Nothing against the rest of you, but this is CA specific and I know some CA surveyors frequent this forum but may not check out the CLSA forum. I'm sure others would have excellent input, but the CA Board really only wants input from surveyors licensed and practicing in CA.
BPELSG has developed an online Occupational Analysis "survey" (I really hate using that term for a questionnaire, but they are measuring something, and that's what they call it, so...).
This is for all CA licensed surveyors to participate in. there are over 4000 active survey licenses, and if 10% were to participate, some really useful data could come out of it.
The purpose of this "survey" is to determine what aspects of practice PLSs spend their time on, and what practicing PLSs (you) perceive to be important for the newly licensed surveyor to be able to do and to know.
The results will determine the content mix of the CA state specific PLS exam for the next several years. So if you've ever thought that a particular area of practice has been regularly under-represented of over-represented on the exam, here's your chance to have input and affect the balance of exam content.
The whole thing takes about 45 minutes +/- barring interruptions. But if you are interrupted, you can save your progress at the end of each page so that when you come back, you start where you left off.
Thanks to the 20 or so PLSs who Beta-tested and offered comments for improvement over the last couple of weeks. The resulting "survey" covers most practice aspects pretty well. If you were a Beta-tester, please take the time to go through the final "survey" as these will be the results analyzed.
Here's the web address: BPELSG PLS Occupational Analysis Online "Survey"
Thanks in advance for your participation.
Typical online survey, not well developed, not well formatted and too much redundancy. I saw at least 30 questions that were asked more than once. Don't waste my time with redundancy.
No places for recommendations that aren't part of the format. Too rigid.
I was NOT impressed. The results will be used but will be basically useless.
Stephen
Had you paid attention, you would have noticed that the redundancy was both intentional and necessary. Each page was on a different aspect of work (I.e. Office research and calcs, and field work).
In each of those for instance, the person working in that capacity needs to know how to read construction plans and spot discrepancies. What you were supposed to have indicated was how often each task is performed and each type of knowledge used in each aspect of practice, and how important those are for the newly licensed surveyor. This was clearly spelled out in the instructions.
But you've just shown me two skills which were not included in the "survey" but should have been: reading comprehension and ability to follow directions.
"Don't waste my time with redundancy.". That's a pretty astounding statement coming from a surveyor.
May I suggest a search on this site for a certain Ric Moore CA PLS, and contact him. He would be an authority to questions regarding CA exams.
I'd answer the questions, but I am one of the many unfortunate souls who endured the totally rediculous process of sitting for that exam, unsuccessfully. Never again, thank you very much.
Stephen,
I know you're licensed in CA and welcome your participation in the occupational analysis. What is needed is your expertise in practicing land surveying in CA, not your critique of the questionaire.
During the development meetings is when that input is necessary and if you are ever in CA and want to participate in the exam development meetings, please feel free to contact me as i welcome your involvement there as well.
Ric Moore
> I'd answer the questions, but I am one of the many unfortunate souls who endured the totally rediculous process of sitting for that exam, unsuccessfully. Never again, thank you very much.
I found the exam to be challenging, but in no way rediculous. It measured, in my opinion, skills that are used on a continual basis by most surveyors. It was similar to the Oregon State Specific exam.
DJJ
Evan
Stephen's post brings up something to consider in that the type of survey is aimed towards those who understand exam development and grading area categorization.
As such, those who are not in tune with the subtle differences necessary to define the various categories, will perhaps provide answers that don't necessarily provide the subtle differences sought.
What I mean is if the person surveyed believes an understanding of the PLSS is the same weight regardless of the category, then the results of the survey might be skewed.
By the way, I took the survey and would have liked to have had an opportunity to provide written comments on each section. There were some areas where my answers could lead to alternate interpretations, plus I saw some areas for improvement. Otheriwise I thought the survey was a fair measure of the levels of understanding of what our role is and what should be tested.
thanks for the opportunity to provide the input.
IF "the CA Board really only wants input from surveyors licensed and practicing in CA." then those would be the people to ask.
A public questionnaire such as this can be filled out by anyone, anywhere. I could probably get someone to write an automated script to fill it out with random answers.
Worthless? Credible?
Why do I hear of this here and not a word from the Board? strange
