>
> I've taken all the tests and the FE was by far the hardest test.
My experience was just the opposite.
I had to go out of state to take the FE exam, but I was out of both the morning and afternoon session in under 2 hours and was very positive I had passed - which I did.
I took the FS exam in state. I spent the full four hours on each section of the exam and was not at all confident that I had passed. Fortunately, I did pass.
Surveyor Engineer?>Clarification Please
I thought we needed to enhance the profession. We need to close that door.
> 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.
>
I expect that the 4 year degree requirement is the way things are going anyway.
The FS exam is supposed to be geared toward making sure a potential land surveyor has a good grasp of the basic knowledge required to be surveying. While I believe some of the questions are no longer relevant, the overall purpose of the exam is. There is no way that the information an applicant is tested on in the FS can be covered in one afternoon portion.
> >
> > I've taken all the tests and the FE was by far the hardest test.
>
> My experience was just the opposite.
>
> I had to go out of state to take the FE exam, but I was out of both the morning and afternoon session in under 2 hours and was very positive I had passed - which I did.
>
> I took the FS exam in state. I spent the full four hours on each section of the exam and was not at all confident that I had passed. Fortunately, I did pass.
I passed the FS and I believe I maxed it, in 61 minutes. I don't think I could do that on the FE.
Passed the PP in 40 minutes
Ralph
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.
:good:
> > 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.
> >
>
> I expect that the 4 year degree requirement is the way things are going anyway.
>
> The FS exam is supposed to be geared toward making sure a potential land surveyor has a good grasp of the basic knowledge required to be surveying. While I believe some of the questions are no longer relevant, the overall purpose of the exam is. There is no way that the information an applicant is tested on in the FS can be covered in one afternoon portion.
The modern FS exam contains some Calculus and some Matrix algebra questions, I think they should just beef it up. The problem with that is you'd probably eliminate half of the potential licensees.
Maybe there should be 2 separate tracks, like Engineering where you have Civil PE and Structural SE. Just a thought.
I've been reviewing my Geodesy and Least Squares notes these last few days and I can see how it would be quite easy to create a Engineering Surveyor license.
Ralph
Mr. Gelder Does Not Understand Surveying Body Of Knowledge
Rather than engineering being added to the survey curriculum, more law courses should be required.
Rather than requiring a 4 year BS in Surveying, the public would be better served with a joint 3 year program, AS in Surveying along with an AA in Land Survey Law, i.e. a Paralegal. When one looks at many of the 2 current year programs, they exceed 60 credits with up to 30 surveying specific.
I had never thought of this concept before, but the comments above got me thinking, which is known to be quite dangerous.
Paul in PA
I'm beginning to think that's the way to go also. When the professions split in NY our college developed a seperate (from civil engineering) curriculum for surveying (both are technology programs, AAS). The only differences, based on NCEES (and their predecessor) is that surveying has law and advanced measurement courses in place of the structural engineering courses. Surveying still has all of the soils, environmental, transportation engineering that the civils have. But, as things stand, the surveyors are not given credit for this part of their education while the civils are. At the BS level the students branch out into more specialization, but they all have the same basic core education. They will have a couple sequential courses in structural, transportation, environmental (wastewater treatment plants usually), or geomatics.
Perhaps there should be some limits on what the non-degreed surveyors can perform that are different than degreed surveyors. The problem we are facing is that because there are so many non-degreed surveyors, we are left out of legislation allowing engineers, architects, etc. to perform tasks that legislators think require a BS degree. This is a restriction on trade and scope of practice that results in little incentive for a young person to persue a degree in surveying.
Mr. Gelder Does Not Understand Surveying Body Of Knowledge
> Rather than engineering being added to the survey curriculum, more law courses should be required.
>
> Rather than requiring a 4 year BS in Surveying, the public would be better served with a joint 3 year program, AS in Surveying along with an AA in Land Survey Law, i.e. a Paralegal. When one looks at many of the 2 current year programs, they exceed 60 credits with up to 30 surveying specific.
>
> I had never thought of this concept before, but the comments above got me thinking, which is known to be quite dangerous.
>
> Paul in PA
All I keep hearing from guys like you is more law, blah, blah, blah. How would gauge somebody's level of competence? Unless these courses lead to a JD in Law or allow you to sit for the State bar, they are useless and you'll never be considered a legal professional. You can become a paralegal in 10 months or less according to the ads on the subway, all you need is a GED and $99. So if you want to make it a legal Profession, create a curriculum that leads to a JD or at least something that would prepare the student to take the bar. (I believe you do not need a Law Degree to sit for the bar in New York). To study all kinds of law and remain in a subordinate capacity to a lawyer is simply maintaining what you have now, a stagnant status quo.
