eapls2708, post: 423514, member: 589 wrote: Another reason many examinees fail is because they have it in their head that "there's the exam/textbook way, and then there's the real world way", having the implication that the "exam way" has no real-world application, and the very different "real-world way" is the correct way. They end up convincing themselves that they have to provide an answer that is wrong in the real world in order to pass the exam.
In most instances, that's horse crap that will serve the examinee poorly in the exam and later in practice. In a relatively few instances, where the exam writers get to the upper limits of what might be considered minimal competence, will there be a difference in the principles applied between exam and real-world. I've seen it a couple times on exams in CA where the exam problem writer applied their own misunderstanding of a principle stated in BCLP or EPBL and elevated that misunderstanding above statutory or settled case law in the State. That's the unfortunate result of a problem author writing a problem that is just outside of their own level of competence and inadequate checks within the exam development/grading system.
Those instances where the "exam way" is counter to the "real-world way" are so rare that the examinee should generally not consider it as a factor. More often, when there's any difference, the "real-world way" the examinee understands is the wrong way.
The reason exam questions are often so simplistic compared to most real world scenarios is that the examiners are looking to test knowledge of specific principles and limit the given information only to that which is relevant to recognize and apply those principles. If they added all of the info that one would likely be able to obtain for a real-world survey, it would unfairly distract the examinee from the principles they are required to show competence with. Conversely, there will not be hidden facts in an exam problem which must be correctly assumed (guessed) by the examinee in order to correctly answer the questions.
Remember, although most surveys will present more complex problems, and diligent research and field work will usually yield much more info to consider, in practice, we are not limited to a few minutes to identify the correct applicable principle and work the problem through to a final answer. On an LS exam, the examinee who is properly budgeting their time may have, at most, 10 minutes to answer this particular question. To keep it fair for the examinee working under those time constraints and the pressures of an exam situation, the problem set ups must remain fairly simple.
The problem posted by the OP stated that all monuments found are original monuments. It does not state that any appear to have been disturbed, so to infer that is adding facts that were not given. Blocks 1 & 2 appear to be bordered by some manner of streets or alleys, but the title nature of those lands is immaterial to the question asked. First, I know of no jurisdiction where the terms in the document control over undisturbed original monuments. However, I have heard the lore that many surveyors believe that the government gets its full width on publicly dedicated streets. Nonsense likely originated by transactional real estate attorneys (as opposed to those actually familiar with boundary related case law) and perpetuated by engineers improperly teaching the last 3 or 4 generations of surveyors.
Streets are usually dedicated by a statement on the face of subdivision maps and sometimes by separate document that refers to the map. Occasionally, they are dedicated by document which does not refer to a map. If in reference to a map, it is the case that in all jurisdictions I'm aware of that a call for a map is a call for the survey it depicts and that the undisturbed original monuments placed during that survey are conclusive evidence of how and where that survey established lines & corners. where undisturbed original monuments exist, all dimensions are merely informational. That rule doesn't change because of what entity may own land or hold an easement on one side or the other of the originally marked line. The physical streets are the best evidence when undisturbed original monuments at block or lot corners cannot be found, and when it appears that the streets were placed according to the original survey, and where there is no reason to believe that the streets were not built according to the original survey and no reason to believe that the street locations have been altered since their original construction.
Ran off on a tangent discussion there for a few sentences... back to our regularly scheduled programming...
There are instances where, in the real-world, a diligent surveyor may find as little monumentation as shown in the OP's diagram, and no occupation that gives indication of having been established according to original monuments. In that respect, it is realistic of some potential circumstances.
If you, as an examinee have trouble getting past the "this doesn't reflect real-world" attitude and your knee-jerk answer of "I'd do more research/field work, etc.", imagine that the blocks are in a subdivision where the developer got as far as having done enough clearing activity to knock out most of the monumentation then abandoned the project, leaving it otherwise undeveloped. No streets, no occupation. Only a scattering of undisturbed monuments as shown.
