@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
The written word has its limitations, thebionicman. It is not as easy to detect hyperbole or as you put it "exaggeration for effect" in the written word. While I accept your "tongue-in-cheek" scenario as being hyperbole, many of our peers actually hold that view and very well could have taken you seriously. Why use such an absurdity unless you leave no doubt that you're just joshin. Then again, the old clich?? "nothing is foolproof because fools are so ingenious" can mess up the best of intentions.
My reply was intended to rebut the notion that after getting licensed the two PhD geodesists would immediately start a business with the name [hyperbole]ILCs "R" Us, LLC[/hyperbole]. In the real world, I just don't see that ever happening, which is why I brought up the ethical duty to only practice within one's area(s) of expertise. In other words, geodesists doing geodesy.
There are multiple states that include a section(s) in their practice acts, defining geodetic surveying as the practice of land surveying. They impose no limitation in the definition that the geodetic surveying is being used in the determination of land boundaries. IMO the purposes of those statutes are not to protect the public health, safety and welfare. They are clear examples of restraint of trade.
Okay, you will initially think that this is a fable, or that I am exaggerating merely for effect. Many years ago, when I first became involved in the Professional Land Surveyors of Colorado I attended a board of directors meeting (IIRC it was 2005). During the meeting, a young surveyor asked to speak. He was interested in the PLSC introducing legislation that would impose a moratorium on licensure. The youngster had just been informed by the state licensing board that he had passed the exam and had yet to find out what his LS number was. He was unabashed in his desire to see a moratorium imposed on licensure because there were too many licensed surveyors in the state and limiting licensure for a "while" would ensure that there was sufficient work for him to make a living. I wish this was hyperbole, but it was not. He was dead serious! He is not the only Colorado surveyor who was/is desirous of legislation to keep the number of licensed surveyors to a minimum.
My apology if you regarded my previous comment as ascerbic. Being a pragmatic, simple country boy my plain spokenness is not always received as intended.
?ÿ
?ÿ
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
@aliquot?ÿ
???
We have Boards all set up for reviewing applications and qualifications, sample work, professional references, mentoring, etc.?ÿ It's all setup, just remove the box in the application where you check that you have a degree.
I always go back to asking someone to show me the evidence that the degree makes for better licensed surveyors, and the lack of formal training creates substandard licensees.?ÿ
Again, sorry for the hijack.?ÿ Happy New Year
@jph?ÿ
That doesn't leave much in terms of quality control. Experience under gained under a deed staker, and a test of some basic math (FS), some multiple choice questions on very basic and generalized boundary law (PS), and a test of how well you can recall or look up state statutes (many state specifics).?ÿ?ÿ
We all have personal knowledge of few good surveyors without a degree and a few bad ones with one, but that isn't a substitute for critically examining a plan for professional licensure. Realizing the limitations of your experiences and how much you don't know is one of the biggest benefits of a four year degree.?ÿ
For proof just look at what most older plats look like. The only thing they have going for them in a dispute is?ÿ their age (acquiescence). Otherwise they are just some measurements and if you are lucky indications of?ÿ something in the ground.?ÿ
P
@gene-kooper I suspect we are closer to the same page than appears. Protectionism is bad policy, end of story.
The issue here is a 'pure' geodesist can't get a license, but setting geodetic control requires a license. Not a well thought out policy IMO. Recent changes mean it will be a few years before we can fix it..
@aliquot?ÿ
Luckily, my experiences and opinions are vastly different.
This is how review of applicants is done, whether or not a degree is a requirement.?ÿ Some bad surveyors are going to slip through, and some of those will have also obtained a 4 year surveying degree.?ÿ You can't prevent this, unless you make it a requirement that applicants also work under more than one licensed LS for a few years each, and the Board somehow holds these LS's responsible for the new licensee for a certain probationary period.
I have personal knowledge of many more PLS's who don't have a surveying degree than those who do. And I can honestly say that there's no discernible difference between the work of those with vs without the degree that you can attribute to the degree.?ÿ
Benefits of a degree??ÿ Sure, but benefits don't equal the need for a requirement.
