Robert Hill, post: 385711, member: 378 wrote: These folks are the real deal and the keepers of the flame of the historical past.
They aren't self-proclaimed Internet forum mouths.
Yes, it is a regretful that nowadays some will never experience the procedures of the past but their mental acumen should negate that problem.http://www.surveyorshistoricalsociety.com/organization.php
This rendezvous looks excellent. Lake George is such a beautiful place in the USA.
Somehow if the new breed or younger (and older)surveyors can attain CEUs.
It would be a win-win
I know I wish I could be there.
[USER=38]@Rich Leu[/USER]
Mr. Hill is spot on here. I've been following this thread with some interest and had a few thoughts to add but time is my enemy. Let me leave you tonight with these thoughts. Having studied Adirondack surveyor Verplanck Colvin (1872 - 1900) for about 16 years now, I can say the challenges we face as surveyors today are little different than in Colvin's time. Only the tools have changed.
I'll go out on a limb here and say aside from learning math/statistics and current regs. a person reading all of Colvins reports would have the majority of the law/procedure
needed to pass the LS exam (colonial states).
Respectfully,
Jim Vianna
SHS Rendezvous 2016 Chair
foggyidea, post: 385699, member: 155 wrote: I think that this is short sighted and self laudatory. I started with a transit and "chain" but I sure wouldn't expect a new student or even a new PLS to know how to set up a fixed legged tripod and read a vernier from my ol' K&E Paragon 20" instrument. It would take me a while to figure it out actually!
I, also, wouldn't like my doctor to start placing leeches because "That's the way they used to do it." Or my dentist to start working without first applying Novocain because "Back in the old days they didn't have Novocain."
We're not so great because we used transits, we're not any different than the "new breed" except that they are better educated in areas that I am lacking.
Give it a rest 🙂
I agree and disagree at the same time. I'm 32. I'm extremely good with technology, however I have never actually used a compass and tape before.
Do I think surveyors today need to? I think it can help in CERTAIN retracements. Definitely depending on the area and what's being retraced. A plss section? Sure. A lot created in a 1965 plat? Maybe not so much....
The doctors examples don't work too much. I would run if I saw leaches coming for me in the doctors hands.
The problem is, the old methods of doctoring wouldn't be welcome because they might produce DIFFERENT RESULTS than the new methods. This would directly contradict why someone might use a compass. The new surveying technology might produce different results than the old equipment did, which is exactly what we don't want. Getting the same results as the person originally did is the correct answer to the surveying puzzle and this may be better attained using the same equipment as the original did.
Although I don't use a compass (I'm never usually in a spot to need to as any retracement work I do is not very old and I'm not in a plss state) I do try and put myself in the shoes of a person surveying with a tape when I find old monuments that are not called for. I ask myself, would I be happy if I was taping and found this? Or is it so 'off' I would think it's wrong? If it's close enough that I would be happy I came some close measuring with a tape, then I flag it up and move on.
Kind of my mixed style I have adopted
Ok seeing as I've read most of the replies,but not all,I'm going on a limb here. Out here in our little 3rd world country in the south tip of africa things are slightly different.
Here all surveyors are supposed to have some form of formal education. Minimum 3 years which includes 1 year of practical training and then you are a survey tech. Add another 2 years of school then you're a surveyor. Or do 4 years first and then 1 year prac then PLS. I went the 3 years then 2 years route,but preceeded all that with 3 years from scratch.
In that 3 years my first encounter with a gun was a 1203 leica and 1200 leica gpa and 150 sprinter level. I could traverse, set out,as built, static,rtk etc but didnt always understand all I was doing or how it worked. All my work was checked by a PLS or tech and they tried explaining as much as they could.
I then went and studied and wlfrlt like I was in a time machine. Back to a T2, tapes and stadia distances. Some time to learn what was going in and where but lesrnt quickly and I appreciste how it was done 50+ years ago and understand how to do it all long hand. Maybe not as perfectly as the guys who did it 24/7 in 1945 but I understand the principles. This does make a diff in my workflow,but doenst define it.
