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.
Wow, you took the words right out of my mouth. That lie was verbatim from the boys in G'ville...
Now we are charging same prices we did in late 90's and virtually the same wages. So much for the law of supply and demand as it applies to surveyors...
hlbennettpls, post: 334799, member: 10049 wrote: Wow, you took the words right out of my mouth. That lie was verbatim from the boys in G'ville...
Now we are charging same prices we did in late 90's and virtually the same wages. So much for the law of supply and demand as it applies to surveyors...
I keep hearing this about Florida. What's going on down there?
One thing that I think has been a massive help here in Alaska is the Little Davis Bacon Act, which includes surveyors in its prevailing wage schedule. In my opinion, this has been a major factor in keeping the engineering and non-construction surveying firms decent with their wages and rates. Current prevailing wage for surveyors is in this document http://labor.alaska.gov/lss/forms/pamp600-090115.pdf . This is what non-construction surveying firms have to compete with to retain staff. This, along with Brooks Act-compliant QBS work on the design-side (non-price competitive) keeps firms in check.
What's happening is all the "bottom feeders" who won't raise their rates. The best saying I've ever heard is "The guy who is first through the wall gets the bloodiest", which in terms of raising rates probably means less or no work. Nobody wants to starve, or close their doors so we all sit idly by while bottom feeders set the pricing market. I remember about laughing when the head professor told us we'd get $1500-$2500 for lot surveys. I was laughing, but in the back of my mind I had my fingers crossed. So far, all that talk has been just that...talk. In the good years (03'-08') we started to see this creep up to where we were getting the highest prices we'd ever seen for simple lot surveys and it was taking us in excess of 4 weeks to get the work turned out b/c of the sheer volume. Once the crash happened, rates instantly went back to pre-2000 and haven't really gotten much higher since.
Bad thing about the degree requirement stuff is the fact that it only requires 1 semester of field time. That's a joke. I was thanking the Lord I came from a surveying background, but I could easily see the cracks in the fabric of their logic when it came to field time. Many an older licensed surveyor has spent way more than 3 months in the field making decisions that these college jockeys aren't making. What is basically being turned out, if they don't have any prior experience, or they don't end up working for an employer that makes them work in the field is a high-tech button pusher. Don't get me wrong, I went to school with some brilliant folks, but many of the firms they went to work for put them right in the office running CAD. I've got colleagues that are licensed that have NEVER ran a survey crew, and the only field experience they have is the little internship they make you do for the degree requirement.
You also have to look at who's setting these requirements. When is the last time you saw a college professor w/muddy boots.... 😉
If you believe that surveying is/should be limited to legal boundary issues then there probably isn't a shortage of licensed surveyors. More power to the people who limit their practice to legal boundary issues and have a successful ongoing business enterprise.
On the other hand, if you believe that surveying is all of those things under the NCEES model law definition of the practice of surveying (yes I am aware that every state has their own definition which is typically a subset of this definition) AND surveyors are doing that work, then there certainly is a shortage of qualified licensed surveyors.
https://cdn.ncees.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Model_Law_2014.pdf
110.20.B.4. Practice of SurveyingÛÓThe term ÛÏPractice of Surveying,Û as used in this Act, shall mean providing, or offering to provide, professional services using such sciences as mathematics, geodesy, and photogrammetry, and involving both (1) the making of geometric measurements and gathering related information pertaining to the physical or legal features of the earth, improvements on the earth, the space above, on, or below the earth and (2) providing, utilizing, or developing the same into survey products such as graphics, data, maps, plans, reports, descriptions, or projects. Professional services include acts of consultation, investigation, testimony evaluation, expert technical testimony, planning, mapping, assembling, and interpreting gathered measurements and information related to any one or more of the following:
[INDENT=1]
a. Determining by measurement the configuration or contour of the earthÛªs surface or the position of fixed objects thereon
b. Determining by performing geodetic surveys the size and shape of the earth or the position of any point on the earth
c. Locating, relocating, establishing, reestablishing, or retracing property lines or boundaries of any tract of land, road, right of way, or easement
d. Making any survey for the division, subdivision, or consolidation of any tract(s) of land
e. Locating or laying out alignments, positions, or elevations for the construction of fixed works
f. Determining, by the use of principles of surveying, the position for any survey monument(boundary or nonboundary) or reference point; establishing or replacing any such monument or reference point
g. Creating, preparing, or modifying electronic or computerized or other data, relative to the performance of the activities in items aÛÒf above[/INDENT]
[INDENT=1]Why would the definition cover all of those things?
