Proposed change to OAR 820-010-2020 (Oregon), which is the rule that governs the education/experience qualification to become a PLS. In a nutshell, reduces the experience only period from 12 years to 9.?ÿ It was 8 years when I got licensed 24 years ago. ?ÿ Also backs away from the ABET-accreditation-of-education-or-it-doesn't-count rules. This is only a proposal at this time.
?ÿ
Education and experience requirements for registration as a professional land surveyor.
The following combinations of education and experience may be used to satisfy subsection (4) of OAR 820??010??2000 (Qualifications for Registration as a Professional Land Surveyor): ?ÿ
(1) Graduation from:
a) An ABET accredited Four Year baccalaureate degree in Land Surveying, or Geomatics and three years of experience.
(A) graduation from a post baccalaureate degree program in land surveying or geomatics from a college or university that offers and ABET or ACCE accredited undergraduate program in a discipline similar to that of the post baccalaureate degree program may be substituted for one year of the experience required
(B) for this section only active practice of land surveying work described in ORS 672.005(1)(c) to (f) may be verified by a registered professional engineer or registered professional land surveyor
b) an ABET or ACCE accredited four-year baccalaureate degree in Engineering and six years of experience. Completion of coursework that includes 11 semester or 16 quarter hours of survey instruction and surveying law may be substituted for two years of the experience required.
c) Two Year Degree in land surveying or engineering from an educational institution accredited by CHEA or a substantially similar accreditation organization and six years of experience.?ÿ
(2) NCEES Credentials Evaluation - Equivalent and Three Years of Experience. Completion of coursework not accredited by ABET, if the coursework is evaluated by NCEES Credentials Evaluation (the cost of any NCEES Credentials Evaluation must be borne by the applicant) and?ÿ NCEES determines that the coursework is equivalent to the education requirements of the NCEES Land Surveying Education Standard; and
b) Three Years of Experience
c) if not use to satisfy subsection any of this rule graduation from my post baccalaureate degree program in Land Surveying from a college or university that offers an ABET or ACCE accredited undergraduate program in Land Surveying or geomatics may be substituted for the one year of the experience required in subsection (b) of this rule ?ÿ
(3) NCEES Credentials Evaluation - Not Equivalent
a) Completion of coursework not accredited by ABET, evaluated by NCEES Credentials Evaluation, but determined by NCEES not to be equivalent to the requirements of the NCEES Land Surveying Education Standard may be considered toward qualifying an applicant for registration if the applicant provides evidence of a combination of education and?ÿ experience that totals 9 years. The cost of any NCEES Credentials Evaluation must be born by the applicant.
b) the amount of education that may be substituted for experience under subsection (3)(a) of this rule is as provided in Exhibit 2-a: (exhibit not included) ?ÿ
(4) Military Experience and Training.
a) military experience and training may may be considered as qualifying for the required education experience under this rule, if is a valuated by the joint services transcript JST and the board determines that it is substantially equivalent to the education and experience listed in subsections one to three of this rule
b) military experience and training that is not determined to be substantially equivalent to the education and experience listed in sections (1) to (3) of this rule may be considered toward qualifying an applicant for registration to the extent that the experience and training involves the subjects cited in subsection (1)(b)(A) of this rule, or to the extent of qualifies as experience.
c) the Board will determine the amount of educational credit if any of the military training and experience will be given towards qualifying the applicant for registration as a Professional Land Surveyor
d) if applying with military training and experience weather by qualifying military experience alone, a combination of educational credit and qualifying military experience, or a combination of educational credit, qualifying, military experience and qualify. Non-military experience and applicant must demonstrate that the applicant training and experience is equivalent to a total of 9 years of qualifying experience. For example, an applicant who is granted two years of credit for military training and experience of the subsection?ÿ must demonstrate 7 years of qualifying education, experience, or both outside of the military. ?ÿ
(5) Experience Only - 9 years of experience.
?ÿ
?ÿ
b) an ABET or ACCE accredited four-year baccalaureate degree in Engineering and six years of experience completion of coursework that includes 11 semester or 16 quarter hours of survey instruction and surveying law may be substituted for two years of the experience required
If I'm reading it right, this section is really strange to me.
It is very similar to Kentucky's engineering graduate requirement, except Oregon has two additional years of experience required.?ÿ The strange part is the quoted section (w/o the additional coursework) totals up to 10 years (a year more than the proposed experience only route).?ÿ Or with the surveying specific coursework the same 9 years.
I would have expected the experience only route to be longer in duration than almost any of the formal education + experience routes.
