California Surveyors Forums

The degree is a starting point. It shouldn't be used as a claim that you know all there is to know in surveying. I don't know anyone who has claimed that.

There are two schools that have 4 year degree programs that qualify as experience time towards the LS - Fresno St. and Cal Poly Pomona.

OIT! OIT! OIT! Currently counts toward the experience requirement.

ALL of OIT's surveying professors are PLSs, only two are at csuf.


However, there is some diabolical force at work behind a proposed Board Rule change that might limit degree programs acceptable to BPELS as only those accredited as "Surveying Engineering", or "Geomatics Engineering". That would be a travesty as several well respected survey schools' degrees would no longer be worth 4 years. If they are going to require the "engineering" part, then surveyors should be authorized to do some limited design work as in several other states which allow surveyors to prepare grading plans and design piped and open channel gravity flow systems.

While limiting the degrees to "engineering" degrees might thin the competition among schools that apparently have some difficulty in competing based upon professional credentials (as opposed to educational credentials), it is not a very good way for the state to promote education as a component of the qualifications for potential licensees.

We're Surveyors dammit! Not engineers!


In answer to JLG3rd:

1. I am repeating myself here, but when the 4 yr requirement was enacted in MI, there were no such degrees available within the state. By the time the law took affect, two were up and running and are still operating successfully.

2. I began my education at Ferris, in MI, and completed it in OR at OIT. At both schools, more than half of the students already had some experience in surveying. Some had several years of experience. It's not too hard to go get the degree, it just takes setting your education as a priority and planning accordingly. Speaking from the experience of having gone back with 10 years' work experience to finish my degree.

3. That is a very true statement. A degree does not make one more intelligent or create aptitude where it wouldn't otherwise exist. But 8 times out of 10, the recent graduate with only summers for work experience will be a more knowledgable surveyor than one who has only 4 years of work experience. What each of them do with the experience they get from that point will determine which is more knowledgable 4 years later.

I agree with you on the CEUs.


Oh, a minor adjustment to #3: the comparison goes to 9 times out of 10 for OIT grads and drops somewhat for that other school down south.

;-)

Well said Evan. I know of a few junior colleges in the San Diego area that once had great programs but no longer do.

Evan I agree with everything you have stated, but lets get back to Rob's original question. "Does California need to change the licensing system to require a 4 year Surveying/Geomatics degree to sit for the PLS?"

I have tried to get my 4 year degree and quite frankley it's just too hard with living in a city that doesn't have an institute to aquire the degree in Surveying, having to put food on the table for little one's and keep a roof over their heads. I think there are some folks out there that can accomplish the task, others it's just not feasible. If it was achievable you would see more PLS's getting the degree or Surveyors gunning for a Transportation Surveyor Range C position at Caltrans. ;)

I'm all for the higher education it helps anyone throughout their career and their life. Like I said back to the question I think it's unreasonable for the degree to be part of the requirements to sit for the LS exam. Until Joe the Surveyor becomes an academiac PLS's will be far and few between!

This discussion will continue to crop up until legislation is in place to enforce some aspect of it.

The very reason for the discussion is that we all understand that education is a good thing. Of course we all know “educated idiotsâ€￾ with post-graduate degrees who are as dumb as a post. We can all point to the high school drop-out who has succeed because of their high level of intelligence and drive to learn outside the normal academic setting. These are outliers. The very fact that they ARE outliers points to the fact that education is a good thing.

While some point to Michigan as a model for encouraging specialized education, no one has held up New Mexico as the antithesis of this conclusion. Interesting. The point is that, with 50 states in the Union, there are multiple examples of every level of educational opportunity from non-existent to superior and all shades between. Again, the outliers prove the fact: Education is important.

The discussion SHOULD center on what that level of education should be and how much experience component MUST be included.

In my opinion, there are essentially 5 cases: 1) four year survey curriculum based degree; 2) four year non-survey curriculum based degree; 3) 2 year survey curriculum based degree, 4) 2 year non-survey curriculum based degree; and 5) none of the above. How about 5 levels of experience as part of the requirements to sit the exam? I would suggest ranging from 10 years to a minimum of 2.

