He wrote an excellent column in the July American Surveyor about signing ridiculous certificates.
Someone submitted a ridiculous certificate they refused to sign and got the obligatory, "every other surveyor signed it". Kent then goes on to dissect what all was wrong with it.
At the end, referring to the other surveyors, he asked the $64,000 question. "What does it take to educate them?"
Gary is a tremendous teacher. I am very fortunate that he was my mentor in the early 1990s.
A few years ago at a continuing education course, we were told that in Texas you don't even need a certification. After thinking about this and studying our rules, I agreed with the instructor. I haven't put a certification on a plat in years, only for ALTA/ACSM surveys. My statement is 'Surveyed by me on August 2, 2015'. Then seal and signature. I'm sure this isn't possible in some States. Drives my dad crazy that I do this because he's been using a certification that he developed for most of his career.
Also, the rules regarding certificates and ALTA/ACSM surveys is one reason I really like doing them. We don't negotiate certifications because the rules make the language very clear. Gary Kent has done a lot for us as surveyors in this regard and I exploit the results of his efforts as much as possible.
Shawn Billings, post: 330044, member: 6521 wrote: Also, the rules regarding certificates and ALTA/ACSM surveys is one reason I really like doing them. We don't negotiate certifications because the rules make the language very clear. Gary Kent has done a lot for us as surveyors in this regard and I exploit the results of his efforts as much as possible.
I guess I'm lucky, I've got a couple of regular clients that only expect me to sign the standard certification. It's been several years since one of those abominations has come across my desk.
Peter Ehlert, post: 330042, member: 60 wrote: http://www.amerisurv.com/content/view/14016/153/
The answer to Gary's question is that we have to remove the ignorant surveyors who perform these from practice, and we have to make registration far, far more difficult, perhaps even requiring education (GASP!)
Jim in AZ, post: 330060, member: 249 wrote: The answer to Gary's question is that we have to remove the ignorant surveyors who perform these from practice, and we have to make registration far, far more difficult, perhaps even requiring education (GASP!)
All that will do is allow too few people to be licensed, which will create a shortage, which will then cause people to be grandfathered in, or the requirements loosened.
Tommy Young, post: 330062, member: 703 wrote: All that will do is allow too few people to be licensed, which will create a shortage, which will then cause people to be grandfathered in, or the requirements loosened.
I don't see that problem among engineers and architects. The only difference is they don't charge chump change for their services and a lot of surveyors do. I'm glad Texas has an education requirement
Cyril Turner, post: 330064, member: 159 wrote: I don't see that problem among engineers and architects. The only difference is they don't charge chump change for their services and a lot of surveyors do. I'm glad Texas has an education requirement
It may seem hypocritical of me because I took the experience route to licensure, but I agree with you. I'm sure the same arguments were made by some engineers when they were first required to become licensed, and it hasn't hurt their profession. It's just that no one expects an engineer to work for peanuts today, as I suspect they once did.
When did schools start teaching critical thought?
This problem is all about reading, comprehending, and thinking. Tests and Diplomas do not provide that.
If education is the answer to the certificate delimma, there is no need to kick out all of the experienced surveyors and wait for a shiny new day when all surveyors are degreed. Educate those that are there now.
Also, be careful not to assume that education is synonymous with character or ethics.
Peter Ehlert, post: 330079, member: 60 wrote: When did schools start teaching critical thought?
This problem is all about reading, comprehending, and thinking. Tests and Diplomas do not provide that.
1. Ancient Greece...they took some off then started teaching it again in the early Middle Ages.
2. Reading, comprehension, and thinking is just about the only thing I was tested on in college.
Tommy Young, post: 329975, member: 703 wrote: He wrote an excellent column in the July American Surveyor about signing ridiculous certificates.
Someone submitted a ridiculous certificate they refused to sign and got the obligatory, "every other surveyor signed it". Kent then goes on to dissect what all was wrong with it.
At the end, referring to the other surveyors, he asked the $64,000 question. "What does it take to educate them?"
I don't do ATLA's (a few in the past). These cert's are crazy though. I don't think the lenders or whoever are really gaining that much by asking for (or getting) them. It's just feel good stupid paper. I'd guess that most of the surveyor's that sign this stuff couldn't really pay a claim nor would their insurance. So it's low cost insurance for the lender that really won't pay but it seems there are those that still keep asking for these kind of cert's. I wonder if they buy cheap bridges also?
Peter Ehlert, post: 330079, member: 60 wrote: When did schools start teaching critical thought?
This problem is all about reading, comprehending, and thinking. Tests and Diplomas do not provide that.
I agree with that thought. I recently heard (read?) someone say, "Our children aren't being educated, they're being trained."
That, of course, applies to older students, as well.
