Licensing Laws Are Shutting Young People Out Of The Job Market

The author makes some valid points, but what is the solution? To do away with licensing requirements? I can't speak for other careers, but I for one do not want to work or own property in an area where surveyors are not required to be licensed. We have enough boundary problems without anyone who decides to buy a total station and prism pole being able to call themselves surveyors and charging unknowing clients for their work. I believe similar situations in the past caused many of the problems we have now.

Achieving licensure in any career is supposed to be difficult. It's a sign that you are an expert at what you do. Without trying to start a political debate, it seems to be part of the "entitlement" generation. Too many people want to have what they have not earned, and place the blame for not having it upon anyone but themselves. If you want to become licensed, work for it.

I might be a minority but I believe a college degree requirement for surveying is too much. As in needing a surveying degree.

I'm 32 and newly licensed. My generation barely will have any surveyors the way it is. I'm in ny and we only require 8 years experience which to me is reasonable. And still give it 15 years and I'll be swamped with work due to the lack of surveyors replacing the elders.

Surveyors here get licensed twice a year, like most areas, and in my October session, in the entire state only 4 people got a license.

This is a bad thing. When there is too much work and not enough surveyors to handle it, society will find a way to replace the need some other way.

I can only imagine how scarce surveyors will be in areas where a surveying degree is required. They will be extinct in 25 years.

Rich., post: 368921, member: 10450 wrote: I might be a minority but I believe a college degree requirement for surveying is too much. As in needing a surveying degree.

I'm 32 and newly licensed. My generation barely will have any surveyors the way it is. I'm in ny and we only require 8 years experience which to me is reasonable. And still give it 15 years and I'll be swamped with work due to the lack of surveyors replacing the elders.

Surveyors here get licensed twice a year, like most areas, and in my October session, in the entire state only 4 people got a license.

This is a bad thing. When there is too much work and not enough surveyors to handle it, society will find a way to replace the need some other way.

I can only imagine how scarce surveyors will be in areas where a surveying degree is required. They will be extinct in 25 years.

I wouldn't say you're in the minority at all. A lot of surveyors are against a degree requirement, but I'm not. I know it sounds hypocritical of me to take that stance because I don't have a degree myself, but I do believe it will help the profession in the long run. There was a time not that long ago when engineers didn't have to have a degree for licensure, but it's hard to imagine an engineer without a degree today. The result has been that engineers can demand higher fees and they aren't accused of overcharging clients (not as much as surveyors, anyway).

Also, think of your situation this way. Fewer surveyors in your area means you can charge more for your work and choose better jobs. The way society will replace the need is fees go up, attracting more qualified people to the area. This may make it sound like I don't care enough about the needs of our clients, but this is business. Believe me, if people are willing to pay more, they can get someone to survey their property.

C Billingsley, post: 368913, member: 1965 wrote: Achieving licensure in any career is supposed to be difficult. It's a sign that you are an expert at what you do. Without trying to start a political debate, it seems to be part of the "entitlement" generation. Too many people want to have what they have not earned, and place the blame for not having it upon anyone but themselves. If you want to become licensed, work for it.

I'm going to have to disagree with this. In many fields, license laws are for little purpose other than keeping out competition. Seriously now, why do florists need to be licensed? Has anyone ever suffered legitimate mental or physical trauma over a bad floral arrangement? The same goes for interior decorators and hair braiders. You cannot protect people from themselves. Every time I hear someone say government needs to license practitioners to protect the public, I think of the scene from Tommy Boy about the guarantee on the box. It's a guaranteed piece of excrement. Well, if your sole qualification is the fact that the government saw fit to give you a license, you're a licensed piece of excrement.

Rich., post: 368921, member: 10450 wrote: I might be a minority but I believe a college degree requirement for surveying is too much. As in needing a surveying degree.

I'm 32 and newly licensed. My generation barely will have any surveyors the way it is. I'm in ny and we only require 8 years experience which to me is reasonable. And still give it 15 years and I'll be swamped with work due to the lack of surveyors replacing the elders.

Surveyors here get licensed twice a year, like most areas, and in my October session, in the entire state only 4 people got a license.

This is a bad thing. When there is too much work and not enough surveyors to handle it, society will find a way to replace the need some other way.

I can only imagine how scarce surveyors will be in areas where a surveying degree is required. They will be extinct in 25 years.

I disagree. I think this new fad of mass hysteria about "not enough surveyors" entering the profession is way over-blown. The main reason why the numbers of surveyors becoming licensed is low pay in comparison to other respected professions. When a surveyor has to spend the same amount of time and money acquiring an education as an engineer, and enters the job market making considerably less, and will probably over the course of his career always earn less, why enter surveying - for the mosquitos or the endless circular "debates" with Kent?