Remember that being able to sit the exam based on meeting certain prerequisites and passing the exam are two completely different things.

Additionally, although the newly-minted LS (the P has to be earned) is NOT ready to tackle survey problems well beyond minimum competency (the level necessary to pass the exam). I freely admit that I could not have handled a number of the intricate survey boundary problems I now face. I simply did not have enough experience to deal with them.

I’ve learned a lot in the past 16 years. None of that learning has occurred in a traditional four year institution.

So, instead of asking “Does California need to change the licensing system to require a 4 year Surveying/Geomatics degree to sit for the PLS?â€￾, perhaps we should ask:

How should the education/experience requirements be structured to ensure that Californians are getting licensed land surveyors who have sufficient education and experience to protect the health, safety, welfare AND property rights?

We can probably all point to mentors who have imparted knowledge we use daily. I can. Curt Brown, Larry Paxton, Chuck Willess, Vince Synchek, John Johnson, Bill Gentry, Paul Cuomo, Jeremy Evans, Lee McComb….

In the other hand, I can point to Tom Fanning, who taught me how to write. That skill makes me a better communicator. That’s something that helps me immeasurably everyday in my profession. Mrs. Badera, who taught me debating skills, helped my thinking and oral communication. Frank Durdon, my shop teacher, taught me to draft and to think in 3D. Graphic arts classes helped make my maps look better and convey information better.

Don’t knock the “rounding” of a formal education. It’s just as important!

Now...I gotta get to work...

I don't see anything glaringly wrong with the current requirements.

8742 Summary:
Option 1: 4 Year degree + 1 year office and 1 year field responsible charge
Option 2: 4 Years experience + 1 year office and 1 year field responsible charge
Option 3: RCE + 2 years of broad based progressive experience in land surveying

Who is more likely to be in a position of responsible charge, someone with a 4 year degree straight out of college or someone with 4 years of work experience?

The answer to that question is why I believe that option 2 is the easiest/quickest way to qualify to take the test. Humans are like running water in that they will travel the way that has the least amount of friction.

The education/experience requirements mirror the PE requirements except I believe the LS requirements are more stringent because:

1. You have to be in “responsible charge” that is only given after proving capable versus making “engineering decisions” which occur immediately after starting work.
2. Have both “responsible charge” in the field AND the office.

I see one thing glaringly wrong with the current requirements: A CE degree is no more suited to the LS qualifications as a Survey degree is toward the CE qualifications. Possibly less so.

Most CE degrees have one or two survey courses, or about 6 or 8 quarter credits of a 190 credit degree. Many have no survey content.

Most surveying degrees have at least that much engineering content, even if they are not "Surveying engineering" degrees.

I agree with how Ian framed the question, and agree that the experience requirement be bumped up some.

I appreciate discussion....one thing Evan on your last post. You need to be a RCE to qualify for option 3, not a CE degree holder....your point is still just as valid.

I posted this topic in the hopes of generating some debate... I think that I accomplished that goal! I attended the North America Surveying and Mapping Educators Conference earlier this month. One topic of discussion was that 1/3 of CE programs in the US require a class in Surveying, 1/3 offer a class as an elective, and 1/3 do not offer a class in Surveying.

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. Very few CEs ever do any surveying, except that perhaps some were a rodman on a crew ocassionally before becoming licensed.

That option, while legal as it is on the books, makes as much practical sense as allowing an LS to take the RCE exam after only two years' experience in engineering by virtue of being licensed as an LS.

An LS with a 4 year survey degree is probably more prepared for engineering than the average RCE is for surveying. Most surveying degrees, even those not considered "survey engineering" have more required CE course content than most engineering degrees have elective survey content.

OIT! OIT! OIT?????????

Ok you sucked me in.

How many OIT grads hold an PLS in Calif.?

