LS numbers by year

Ben Lund · Post by **Ben Lund** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:18 am

Does anyone have a list of LS numbers by year issued. I'm putting together some statistical information.

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:37 am

Look here for help on this.

http://www.pels.ca.gov/consumers/lic_lookup.shtml

If you scroll down a little there's a numerical list PDF of RCE's authorized to practice and a numerical list of LS's issued between 1891 and 2000. After 2000, you have to use the license lookup, as they did not publish the list. The LS list doesn't separate out by date until 1951.

Maybe Rob McMillan has the info in list form. He has compiled lists of new LS's for the last couple years.

If Rob doesn't have them going back that far, you could check with the board. If they don't have it, this will be tedious, but you could use the lookup and use the past test statistics to figure out which numbers passed in what year. For example, the last one in 2000 was 7697 and for example if 150 passed in 2001, then the last number for 2001 was 7847...and so on. You can also use the expiration dates to confirm.

Dave Lindell · Post by **Dave Lindell** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:54 pm

The Numerical Roster published by CLSA has all the licenses separated by date since "Beginning 7-1-1951" with No. 2659. (And , of course, all the others, but without a date.)

7702 · Post by **7702** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:50 am

Gentlemen,

The published numerical list is only good through May 20, 2000, according to the Board's website. I do know that 7697 is not the last number issued for 2000, because I'm a Y2K licensee myself, at 7702. Not on appeal, but there was a glitch on them receiving my take home test, so my license was not confirmed until the September Board meeting.

Also, I've found that the license lookup is missing a few of the earlier licensees. There are gaps (hiatus?) gaps here and there.

7702 · Post by **7702** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 6:10 pm

7714 might be the last one for 2000.

Dave Lindell · Post by **Dave Lindell** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 6:21 pm

Beginning 7-1-1951: 2659 to 2708
Beginning 7-1-1952: 2709 to 2781
7-1-1953: 2782 to 2814
7-1-1954: 2815 to 2849
7-1-'55: to 2917
'56: to 2953
'57: to 2972
'58: to 3002
'59: to 3093
'60: to 3130

Dave Lindell · Post by **Dave Lindell** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 6:23 pm

'61: to 3154
'62: to 3178
'63 to 3210
'64 to 3268
'65 to 3328
'66 to 3398
'67 to 3511
'68 to 3607
'69 to 3718
'70 to 3837

Dave Lindell · Post by **Dave Lindell** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 6:26 pm

'71 to 3947
'72 to 4049 (that includes me!)
'73 to 4186
'74 to 4266
'75 to 4346
'76 to 4474
'77 to 4334
'78 to 4764
'79 to 4920
'80 to 5058

Dave Lindell · Post by **Dave Lindell** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 6:30 pm

'81 to 5058
'82 to 5235
'83 to 5381
'84 to 5552
'85 to 5597
'86 to 5645
'87 to 5830
'88 to 6053
'89 to 6256
'90 to 6534

Dave Lindell · Post by **Dave Lindell** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 6:33 pm

'91 to 6662
'92 to 6887
'93 to 7012
'94 to 7144
'95 to 7214
'96 to 7319
'97 to 7445
'98 to 7454 (7455 to 7503 not assigned)
'99 to 7595
'00 to 7721

Dave Lindell · Post by **Dave Lindell** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 6:36 pm

'01 to 7822
'02 to 7882
'03 to 7964
'04 to 8035
'05 to 8100
'06 to 8225
'07 to 8397
'08 to 8573 (plus appeals)

Rob_LS · Post by **Rob_LS** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:34 pm

Dave Lindell is awesome... Ryan - you are funny! I think I actually do have some of the info in an excell spreadsheet, but not nearly complete or current... Ben, not sure what type of stats you are compiling, but check the new Focal Point, you know, the 2008 chapter newsletter of the year - the newsletter of the 2008 Chapter of the year (Sacramento), for pass rates, etc back to "the year of the nine..." See the Chapter website: http://sac-surveyors.org and then tell your Chapter Reps that there should be a category for Chapter Website of the Year... (our webgeek rocks!)

