from the state, or from the professional). Thus it becomes a competitive score, just like one's GPA in school, or one's SAT score.
...
But since one can neither challenge nor repeat a passing score on a professional licensing exam, it is not fair to provide any opportunity for it to be treated as a competitive score; the result should just be "PASS", period, full stop.As for the point of view of the public vs. the point of view of the professional, enshrining uncorrectable and potentially misleading results serves no one.
I don't think this is true. If that data would be discoverable when a diagnostic report is provided, then raw scores and or percentages of overall performance would be discoverable now under the Public Records Act. I believe that individual data is and would continue to be exempt from the PRA.
I don't know if they still do, but OR used to provide your overall percentage score with test results. I've never heard of anyone up there using these percentages either as a marketing tool or to go around crowing about how superior they might be. I'm also not aware that those individual scores have ever been released to any third parties.
BushAxe, post: 436459, member: 11897 wrote: People scare me when they say stuff like this. I have a 2-year degree and a 4-year degree. That does not mean I know more than someone who has neither. It might only mean I had easier access to education.
My first employer taught me more about surveying than I ever learned in school. I mean I learned the basics of surveying in school, and a lot of math. But actual surveying knowledge comes from experience. Don't be so fast to discount the importance of experience and mentorship.
I looked back and I guess I just don't see where aliquot stated that someone with a 4-year degree is smarter. Maybe I missed it (again). I originally took what he said as someone with a 4-year surveying degree passed the exam because they should given the knowledge obtained from the surveying education. This is especially true since the NCEES FS exam and PS exam are designed towards a target audience that only includes those candidates with a 4-year degree in surveying.
eapls2708, post: 436479, member: 589 wrote: I don't think this is true. If that data would be discoverable when a diagnostic report is provided, then raw scores and or percentages of overall performance would be discoverable now under the Public Records Act. I believe that individual data is and would continue to be exempt from the PRA.
I don't know if they still do, but OR used to provide your overall percentage score with test results. I've never heard of anyone up there using these percentages either as a marketing tool or to go around crowing about how superior they might be. I'm also not aware that those individual scores have ever been released to any third parties.
I was given my scores by Utah, Idaho and Oregon. Utah gave me my national scores as well. They used to be viewable by the public on line. None of them have been used on my resume..
thebionicman, post: 435963, member: 8136 wrote: 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.
In Tennessee, and other states, the board isn't regulating these people anyway. You can survey the wrong property, but as long as you have a plat that meets the standards, the board won't touch you. Tennessee also has a 4 year statute of repose, which means after 4 years, the dirtbags are protected forever. The problem right now is licensure helps protect incompetence.
eapls2708, post: 436474, member: 589 wrote: By all means, correct me where I've made incorrect assumptions. I'd like an open and honest discussion, and if I'm wrong, fine, keep me accountable. So far, Ric has ignored points of discussion I've made and responded with condescension and dismissal. You, in my view, undermined your own view in the description of your own experience, which is, IMO, a great testimonial as to how that type of info would be helpful. Otherwise, you were also dismissive by assuming what one person who you dislike might have misused the info had it been available to him, and not really addressing the substance of what either Ric or I said.
I haven't ignored your points of discussion or dismissed any of them either. I simply read them, thought about it, and responded with my own thoughts. I will agree that I haven't addressed some aspects of your statements, but that was only because I didn't have an opinion on those or I felt it wasn't something that warranted a response from a licensing board perspective. There was no disrespect directed your way.
eapls2708, post: 436479, member: 589 wrote: I don't think this is true. If that data would be discoverable when a diagnostic report is provided, then raw scores and or percentages of overall performance would be discoverable now under the Public Records Act. I believe that individual data is and would continue to be exempt from the PRA.
I don't know if they still do, but OR used to provide your overall percentage score with test results. I've never heard of anyone up there using these percentages either as a marketing tool or to go around crowing about how superior they might be. I'm also not aware that those individual scores have ever been released to any third parties.
The state licensing agency might not make the scores of passing professionals available to third parties, but third parties can still ask the professional to provide them directly, and could strongly hint that failure to provide the third party wouldn't engage the professional unless the score is provided.
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
A test is just a test, it's not a perfect gauge. The test runs in conjunction with other requirements that Society deems to be necessary through its legislative process for someone to practice a Profession. Most entry requirements include an educational component.