When the number of surveyors drop enough to significantly affect the law of supply and demand, things will change rapidly. Imagine how fast the surveying schools will fill up when a newly licensed surveyor can demand in excess of 70K. Economics always has and always will dictate the number of people entering the professions.

The main problem I see with the current hyperventilating about the increasing age of surveyors is the only proposed solution discussed is to increase the quantity of people entering the profession. When you focus only on quantity - a guaranteed result is that quality will suffer. If we want our profession to eventually fade away into the dust bin of history, increase the quantity and decrease the quality of license holders.

Now is the perfect time to insist on raising the quality of surveyors. Better college programs and better pre-license work experience is the answer. Start teaching the professional side of surveying - boundary law, professional ethics, conflict resolution, professional communications, business law, etc. Demand more accountability in mentoring. Change the content of the state licensing exams from regurgitating statutes and rules to include state specific boundary resolution.

When the economic laws swing to lower supply and higher demand, and we finally are providing the quality of service commensurate to level of compensation we should demand, then, and only then, will our profession will be on solid footing for the future. More button-pushing technicians entering the race to under-bid each other, and under-provide for the public is a guaranteed recipe for disaster.

Tommy Young, post: 368932, member: 703 wrote: I'm going to have to disagree with this. In many fields, license laws are for little purpose other than keeping out competition. Seriously now, why do florists need to be licensed? Has anyone ever suffered legitimate mental or physical trauma over a bad floral arrangement? The same goes for interior decorators and hair braiders. You cannot protect people from themselves. Every time I hear someone say government needs to license practitioners to protect the public, I think of the scene from Tommy Boy about the guarantee on the box. It's a guaranteed piece of excrement. Well, if your sole qualification is the fact that the government saw fit to give you a license, you're a licensed piece of excrement.

I'm not going to argue with you about florists and hair braiders. Frankly, I don't care if they are licensed or not. Surveyors are a different story. Every time a poor survey is performed, several people are harmed. After all, protecting the public is one of our primary responsibilities. You will still have good surveyors without a license requirement, but unfortunately you will also have more poor surveyors. Removing the license requirement would open the door for lots of very poor surveyors. They have to be regulated somehow, and even though it may not be perfect there has to be a system in place to do so.

C Billingsley, post: 368936, member: 1965 wrote: I'm not going to argue with you about florists and hair braiders. Frankly, I don't care if they are licensed or not. Surveyors are a different story. Every time a poor survey is performed, several people are harmed. After all, protecting the public is one of our primary responsibilities. You will still have good surveyors without a license requirement, but unfortunately you will also have more poor surveyors. Removing the license requirement would open the door for lots of very poor surveyors. They have to be regulated somehow, and even though it may not be perfect there has to be a system in place to do so.

Folks I think you might misread what I wrote.

Nobody ever said to do away with licensing or license requirements.

To do so would be silly and irresponsible.

My point was only about requiring a surveying degree. Who here would be a surveyor today if a SURVEYING degree had been required to be licensed? My guess is very few.

Most surveyors, even the good ones, I would venture to say got into the business through working for surveyors and learning or through generations.

**Not because when they were 16 graduating high school they decided they wanted to be a surveyor and trotted to college for surveying.

Some do but most not.

To have to work for a surveyor for 8, 10 or more years and have the surveyor agree by signing for them that they are qualified after that time period, followed by testing works too.

C Billingsley, post: 368931, member: 1965 wrote: I wouldn't say you're in the minority at all. A lot of surveyors are against a degree requirement, but I'm not. I know it sounds hypocritical of me to take that stance because I don't have a degree myself, but I do believe it will help the profession in the long run. There was a time not that long ago when engineers didn't have to have a degree for licensure, but it's hard to imagine an engineer without a degree today. The result has been that engineers can demand higher fees and they aren't accused of overcharging clients (not as much as surveyors, anyway).

Also, think of your situation this way. Fewer surveyors in your area means you can charge more for your work and choose better jobs. The way society will replace the need is fees go up, attracting more qualified people to the area. This may make it sound like I don't care enough about the needs of our clients, but this is business. Believe me, if people are willing to pay more, they can get someone to survey their property.

Believe me, I'm not worried about amount of work or pricing. I turn 60% of calls each day away. I just worry about the day there is 4 surveyors in this entire County instead of however many there are now.

