What is the Beef?

[LS_8750]

In light of recent discussions, the continual purveying syndrome is that land surveyors do not view themselves through the same lense as other professionals. Land surveyors basically suffer from not viewing themselves as equal to engineers, architects, attorneys, etc. As a land surveyor myself, this apparent inferiority complex has never crossed my mind. The key word above is "themselves."

I advocate for the profession of land surveying quite a bit in my practice. In fact I go so far as to say without the land surveyor, the engineer is blind, but without the engineer, the land surveyor is business as usual.

I see it with my engineer peers, and you can guarantee they receive a healthy dose of scoff from me, not to mention a quick slap in the back of the head. In my own practice I see that I need to use my PE credential to talk up my PLS credential to an equal plane. It's weird, but true. Actually, I draw equal measures from each bucket most of the time in my practice.

So, to get this started...... Do land surveyors have some sort of little man's syndrome in the professional world?

[mpallamary]

Point well taken and of importance. Years ago when many of us tried to advance these same goals, we pressed a public relations agenda and standing statements. The goal was to direct the Central Office to make periodic press releases about members and the organization by setting up interviews and articles, seeding the press as it were. In 1984, we organized a massive public relations campaign in connection with National Surveyors Week. It was pretty amazing and we had extraordinary coverage. The reason it was not continued is because it required work and there was no support for that.

Again, a good step would be to organize a public relations committee. The public needs to be educated. if we do not promote ourselves, who will? With a better public recognition comes better compensation and that leads to pride of the profession.

Does anyone care?

I will relate one funny story. A couple of years ago, I was interviewed in a couple of newspapers regarding some important survey stories and after they ran, I was contacted by a CLSA officer who was upset that I did the interview. He felt that CLSA should have been contacted and interviewed. I told him I agreed and I asked him what he was going to do about it. I asked him why he thought they contacted me. I explained that I suggested that the reporter speak to CLSA and he (the reporter) said he wasn't interested as he didn't know what CLSA was and that three people across the state including two from Sacramento suggested that he contact me. Despite my efforts to press the story to CLSA, he wasn't interested and better yet, CLSA did not have anyone to represent the organization. Part of the problem was the fear of doing something without the endorsement of the Central Office and the belief, a valid one, is it would take three months before anything could be said or done. The media moves very fast.

What does that say about the state of the profession?

[LS_8750]

It is not my intent to start a negative discourse here. I woke thismorning thinking I should just delete this thread, but maybe there might be something enlightening that comes from it.

I remember a couple of years ago Tony Cuomo wrote a nice argument about professionalism in Cal Surveyor. He tied professionalism to continuing education and made some solid points.

To paraphrase Muhammad Ali, to be a professional you must believe you are one. To me it is the little things, such as the NFL player who dresses in a suit for the post game media interview, or the plumber who shows up clean cut, sparkle in the eyes, and ready to start the job with a joke and a smile. Taking time to sit and talk with clients, explain what it is that we are doing, and why, perhaps telling a story about the history of the parcel of land being surveyed, going so far as to ask what they perceive a land surveyor to be and then helping them to understand exactly what it is that we do, how we do it and why. It usually opens up an interesting discussion. Most people have stories of land disputes in their family somewhere.

[dmi]

Clark this is the type of thing we should be talking about. I agree with Mike.

[land butcher]

It's how we are viewed by others. I have experienced situations where const supers told me "Damn you guys are expensive" then turn around and hire a crew from a CE for more money

I have worked for a number of CE firms and only a couple of the CE owners thought highly of surveyors, to the rest we were a unwamted necessity, but the latter were the first to scream and yell when we did not catch a design error.

Part of the problem is engrs wear slacks and dress shirts and we wear jeans and work shirts.

[LS_8750]

Mr. Pallamary nails it once again. To repeat, "if we do not promote ourselves, who will? With a better public recognition comes better compensation and that leads to pride of the profession."

Who can argue with that?

About a year ago I read Bruce Flushman's "Water Boundaries". Mr. Flushman started the entire book in his Preface with the following:

""In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." With this immortal sentence, the Bible memorialized the first and longest-running boundary dispute."

Yes, that is Genesis 1.1, or Page 1 of the Old Testament. But to follow, that line about the oldest and longest running boundary dispute; it is true! Secondly, it goes to show that the oldest profession is not what is commonly perceived, no it is rather boundary surveying.

It might be said that the history of priesthood comes from the concept of moral boundary establishment and the recognition of that line that we dare, or dare not, cross. Boundary Surveying!

Promoting the profession? Anybody dare guess that I am anything other than evangelical when talking with people about the profession of land surveying?

