California PLS requirement

Rob_LS · Post by **Rob_LS** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:19 pm

Does California need to change the licensing system to require a 4 year Surveying/Geomatics degree to sit for the PLS?

Rob_LS · Post by **Rob_LS** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:14 pm

40 views and no posted opinions?

Rob_LS · Post by **Rob_LS** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:28 pm

40 views and no posted opinions?

Jim Frame · Post by **Jim Frame** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:41 pm

I think a degree should be encouraged for the versatility it provides, but I also believe that a practical non-degree path should be maintained so that those who don't match the average educational profile still have an avenue to licensure. (I count myself among the latter.)

.

VANCE · Post by **VANCE** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:56 pm

problem with a 4 year degree is that not to many colleges offer them (the only one I know of is Fresno, but I sure there are others) for Surveying/Geomatics.

How about a 2 year (AS or AA) in surveying/engineering that are offered at the J.C. level at less of an expense.

Jim Frame · Post by **Jim Frame** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:32 pm

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that a 4-year degree in surveying be required. My understanding is that a bachelor's degree in any field of study will meet the requirement under the various proposals.

.

Steve Martin · Post by **Steve Martin** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:18 pm

Curt Brown was an advocate to education for Land Surveyors, yet he believed that the door should not be closed to the "self made man", the person who through his own efforts, studies, gains experience and acquires the knowledge to become a Professional Surveyor. I would like to consider myself self made, although there were others I worked with and learned from (special credit to Vance Breshears' LS review course).

Having an Associates Degree in Surveying, I would support an AS requirement. A BS degree requirement may give us a better educated initial candidate pool (even if it is any BS degree) but we would severely limit the candidate pool and leave out the so called "self made man".

Rob_LS · Post by **Rob_LS** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:30 pm

I am with most posters here, in that I am not a product of a 4 year Surveying/Geomatics degree program. While working as a Survey Technician, I went to community college for Surveying courses to learn some of the book stuff and fill in the gaps in my "real education". I learned most of what I needed to know to pass the PLS exam from my Party Chiefs, supervisors, San Diego CLSA LS Review instructors, and co-workers. After passing the PLS, I returned to a non-traditional University degree program in an unrelated field, and completed my BS while still working. For the record, I am supportive of a BS required, although I do not believe any real effort is being made to push that agenda at this time.

Jim Herrick · Post by **Jim Herrick** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:44 am

Interesting thread! I agree with Steve that we need to leave an avenue open for the "self made man". This could be done with an additional experience requirement such as the engineers have. However, I think the primary path needs to have some sort of education component requirement added to it in the future. I also like Greg's idea of increased experience requirements. Possibly take it to 8 years total like many other states have. I do not have a four year degree. I have an Associates degree in another field. I learned the profession from work experience and mentoring as most have but there have certainly been times when I wished that I had a better education background to help me through the technology end of the field.

My thoughts
Jim Herrick

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:11 am

I am a product of a 4 year land surveying degree (Cal Poly Pomona, 1997, BS in Civil Engineering with Surveying Option). I do not agree that the path to licensure should be closed if you don't have a degree. I do think that my education helped me to pass the CA LSIT and LS exams the first time taking them. I took the IT when I was in my fourth of six years in school. I took the LS four years after graduation. I learned invaluable test-taking tips while taking mid-terms and finals. Some I passed (anything survey related), some I failed (Structural Analysis II, Fluid Mechanics, Vector Dynamics, etc). But by the time I finished school I think I could have taken and passed almost any exam - even not in my field of study. The content of the courses was a great basis to start working full-time upon graduation.

Plus I was able to have the "college experience" which I can't really talk about in public...what happens in college, stays in college...

Ric7308 · Post by **Ric7308** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:33 am

Ryan,

I noticed that you took the PLS Exam four years after graduation. Looking back now and in your best opinion, would you have been ready to pass the exam two years after graduation like the current requirements allow?

Ric

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:42 am

Ric,

I think the test would have been more difficult, plus I didn't have the field time done within two years. I may have been able to eek it out. The work experience was invaluable.

I was doing boundary analysis by two years after graduation for some pretty difficult RR boundaries and R/W projects (under the direct supervision of a PLS of course), but I would have been on the bubble to pass the test at that time.

I have no idea what my score was, obviously, but coming out of the exam I knew how many points each question was worth. I also knew that I got at least 75% of the multiple choice correct and I figured in my head that I definitely got at least 60% of the essay points. With the passing score of the test usually in the 50% range, I was pretty confident that I passed.

I think if I had my field time within two years, I might have had a shot.

Ryan.

