PLS in the field?

[khuerth]

Just curious, it seems in my area a majority of PLS's don't do the field work anymore and rely on the unlicensed field crews . If you are licensed are you routinely out in the field? If not, is your boss running the field crew?

Edited: I am not implying unlicensed crews are inferior, I ran as an unlicensed solo crew for over a decade.

[DWoolley]

I do not believe there is a future for field only staff.

I believe there will be surveyors that choose to be in the field or prefer to be in the field, but are equally adept to working in the office. No license, no LSIT, no job.

Who is not committed to land surveying enough to take and pass a six hour exam to secure their future? Employers, are you enablers? Have you placed a value on licensure? Have you created an environment to help these folks grow professionally? Unlicensed folks, get it done.

There are three types of surveyors in the future - those that are licensed, those that are working towards licensure and the unemployed. If you're over 55, you'll likely make the cut being unlicensed. If you're under 50, learn to code (unfamiliar? look up the meme).

I welcome any considerations I may not have thought about or an error in my perspective.

DWoolley

[pls5528]

If I physically could, I would (work in the field). But, it is what it is, and we all must realize this as we age. I began managing crews over 30 years ago, but, yet provided quality control and training (in the field). Having a strong background in the field made me think productively in the office. I developed ways to create methods utilized in the field which made drafting much better and achieving desired results. As I know too, the field guys (and gals) are your production and success, I have always had their back in support.

[PLS7393]

I do not believe there is a future for field only staff.

I believe there will be surveyors that choose to be in the field or prefer to be in the field, but are equally adept to working in the office. No license, no LSIT, no job.

Who is not committed to land surveying enough to take and pass a six hour exam to secure their future? Employers, are you enablers? Have you placed a value on licensure? Have you created an environment to help these folks grow professionally? Unlicensed folks, get it done.

There are three types of surveyors in the future - those that are licensed, those that are working towards licensure and the unemployed. If you're over 55, you'll likely make the cut being unlicensed. If you're under 50, learn to code (unfamiliar? look up the meme).

I welcome any considerations I may not have thought about or an error in my perspective.

DWoolley

Dave,
I think your perspective is a little far fetched, and the biggest cause of the profession going downhill, in my opinion is the profession itself.
The profession is doing nothing (or very little) to keep a healthy profession. Good surveyors moving out of state, and others getting run out by some, which is a cancer effect of the entire state.

If you want the profession to strive and be professional, maybe its time to mandate a 4-year degree, and/or continuing education? Lets see who has the drive to handle a program. That sure would help CSU Fresno with students and making the program continue as it has for the past many decades. Students of the profession need a good mentor-ship, and an education is a good start. Similar to individual surveyors could benefit from continuing education, does ethics sound familiar?

There will always be a need for field only employees with the unions across the state, and that is the only saving grace, as they (at least Local 3 in N. Cal) has a good apprentice program. Maybe So. Cal is not as strong and you should get involved, just saying.

Community Colleges in N. Cal can't get minimum students and surveying class keep getting canceled. Back to mentoring and the bosses of larger companies need to step up, if they want their business to continue, just saying. Education and mentor-ship you say? Some wanted the JPPC to step up and assist, but N. Cal doesn't have a functioning JPPC. As for a So. Cal JPPC, I have an opinion. Retirement can't come soon enough, lol.

[Edward M Reading]

...If you want the profession to strive and be professional, maybe its time to mandate a 4-year degree, and/or continuing education? ...

What a radical idea, a profession that mandates a 4-year degree. Maybe it will catch on in other professions. lol.

[DWoolley]

...If you want the profession to strive and be professional, maybe its time to mandate a 4-year degree, and/or continuing education? ...

What a radical idea, a profession that mandates a 4-year degree. Maybe it will catch on in other professions. lol.

A four year degree in land surveying or a degree in most anything?

DWoolley

[Edward M Reading]

...If you want the profession to strive and be professional, maybe its time to mandate a 4-year degree, and/or continuing education? ...

What a radical idea, a profession that mandates a 4-year degree. Maybe it will catch on in other professions. lol.

A four year degree in land surveying or a degree in most anything?

DWoolley

Would you want a doctor who had a degree in architecture or an engineer who had a degree in art?

[David Kendall]

A four year degree in land surveying or a degree in most anything?

Requiring a four year degree in surveying is impractical if only one university in the state offers the program.

I support stronger education requirements for licensing (and CE) but that opposes the goal of producing more licensed surveyors.

