Of course there are exceptional people who can learn all they need to be a professional without a four year degree, but those who don't like the four year education requirements need to come up with an alternative way to measure competency.
No alternative is not compelling. If my job could be done by a good test taker with a high school education I am being paid to much.
I don't think that anyone is advocating for test only licensure, at least I'm not.
I'm saying that if someone qualifies to take an exam, then don't tell him after he's passed it that he wasn't qualified because he didn't have the education to take it. He obviously had a practical education enough to pass it.
And I still believe that a person can learn all he needs to become a professional land surveyor on the job. Unless someone proves that it results in an inferior surveyor, and we have a bunch of licensed idiots out there, there's no evidence that it's really needed.
In Colorado applicants self attest that they meet the requirements for licensure. They do not apply to the board till after they pass the test, no one told the OP that he wasn't qualified to take the test.
We certainly do have a bunch of licenced idiots running around. Can you tell me with a straight face you haven't run across a few?
Of course some of the licenced idiots even have a college degree.
There is no surefire way to keep out the idiots.
I only have an AA degree in general ed, partying mostly, but I have been licensed for 34 years and have been rather successful, some might say. Yes, I was a good test taker, after studying 15 hours a week for four months, but I didn't get in the door without the required, verified experience.
I have had MANY staff with four year degrees from ABET programs over the years. Honestly, the quality has always been about the person, not a degree. The most arrogant "Know it Alls" I have ever encountered had 4 year surveying degrees. Don't recall one who came up through the experience path. I removed myself from mentoring "Know it Alls" probably 20 years ago. Too bad for them.
Am I correctly understanding your OP in which you stated you have taken and passed the State exam but were subsequently denied your license? Don't they review everything prior to allowing you to sit for the exam?
@flga-2-2 No. I have passed parts 1&2 of 3 so to speak. Part 3 is the state exam that I applied to take but was denied.
Of course there are exceptional people who can learn all they need to be a professional without a four year degree, but those who don't like the four year education requirements need to come up with an alternative way to measure competency.
No alternative is not compelling. If my job could be done by a good test taker with a high school education I am being paid to much.
I would be amenable to tiered testing that takes candidates through all the higher level concepts that just can't be taught on the hood of a truck, or even on a drafting table. I have worked with some outstanding surveyors, and not a one of them could teach geodesy, statistics, error analysis, cadastral, projections, or spatial data adjustments on the job. Even boundary law takes a few semesters of class to really get one's head around. So those tests need to be the equivalent of a place-out exam that demonstrates mastery of the material.
When I was a trainer for an equipment dealer, one of the most frustrating parts of the job was taking surveyors through data analysis and trying to teach all of the above on the fly so I could actually get down to the analysis part. It's just not possible. Some concepts need to be learned in a structured environment with a dedicated instructor and a focus on just that single area, before moving on to practical application and learning through experience.
And at the risk of getting flamed, I'll just flatly state that without knowledge of all the above concepts, all you can do is collect data and regurgitate it without having any idea how good it is or what it represents.
And that's not surveying. That's data collection, or mapping, which is a part of surveying, but far from the most important part, and for sure isn't the reason there needs to be a license to protect the public.
I mostly agree with this, except I think that the math and statistics parts are the easy parts to teach and learn. Boundary law can't be mastered, even at an introductory level in two semesters and 4 years of experience.
The degree requirements have done a good job ensuring the measurement engineering stuff is getting through, but there are still many clueless boundary decisions.
Agreed. A Guy asked me how he could learn to do what I was doing. I said I can train you to push the button, and put the gear together, but you'll need to study the math, the error propagation theory, the legal aspects of the decisions you'll be working in, and then the whole other side of the business management part. He kind of lost interest at the study the math part, and got kinda that eyes glazing over look, so i kept going.
AS I was required to take the CST 2 O/F exams to maintain my poorly paid position, I had friends and family asking me why If I took two 6 hours tests, didn't I have a license or better pay. I explained the field is in a weird transition, and test are just that, tests. The real tests are 8 hours, and way more difficult as they represent a higher benchmark of subject mastery.
Experience is the OJT I need to fully understand the depth and breath of the profession, no different than a Plumber, and Electrician, A Doctor, and ATP pilot, etc etc etc. this is just the starting point.
