hello to all,
i am currently updating my licensing application for principles and practice this fall. after a review of my LSIT application, i found a chronological oversight. this oversight was basically x years and y months at this company, etc. the total experience is not wrong, just as it was subdivided through three companies. in my opinion, it is not a huge problem, but that is not up to me.
this lsit application was already accepted.
i feel i will just enclose a letter confirming/clarifying the disparity and hope the review board is ok with that. any opinions?
> hello to all,
> i am currently updating my licensing application for principles and practice this fall. after a review of my LSIT application, i found a chronological oversight. this oversight was basically x years and y months at this company, etc. the total experience is not wrong, just as it was subdivided through three companies. in my opinion, it is not a huge problem, but that is not up to me.
>
> this lsit application was already accepted.
>
> i feel i will just enclose a letter confirming/clarifying the disparity and hope the review board is ok with that. any opinions?
From my perspective, honesty is always the best policy.
For applying for the LS it might matter a lot more than for the LSIT - with the LS it's not just the total experience, it's also the grade and character of the work that they look at - what were your responsibilities and how did you progress in taking on more responsibilities, how much was field work, how much records research, how much office research, how much boundary work versus other kinds of work and so on - and also, corroborating what you put down vs. what your references say about your duties and the work you did. For the LSIT there's only so much they can ask for or expect in terms of experience but for the LS they want to see that your years of experience show some progression in responsibilities and breadth of experience, and aren't just one year's worth of very basic experience repeated for many years.
Probably better to fix it now rather than later.
But others' mileage and opinions may vary.
thanks. i am expecting most responses to ring the same
Yes, correct it now ....
rather than a lot of explaining and squirming later.
I agree. Honesty is crucial.
Did you provide any of those mentioned as references or work verification? If you did you should absolutely send in an amendment to your application.
Andy
Don't the companies you list have to verify your experience w/ PS sign & stamp, as part of the application? Or is your application already sent in to the licensing board? I'd strive to correct it now if possible.
Eddie Machette
Well, since you just pointed out the discrepancy on the Internet, I believe I'd go with disclosure:-)
Don
You're already an lsit. You were accepted based on application info but you passed the test. The error as you describe it is not material to your status, but it would be the most honest thing to disclose it. And, that's what a surveyor strives for.
Consider it your first official revision. Surveyors are entitled to revise (because the contrary could be shown):)
Contact your State Licensing Board and let them tell you what you need to do. This would be your best way to approach the issue.
> For applying for the LS it might matter a lot more than for the LSIT - with the LS it's not just the total experience, it's also the grade and character of the work that they look at - what were your responsibilities and how did you progress in taking on more responsibilities, how much was field work, how much records research, how much office research, how much boundary work versus other kinds of work and so on - and also, corroborating what you put down vs. what your references say about your duties and the work you did. For the LSIT there's only so much they can ask for or expect in terms of experience but for the LS they want to see that your years of experience show some progression in responsibilities and breadth of experience, and aren't just one year's worth of very basic experience repeated for many years.
>
> Probably better to fix it now rather than later.
>
> But others' mileage and opinions may vary.
I agree to fix it. Keep the record clear.
re: "For applying for the LS it might matter a lot more than for the LSIT"
Although Gunter isn't wrong, I prefer to think of the pls an extension to the application for the LSI. Rather than trying to keep the "story straight", it would be best to correct the experience factor up front and keep a copy of your correction in case they don't file it with the older application. Also, depending on the experience, the experience you are showing on the LSI application may be also applicable to the PLS. The chain of experience, (at least for our state) needs to be "progressive". To me, and again, this is a part of the application for the next stage.
Someone below had a good suggestion to call them and ask them the best way to correct it, and explain the general nature of the error. But even if they don't care, I would make sure and document your correction to them, so it doesn't come up at a later date. Sometimes what seems unimportant now suddenly becomes extremely serious in a different time and place.
thanks to all. i am currently drafting a correction letter
Board members in our state tend to stay on the board a very long time. Once you send the letter to correct the error then I think this may reap a reward later on in your career or in fact in just passing the test itself.
We all have technical skills but the one thing hard to teach is plain ethics and by correcting this small discrepancy then I believe that shows your ethical and moral standards. As a board member, I would look on your correction very favorably. I would think, should Moe ever find and error in his work, then he will stand up and make a correction.
If you ever do have a complaint filed later on in your career then perhaps the board members will also remember this point when reviewing the complaint. You will have already given them some evidence of your character.
Best of luck however you go.