Are we seeking quality or quantity?

[CBarrett]

While I am all for a degree and education, I don't see that passing in California as long as the union is the biggest producer of surveyors in the state, and has a lot more money at their disposal than any other land surveying professional community. Although I hear that the Union is trying to make moves towards having their classes accredited - to a degree, so they can count towards a degree (AA to start with). Requiring a four year degree in california will result in a lot fewer licensees for at least a decade. At the same time, why would someone go to a 4 year degree, end up with a student loan and start working at $20 an hour with hopes of getting licensed in an X number of years, when that same caliber person can join the union program, start getting paid immediately, have no student loans, and get to top of the pay scale within about 6 years. If I didn't already have a degree when I came to this country, I would have gone with the union. Whether they enter the profession through college or union, people with the right aptitude will rise to the top.

What we are not getting enough of, are people with the right aptitude. This has to do with the the standing of the profession when compared to the world at large. General respect, income, employment prospects, program rigors etc... We keep saying that 'well, you wouldn't go to a doctor ... for this, or a lawyer for this ...." Surveying in general doesn't attract people with those aptitudes into the profession. Requiring a degree will not solve that issue.

Yes, currently, Surveyors tend to be short on general education, and profession specific. Compared to european schools where I graduated from, what passes for a surveying professional out here (in the US and in CA) is sometimes hard to digest. My thoughts swing from "Oh, well, it's the wild west" to "I guess not everyone who graduates does it with honors."

One of the thoughts I recently has was to join the union and get more engaged in their educational efforts. Never having been a union member I thought this idea would have me tarred and feathered for being presumptuous and possibly little arrogant. After having couple conversations with some of the more prominent union people that I know (Company I work for is very union involved, so they are accessible), it turns out they were very welcoming of the idea. I only had these conversations in December, so I didn't have the opportunity to think it through or follow up yet. Historically, I don't know what has been happening with similar types of efforts. What kinds of political and ego games got involved.

I do know that we have a few dichotomies in this region that tend to drive me crazy. Field vs. office - (I know union is contributing to this significantly), but even in a number of non union places, separation between field and office can be like the great wall of China. Also, union vs. non-union people can often be US vs. THEM. Then we have Surveying vs. Mapping, again, when did those two get separated? Mapping is just one of the skills a surveyor needs to have. We have a significant amount of inter-profession messes to clean up.

[David Kendall]

My understanding is that the union training is designed specifically to avoid producing licensed surveyors.

Unions want unlicensed people to train up and rise to the top of their pay scale so that they can produce billable hours. I don't believe they are creating professionals capable of independent thought or practical reason

I disagree with the assertion that unions are the greatest producers of surveyors

[Edward M Reading]

Surveyors: Please respect us as professionals!
Also surveyors: Four-year degree requirement? That will ruin the profession!

[CBarrett]

I disagree with the assertion that unions are the greatest producers of surveyors

Who has access to those statistics, anyone?
I only know what I see anecdotally in southern California. Mostly LA, Orange, SB and Riverside counties, and it looks like union is rather dominant in this area.

[DWoolley]

I disagree with the assertion that unions are the greatest producers of surveyors

Who has access to those statistics, anyone?
I only know what I see anecdotally in southern California. Mostly LA, Orange, SB and Riverside counties, and it looks like union is rather dominant in this area.

David Kendall is correct. The unions produce almost zero LSITs and less PLSs.

The union members are a small number in the "surveyor" community - the quotes are totally appropriate. Technically, far less than 10% of their members are licensed surveyors. If we count all members, locals 3 and 12, as "surveyors" their numbers are a fraction of the surveying community and more significantly, their numbers are falling and will continue to fall (their pension system is doomed). Local 12, counting the operators, has about 11,500 members paying into their retirement system. The "surveyors" make up approximately 500 members.

There are about 4,200 California licensees. There are more professional licensees in Orange County and San Diego counties combined (estimated at 650 licensees) than in all of Local 12 "surveyors" - Kern County to San Diego county and southern Nevada. Throw in all of the non-signatory firms, public agency staff and office staff in the signatory firms and the union member numbers are insignificant.

Local 3 and 12 think of the land surveying community, more particularly their members, as technical donkeys. They say their folks "are not professional or even sub-professionals" and went on to say they are incapable of independent thought or decision making. They pride their membership on "only requiring a GED". They went so far as to say it in writing. They probably best know their own membership.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

What a radical idea, a profession that mandates a 4-year degree. Maybe it will catch on in other professions. lol.

