McCracker, post: 334225, member: 9299 wrote: As a young surveyor with a passion for surveying, the 4 year degree program in Florida is holding me back. As I do not disagree with having some sort of formal education is surveying I do disagree with requiring a college degree. Not everyone finds their passion for surveying right out of high school and for those that find it later, going back to school, while working can be very difficult. I recognize that there are a great many of folks out there have done just that, worked and gone to school, balanced a family and whatever else on top of it but that doesn't necessarily mean that every other person should. I would very much support an license program that required a great working knowledge of field procedures, office management, and the concepts behind both backed by a certain degree of formal education. I do not support, however, the requirement that each person that becomes licensed to hold a 4 year degree in "Geomatics." There are aspects of surveying that a college grad will never understand, and it is unfair to those that understand what is "in between the lines" be completely deferred from licensure on a degree basis. Certificate programs are available but are seen as the same as a CST level program, i.e. the individual knows the concepts and can apply them but doesn't have a degree. A standard should definitely be followed when it comes to who is a professional and who is not, but should it be a degree that defines that standard and if it is not, what is?
When I got my degree there were two guys in class that had were 15 and 20 years older than me.
You can get the degree if you want it bad enough.
I'm not seeing this shortage around here.
partychief3, post: 334229, member: 9053 wrote: Too late!
Surveying now belongs to whoever is selling textbooks to four-year schools.:poop:
Most of the kids in "Geomatics" are flunking civil eng courses and need a "backup plan" to justify staying in school. I once asked about law and the kid said "yeah, we got a 1hr lecture on that. Simple really".Your future will be lived out in a corner of the CAD room at some engineering firm.
P.S. Survey prices/wages in Florida are the same from the 80's-90's. Another part of the lie we stood for.
Land Surveying programs have a long history of picking up students who drop out of civil engineering programs. Having a lot of friends and colleagues in that camp o cay say with certainty your description is not the norm. It's ironic that we are trying to figure out how to recruit those leaving the CE program because we don't get them any more.
As for the 'sitting in a corner of an engineering office', not likely. I have been with a diversified Survey only firm for 12 years now. My transition to the next and final phase of my career is well underway. It doesn't involve engineers.
Again, we share concerns for the future of our Profession. I simply do not see eliminating requirements for licensure as the solution.
To see the situation in Texas, take a look at the chart linked here: http://gisc.tamucc.edu/RPLS2014%20August.pdf
It shows the age distribution of licensed surveyors. Whether some in the highest age brackets still practice is in question.
Rewording the famous line by Greta Garbo in Ninotchka (when speaking of the purges after the Russian Revolution),
Perhaps what we need are "fewer but better surveyors."
The debate over degree requirements is perennial. As a non-surveyor take my comments as you will. The former model of apprenticeship is not workable given the small numbers of those able and willing to mentor. The quality of mentoring is a concern given the limited ability of practicing professionals to convey the full range of what a surveyor is expected to do given their preferred type of work and the demands on their time.
I remember discussions with a surveyor who considered property-related work to be the only legitimate speciality for a surveyor. All else was peripheral. The surveying program at TAMU-CC does have required courses in land ownership in Texas and legal aspects. See: http://gisc.tamucc.edu/undergraduate/Undergrad%20and%20Combined%205-year%20BS_MS%20Degree%20Plan.xlsx
partychief3, post: 334229, member: 9053 wrote: Too late!
Surveying now belongs to whoever is selling textbooks to four-year schools.:poop:
Most of the kids in "Geomatics" are flunking civil eng courses and need a "backup plan" to justify staying in school. I once asked about law and the kid said "yeah, we got a 1hr lecture on that. Simple really".Your future will be lived out in a corner of the CAD room at some engineering firm.
P.S. Survey prices/wages in Florida are the same from the 80's-90's. Another part of the lie we stood for.
I don't know about nowadays, but when I went to the University of Florida, the standard surveying curriculum had 2 semesters of specifically surveying law courses. Curt Browns Boundary Control and Legal principles was the text book used. I remember also doing legal research over at the Law Library as well. Also had to do title research at the local court house too.
Tommy Young, post: 334256, member: 703 wrote: I'm not seeing this shortage around here.
