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