On the one hand, what is the exact justification for lowering the bar? Is there a critical shortage of licensed surveyors? Enough to cause harm to the public or halt critical state projects if more people don't get licensed?
If there is a shortage, can it be entirely (or mostly) attributed to current licensure standards? If they were established a long time ago, what changed between then and now, and why were they working (or not) when implemented?
?ÿ
On the other hand, is the difference between 9 and 12 years enough to make a difference? If someone can't attain minimal competency in nine years, I'm skeptical that an additional three years would make a difference. It looks like the Board would be evaluating any non-accredited education, which is reasonable.
It's really tough to evaluate experience-only without a lot more testing than is currently in place. The statement "applicant performed ABC under my supervision" can mean wildly different things to different mentors.
The OR state-specific is free-form answer rather than multiple choice, if I remember correctly? That format is far better for evaluation of applicants, no matter how they met education/experience requirements.
b) an ABET or ACCE accredited four-year baccalaureate degree in Engineering and six years of experience. Completion of coursework that includes 11 semester or 16 quarter hours of survey instruction and surveying law may be substituted for two years of the experience required.
I think that a period is missing, the addition of which makes that paragraph read better.?ÿ But we have a 10 year path if you study engineering, and a 9 year path if you dispense with school altogether. Hmmm.?ÿ
Hmmm.?ÿ
Hmmmm, Indeed.
I can be aware that some folks believe there is little value to gain from the formal education even if I don't agree (everyone has their own opinion).?ÿ But to not only not value education, but devalue it by adding time required to licensure is out of touch in my view.
On the one hand, what is the exact justification for lowering the bar?
When I wrote in 1998, the standard was 8 years experience, but the rule of 4 year degree requirement (plus 4 year experience), and no experience only path was scheduled to go into effect at the end of '98. That didn't last long due to the fact that OIT was graduating 3 or 4 people from its Geomatics program per year. So the 12 year rule was instituted- perhaps as a face saving measure.
At that time the standard in Washington state was 6 years. Shortly thereafter they went to 8 years, and I believe that they have stayed there.?ÿ Oregon's most populous city being on the border with Washington makes the connection between the two rather strong.?ÿ
So I think that this is mostly just a step towards a full return to the pre-'98 rules, and correlation to the Washington rules. They probably aren't seeing any problems, more or less, with 12 year people that they have with 8's. So why not?
?ÿ
?ÿ?ÿ
But to not only not value education, but devalue it by adding time required to licensure is out of touch in my view.
Hear, hear. Real-world on-the-job is valuable, but for a licensed profession means nothing without deeper understanding.
?ÿ
So I think that this is mostly just a step towards a full return to the pre-'98 rules, and correlation to the Washington rules. They probably aren't seeing any problems, more or less, with 12 year people that they have with 8's. So why not?
I will say that working with my colleagues to the south in OR is (usually) pretty nice. 95% of the time when we discuss technical surveying matters, or even the fundamentals, there's minimal confusion, few arguments, and a lot less of "but that's the way I've always done it!"
Here in WA where the bar is no degree, eight years experience? Understanding of fundamentals is highly variable.
Some folks may be great at short plats and basic records of survey using terrestrial methods, but that's literally all they did, under a single mentor, until they got licensed. Often there's a massive knowledge gap when it comes to doing anything more advanced than a traverse, maybe rotated to "state plane" based on a couple of RTN GNSS shots.
Maybe I'm expecting too much, and maybe that should be considered minimal competency.
But I've seen those folks get hired by another firm simply because they're licensed, and all of a sudden they're doing commercial ALTAs with remote sensing, geodetic control, high-precision construction layout, historic ROW retracement, etc. etc.
There is a very tiny percentage of folks who came up through the experience-only path and have put the effort in to understand all that other stuff. It's a TINY percentage.
It can be incredibly frustrating to try and collaborate with folks who not only cannot understand the critical underlying concepts governing the professional services we provide, but want to argue over them. Differences of opinion I can understand, and I'll defer to other surveyors even when I might have done things differently. Willful ignorance is another matter.
Does 12 years solve that problem? Like I said, I'm skeptical.
what is the exact justification for lowering the bar
I wouldn't characterize it as lowering the bar, but making the bar reasonable.
I'm skeptical that an additional three years would make a difference.
Yes, totally agree with this.
But we have a 10 year path if you study engineering, and a 9 year path if you dispense with school altogether. Hmmm.?ÿ
10 for engineering degree, 9 for no degree? This is absurd. It's something that should be addressed in comments to the proposed changes.
f there is a shortage, can it be entirely (or mostly) attributed to current licensure standards? If they were established a long time ago, what changed between then and now, and why were they working (or not) when implemented?
