California PLS requirement

[E_Page]

It seems that the engineers among us are feeling picked on because others have suggested that the experience requirement bar should not be lowered for them.

Mr. Immel quotes Phillip Kassam that surveying is a highly specialized branch of civil engineering.

That is an outdated definition. It comes from a time when a significant portion of a CEs training was in surveying and a time when surveying commonly made up a significant portion of a typical CE's practice.

Times have changed. As has been previously discussed, surveying content has significantly decreased in engineering degree programs across the country. Fewer CEs have surveying activities as part of their regular area of practice than in past decades.

A CE degree is not without value, but it is simply not as well suited to a career in surveying as a degree tailored for that purpose. That should be so obvious as to not even be open for debate.

The qualifying survey experience for a CE to become a surveyor is currently a lower bar than it is for a person with an accredited survey degree, as has been pointed out. IMO, and probably in the opinion of most surveyors, the experience bar for CEs should be no less than for anyone else.

I don't understand why you are upset. Is it because I, and perhaps others feel that registration as a CE does not warrant special privilege? Or are you just feeling picked on?

Look, you qualified for the exam, you passed. Good for you! You now have both RCE and PLS after your name. Be proud of it! My opinion that the experience requirement to qualify for the LS exam be as stringent for CEs as for everyone else is nothing personal. It is not a statement of your relative worth, so get over it.

[PE_PLS]

I am a duel PE and LS license holder. For all those who already have dual licensure there is nothing the state can do to take it away from us. With that said, Evan is correct. Licensing requirements should reflect modern times. I went to Cal Poly SLO and graduated in 2003. I had 2 surveying classes as part of my degree and both were very basic. I believe that there should be some benefit for being a degree holder in the eligibility requirements for being licensed, but there shouldn't be any bias for those who have a CE license. Most people who are currently getting licensed as CE's have very little if any surveying experience. The amount of advantage that the state gives a CE who wants to become an LS is probably disproportionate to the actual surveying knowledge of an average licensed CE. I must admit I was very fortunate to be a CE because it made getting an LS relatively easy, but I also think this loophole gives CE's an unfair advantage. I must say though, I'm sure glad we had the loophole...made things alot easier for me!

[Ben Lund]

Greg,
I never said PEs don’t need boundary experience to qualify for the test. 425 gives examples of experience but does not state they are mandatory. I think your quote from the BPELS website describes what is on the test NOT mandatory experience requirements.

Hypothetical: I could, graduate with a BS in CHEMICAL Engineering from an ABET accredited institution, take and pass the EIT and PE exams, and start designing a steel skyscraper (that is not a hospital or emergency response structures) without even taking a class on steel structures!

Can I really do this?

NO, because of 415 in the Board Rules which states Engineers and Surveyors shall practice “only in the field or fields in which he/she is by education and/or experience fully competent and proficient.”

Evan,
I am sorry that Engineers in your past have looked down on you and have not appreciated your work and the education and experience needed to do what you do. For some reason I feel a sense of duty to clarify misconceptions like(in order they appeared):

Quote: “A CE degree is no more suited to the LS qualifications as a Survey degree is toward the CE qualifications.”

Reply: I’m not positive a LS degree does NOT count towards the experience requirement to sit for the PE. Most BS degrees do count towards the PE.

Quote: “On that "option 3", a person's experience as an civil engineer brings them into frequent contact with surveyors, but it does not give them valid or useful experience in Land Surveying.”

Reply: “Two years of broad based progressive experience” does NOT include a person’s experience as a civil engineer (outside of the overlap of land surveying defined). I dare any PE to put “frequent contact with surveyors” on their application and see if the board accepts that as land surveying experience.

Quote: “An LS with a 4 year survey degree is probably more prepared for engineering than the average RCE is for surveying.”

Reply: If by “engineering” you mean line and grade only and by “surveying” you mean boundary surveying I would agree to this statement.

Quote: “The qualifying survey experience for a CE to become a surveyor is currently a lower bar than it is for a person with an accredited survey degree, as has been pointed out.”

Reply: I don’t believe this is true nor do I believe this has been pointed out. Read further for my explanation.

