I worry a great deal about my chosen profession lately.
Our firm reviews final maps for a number of public agencies so we get to review a lot of surveyor's boundary work products. Some of these boundaries are so poorly thought out and woefully under researched that I want to just give up. Some of them don't even know that they don't know. Really sad. I've tried to explain to some of these surveyors what's going on, but it's like talking to a brick wall. The next boundary is just as screwed up....and these are simple, straightforward boundaries.
Who taught these people to survey? Who were their mentors? They should be hanging their heads in shame!
This seems to get worse and worse with every passing year.
If I retire, then I won't have to care anymore, but the problem is, after 50+ years, I can't stop caring about what I perceive to be a real problem.
This may seem to just be a rant, but this a real problem for the future reputation of surveying.
[MEDIA=youtube]G-g5VbxulZs[/MEDIA]
Ruel del Castillo, post: 441182, member: 137 wrote: Who taught these people to survey?
Engineering colleges with minimal coursework on legal principals.
Ruel del Castillo, post: 441182, member: 137 wrote: Who were their mentors?
None. With one-person crews there is no opportunity for mentoring.
Bill93, post: 441185, member: 87 wrote: Engineering colleges with minimal coursework on legal principals.
None. With one-person crews there is no opportunity for mentoring.
I agree, mentoring in it's present form is a crap shoot. Probably most don't get it or get an non-effective form of it. I think they should just drop it from the license requirement and find something better. It's a different world than when one learned through apprenticeship.
I searched out some guys to "mentor me" and learned a lot from them. I didn't work for them and their "mentorship" didn't count against the license requirements. Those that truly seek knowledge will find it. Instead of counting "mentoring" time we should count true knowledge of the subject.
Don't think it's all that different than any other profession. Cream floats to the top and dregs to the bottom where the low baller thrives on an indifferent public fixated on the lowest price for a service of underappreciated value. I use to be a plat reviewer before getting licensed. Was far and away the best experience to prepare myself for licensure as I had the opportunity to see the full gambit of work in detail. There was always a (fortunately) small percentage of practitioners that would cause me to cringe and grimace on seeing their names on a review. Their half baked plats would be so full of errors I finally came to the conclusion I was being played to do their work for them. One surveyor once told me with the technology being employed today, 'we are eating our young'. To some extent I have to agree. There are fewer and fewer opportunities for meaningful mentoring, but we do the best we can I guess. I've been very fortunate and try and pay it forward.
Carry on.
Every generation thinks the current one is screwing everything up. Think of it as a "full employment" act that will keep you in business as long as you want. Not saying there aren't plenty of crappy surveyors out there. But THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THERE.
I practice in 2 recording states. In both my surveys are subject to review by county staff before they can be recorded. I'm currently dealing with 2 surveys, one in each state. In both cases the reviewer has bled all over my survey, but in neither case have they said a single word about the results of the actual survey. They rarely if ever do.
One requires that I change references to "iron rods" to "steel reinforcing bars". Because reinforcing rods are steel, not iron. All these years I've been screwing that up. The other wants me to change a portion of my title block from "being a portion of" to "located in the". And so it goes.
Bill nailed a big part of our problem in the second part of his post. We have all but eliminated mentoring with the one man crew. I no longer price anything for one guy. The sky has not fallen and I am still very busy.
Much of my work seems to be trying to resolve the problems created by surveyors in the 1950's - 1970's.
I'm unconvinced there are lessor percentages of capable surveyors today than there were in those prior decades. Field crews are much smaller now, but doesn't necessarily equate to level of mentorship quality compared to then and now. In fact, those 1950-1970 surveyors who created so many problems "mentored" multiple 4-man crews and spawned forth many bad practicioners.
Just as there were and still are both great doctors and quacks in medicine, fair attorneys and sharks in the field of law and good and corrupt politicians, so goes it for surveying.
Reminds me of talking to a police captain I know. He readily admits his view is jaded as a result of seeing a large percentage of bad apples on a daily basis. Regardless of how many good and conscientious citizens he encounters, his encounters with the bad apples has left him with a bad view of society as a whole.
