None of those classes are crucial for boundary surveying.
I'm imagining a doctor saying, "Well I don't really know what this fancy medical tool does or how it works, but when I got done with your surgery you still had all your appendages and looked pretty much the same as before, so I must have known what I was doing!"
If all someone wants to do is analyze a boundary and cares nothing about how it was derived or meeting positional standards, then they should not have responsible charge over the survey. Let em play with a final CAD drawing, maybe help out with the analysis, but if they don't understand the technical basis of the certification they are signing, or the minimum standards they are certifying to, then that certification is bunk.
About 5 years ago I looked through all the ABET surveying programs. Some had as few as two classes about boundaries.?ÿ My conclusion was that a non surveying degree coupled with a good mentor was a preferable route for new surveyors.
How do you conclude that LESS instruction is better? It's a bad thing to have ~100 hours of classroom instruction plus ~200 hours of study/assignment time (average of two college classes) before switching to a mentor to explain how all that theory works? You think that a student with fundamental knowledge is off to a worse start than someone without that knowledge?
Who is vetting the mentors? Why do they get a pass from you while accredited schools, who have actual standards for determining who can and cannot instruct their students, do not?
Who is vetting mentors? The answer in the U.S. is nobody, but that's just a big of an issue with geomatics degree holders as everyone else. That's why I said "good mentor".
No, less instruction is not better. It's just a question of what the instruction is in. Positional tollerance is way down on my list of important things for determining a boundary.
Being an expert measurer is certainly usefull for many activities that licensed surveyors undertake. There is certainly a need for expert measurerers. My issue is that most programs are way out of balance.
A typical ABET program has 9 out of 120 required credits in?ÿ noneasumeing aspects of land surveying, but this is the part of surveying that requires making proffesional decisions. It would be like extensively training a doctors in their tools, but ignoring diagnosis.?ÿ
Measurement engineering can be learned by anyone with a solid basis in math and physics without much trouble. Boundary law is harder to learn on your own.?ÿ
A good liberal arts education (which at most schools includes math and physics, ect...) provides a good background to build the specific understanding needed to be a successful professional.?ÿ