The objective is to protect the public by ensuring that when they engage someone to do these things, they are done correctly.[/INDENT]
Why should professional surveyors do all of these things?
Because surveyors are qualified and they are accountable - they have to answer to licensing boards - this protects the public to some extent - much more than if the only qualification to do the work is a well written, slick looking proposal.
Should every surveyor do all of these things?
Probably not - it would take quite an individual to have expertise covering all of the elements that fall under this definition.
If your state's definition is far more limited than this then who is insuring that:
web based mapping properly depicts property lines, contours, and/or imagery?
wetlands boundaries are properly located (remember, these are a line that is the basis of buffers defining what land you can build on - a land use boundary)?
aerial imagery/mapping is spatially valid?
3D scans are properly registered and generating valid locations/quantities/models?
and so on...
All of these activities are based on spatial relationships, are typically georeferenced, are highly technical, are easy to get wrong, and in each case: the public (including agencies) is ill equipped to determine if the work will be/is being/was done properly. Professional surveyors (who work within the limits of their expertise) are the best qualified individuals to do these things. The public can employ professional surveyors to do this work and know that if it's not done with due diligence, that professional surveyor could lose their livelihood.
We all know that a 4 year degree doesn't make a person a surveyor. But think about how hard it would be to teach geodesy, least squares, riparian rights,
case law, photogrammetry, business practices, technical writing... in the survey rig or office (we won't even get into spatial databases, LiDAR processing & analysis, or other non-traditional survey activities). The 4 year degree can be a great foundation for learning to survey (no matter what your definition of surveying is).
And we all know that there is not an overabundance of licensed surveyors qualified to do these things. So get qualified, charge appropriately, get to work, and pay your employees (and yourselves) well.
I wish it were that easy...
1 hour lecture on law?? I had three semesters of boundary law. One of which was taught by an attorney who specialized in real estate law as it relates to surveying. The other two were taught by a PLS with 30 years of experience. Are those curricula ABET accredited?
Article in today's Oregonian about a nationwide shortage of (good) teachers. Hmmmm.
1. Modest pay, at least at entry level.
2. High education requirement.
3. Sometimes difficult working conditions.
4. Recent history of mass layoffs.
Sound like any profession we know?
hlbennettpls, post: 334810, member: 10049 wrote: What's happening is all the "bottom feeders" who won't raise their rates. The best saying I've ever heard is "The guy who is first through the wall gets the bloodiest", which in terms of raising rates probably means less or no work. Nobody wants to starve, or close their doors so we all sit idly by while bottom feeders set the pricing market. I remember about laughing when the head professor told us we'd get $1500-$2500 for lot surveys. I was laughing, but in the back of my mind I had my fingers crossed. So far, all that talk has been just that...talk. In the good years (03'-08') we started to see this creep up to where we were getting the highest prices we'd ever seen for simple lot surveys and it was taking us in excess of 4 weeks to get the work turned out b/c of the sheer volume. Once the crash happened, rates instantly went back to pre-2000 and haven't really gotten much higher since.
Bad thing about the degree requirement stuff is the fact that it only requires 1 semester of field time. That's a joke. I was thanking the Lord I came from a surveying background, but I could easily see the cracks in the fabric of their logic when it came to field time. Many an older licensed surveyor has spent way more than 3 months in the field making decisions that these college jockeys aren't making. What is basically being turned out, if they don't have any prior experience, or they don't end up working for an employer that makes them work in the field is a high-tech button pusher. Don't get me wrong, I went to school with some brilliant folks, but many of the firms they went to work for put them right in the office running CAD. I've got colleagues that are licensed that have NEVER ran a survey crew, and the only field experience they have is the little internship they make you do for the degree requirement.
You also have to look at who's setting these requirements. When is the last time you saw a college professor w/muddy boots.... 😉
Amen, I worked for John W. Myers in G'ville and saw/trained many college men and women during their intern period, and let me tell you they usually didn't get a whole lot in the way of practical experience. Mostly because their schedules and or their drive to be there didn't allow them to really put in much in the way of effort. Than being said I also met some of the most intelligent people coming through the program.
Randy Rain, post: 334939, member: 35 wrote: Amen, I worked for John W. Myers in G'ville and saw/trained many college men and women during their intern period, and let me tell you they usually didn't get a whole lot in the way of practical experience. Mostly because their schedules and or their drive to be there didn't allow them to really put in much in the way of effort. Than being said I also met some of the most intelligent people coming through the program.