How many CSUF grads hold a PLS in Calif.?

The ratio at our last meeting was approx. 1 OIT grad to 25 CSUF grads.

How many times does it take for an OIT grad to pass the CA PLS?

How many times for a CSUF Grad?

Unless you have gone thru the program at each school, do not think you can compare. I think both have their advantages.

I think any advanced education beyond High school is a benefit, as Ian stated, it is the exposure to other ideas, different groups of people, etc.

There is no substitute for practial experience. I can say, I would not have passed the exam without the pratical experience I gain working for a small firm and doing a little bit of everything. I can also say I do not think I would have passed the exam the first time without my education from CSUF. Education plants the knowledge, Experience culitvates the knowledge.

So

Go Bulldogs!

For RAM’s discussion; CSUF Grad ... I took the LS exam 1-1/2 times, the 1/2 is the appeal, where I was able to let the graders know where they were wrong in grading my exam (politely of-course)!

And just to add to the conversation, I did not take it 2 years after graduation. I waited until I felt I had a well rounded “understanding” of our Profession, so our talk on updating the work experience requirements merits further discussions. At this point in my career (I’m still a baby and shake before I stamp any document!), to think, if I would have been put in charge of anything fresh out of the box, from college, would have been foolish, but that’s just me. I have met and went to school with several individuals who could have handled that challenge with no problems. I am also against early admittance to the exam for those with a degree … college definitely helped in exam taking preparation and most definitely in study habits, and to this day helps me with my personal learning and development. If one must take the exam straight out of college to help them pass the exam … I would really have to wonder, did they even learn anything?

I have enjoyed reading everyone’s opinions and I can’t find any fault with people I would disagree with … but it has helped me redefine my opinions, so thanks everyone.

As far as the original post, should a 4 year degree in Surveying be required – NO

People are swaying me as far as a 2 year degree, and not necessarily in Surveying … but a technically related field would help … but should it be required – I still say no, very softly! I will from this point on, highly recommend at least this route to those who wish to further their career in Surveying, it would never hurt. As far as recommending CSUF … of course, I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for this program.

BUT, I still think it is ludicrous not to have a continuing education requirement in place, before we even discuss this option of a degree requirement.

Chris,

I waiting 5 years after graduation to take the exam. I didn't feel ready until then. Real life experience is a MUST prior to taking the exam.

RAM wrote:OIT! OIT! OIT?????????

Ok you sucked me in.

How many OIT grads hold an PLS in Calif.?

How many CSUF grads hold a PLS in Calif.?

The ratio at our last meeting was approx. 1 OIT grad to 25 CSUF grads.

RAM;

Careful there. Up here in the north state OIT grads are held in higher regard than CSUF... and the ratio reverses. You wouldn't want to tick em off up here and have them shut off the water.;-)

Evan,
You are one of many that I respect that post on this forum and I’m surprised at the outdated and off based arguments in your posts #36 and #39.

You undoubtedly have come across individuals and experiences that have formed this opinion but I think you can travel the higher road and not encourage further division and loss of respect between the professions.

The PE exam contains questions on ALL of the subjects that are under the definition of Civil Engineering? This does NOT mean that once you are licensed you can do ALL of what is defined as Civil Engineering but can ONLY practice in those fields that you are competent. The same applies for Professional Land Surveyors.

I hold in high regard those individuals that have showed they qualify to take the LS exam. From my previous post:

“The education/experience requirements mirror the PE requirements except I believe the LS requirements are more stringent because:

1. You have to be in “responsible charge” that is only given after proving capable versus making “engineering decisions” which occur immediately after starting work.
2. Have both “responsible charge” in the field AND the office.”

Greg, regarding post #40. PEs don’t need field experience to qualify to take the test. They do however need to show “2 years of broad based progressive experience in land surveying.” This criteria does not apply to individuals that are using Option 1 or 2.