On the other hand we have classmate of mine working at our firm. Qualified survey tech but cant work the S3,5 or 6, cant work a GPS properly. I'm not too sure if she can actually do it the old way either,but the point is that she is the norm rather than the expection. Out of 50 odd students when I started my studies maybe 10 could setup a tripod over a point in less than 5 minutes after 3 years of studies. That shocking. And that hasnt improved at all. So while I understand the need to comprehend how it was dine in 1920 or even before that (our survey records go back to maybe to 1830) the need for grads to actually be able to work or atelast work under supervision is also important. I not going to pretend I do cadastral work all that much. I'm a specialised engineering surveyor so I spend maybe 20% of my time doing property stuff so maybe I'm wrong, but a grad who can do a resection by hand with a T2 but cant do it with a S6 is fairly useless to me.
Just my thoughts and experience
Sent from my SM-N920C using Tapatalk
A degree in surveying should not mean you are a quality tech at graduation. You should have a vast knowledge of the history of the profession, the rules and laws that bound us, as well as a basic understanding on the newer equipment being used. The idea that fresh out of college you can operate any cad system or data collection system is absurd. Just on this board they are five or six different cad programs, and every maker has its own software that's different from the rest.
Dennis Mouland was the speaker at the 2015 Mississippi Association of Professional Surveyors Convention that hit home on this matter. He stressed the importance of taking into account the technology used, and the standards at the time of parcel creation, when deciding on accepting or rejecting corners. He makes the distinction of being a surveyor or just an expert measurer. Great presentation that is well worth your time. Maybe Amber can get him scheduled as a speaker for the next ASPS conference (?).
Kevin Hines, post: 385838, member: 8489 wrote: Dennis Mouland was the speaker at the 2015 Mississippi Association of Professional Surveyors Convention that hit home on this matter. He stressed the importance of taking into account the technology used, and the standards at the time of parcel creation, when deciding on accepting or rejecting corners. He makes the distinction of being a surveyor or just an expert measurer. Great presentation that is well worth your time. Maybe Amber can get him scheduled as a speaker for the next ASPS conference (?).
I've met Dennis and listened to him speak several times. He's got a great presentation over several topics with a good sense of humor and talent for speaking. His experience is unique that he has worked both sides of the BLM/private portions of our profession. If you ever get the chance to sit in and listen to him you'd better. Three years ago, after an aggravating bout with knee surgery, he confided he wasn't sure how much longer he'd be "doing the circuit". Glad to hear he's still around.
Dennis has a consulting business and is still on the circuit. Look him up at Witness Tree Consulting dot com.
Maybe set up some sort of voluntary hands-on school/certification, where various concepts could be taught? Put the old equipment in the hands of the new/learning surveyor, and test his ability and knowledge to:
- Measure angles with a transit
- Determine that his transit, compass, tripod, etc. are in good condition
- Be aware of, observe, and correct for "local magnetic attraction".
- Measure distances with a chain.
- Record data in a field book
- Consider and sort through various forms of evidence that might be uncovered.
- Prepare a plat on the basis of recorded data
- Write a description
Craftily done, I think such a school could really help to hone the behavior of the profession. My 2 cents.
[USER=10458]@Jones[/USER] I understand your point. The issue is that even now, having been a registered survey tech, worked alongside other surveyors with between 8 - 30 years experience, and after 18 months of that still needs to be baby handled is just not acceptable to me. I can understand being freshly graduated and not knowing how to exactly use a S6 and Ranger, but not understanding what COGO stands for, what the difference would be between Station setup and Resection, not knowing why longer backsights should be used, me STILL having to explain how levelling works, the inability to comprehend what a prism constant is and how it affects EDM distances.
I've hijacked the thread and gone way off topic, and for that I apologise. Our grads (80%+) have no passion to actually learn or do the work. Yes our curriculum was a bit TOO focused on 1930 procrdures but I can live with that. Understanding that creates a better understanding of how it is done now. But there is no exampling of how we have done beyond 1930. We had exactly 1 day of exposure to modern day surbey software, maybe 2 weeks of CAD and immense amounts of GIS.
If they could use 1930 equipment properly,reduce the info and produce work similar to what we do with moden tech I would be happy. Those would probably adjust easily into newer tech with some learning. But we are getting grads who cant properly use the old stuff,and have no passion to learn the old days and definitely no passion to learn the new stuff.
I do not want to bash any learning of old procedures and I have massive respect for the guys who did our Trig system in our country, the equipment they used and how well the results can be checked against with GNSS etc. and how we can learn from their techniques.