Tommy Young, post: 436485, member: 703 wrote: In Tennessee, and other states, the board isn't regulating these people anyway. You can survey the wrong property, but as long as you have a plat that meets the standards, the board won't touch you. Tennessee also has a 4 year statute of repose, which means after 4 years, the dirtbags are protected forever. The problem right now is licensure helps protect incompetence.
That's interesting...in CA, I understand there is a statute of limitations on defects also for some period of time that I can't recall. But that is civil law related and has no effect on administrative law which the licensing board operates under. There is no statutory period of time limiting the licensing board's authority that I am aware of in CA.
Whether one has a degree makes them no more or less competent in itself. The degree provides a exposure to a wide variety of practice areas and so provides a better knowledge base for a broad based exam vs experience over the same amount of time.
It seems to me that the Board had released a pass rate comparison of those with a degree vs those without some years ago, and for that year, it showed a very slight difference. I don't know which side of the equation those with 2-yr or 1-yr degrees were placed, or if they were tabulated separately. That too would be interesting data to see.
The NCEES has a breakdown by education (BS degree v less or no formal education), and for the years they have on their website, the difference isn't staggering, but it is significant. The decision to require a 4-yr degree isn't arbitrary, nor is it a panacea.
The 4-yr graduate with 2 or 4 yrs experience has an advantage over someone with 6 or 8 years experience but no formal survey education going into the exam. If both pass the exam, it's likely that the graduate passed by a slightly higher margin, but after several years of practice, if the "uneducated" licensee continues to take advantage of professional development, whether in a seminar or classroom setting or by lots of reading and application, and the graduate never avails himself of another educational opportunity, the "uneducated" surveyor will be the more qualified.
Some states have acknowledged the benefit of a BS degree, but also recognize that good professionals can be educated in other, less formal means. They have a stepped experience requirement. I recall looking into one state's requirements many years ago by which you could qualify with a BS degree and 2 years (might have been 4, long time ago) experience, no degree and 12 years experience, and a stepped set of combinations in between. Seems to me a good way to go as opposed to the all or nothing approach many states have taken.
ashton, post: 436490, member: 422 wrote: The state licensing agency might not make the scores of passing professionals available to third parties, but third parties can still ask the professional to provide them directly, and could strongly hint that failure to provide the third party wouldn't engage the professional unless the score is provided.
Again, OR used to and maybe still does provide a percentage score to those who passed, there may be other states that do as well. I have never heard of what you are talking about happening, ever.
You are imagining a problem that if it were to occur in a state that starts handing out diagnostic reports to those who pass, would have already occurred in states where they have been reporting individual scores to individual licensees for many years.
There is simply nothing to base your fear on, and the experience of at least one state to show it to be baseless.
ashton, post: 436490, member: 422 wrote: The state licensing agency might not make the scores of passing professionals available to third parties, but third parties can still ask the professional to provide them directly, and could strongly hint that failure to provide the third party wouldn't engage the professional unless the score is provided.
I never heard of such a thing.
I don't have a College degree. There would definitely be a benefit to having the degree in terms of knowledge and just having the credential. As far as increasing my income from where I am at would require entering management which I would rather avoid anyway so a Degree would add nothing to my bottom line.
I can see where a Degree requirement would be of benefit to the Profession (I know it sounds like I'm trying to close the door after I got in). It provides a common education basis and indoctrination in to the basic knowledge required to intelligently serve the public.
In California Engineers and Lawyers are not required to have degrees in their respective professions either although most do. Lawyers only are required to have an AA degree to sit for the Bar exam; I doubt there are very many job opportunities for non-degreed Lawyers, though.
I personally think one thing that would help is to remove Surveying education from the Engineering Schools. There would be more flexibility to tailor the program to the needs of the profession which doesn't seem to be as tied to Engineering as in the past. The main obstacles are 1) inertia, 2) tradition, and 3) our small numbers not being enough to support a traditional bricks and mortar University college.
One of the areas with a potential for big growth would be to continue to expand our service in Boundary. The traditional thought was we plot the Deed or record title boundary (not really a thing anyway) and the legal profession figures out the hard part. Well they are no longer doing it. Boundary Surveying should be expanded to include a real resolution service but this would take more of a legal type education.