The experience only route has all but disappeared for a dew reasons. First and foremost is the me me me business models. We hire a greenhorn, teach him a fraction of the equipment then throw them out the doir to generate billable hours. We squandered the advances in tools and stopped building new surveyors. We dropped our prices to cover most of our time and forgot tge value of what we do.
A second issue is the quality of what has been passed down. Our forerunners taught the basic 'truth' of cheating your client because it's the neighbor that will sue you. Don't waste time monumenting those obscure corners a half mile up the ridge, nodmbody will ever know.
I see firms that mentor employees very well. They are the exception. So what do we do?
The degree requirement is a solid solution. But it doesn't end there. Those technicians with experience can obtain credit for what they've learned. On-line students need mentors to do hands-on labs. This isn't charity but it is a profession. If you can't give back sell furniture, install carpet or some other commercial pursuit.
I hear more halftruth garbage about the testing and licensing of surveyors than I can stand. Quit discouraging candidates and help them find a path forward. They are there, even in States like Idaho with a degree requirement. It can be done. In the words of the great Ron White, I've seen me do it.
The reality these days is a surveyor has to wear a lot of hats. The days of three and four man crews and opportunities for mentoring have gone away. It's robots and GPS, one or two man crews doing the heavy lifting with little direct supervision or mentoring. Anyone relying on GPS has to have a grasp of geodesy as they are working on a world wide coordinate system, elevations are based on geoids that are based on gravity maps. This knowledge and experience isn't gained doing lot surveys. In order to have a solid foundation to build on, the degree route is just a necessity. With maybe a few exceptions most people are not going to be self taught in these advanced subjects. It's a delicate balance between cutting edge measurement tools and their precision and fundamental principles of boundary law where those precise measurements take a back seat over an accepted monument set a hundred years ago with transit and chain. I remember years back another older surveyor telling me that as a profession we are eating our young. He was right. But like everything, change is a constant and in order to adapt to that change, as a profession and not a trade, the education component is essential. There's just is no substitute, just as there is no substitute for mentoring and constantly challenging ourselves to learn and improve. We can't do that if we are egocentric, only focused inwards. I hire a geomatics student every summer for help during the construction season and interviewed a student yesterday and told him that a decade from now I were to retire and hand the keys over to him because he was successful in his schooling and getting licensed, I would consider that to be success of the highest order. He was me twenty plus years ago.
You can't learn boundary law by doing a lot of surveys either, many mistakes dont come home to roost for decades.
@williwaw I totally agree that understanding and really knowing certain parts of our profession are essential. Especially with todays tech. But is it absolutely necessary that that knowledge come by way of a 4 year degree? Couldn't we make the exams more inclusive of these topics to test for competency? I mean if you know something, you know it right?
If four years of education can be measured by a test, the education isn't worth much.
Fuuny thing. The Surveyor I work under, and incredible mentor, said to me this morning that ..."one of the most important things We do as surveyors, is teach..."
He's the reason i turned down jobs that paid 20-35k more than im making, to keep learning from someone that actually gives a $ht and isn't going to turn away any enthusiastic dedicated person wanting to chase the prize.
Thank you. I forgot where this article was posted, and remember why I wanted to keep tabs on it.
There are many, many good questions posed in that article. I totally support investigating the answers to those questions.
Let me add that I support a path to licensure that doesn't require a surveying degree.
But, I will say the tone of the article seems to be a put down of those who did take the degree path. The breadth of knowledge gained in a bachelor's degree survey curriculum is difficult to replicate with on the job training. To quote the article, "I am sorry, you just can't."
Now, is that breadth of knowledge necessary? I'd say, at minimum, it's beneficial.
I've made my opinion of that specific article known before, so I will refrain from rehashing it.
However, it still blows my mind that education is dead last on that graphic...
...and then I remember how many folks, including many on this board, continue to argue against education and claim that all classroom learning is worthless, and oftentimes that higher education is indoctrination for [insert conspiracy theory du jour].
But at the same time, every surveyor without a degree possesses the magic secret to [insert something about boundary resolution], and also they are more qualified to teach every single subject a surveyor would encounter in a university, better than the subject matter experts with professional licenses and master's or PhDs, in a shorter amount of time and also do it while working full time.
We have always had a disproportionate amount of anti-intellectualism in this country, and it ain't getting any better. If Richard Hofstadter were still around he would have enough new material to win another Pulitzer.