Don't intend to offend anyone but I'm just frustrated with surveyors who have been "surveying" for 3 years after graduating and still act like they are in week 1 of varsity. Not at all sure how it is in the US or elsewhere but thats how it is in south africa. And then you get guys over here that the amount of experience and knowledge is just amazing.
Maybe pdop1.0 can tell me if I'm way out of line
Dirk
Sent from my SM-N920C using Tapatalk
[USER=10950]@RSAsurv[/USER] I took your original post to mean you wanted grads to operate the newest equipment straight out of college. With the various software programs that would be impossible. They should have a great understanding of how all the different technologies work. I graduated in 2012 and the various Cogo techniques, proper field procedures were taught heavily. It sounds like to me it's not a failure of the educational system, but a lack of discipline and work ethic that seems to affect my generation.
Jones, post: 385937, member: 10458 wrote: [USER=10950]@RSAsurv[/USER] It sounds like to me it's not a failure of the educational system, but a lack of discipline and work ethic that seems to affect my generation.
...said every generation ever. And it is still as incorrect as it was ten generations ago. (Seriously not trying to pick on you, you are just the most recent poster - it's a sentiment I see everywhere nowadays.)
I happen to be on the dividing line between Gen X and millennials. I first learned fieldwork from a couple of older Baby Boomers, and since then have worked with a wide range of ages and disciplines. A couple of years ago I decided to go back to school (after ten years in surveying) and earn a 4-year geomatics degree, as I started hitting the experience requirements for licensure right as most states expanded the education requirements. (My second bachelor's - so much for the B.A.) I have worked full-time surveying, and attended school full-time for three years now, and I think I have a pretty good perspective of both worlds.
There is always going to be that 10-20 percent of people who want the status without putting the effort in. That has held true in the workplace, in clubs/organizations, and in school as well. Graduates are no different. Indeed, I have worked with and met many licensed surveyors who were adamant that the young'uns be able to perform sun shots as a prerequisite for licensure, yet these licensed professionals were unable to operate the basic CAD and processing/adjusting software that were necessary for them to exercise their professional responsible charge. Hypocritical and inexcusable. These were the same folks who had little interest in working with younger surveyors like myself regarding practical boundary location, retracement and analysis.
Personally, I would love to see more weeding out of poor students and slackers; practically speaking, the way most schools operate these days, it is not going to happen anytime soon. I am hopeful that this will change. In the meantime, a great deal of the frustration I see in the up-and-coming students is the array of very specific skills that an equally wide range of individuals have decided is the end-all, be-all of surveying. Mixed signals from a mixed crowd, often belittling and judgmental toward a group of people who have made a significant investment of time and money toward a profession that can be quite variable in its return on investment.
There are regional/local standards and practices that will always vary. Instruct your people if they are in need of instruction. Graduates don't come out of school like survey-bots off an assembly line. Never have, never will. There is a great deal of information and courses that the powers-that-be have decided MUST be in our education program, and it is quite difficult to cram it all into a four-year curriculum. And believe it or not, these programs have to keep up with the times, and consequently current technology. Couple that with the tuition (here in AK they just jacked all engineering classes, which include geomatics, by 25% in the past year) and the pay/job uncertainty compared to 4-year engineering grads, and it's no wonder that many are frustrated when their new boss condemns them for not knowing how to run a staff compass.
You want students to be astro observation whizzes and staff compass studs? Go to your local educational institution and lobby the program directors to get it in the program. Better make a good case for it, though, because they are already beholden to some pretty stringent requirements. And most of these students are spending 95% of their time outside of class either studying for class, attending to their family, or working.
Or, instruct them yourself. That helps all of us.
I would say that 90% plus of the students I know are in the program because they are genuinely interested in the profession, love the multifaceted nature of surveying, and enjoy a challenge. Dumping on them with the "my generation > your generation" does them no good, and certainly doesn't get you better employees.
Rover83, post: 385988, member: 11444 wrote: ...said every generation ever. And it is still as incorrect as it was ten generations ago. (Seriously not trying to pick on you, you are just the most recent poster - it's a sentiment I see everywhere nowadays.)
