NSW (Australia) says no. Period. You need a Bachelor of Surveying degree, which is 4 years at University. Collage degrees are not allowed at all, but can be used as credits towards your Uni degree. But the Uni degree is mandatory. Then you need to do a certain number of different physical projects for roughly two years, and these must be done under the supervision / mentorship of a Registered Surveyor. Then you do your final test. Only then can you apply for registration.
I can't vouch for the other states.
So it's a minimum 6 year process, with a minimum of 4 years of study. But if things have changed since Jesus was a boy then I will gladly stand corrected.
Just to clear something up, Anericans don't distinguish between a college degree and a university degree like the rest of the world. There are differences between?ÿ colleges and universities in the US, but they are?ÿ not as clear as most of the world.?ÿ Many colleges grant four year bachelor's degrees that are as well respected as many university degrees.
When Americans say, "go to college" they could mean any post secondary education.?ÿ?ÿ
An advanced education can be distinguished from 4 year Professional Job Preparation Study.
The Lawyers and Physicians require an advanced education first then professional job training school.
Yes. Going to college and going to the university are generally meant as the same thing. For the most part a BS is a BS and a BA is a BA whether from a four-year institution labeled "Something College" or "Something University". Within very narrow fields of study certain institutions are recognized as being more revered but that does nothing to assure that their graduates are more highly skilled than those who attended other institutions. They have that potential but there is no assurance they did more than the minimum to graduate.
For most four-year degrees it seems close to half of the requirements for that degree could be applied to a very wide range of degrees. This allows the student to change their major without too much damage or extra semesters of study. It is the major-specific courses that matter. No one studying journalism is going to volunteer to study something like thermodynamics (plus its prerequisites). Similarly, very few who are studying electrical engineering volunteer to study something in horticultural therapy. It happens, but rarely. A significant purpose of "university" studies is to offer that very wide range of course work so that the eventual graduate "may have" studied in areas beyond the hard core requirements unique to their degree standards. It is also assumed that being surrounded by students aspiring to a wide variety of majors will somewhat rub off on the average student by socializing with those fellow students pursuing those other majors. A two-year tech school where everyone is focused on the same program does not offer such a breadth of social experience.
Many years ago I worked daily with an extremely wide range of highly educated people from all over the US and around the world. That was a whirlwind of potential learning for my young mind. One minute I'm on a phone call with the dean of an engineering college within a world-renowned university and a few minutes later I'm in discussion with several engineers who all focus on the same specific engineering design problem for major agricultural equipment manufacturers. An hour or two later I might be coordinating with one of the high muckety-mucks sitting in a humongous building in downtown D.C. working for USDA with thousands of workers under his direction. Shortly after that I might be in communication with a student who was one of the recognized leaders of the profession at the pre-professional level. Then one of my co-workers might wander into my office just to shoot the breeze and reminisce about his 60 years of experiences, including his technical duties during WWII in the European Theater of Operations. All of this was like a giant funnel trying to load my brain almost every day at work. It was also incredibly stressful to attempt to perform at a very high level every day so as to blend in with all of these great people. One thing that was well learned was that the initial education is not what defines the potential of the individual. Some pursue one specific thing and stick to that at the grunt worker level for the next 50 years. That is what makes their life happy. Others must take that initial education as a springboard to find the opportunities that widen their experiences and continuing education over the decades. Then their personal attributes will shine in their chosen employment and they will be happy. One size does not fit all.
That fellow you see a few blocks down the street from your home who you notice spends a great deal of time beautifying the landscape around his modest home may have helped put Neil Armstrong on the Moon or invented some widget that everyone today relies on or performed with the New York Philharmonic Orchestra for decades or drove a cab. All you see about that person is what you allow yourself to see. You have no idea if he ever attended college or university or tech school or military training or nothing past sixth grade. He might be the person who is effectively the library from which you would want to check out books if you only knew he was that library.
Right, the distinction between the US and the test if the world is that the advanced education may have come from a "College".