When reading and answering exam questions, assume no facts that are not expressly given. Answer the question actually asked, not the question you might feel would be the most logical question to ask. Don't answer more than what is asked. In grading exams, I've seen many examples of an examinee turning a correct answer into a wrong one by providing explanations and justifications that weren't asked for and showing that they stumbled on a correct answer by luck while demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge of the topic or principle targeted by the question.
My experience is that exam questions such as this are a great learning tool, when coupled with a rebuttal session to discuss all the answers, such as this thread is doing. As a measure of competence, not as effective as more in depth multiple choice or questions requiring a written response. The question writer learns as much from the rebuttal as the exam takers at times. This particular question could be improved by adding "original and undisturbed" instead of merely "original". The question as stated presents two competing legal principles, either of which should be a correct answer without any further information, and reading nothing into the question.
The Texas Supreme Court has stated the real nature and limits of apportionment or proration in this way:
"In our opinion the rule as to apportionment or proration of excess is more correctly classified as a rule of construction, to be applied, like other rules of construction, when the facts of the particular case are [***12] such that its use best serves to carry into effect the intention of the surveyor, grantor or parties to the deed."
Great Plains Oil & Gas Co. et al v. Foundation Oil Company et al. (137 Tex. 324; 153 S.W.2d 452)
In the situation presented, the lots are undimensioned and there is no explicit statement of the intention of the subdivider beyond a guess that the lots were laid out with equal widths. The rule of apportionment or proration would be based upon an assumption not within the evidence presented.
eapls2708, post: 423514, member: 589 wrote: Another reason many examinees fail is because they have it in their head that "there's the exam/textbook way, and then there's the real world way", having the implication that the "exam way" has no real-world application, and the very different "real-world way" is the correct way. They end up convincing themselves that they have to provide an answer that is wrong in the real world in order to pass the exam.
In most instances, that's horse crap that will serve the examinee poorly in the exam and later in practice. In a relatively few instances, where the exam writers get to the upper limits of what might be considered minimal competence, will there be a difference in the principles applied between exam and real-world. I've seen it a couple times on exams in CA where the exam problem writer applied their own misunderstanding of a principle stated in BCLP or EPBL and elevated that misunderstanding above statutory or settled case law in the State. That's the unfortunate result of a problem author writing a problem that is just outside of their own level of competence and inadequate checks within the exam development/grading system.
Those instances where the "exam way" is counter to the "real-world way" are so rare that the examinee should generally not consider it as a factor. More often, when there's any difference, the "real-world way" the examinee understands is the wrong way.
The reason exam questions are often so simplistic compared to most real world scenarios is that the examiners are looking to test knowledge of specific principles and limit the given information only to that which is relevant to recognize and apply those principles. If they added all of the info that one would likely be able to obtain for a real-world survey, it would unfairly distract the examinee from the principles they are required to show competence with. Conversely, there will not be hidden facts in an exam problem which must be correctly assumed (guessed) by the examinee in order to correctly answer the questions.
Remember, although most surveys will present more complex problems, and diligent research and field work will usually yield much more info to consider, in practice, we are not limited to a few minutes to identify the correct applicable principle and work the problem through to a final answer. On an LS exam, the examinee who is properly budgeting their time may have, at most, 10 minutes to answer this particular question. To keep it fair for the examinee working under those time constraints and the pressures of an exam situation, the problem set ups must remain fairly simple.
The problem posted by the OP stated that all monuments found are original monuments. It does not state that any appear to have been disturbed, so to infer that is adding facts that were not given. Blocks 1 & 2 appear to be bordered by some manner of streets or alleys, but the title nature of those lands is immaterial to the question asked. First, I know of no jurisdiction where the terms in the document control over undisturbed original monuments. However, I have heard the lore that many surveyors believe that the government gets its full width on publicly dedicated streets. Nonsense likely originated by transactional real estate attorneys (as opposed to those actually familiar with boundary related case law) and perpetuated by engineers improperly teaching the last 3 or 4 generations of surveyors.