Like I said, I went to school up there with some SUPER intelligent people. I wouldn't take that from them in a minute. However, I've seen surveying humble even the smartest, most intelligent person when it came to boundary law.
I always get confused by the fact that folks go to school to learn what to do, then have to get out in the real world to get trained how to do it. I mean, I know a hell of a lot of loader and grader operators that were pretty decent once they got done with a year of vo-tech. Hmmm...
hlbennettpls, post: 334948, member: 10049 wrote: I've seen surveying humble even the smartest, most intelligent person when it came to boundary law.
I don't think the boundary law part would be that difficult except the real facts of boundary law goes against pretty much everything else being taught to surveyors (including mentor ship). To get the law down you need to unlearn most of what you previously thought was right. You need to separate the logic of math from the fairness of the law. I'm not so sure that teaching boundary law wouldn't be better done without measuring around and doing all the fieldwork with surveyors that don't understand it. The law ain't that hard unless you have been taught and believe counter to it. Then it becomes a remodel instead of new construction, you have to tear down and remove the old before you can build the new. Even lawyers will tell you that engineering/scientific types struggle in law school. The law always considers both sides and the fairness and the answers are not precise and black and white.
Over the more than a decade I've hung out on these boards I've seen a big change in the surveyors attitude towards the law. I think we may have turned the corner and charted a course towards correctly applying the law to boundaries. My own transformation has been huge!
Norman Oklahoma, post: 334931, member: 9981 wrote: Article in today's Oregonian about a nationwide shortage of (good) teachers. Hmmmm.
1. Modest pay, at least at entry level.
2. High education requirement.
3. Sometimes difficult working conditions.
4. Recent history of mass layoffs.Sound like any profession we know?
Teachers have to put up with one thing we don't.
It's politics even getting hired in the first place.
Because neither me, nor my wife are from this town, they won't hire her here.
JKinAK, post: 334812, member: 7219 wrote: If you believe that surveying is/should be limited to legal boundary issues then there probably isn't a shortage of licensed surveyors. More power to the people who limit their practice to legal boundary issues and have a successful ongoing business enterprise.
On the other hand, if you believe that surveying is all of those things under the NCEES model law definition of the practice of surveying (yes I am aware that every state has their own definition which is typically a subset of this definition) AND surveyors are doing that work, then there certainly is a shortage of qualified licensed surveyors.
https://cdn.ncees.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Model_Law_2014.pdf
110.20.B.4. Practice of SurveyingÛÓThe term ÛÏPractice of Surveying,Û as used in this Act, shall mean providing, or offering to provide, professional services using such sciences as mathematics, geodesy, and photogrammetry, and involving both (1) the making of geometric measurements and gathering related information pertaining to the physical or legal features of the earth, improvements on the earth, the space above, on, or below the earth and (2) providing, utilizing, or developing the same into survey products such as graphics, data, maps, plans, reports, descriptions, or projects. Professional services include acts of consultation, investigation, testimony evaluation, expert technical testimony, planning, mapping, assembling, and interpreting gathered measurements and information related to any one or more of the following:
[INDENT]
a. Determining by measurement the configuration or contour of the earthÛªs surface or the position of fixed objects thereon
b. Determining by performing geodetic surveys the size and shape of the earth or the position of any point on the earth
c. Locating, relocating, establishing, reestablishing, or retracing property lines or boundaries of any tract of land, road, right of way, or easement
d. Making any survey for the division, subdivision, or consolidation of any tract(s) of land
e. Locating or laying out alignments, positions, or elevations for the construction of fixed works
f. Determining, by the use of principles of surveying, the position for any survey monument(boundary or nonboundary) or reference point; establishing or replacing any such monument or reference point
g. Creating, preparing, or modifying electronic or computerized or other data, relative to the performance of the activities in items aÛÒf above
Why would the definition cover all of those things?
The objective is to protect the public by ensuring that when they engage someone to do these things, they are done correctly.[/INDENT]Why should professional surveyors do all of these things?
Because surveyors are qualified and they are accountable - they have to answer to licensing boards - this protects the public to some extent - much more than if the only qualification to do the work is a well written, slick looking proposal.Should every surveyor do all of these things?
Probably not - it would take quite an individual to have expertise covering all of the elements that fall under this definition.If your state's definition is far more limited than this then who is insuring that:
web based mapping properly depicts property lines, contours, and/or imagery?
wetlands boundaries are properly located (remember, these are a line that is the basis of buffers defining what land you can build on - a land use boundary)?
aerial imagery/mapping is spatially valid?