In the ideal world, the top notch boundary expert should be a licensed Surveyor and at least a member of the bar or a JD. That's the model that will put you back on the Map and in the front row. Guys like Robillard, have it right. Under that model the $69 drive-by will cease and desist, since Boundary Surveyors will realize the costs associated with reaching the Intellectual Pinnacle of their Profession.
Ralph
Mr. Gelder Does Not Understand Surveying Body Of Knowledge
Yep, it sure seems like the profession has diverged from its engineering & geodetic roots. A paralegal? I think not.
I believe Dr van Gelder views surveying as something beyond solely boundary determination. No other profession routinely deals with the measurement of the earth and the precise positioning of points on it. I believe he is actually a proponent of saving the surveying industry from itself, where the majority of practioners want to cling to a singular aspect of what its educated / trained in. That also happens to be where the lowest common denominator is trying to lowball everyone anyways. Already passed on GIS, may as well give the rest to engineers.
Mr. Gelder Does Not Understand Surveying Body Of Knowledge
> Yep, it sure seems like the profession has diverged from its engineering & geodetic roots. A paralegal? I think not.
>
> I believe Dr van Gelder views surveying as something beyond solely boundary determination. No other profession routinely deals with the measurement of the earth and the precise positioning of points on it. I believe he is actually a proponent of saving the surveying industry from itself, where the majority of practioners want to cling to a singular aspect of what its educated / trained in. That also happens to be where the lowest common denominator is trying to lowball everyone anyways. Already passed on GIS, may as well give the rest to engineers.
:good:
There used to be in NYS a series N license (I believe) which had the accompanying statement:
E - Certified for the limited practice of prof. engineering
And I now other States like Virginia (I believe) have some secondary License which allows you to do subdivision design.
I believe the Engineering lobby did away with NY's thing.
Ralph
Mr. Gelder Does Not Understand Surveying Body Of Knowledge
> ... I believe he is actually a proponent of saving the surveying industry from itself, where the majority of practioners want to cling to a singular aspect of what its educated / trained in. That also happens to be where the lowest common denominator is trying to lowball everyone anyways. Already passed on GIS, may as well give the rest to engineers.
Interesting notion. I agree for the most part. It just seems that the adoption of NCEES models is a tough sell for many people. Perhaps it's a fear of an agenda towards a national PLS license, or being required to learn aspects of the profession that do not interest us.
I think the post above from Ric Moore sums things up well. And he is an authority on this topic.
One thing for certain, the push from related industries/professions is very alive and well and not necessarily in our best interest. All the more reason to get active in your state society. Voices of many can be powerful.
Mr. Gelder Does Not Understand Surveying Body Of Knowledge
It would not matter if a surveyor is admitted to the BAR. Any survey boundary decision will be appealable to the adversarial process as long as we have due process in this country. But a retracement is a legal determination and should require a professional with some relevant educational background so that people are not continually forced into the adversarial process more than necessary.
I know a lot of loggers that build their own bridges across streams. Have done so for many years. Should we make a test they can pass, let them take it, and turn them loose to design highway bridges?
It's all relative, but I agree if the only reason for a professional surveyors license is boundary surveying (or any other single service), then we don't need a surveying degree. More importantly, we don't need the license to begin with. Some sort of certification in the task would be more appropriate. It could be treated like home inspections or real estate sales or GISP.
But I think the public needs a professional who can help them find, mark, and develop their land, as well as locate it geodetically and populate software with information for land planning and use, as well as monitor structures and other improvements. I still hold out hope that, for the sake of the public, surveyors will be educated and allowed to be at least one of the professions to perform these services. But, that may well be accomplished under the PE license with a State land boundary add on of some kind and geodetic and other topics part of the PE tests. Pe with a survey certification.
Whatever type of surveying you currently perform, you can be sure some other group is now doing it also, and is trying to get exclusive rights to continue doing it. Landscape architects, engineers, architects, environmental biologists, geologists, GISers, etc. have all played a part in taking over traditional surveying tasks and are trying to take more. Lawyers and title companies have taken more. Technology has taken more. As a result the public is passed from one so called expert to another, for months or years, and charged exorbitant fees just to get preliminary information or approval on even the smallest of projects. It is not the regulations that are a problem but rather the increasing exclusivity of their application. This is due in part to inconsistency in reports from surveyors, which in turn is due to lack of core educational competencies that would have kept up with changing and more detailed regulations.
This is all why some are saying surveying should just be added to the engineer realm. Sorry to be so long winded, but I believe the demise of the profession has already happened due to inaction. All that remains to be seen is how things will play out in the aftermath.