And I've no idea what you're talking about with older plats.?ÿ My experience is that most are decent, for their time, and many even by today's standards.?ÿ
@jph There are over 50 jurisdictions issuing licenses to surveyors. There is no 'way review of applications gets done'. Each agency does review under thier own laws, with many Boards never seeing application packets. The files are reviewed by staff. In some cases this means subject matter expertise, in others they have zero knowledge of the profession they are issuing licenses for. The current trend is the latter. Still more Boards run a hybrid model where they only see non-standard applications.
My point is, it's not that simple. Even so, that in and of itself shouldn't slam the door. Education is needed or it isn't. IMO the degree needs to be the normal path, with very narrow exceptions.?ÿ
If that's actually happening, then it's disturbing, and if Board member were a paid position, they'd be guilty of dereliction of duty, allowing an unqualified subordinate to do a job which the professional should be doing.
While I have no doubt that Board secretaries receive, do a cursory review, making sure time periods, statutory hours, etc, are in conformance with requirements, I believe that the licensed Board members do actually review the applications, in the NE states, at least.?ÿ And in some cases, (MA & RI, maybe others?), they even require the applicant to come in for an interview.
Maybe it's different where you are, but in the New England states, we're not so overrun with LS applicants.?ÿ And if that's the case, just off the top of my head, maybe send out an email to licensees, requesting volunteers to review applications.
Lack of professional review or laziness, certainly isn't a valid reason for a degree requirement.
@jph The Board members work under statutory authority. You can't be derelict in a duty that is stripped away.
Way back in the 1970's I recall running distances with a steel tape and chaining pins and turning angles with an ancient transit with non-adjustable legs and a plumb bob.?ÿ Least squares adjustments were a fantasy for that process.?ÿ Most technicians could see and understand the measurements.
Today's world has "magic" numbers appearing on a little screen that get fed directly into a computer for near-final drafting.?ÿ It is next to impossible to have a "feel" for whether or not the numbers are anywhere close to being correct.?ÿ Say the reading, if you checked, says you are a football field away from the last shot and you know you are at least two football fields distant.?ÿ But, who takes time to check that minor detail while trying to minimize field time?
The mark of a good surveyor is knowing how to make valid checks, and having the ethical decency to make them. That is just as true for a tape and plumb-bobs as it is for the most advanced GPS, lidar, or other whizz-bang box ever invented (or to be invented later). Slapping geomagical coordinates on a map and calling it surveying doesn't make it surveying.?ÿ
@jph?ÿ
I think the interview process is a good idea.?ÿ They don't do a face-to-face interview in any of the states I work in.?ÿ But I don't think the application processes can really help identify those who aren't qualified.?ÿ The thing is, as long as the application is filled out correctly, they claim to have all the experience they need (and they may have all the "boundary" experience they need) but if the applicant has a licensed surveyor that is willing to vouch for them (which may or may not just be a "deed staker" setting pin cushion corners etc.) then they can get a license.
Unfortunately, there are surveyors that come out of college who aren't competent, just as there are surveyors who are mentored who aren't competent.?ÿ But, when a surveyor gets an actual surveying degree (not an engineering degree, chemistry degree, liberal arts degree, or something else) then they have a consistent understanding of the fundament principles, laws, and regulations that surveyors should be following (whether they follow them or not is up to them but at least they know them.)
Also, a lot of nonsurvey-specific knowledge is taught in school that is important, such as economics, business and accounting, the legal system and how it works, professional communications, etc. I think this is good.?ÿ I'm not saying it should be a requirement.?ÿ But if more surveyors understood economics, for instance, there wouldn't be so many surveyors competing on price, as if they were selling ice-cream sandwiches and not a necessity such as a survey from a professional.
