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.
Jered, I didn't heed the phrasing as just being "engineering" which is not as specific as my home states language which specifically applies to civil, agricultural, and mining engineering (all of which have historically required some surveying instruction and by statute require 12 hours in surveying core curriculum instead of making it optional).?ÿ Those particular engineering disciplines, at some schools (out of state), no longer require surveying as a part of the curriculum.?ÿ Any other engineering discipline would fall into another category in Kentucky and require 24 credit hours of the core surveying curriculum.
If one follows the proposed Oregon language and gets a 4 year engineering degree and takes the additional surveying course work in that time, the end result of education and experience is very much in line with several education requirements I've seen, but....
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?
No, not all.?ÿ But I also don't think that (next paragraph down concerning 2 year degrees) someone with a 2-year degree in engineering would (on average) reach the same level of expertise in the same number of years or even 2 years less time (combined education & experience) than someone who attained a 4-year degree in engineering.?ÿ Nor do I think that the optional 11 hours of course work that could count as 2 years of experience for a 4-year engineering degree makes much sense in relation to the 4-year degree in land surveying; as that means the 4-year engineering and 4- year land surveying degrees would then require 4 or 3 respectively years of experience (suggesting that the main component of a 4-year land surveying degree is simply about 16 credit hours of surveying specific coursework).
Like you, I applaud them for tackling the task.?ÿ It is certainly not an easy thing to address, especially with the various competing interests.?ÿ It just does not appear to me that the balances are in place for the various paths to be equal in professional growth.
?ÿ
?ÿ
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.
Please expound on this.
I may be misunderstanding what your statement seems to suggest.
Two thoughts:
One, I've always thought that the 4+4 or 12 yrs experience only was a good compromise setup. It is all the in between arrangements that need addressing, IMO. I got my license at 8 years experience (although I also had 3 years of college and several years of somewhat similar life experience that I could have claimed, if it had been an option). Yet it was near 5 years after that before my day to day work life changed in the slightest.?ÿ That was probably just as well.
Two, survey licensure exists for boundary surveying. Oh, sure. PLSs are often turned to provide control, topographic mapping, and staking, etc. but the licensing would not exist except for the boundary part. Four year graduates may bring a lot to the table in many areas of our professional practice, particularly the more technical, but perhaps boundary law is the least of it. That is why surveyors often get licensed on the basis of experience only and engineers rarely do. And that is why many good boundary surveyors are deficient in the area of geodesy. It would be easier to convert an attorney into a boundary surveyor than it would be an engineer.?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ
Two, survey licensure exists for boundary surveying. Oh, sure. PLSs are often turned to provide control, topographic mapping, and staking, etc. but the licensing would not exist except for the boundary part. Four year graduates may bring a lot to the table in many areas of our professional practice, particularly the more technical, but perhaps boundary law is the least of it. That is why surveyors often get licensed on the basis of experience only and engineers rarely do. And that is why many good boundary surveyors are deficient in the area of geodesy. It would be easier to convert an attorney into a boundary surveyor than it would be an engineer.
I agree completely. This is also why there's support (count me among their number) for splitting the license into multiple endorsements.
I still think that an accredited four-year degree covers the fundamentals that every geomatics professional should start out from. It could be argued that a practitioner doing straight geodetic control or remote sensing does not strictly need to know boundary resolution, or that a boundary-only surveyor does not strictly need to know photogrammetric principles or GIS.
But we are already at the point where there is significant overlap between the technical/geomatics and the legal/boundary practices. Given the prevalence of digital deliverables and mixing and matching data from different sources for everything from planning and research to design/build, I would argue that anyone practicing or offering services in the realm of geomatics needs the full complement of courses to at least begin from. From there, if one wants to pursue a particular discipline of geomatics, they should have the ability to take additional coursework and/or gain experience before taking a targeted exam.
As we've discussed in other threads, only the boundary portion is significantly different between states - and even that has a lot of overlap in the fundamentals. The other areas could be national licenses or endorsements.
we are already at the point where there is significant overlap between the technical/geomatics and the legal/boundary practices. Given the prevalence of digital deliverables and mixing and matching data from different sources for everything from planning and research to design/build,
Please expound on this.
I may be misunderstanding what your statement seems to suggest.
As rover posited, the overlap is the overwhelming evidence that the state specific elements are all that needs to be addressed when going to different states. If we're playing the "show me what you know" again game, we all lose.
Doctors, nurses, plumbers, electricians( and i know there are more, work with me here)?ÿ all have passed their license tests, and move freely about only applying for licensure in the new states.?ÿ Save any sanctions from their Boards, law suits or settlements,?ÿ they are allowed to practice and carry on.?ÿ Lawyers, (similar to surveyors) are barred in the local laws which do differ, and different than surveyors, in some states they are allowed to establish practice reciprocity and not get banned or denied due to a ridiculous ABET standard that only stands in the way of them being able to practice at the same level of competency they had been forsometimes decades. Its time to move the practice forward, not hold onto old ideologies that limit or even retard and diminish the value the surveying field provides.?ÿ
@jitterboogie I am curious which States are refusing to issue a comity license because a degree is non-ABET. The more common practice is to approve applicants based on requirements at the time they earn their first license.?ÿ
I do see room for improvement in portability without watering down the qualifications. Breaking the NCEES PS into modules allows for targeted testing?ÿ This opebs the door for liensing by disipline as well.