Same here.
We have three licenses in my office overseeing four full time office techs and six field crews. We have two SITs who will be sitting for their license in the next 18 months, two guys who will be sitting for the SIT in the next year, and two more SITs starting in the next two weeks. Out of those six guys there are four bachelors degrees in surveying, one in environmental engineering, and a masters in geodesy.
On the other hand there may be a shortage of guys who will take $10/hour with no benefits to cut line for a couple of years and listen to some old field hand tell war stories about how tough surveying was back in the day. If so, good - the profession deserves better.
I have encountered a half dozen or so candidates that chose me to mentor that were from their early 20s to their early 30s.
The biggest obstacles they encountered was being able to adjust to the role they were required to accept as being the leader of a group of people they were working with and being able to firmly make a decision of what to do if the plan in their hands will not fit what is on the ground.
They were not willing to accept and work in a capacity of responsible charge of their own, which is a major requirement in most states that I know of.
Then there was the rich guy that was certain he was going to be able to move from banker into having his surveying license in 6 months at the most just because he had 6 years of college already. BTW none of that was in surveying or technical stuff like cadd, trig or surveying law and record search. He quit after 2 weeks after he replied he was not being taught to survey by cutting brush, driving stakes and setting up backsite and forsite assemblies. OMG, my fault that work is gettin' in the way of your training, lol.
I have a new candidate that is considering a career in surveying. We will meet this coming Friday. He is currently a client and is leaving the AirForce. Friday he is going to help on the survey of his new home from beginning to end. The GI Bill will allow him to get his needed Surveying classes as he has over two years of college to date. A am certain that at least half of the people that were in the college courses with were using the GI Bill.
It took me 14yrs after college to qualify for sitting to test for obtaining a Survey License. Construction staking and the time I worked for Engineers during the 70s and 80s was not counted as land surveying experience. I was also surprised to learn that a year of surveying experience was counted by 365 actual working days and not calendar years (that part may have changed for future candidates).
Stay the course...........
A Harris, post: 334310, member: 81 wrote: I have encountered a half dozen or so candidates that chose me to mentor that were from their early 20s to their early 30s.
The biggest obstacles they encountered was being able to adjust to the role they were required to accept as being the leader of a group of people they were working with and being able to firmly make a decision of what to do if the plan in their hands will not fit what is on the ground.
They were not willing to accept and work in a capacity of responsible charge of their own, which is a major requirement in most states that I know of.
Then there was the rich guy that was certain he was going to be able to move from banker into having his surveying license in 6 months at the most just because he had 6 years of college already. BTW none of that was in surveying or technical stuff like cadd, trig or surveying law and record search. He quit after 2 weeks after he replied he was not being taught to survey by cutting brush, driving stakes and setting up backsite and forsite assemblies. OMG, my fault that work is gettin' in the way of your training, lol.
I have a new candidate that is considering a career in surveying. We will meet this coming Friday. He is currently a client and is leaving the AirForce. Friday he is going to help on the survey of his new home from beginning to end. The GI Bill will allow him to get his needed Surveying classes as he has over two years of college to date. A am certain that at least half of the people that were in the college courses with were using the GI Bill.
It took me 14yrs after college to qualify for sitting to test for obtaining a Survey License. Construction staking and the time I worked for Engineers during the 70s and 80s was not counted as land surveying experience. I was also surprised to learn that a year of surveying experience was counted by 365 actual working days and not calendar years (that part may have changed for future candidates).
Stay the course...........
I have had almost the same experience. Over the last 14 years I have had 3 individuals working for me that wanted to get their license. One of them had a 4 year geomatics degree and he was the only one that actually got licensed while working for me. The other 2 left my firm and did get licensed. I had worked with each of these individuals on a daily basis for several years and when they expressed interest in getting licensed, I had study sessions every week (Fridays after lunch till they wanted to go). All three passed their intern exam on the first try. When I started to assign them more supervisor duties and expect them to make decisions on the job, they all left my firm.
If someone wants to achieve licensure, they will do whatever it takes to be able to pass the exams. Leadership and the ability to take charge of a situation and make a decision is not something that can be tested.
