Brian, I'm troubled by that language as well. I have been involved in similar process in NY for many years now. That same phrase has been thrown like a stone at me more than once by registration board members.
My problem with it is that it's simply not true. I'm all for helping people access the professions, but those that use the phrase are really not. Helping young people (especially those from under represented populations) have access to the professions can not be achieved by lowering standards (or keeping them low) to the point that these young people can gain entry without the necessary knowledge and background. That simply sets them up for a failed professional practice or career, which in turn adversely affects the public.
The professions are supposed to have a higher bar to entry than other fields of work because the performance of them in a competent and professional manner is so important to the public. But the license has to mean something.
Problems with the experience leg are that employers may not have the knowledge, ability, or inclination to share and train young folks entering. In addition, the boards have too much power and discretion in their ability to decide which experience counts and for how much. There are ways to improve this.
Problems with the education leg are that colleges don't seem to have a standard base curriculum of foundational courses, nor sequences available in legal/boundary related courses. There should be differences in programs, but there should be some basic courses and related content we could all agree on. There are ways to improve this as well.
Problems with exams are they can be passed via specialized courses without really having much of a grasp of the material. In addition they might be made up of poorly written material, the wrong mix for the license, etc.. There are ways to improve that as well.
Nothing is perfect, but why throw out the tripod approach rather than improving it.
The way to help young people have access to the professions is to help them prepare to be a professional.
The tripod approach is used by all the professions, and most of the trades. The idea that any one leg is less important than another entirely misses the point. They are all important. The idea that professions exist to enable young people an easily accessible path to prestige or economic well being is entirely unsupported in the laws enabling professional licensure. And to tell a young person they can achieve this license and live happily ever after without one of the tripod legs is so misleading as to almost be malfeasance.
The world has changed and it's no longer our fathers surveying business model. Those without adequate experience and education can not pass the exams without specialized courses designed solely for taking and passing the exam. This kind of thing breeds only a cursory knowledge that may well be enough to pass, but is not the kind of knowledge that is built up from good, well mentored experience and college education. For too many, these courses are not a review of material learned along the way, but rather an example of the particular type of question and what the answer should look like.
No, this kind of language means only one thing when you read between the lines. Lets keep surveying services as cheap and quick as possible because we all know there's nothing to it. Flood the market with the under prepared and let the lawsuits continue. The biggest disservice is done to those who acquire a license without a good grounding in the content of the profession due to inadequate preparation. They think they are minimally prepared because they earned the license, and many times have no idea of what they are doing wrong.
I don't think it's in anyone's best interest (young people entering, currently licensed, or general public) to continue or promote a path to licensure that does not include a surveying degree (or a degree with certain number of surveying credits, including a boundary law sequence), meaningful experience, and meaningful exams.
I may not be the best surveyor in many respects, lots of surveyors (even unlicensed) know much more about certain areas of surveying than I do, but I know that due to extensive preparation. And I know political maneuvering when I see it, and that's what is affecting our definition of practice and licensing process in a negative way.
I disagree with Lucas. Surveyors know at least as much as the licensing process has required them to. It is not fraud to offer services based on the knowledge so attained and acknowledged by the granting of the license. If there are widespread problems, as he insists, then the fraud is in the licensing process.
"I asked myself (and colleagues) what would happen when they effectively stopped the flow of approvable applicants."
The states should stick to their guns. It's the only way that surveying will truly get to be a profession. What will happen is the price will go up for surveying services as well as the quality. This over time will attract young people to the profession as it would be a thing you could make a decent living at. If we all cave in at this point the practical solution is to just eliminate licensing, let anybody in.
:good: :good: :good:
One of the things the new model law eliminated was provision for performing things such as hydrology and storm water analysis. Before the latest revision there was always such a provision for land development related tasks in the model law. Some may think this unimportant, but it is more political manipulation aimed at devaluation of the surveying license that will benefit other professions.
> The states should stick to their guns. It's the only way that surveying will truly get to be a profession. What will happen is the price will go up for surveying services as well as the quality. This over time will attract young people to the profession as it would be a thing you could make a decent living at. If we all cave in at this point the practical solution is to just eliminate licensing, let anybody in.
I follow.
Foremost, this potential evolution will take unqualified support by the currently licensed community, through diligent policing of legislature and governing boards.
It will be a long, painful process and that is why I commented on 'back-sliding' once the degree requirement's pain is felt.
Rambleon,
I spent several years as a volunteer lobbyist. I understand the influence some policy decisions have on other States. I also understand the influence is limited. We have a different Board in every State for a reason. While there are some common issues in our Profession, each State has a unique history and legal foundation for Surveying. We may look to others for examples and collaborative solutions, but in the end the decision on how to regulate Idaho Surveyors rests with Idaho Surveyors. The outreach effort, availability of information and invitations to participate in crafting language for this go far beyond what I see elsewhere. Passing all of those opportunities to come in at the last minute with a campaign of mis-information is crap.
The fact that folks are continuing to repeat the line about where this started and who is driving it is very telling. It reveals a complete lack of knowledge of how the discussion started or who the people that worked on it are. The entire premise is built on falsehood. This process was started and promoted by Professional Surveyors, not those relegated to tech status due to lack of boundary experience.