3D scans are properly registered and generating valid locations/quantities/models?
and so on...
All of these activities are based on spatial relationships, are typically georeferenced, are highly technical, are easy to get wrong, and in each case: the public (including agencies) is ill equipped to determine if the work will be/is being/was done properly. Professional surveyors (who work within the limits of their expertise) are the best qualified individuals to do these things. The public can employ professional surveyors to do this work and know that if it's not done with due diligence, that professional surveyor could lose their livelihood.We all know that a 4 year degree doesn't make a person a surveyor. But think about how hard it would be to teach geodesy, least squares, riparian rights,
case law, photogrammetry, business practices, technical writing... in the survey rig or office (we won't even get into spatial databases, LiDAR processing & analysis, or other non-traditional survey activities). The 4 year degree can be a great foundation for learning to survey (no matter what your definition of surveying is).
And we all know that there is not an overabundance of licensed surveyors qualified to do these things. So get qualified, charge appropriately, get to work, and pay your employees (and yourselves) well.
We are licensed for boundary law. Period.
I have a problem excluding those without a surveyor's license from GIS mapping, geodetic work, etc...
I started surveying about 10 years ago. I knew nothing about it, but I realized, pretty quickly, that I enjoyed it. I still enjoy almost all of it - boundary, stakeout, topo, monitoring, etc. So I went back to school. It has been incredibly difficult to work 50+ hours each week and still carry a full time student schedule. I'll be done in about a year. I hope it's worth the effort when it's all over. Financially, it may not, but the satisfaction I'll get from doing what I want to do will be enough for me.
Anyway, I've spent the last couple of weeks looking hard at the board requirements and comparing those to the real world. It's sad. The proponents of educational requirements often cite the protection of the public in boundary surveys as the main reason - and I agree with that, completely. So I'm reading the list and I see that my state only requires that 3 of the 30 surveying-specific credit hours be for boundary classes. That's crazy. Then I see that they not only require a mere 3 credit hours of law, they will only ALLOW 3 credit hours of law. Take all the boundary and law classes you like - we're only going to count 6 hours total. So, in an effort to protect the public from half-competent surveyors, we require that they sit through a whopping 6 hours of classes. The rest? Mapping. You know - GIS, geography, remote sensing, etc. That's all important, but is it 5 times as important as the combination of boundary and law?
Now I know (or at least I believe) that the real boundary surveyor is a product of his mentors. But if we're going to require a degree, can't we at least pretend that we actually believe that boundary and law are key?
One thing I can attest to is that taking classes beyond the scope of your degree requirements is just as good as having insurance.
There is nothing wrong with being over qualified, over educated or over trained in a profession.
When people stop after meeting the minimum qualifications, they are headed for a future that includes being a professional rodman.
I've been licensed for 28yrs and there are many things that I need to learn just to be current with technology and I am sure there are some things that many students in college are more trained at than I am, especially new fangeld tools.......
The Y2K bomb took out a few of my computer programs and it looks as if the next wave of tech bombs could take out my current computer programs as I am dependent upon DOS and XP run programs and none of them have been tested on Win7 or above.
Forty years ago, my mentor sat back and made decisions and everyone that worked for him did the physical work and when he wasn't needed on the jobsite, he went fishing. We made a good group and he got to go fishing a lot. He was always there to go out and get us lined out with what to do and was around when we finished to review our work and instruct us on how to get the projects finished correctly.
I really want to go fishing........... :beer:
The amount of law classes required for a four year degree is becoming kind of a straw man here.
Most states that do not require a degree require four years of experience, passing the FS, four more years then passing the PS and state specific law exam. Most states that require a four year degree, the candidate takes the FS their senior year, gets four more years of experience then passes the PS and state specific law exam. The intention of the degree is not to produce ready to license surveyors, it's to replace the first four years of apprenticeship with a solid technical background in the tools we use, an introduction to the law, and the ability to learn and research on your own.
I just don't see many 21 year old guys/gals who were hired at 18 to cut line, spent a couple of years running the gun, and now are a junior party chief who are legal whiz kids and have moved beyond introductory texts like Brown and are off doing case law reseach in their spare time. So it's pretty much a stretch to expect anything more from a recent college graduate.