There's a shortage, and definitely a severe shortage in the next few years.
My quick take is of let's get people qualified to be licensed; and then those qualified people licensed.
Artificial barriers, such as extended time periods, are counterproductive.
Disclosure... Me: BS, Surveying Engineering (ABET) [Also a not-survey-related Master's Degree]
@tim-v-pls The extra year for an engineering degree is for deprogramming. ????
Seriously, the shortage is as bad in experience only States as those with a four-year degree requirement. This is a solution already proven not to work.
OSBEELS & PLSO need to team up to provide advice and find money for your in-state programs. Make the degree useful and do some marketing. It works?ÿ
A couple of folks from OBSBEELS joined in on PLSO Board of Directors meetings when I was on the board, seeking input from PLSO on rules changes.
Money for our state schools is an excellent idea.
My experience with OIT grads is they are very well versed in surveying essentials and all move into some sort of leadership position with a few years of beginning their careers. I'd suggest that it's an extremely useful degree.
Marketing? Yes, PLSO working on that as well.
Kentucky started requiring a 4 year degree 11 years ago and commissioned a study before they did that by a company that predicted a 10 year slow decline in the number of licensees and then an uptick.?ÿ We are apparently right on schedule with the uptick just beginning.?ÿ?ÿ
At our conference last week, the TAPS president gave a very inspiring speech about one guy who made a heck of a difference and one of the things he did was reach out to young people to get them interested in our profession which Kentucky has been trying for years, albeit with limited success.?ÿ We have gotten in front of lots of kids but not really reached them.?ÿ Tennessee is now working closely with FFA and those are definitely our peeps.?ÿ They love going out in the woods, work hard, and are generally ambitious and bright.?ÿ Sorry for the sideways hijack.
At our conference last week, the TAPS president gave a very inspiring speech about one guy who made a heck of a difference and one of the things he did was reach out to young people to get them interested in our profession which Kentucky has been trying for years, albeit with limited success.?ÿ We have gotten in front of lots of kids but not really reached them.
When I went back for my degree, the Geomatics Student Association was pretty active but didn't do much outreach. A few of us just started doing it on our own, prepping presentations, educational vignettes and bringing gear to middle and high schools in the area.
It seemed to me that the high schoolers were a little more engaged with and receptive to college students giving hands-on presentations, and letting them operate gear and ask questions along the way, as opposed to a local firm owner or PLS coming in for a career day. Not sure if it was because the high schoolers were able to relate more to other students, or if the firm owners were just a little more formal and intimidating.
We definitely saw a couple seniors show up in the geomatics program in the next year or two. Also, each year we pulled in at least a few, if not a half dozen or more, students from other engineering programs by just inviting them to the GSA meetings. There were some really sharp, really good engineering students who didn't want to spend their entire career behind a monitor.
I don't know that we made a huge difference, at least in the three years that I was there, but I think it had a lot of potential.
Money for our state schools is an excellent idea.
I'd also add that firms reimbursing tuition and/or setting up flex-time programs for employees to go through school, or go back to school, is something easily implemented. Especially nowadays with more online programs and remote work opportunities. Too many firms look at school as a bother and a crimp on production schedules.
Degree programs only work if local/state firms understand their value and support them - and their students.
Hmmm.?ÿ
Hmmmm, Indeed.
I can be aware that some folks believe there is little value to gain from the formal education even if I don't agree (everyone has their own opinion).?ÿ But to not only not value education, but devalue it by adding time required to licensure is out of touch in my view.
Jon, and Mark, I think this subsection should be looked at and interpreted by you a bit differently and see whom it is applying too.
Do you think someone who goes to school for an engineering degree only. should be able to use all that time to bypass experience in surveying to sit for a surveying exam? I think the board is looking at it like, OK, you have a degree in civil engineering, and most likely you are following that path to become a PE and justifying the PE requirements etc. But you also want to be a PLS?????? then maybe just 3 years of experience (like subsection (a)requires for surveying grads) isn't quite enough and we want to see that you have 6 years of work experience in surveying-related work. I think it reads out ok and is interpreted to ensure that every new civil grad (which is a lot) does not simply go get a PLS as well and has a bit more experience. It's not devaluing their civil education, but if that is the route one (applicant) chose to just get to a PLS then yeah, probably it is a longer route.?ÿ
If the engineering school offers surveying coursework, then there is a newly created matrix that will be used to determine how much experience that may account for.
As you noted Mark, many who went the original experience route back in the day only had an 8-year path, and some old timers, in PLSO and other outreach groups OSBEELS has been working with voiced that opinion. Others who went through the 12 year route have expressed that this is some degradation of the profession and nothing is broken.
