Advice for Examinees

[E_Page]

I heard a great quote by Gen. Douglas MacArthur this weekend that reflects the attitude one should go to the exam with:


"It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it."


If you go in thinking, "hopefully I'll pass this time." or "I'm just here to know what to expect next year." or "Maybe this is my lucky year!" or any other such weak minded ideas, you will fail. Furthermore, you will have deserved to fail.

That doesn't mean your a bad person. It just means that you did not put in enough well planned effort to demonstrate that you should be entrusted with the responsibilities involved with being a professional licensed to practice without supervision.

If you do fail, have a plan. Identify where your weaknesses were, work to minimize or eliminate them, plan for next year's battle, and go in expecting victory.

It has worked every time I've tried it.

[E_Page]

Good to meet you also. Hopefully, we will have an opportunity to visit more in the future.

It was a good grading session. Got a chance to meet a few new people and worked with a great bunch of PLSs who, like past years, exhibited a high degree of professionalism and dedication to maintaining a fair and accurate process.

[RAM]

I also enjoyed the interaction, Dan thank you for setting me straight. It is good to be able to hear new view points. It is too easy to get struck in our own little world.

[Gromatici]

I was glad I was invited. I'd have to say it's been nice to be on the other side of the fence this time. Everybody seems fair-minded and I think we exercised as much empathy for the examinees as possible without compromising minimum competency requirements.

The best advice I can give is that examinees need to know the laws on the State Level and not base their answers on their own experience. Experience is supposed to be congruent with the laws and proper boundary methods, but that may not always be the case. I would encourage all examinees to teach themselves by reading the 1973 Manual, Brown’s, Wattles’ and Clark's books. In addition, take as many seminars as possible.

Since Land Surveying is a profession, relying solely on experience or a “practicalâ€￾ view of boundary locations might lead you down the wrong path and will leave out the foundation of boundary principles that are necessary for correctly resolving boundary issues. Supplementing your experience with education (formal or informal) will steer you in the right direction.

[E_Page]

I would like to clarify, or add to, what Eric said, If I may.

There is not a "test way" and a "real world way" to approach the problems in the sense that you would come to a different conclusion in the real world with the same given sets of facts.

The differences that most may see as being incongruent are due to the fact that most real projects have more complicated sets of issues, quite often with some that rise above what can be considered to be at minimal competency across the board. Some such issues may be present in nearly all projects in one part of the state, yet never show up in another area.

When the questions are written, an attempt is made to include issues that would be common to all locales, and test knowledge that is applicable across the state. An attempt is made to NOT include issues that are local in nature or that exceed the minimal competence threshold.

In the real world, there are sets of issues and facts that are unique to nearly every project, adding nuance that you will not find in the exam questions. That's why one of the basic exam instructions is "Make no assumptions".

I would say that if your employer is conducting surveys contrary to the law, they are doing it wrong. Most likely, if you think that is the case, you are missing the issues that add the nuance and put a different light on the facts of the surveys you have worked on. Ask your boss why some of your projects seem to conflict with what you've learned to be correct methodology for the exam. He or she will most likely be able to point out various issues that you won't see on the exam (either local in nature or beyond minimal competence) and provide logical explanations.

Added to Eric's list of reference materials, I would add, and put at the top of the list, copies of the Professional Land Surveyors Act, the Board Rules, and the Subdivision Map Act, which can be purchased from CLSA in 2 handy little books. Better yet, Paul Cuomo sells a publication called Laws for the California Land Surveyor, which has these laws plus many others that apply to the practice of Land Surveying.

You should have a recent copy of these laws as some sections are amended by the legislature each year (although the basics seem to remain unchanged most years). Bear in mind that the test that you take in April was put together beginning the previous summer. So it is best to have a copy of the laws from the year just past. For the 2009 exam, have the 2008 laws on hand.

None of this is to say that experience is not important. It is critical that one know not only where to find the law, but how to apply it. There may be other issues that are not addressed directly by the law either but are matters of procedure and/or standard practice. These things can be learned only through experience. Good experience IS education. But Eric's point is well taken. Educational opportunities abound, not the least of which is self study.

[Ben Lund]

Evan,
As an aspiring Land Surveyor, I can see your point and I appreciate your advice. I’m not convinced that the “test way” and “real world way” are the same.

An example of this is how to treat monuments of no record. It was made very clear in all of my review classes, as well as my reading, that unless the uncalled for monument can be proven to be defined as an original monument, that it had no bearing on the boundary solution.

Currently, I’m trying to work out what I though was so clear with my post “’no record’ monuments” in the General Discussion forum. So far I only see the “Lost Corner” application in the BLM Manual.

Thanks,
Ben

[E_Page]

Remember that nearly all of the rules we work by are rebuttable presumptions. In the exam, the State doesn't want to throw you a curve ball, so it is unlikely (not impossible, just unlikely) that a problem will be given that runs contrary to the general rule.

Evaluating monuments that are not of record generally goes beyond minimal competence. In an exam question, you are unlikely to be given enough information that would support holding a non-record monument, and likely to be given enough other info to support a different and relatively straightforward solution.

Plus, in the exam, you are to make no assumptions to support your answer. In that respect, the exam is different from the real world. In the real world, you would have the opportunity to follow up on an assumption to either verify it or reject it.

But, if you were given the same set of data for a real job (assuming that a thorough investigation turns up nothing more) as you would be given on the exam, you should approach it with the same logic either way.