Eventually Doctors get paid well for their services. Their services are supported by insurance and maybe in the not-so-far future, socialized federal funding.
Title insurance does not pay or cover the everyday land survey.
(disputes not withstanding)
We simply cannot compare Land Surveying With Doctors ! or even Lawyers.

OR ;
we can phase out the everyday non-educated survey prospect, make this an elite club and charge a whole bunch of money for each survey.

most folks won't be able to afford it and soon we'll have socialized land surveys, performed by government surveyors who are not required to be liscensed.

Although degree'd,(not in surveying) Most of my learning experiense derived from OJT By the old masters themselves.

Tough call 8-]

“2 years of broad based progressive experience in land surveying.”

Needs to be revised...

First I did not read all the replies

"Need a 4yr degree"
NO.
When I started 40 years ago we had to know all the formulas to do the calcs, all surveyors do now, both in the office and field, is push buttons.
So a 4 year degree in button pushing?

"If the state did require a degree, that would certainly cause the colleges to provide the service."
No, IIRC AZ and a couple of other States require 4 year degree but its not offered in a college in that State. NM only offers it at a college in the very south end of the State and most people live in the north part.

"The requirement would certainly raise the bar for the profession."
Not necessarily. Our currant and last President have 4 year degrees and your opinion of them is?
Just because they have a 4 year degree is not going to make them a more ethical surveyor.

Ben,

I'm not sure what you mean by "outdated", as my statements are based upon current CA law and also on educational trends and current realities. By "off based" I assume that, as an engineer, you have taken my comments as a professional, if not personal affront. They are not meant that way.

My comments are not about division. They are about fact. Fewer and fewer CE degree programs require or even offer survey content. That is a fact of current reality and appears to be a trend.

Most survey programs require some engineering content and many offer engineering electives. Some of that content is materials and properties, some is design. That is also a fact, and the trend seems to be that many survey programs are altering their curricula to meet engineering accrediting standards.

In the realm of real world experience, most engineers rarely, if ever get involved in field surveying, survey calcs, or survey mapping, unless it is generating contours from field data (an art which few, eng or sur, do well by computer). I had this explained to me by one erudite engineer as "placing people for their highest and best use". That is, an engineer is of more value as an engineer than he is as a field surveyor or a survey tech, therefore there is little opportunity for an engineer to get survey experience.

A surveyor with a degree will most often have some engineering training, as described above, so therefore may have a greater opportunity to gain engineering experience, as long as that surveyor makes it known that he or she has the training. This has been my experience.

My opinion, put in fewer words (let's see if I can do it, Ric) was stated well by Rob. “2 years of broad based progressive experience in land surveying.” needs to be revised.

Under that definition, the CE may have calculated a few record boundaries and did the CAD work on a few topos under close supervision to begin with, and progressed to drawing up subdivision maps and writing descriptions by the end of that two years. Does that seem sufficient?

It is a far lower experience bar than for the person who has devoted their career only to surveying, as you observed in your last post. It presumes that the education is at least on par as a degree in surveying in its application to surveying, and it presumes that the CE will only be engaged in the experience expected of a senior survey tech on course for one's LS.

Granted, an RCE will have already been making professional level decisions in engineering, but the application is not the same. By that logic, we should also allow lawyers, doctors, and accountants to take the LS exam after “2 years of broad based progressive experience in land surveying.”

Why can a LS not take the CE exam after “2 years of broad based progressive experience in engineering”? After all, they are related fields and the LS will presumably have been making professional level decisions since he or she earned their license.

With respect to those CEs who have gained good experience, qualified for and passed the LS exam, the current qualifications under the law are anachronistic and lacking.



RAM,

This is purely anecdotal, but every OIT grad I know of who has taken the CA LS has passed the first time (it's so darn easy, how could they not? ;-D). I've met some csuf grads who have needed an extra try.

I think I'm just tired of reading about why surveyors are better than engineers. I would like to ask those who went the route of LS first and then PE and vica versa what they think of the current experience requirements for both. The opinions of just PEs or just LSs are lacking the experience of qualifying for and passing both sets of exams.