Interesting discussion.?ÿ My path was graduating from high school as a National Merit Scholar and gaining a BA from an (expensive) 4 year college in Chemistry.?ÿ But my summer internships involved working seasonally for BLM and the USFS and I just couldn't face another two years of grad school in the lab studying chelate chemistry so worked for the USFS seasonally for a coupla years as a survey technician and wintered as a ski instructor to feed myself.?ÿ Found work as a full time surveyor for a five man engineering firm for a coupla years, then a job as the County Surveyor (not County Engineer) for four years.?ÿ In my State a college degree and four years of supervised experience qualified so I took the test and passed the first time, #2 on the list of 14 passers when the test was two 8 hour days long, with bluebooked narrative questions (show your work).?ÿ The decades passed and I continually moved up the ladder by switching States, obtaining another LS license by examination, and worked in the field 'till I was about 35, then became an office puke running complicated big time surveying operations in So. Cal.?ÿ Retired comfortably 5 years ago.
How did that happen??ÿ Well, from when I got the bug I was a voracious consumer of the literature, attended the ACSM conventions every year, spent a year commuting to the BLM Cadastral Survey course 100 miles distant every month, a Joe Bell aficionado, computer junky, attended endless State/commercial association seminars, etc.?ÿ I was hungry for knowledge.
So what's the takeaway??ÿ A quality liberal arts degree in any discipline is worthy training for an LS concerning communication skills, technical science understanding, interpersonal skills and critical thinking.?ÿ Another four years of practice with references should allow one to sit for the exam.?ÿ I opposed the concept that "you have to have a surveying degree" or you can't ever sit for the exam, and oppose the mandatory continuing education requirements as mere cash cows for self declared experts. It does not weed out the bad players.
But that's just me.?ÿ Nowadays it seems if you plod through a mere technical 2-4 year degree, then do your 4 year's time, you can sit for the dumbed down exam, do the continuing education thing and practice with abandon concerning ethics, bad surveying, cutthroat pricing and you'll not get caught.?ÿ There's the crux.?ÿ Unlike doctors and lawyers we must self police our profession because our boards are weak and underfunded, report transgressions aggressively, whenever you encounter them.?ÿ I know it's hard to squeal on our fellow surveyors but that's what it will take to clean up the mess we're in now.
So what's the takeaway??ÿ A quality liberal arts degree in any discipline is worthy training for an LS concerning communication skills, technical science understanding, interpersonal skills and critical thinking.?ÿ?ÿ
I mostly think this is right, and it is a better way than an ABET degree, but I do think that either?ÿ some formal quality controlled survey specific education (especially law), or some kind of hellish comprehensive test is also required. Their is no quality control of the experience required, and the PS and the state tests are nowhere near comprehensive enough to rely on.?ÿ
New York is in the process of requiring a 4 yr degree.?ÿ I find it somewhat suspicious that this has occurred at the same time that enrollment has fallen to almost zilch at the only NY school offering a 4 yr surveying degree....
I've followed some BSc surveyors, and, well, meh...
especially law
A boundary surveying license should require a good dose of the appropriate land and boundary law. An actual degree?ÿ doesn't seem to guarantee that.?ÿ Measurement and minimal geodesy can be picked up by multiple methods, and incompetence or competence in measurement will soon be obvious. The legal part of it can be messed up for a long time before anybody notices, and hard to fix.
An ABET degree certainly doesn't guarantee any boundary law beyond the absolute basics, but that doesn't mean that formal education isn't the best way to ensure a boundary a good boundary law background.
Georgia allows it with "Experience acceptable to the Board".?ÿ Good luck with that.
Andy
This, technically, is also true in Ontario.?ÿ That being said, I have only ever heard it happening once.?ÿ In defence of that one person who obtained it by those means, 5 minutes of speaking w/ him will show why he clearly deserved it.?ÿ He is frequently called upon for presentations to university classes and is sought after for high profile cadastral law cases.