If someone wants to achieve licensure, they will do whatever it takes to be able to pass the exams. Leadership and the ability to take charge of a situation and make a decision is not something that can be tested.
Oh so true....
James Fleming, post: 334280, member: 136 wrote: Same here.
We have three licenses in my office overseeing four full time office techs and six field crews. We have two SITs who will be sitting for their license in the next 18 months, two guys who will be sitting for the SIT in the next year, and two more SITs starting in the next two weeks. Out of those six guys there are four bachelors degrees in surveying, one in environmental engineering, and a masters in geodesy.
On the other hand there may be a shortage of guys who will take $10/hour with no benefits to cut line for a couple of years and listen to some old field hand tell war stories about how tough surveying was back in the day. If so, good - the profession deserves better.
Amen!!! I'm sick and tired of hearing and seeing the manufactured panic of "there aren't enough surveyors"!!!!. BS!! From what I've seen over the past 20 years, I'm starting to wonder if this panic is being pushed by the engineers - wanting to keep the cheap supply of "loss leading" surveyors in stock. (sarcasm? well maybe just a bit)
On the other hand, the never ending whining of low wages and low earning potential is getting old too. How can both be the case - is our profession an economic anomaly? I doubt it. Therefore I wonder what really is going on? One thing that is certain, lowering any requirement for licensure is definitely NOT the answer to any problem in our profession. Hmmmm, I wonder why the push to do so is happening??????
JPH, post: 334233, member: 6636 wrote: Young college kids want money and something more glamourous and more professional seeming than hacking through brush and lifting man holes all of the time.
Research shows that show that Millennials generally want three things:
- The want to make a difference in the world more than they want job security.
- They love technology and know how to use it.
- They want a mentor to help with professional development.
What is your company doing to adapt to the times?
Brian Allen, post: 334332, member: 1333 wrote: One thing that is certain, lowering any requirement for licensure is definitely NOT the answer to any problem in our profession.
Amen! #2
Brian Allen, post: 334332, member: 1333 wrote: ... One thing that is certain, lowering any requirement for licensure is definitely NOT the answer to any problem in our profession. Hmmmm, I wonder why the push to do so is happening??????
As for the shortage, the numbers are there for the viewing. New licensees have dropped to single digits per cycle in most States. The average age of an LS is outpacing all other indexes. This is or will result in a shortage. Idaho is also experiencing a shortage of technical level employees in nearly every field.
All that being said, you are absolutely correct that lowering the bar for licensure is NOT an answer. ISPLS sent that message loud and clear on Saturday. It was refreshing to see a unified response. We shall see how it pans out.
thebionicman, post: 334360, member: 8136 wrote: As for the shortage, the numbers are there for the viewing. New licensees have dropped to single digits per cycle in most States. The average age of an LS is outpacing all other indexes. This is or will result in a shortage. Idaho is also experiencing a shortage of technical level employees in nearly every field.
All that being said, you are absolutely correct that lowering the bar for licensure is NOT an answer. ISPLS sent that message loud and clear on Saturday. It was refreshing to see a unified response. We shall see how it pans out.
A shortage could be good. Things in short supply tend to increase in price. I wouldn't worry about it, if the money shows up they will come.
The whole regulation might be part of the problem. The way I see it a big portion of what is defined (regulated) by licensure should be cut loose. Let a free market take care of it. If you screw up you pay. The legal boundary aspect of land surveying should become its own profession, essentially separated from all the other stuff that is basically measuring, building, engineering, construction. Even most of the GIS stuff is not really related to land surveying.
Land surveying should drift more towards a legal field and away from engineering/construction. The education and qualification to be a land surveyor should be the same, more towards the law and away from precise measuring. Precise measuring is not that hard these days, it doesn't make you some unique specialist with special tools anymore. A legal understanding of the law and boundaries and how to operate in that arena is much harder to do. Precise measuring doesn't really protect the public that much, it may even cause harm. An understanding and application of boundary law is what is needed to protect the public.
Fewer licenses per year doesn't necessarily create a shortage. If GPS, field to finish coding, etc. lets you complete a project in one week in 2015 that would have taken two weeks in 1985, then each current licensee can supervise twice as much work per year as his mentor.