Someone who gets a 4-year degree generally studies about 120 credit hours minimum.?ÿ Each credit hour is about 50 minutes of lecture, and 2 hours of out-of-class work a week.?ÿ That's about 5,100 of studying.?ÿ As for surveying classes, it should be about 50 credits or about?ÿ 2,125 hours.?ÿ Just for surveying classes, it is over a year, full-time (40 hours a week,) studying surveying.?ÿ Obviously, some people learn faster than others, or just don't put the 2 hours of time into studying a week per credit hour.?ÿ The lectures are about the same or more, and many classes have labs instead of having homework (so you often have to do it for the set time.)?ÿ?ÿ A lot of surveyors who don't have degrees are going home and studying every night for their exams, and studying after their exams too.?ÿ The knowledge they gain will be different because a college professor will focus on the most important topics.?ÿ When you teach yourself, you use your own judgment on what's important.?ÿ Some surveyors study enough to pass their exams as if the exams and the studying are just evil hurdles to get over.?ÿ Of course, what you learn from a mentor is practical, and specific to what you are doing for work.?ÿ What I have learned from my mentors has been invaluable, and no degree could replace it.?ÿ A degree covers many more subjects and gives you a foundation of knowledge to work up from in many areas of surveying.?ÿ If I had to pick one or the other, I would say experience trumps college.?ÿ I think both should be the ideal.
I don't have a degree yet.?ÿ I will be a first-generation college graduate, but not a first-generation surveyor.?ÿ I'm nearing the end.?ÿ I have surveyors in my family and they are great surveyors, without having a degree.?ÿ I also have close family friends who are surveyors and most don't have degrees and are great surveyors.?ÿ I'm not saying that a degree should be a requirement.?ÿ I think each state should be able to decide its requirements.?ÿ I am saying that I think there is a lot of merit to the degree (a good degree in surveying, not a degree in something else) and it should be the sought-after path to licensure.?ÿ
A lot of what I learned in college is valuable but was not tested on the exams.?ÿ Exams only brush the surface of what needs to be understood.?ÿ The degree has been extremely valuable.?ÿ I also received my license before getting my degree, but the classes I took helped a lot.?ÿ
I would like to see more people pursuing a degree in surveying, I think it will be beneficial to those who choose that path, and with how accessible a surveying degree is (with multiple online options,) anyone could pursue one if they want to.
Whether you take the experience-only route, or the education and experience route, your career should involve continued education beyond whatever CE hour requirements are needed in your state.
I think a more reasonable option, at least to start an education requirement in a given state, is to require a college certificate in surveying.?ÿ A certificate is usually the equivalent of 1 year of college and focuses on surveying classes.
Just my opinion,
Joe
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
Back when my father got licensed, and my grandfather, there were 3-man crews, 4-man crews, or larger.?ÿ These crews had a licensed land surveyor in the crew.?ÿ You don't have that now, and if you are lucky, the licensed land surveyor overseeing your work talks with you at the beginning and end of the day for 10 or 15 minutes.?ÿ Mentoring is not what it used to be, and unfortunately, I don't see many companies putting in the time and money to mentor their people like they did "back in the day."?ÿ I think this is one of the issues.?ÿ I'm not saying all surveyors or survey companies do this, but a lot.?ÿ A lot run 1 man crews or maybe 2 man crews, and there is rarely a licensed surveyor in the field.?ÿ Even in the office, often the licensed surveyor is not working directly with his or her technicians for hours a day.?ÿ It is a few minutes of direction and hours of work.?ÿ And people aren't putting mentoring into the cost of projects.?ÿ With this new model of 1-man crews, work from home, etc. it isn't surprising boards want an education requirement.?ÿ If we want to hold onto the mentoring path, professional surveyors need to spend more time in the field with their technicians, and more time with their office people, mentoring and teaching.?ÿ Technicians rarely have the contact they used to with a PLS.?ÿ As technology advances, and you can do more with fewer people, it becomes harder for the technician to have that one-on-one contact with the licensed surveyor.?ÿ
That's one argument I can think of for the education path.?ÿ I think that can be changed, but I don't see many surveyors putting in the time they could be to change it.?ÿ Even if they are in the field with their guys once a week, that doesn't compare to years ago when there was a licensed surveyor in the field in most scenarios every day.
?ÿ
What I was getting at was the fact that many people are still scared of technology.?ÿ Tell them that what they will be working with every day involves satelites, fingering screens and keyboards and they immediately lose interest for various reasons.?ÿ Meanwhile, people who are adept at fingering screens and keyboards are quite frequently "indoors" people who grow fearful of being more than five minutes away from a Starbucks.?ÿ The prospective worker to hope to be a surveyor fifty years ago is not the same person today.