Don
C Billingsley, post: 330076, member: 1965 wrote: It may seem hypocritical of me because I took the experience route to licensure, but I agree with you. I'm sure the same arguments were made by some engineers when they were first required to become licensed, and it hasn't hurt their profession. It's just that no one expects an engineer to work for peanuts today, as I suspect they once did.
I took the experience, education, and exam route. Guess I can advocate for any of them, but I think a mix is probably the best way. I use a certification that states the map was based on actual field measurements performed by me or under my direct supervision. Took that from an older surveyor in the area who is now deceased. He had a bachelor degree in forestry earned in the 1960's I think. So I learned it from experience, via someone else's education, but certainly not from exams. Maybe we could get rid of the exams?
Cyril Turner, post: 330064, member: 159 wrote: I don't see that problem among engineers and architects. The only difference is they don't charge chump change for their services and a lot of surveyors do. I'm glad Texas has an education requirement
The fields aren't comparable right now due to the huge gap in compensation.
Shawn Billings, post: 330044, member: 6521 wrote: A few years ago at a continuing education course, we were told that in Texas you don't even need a certification. After thinking about this and studying our rules, I agreed with the instructor. I haven't put a certification on a plat in years, only for ALTA/ACSM surveys. My statement is 'Surveyed by me on August 2, 2015'. Then seal and signature. I'm sure this isn't possible in some States. Drives my dad crazy that I do this because he's been using a certification that he developed for most of his career.
Also, the rules regarding certificates and ALTA/ACSM surveys is one reason I really like doing them. We don't negotiate certifications because the rules make the language very clear. Gary Kent has done a lot for us as surveyors in this regard and I exploit the results of his efforts as much as possible.
In a few rare instances certifications are required here, almost everything I sign does not get one.
But be careful, it's been argued that leaving out too much can actually place more liability on the surveyor, just putting the seal and signature may be worse than one of those long winded certs.
MightyMoe, post: 330144, member: 700 wrote: In a few rare instances certifications are required here, almost everything I sign does not get one.
But be careful, it's been argued that leaving out too much can actually place more liability on the surveyor, just putting the seal and signature may be worse than one of those long winded certs.
Not true. A surveyor is always liable for malpractice/professional negligence. The certification merely extends "contractual" liability expressly to those certified to; even with no certification the surveyor is liable to the client and those they know will be relying on the survey to the extent of the purpose of the survey. The text of the certification "can" add contractual promises that go above and beyond the minimal requirements you need to fulfill to avoid professional negligence. But, it doesn't have to. If it does, then you should charge more for the added work and liability. In many jurisdictions you can be sued for breach of contract for a much longer time period than a claim of malpractice. It depends on how you look at; fewer promises in the certification mean fewer things you could be sued for, but it also means fewer things you can charge extra for.
Duane Frymire, post: 330179, member: 110 wrote: Not true. A surveyor is always liable for malpractice/professional negligence. The certification merely extends "contractual" liability expressly to those certified to; even with no certification the surveyor is liable to the client and those they know will be relying on the survey to the extent of the purpose of the survey. The text of the certification "can" add contractual promises that go above and beyond the minimal requirements you need to fulfill to avoid professional negligence. But, it doesn't have to. If it does, then you should charge more for the added work and liability. In many jurisdictions you can be sued for breach of contract for a much longer time period than a claim of malpractice. It depends on how you look at; fewer promises in the certification mean fewer things you could be sued for, but it also means fewer things you can charge extra for.
Actually I'm not talking about ALTA types of certs, there are many other ones that are required, the ones I deal with are on subdivision plats, water rights and such.
Some of these have wordings that are required so you are stuck, although, I know some surveyors who refuse to use them and say see my lawyer.
Those certificates don't certify "to" anyone in particular, but they are often fraught with buzz words that shouldn't be on a certificate.
I prefer to put on a surveyors statement that basically says I'm the one in responsible charge of the survey that created the map.
For me the ALTA certificate happens once or twice a year and I've always used the standard one.
But just a seal and signature "opens" you up to many things, heck check out a BLM plat and see the disclaimers on it, there is a reason for them.
Shawn Billings, post: 330044, member: 6521 wrote: A few years ago at a continuing education course, we were told that in Texas you don't even need a certification. After thinking about this and studying our rules, I agreed with the instructor. ..... My statement is 'Surveyed by me on August 2, 2015'. Then seal and signature.
Suppose I do a survey and sign and seal it, but no specific "certification". My map turns out to be fouled up and I'm called before the board to explain my shortcomings.
"I never actually certified that my map was correct", says I.
"Oh", says the board, "that's alright then. Carry on!"
NOT!
Obviously your seal is your certification and your signature is acknowledgement that you placed the seal.
