Jim in AZ, post: 390317, member: 249 wrote: It starts with the granting of licenses to completely unqualified individuals...
How do you suppose that happens, and would deregulation make it better or worse?
half bubble, post: 390316, member: 175 wrote: Ongoing self-directed study is part of being a professional, and if we have to legislate to require it, something else isn't working.
This is why it shouldn't be required. It operates on the assumption that we're not going to keep current or learn anything new otherwise
I think Florida did a cruise ship one year. Now that sounds like a fun one. Early on I liked them but now a lot of them are the same thing over and over. I try and find unique and interesting ones now.
JPH, post: 390320, member: 6636 wrote: This is why it shouldn't be required. It operates on the assumption that we're not going to keep current or learn anything new otherwise
And yet unfortunately that part is true enough to see the need, given all the issues we see with fly tie bandits and the "everything is encroachment, hand it off to the attorneys" approach to legal principles.
I would welcome peer review of ongoing or completed projects in place of continuing ed. We could all learn from each other and probably not many would sleep through a peer review of their own work.
half bubble, post: 390316, member: 175 wrote: Some days I consider giving up my license because I simply don't want to play the continuing education credit game anymore.
I'm not sure I understand why you feel this way?
I, for one, think continuing education is a sham; if one of us longs for the knowledge of surveying, then requiring it is a joke. they've been doing it all along. If someone else feels that continuing education is a joke, they already know it all; then that person will find a way to wiggle their way past it, unscathed.
Washington State allows a broad selection of ways to accumulate credits; it's not really that hard to do.
Dougie
Lookinatchya, post: 390275, member: 7988 wrote: ... not sure how many more easements / right of ways, adverse possession, riparian rights, how to do research presentations I can sit through.
Name a few topics that would be more interesting.
Lookinatchya, post: 390275, member: 7988 wrote: I'm all for continuing Ed but not sure how many more easements / right of ways, adverse possession, riparian rights, how to do research presentations I can sit through. Other than new technology, there is just not much else to discuss about the worlds second oldest profession. I do however enjoy networking and sharing ideas with fellow surveyors.
May I suggest attending a Surveyors Historical Society "Rendezvous" they are held once a year in various locations around the country. I promise you the presentations are unlike anything you have typically experienced. This years rendezvous is accredited for 7hrs (NY & VT) and 9hrs in most other states.
Jim Vianna,
SHS 2016 Rendezvous chair
California does not have CE requirements, although they have been discussed for years. There is a bill on the Governor's desk right now that will, if signed, implement an "assessment" of licensees upon license renewal. This assessment will focus on administrative matters that are most often the focus of enforcement actions by our Board.
It is unfortunate that the NGS does not offer CE credits for attending their monthly webinar series presentations. At this time, they are deemed "informational only" but they often contain very valuable educational material with regards to utilizing and understanding their suite of products and services. These alone could comprise 12 hours a year with the instructors being some of the most qualified imaginable. Granted, it wouldn't boundary related or state specific training, but would still very much be considered improving one's abilities as a professional land surveyor, IMO.
Scotland, post: 390308, member: 559 wrote: I wouldn't mind sitting through one of your presentations. Where do you present?
Nebraska, Kansas and South Dakota. I will ne next speaking at the South Dakota conference in early January 2017.
RADAR, post: 390326, member: 413 wrote: I'm not sure I understand why you feel this way?
In the midst of survival, forgetting that there are other ways of getting PDH's besides going to the conferences. Or even that there is a place to get the requirements from the horse's mouth.
Radar, thanks for posting that link. Looks like I did a variety of things that count as PDH while pursuing my usual serendipities over the last couple years, so big relief there... I probably would have sent in the "inactivate my license" form tomorrow without bothering to look it up, just to end the worry.
I've been hitting the conferences and seminars since about 88. I learn something at every one. The sole exception was a disaster of a combined CE and PLS conference on subdivisions. It was 3 days of how to subvert the rules in one particular County.
My biggest issue is the record keeping. I copied my stuff during a job change last year. The thumb drive died and the backup email stripped the attachment because it was too big. I have since rebuilt the log from records, but I could have been dinged hard. Rules that put me below somebody that can pencil whip a log rub me wrong...
I have typically gone to 1 to 2 seminars per year plus the annual state conference since the mid to late 80s. There have been some exceptions, but for the most part, I've found that someone attending will get out of the session only as much as they decide to. Many of the sessions I've attended have covered the same or similar ground as others I'd been to sometime previous, but in most instances, each speaker has a different approach, some different experience, or perhaps just a different way of saying some of the same things that add to my understanding of the topic.
If my goal is to identify the flaws in the presentation, the info, or the speaker's knowledge or manner of presenting, then I'm sure I would be able to identify the shortcomings in each. But finding and pointing out flaws doesn't particularly help me or advance my knowledge, so what's the point?