I have successfully earned five licenses, four by comity. A few were very difficult and I'm just fine with that. We make decisions impacting the largest wealth building tool the average American ever touches. While a more consistent application process is warranted, I am all for the States setting their own bar with regards to minimum competence.?ÿ
?ÿ
Two, survey licensure exists for boundary surveying. Oh, sure. PLSs are often turned to provide control, topographic mapping, and staking, etc. but the licensing would not exist except for the boundary part. Four year graduates may bring a lot to the table in many areas of our professional practice, particularly the more technical, but perhaps boundary law is the least of it. That is why surveyors often get licensed on the basis of experience only and engineers rarely do. And that is why many good boundary surveyors are deficient in the area of geodesy. It would be easier to convert an attorney into a boundary surveyor than it would be an engineer.?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ
Yes! Civil engineers and technicians could handle everything else. Our university programs are failing to reflect that. One reason is that University's need PhD's teaching for accreditation and almost all the survey related PhD's are geomaticians. Another is the instance in preferring ABET accredited programs (most states have alternatives availble). Engineers make awful boundary surveyors. (This is a generalization and there are exceptions).?ÿ
@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.
I also took and passed the FS (many years ago) with a non-surveying degree. I only had a year experience. The only studying I did was going through the NCEES sample exam and looking up the terminology I didn't recognize. Once you understand the terminology, anyone with a solid math/science background should be able to handle all the non boundary questions. I then tried to enroll in classes at the nearest University offering a survey program, but the head of the program had absolutely no flexibility and insisted on strict adherence to the prerequisites, even though I demonstrated to him that I could easily pass almost all the past final exams.?ÿ
I guess what I am trying to say is that while we should have four year education requirement, we also need flexibility throughout the system on recognition of the fact that we fail miserably at recruiting through the high school-4 year survey degree-FS-required experience-PS-State Specific route. I believe we can do this without watering down the requirments so much that they become just an administrative hurdle.?ÿ
Doctors, nurses, plumbers, electricians( and i know there are more, work with me here)?ÿ all have passed their license tests, and move freely about only applying for licensure in the new states.?ÿ
While the general idea may be correct, I don't think it is as straight forward as your statement indicates.
In the medical field (US), there is pretty well a set path to initial license which involves both formal education, practical experience by way of residency, and examination.?ÿ This would involve an undergraduate degree (4 years), a medical degree (4 years), residency (?ñ5 years), (not even including any specialization) and examination.?ÿ Compare that with the options we have nationally in land surveying and it should be clear why there is not as much ease in license portability.?ÿ Because of that fairly standard path to licensure, doctors can often achieve reciprocity more easily and there is even a national movement for easing the process even more (IMLC) between participating states.?ÿ If we (land surveyors) had a more consistent national requirement, then it would make more sense to look at national license portability, but as of now, that is not the case.?ÿ Step one of the licensing issues needs to be developing the minimal requirements that would be met nationally.?ÿ Even in discussions on this message board we can see that is not going to be achieved without much debate!
A plumbing license is certainly portable, but still requires reciprocity and there are several odd factors to consider.?ÿ Some states (as of at least a few years ago) don't even require a plumbing license while other states require one but divide it between either a residential or commercial license while other issue residential, journeyman, or master licenses based on experience.?ÿ Some states require licensure as a plumber while others require licensure as a contractor.?ÿ In some states, the license requirement isn't even a state matter it is a community requirement.?ÿ Further, reciprocity may still entail additional exams.?ÿ Here is an example of one states reciprocity rules: (had to edit link about third hyperlink down page is the info)
https://dbs.idaho.gov/programs/plumbing/
Some regions have developed agreements with surrounding states.?ÿ But when you look at those states, they have very similar or the same initial requirements for the first license.?ÿ Again leading to the idea that if we want national portability of the surveying license, we will probably need to start at national standard requirements.?ÿ The question then becomes who is going to give in first - the states with more requirements or less requirements.?ÿ Or can there be a compromise.
It is all the in between arrangements that need addressing, IMO
???
survey licensure exists for boundary surveying. Oh, sure. PLSs are often turned to provide control, topographic mapping, and staking, etc. but the licensing would not exist except for the boundary part.
From reading on this board, does that not vary from state to state??ÿ It was my understanding that some states take more action in the other realms while many do concentrate mainly on the boundary matters.
From reading on this board, does that not vary from state to state??ÿ It was my understanding that some states take more action in the other realms while many do concentrate mainly on the boundary matters.
It does. But I aver that licensing of surveyors would not exist in the first place were it not for boundary surveying.?ÿ
But I aver that licensing of surveyors would not exist in the first place were it not for boundary surveying.?ÿ
I don't doubt that at all.
It is yet another difference between states that makes the idea of license portability, a national standard for license requirements, and the education/experience matter a continuing debate.?ÿ
yep.