That's one argument I can think of for the education path.?ÿ I think that can be changed, but I don't see many surveyors putting in the time they could be to change it.?ÿ Even if they are in the field with their guys once a week, that doesn't compare to years ago when there was a licensed surveyor in the field in most scenarios every day.
This is a critical point that is rarely acknowledged by current practitioners.
After reading this thread again, there's a lot of anecdotes floating around. But good policy isn't based on anecdotes, unless it accidentally turns out to be good. The fact remains that more knowledge is generally better than less knowledge, and starting off a professional career with the same fundamental knowledge as others is a requirement for other professions. We're not special, as I have said before.
What I was getting at was the fact that many people are still scared of technology.?ÿ Tell them that what they will be working with every day involves satelites, fingering screens and keyboards and they immediately lose interest for various reasons.?ÿ Meanwhile, people who are adept at fingering screens and keyboards are quite frequently "indoors" people who grow fearful of being more than five minutes away from a Starbucks.?ÿ The prospective worker to hope to be a surveyor fifty years ago is not the same person today.
There's a lot more folks who are both tech-savvy and outdoors or "tradecraft"-oriented than you think.
The difference is that they - and the folks at either end of the spectrum - have their pick of technology careers or skilled trades that only require one or the other and still pay extremely well.
We demand both, but pay half as much at entry level and provide a murky and indistinct "path" to "climbing the ladder" (whether or not licensure is involved), and the top rung of the average survey ladder don't look so great in comparison to the top rung of tech or trades ladders. Obviously this can vary depending on location, but around here in the greater Seattle area, construction work gets you double or even triple what survey fieldwork will, and if you're a techie, why even bother with anything less than six figures (like a top-tier survey office tech)?
What's the expression? "This isn't an MP [my problem] - it's a YP [you problem]"?
Well, this one is an MP for us.
Years ago a common way to even learn there was such a career as land surveying was to hire on as a laborer to cut line, tote heavy stuff and stay out of the way.?ÿ Many of those people discovered they could make a bit more money if they could do more than just grunt work.?ÿ So, they began to ask questions and learned enough to become a skilled chainman.?ÿ The opportunity to make more money involved asking more questions and learning how to operate the primary tool; a level or transit or theodolite or total station.?ÿ The potential for more income came through being able to be a leader in the field, managing lower level workers and, hopefully, studying to learn more about the actual practice of land surveying.?ÿ Continuing escalation of knowledge and skills for something like eight years could lead to the opportunity to at least make an application to become licensed.
Today's daily survey world does not provide anywhere near enough levels of promotion to get the machete slinger to the same level, in the general case.?ÿ Many States have either eliminated the "experience" route entirely or extended the number of years required.?ÿ And, as others have pointed out, the opportunity for meaningful mentorship in the field is rapidly disappearing.?ÿ Do as you are told, don't ask questions or find a job somewhere else.
No need to know why,?ÿ just stake that point.?ÿ If you encounter a problem.?ÿ Call the office right away.?ÿ Can't afford to lose productivity.?ÿ That may not be true of all offices but with the increase in large multi-crew firms I doubt what?ÿ I witnessed in Charlotte 25 years ago has changed much.
That's one argument I can think of for the education path.?ÿ I think that can be changed, but I don't see many surveyors putting in the time they could be to change it.?ÿ Even if they are in the field with their guys once a week, that doesn't compare to years ago when there was a licensed surveyor in the field in most scenarios every day.
This is a critical point that is rarely acknowledged by current practitioners.
After reading this thread again, there's a lot of anecdotes floating around. But good policy isn't based on anecdotes, unless it accidentally turns out to be good. The fact remains that more knowledge is generally better than less knowledge, and starting off a professional career with the same fundamental knowledge as others is a requirement for other professions. We're not special, as I have said before.
An understanding of the world that leads to the?ÿ realization that good policy is not based on antetdotes is ideally a result of an education.
@aliquot?ÿ
I've been asking for the evidence that a formal education is needed.?ÿ Anecdotes aside, there's nothing that's indicating a need.