James Fleming, post: 334383, member: 136 wrote: Fewer licenses per year doesn't necessarily create a shortage. If GPS, field to finish coding, etc. lets you complete a project in one week in 2015 that would have taken two weeks in 1985, then each current licensee can supervise twice as much work per year as his mentor.
Another way to look at it is there are double the projects coming across his desk...
While I agree less doesn't make a shortage, we are talking about having 15% of the incoming numbers from 10 years ago. Looking to the other States I am licensed in it isn't any better. All the tech in the world doesn't fill that gap. We need to change our ways or someone will do it for us. That someone will be the market, other Professions or both. I prefer to see Surveyors take the lead by returning to a mentoring model, charging what we are worth and protecting policy that maintains competence in boundary surveying.
My .02, Tom
thebionicman, post: 334360, member: 8136 wrote: As for the shortage, the numbers are there for the viewing. New licensees have dropped to single digits per cycle in most States. The average age of an LS is outpacing all other indexes. This is or will result in a shortage. Idaho is also experiencing a shortage of technical level employees in nearly every field.
All that being said, you are absolutely correct that lowering the bar for licensure is NOT an answer. ISPLS sent that message loud and clear on Saturday. It was refreshing to see a unified response. We shall see how it pans out.
Tom, I'm not saying that the lower numbers of new license holders isn't there, I am saying that the panic over the lower numbers is unnecessary, and knee-jerk responses usually do more damage than good. As Leon points out, the laws of economics will soon cure any real shortages, assuming the education side of things is soon fixed.
I'm interested in hearing the details of the message that was sent out by ISPLS. As you know, if we stand together as a profession - we control what happens to the profession.
thebionicman, post: 334390, member: 8136 wrote: Another way to look at it is there are double the projects coming across his desk...
While I agree less doesn't make a shortage, we are talking about having 15% of the incoming numbers from 10 years ago. Looking to the other States I am licensed in it isn't any better. All the tech in the world doesn't fill that gap. We need to change our ways or someone will do it for us. That someone will be the market, other Professions or both. I prefer to see Surveyors take the lead by returning to a mentoring model, charging what we are worth and protecting policy that maintains competence in boundary surveying.
My .02, Tom
Mentoring is good but the way it is done in Utah is totally flawed. You get mentored by having a job at an surveying/engineering firm. You either work at a computer or go out with a survey crew. Most of the work at these companies is construction/design type work with a little boundary thrown in. The mentoring is seeing a ÛÏsurveyorÛ a few minutes a day when you get some instruction on doing the current stakeout/topo job. This mentoring is mostly on the technical details and not that much land surveying.
They count as ÛÏmentored timeÛ time employed and not much attention is paid to what you were doing. The profitable work at these firms is NOT land surveying yet every minute worked counts to the time needed to get the ticket. This might turn out good surveyors for what these firms mostly do but not all that much attention to learning boundary law and land surveying. A young surveyor's chance to get mentored as a land surveyor is not all that good. Your chances of getting a license are very high.
You couldn't get credit for being mentored by some great land surveyors in Utah UNLESS you where employed by them. Sorry, mentoring is good, they way it's applied doesn't work very well. Being employed doesn't mean you get mentored. I don't think it would make much difference if they just dropped the ÛÏmentoringÛ from the deal. All this is as currently applied is time on the job. If they pay you a wage you where mentored.
Brian,
The BOG voted not to support the passive requirement for boundary experience. I will personally testify against it if it goes any further. My suspicion is it will die for niw.
Leon,
By mentor I mean actually mentor. We need to suck it up and start passing things on...
Ttyl, Tom
I'm more concerned about the shortage of unlicensed office technicians. There are not that many licensed surveyors in NJ and there are far fewer young ones, but it seems that there are hardly any survey techs around. Field guys tend to be a little easier to find.
Just knowing CAD doesn't make you a survey tech either. There are some pretty specialized aspects that engineering firms just kind of gloss over. You may know how to do some commands in AutoCAD and setup a layout view or something, but finding someone who has a clue about coordinate systems or where the data comes from is getting tough.