I happen to be on the dividing line between Gen X and millennials. I first learned fieldwork from a couple of older Baby Boomers, and since then have worked with a wide range of ages and disciplines. A couple of years ago I decided to go back to school (after ten years in surveying) and earn a 4-year geomatics degree, as I started hitting the experience requirements for licensure right as most states expanded the education requirements. (My second bachelor's - so much for the B.A.) I have worked full-time surveying, and attended school full-time for three years now, and I think I have a pretty good perspective of both worlds.
There is always going to be that 10-20 percent of people who want the status without putting the effort in. That has held true in the workplace, in clubs/organizations, and in school as well. Graduates are no different. Indeed, I have worked with and met many licensed surveyors who were adamant that the young'uns be able to perform sun shots as a prerequisite for licensure, yet these licensed professionals were unable to operate the basic CAD and processing/adjusting software that were necessary for them to exercise their professional responsible charge. Hypocritical and inexcusable. These were the same folks who had little interest in working with younger surveyors like myself regarding practical boundary location, retracement and analysis.
Personally, I would love to see more weeding out of poor students and slackers; practically speaking, the way most schools operate these days, it is not going to happen anytime soon. I am hopeful that this will change. In the meantime, a great deal of the frustration I see in the up-and-coming students is the array of very specific skills that an equally wide range of individuals have decided is the end-all, be-all of surveying. Mixed signals from a mixed crowd, often belittling and judgmental toward a group of people who have made a significant investment of time and money toward a profession that can be quite variable in its return on investment.
There are regional/local standards and practices that will always vary. Instruct your people if they are in need of instruction. Graduates don't come out of school like survey-bots off an assembly line. Never have, never will. There is a great deal of information and courses that the powers-that-be have decided MUST be in our education program, and it is quite difficult to cram it all into a four-year curriculum. And believe it or not, these programs have to keep up with the times, and consequently current technology. Couple that with the tuition (here in AK they just jacked all engineering classes, which include geomatics, by 25% in the past year) and the pay/job uncertainty compared to 4-year engineering grads, and it's no wonder that many are frustrated when their new boss condemns them for not knowing how to run a staff compass.
You want students to be astro observation whizzes and staff compass studs? Go to your local educational institution and lobby the program directors to get it in the program. Better make a good case for it, though, because they are already beholden to some pretty stringent requirements. And most of these students are spending 95% of their time outside of class either studying for class, attending to their family, or working.
Or, instruct them yourself. That helps all of us.
I would say that 90% plus of the students I know are in the program because they are genuinely interested in the profession, love the multifaceted nature of surveying, and enjoy a challenge. Dumping on them with the "my generation > your generation" does them no good, and certainly doesn't get you better employees.
I don't know if you noticed I said my generation. I am 26, my comment about my generation was not only directed at surveying. RSAsurv explained that he can't not find any help that know the basics of the profession, and DONT have the desire to learn. It's not the fact that they may not know everything that is needed; but they should know the basics; it's the fact they are unwilling to learn. My post was taking up for the education system, or at least my experience at ETSU. I felt the professors did a good job of explaining the basics old and new, as well as weeding out those who have a weak work ethic and desire to learn.
Just curious how many professional surveyors out there still work outside even once a year? Up north it's exceptionally rare unless it's a very small office. How does your state handle continuing education, do your associations have mandatory learning hours?
Greg Rodger, post: 386199, member: 11989 wrote: Just curious how many professional surveyors out there still work outside even once a year? Up north it's exceptionally rare unless it's a very small office. How does your state handle continuing education, do your associations have mandatory learning hours?
I'm outside M-Thurs. Friday I stay in the office. But on field days I'm still in about 50% of the time. I'm usually outside 10-12 and 1:30-4
Out in it on about 95 percent or more of my projects. Rare that I miss one. As a dual licensee I need 40 hours that are deemed acceptable every two-year renewal period. Half in surveying and half in engineering. If I had only one license it would just be 30 hours every two years. The kicker is that there is no pre-approval except for a required two-hour minimum standards session. So, you put down what you have done that you ASSUME will be accepted if audited. I think you get a certain amount of time to make up any shortage due to rejection of some portion of what you have submitted. I pick up nearly all of my CE out-of-state because it is better, closer and less expensive. As I'm also licensed in real estate I get to put in even more CE, however most of that can be done online.
I am somewhat appalled that there are places where the license holders never go to the field. That is most definitely not something I can support as being appropriate for our profession to allow.