Quote: “IMO, and probably in the opinion of most surveyors, the experience bar for CEs should be no less than for anyone else.”

Reply: I believe it could be argued that the experience bar is higher for PEs (see below for explanation). Let me repeat myself; I still believe that it is more difficult to qualify to take the LS than it is the PE (for reasons I stated in my previous posts). I don’t believe that it is easier to become a PE and LS than to just be an LS OR to just be a PE.

PEs need "broad based progressive experience in land surveying SATISFACTORY TO THE BOARD." This is NOT mandated for LSITs in the current statutes. I am not on the board, but I presume that PEs are held to a higher requirement when it comes to “broad based progressive experience” when compared to the LSIT applicants experience. How does the board look at experience from LSITs versus PEs? In other words, do PEs have to have a broader base of experience when compared to LSITs?

The “experience bar” math is as follows:

PE to LS route:
4 years BS in CE
EIT
2 years experience
PE
2 years land surveying experience
LS
Total = 8 years

LS route only:
4 years BS in LS
LSIT
2 years experience
LS
Total = 6 years

Quote: “A CE degree is not without value, but it is simply not as well suited to a career in surveying as a degree tailored for that purpose.”

Reply: Well said! The comparison should be a CE degree with 2 years of broad based progressive land surveying experience versus a 4 year land surveying degree. Which is better?

How many credits of the BS in Geomatics consists of major classes teaching land surveying? Typically, only half of your classes will be major classes. The other half of your classes teach you fundamentals of Algebra, English, History, Economics, Sociology, Language, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Writing, Arts, Nutrition, Statistics, Geometry, Calculus, Psychology, etc.

Bottom line, the battle was fought and a compromise was reached. I believe the current requirements are fair and if it is so easy to become a PE first on your road to an LS, then do it! Sorry for the length but I felt it was necessary.

[RAM]

However, look at the test plan for the exam. Boundary is around 35% of the exam, and without a background in boundary, it is not likely that a canidate will pass the exam.

And to set the record straight. I have nothing against OIT, one of my BLM mentor's was from OIT and taught me taught me the ins and outs of the PLSS and how to function in the field. I think most programs are close to the same as a basis of education. It is up to the individual to complete that education. Bottom line is I enjoy harassing Evan.

PS Evan I still owe your childern ice cream.

[Ben Lund]

Well said Greg! By the way, I believe the LS Exam on average is about 2/3 boundary.

[E_Page]

Ben,

Point by point as to your last post:


1. Your hypothetical and §415 would only come into play if there was an issue with the design and a Board complaint was filed. Many licensees, engineers and surveyors, operate outside of their areas of competence on a regular basis, often not even recognizing their lack of competence, but sometimes knowingly so. They shouldn't, but they do.

If you think my comments about qualifications are because of some real or perceived attitude of engineers I've worked with in the past toward surveyors, you have completely missed the point. Please go back and read slower. Take notes if necessary. Engineers looking down on surveyors, or surveyors looking down on engineers has NOTHING to do with whether the qualifications under current law are adequate for either. Stop trying to make it personal.

2. §424 speaks of engineering curricula. Unless a survey degree is designated as "Survey Engineering", then engineering is clearly not the major focus. Even if it is a "Survey Engineering" degree accredited as EAC, the actual course content will be little different than a "Survey" degree accredited ASAC. BPELS would assess such degrees on a course by course basis and although the degree would be 60% to 70% or so identical to an engineering degree once the general ed, math, science, and engineering courses are considered, I would bet that BPELS would look only at the strictly "engineering" courses, and the survey graduate would likely get about 1 yr credit, or might be very fortunate to get 2 years credit.

I would be very pleased if someone has actual experience with this scenario and could show that they got 4 year's credit.

2. Again, you missed the point. The point is that the experience bar is lowered for the PE because it is presumed that some significant portion of their experience as a PE provides them with some additional knowledge of surveying. I don't believe that to be a valid presumption.