I've seen posts here that implied or stated outright that the only way one can learn to read, write, and speak, or learn how things work, or learn survey law, is by sitting in a college classroom. With all due respect, that's a load of elitist horse manure. Anyone with an inquiring mind who knows how to read and isn't afraid to work can learn all of those things. School doesn't teach you the things you need to know to be successful, it prepares you and positions you to be able to acquire that knowledge. The adage that there is no substitute for experience is just as true in surveying as in any other part of life. A degree is only one bullet point on a resume, albeit a very important one.
I'm a strong believer in higher education, and I've been a strong supporter of and advocate for our local Geomatics program for the last fifteen years or so. Both of my sons are college graduates, and one of them has degrees in Geomatics and Mathematics from said local program. But I've seen plenty of graduates from that program who couldn't survey their way out of a shoe box.
The requirement for a four year degree is slamming the door on licensure for a lot of good, highly qualified survey industry professionals; the lack of an alternate path is stifling the growth of a profession whose practitioners are dwindling in number with each passing year. It should be up to the board to determine if an individual is qualified to sit for licensure, regardless of the path they took to get there. In no way do I mean to suggest that the profession should lower its standards or accept unqualified individuals as candidates for licensure; I'm just saying that a four year degree should not by any means be the only accepted route.
Just feel it needs to be said again...no license holder (insert profession here) is disciplined or has a license revoked due to a lack of education.
There are many, MANY very highly educated license holders (insert profession here) that fail to practice properly for many reasons.?ÿ Lack of education from a college or university is not one of those reasons.
@aliquot I think the answer lies in two things you mentioned elsewhere: the tests are too easy and the experience requirement is nominal. I think we could take a lesson from actuaries, who typically get an undergraduate degree in some other field, but who need that educational background + tons of self-study to pass the actuarial exams. As long as the testing for our profession is this easy and the experience requirement is maintaining a pulse for 4 years, I don't think we'll make much forward motion.
Of course there are other ways besides a four year degree, and of course there are people who can gain the needed skills without a degree, but those are exceptionally intelligent people. Surveying does not attract many of those, and it shows. Sure there a plenty of awful surveyors who have degrees, but few will argue that there are fewer really bad surveyors with degrees than without.
Alternative ways to a licence would be great, but how do we replace the degree as a way of proving to the boards that an applicant has the ability and willingness to learn, and has the skills to interact professionally. I know a degree isn't foolproof, but we would need to replace it with something as good or better.
Ideally a series of tests and interviews could be arranged, but who is going to write those tests, judge the results, and pay for it all?
Although a bit off topic, I think it was an unfortunate consequence of going to computer based testing (multiple choice) that we no longer have the opportunity to be deeply involved in the exam process. I was involved in various aspects, including exam development, but it all started with grading. I found the experience to be deeply rewarding and educational. I believe it made better surveyors out of everyone who ever was involved with the process. It certainly removed any excuses they had to say they "didn't know better" in their practice of the profession. I believe they carried that with them and impart it on their peers as appropriate. Several of the people involved during the period I was are active on this board, which I think is reflective, at least in part, of the experience and perspective we gained.
I am not an advocate of the degree requirement as the only path to licensing. I feel no need to defend that stance here. Doing so won't change opinions and I don't need or desire to change mine.
I earned my license in Maine the first year they dropped the essay requirement for their state specific exam. I was a bit let down. An essay or a deed description would be a great way to test writing skills.
You are right. I don't think either stringent reviews of experien or crafting good exams will be very easy though.
If I ran the world, which I don't obviously, I would require a Liberal Arts degree with the usual experience requirement and exams. Boundary Surveying, which affects the most expensive thing most people own, should require some post-graduate training but it seems unlikely the Profession would support that.
Maybe I would allow ABET degreed Engineers to be licensed with some deprogramming, (not really, just kidding).
Good to hear from You Warren, hope everything is awesome up their in the hills. I'm roasting in the desert for a while until I can get back there.
And for the record, Prof Stoughton was not only exciting at times, but scary, hilarious, critical and acknowledging and provided at times brutal but true and constructive feedback.?ÿ He gave me an F for my first drafting lettering lab because he couldn't read my chicken scratch......?ÿ good times! I learned tons in the short time I had there, immeasurable to button pushing for sure. ?ÿ
