I heard an interesting idea while attending a day seminar at this year's MiSPS convention, where Dr. Boudewijn van Gelder of Purdue University presented. He is an associate professor at Purdue, serves as the Indiana State geodetic advisor, and served as NCEES exam coordinator for Purdue.
At the close of his presentation, he proposed what he would like to see happen with the NCEES model for surveying:
1. Mandatory 4 yr degree from ABET program in all states.
2. Do away with the FS exam.
3. Add surveying or geomatics as a choice for the afternoon (PM) portion of the FE exam.
4. To become an SIT, must pass the FE/PM/surveying exam.
For those unfamiliar with the FE exam, the AM portion covers general engineering (typ material from any engineering program), and the PM portion presently can be general, chemical, civil, electrical, environmental, industrial or mechanical, at choice of the taker.
He didn't discuss if the PE / PS exams should remain as they are, though presumably there'd be no reason to change them. I don't think his proposal was met with too much enthusiasm, curious to hear what folks here may think, with the recent talk about education, etc.
> I heard an interesting idea while attending a day seminar at this year's MiSPS convention, where Dr. Boudewijn van Gelder of Purdue University presented. He is an associate professor at Purdue, serves as the Indiana State geodetic advisor, and served as NCEES exam coordinator for Purdue.
>
> At the close of his presentation, he proposed what he would like to see happen with the NCEES model for surveying:
>
> 1. Mandatory 4 yr degree from ABET program in all states.
> 2. Do away with the FS exam.
> 3. Add surveying or geomatics as a choice for the afternoon (PM) portion of the FE exam.
> 4. To become an SIT, must pass the FE/PM/surveying exam.
>
> For those unfamiliar with the FE exam, the AM portion covers general engineering (typ material from any engineering program), and the PM portion presently can be general, chemical, civil, electrical, environmental, industrial or mechanical, at choice of the taker.
>
> He didn't discuss if the PE / PS exams should remain as they are, though presumably there'd be no reason to change them. I don't think his proposal was met with too much enthusiasm, curious to hear what folks here may think, with the recent talk about education, etc.
Said professor doesn't want to hear what I think about his benighted opinion. It would be good for a small percentage of engineering students who are quite interested and well versed in the field of surveying. But for the vast majority of engineers and surveyors, well I won't use the precise words that come to mind, I would be breaking a few rules here.
Surveyor Engineer?>Clarification Please
FE= Field Engineering?
FS= Field Surveying?
Surveyor Engineer?>Clarification Please
FS=Fundamentals of Surveying
FE=Fundamentals of Engineering
Surveyor Engineer?>Clarification Please
> FE= Field Engineering?
>
> FS= Field Surveying?
Under the NCEEs
FE = Fundamentals of Engineering
FS = Fundamentals of Surveying
Of course having National Council of Engineering Examiners doing tests for surveyors is nearly as bad as the Associate Professor's from Purdue idea. Neither one has any logic in their thought processes.
Surveyor Engineer?>Clarification Please
You may have heard them as SIT and EIT, the certificates that are issued by the Board after you pass the FS or FE exams.
Items 2 and 4 seen in conflict, yes? While a nice idea it doesn't seem too practical, as well beyond some math engineering is not surveying and from the boundary perspective who cares a link about engineering, totally unrelated subjects.
Surveyor Engineer?>Clarification Please
"Of course having National Council of Engineering Examiners doing tests for surveyors is nearly as bad as the Associate Professor's from Purdue idea. Neither one has any logic in their thought processes."
I whole heartedly agree with your comment.
> ...Dr. Boudewijn van Gelder of Purdue University presented.
> 1. Mandatory 4 yr degree from ABET program in all states.
> 2. Do away with the FS exam.
> 3. Add surveying or geomatics as a choice for the afternoon (PM) portion of the FE exam.
> 4. To become an SIT, must pass the FE/PM/surveying exam.
So it seems that our highly decorated scholorly Doctor is seeking a seemingly logical pathway for engineers to become surveyors. Sort of a back door approach via academia.
1) That is highly likely in coming years, and one I agree with.
2) One question - Why? Answer, because it's doubtfull that most graduate engineering students could pass the FS exam.
3) There is step one of your pathway for the engineers. Give them the option. And the separation of surveying or geomatics options is intriguing.
4) There is the crossover step to combine surveying into engineering. Require a surveyor to pass an engineering exam.
Good luck to all the up & coming surveyors. You'll be dealing with this approach and it will greatly impact our profession if it comes to be.
Years ago many states just grandfathered PE's into a being a PLS simply by paying a fee, and we all know how that worked out. Contrarily, I know many dual licensees who are highly qualified - but - most of them were a PLS first.
$0.02
It would probably be OK for those in surveying that deal with measurements. Totally inadequate for boundary surveying. But from my view the current system is totally inadequate for boundary surveying so probably wouldn't make much difference.
The core engineering education is quite good at sorting out those that have it from those that don't. It does lean towards solving math problems and not the way the law sorts out issues. Boundary surveying is more of an apply the law than apply the math so I'm not sure being a math wizard really sets one up to apply boundary law to the land.
What I'm sort of confused by is that “getting the license” is the big deal in surveying. It's not what one can do for the client or one's overall knowledge to be an expert in the field or even whether one has a lot of education or any degree or such. It's just you got a license. I have an engineers licensee, a surveyors license and a drivers license. The license I'd have the hardest time doing without is my drivers license. The engineers license required a difficult education and I learned a lot but I only used it for a few years of employment but I suppose it was worth it. The surveyors license took me many years to get and I worked really hard. When I finally got the license I found out that the world is really not willing to pay much for this knowledge and there are a lot of surveyors willing to work for peanuts which makes it worth about zero. So about 10 years were mostly for not.