In a perfect world experience and testing for our Profession would be a lot tougher than it is in some States. Excluding the things we do every day from the legal definition of surveying doesn't fix that. At the end of the day you cannot correct one policy by crippling another.
If you look at the NCEES model law, and compare it to state laws across the nation, you will see the influence more clearly. It is the same with zoning regulations where every municipality is being pushed into Unified Development Ordinances. What is the benefit of this law to Licensed Land Surveyors? None. The only people it benefits are those who cannot gain the necessary experience to sit for the exams. The article in Professional Surveyor is pretty spot on.
In defining when an individual is performing professional services the above NCEES Model Law reads: "Professional services include acts...related to any one or more of the following:..." This wording is adopted verbatim into the proposed Idaho law.
Does not this preclude the State Board from emphasizing a particular category? In deed, if we are to take the actions of the Idaho Board of Professional Engineers and Professional Surveyors (IPELS) and IdahoSPLS as an indication, the intent of the re-definition is to remove Boundary Experience.
Keith Simila, Executive Director of IPELS, set forth in the September Meeting of the Lewis and Clark Chapter that the removal of Boundary Experience was one of the main selling points that we were to use in contacting State Legislators. This was also written into the lesson plan that we were to use upon the Legislators.
thats exactly the point of the bill, to allow a loosening of the requirements for those unwilling to learn boundary principles. If that is not the point then make sure the new law incorporates a requirement for a certain percentage of boundary experience.
its a good point that the profession has lost much of its mentoring due to technology. This is why education is becoming more important.
Who is blindsiding who? The Re-definition of Land Surveying was not discussed in our chapter's meetings, at least not the ones I attended, nor in the circulated minutes. There was no motion to approve nor a vote taken. At the September, 2014 meeting Keith Simila, of the Idaho Board of Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors, presented this as a fait accompli, that there was no time for a comment period, he ignored voiced objections and instructed us to contact our State Legislators using the provided lesson plan. In essence it was a done deal and there was not a dang thing I could do about; but I felt an article coming on.
isn't that interesting Duane? I wonder why removing those would be important to the model law? I mean after all, its supposed to include everything surveyors are doing. Who would benefit from removing those tasks?
Yup, a lot of surveying in the field can be done with a one person crew. So where is the mentoring, I suppose a computer screen.
I'd say mentoring in the modern times is more of what the mentee seeks out on their own. I think places like this website offer an opportunity. You can email posters and most will help you out. Just reading and searching this place offers a lot. Even professional judgement can be developed deciding what is good and what's not so good. It's more of a personal quest. How do you count that for a licensing board? I just don't see how the old apprentice system can really be effective in our present world. We have a fully developed educational system these days. Unlimited info online if you search and seek it out. I think it's more up to the individual and hopefully a test can sort out who knows and who needs some more training/experience.
Certainly if you employ someone you need to do some mentoring. I mean you are signing the work they do so you should direct them in the right direction, explain why we do some things the way we do. I'm solo so I don't mentor anyone directly. I haven't nor do I ever expect to sign off on someones work experience. I avoid having employees.
The proposed definition was discussed at length at numerous State meetings. Our Board of Governors approved the language in July after an extended comment and working period. If your Chapter or you specifically did not participate that is not the fault of the Board or the remainder of ISPLS. As for the way it was presented, that is what one would expect at that stage of the process. You don't come looking for comments 3 months after your officers took part in a vote saying move it along. If that vote was not representative of discussions within your Chapter you may want to find out why.
This is how its done Chad, You send representatives to the chapters and tell them to talk about the upcoming changes which you have decided for them, give them your talking points and then after the legislation is pushed through you can claim that you went to all the chapters and asked for their input. [sarcasm]It wasn't their idea at all, it was the surveying community who asked for this[/sarcasm] The truth is they never really wanted input, or they would have asked for it 2 years ago.
Very interesting about your firm being Solo. The wife and I are also, usually. It is sooo much simpler that way. More importantly, if the research or field search takes twice as long as expected, at least we only get our income cut in half. With a crew the whole profit gets eaten up with their pay, Social Security, Health Benefits ect. We're going to address this a little in our next American Surveyor article, which issue should be out any day.
First a Republic, then a Democracy. What are we now?
Removing Hydrology And Storm Water Analysis...
...puts the engineers in charge.
Paul in PA, PE, PLS
Yeah, I hate the Borg Collective. Trying to not get assimilated is a constant battle. The Borg has got so big that it's impossible to stay out. One of the quickest ways to get assimilated is to have employees. That's like opening up a gate for a giant tax truck and social welfare ship to bash into your life. Not to say that running a business with employees can't be profitable but most of the gain goes to the Borg. The Borg is always there with its hand out for its cut. Heck, they want their cut whether there is any gain or not.
>
> Many of the posts here have alluded to folks practicing outside their area of expertise or just flat out poorly within it. Colleges and employers everywhere are struggling to manage the desire for 'economical' land survey solutions with the fact there isn't a generation to replace the current surveying professionals.
>
economical is the opposite of encouraging a replacement generation