Streets are usually dedicated by a statement on the face of subdivision maps and sometimes by separate document that refers to the map. Occasionally, they are dedicated by document which does not refer to a map. If in reference to a map, it is the case that in all jurisdictions I'm aware of that a call for a map is a call for the survey it depicts and that the undisturbed original monuments placed during that survey are conclusive evidence of how and where that survey established lines & corners. where undisturbed original monuments exist, all dimensions are merely informational. That rule doesn't change because of what entity may own land or hold an easement on one side or the other of the originally marked line. The physical streets are the best evidence when undisturbed original monuments at block or lot corners cannot be found, and when it appears that the streets were placed according to the original survey, and where there is no reason to believe that the streets were not built according to the original survey and no reason to believe that the street locations have been altered since their original construction.
Ran off on a tangent discussion there for a few sentences... back to our regularly scheduled programming...
There are instances where, in the real-world, a diligent surveyor may find as little monumentation as shown in the OP's diagram, and no occupation that gives indication of having been established according to original monuments. In that respect, it is realistic of some potential circumstances.
If you, as an examinee have trouble getting past the "this doesn't reflect real-world" attitude and your knee-jerk answer of "I'd do more research/field work, etc.", imagine that the blocks are in a subdivision where the developer got as far as having done enough clearing activity to knock out most of the monumentation then abandoned the project, leaving it otherwise undeveloped. No streets, no occupation. Only a scattering of undisturbed monuments as shown.
When reading and answering exam questions, assume no facts that are not expressly given. Answer the question actually asked, not the question you might feel would be the most logical question to ask. Don't answer more than what is asked. In grading exams, I've seen many examples of an examinee turning a correct answer into a wrong one by providing explanations and justifications that weren't asked for and showing that they stumbled on a correct answer by luck while demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge of the topic or principle targeted by the question.
Great post, that covers all the points I was considering discussing as I read through this thread
eapls2708, post: 423514, member: 589 wrote: Another reason many examinees fail is because they have it in their head that "there's the exam/textbook way, and then there's the real world way", having the implication that the "exam way" has no real-world application, and the very different "real-world way" is the correct way. They end up convincing themselves that they have to provide an answer that is wrong in the real world in order to pass the exam.
In most instances, that's horse crap that will serve the examinee poorly in the exam and later in practice. In a relatively few instances, where the exam writers get to the upper limits of what might be considered minimal competence, will there be a difference in the principles applied between exam and real-world. I've seen it a couple times on exams in CA where the exam problem writer applied their own misunderstanding of a principle stated in BCLP or EPBL and elevated that misunderstanding above statutory or settled case law in the State. That's the unfortunate result of a problem author writing a problem that is just outside of their own level of competence and inadequate checks within the exam development/grading system.
Those instances where the "exam way" is counter to the "real-world way" are so rare that the examinee should generally not consider it as a factor. More often, when there's any difference, the "real-world way" the examinee understands is the wrong way.
The reason exam questions are often so simplistic compared to most real world scenarios is that the examiners are looking to test knowledge of specific principles and limit the given information only to that which is relevant to recognize and apply those principles. If they added all of the info that one would likely be able to obtain for a real-world survey, it would unfairly distract the examinee from the principles they are required to show competence with. Conversely, there will not be hidden facts in an exam problem which must be correctly assumed (guessed) by the examinee in order to correctly answer the questions.
Remember, although most surveys will present more complex problems, and diligent research and field work will usually yield much more info to consider, in practice, we are not limited to a few minutes to identify the correct applicable principle and work the problem through to a final answer. On an LS exam, the examinee who is properly budgeting their time may have, at most, 10 minutes to answer this particular question. To keep it fair for the examinee working under those time constraints and the pressures of an exam situation, the problem set ups must remain fairly simple.