While noble it may be to want a survey profession comprised entirely of only 100% "competent" surveyors. I don't believe it is practical especially considering the almost entirely grey area of boundary surveying. Few boundary resolution issues are codified and most case law deals with title issues not boundary resolutions. Quoting an old acquaintance: "in all my year's of surveying, I've never had 2 boundary surveys that were the same". I find that to be mostly true and much complicated by the absence of statute or case law on numerous boundary retracement principles and the often encountered conflict between boundary resolution and title resolution. Considering such a grey area of practice, such an ill-defined industry standard makes for difficulty in stating the metric as to what constitutes competency. I might "know it when I see it" but then I remember that much of my early boundary resolutions based on reading Curt Brown's books are not always in keeping with what today I feel is the most correct answer to the same situation. Was I incompetent then. Am I now in some other surveyor's eye given a certain situation. Are you in mine?
I'm reminded of reading a not long ago license disciplinary proceeding against a surveyor. The board and its expert witness found that a certain survey procedure was akin to incompetence. However the judge found for the defendant and his expert witness (who happened to be a county surveyor), who stated that the survey procedure was in keeping with the "industry standard" for the region.
I'm working into my fifth year of surveying. I have been a Party Chief for most of that time and I'm at my fourth company.
As someone who often asks/wants to be mentored, this is what I have observed:
The surveyor talks to the survey tech. The survey tech talks to the field crews. The surveyor and the field crews don't speak unless there is a major problem. This is fine for getting a product to the customer, but it isn't great for learning.
The question of what to do and how to do it can be achieved by a competent party and a moderate amount of effort. People are usually free to explain the what and the how.
But the WHY is, I would assume, more important. The boss isn't really interested in talking about the whys or the big picture. This is where the disconnect could be.
I feel very fortunate that when I was green, I got to work with three experienced chiefs. One was on his way to becoming an SIT. He explained a lot of the why. The other two were experienced power chiefs who taught me a lot of the how. I was able to put what I learned from those guys together to be - I hope - a good Party Chief myself.
I've also learned a lot from this board, and believe it or not, the Leica sales rep.
I'd love to have more FaceTime with the man with the stamp. That just doesn't seem like how things work out, at least not in the places I've worked thus far.
I can recall only one time when the man with the stamp was out in the field with me. He was there to talk to the client and give us basic direction.
He literally told me, "this is what I need, but I'm not going to tell you how to do your job." I pushed back a little bit and said, "No sir, please do! You have a career's worth of experience and I'd like to see how you would approach this."
So he did, and I actually learned a lot that day. It would be nice to do that more often.
My list
Garbage drawings from engineers
Garbage Contracts
Garbage Project management
Garbage Deadbeats
Garbage Civil contractors
Garbage estimators
All my survey gear is for sale to get out of this Garbage civil construction raquet
industry give me a call 75 cents on the dollar good leica gear and Carlson Dcs
only used by me with white gloves
Pete
604 3021770
Ruel del Castillo, post: 441182, member: 137 wrote: I worry a great deal about my chosen profession lately.
Our firm reviews final maps for a number of public agencies so we get to review a lot of surveyor's boundary work products. Some of these boundaries are so poorly thought out and woefully under researched that I want to just give up. Some of them don't even know that they don't know. Really sad. I've tried to explain to some of these surveyors what's going on, but it's like talking to a brick wall. The next boundary is just as screwed up....and these are simple, straightforward boundaries.
Who taught these people to survey? Who were their mentors? They should be hanging their heads in shame!
This seems to get worse and worse with every passing year.
If I retire, then I won't have to care anymore, but the problem is, after 50+ years, I can't stop caring about what I perceive to be a real problem.
This may seem to just be a rant, but this a real problem for the future reputation of surveying.
As previously suggested, the practiced skill level of a professional is dependent upon the individual's pride in their work. Reviewing land surveying documents will provide the opportunity to influence and share a standard practice of the fundamental principles of boundary surveying.
Mark Mayer, post: 441212, member: 424 wrote: I practice in 2 recording states. In both my surveys are subject to review by county staff before they can be recorded. I'm currently dealing with 2 surveys, one in each state. In both cases the reviewer has bled all over my survey, but in neither case have they said a single word about the results of the actual survey. They rarely if ever do.
One requires that I change references to "iron rods" to "steel reinforcing bars". Because reinforcing rods are steel, not iron. All these years I've been screwing that up. The other wants me to change a portion of my title block from "being a portion of" to "located in the". And so it goes.
I don't know about the states where you work, but a lot of reviewers don't have the authority to critique the boundary determined by a surveyor. They are limited to ensuring municipal codes and state platting requirements are met.
aliquot, post: 441362, member: 2486 wrote: a lot of reviewers don't have the authority to critique the boundary determined by a surveyor.
It is true that they don't have the authority to require that I change my resolution. They are free to question it as they wish.