If the degree requirement would help in the long run that would be fine. Problem I see is bigger than that. Most people don't even know what 'those guys on the side of the road' do.... let alone kids choosing what they wanna be when they grow up as they head to college

I see the problem as the surveyors themselves. We can sit on here and complain until we are blue in the face. We can complain when a realtor releases a video on what land surveying is, or a GISP tries to explain surveying, or a homeowner posts a video on how to find property corners with their iPhone.
We react. We are hardly ever proactive. When was the last time that you reached out and explained surveying to the public and not through a phone call. When was the last time that you reached out to children to interest children in land surveying. Forget high schoolers...you're already too late. They know what they want to do or have a good idea. Get to the elementary and middle school aged kids.
Last years KAPS and the Initial Point chapter of ISPLS had a booth at our state fair to reach kids and explain what surveyors do to the general public. We had equipment, fliers, candy, etc. to help. KAPS also had a booth at a career fair. I tell these kids the (near immediate) future of surveying and the potential money here. Teenagers see dollar signs and electronics. This is how we interest kids. Do it.

I think an education is necessary. Maybe not 4 years but at least an associates. There were far too many button pushers in years past. I've had bosses that were great surveyors but couldn't begin to explain standard deviation, if they even knew what it was.
I'm not brilliant, maybe not even smart. But I care about this profession. A lot. We need to do something. We need to be more proactive. We need to nurture our profession and quit using it to simply make money or we won't be making money in 20 years.

Remember "Every man owes some of his time to the up-building of the profession to which he belongs"

C Billingsley, post: 368936, member: 1965 wrote: I'm not going to argue with you about florists and hair braiders. Frankly, I don't care if they are licensed or not. Surveyors are a different story. Every time a poor survey is performed, several people are harmed. After all, protecting the public is one of our primary responsibilities. You will still have good surveyors without a license requirement, but unfortunately you will also have more poor surveyors. Removing the license requirement would open the door for lots of very poor surveyors. They have to be regulated somehow, and even though it may not be perfect there has to be a system in place to do so.

I am a strong believer that the 4 year statute of repose in Tennessee is a mistake, because it protects jackleg surveyors from civil lawsuits. If that was changed to about 8 years, these clowns would be opened up to being sued out of existence. That would certainly be a strong way to regulate the profession without the need of a surveyors board. Now, that being said, I'm not necessarily in favor of doing away with surveyor's licenses because you're right, there are more people affected by shoddy surveying than the client.

When the number of surveyors drops to critical stages the engineers will petition to get back into the market, after all, with todays equipment anyone can measure accurately. What most engineers do no understand is that surveying is much more than measuring. Some of my toughest work is correcting deeds and maps that came from the hands of engineers.

I just completed a 15 acre farm survey that I severely underbid. I saw that the deed closed almost perfectly and thought it was a simple retracement. I did not look beneath the surface. That perfect closure was because the engineer took a compass and perches deed, converted the perches to feet and the compass bearing to degrees and minutes, then adjusted all the bearings to get his closure. I found 11 of 11 markers, and was able to hold deed bearing and distance on two consecutive lines of a 1 acre outparcel, 3 found pipes. For almost everything else I was held by found corners, almost all of which were in conformity to adjacent deeds. The one called for corner I did not hold was a called for fence post. I had filed map subdivisions to the North and East and enough of their markers to agree with their geometry and set an iron pin in a tree root 0.5' away. That pincushion is likely to never be complained about.

Currently I am on a 90 acre farm survey and will hold about 1 mile of rock rows/trees with wires over some adjacent deeds and filed maps that ignored all evidence of occupation if they ever looked. I have 4 adjacent filed maps, 2 to the North, 2 to the South, and can hold one perfectly. I was blown away that my set stone to set stone distance was within 0.01' of record. You just do not argue with that. Along the East is a road I surveyed for farmland on the far side. Along the West is an unfiled map subdivision, engineer long gone. I've met with 3 surveyors, r.e. 3 of the filed maps and the perfect one retraced some of the West lots and his official response is "No comment". The homeowners state they know they go to the rock row and I will most likely ignore some pins found elsewhere.

Engineers just cannot understand what has gone on in the past on the ground as compared to the record.

Paul in PA, PE, PLS

Paul in PA, post: 368954, member: 236 wrote: When the number of surveyors drops to critical stages the engineers will petition to get back into the market,

I think that's the fear that keeps people worried about the lack of young people entering the profession as more are leaving, by death and retirement.

Paul in PA, post: 368954, member: 236 wrote: When the number of surveyors drops to critical stages the engineers will petition to get back into the market, after all, with todays equipment anyone can measure accurately.

Do you really think this would even be a threat of happening if we were a self regulated profession, you know, kind of like all the other respected professions?

Whose fault is it that everyone thinks all we do is measure?
Whose college programs are filled with "measuring" courses instead of law, business, and ethics?
Who, whenever given the chance to show the public (especially youngsters) what we do, trot out our measuring tools?
Who allows far too many so called "professionals" within our profession to practice as if stated measurements are controlling when retracing boundaries?

