CST

I would guess it's has a lot to do with lack of knowledge about the program. I had to look it up to find out what CST meant. I thought it was a company that made survey supplies. 🙂

For years I kept a certification thru NICET. Anytime I told someone about it, I had to explain what it was. I finally dropped it simply because it didn't mean anything to the people I was working for.

James

Show me a state that has a lot of CSTs and I'll show you a state where some individual has really got behind the program and pushed.

I was interested in getting the CST before I got my LSIT. I was in NW Washington at that time. There was a guy in Spokane (hundreds of miles away) who was the CST coordinator for the state as I recall, and he was only kind of holding the space. Once I got my LSIT my personal interest in the CST waned.

At our company if you're not a PLS or an LSIT the CST is a requirement for advancement beyond a certain level. We just had 12 people take the Level I and we'll probably have a similar number taking the Level II shortly.

> ...and I ask myself why are some of the states so low?

Ok Roadie, I'm gonna bite on this trivia show. I agree that the map demonstrates some potential disparity, but is that really important? Not to mention the question of what do we do with this information?

Me almost thinks that a double map should be presented with red vs blue states. (I'm sure some beerleg geek will take that challenge) It's almost looking like the red guys have more, but I'm sure the contrary can be shown.

As stated below, I don't know what a CST is. Not that I have much concern, but I do think having credentials is key to advancement if that is the goal. When $35 a year makes or breaks you, ...hmmmmmmm I think most of us spend that on beverages per week.

I also had level III certified engineering technician through NICET, but like JaRo nobody knew what it was, so I finally dropped it, too. If I remember correctly, the yearly "dues" were more than state survey license fees. Certification consisted of a fairly difficult all day exam and yearly continuing education. I would have liked to have kept the certification, there just wasn't any, or at least enough, justification for it. I have heard there are some areas of the country where it means something, but not much where I'm at, or been, anyway. Too bad, I guess.

I'm not as familiar with Surveying Certification, but if I had it, I would keep it, at least until I got licensed, if that was in my career path. It will probably get more valuable with time.

> Is there really that little interest there, or are there other factors in play? States like AR and OK that only have a handful, are the few CST's coveted?

Sadly there aren't many advantages to getting you're CST. At least here in OK, most employers have no idea what it is or don't care. It gets you no closer to licensure as it does in the few states that allow that as a path to your LSIT. I would like to see it as an alternative to degrees (to replace long standing practice) because level IV is not an easy test and has years of practical experience attached to it. Perhaps if something like that happens, things will change.

> and I ask myself why are some of the states so low? I can understand places with low populations, but Cali, Il, and NY? Compared to Texas and Fl? Is there really that little interest there, or are there other factors in play?

Just a guess, but in CA pretty much all the large firms are signatory to a union contract that requires their members to advance through the union certification program (typically via formal apprenticeship). The small firms probably don't care about any certifications, so there's little incentive there.

My company is headed this way too. We probably make up 1/4 of the LA CST's and a small portion of the TX ones as well.

My company will pay you an increasing bonus for each level you pass.

For a while here in MD, I saw job ads which explicitly stated that the potential employee should have a CST of certain levels.

As of late, the ads for survey techs around here have been few and far between which has caused me to migrate to another hopefully more stable industry.

> > and I ask myself why are some of the states so low? I can understand places with low populations, but Cali, Il, and NY? Compared to Texas and Fl? Is there really that little interest there, or are there other factors in play?
>
> Just a guess, but in CA pretty much all the large firms are signatory to a union contract that requires their members to advance through the union certification program (typically via formal apprenticeship). The small firms probably don't care about any certifications, so there's little incentive there.

The OE certification program is quite different between Local 3 (N. CA) and Local 12 (S. CA). In Local 3, if an Apprentice logs enough hours, they become a Journeyman. The certification seems to be that the person wasn't fired before logging the required hours, so must know all he needs to know to be a Union Certified Journeyman Chainman. For advancement to I-man or Chief, the certification is that the employer needs a chief and tells the Union that the employee is qualified.

There are a few good Local 3 chiefs, but for the most part, if someone knows which buttons to push, reliably shows up for work, and happens to be working for a company that needs to field another crew in the next day or two, they become "certified" as a chief. Likewise, there are a few really good Local 3 chainmen, but there are also supposed journeymen that need to be retaught how to properly hold a prism pole or to set a point with reasonable efficiency on a weekly, or in the case of one journeyman I worked with, a daily basis.

In short, Local 3 field crews I've worked with have been no better, and perhaps a bit inferior to non-union field crews I've worked with in terms of knowledge, ability, and willingness to do what needs to be done to get the job completed.

In contrast, Local 12 has an agreement with a local community college that offers a 2-year Associates degree in surveying. As I recall, an Apprentice can not move on to Journeyman without completing the first year of courses, and a Journeyman Chainman cannot move on to Chief without completing the degree. Much more substantial training and some real standards attached to certification and advancement.

For Local 3, it's all about the dues that can be collected. The base dues are a percentage of the employee's pay, so the higher the position, the more dues collected. Actual ability is of little concern, as long as an employer will vouch for someone to be promoted or will continue keeping a dues paying member employed, that's plenty good enough for Local 3. That system may sound good on the surface in that the employer should be in the best position to make that evaluation, but in reality, many employers often settle for mediocre employees because tossing one back and replacing him with someone else from the hall may only get you someone as bad or worse. At least Local 12 attempts to justify the higher costs of their employees to member employers by having legitimate standards.

I've always thought that the CST certifications would be valuable to an employer both for existing employees and for having a known standard by which to evaluate applicants for open positions. Having looked over the informational materials on the program, it seems to me that if a person could pass the Level IV CST exam, that person would also be able to pass the LS exam. Which may be part of why it hasn't been widely promoted or accepted in CA.

It's quite possible that many CA LSs have looked at some of the sample questions for the upper CST levels and come away wondering if they would be able to pass. Can't have the unlicensed help looking smarter (or being better trained and more knowledgable) than the "professionals". Additionally, a training and exam program that maintains high standards for technicians is incompatible with the State Board's progression of dumbing down the LS exam.

I'll stop now before I go off on a rant.:-X

I can't comment on the current Local 3 program, as I've had no contact with it in the last 30 years other than to make employer payments to NCJAC. However, when I came through it we had to attend class once a week in the evenings, and it was a pretty structured classroom program with a knowledgeable and helpful instructor (Fred Seiji). I no longer recall whether or not you could advance on the basis of hours worked alone or if you had to pass the tests as well. I do know that if you were motivated and even reasonably smart, you could move right along and learn a lot in the process.

The recession of 1980 ended my participation, though by that time I was running a crew and didn't really need the apprenticeship gig anymore anyway. It was no substitute for a junior-college program anyway, and fortunately for me the program at Sacramento City College hadn't yet fallen prey to severe budget cuts. I got a lot out of the Sac City program, and might never have gotten my license without it.