Ben Lund · Post by **Ben Lund** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:17 am

Wow, thanks Dave!

Rob, Basically, I wanted to see how pre 82 PEs that are retiring will affect the land surveying profession in California. I'm also interested in the number of dual licensed individuals (PE & LS).

Ben Lund · Post by **Ben Lund** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:15 pm

Dave, I'm a little confused by the numbers for 1998. It looks like 1997 ended at 7445 and 1998 ended at 7454. That would mean only 9 people were issued licenses.

Do you mean “’98 to 7504 (7455 to 7503 not assigned)”

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:22 pm

Yes. Those numbers were not assigned and they skipped ahead to start at 7504 the next year.

7702 · Post by **7702** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:56 pm

Yes, only 9 licensees for '98. (Don't they feel special!)

Dave Lindell · Post by **Dave Lindell** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 5:04 pm

The new licensees that year varied from an already registered civil engineer to someone who barely qualified with the minimum six year's experience.

It certainly took the slack out of a lot of people who might have thought the California Land Surveyor exam was easy.

Rob_LS · Post by **Rob_LS** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:37 pm

Yes Ben, That was the year of the nine...

subman · Post by **subman** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:59 pm

Ben,

I have also been interested in the number of dual licensed PLS/PEs statewide. I being one of them; 2008/1983, respectively.

My gut instinct tells me about 2% to 3% of the new PLSs each year are post 82 civils and that may be on the high side. That would calc out to about 104 statewide. (8573 - 5235)/26 = 3338/26 = 128 new PLSs per year on average between 1982 and 2008. Of that 128 per year, assume 3% are post 1982 civils. 128 x .03 = 4 per year on average. 4 per year over 26 years = 104 PLS/PE (post 1982) statewide.

If there were 41,000 new PEs issued between 1982 and 2008 (74937 - 33965) that would make 104 PLS-PE /41,000 PE = 0.25%. That means only one quarter of 1% of all post 1982 PEs have a PLS license. Now I am really starting to feel like one of the Few, The Proud... Oops thats the Marines moto; but I think you get my message. That is pretty shocking if my 3% assumption is in the ball park.

If we keep operating at a deficit, i.e. loosing more older PLSs each year than we gain new licensees, this is a potential untapped resource of new PLS candidates. Public agencies need to develop programs to assist the PEs that are interested in land surveying so they can be provided responsible charge experience to qualify for the exam. My agency has such a program, although it is on hold now due to the economy. Besides myself, I have three dual PLS/PE supervisors working for me. Two passed just this past year and one is from the 1996 crop of PLSs. I have three other PEs within my staff that have qualified, but did not pass this past exam. I suspect, my situation is the exception to the rule.

Don't get me wrong. We also need to work just as hard if not more so to engourage and mentor high school and college students to consider careers in land surveying and provide avenues to get the proper balance of practical field experience and education.

Ben Lund · Post by **Ben Lund** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:00 am

Dennis,
I think your assumptions are pretty close to reality. For $235 I can get a list from the board of all of the licensed individuals in the State. I then can determine how many individuals are both PEs and PLSs. Also of interest would be verifying the assumption that we are operating at a deficit (loosing more older PLSs and grandfathered PEs than gaining new PLSs).

If someone springs for the $235 I'll do the analysis! Send me a private message if you wish.

Rob_LS · Post by **Rob_LS** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:03 pm

You might want to consider working with your local Chapter Officers on this analysis - Central Office may already have the information from BPELS.

And in Dave's comments above, the "already registered civil engineer" is from a family of Land Surveyors (father pre-82 CE & 2 LS brothers), and has now completed his JD. (He's "no dummy"). I have heard that another of "the nine" also followed that up with a JD, the Bar exam, and is now practicing law.

Also, how many new PEs each year are already PLS?

Rob_LS(and EIT)

Dave Lindell · Post by **Dave Lindell** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:40 pm

...was not a "he".

Rob_LS · Post by **Rob_LS** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:07 pm

Then there were two...

California Surveyors Forums

LS numbers by year

LS numbers by year

The already Registered PE