Land surveying defined in 8726 is divided into 13 divisions (a-m). I don’t believe you can claim (h)(i) if you’re not already an LS. That brings the list down to 11.

6731.1 shows that PEs can perform (a)(b) and (m). That is 3 of the 11 items. I personally had done 9 of the 11 items. This is the norm at my current employment. If the “2 years of broad based experience” should be revised, what should it say and why?

"I think I'm just tired of reading about why surveyors are better than engineers."

I agree, Ben.

In my opinion, it's like comparing aples to zebus. Although they often work together and on the same projects, they're not similar enough to compare.

I think the "undergarment bunching" problem comes for mthe fact that some surveyors perceive that engineers look down on them. It's an esteem thing.

The significant difference, relative to surveying, is that surveyors work with boundaries and post '82engineers cannot.

PEs cannot perform 8726(m). It allows creation/maintenance of data in conjunction with (e) and (l), which are related to boundary surveying.

Two years of broad-based experience" simply isn't enough to gain proper experience with boundaries, legal descriptions, survey logic and techniques to properly safeguard the property rights of Californians.

As Curt Brown once said, "Surveying boundaries is not a life or death situation. It's far more serious than that!"

Where does it say that LSITs need boundary experience to sit for the test?

No matter the degree of experience, there is no substitute for education.

My suggestion for those looking to become Land Surveyor's. Go to college and get a degree in Civil Engineering. Take any and all classes that teach land surveying. Take and pass the EIT, PE, and then the LS exams.

This will take longer but will open many more opportunities for you in the future.

Scott Tikalsky wrote:RAM;

Careful there. Up here in the north state OIT grads are held in higher regard than CSUF...

Scott, I think that you'll find that is a universally held opinion among the well educated.

Beak 'em Owls!

Ben said: ""I think I'm just tired of reading about why surveyors are better than engineers."

Most of that on this site is good natured ribbing. The discussion in this thread is about qualifications to perform a specific type of professional level work. I have said nothing about which is better, or who is superior to whom. It is about adequate criteria to qualify to be licensed to perform the work.


Ian said: "Although they often work together and on the same projects, they're not similar enough to compare."

This is my point exactly. Engineering is not surveying, and vice versa. Licensure in one should not waive a significant amount of the educational or experience requirement of the other.


Ian also said: "some surveyors perceive that engineers look down on them. It's an esteem thing."

I'm glad for you that you have never experienced an engineer looking down on you for your line of work. Most of us have. Until the past few years, this attitude has been reflected in the wage disparity between surveyors and engineers with comparable responsibility levels and comparable experience levels in multi-discipline organizations. Although less prevalent than it was in years past, this attitude can still be found in many organizations. Most of the time, seemingly disparaging comments are born of friendly rivalry. It is only when an engineer argues a point of surveying from a strictly engineering standpoint with an adamant assertion of their correctness over PLSs with a depth of experience that I would argue th superiority of surveyors.

Accordingly, you will not find me arguing with PEs over the correctness of an opinion to an engineering problem. I am a passable engineering tech by virtue of my education and experience but do not presume that my experience and training as a PLS qualifies me as a professional in engineering matters.

However, a surveyor's esteem need not be wrapped up in someone else's attitude toward the status of survying as either a professional or technical endeavor, and to assume that recognizing the existence in such an attitude is equivalent to low self esteem is a mistake.

I enjoy surveying. I am good at it. It is different than engineering, and although the typical engineering degree and experience would have been no more or less challenging than the path I've chosen, I didn't want to go down that engineering path, even being aware of the pay disparity at the time I made the decision.

There are corporate cultures where surveying is looked upon as a related but separate profession, no greater or lesser, and there are corporate cultures where it is looked at as no more than a technical subset of engineering and not as its own professional endeavor. I've worked in both.


The experience requirement and comparison cannot come down to how many check boxes there are to qualify for one profession over the other. It is the quality (1st) and amount (2nd) of experience and education pertinent to actual practice that matters.