Again, the PE's bar is “Two years of broad based progressive experience”, where for the person with a 4 year survey degree, but without a PE, the higher bar is described as "two years of actual broad based progressive experience in land surveying, including one year of RESPONSIBLE field training and one year of RESPONSIBLE office training". Note that the description of the PE's experience does not mention that it must be in a position of responsibility. Does experience as a chainman qualify for the PE as long as he progresses later to instrumentman and then to Party Chief? Does experience as a CAD monkey on simple mapping under close supervision count as long as the PE progresses to drawing more complex drawings with less supervision? The PE does not even need to get BOTH office and field experience to qualify.

4. As a graduate of a 4 year surveying degree, I have had course and lab work in strengths and properties of materials, statics, dynamics, hydrology, pipe design, road design, including quntities and estimating, and limited structural design. The typical survey graduate has the same math and physics than the typical engineering grad. I had courses in contracts and project management.

Granted, the engineering courses in the typical survey degrees are the 100 and 200 level courses, but the engineering content represents about 18 to 24 quarter credit hours, depending upon the school. That goes a little beyond "line and grade", which is taught in lower level survey courses.

Typically, if there is a survey requirement at all in an engineering degree, it amounts to 4, 8, or in some rare cases 12 credits of 100 and 200 level courses.

Boundary surveying can be the most challenging in that it often requires the practitioner to think both in abstract and in concrete ways. It is the one area of surveying that cannot really be deemed a "specialized branch of civil engineering", and is in many saces closer to the practice of law.

Most other aspects of surveying can rightly be defined as "specialized branch of civil engineering". But these are not merely technician work either. They require special knowledge and judgment, and must often be managed differently than other aspects of engineering.

5. The bar is lower. Yes, all experience must be acceptable to the Board. But how is that experience defined?

Let's review §425 "Experience Requirements - Professional Land Surveyors"

In my copy, printed by CLSA, there are 2 1/2 pages describing in detail, the experience requirements, how education is counted toward that, what qualifies as "responsible field training" and "responsible office training" (12 subsections for each of those).

But then at the end of this, §425(g) states "An application for licensure as a land surveyor who holds a valid and unexpired registration or license as a civil engineer is exempt from the application requirements of this section provided he or she submits sufficient documentation that he or she has a minimum of two years actual experience in land surveying as required by Business and Professions Code Section 8742(a)(3)."

And §8742(a)(3) reads "Registration as a civil engineer with two years of actual broad based progressive experience in land surveying satsfactory to the board."

Remember, we just read that the RCE is exempt from that whole section that describes what experience is acceptable for the non-RCE, so any argument that the RCE's experience must meet the same criteria is negated before it is even made.

If you want to break it down to an accrual of years, then start with an even goal, which is not only license as a PLS, but dual licensure as PLS/RCE.

PE to LS route:
4 years BS in CE
EIT
2 years experience (of which 2 years will qualify)
PE
2 years land surveying experience (of which 2 years will qualify)
LS
Total = 8 years


LS (with degree) to PE route:
4 years BS in LS
LSIT
2 to 4 years responsible experience (of which 2 years will count)
LS
3 years engineering experience (of which, 1 yr may be granted for survey degree)
EIT
3 more years emngineering experience
PE

Total = 11 to 14 years


LS (without degree) to PE route:
2 years experience in LS
LSIT
4 to 8 more years experience (of which 4 years will meet criteria)
LS
3 years engineering experience
EIT
3 more years emngineering experience
PE

Total = 12 to 16 years


6. Again, you are setting an uneven playing field. A PE is qualified to take the exam after 2 years experience. A survey grad is not qualified to take the exam right out of the gat as your comparison implies, but they must first obtain at least 1 year of responsible field training and 1 year of responsible office training, which may take only two years, but will more commonly take longer.

So, lets first set the proper comparison:

PE license with two years of LS experience of unspecified level of responsibility

vs

BS degree in surveying with 1 year of responsible field training and 1 year of responsible office training.

Is there really two reasonable sides to that discussion?

The compromise was reached at a time when there was recognition that CEs were no longer receiving adequate training to cover it. That trend toward less training of engineers in surveying has continued for the 27 years since that law took effect and the difference is even broader now than it was then.

The law should be changed to reflect current reality, not the reality of the 60s and 70s.

Once agian, I am already a PLS, so I have no need to choose any route to get here again. I do not choose to be a PE. For one thing, my engineering experience is so stale that I would probably have to start that clock over again, which would first require me to change employment to an organization that would afford me engineering experience. I have no desire to invest 6 or more years to qualify for the EIT and PE exams.