If companies are hiring four year grads and putting them straight to work in the office, that's the fault of the existing licensed surveyors in management, not the degree requirement. When I hire a four year grad he (or she) is spending two years as the second person on a crew, period. If companies are hiring four year grads and don't have the business model in place to pay them a starting wage close to what a civil engineering or architecture grad makes out of college, that too isn't the fault of the degree requirement. If licensed survyeors are endorsing the applications of four year grads who just spent four years as a CAD tech after school and they are sitting for the exam without proper field experience that's not the fault of the degree requirement. Unfortunately my experience is that the source of most of problems facing the profession of surveying are self inflicted.
Agreed. Completely. I don't have a problem with the degree requirements. The problem is in the way it's being circumvented by licensees signing off on unqualified and inexperienced candidates who ultimately become licensees themselves by passing exams that have little in common with what surveyors do in the real world. I agree that an operation has to be profitable to survive, but Tom is absolutely correct when he points out that the training has to be seen as an investment. Investments are sometimes difficult to make. But those are the ones that pay off. If a long time licensee can't take a grad under his wing and pay him perhaps a little more than his productivity will support for a few years while he learns what everyone here seems to agree a real surveyor needs to learn, well maybe that licensee shouldn't be hiring anyone to do anything. And if the grad can't commit to learning while being paid perhaps a little less than what his EIT counterparts are being paid for a few years, then maybe he shouldn't be hired by anyone to do anything.
I guess maybe that's a strong statement. And I'll admit to not knowing what many of you know. But I couldn't look an employer in the eye and ask him to invest in me if I'm not willing to invest in myself as a candidate or in him as a mentor.
Tennessee has loosened their requirements to now include those with the necessary experience, but lack the college degree.
Swamp, post: 335094, member: 8388 wrote: Tennessee has loosened their requirements to now include those with the necessary experience, but lack the college degree.
I'm not sure I'd call what Tennessee has done "loosening the requirements".
If you do not have a college degree, this is what you have to do.
1. Work 10 years under a land surveyor, then
2. Pass the FS test, then
3. Work 6 more years and take 12 hours of surveying courses, then
4. Take the PS and state specific test.
I do not agree with shutting the door on those without a degree, and while this doesn't do that, it might be a little too strict for my taste.
Texas has adopted the 4yr college degree and I have never been for that.
It goes against the freedom of self education and there are many, many very good people out there that can not qualify to take the test that do the work every day of the week.
It is what it is and we now have to live with it......
hlbennettpls, post: 334810, member: 10049 wrote: Bad thing about the degree requirement stuff is the fact that it only requires 1 semester of field time. That's a joke. 😉
This thread has been an absolute pleasure to sift thru. The knowledge here is nothing short of spectacular. I've been surveying the better part of 30 years exclusively as a survey crew chief. I was recently offered a position in our office that will put me in charge of our construction management department. Because of my dedication and sacrifice they are willing to train me on the Cad technology and managing the work load and crews. I will be training with an SIT surveyor and my current boss who is retiring at the end of the year. I've got 4 months to learn a lot of stuff. They choose me and my experience over two other crew chiefs who are young but hold 4 year degrees in Survey Technology from the University of Houston. Both of these gentlemen are fantastic young men. But this is what I have noticed. With all that schooling neither of them really understands the basic schematics of field procedure. They were never taught how to keep a basic set of field notes. I was recovering some XYZ control that one of them had set and following their notes for location and descriptions was a nightmare. The point numbers and descriptions didnÛªt line up in the filed book pages to correspond with the published elevation. It would have been very difficult for a Jr party and or a green survey tech to decipher the information correctly. I bet a lot of you can relate to a large project getting off on the wrong foot with bad vertical control. We do most of our Boundary surveys with GPS due to budget restraints. They donÛªt really have to know how to set up a Traverse and close it. Good thing because they donÛªt know how. There are other things you would expect a party chief to know but I donÛªt want to take up to much time here going into it. I think you guys get the point here. Needless to say both of these guys are not happy that an old construction hand like me was picked over their high dollar education. They have however been very friendly and cordial to me despite the events that have unfolded. I actually felt bad because they though they were entitled to the position without having to put in the blood, sweat and sometimes tears that I have dedicated to this profession. And maybe they have a legitimate beef. I donÛªt know. I do understand we are very lucky to have these two promising young men on our payroll. Besides these two men the experience level at our firm is very poor to say the least and we are currently running 10 crews. I can absolutely relate to the quote I have chosen from all the fine information I have read here in this thread. Given time both of these men will learn the field aspects of our profession and together with their formal education there is no doubt in my mind that they will be great RPLS surveyors in the future. Thanks for being patient with this long posting gentlemen. Good luck to all and may god bless!...........Fred