A four year degree in land surveying or a degree in most anything?

DWoolley

Would you want a doctor who had a degree in architecture or an engineer who had a degree in art?

Ed:

For discussion purposes, let's say the education for a land surveying degree was readily available.

What would the requirements look like implemented? Mandatory 4 year degree or maintain an alternative path to licensure? Would an associates degree suffice?

What positive effects do you foresee for the profession that do not exist today?

Last question, why do you think it has not been implemented after 130 years of licensure?

DWoolley

[Edward M Reading]

If it were up to me:
Mandatory 4-year degree in either surveying or a closely related field with a minimum number of credits in specific areas such as boundary, etc.
While we are at it, I'd change the passing criteria of the test. The last I checked, you could fail every portion of the boundary section and still obtain a license. This may have changed, as I haven't been involved in testing for a few years. California is an outlier as far as requiring education. Engineers and even lawyers don't have to have a certain level of education. Many other states do require a four-year degree to obtain a survey license. Guess what? The profession didn't die. If you created the requirement, Fresno would have a much bigger program. Supply and demand.

[CBarrett]

This is probably a proposition which would be too expensive to implement. For example, keep the alternative (non-school) path to licensure, but ensure that applicants demonstrate knowledge commensurate to those who have 4 year education. Maybe testing centers already have certain core competency tests. Here is why I am little bit hesitant about eliminating 'alternative paths. In my case, I have a foreign degree (in surveying), and merely because of a political situation at the time (Cold War) my degree is unaccredited. In my case, I would have gone, and have through considerable extra work to demonstrate my knowledge, in absence of accredited paperwork. My non-accredited degree was good enough to pass the LSIT on a first try after being in the country just short of two years, broken english and 19 years old (back in 1989).

I have approached schools before, which had agreed to let me test out of certain subjects, unfortunately, those credits were usually non-transferrable, so for example, if I decided to pursue masters degree, they wouldn't count. long time ago I had discussions about this with Dr. Turner, aat Cal Poly Pomona, at one of the conferences. He was suggesting that in his program I would be able to take just a few classes (maybe a senior year worth) and graduate. Unfortunately, that was a year or two before Pomona got it's accreditation. I took all of Santiago Canyon college classes, for personal interest, again, before they counted for much. Again, non accredited at the time. I have non accredited classes units up to wazoo...

Over the years I did take a number of additional classes at junior colleges, to get more accreditable units (calculus was fun taking it twice, in two different languages)... The non-traditional part to licensure has worked well for me, and I would hate to see it go away. I know a handful of immigrants who were or are in similar situations. At the same time, I understand that it would be difficult to test for this at the BPELSG level. What I would not advocate for is alternative path to licensure which would enable people to skirt solid general education (in sciences especially). Maybe make it a lot harder to get licensed without a 4 year degree?

What kind of a candidate are we looking to attract with a 4 years degree? Someone who has strong base in general sciences or someone who has studied surveying specifically? Maybe allow for a two tier entry. "Any accredited Bachelors in sciences" - 4 years of experience is surveying plus 2 years responsible charge 1F/1O? "BS in Land surveying" - 2 years responsible charge 1F/1O? We have am employee in our office who is wickedly smart, and learns so well that he runs circles around most people. He has a degree in Philosophy (BA). He is exactly the kind of a person we want to attract, with brains, polish and aptitude, but we would have eliminated him with standard '4 year degree in sciences'. In spite of having a BA, he also took calculus and a number of 'hard sciences' just not enough to graduate with BS. The way our educational system works, some people 'just need to graduate in something, before the money runs out'. There are a lot of undecided kids in schools, who are very smart 'material' so to speak.

I am talking about individual case examples, because I don't have access to statistics, to have a better idea of what kind of people we would capture or inadvertently eliminate by requiring a 4 year degree. I see a lot of 'excited utterances' of, we need people with degrees and education, and I want to jump up and agree just as excitedly... but when I sit back and start dissecting the idea, I am lacking a lot of information to make a good informed decision. I'm also not seeing a lot of this being discussed.
The discussion gets hung up in the oversimplified, yes, require 4 year degree, vs, don't require it. Nothing in between. are we not capable of more elaborate contemplation and analysis of the situation?