When thinking of engineers and their profession, do we see their calculators or material specification tables? No, we see the bridges and highways?
When thinking of architects and their profession, do we see their scissors, glue, and drafting tables? No, we see attractive, stylish, and functional buildings, churches, and houses.
When thinking of doctors, surgeons and their profession, do we see their plastic booties, MRI machines, and tongue depressors? No we think of the miracles they perform in saving and improving lives.
When thinking of lawyers and their profession, do we see their ......... OK, never mind, maybe not a good example. Well, OK, yes, maybe a positive is that we envision, BMW's, mansions, and sexy young blondes as 2nd and 3rd wives.
But yet, whenever we try to "advertise" our profession, we trot out the measuring tools and then wonder why we are not seen for what we really do or seen as one of the respected professions. Go figure!

Why are surveyors so insecure? Are we really incapable of defending ourselves against the big bad engineers and GIS'ers?

Apparently so. It seems we are incapable of behaving, practicing, educating, regulating, and earning like "real" professionals.

The engineering profession could quite easily reabsorb the survey specialty back within its ranks now that it has decided to go with areas of specialization for licensing. Now that there are structural engineers and environmental engineers, for example, rather than a single engineer label it would be extremely simple to add surveying engineer to the list of options for testing and labeling. As the demand expands for the surveyor to have a four-year degree this makes even more sense. Civil Engineers take enough classes in things like statically determinate structures and and statically indeterminate structures and soil mechanics and such that they are distinctly different from their Electrical Engineering friends who take classes in advanced circuit theory. microelectronic devices and signal processing. Surveying Engineers would simply take enough classes in subjects unique to the applications in surveying to be distinctly different from all the other categories.

Many years ago I saw a quote somewhere that read something like this:

Yetserday I cudn't spel seckraterry. Tooday I are won.

Those who whine about the need to prove they have the experience and training to provide a specific service to mankind need to imagine a world where the people they pay for specialized services had no need to prove they had the experience and training to properly provide those services. Heck, replacing a knee socket only takes a portable drill with a blade attachment, a hammer and pliers.

I really like 538. One of my favorite sites on the internet wasteland for news, science and sports etc. based on geek math.

The article is addressing occupational licensing. The reality is that one needs license for any job now from A to Z. It has swung to an extreme. Do I really need a licensed masseuse, barber, taxi driver, dog groomer, tree trimmer, grass cutter etc.

But do I need a licensed doctor, accountant, pilot, teacher or other professional services.

I have 3 licenses. A driver license, a PLS license and a national soccer coach license (Class D).
Wife has 3 licenses. Driver, social worker and counselor.
The young teen has one. Grade 8 referee license. ( don't laugh, he makes $25-40/hr with the only occupational hazard being crazy soccer dads/moms. Not bad money for a 13 yr old)

Holy Cow, post: 368974, member: 50 wrote: Surveying Engineers would simply take enough classes in subjects unique to the applications in surveying to be distinctly different from all the other categories.

That's fine for construction surveying. Where's the boundary law? Certainly not much of it in the Engineering college. I would let the Engineers retake construction, mapping, GIS, etc. and have a separate Boundary license with the education requirement not being a degree, but rather a large number of hours of boundary law.

I suppose most of you ought to be thankful that you work in a country which requires surveyors to be licensed. Just think of how stress-free life would be if any engineer, architect or tape measure owner could "sort out" boundary problems.

Then throw in a system which relies on "General Boundaries" rather than on coordinates and full dimensions.

As some have already indicated, it isn't just a degree which is important: the critical skill is experience. That only comes with time. True for any profession (even lawyers).

My older brothers had licenses to operate movie projectors. Even 16mm. My brothers would get excused from high school classes to show the "How to pick a bra size" and other important school subjects. My father had full sound equipped Bell and Howell for his farm equipment promotions. I would accompany my father when he went to nursing homes once a week to show movies to the residents. I never got the projector license, probably because the requirement was dropped or some teachers finally got licensed, but I am not sure.

I would not want to sit in a barber's chair with an untested person wielding a straight razor. My auto mechanic has multiple licenses, one to do auto inspections and one for emissions testing.

Survey engineering is a thought, but not the way PA handles it. To be a surveyor a 4 year degree, Penn State has a 42+ survey credit program, a 30 credit AS program but a CE only needs 10 survey credits. I would say that should be upped to at least 24 credits for a post grad survey certificate or 36 for a Master's in Surveying. Law courses should also be required.

My engineering major was structures, but I would not want to sit today for the 16 hour structural PE.

BTW, should the Survey test be separate for PLSS or Colonial surveying?

Paul in PA