The FS and The PS are the national standard.
need better buy in with ALL?ÿ of the state boards, but until that is established might as well herd cats with a squirt gun.
Medical license isn't an initial license.?ÿ It's a license to practice medicine.?ÿ Residency and specialty are just individual boards of that, no bearing on the license.
Its a great discussion we need to keep having so we don't get pushed around by all things and entities non survey.?ÿ We've been established long enough to call our own shots and no longer need to be lumped into architecture and engineering any longer.
there. I said it.
We need our own house.
Screw them.
?ÿ
Medical license isn't an initial license.?ÿ It's a license to practice medicine.?ÿ
Initial license refers to the initial state in which one obtains their license.?ÿ For any licensed profession, there is an initial license.
I aver that licensing of surveyors would not exist in the first place were it not for boundary surveying.?ÿ
I don't think you can look at the list of licensed occupations in many states and reach that conclusion. How much protection does the public need regarding landscape architects? Manicurists? Milk testers? Pipe fitters? Security guard (unarmed)? They are all on a national list.
We've been established long enough to call our own shots and no longer need to be lumped into architecture and engineering any longer.
As a for example:?ÿ There are ?ñ15,000 licensed professional engineers in Kentucky and ?ñ1,500 licensed professional land surveyors.?ÿ If we (Kentucky PLSs) want to throw our weight around and make legislative progress, those 1500 voices will sound like a mouse squeak compared to the potential numbers in other areas such as realty or construction.
It is fine to think highly of our profession, but we should also be realistic.?ÿ Professional Surveying grew out of the civil engineering arena and while there is a good bit of difference between land surveying and engineering surveying, there are not enough land surveyors to really have much influence on the formation of boards or institution of laws WITHOUT the cooperation and support of the engineers.?ÿ Might as well learn to play politics and figure out how to garner support for surveying initiatives instead of how to break off from that potential support.
The FS and The PS are the national standard.
Those exams are the ONLY standardized part of surveying licensure.?ÿ But there still needs to be some requirements in place to get to that point; which is the more problematic part of the discussion.
We've been established long enough to call our own shots and no longer need to be lumped into architecture and engineering any longer.
there. I said it.
We need our own house.
Pretty much. The idea that anything outside of "true boundary work" is beneath us and should be tossed over to civil engineers is flawed. It's also asking for us to get even more siloed and shut out of things that really should be in our wheelhouse.
I wouldn't want a civil engineer to handle geodetic control or a full design topo, or running and processing LiDAR data, or setting up a GIS for analysis. They barely get an introduction to the geospatial world, much less a full picture of all the different components that go into geomatics work.
Geomatics is a discipline in and of itself. Whether we call it "geomatics engineering" or "geospatial studies" or whatever doesn't really matter.
Boundary surveying falls squarely under the geomatics umbrella as a subdiscipline, like photogrammetry, hydrographic engineering, GIS, etc.
But because geomatics isn't really recognized as an umbrella profession unto itself - at least not in the way that engineering or architecture or even doctors or attorneys, all of which have specialties - we're in this weird space where we sometimes treat the license as a pass to perform work in other disciplines, but also sometimes a pass to not have to learn the technical fundamentals that underpin them.
I think giving up more ground isn't the answer. We can still be licensed and promote geomatics as a rock-solid discipline where we collaborate with other professionals, instead of claiming that we're too good for the other subdisciplines and should be exempted from baseline knowledge. Having the license can and should give us some additional authority, but we need to start viewing ourselves as part of a larger whole.
And I'd be willing to bet that we'd see more licensed surveyors as a result.
Very recent numbers from Kansas show total individuals holding engineering and surveying licenses are 11,989 and 540, respectively.?ÿ When you apply the State resident factors of 31% and 47%, respectively, you arrive at 3717 in-state licensed engineers versus only 254 in-state licensed land surveyors.?ÿ That 14.63 times the probable influence of engineers versus land surveyors.?ÿ That influence rate is a bit higher in reality due to the number of us who hold both licenses, thus diminishing the number of land surveyor-only license holders.
points taken.?ÿ And then let the 15000 engineers start dipping manholes. We need more of that help rather than lobbying us out of existence or pigeon holing us into a technical support role and stripping our true basis of being away by the parties that keep try to do so.
I'd like to work on more boundary things.?ÿ I respect engineering, appreciate architecture, but we've been towing the line of the dirty work long enough and I don't care how many whiny voices they have, this discipline is unlike anything else because of it's breadth of knowledge and physical requirements etc to just get across the line to license.
This is the penultimate phase of this field I believe. We're on the precipice for how our future gets defined and technology can both help and harm us.?ÿ
We need more of just us calling our shots, and stop mixing boards.
How many licensed morticians are there in the country?
They don't have to team up for more political presence and don't see to be fading away.
We should be more like them, people are lazy and cheap, but oh?ÿ boy howdy Iook at the money they'll throw at a funeral and a plot to rest in eternity....
I'm not licensed yet, and I'll bust my ass to promote support and protect the field to my best abilities because I believe it is one of the best fields that exists.?ÿ
Society needs us on this wall, so we need to make sure we keep and increase our unsilent minority and keep this squeaky wheel going...
?ÿ