Things may have changed, but, there is no way a surveyor would master the morning session of what is on the FE (formerly EIT) examination. That portion had problems from virtually every technical class taken, including biology, chemistry, physics, advanced calculus, strength of materials, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, statics, dynamics, soil mechanics, electric circuit theory and on and on. The normal person cannot answer questions from those subjects unless they have been trained in those areas and been previously tested over and over. It's not a matter of intelligence whatsoever. It's a matter of having been trained in the subjects being tested. I might eventually be able to pass a test in Swahili, but, not without actually taking a Swahili class first.
Surveyor Engineer?>Clarification Please
Well Engineers have always enjoyed being part of the land Surveying Profession. Or is it the other way around??
Well for a long time surveying was the bread and butter of a civil engineers office. The times they are a changing..
We do need a place for a surveying program, and if it falls in the engineering school I don't see a problem. Although more practicing land surveyors need to be involved in the instruction. Since land surveying laws are different in each state and engineering principles are the same everywhere then we need to teach to the state not unlike law.
Maybe Surveying belongs in the liberal arts school?
I have some college, no degree. I wish that I was closer to a college or could find reasonable online instruction towards a degree.
As for mandatory degree, well it's a nice concept but we do need to leave the door open for the "hard way."
Your right. If they headed surveying down this path then surveyors would need to be a part of engineering and take the first three core years of the basic engineering programs. Otherwise they couldn't pass the FE test. I think most FE's could pass the surveying fundamentals test with not to much extra effort. Not so the other way around, not enough basic education in science for surveying students to pass the fundamentals of engineering exam.
I've taken all the tests and the FE was by far the hardest test.
Interesting thought process...
Some problems associated with this proposal:
1. Not all states have adopted NCEES model law and adoption is heavily dependent upon state legislation in order to even be considered for adoption.
2. FE and FS exams are developed towards a target audience that is greatly dependent upon an education background. Students in an ABET land surveying program are not exposed to the broad range of fundamental engineering curriculum that students enrolled in ABET engineering programs are.
3. Students enrolled in an ABET engineering program are very often encountering a lack of available land surveying courseload, which could hamper the ability to be successful in passing the proposed surveying PM module. Most of the UC programs in California do not require a land surveying course or even offer one as a requirement for the engineering degree.
4. It is my understanding that some states are considering repealing their requirements for a ABET land surveying degree due to the lack of licensing applicants that may be the direct result of a decrease in available land surveying programs across the nation.
If we all come from an engineering base, Who will fix the problems?;-)
Who would have guessed that a University Professor would be in favor of a Mandatory 4-Year degree requirement?
> Who would have guessed that a University Professor would be in favor of a Mandatory 4-Year degree requirement?
Same reasons lawyers make laws.
Professors, gotta love em, Always trying to drum up business for some academic program that has no relevance in the real world. A lot of states have no 4 year surveying programs. If I want a 4 year degree I have to pay out-of-state tuition in another state. Where I work we have 6 licensed surveyors, two with 4 year degrees. The two with 4 year degrees are administrators and don’t really practice surveying. Occasionally they will review work but generally have no idea how that work was done. Where I work construction surveying can be done under the direction of an engineer. Mapping is a different story but that falls under the heading of surveying as defined by state law so any engineering exam isn’t going to test you on the requirements to become a licensed surveyor in this state. For the life of me I can’t figure out why people think that surveyors need to be well versed in the fundamentals of engineering. Designing and building infrastructure is engineering. The only reason surveyors get involved with construction surveying is because most engineers don’t want to get their hands dirty and surveyors will do that work for peanuts. Jim
There is only one reason why a surveyors license was deemed essential to protect the public, and that is the skill and ability to merge the math with law.
Search for and evaluation of physical evidence of boundary in the field during daily practice cannot be duplicated in any curriculum or classroom. Many/most states require a background of not less than 2 years in the field doing boundry surveys. In addition they expect to see a few more years in research and analysis pertinent to boundaries and application of the controlling laws.
There are many other types of surveying being done by both licensed and unlicensed persons. So long as the unlicensed do not try to sell boundary work, no harm no foul.
I anything in the world of surveying that is not boundary practice want to step up and require a specific Geomatics license to cover that action, fine. Do the lobbying to make it happen.
If the construction industry thinks they need something less in fees for a PLS to supervise the layout, let them lobby for a Construction Survey distinction and see if it results in actual lower cost survices.
Lots of talk about how to get around the LS to pretend to meet your risks for less than 1% or your project costs in savings. And only if the tech you hire was trained by an LS with good background.
Same lead ballon effect as at the seminar. My own 2 cents, I think the good Doc recognizes the need to treat the symptom, but has the cure all wrong.
Leave surveying as it is (separate from engineering) and add the other stuff under engineering.
Leave degree requirement for surveyors up to individual State (none, 2 yr, 4 yr) -
Licensed practice of a PS limited solely to Boundary determination, or also with rudimentary topo / construction staking / elev work as per individual State Board.
- basically, not much changes for Surveying -
Open up Geomatics as a discipline in Engineering. Add as module in both the FE & PE exams. Licensed practice would involve engineering design, geodetic network development, HARNs, CORs, hydrographic, remote sensing - high tech measuring such as LIDAR, GNSS, mobile mapping, anything where legal boundary determination is not an objective. Grandfather in any currently practicing (in these areas) surveyors.
This wouldn't remove surveyors from an equipment standpoint insofar as it's applied towards boundary surveying. The field of geospatial technology & data dissemination is exploding - it clearly needs to be structured in a way insuring some faction of competent practioners are involved.