There are some that stand out for me as having been particularly useful, and a few that stand out as not so useful. Two that are fairly recent that stand out as not so useful were at a recent state conference. In one, the speaker was clear and engaging, he had easy to follow slides, and his presentation was well organized. The problem was that he was speaking on a topic that he knew little about and he was almost entirely wrong in what he presented. In the other, the speaker was very knowledgeable, had good info, but mostly read from his loose leaf notes that the audience didn't have, didn't speak clearly most of the time, and had almost no useful info on his very few slides. Both started with standing room only audiences. The practiced speaker providing bad info kept a full audience until the end because he was easy to listen to. The other guy who needs a lot more practice public speaking but had good info lost 2/3 of his audience before he was done because his presentation was very difficult to follow.
When I prepare a presentation, I aim for about 1 slide per each minute and a half. I recently gave a presentation for which my prep time got cut short by extenuating circumstances, and I ended up trying to put too much info on too few slides. As a result, some remained interested and others not so much. In the feedback, it was also apparent which forms were filled out by those who attended by choice and those who attended because their boss told them to.
I've found, both from the perspective of someone in the audience and as a presenter, that the best combination is to have handouts with detailed info, and a slide presentation that hits the highlights or summarizes concepts into easily digestible amounts of info. That allows for a good deal of flexibility in my own discussion, and for back & forth discussion with the audience. It also helps me to place more focus, as a speaker, on the audience, where if I have too much info per slide, I tend to spend too much of my time facing the slides. John Stahl and Jerry Broadus both are very good at this, providing a presentation that moves along at a good pace and holds your attention, and also providing a manual or booklet (although that term seems to minimize it too much) as a handout that is packed with all the detailed info and discussion for reference well after the presentation is over.
Most of my career has been in states that didn't require continuing education while I was there. In those places, there are usually a pretty high percentage who chose to attend of their own accord because they wanted to learn something, and to lesser amounts, those who attend because the boss said they should, and those who attend simply because it gives them a day out of the office (or out of the field) for which they get paid with no expectation of productivity. I never understood that last bunch, although they always seem to be there. If you have the choice, and have no expectation or desire to learn anything, why go?
Where there is a requirement to acquire so many CEUs or PDHs per licensing period, I don't see it as a benefit to those who don't want to go and who have no intention of learning anything, even if it is a good presentation with new info. Some people are just determined to turn it into a no-value experience out of stubbornness because someone said they have to go.
Where I see the value in a CEU requirement is for those licensees who work for someone else, who would want to go and who would get something of value out of it, but don't have the opportunity because the boss or organization they work for won't pay for it, or perhaps won't even allow the time off for the employee to go unpaid and at their own expense. It might be a hierarchal thing where only partners or department heads are sent to such training (often a waste as those folks are usually wrapped up in management and/or marketing related functions) while those actually doing the work where the knowledge would be of value haven't yet "earned the right" to go screw off, uhh, I mean be given the opportunity to learn new things that they can then disseminate amongst their staff. Or, just as often, the organization is run by members of some other profession and they think that "professional" development for surveyors is an oxymoron. Or, probably most often, it's not a requirement, so is therefore an unnecessary expense and whether or not the knowledge an employee might gain would be useful is irrelevant (besides, if they get too more knowledge, they might get the idea to ask for a raise, supposing themselves to be a more valuable employee).
ppm, post: 390314, member: 6808 wrote: Pretty hard to call it "Continuing Education" when some states don't require any formal education to be licensed to begin with.
My take, call it Professional Development, and let people teach a class of students, give a presentation at a Town Hall meeting, or sit at a table at a college and career day program. Anything to further either their education OR develop the profession.
Seems strange to me too. If you don't need a surveying degree to get a license, then what the heck is continuing education in a classroom? If the State is all about experience and a test, then why not more experience and/or another test every year? Just makes no sense to me.
half bubble, post: 390368, member: 175 wrote: In the midst of survival, forgetting that there are other ways of getting PDH's besides going to the conferences. Or even that there is a place to get the requirements from the horse's mouth.
Radar, thanks for posting that link. Looks like I did a variety of things that count as PDH while pursuing my usual serendipities over the last couple years, so big relief there... I probably would have sent in the "inactivate my license" form tomorrow without bothering to look it up, just to end the worry.
My father ran into bad health for a few years. Started with a heart attack and went through a plethora of things including an internal pump to pump the blood, to finally a heart transplant.
He was real bad for a long time but thank the Lord he's now doing very good. But during those years he was barely able to walk 10 feet, let alone do his continuing education.
He was able to file for an extension due to his health reasons and it was granted. You can look into this if health really impeded your ability to complete your credits. I'm sure most states, if not all, have something like this.