[mpallamary]

The problem with most surveyors is they are not well educated. Shoot me. They lack a lot of the elemental skills of proper communication and an appreciation for the arts and sciences. Most have apprenticed their way into their positions and consequently lack a sound education. They should be better educated in the fundamentals of business, economics, real estate, law, English, and the languages. Whenever I mention this I get hate mail. I know for certain there is a sound curriculum which will produce well educated Land Surveyors who would be far more capable of managing a project then their peers on the engineering side of things. There is a reason Land Surveyors do not function well as project managers and administrators; they do not have a well-rounded education and they offend easily when these points are made. A sound educational background is essential.

Ready, aim, fire.

[CBarrett]

Mike, I agree with this completely.

[mpallamary]

Very good. I have taken a great many courses in order to elevate my stature and standing in land surveying. I spent a great deal of time studying law, real estate, business, appraisal, finance, economics, English, and literature. I have developed a curriculum that would serve the profession well. Alas, there is no real interest here in California.

[CBarrett]

Very good. I have taken a great many courses in order to elevate my stature and standing in land surveying. I spent a great deal of time studying law, real estate, business, appraisal, finance, economics, English, and literature. I have developed a curriculum that would serve the profession well. Alas, there is no real interest here in California.

Mike, I would love to hear about the curriculum you developed.
In my mind, some of these things should be required by continued education. (which we also don't have) because, I gather, of all the disagreements over the years on how to implement it.

When it comes to encouraging education, we also need to encourage people who are near license and licensed, and have their license and are coasting, to expand their horizons. Too many people feel like 'they've arrived' once they are licensed. It's a funny situation, there is a lot of pressure to get a license, and then once you happen to answer majority of 74 multiple choice questions correctly "You've arrived". Sometimes the difference between a licensed individual and a non-licensed is that they answered one or two extra questions correctly.

Yes, influx of college graduates into the profession would be great. We also need to be ready for them. Smart kids are not going to thrive in the profession as it is. I used to be one of the 'smart kids' at least when it came to math and sciences. The profession itself, the dynamic, hijacking by mediocrity, stereotyping, inflexibility and egos has been infuriating, and more importantly, stifling.

One of the things I would really like to see surveyors be more exposed to is management of human resources. Between personality type that surveying attracts, and lack of education in this arena, we are pretty far behind. Lot of people who hire a 'smart college kid' will not know how to manage them. Most smart kids are trained to get engaged in what they are doing and speak up. I know first hand, this approach is not encouraged in the profession, especially before you have a license. Keep your head down and be quiet, it's none of your business is the way things are done. Don't act too smart.

[mpallamary]

Time permitting, I will share with you. As you may know, I lecture to associations across the country and I am required to submit programs that satisfy the continuing education requirements for land surveyors. In other words, my curriculum is vetted before deemed acceptable. As an aside, one of the most common elements is Ethics. My late friend Curt Brown spoke of this repeatedly.

[DWoolley]

If it were up to me:
Mandatory 4-year degree in either surveying or a closely related field with a minimum number of credits in specific areas such as boundary, etc.
While we are at it, I'd change the passing criteria of the test. The last I checked, you could fail every portion of the boundary section and still obtain a license. This may have changed, as I haven't been involved in testing for a few years. California is an outlier as far as requiring education. Engineers and even lawyers don't have to have a certain level of education. Many other states do require a four-year degree to obtain a survey license. Guess what? The profession didn't die. If you created the requirement, Fresno would have a much bigger program. Supply and demand.

Ed:

The jury is out on whether the profession would die if a four-year degree was mandated or possibly, simply die on its own.

Four-year Degree Requirements

The history of Nevada’s licensing requirements tells a compelling story.

In 1999 the Nevada Legislature passed SB103 adding the four-year bachelor’s degree to their licensure requirement beginning in 2010. The bachelor’s degree must be in land surveying or a related science plus 30 semester credits in land surveying courses.

Since 2011, Nevada has only issued 46 new in-state licenses. Currently, 42% of their in-state licensees (120) are over the age of 61 and listening to the steady scratch of the Reaper’s sickle dragging outside their door at an ever-quickening pace. The math does not look promising for the Nevada land surveying community.

How do other states compare?

North Carolina requires a degree. They have 787 in-state licensees over the age of 61 and have only licensed 250 people in the last 10 years.

Maine credits a degree or, like California, allows for experience. They have 188 in-state licensees over the age of 61 and have only licensed 57 people in the last 10 years. This indicates regardless of a degree requirement there is a licensee deficit.

Kansas required a degree starting in 2014. They have 174 in-state licensees over the age of 61 and have only licensed 34 people in the last 10 years.