Why does it take a lawyer talking about water boundaries to point out these things?

[LS_8750]

Land surveyors, where do you find your profession crossing over into other lines of work?

[MikeTurnrose]

I think part of the problem, at least, here in California is the college degree issue. I know this been discussed to death, but I think that the PEs being required to have degrees and LSs are not, puts us lower on the educational totem pole. At least, this might be what is perceived by the engineering community and some in the general public.

[TIB]

When the public thinks of a surveyor they see a guy in the street working in the dirt next to the guys digging ditches. When they think of engineers they see a guy in a suit in an office. In general terms, I can't see that will ever change

[scarpa]

MT: Is a degree required to obtain a PE license or is it that 98% of PE's choose to get a degree?

[D Ryan]

No requirement for the degree as I read it (and from reading the adjacent sections in the PE Act).

From the Business and Professions Code(PE Act):


6753. With respect to applicants for licensure as professional
engineers, the board:
(a) Shall give credit as qualifying experience of four years, for
graduation with an engineering degree from a college or university
the curriculum of which has been approved by the board.
(b) May at its discretion give credit as qualifying experience up
to a maximum of two years, for graduation with an engineering degree
from a nonapproved engineering curriculum or graduation with an
engineering technology degree in an approved engineering technology
curriculum.
(c) May at its discretion give credit as qualifying experience of
up to one-half year, for each year of successfully completed
postsecondary study in an engineering curriculum up to a maximum of
four years credit. A year of study shall be at least 32 semester
units or 48 quarter units.
(d) May at its discretion give credit as qualifying experience not
in excess of five years, for a postgraduate degree in a school of
engineering with a board approved undergraduate or postgraduate
curriculum.
(e) May at its discretion give credit as qualifying experience for
engineering teaching, not in excess of one year, if of a character
satisfactory to the board.
The sum of qualifying experience credit for subdivision (a) to
(e), inclusive, shall not exceed five years.

Dave Ryan
Humboldt County

[Ric7308]

Jon and Dave are correct, a degree is not required in California to apply to become licensed as a Professional Engineer. It is my understanding that we are the only licensing jurisdiction that allows for this.

That being said, it is mostly a moot point since 99% of the engineering applicants have the appropriate degree which qualify under state laws.

This very well may be a supporting indication for what Clark is talking about in that professionalism is more about a state of mind and action rather than just a title.

[LS_8750]

Ric, thanks for tuning into my little theme.

And before this gets into a diatribe about "education requirements", let me just say that California, in my opinion, has the best approach I have seen.

First, you do not need a degree to sit for the PE exam. Good luck getting the opportunity to sit without one. I've known hundreds of engineers, in California and in Europe, who have been ordained with the credentials due their stature in terms of knowledge, education, and decision making in circumstances requiring professional judgement. I've known three credentialed engineers, who did not have formal university education. And guess what, those three were/are some of the best I've ever known.

Second, look at the major league engineering marvels that have been accomplished in California, and remember that you don't need a degree, or formal education, to acquire a PE in this state. Nor do you need continuing education.

How is this happening?

As Mr. Moore followed, professionalism is a state of mind.

Perhaps the public views the orange vest as a cloak of the second class citizen. Can't say much about civil engineers except that they have traditionally been employed to serve the whims of politicians. Look at the dams across the west, the bridges, the water infrastructure here in California, the highways, the coastal projects. Look how F'd up everything is out here. Anybody who thinks it is the engineer's fault is high. The engineer just wants a job to do, the engineer is the instrument of the politician, the public.

The engineer normally has more "formal education" than the land surveyor, in present day circumstances. But most engineers do not want any sort of exposure, they want to be left to their calculators and not bothered by their clients.

There is a parallel between engineers and land surveyors here. Neither want to be bothered. Neither want to foster relations within the different departments of their companies, let alone their clients.

To be a professional requires an aptitude, an attitude, a certain fortitude, and a type of charisma that forces one to step away from the drawing table and discuss the essence of what it is that we do, to be able to explain it to 12-year old kids in such a way that it draws interest, and awe. To be a professional requires a skill set that you will not learn in "formal education", or "continuing education."

Callers always want a "survey", with the quickest turnaround time. Really? Who actually believes the "caller" is in the drivers seat? What exactly does this "caller" really need? Who rushes to this type of "emergency"? Who created this "emergency"? Where does all of this come from? Oh, and on the cheap?

Do other professionals respond to these "emergencies"? Of course we have real emergencies, where professionals respond. But, concerning these minor issues, the "emergency" is the trait of the neophyte. Those who respond are also neophytes.

To me, professionalism exists largely in the approach, or the attitude.