Ben, this discussion is not about my nonexistent desire to become a dual license. It is about appropriate levels of qualification to become a PLS, and has turned into the related discussion about the PE to PLS and to a lesser extent, the PLS to PE. They are unbalanced. And IMO, the PLS to PE bar is closer to where it should be going either direction.

Stop trying to turn this into a Engineers are better vs Surveyors are better ti for tat spat. If we were just having good natured banter, that would be fine. But the discussion has progressed beyond that and continuing such banter while trying to make serious points trivializes the subject and demonstrates that you are taking it as a personal affront to your qualifications.

I repeat. It is not personal. Get past that.

[E_Page]

RAM,

With you and other fresnoids about the OIT vs CSUF thing, it's just friendly competetive banter. (mostly)
;-)

[torgsurv]

I'm in favor of requiring:

A 2 year degree in Surveying OR a 4 year degree in a RELATED field.
In addition to education, a minimum of 4 years work experience, at least two years each in office and field.
Also, mandatory continuing education after getting licensed.

[Ben Lund]

Evan,
I do not believe you are attacking me personally. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I basically agree to what you’ve said in post #65.

I certainly agree that it is much harder to get your LS first then PE. I believe this should be revised to make it easier for LSs to get the PE.

I don’t agree that it is easier to get your PE then LS rather than just your LS. I think you agree with this also.

I don’t agree that the 8 years of experience to get your PE and LS is significantly different when comparing 6 years of experience to get your LS only. I think you disagree and I respect your opinion.

In your education you explained that you took a significant amount of engineering classes. It sounded like your LS degree only differed from a CE degree by about 1 years worth of different classes. Meaning, if you took another year of CE classes you could graduate with a double major (LS and CE). The same would apply to the CE major.

Quote: “A PE is qualified to take the exam after 2 years experience. A survey grad is not qualified to take the exam right out of the gat as your comparison implies, but they must first obtain at least 1 year of responsible field training and 1 year of responsible office training, which may take only two years, but will more commonly take longer.”

Reply: This is NOT the comparison I am trying to make. When comparing the PE to LS route to the LS only route you have to start with day 1 (i.e. both individuals have just graduated high school). This is what I attempted to do.

I agree that getting 1 year of office and 1 year of field responsible charge could take longer than getting 2 years of surveying experience. It took me 7 years to accumulate 2 years of surveying experience. That’s because I was doing BOTH engineering and surveying during that time.

Quote: “That trend toward less training of engineers in surveying has continued for the 27 years since that law took effect and the difference is even broader now than it was then.”

Reply: I agree that engineers were allowed to do surveying. Surveyors put an end to that (with some compromise) and created a division. Most firms have separate civil and surveying departments.

8291 said, “No education requirement should be required to become a PLS or PE. Proof of the character and readiness of the individual are in his references.”

Reply: I agree and I believe the statutes currently allow for this.

8291 said, “As far as I know there aren't dual licensed PE/PLS people out there causing problems, doing work they're not qualified to do--really?”

Reply: Well said! It seems the issue is not one of public safety.

8291 said, “Doesn't having a license make them more accountable? Doesn't this bring more talented folks into land surveying?”

Reply: YES! and YES! I would support making it easier for LSs to become PEs. I do not believe the two are like aples and zebus. Yes the land surveyor typically has not been educated in hydrology but the engineer has not been educated in boundary law.

Personally, I could not be the engineer I am without my land surveying experience and vice versa. It’s a package deal that compliments not restricts.

[subman]

For me, it was 5 years college resulting in a Bachelor Degree in Civil Engineering (structures and transportation); EIT in 1980; 2 years civil engineering experience; PE in 1983; 25 years professional civil engineering experience (parts of which qualified as more than the 2 years of broad based land surveying experience; PLS in 2008.

In otherwords: about 32 years to reach PLS/PE. And yes, I do value the PLS more than the PE. I believe I worked harder to get it. There are a heck of a lot more PEs in my agency than PLSs and even fewer PLS/PEs (400 vs. 14 vs. 4, respectively).