I feel it is a fantastic step by OSBEELS at a minimum to look at rules and regulations that need updating. I applaud them for reaching out to the local universities as early stakeholders for input and reaching out to PLSO to get input for their task force.
The other changes related to accreditation and Credential evaluation will finally allow graduates of schools like Clark College, Umpqua, Chemeketa and PCC that do teach surveying and geospatial courses some validation to their students that the inventment in themselves will be recognized by the board for the profession they seek.
No changes will be made to the content of the exam.
my 0.02c, Cheers
Four years of "experience" is adequate beyond the education requirement.?ÿ Many are gaining the experience part time while schooling full time or getting it by part time schooling with full time survey work.?ÿ The key elements are those required to pass the licensure examinations on the first try.?ÿ Most line-clearing, stob-pounding, hole digging, SMH dipping, gear toting laborers are not being exposed to what it takes to understand and fully grasp geodesy, statistics and survey law to the extent to pass the licensure examinations.
@holy-cow I agree with your line of reasoning when applied to states that actually do a good job testing, but some state exams just require regurgitation of state rules and statutes, some are "take home" which creates a great temptation from the stake pounders to cheat, and some do a decent job.
Thanks, Jered for those remarks. I'd forgotten some of that reasoning.
@rover83?ÿ
As someone who has recently passed the minimum competency test benchmark of the FS, having a non engineering degree and only 5.5 years of direct land survey experience ( but doing geospatial and geophysics for 17yrs and NSPS O/F CST2 ) I can tell you I was surprised I passed based on the crap exam prep available to the test takers. It's pretty appalling.
That being said, some states forbid you from taking that test without first having a completed a degree in civil engineering or land surveying, and apply the license requirements for the admission to LSIT, where other states accept the FS exam as the benchmark of minimum competency.?ÿ Lowering the bar isn't the issue. Consistency across the whole country for minimum competency and skills is the real problem.?ÿ
My doctor lawyer nurse plumber electrician etc etc etc friends all have that. We really need that too. And complete buy in. Not the crap we have now.
We have a minimum of 3 tests.?ÿ Essentially the FS is like the MCAT or The LSAT, but it's more than that. The PS is like your USMLE(THE TEST YOU HAVE TO TAKE IN YOUR SECOND YEAR THAT IF YOU DON'T PASS YOU DON'T GET TO GRADUATE MEDICAL SCHOOL AND MOVE ON) AND then you get to take the state specific test(which is appropriate) to then be licensed.?ÿ
The lack of truly concrete and objective quantifiable check boxes and requirements like those professions I mentioned above are the issue plaguing this professional career tract.
And we need to be quantified by surveyors, not engineers. They don't survey. And absolutely not lawyers?ÿ
I'm glad I found a way to study for and pass working 65 hours a week. I don't give myself enough credit for how much I've?ÿ learned both scholastically and in the field from people who taught me all they could and those that didnt even care to try.
Either way I'm glad this discussion is continuing to grow and I have a limited perspective but a minor seat at this table to add my comments concerns and even solutions because I'm coming at it from a different perspective of the same end goal.
Carry on.?ÿ great topic.
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
edit:?ÿ Found this great example of the endemic problem in another state as exemplified from a post on the NY state specific test... we have to do better than just tow the friggin line of it's too hard to change update and improve....jeesh.....
?ÿ
I have been told the exam is basically unchanged in 30+ years. I have been told this is because the process to modify or add a question to the NYS specific is extremely rigorous and time consuming. I have heard that some people have successfully challenged questions.
And that's because they either are happy dipping the SMHs pounding stakes, breathing diesel fumes and dust all day or are never given an option or a chance to escape or matriculate past that because the profession isn't finding them valuable enough to encourage and promote that.?ÿ It's almost a form of self immolation unto itself.
crazy.
?ÿ
?ÿ
@jitterboogie I have been through a complete update of a State specific exam. If your Board has a dedicated subject matter expert it isn't that bad. Psychometric evaluation is only a few grand these days. The issue many States have is being under the thumb of a State-wide umbrella agency that has no clue what we do.
I would agree with that. Survey is a special specialty.
The best thing we can do(IMNSHO) is to self inspect and and self Correct, and not keep rehashing avoiding and blindly following the past but take the time to see how we I sure our seat at the table of the licensed professionals community is not only validated amoungst society but make them aware that the title company's realtors and the like have zero competency in our profession and have no business implying nor misguiding the general public about what we do or how much it should cost...I'm starting to THRAC...sorry.?ÿ a this and a three foot flame really burns my ass....