The problem posted by the OP stated that all monuments found are original monuments. It does not state that any appear to have been disturbed, so to infer that is adding facts that were not given. Blocks 1 & 2 appear to be bordered by some manner of streets or alleys, but the title nature of those lands is immaterial to the question asked. First, I know of no jurisdiction where the terms in the document control over undisturbed original monuments. However, I have heard the lore that many surveyors believe that the government gets its full width on publicly dedicated streets. Nonsense likely originated by transactional real estate attorneys (as opposed to those actually familiar with boundary related case law) and perpetuated by engineers improperly teaching the last 3 or 4 generations of surveyors.
Streets are usually dedicated by a statement on the face of subdivision maps and sometimes by separate document that refers to the map. Occasionally, they are dedicated by document which does not refer to a map. If in reference to a map, it is the case that in all jurisdictions I'm aware of that a call for a map is a call for the survey it depicts and that the undisturbed original monuments placed during that survey are conclusive evidence of how and where that survey established lines & corners. where undisturbed original monuments exist, all dimensions are merely informational. That rule doesn't change because of what entity may own land or hold an easement on one side or the other of the originally marked line. The physical streets are the best evidence when undisturbed original monuments at block or lot corners cannot be found, and when it appears that the streets were placed according to the original survey, and where there is no reason to believe that the streets were not built according to the original survey and no reason to believe that the street locations have been altered since their original construction.
Ran off on a tangent discussion there for a few sentences... back to our regularly scheduled programming...
There are instances where, in the real-world, a diligent surveyor may find as little monumentation as shown in the OP's diagram, and no occupation that gives indication of having been established according to original monuments. In that respect, it is realistic of some potential circumstances.
If you, as an examinee have trouble getting past the "this doesn't reflect real-world" attitude and your knee-jerk answer of "I'd do more research/field work, etc.", imagine that the blocks are in a subdivision where the developer got as far as having done enough clearing activity to knock out most of the monumentation then abandoned the project, leaving it otherwise undeveloped. No streets, no occupation. Only a scattering of undisturbed monuments as shown.
When reading and answering exam questions, assume no facts that are not expressly given. Answer the question actually asked, not the question you might feel would be the most logical question to ask. Don't answer more than what is asked. In grading exams, I've seen many examples of an examinee turning a correct answer into a wrong one by providing explanations and justifications that weren't asked for and showing that they stumbled on a correct answer by luck while demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge of the topic or principle targeted by the question.
Well said!
My experiences grading the California PLS exam mirror what Evan has described. The test is now computer based, multiple choice, which most certainly eliminated the "shoot myself in the foot" answers we use to see, where the correct answer was provided, but then the examinee decided to use a few extra minutes to wow the graders with the depth of their knowledge (for no possible gain), only to state something incorrect, thus negating their originally correct answer. Although I had severe restrictions on what I was able to share about the exam, the one thing I always told candidates was just what Evan said: Only answer the question that is asked and move on. Doing anything more is 100% wrought with negative consequences. At the very least, you are wasting valuable time.
I have also seen questions, or elements of questions, that fit the category Evan described regarding a problem author not grasping the minimal competency concept (and the exam development team not catching it). One year, out of about 400 examinees, not one person answered one of the question elements correctly (and roughly 30% of them passed the exam). The problem author, who was the grading team leader, was livid and outraged that examinees could all be so stupid, when in fact his question, a poorly disguised attempt to test on error analysis, was totally flawed and thus removed from the exam during the standards setting phase of the exam process.
SPMPLS, post: 423881, member: 11785 wrote: .....One year, out of about 400 examinees, not one person answered one of the question elements correctly (and roughly 30% of them passed the exam). The problem author, who was the grading team leader, was livid and outraged that examinees could all be so stupid, when in fact his question, a poorly disguised attempt to test on error analysis, was totally flawed and thus removed from the exam during the standards setting phase of the exam process.
Ha, I remember that!