There are several other states reflecting downward trends to a lesser degree.

I found it interesting the average age of national examinees is just under 39 years old.

The facts and figures provided above came from The Nevada Traverse, Volume 47, No. 4 in an article written by Trent Keenan.

The Prevailing Winds for Licensure

I am not sure what it means, if anything, Nevada currently has a land surveyor to population ratio of 1:4800 and California has a 1:9400. We are facing our own licensee die off.

The call for a mandatory degree (including continuing education) in land surveying hit a crescendo in the early ‘70s – as part of the elimination of an exemption for the civil engineers to survey - and fifty years later we have nothing. Governor Brown vetoed the last bill requiring continuing education – a bill sponsored by the AIA and supported by ASCE (I believe).

The land surveying profession would certainly benefit from a degree (in anything). The political winds, nationally and in California, are blowing in the opposite direction. Deregulation, eliminating the “barriers to entry”, is the prevailing wind. There was a report in 2016 by the California Little Hoover Commission recommending the study and sunsetting of yet to be selected occupational licensing. A four-year degree requirement might go a long way towards protecting the land surveying profession. It is certainly counterproductive to the land surveyors survival to have Operating Engineers writing letters stating land surveyors are technical donkeys.

Fun Fact

In 1891 the first Land Surveyors’ Act required degreed licensees to have their degree (and institution I believe) on their license certificate. The first sentence of the Act stipulated that a potential licensee be of good moral character. The 1891 licensure requirements were instituted because of the widespread fraud and incompetence. Imagine the Legislature of 1891 seeing our two monument tangoes and record boundaries vigorously defended by the practitioners of today, good grief. I was inspired to record this week’s Ten-Minute Land Surveyor, due out tomorrow, on the history of the California Land Surveyors’ Act.

Ed, thank you for driving the conversation.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

1891 Land Surveyors' Act

"TO DEFINE THE DUTIES OF AND TO LICENSE LAND SURVEYORS.
[Approved March 31, 1891.]

The People of the State of California, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Every person desiring to become a licensed land surveyor in this State must present to the State Surveyor-General of this State a certificate that he is a person of good moral character; ...
...
SEC. 3. Such licenses shall contain the full name of the applicant; the technical institution from which he is a graduate (if he be a graduate), or if he be not a graduate, the fact must be stated in the license; his birthplace, age, and to whom issued; the name of the person upon whose certificate the license is issued, and the date of its issuance.
...
SEC. 11. Within sixty days after a survey relation got the sale or subdivision of lands, the retracing or establishing of property and boundary lines, public roads or trails, original cemetery or town sites, and their subdivisions has been made by a licensed surveyor, he shall file with the Recorder of the county in which such survey or any portion thereof lies, a record of survey. Such record shall be made in a good draughtsman like manner, on one or more sheets of firm paper of the uniform size of twenty-one by thirty inches. This record of survey shall be either an original plat or a copy thereof, and must contain all the data necessary to enable any competent practical surveyor to retrace the survey. The record of survey must show: All permanent monuments set, describing their size, kind and location, with reference to the corners which they are intended to perpetuate; all bearing or witness trees marked in the field; complete outlines of the several tracts or parcels of land surveyed within courses, and lengths of boundary lines; the angles, as measured by Vernier readings, which the lines of blocks or lots, if the record relate to an original town-site survey, make with each other and with the center lines of adjacent streets, alleys, roads, or lanes; the variations of the magnetic needle with which old lines have been retraced; the scale of the map, the date of survey; a proper connection with one or more points of an original or larger tract of land,...[emphasis added]

..."

Apparently, the land surveyors of the day were so shady something had to done legislatively. I am certain there were scofflaws shaking their fist at the regulation of the practice, lamenting "it will cost more to survey the boundary than to build the fence" or "the county surveyor is requesting me to locate more than two monuments and to show actual measurements, curses! They can't tell me what to do!". If only the surveyors had CAD in 1891 - allowing them to rotate record boundaries to two monuments, my God, the laws they would have written.

This week's Ten Minute Surveyor will be posted after 8am. See it here: https://youtu.be/tpPwH6KfIzw


DWoolley

[Warren Smith]

Here is a report from the Surveyor-General in 1891, listing the first batch of land surveyors.

[LS_8750]

Applause Mr. Woolley!
I liked that one.

Actually, I only discovered your Ten Minute Surveyor a couple of weeks ago when you mentioned it in another thread.
A service to the profession indeed.

Thank you.