I didn't say they were.
I'm using the analogy of the USMLE as a natl standard for the benchmark all physicians are licensed by first, as a model of how survey could be regulated, that's all.
And yeah, I'm sure that was an awkward moment for sure.....hair dresser is an occupational license, not a licensed professional. Weird to think that is how people perceived your background.
And I disagree that the licensing of physicians is a model for licensing surveyors. Just as licensing surveyors is not a model for licensing hairdressers.
@jitterboogie I'm not seeing a problem with interstate licensure. I've run through the process in five States. The only problems I've had were States that pile every license into one agency and screw things up for everybody. Every State with subject matter expertise on staff has been straightforward.?ÿ
Every State has it's own unique history and laws. They also tailor thier test based on experiences unique to the state.
Um, why the desire to segregate a PLS license into specialties??ÿ I got my degree in Chemistry but BLM/USFS summer employment gravitated me to tromping around with chain, transit and shovel and it fitted in with my love of the woods.?ÿ A good liberal arts education prepares you to learn efficiently so after employment in engineering, land development firms, quality topo work, construction surveying, high order control gov'mnt work I easily passed the PLS exam in two States and became comfortably employed in challenging environments by continually educating myself.
I think the present stricture that no PLS can practice in any subspecialty in which he is not competent is fair.?ÿ I'm no drone topo or point cloud expert so except myself from such surveying.?ÿ But the stuff I did know I'm really good at and was a worthy consultant.
I agree, I'm not saying license all to one, just the license of the profession.
Each state needs to have specific control just like...
?ÿ
????
?ÿ
...liquor licenses.
I didn't say medicine.
???
Given surveying is such a fringe profession it makes sense to have a banner certification that the public recognises and then the individual professional acts like one and only practices in their area of competence.
@mike-marks I know two phd geodesists who cannot get licensed in the current system. They are beyond the cream of the crop at what they do, but I don't want them winging in pin-farms and stubbjng quarter corners at a perfect half-mile.
We can adjust our thinking to capture these specialties or watch them go somewhere else. IMO we need those skills in our camp. A Professional Land Surveyor specially qualified in mapping science would work.?ÿ
I have 42 years of diverse experience and can hold my own in a variety of positions. Not everyone thinks that way. Excluding the best specialists is a broken model.?ÿ
No offense but I don??t think there is a huge stampede of Geodesists trying to get a limited LS license.
This is one of my main gripes.
The quantifiable time is so random between boards.?ÿ It's not that complicated but they make it so.
Thank you for pointing that out, I know that far too well from my discussion with almost employers and board members directly and can never get a good solid answer.
No one quantifies hours. Not physicians not lawyers not nursing nor engineering.
Pilots do, and maybe Hobbs meter people, but that's it that I'm aware of.
?ÿ
?ÿ
I don't think it's a big deal that they quantify their experience in hours.?ÿ I have my experience broken up into fractions of a month.?ÿ If they say they want it in hours, I will multiply the months by 730.49.?ÿ If they want it in seconds or picoseconds, I will convert it to them just as easily.
Also, what do you mean by "the quantifiable time is so random between boards."?ÿ I agree the required experience varies greatly from state board to state board.?ÿ I believe the shortest path to licensure by experience is 6 years, and the longest path is 12 years.?ÿ And on top of that, some require you to wait a number of years after receiving your "LSIT" designation before you can apply for licensure.?ÿ I think it is crazy how different these requirements are, but I also feel it is complicated.?ÿ I don't know what the magic number for experience is.?ÿ I would like to know if there are fewer cases of negligence, or less malpractice, among the states that require more experience.?ÿ I think the drastic differences between states are a result of the problem being complicated, and no one knowing the right answer.?ÿ Also, more than just minimum requirements are considered when making these laws.?ÿ If the laws are too strict, then there aren't enough surveyors.?ÿ If the laws are too lenient, anyone can get a license and wreak havoc.?ÿ The demand for licensed land surveyors is different from state to state, and the interest in becoming a licensed land surveyor varies as well.?ÿ It is in the public's interest to consider all these variables because "minimum qualifications" are pointless if no one wants to pursue getting a license.
?ÿ
Pretty good synopsis of the process:
I purchased a "boundary survey module" from Nettleman when I was studying for my FS exam.?ÿ I was not happy with the quality or content of the course.?ÿ It was not expensive, but I didn't purchase anything else from him.
?ÿ
I know two phd geodesists who cannot get licensed in the current system. They are beyond the cream of the crop at what they do, but I don't want them winging in pin-farms and stubbjng quarter corners at a perfect half-mile.
I appreciate your well-reasoned posts, even when I disagree with your conclusion. Unfortunately, this is not a well-reasoned comment. Your scenario that two PhD geodesists (should they become licensed land surveyors) would disregard their ethical duty to practice only within their area(s) of expertise is a complete absurdity.