Duane Frymire, post: 423563, member: 110 wrote: My experience is that exam questions such as this are a great learning tool, when coupled with a rebuttal session to discuss all the answers, such as this thread is doing. As a measure of competence, not as effective as more in depth multiple choice or questions requiring a written response. The question writer learns as much from the rebuttal as the exam takers at times. This particular question could be improved by adding "original and undisturbed" instead of merely "original". The question as stated presents two competing legal principles, either of which should be a correct answer without any further information, and reading nothing into the question.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. Before the CA exam went to all computer-based multiple-guess, the combined process of exam development and grading was set up so that several perspectives would be involved in 1) forming the question to target the specific knowledge and limit the gray area answers, 2) creating the initial grading plan to include consideration of all reasonable answers (and to make edits to questions as necessary to more clearly target specific answers and eliminate others), 3) grading and considering actual answers given - whether they were reasonable given different perspectives and/or local circumstances, practices, and govt. processes.
It was a great learning experience. There was also an appeals process where explanations and reasoning to support answers marked incorrect in the full grading session could be considered. As a result, some people were able to gain credit or partial credit on some questions.
Only one time can I recall when the system totally failed. A somewhat complicated boundary problem was presented, the circumstances in the given data indicated that the original surveyor could measure distances well but angles not so much. 2 of 4 mons still existing. Problem writer and initial grading team leader apparently held team to excepting only one possible solution on a question which held an implied angle over a specifically mentioned distance because the implied angle was earlier in the description. That result greatly changed the distance and direction of the last leg, which went to a fd mon.
It was argued by one stubborn grader that the entire description must be read together, that the circumstances didn't justify holding an implied angle as a fixed exact value, and that even CA statute & case law places the reliability of distances above that of directions. Several minutes of debate ensued. The stubborn grader argued on the principles just stated, the problem's author argued that a paragraph in BCLP said that first mentioned particulars must hold over later ones, the [implied] angle was before later [implied by equivalent terms] angles and specific distances, so the [implied] angle holds. Legal maxims and settled law be dam-ned, Robillard says...
The debate had tipped in favor of the stubborn objector (the problem author was equally stubborn but apparently had taken personal ownership of the dearly held opinion). Had a vote been taken right then, a handful of examinees who understood boundary better than the problem author would have become licensed that year. But, just about that time, the surveyor Board Member arrived, listened for a few minutes and then proclaimed that the 1st implied angle must hold and all other reasoning was wrong. No reasoning other than pointing to one paragraph read out of context in BCLP. Force of two stubborn personalities over another stubborn personality attempting to sway based on logic prevailed. And several spines in the room went soft at the idea of openly disagreeing with a Board Member.
In spite of that one instance, the system usually worked very well. Now that the system has eliminated the varying perspectives at most steps, I have less confidence in the exam and exam process.
Wonder who the "stubborn objector" was? 🙂
Although Evan didn't mention it, there was a process in place to allow the "stubborn objector" to be heard after the grading was completed. Even though they may have been compelled, pressured, whatever, to conform to the grading plan, but still felt that another acceptable alternative existed, there was a form they could complete, something like a "Minority Opinion" form. That form then accompanied the materials associated with that problem the remainder of the way through the process, primarily for appeals. I was on a team several times with a specific grader who completed one of these forms almost every year, not to be obstinate or contrary, but because he truly believed there was a viable alternative solution that wasn't being considered during the grading, even though it had been discussed at length. He was a valuable member of every team I was on with him because he wasn't locked into the grading plan that was developed by others.
A lot of the process was about statistics, or psychometrics. In order to get through the grading in the time provided (3 days) and achieve the very high agreement rate between graders (well above 95% once everyone is "calibrated") some level of capitulation was often required by one or more members of the grading team, but the Minority Opinion form allowed their objections to continue through the process, yet let the grading proceed.
Another aspect I found very interesting, and fair, was that if a candidate appealed and prevailed based on an alternative solution that they used for the exam, but had been rejected at grading (say they got an additional 10 points on appeal), every test booklet for that problem for every candidate that failed by 10 points or less was pulled to see if they had also used the same, now accepted, alternate solution. If so, they too got the additional points, even though they were not the examinee who filed the appeal. Therefore, it was possible to initially get a "Sorry, you failed" letter, then get a "Congratulations" letter because you benefited from someone else appealing. It probably felt like a mean joke or something.
