California Surveyors Forums

The California land surveying exam will be offered October 28, 2013. This will begin the biannual offering of the California state specific portion of the licensing examination for candidates wishing to obtain licensure as a California professional land surveyor. This additional testing date is being added to fulfill the board's desire for state examinations to coincide with the testing cycles for NCEES examinations and to offer more frequent opportunities to obtain licensure for candidates.

It is about time. CA has been out of step with every other state in which I have taken the exam and in several others I have done exploratory research on their standards.

cool..... hopefully i won't have to take it again though! :)

In Utah, you can choose to take it any day of the year that the testing center is open.

I'm glad CA is making some strides in this arena, but I just hope it is not coming at expense of the quality of the exam, because Utah's test, was a joke compared to when I took the CA exam (2001).

Let me rephrase that, I know it is not coming at expense to the quality of the exam, because I just don't see Ric allowing that to happen.

pretty sad compared to the rest of CONUS. Seems like CA has always tried to be the outlier, and not in a complimentary way. But this change is LONG over due, and should be benefit for both the State and future licensees.

When I moved to Rocklin, CA in April 2002, I had to wait a year to sit for the exam, and then 4+ months to actually receive the results. And then less that 15% passed. It was pretty discouraging at the time.

My Idaho (2001), Nevada (2005), and Utah (2001) exams were offered multiple times per year. Almost as if those States actually WANTED land surveyors to become licensed and practice in their respective States?

And those States have mandatory continuing education requirements for bi-annual renewal. Almost as if those WANT their surveyors to continue to pursue professional education/training?

I vaguely remember (too lazy to look it up now) that there was a year in the mid 1990's where almost NO one passed the CA PLS specific? Got pretty close to litigation, if I recall correctly.

But, alas, I actually use my CA and NV licenses quite frequently, so all is good

I'll pass this great news on to one of my staff who was applying for the CA exam, and will be able to sit for it in October instead of April 2014. He'll be cranked!!!

as a side thought when comparing the Ca process to other states. Ca has approx. 400+ applicants every year for the PLS. More than most of the rest of the western states combined. Logistricaly that is a big difference. I support the exam at least twice a year or more. However it cost $$. Who will pay the difference? This has been one of the benefits to the current test format. It has removed the major logistical issue of grading 400+ exams.

Dhanrion wrote:pretty sad compared to the rest of CONUS. Seems like CA has always tried to be the outlier, and not in a complimentary way.

Pick your poison. California also has some of the easier requirements to sit for licensure than compared to the rest of the western states… So you might have had to wait an extra year to apply for CA, but it might take an additional 4 years in adjoining state.

Dhanrion wrote:I vaguely remember (too lazy to look it up now) that there was a year in the mid 1990's where almost NO one passed the CA PLS specific? Got pretty close to litigation, if I recall correctly.

CA 1998 exam, 9 people passed.

RAM wrote:as a side thought when comparing the Ca process to other states. Ca has approx. 400+ applicants every year for the PLS. More than most of the rest of the western states combined. Logistricaly that is a big difference. I support the exam at least twice a year or more. However it cost $$. Who will pay the difference?

In the past that was made up through the renewals of current licensees. Now of which has changed to the full costs being paid by the applicants, of which there has been numerous complaints about the changed fees. Candidates can’t have their cake and eat it to. It costs more to design multiple iterations of a test that can be taken several times a year… Unless you want to end up with a test like Arizona’s or Utah, as another poster mentioned.

CA 1998 exam, 9 people passed.

Any I think the next year almost everyone passed. I might have the year wrong.

land butcher wrote:Any I think the next year almost everyone passed. I might have the year wrong.

I think you have the year wrong.... Please see the attached spreadsheet.

Josh Tatman wrote:I think you have the year wrong.... Please see the attached spreadsheet.

Like I care.

So when and where is the reunion?

cals6406 wrote:So when and where is the reunion?

Funny.

You should try taking an engineering exam.

LS_8750 wrote:You should try taking an engineering exam.

walking into the exam hall with hand trucks carrying their milk crates full of books (some had large wheeled luggage) was depressing enough. :(

I was certainly grateful that I only had my 10-15 survey related books. :)

Josh Tatman wrote:Pick your poison. California also has some of the easier requirements to sit for licensure than compared to the rest of the western states… So you might have had to wait an extra year to apply for CA, but it might take an additional 4 years in adjoining state.

The lighter requirement behooves asking the questions: What is the justification for the lighter requirements? How do lighter requirements benefit the applicant(s)?

Over the years, I have considered the lighter (aka easier) CA application requirements as a contributing factor to the lower CA PLS passing rates (for those seeking initial licensure). I beleive the "rest of the western states" require waiting those 4 years for a significant reason: compentancy equals training (education) enhanced by qualifying expereince under a licnesed mentor. IMHO, the lighter CA PLS application requirements are ultimately neither beneficial to the potential initial examinees nor the state.

Personal story:
I passed the NCEES LSIT exam (in CA) in 1994. I passed the NCEES PLS and local State exams in 1995 (a different western state). But I had to have eight years of qualifying experience (under the supervision of an LS) to receive my intial state license (I had almost 2 at the time). The state law did not provide exceptions for education that was not degree awarded (4 year reduction from the 8 years for an AS or BS). So my 60+ semester hours (math major, engineering & langauge minors) were not considered. My prior 6+ years of DoD surveying training and experience were not "qualifying" (I worked for PEs, but none were dual licensed). In a conference call, the board even agreed that I was obviously technically qualified (course work, passed all exams). I was not happy ... at the time.

However, that wait to complete the remaining six years provided me with immeasureable experience and I developed a deep two way trust with my mentor (company owner). Subsequently, receiving TIMELY reciprocal licensing from other western states (sans CA ... but I passed anyway) has been a piece of cake.

But back to the original thread: it is AWESOME that CA finally will allow reciprocal applicants the option to sit for the exam semi-annually!!!

Interesting that people on here know their score. I was under the opinion that if you reached the cutoff that was it and no one outside the test graders knew anyone's score.

land butcher wrote:Interesting that people on here know their score. I was under the opinion that if you reached the cutoff that was it and no one outside the test graders knew anyone's score.

When I passed (2004), I was not given a score. I wonder where I can find that "secret" information? LOL

and the test graders did not know the score either. That was part of the independant grading procedure.