We both know that they must pass the NCEES and state exams, which means they must have more than a casual understanding of boundary law. In reality there are many of our professional peers that have NO understanding of geodesy, but don't hesitate to provide B.S. geodetic coordinates to "something." One of my peers had an honest moment when he confided to me that he bought a couple of used GPS receivers to "cash in" on GPS surveys.
Sorry, this is a sore topic with me. IMHO, many state statutes restricting geodetic surveying to only licensed land surveyors were passed with the sole goal of restricting trade. The Colorado Revised Statutes contain many examples (again, my opinion).
YMMV
?ÿ
@dmyhill?ÿ
Nah... I'd rather not have to take separate tests for: boundary; grade level construction; topographic mapping; scanning; high rise construction; riparian; railroad; industrial metrology; etc...
Of course you would rather not. I would have rathered not taking any exam at all, but I am glad that that all those other idiots out there have to meet some kind of minimum competency to do what I do.?ÿ
@jph We see the advances in measurement science every day. They are in our face. The changes in boundary surveying are not as obvious, though I contend they are at least as significant.
The body of case law and availability of information is nearly overwhelming. A site like this allows exposure to dozens of opinions (many professional) in an instant. We are expanding from the one to one mentor (aka survey by wives tale) to having a world of diverse knowledge at our fingertips.
I came up old school and know the path well. I had one formal college course in surveying when I got my first license. The world has changed and that isn't likely to get you there these days. That doesn't slam the door. There are ways to get an ABET degree without sitting in a classroom for years. If you really have the knowledge, challenge classes. Portfolio your experience for credit. Find a way.
This will sound harsh, but it's true nonetheless. No other profession screams for the right to a license based on sitting in the truck long enough. The path without a degree is there, but it's longer and harder. It should be.
More importantly in almost every state (every?), and in the NCEES model law a degree other than an ABET degree can be used to qualify.?ÿ
ABET is a problem. We need to stop educating surveyors as engineers.
Yes, I acknowledged advances in measuring.?ÿ But as far as day to day boundary surveying, decision making, professional judgement, etc, not a lot has changed.?ÿ
There's obviously more case law today than 100 years ago, along with additional statute law.?ÿ But individual cases and probably aren't part of, and only certain statutes are probably discussed in a surveying program.
I've worked with both those trained on the job and those with a BS or AS in surveying.?ÿ And in my opinion, it's the individual not the program or lack of one.
@gene-kooper My point wasn't that geodesists aren't trustworthy. You may not have noticed, but I occasionally use 'exaggeration for effect' and other techniques to drive a point home.?ÿ
My points were two-fold. First, the existing system does not allow licensure of geodesists. IMO it should. The most reasonable way to do that is remove the questions that don't relate to the basics or specialty from the tests they take. Separare modules will provide States who decide to license by discipline the tools to get it done.
The second point is more nuanced. As an investigator I see practice beyond expertise in many forms. Some are bold enough to market things they don't know, and gladly take money to learn something new. That is a significant number, but still a minority. The larger group has no clue what they don't know. They are in the unconsciously incompetent stage and blaze ahead with confidence. Every licensure system sees this. The key is to help licensees avoid this pitfall without restricting others who are beyond that stage of learning. It is not unreasonable to issue a license that covers the competencies demonstrated. The key is making it reasonably easy to access the modules. That system exists in NCEES.
There are large groups with big money attacking licensure. They want to remove all 'barriers to business' and let the market correct behavior. The only answer to this is for us to adapt to changing attitudes and solve problems, or watch those problems become justification for bad policy.
?ÿ
Yes, I acknowledged advances in measuring.?ÿ But as far as day to day boundary surveying, decision making, professional judgement, etc, not a lot has changed.?ÿ
There's obviously more case law today than 100 years ago, along with additional statute law.?ÿ But individual cases and probably aren't part of, and only certain statutes are probably discussed in a surveying program.
I've worked with both those trained on the job and those with a BS or AS in surveying.?ÿ And in my opinion, it's the individual not the program or lack of one.
Of course the individual can matter more than the program, but that's not really helpful when designing regulations. We can't have a JPH in every state judging each applicant's individual merit.?ÿ
@mike-marks I know two phd geodesists who cannot get licensed in the current system. They are beyond the cream of the crop at what they do,
We hired a Phd geodesist as an office technician, a 55 year old German fellow, fresh off the boat although he spoke English well.?ÿ Sadly, we had to let him go after six months because even with coaching he was painfully slow and knew very little about the land development process.?ÿ He tried hard and it was painful to witness him fail.?ÿ This was in the pre GPS era.
@mike-marks Wrong tool for the job. Happens all the time...