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:50 am

I'll say, though, a lot depends on your employer as to whether or not you could be ready to take and pass the exam. If all I was given to work on was topos or drafting, then there is no way I would have been ready. Some advice to the unlicensed...avoid being pigeon-holed. I worked for a large firm and could have very easily been pigeon-holed, but I constantly asked for challenging work. It was also a struggle to get out into the field. I became quite competent in the office and the PM's were afraid to let me go out full-time. That delayed me deployment into the field for at least a year. I raised a stink and then it happened.

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:55 am

To require a 4 year degree and not have a requirement for continuing education seems to be hypocritical. Just because someone has a 4 year degree does not mean they know everything, what it tells me is that the individual has the drive, desire, and determination to get things done and an understanding of the theory of behind it. Personally, I do have a 4 year degree from Fresno State in Surveying, and when I started working, my practical knowledge started. I’ve had several mentors along the way … most being “self-made”, and some coming from some sort of educational background. One wasn’t better than the other; I learned and was tutored by all.

To force a “blanket” requirement of a 4 year degree in our Profession would eliminate the diversity of Land Surveyors we have in our state. Without diversity, I believe our profession could become stale and stagnant … the road to licensure would be funneled through one way only. The more diverse our backgrounds are, the more we are willing to learn from. The more we learn, the more knowledge we gain. The more knowledge we gain, the more power we have in our society … education is just ONE way to get there.

Just my opinion ... and you know what they are like!!!

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:17 pm

"Just because someone has a 4 year degree does not mean they know everything"

Anyone who thinks that this is what a college degree is supposed to do is very misinformed. Not trying to take you out of context BeachBum, as your complete comment makes it clear that you do not believe this.

But many seem to think that "knowing it all" is the stated purpose of a 4 year degree (although I have heard that the propaganda of one 4 yr survey school tries to strongly imbue this belief among its grads). The purpose is to give the student a very broad, but not necessarily very deep education of the field of surveying, so that when the student becomes an employee, in nearly any setting, he or she can be in a position that they've seen or had some little bit of experience in most types of projects they may be presented with.

But the recent graduate is far from an expert in any aspect of surveying based upon education alone. The educational exposure delves deeper into the technical aspects, the why of how things work, but very limited exposure as to the practical application under the wide array of conditions one will encounter in practice.

IMO, formal education is a distinct advantage, and I think it does a better job of teaching one the why of how things work, while experience is necessary to learn how things work in a practical setting, and under a variety of settings.

Not everybody needs the formal education to be successful, or to be a knowledgeable professional, but for us schlulbs of average intelligence, it sure does help.

Oh, and I gotta give this variation on the opening quote: "Just because someone has a license does not mean they know everything."

I have known several licensed surveyors who could have benefitted greatly by the addition of a formal education to their experience. I can say without a doubt that both my formal education and my experience were important in my passing the LSIT, the OR LS, and the CA LS, all on the 1st take (hint to those who have yet to pass the LSIT and/or PLS exam: Do not TRY to pass it. Take it with the attitude that you EXPECT TO pass it. Anything less and you've built in your excuse and expectation to fail it before you've entered the room). I passed the OR LS 6 months before graduating from OIT, and passed the CA LS the following year. I had several years of experience prior to taking those exams.

Like some of the others, I am in favor of a more stringent experience requirement and the encouragement of a 2 or 4 year degree as part of that experience.

Ric7308 · Post by **Ric7308** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:31 am

This is a very interesting thread. I did preliminary research recently involving surrounding states and their Land Surveying licensing laws. Of the closest 17 states, only Nebraska (and us) have an overall requirement of less than 8 years in varying combinations of experience / education. Of those, at least 6 required 10-11 years of overall time! And I believe 2 required a BS in LS. Another interesting sidebar from this preliminary research is that the only state with an exam format similar to ours...was also Nebraska.

My background is experience based with some LS, technology and business level college courses thrown in for good measure. While I don't currently see the benefit to our profession or the public for making a LS degree mandatory, I can definitely understand the benefit of a combination.

I have seen a few states that have provisions setup for various paths:

1) BS in LS, LSIT and experience
2) BS (not in LS) or AS in LS, LSIT and a little more experience
3) No degree, LSIT and a little more experience than number 2.

hellsangle · Post by **hellsangle** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:02 pm

In a "perfect world" - yes . . . (read applicable CalSurveyor Editorials . . . issues 123 & 139.) There are not enough ABET graduates to fill the retirees, etc. Who will service the public if there are not enough surveyors? (Starts with an "E" . . .) I like the two (Chris 'n Ryan's) sense on this . . .

Best to all,

Phil - Sonoma

http://www.californiasurveyors.org/file ... urv139.pdf

http://www.californiasurveyors.org/file ... urv123.pdf

subman · Post by **subman** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:07 pm

My path is probably very different than many of you. I graduated with a 4 year degree in civil engineering in 1980. I took the PE exam in 1982 and past the first time.