"Proration and senior rights are rules of last resort."
I'll agree with the proration statement. But senior rights are foremost in surveying.
SPMPLS, post: 424064, member: 11785 wrote: Although Evan didn't mention it, there was a process in place to allow the "stubborn objector" to be heard after the grading was completed. Even though they may have been compelled, pressured, whatever, to conform to the grading plan, but still felt that another acceptable alternative existed, there was a form they could complete, something like a "Minority Opinion" form. That form then accompanied the materials associated with that problem the remainder of the way through the process, primarily for appeals. I was on a team several times with a specific grader who completed one of these forms almost every year, not to be obstinate or contrary, but because he truly believed there was a viable alternative solution that wasn't being considered during the grading, even though it had been discussed at length. He was a valuable member of every team I was on with him because he wasn't locked into the grading plan that was developed by others.
A lot of the process was about statistics, or psychometrics. In order to get through the grading in the time provided (3 days) and achieve the very high agreement rate between graders (well above 95% once everyone is "calibrated") some level of capitulation was often required by one or more members of the grading team, but the Minority Opinion form allowed their objections to continue through the process, yet let the grading proceed.
Another aspect I found very interesting, and fair, was that if a candidate appealed and prevailed based on an alternative solution that they used for the exam, but had been rejected at grading (say they got an additional 10 points on appeal), every test booklet for that problem for every candidate that failed by 10 points or less was pulled to see if they had also used the same, now accepted, alternate solution. If so, they too got the additional points, even though they were not the examinee who filed the appeal. Therefore, it was possible to initially get a "Sorry, you failed" letter, then get a "Congratulations" letter because you benefited from someone else appealing. It probably felt like a mean joke or something.
thanks for the insight... it is comforting in a small way.
This should be published for all to understand.
SPMPLS, post: 424064, member: 11785 wrote: Although Evan didn't mention it, there was a process in place to allow the "stubborn objector" to be heard after the grading was completed. Even though they may have been compelled, pressured, whatever, to conform to the grading plan, but still felt that another acceptable alternative existed, there was a form they could complete, something like a "Minority Opinion" form. That form then accompanied the materials associated with that problem the remainder of the way through the process, primarily for appeals. I was on a team several times with a specific grader who completed one of these forms almost every year, not to be obstinate or contrary, but because he truly believed there was a viable alternative solution that wasn't being considered during the grading, even though it had been discussed at length. He was a valuable member of every team I was on with him because he wasn't locked into the grading plan that was developed by others.
A lot of the process was about statistics, or psychometrics. In order to get through the grading in the time provided (3 days) and achieve the very high agreement rate between graders (well above 95% once everyone is "calibrated") some level of capitulation was often required by one or more members of the grading team, but the Minority Opinion form allowed their objections to continue through the process, yet let the grading proceed.
Another aspect I found very interesting, and fair, was that if a candidate appealed and prevailed based on an alternative solution that they used for the exam, but had been rejected at grading (say they got an additional 10 points on appeal), every test booklet for that problem for every candidate that failed by 10 points or less was pulled to see if they had also used the same, now accepted, alternate solution. If so, they too got the additional points, even though they were not the examinee who filed the appeal. Therefore, it was possible to initially get a "Sorry, you failed" letter, then get a "Congratulations" letter because you benefited from someone else appealing. It probably felt like a mean joke or something.
Yes, overall a very good process. I wish they hadn't abandoned it. The "Minority Opinion" report was a good tool when used at the main grading session and reviewed during appeals. Unfortunately, the situation I described earlier was at an appeals grading session. The stubborn objector did fill out said "Minority Report", complete with references and an explanation why the majority opinion was wrong. I doubt that anyone has looked at it since it was written.
[SARCASM]As to who the stubborn objector was, Ed, I'll never tell. Never in a million years! And there's no way you can make me!!![/SARCASM]