Over the next 26 years I worked in a broad range of civil engineering disciplines, a significant number in the land development field (public and private). Our agency was flush with pre-1982 civil engineers, and the ones I worked under in the subdivision mapping plan check arena knew that aspect of land surveying. However, there were also many "technicians" that had no college education, but knew their stuff and learned it from on the job experience.

Well, down the road, all the pre-1982 civils retired and we became very short handed in the number of individuals licensed to be in direct responsible charge and sign as "County Surveyor". So I applied for the PLS exam and passed it the second time in 2008, once I prepared for it. I took it the first time in 2007 with no preparation to benchmark what I knew.

So, from my perspective, I would say that a balance of education and work experience would be the ideal foundation for the expansion and growth of the surveying profession. However, a path needs to be maintained for the individual who did not have the opportunity to go on to college after high school and needed to start working and was lucky enough to start off at an entry level on a survey crew.

Bottom line, know your limits and continue to learn and develop so the boundary can get bigger...

Rob_LS · Post by **Rob_LS** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:07 pm

Thanks to all for the thoughtful posts... I expected this would stir up some debate... I find it very interesting that two 4 year degree holders (CSUF & Cal Poly P) felt a degree should not be required, and 2 LS degree non-holders felt it should... Apparently the grass is green on both sides of the fence... As usual. great perspectives from all... Despite our feelings on the licensing issue, we should all encourage those youngsters we meet with promise and desire to pursue a degree...

JMS8070 · Post by **JMS8070** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 4:04 pm

I am in favor of requiring at least a two-year degree, but not necessarily in land surveying.

I have an AA in Surveying that I received after approximately 8 years of night classes. During the last six years of that time I was working for an LS as his only employee. That time with him taught me more about surveying than any of my survey classes in community college.

I bet you are wondering why I would want to require college.

While I did not learn much from the surveying classes, I learned a tremendous amount of beneficial skills from my other classes. I learned how to debate and argue points. I greatly improved my grammar (I was a marine prior to surveying...we spoke in four letter words only) and I learned how to write professional letters, reports, and emails. My reading comprehension was greatly enhanced due to the amount of required reading. All of the above skills are extremely helpful â€“ dare I say required â€“ in our profession.

Since leaving the one-man show and moving on to a larger (although not as large as it once was) firm I have worked with several people who needed to go to college and take an English 101 class...not an Error Analysis class.

So while a degree in surveying is great, I think just a degree can also be an invaluable asset on the path to becoming a competent professional.

Ben Lund · Post by **Ben Lund** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:29 am

If the state did require a degree, that would certainly cause the colleges to provide the service. The requirement would certainly raise the bar for the profession.

How many professions do you know of don’t require relevant college education?

Ian Wilson · Post by **Ian Wilson** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:10 am

Ben:

Medicine, Law, to name two! Yep...check the statutes. There are ways to acheive licensed status OTHER than school!

Hmmmm.....

Makes ya think, doanit?

.

Ben Lund · Post by **Ben Lund** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:31 am

Ian, great point. I would guess the majority of practicing doctors and lawyers went the route of college. I'm also guessing that the reverse is true for land surveyors. Just guessing....

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:36 am

Ben said: "If the state did require a degree, that would certainly cause the colleges to provide the service."

That was the experience in Michigan back in the 70s. As I recall, Ferris State offered a two year degree. In 1973, the state passed legislation that the degree would be required as of 1978, with qualifying experience up through 1978 being grandfathered in for applicants once the requirement was in place.

That 5 years gave Ferris and MI Tech plenty of time to ramp up from AS degrees to BS degrees to meet the projected need.

Ian said: "Makes ya think, doanit?"

Most people won't, or don't know how to do that on their own, and that is the advantage of the formal education. It teaches people who otherwise may not know how to think.

Of course for those who don't need to be taught how to think (or require less such training than others), there should to remain consideration for a degree of less than 4 yrs, a mechanism for evaluating non-survey degrees for partial education credit, and a path for experience only to licensure.

JLG3RD · Post by **JLG3RD** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 1:02 pm

I'm in disagreement with that thought for several reasons.

1. There are only two schools that offers a four year degree in the State.
2. Most surveyors fall into the profession, once your working as a Surveyor it's too hard to quit and go get the degree.
3. It's been proven to me time and time again that a four year degree in Surveying doesn't necessarliy mean your more knowledgable about Surveying!

I am all for continuing education credits for licensure renewal.

California Surveyors Forums

California PLS requirement

California PLS requirement

Curtis Brown

absolutely no!

It takes all kinds...

Getting my 2 cents in a little late...

Four year Degree