DWoolley wrote:Ben, to me that stands to reason. How many of the balance were Fresno grads?
EDIT: Thanks for the facts. So, almost 1/3 of this years licensees may not primarily practice land surveying for a living, yet, they can pass the test. Anyone wonder what that means? It seems as though "The simplistic survey classes which are required in their Civil Engineering Program" may be just enough. Maybe the balance (80%) of the qualified accepted candidates would benefit from a couple of the same classes.
For what it is worth,
Dave Woolley
Dave, I gotta disagree with your conclusions. The survey classes in engineering programs, where they exist, are generally woefully inadequate for preparation for the LS exam and probably for the LSIT as well.
I would be willing to bet that if one were to query those 22 PEs who passed, you will find that they took their exam preparation study more seriously than others (with or without PE) who failed, and/or also had significant relevant experience.
The qualifications to take the exam in the first place are another topic worthy of lengthy discussion. In the case of the PEs, they have already shown that they already understand the level of effort that is required to pass a professional level test.
I don't subscrbe to the notion that because someone is a PE, that they are or will be a better surveyor than a surveyor who is not also a PE. A PE who undertakes the effort required to attain a second license and endeavors to recognize that a survey problem is not an engineering problem has a probability of being an excellent surveyor.
pointing to numbers of complaints does not necessarily translate to technical ability as a surveyor. Most complaints are contract related rather than technical in nature. It's likely that the number of complaints is indicative that generally, surveyors are poorer business people.
I agree that there is much poor practice going on, and much is unarguably by those with only a single license. IMO, this is indicative of inadequate qualifications requirements w.r.t. training and experience AND poorly set cut scores on the exam. I know of some who have taken the exam several times and finally passed as much by luck in guessing and low cut score as by slightly more than meager ability. I also know of engineers who were qualified to take the exam on very little experience which could not be considered responsible experience.
In my experience, over 30 years and across several states, is that a survey map by a PE may be generally be cleaner and more precise than average, but when following the survey on the ground, a PEs survey will be more likely to have missed or ignored pertinent boundary evidence. Set monumentation will often have been accomplished in a less careful manner. While there would appear to have been considerable care put into preparing the documentation, there is generally less care put into the fieldwork.
I'm writing in generalities here, there are plenty of PEs who were/are also fine surveyors. But where the authority to survey was an incident of having a CE license, an attitude of surveying being a minor subset of engineering, being able to be accomplished by undertrained, low paid engineering techs and displaced ditch diggers (don't let those guys wearing boots and jeans in the front end of the office!) was very prevalent, and it showed in the work.
IMO, engineers should be permitted to practice surveying, as long as they meet the same qualifications as anyone else authorized to practice surveying, both in terms of experience and examination.
BTW, I'd like to see the stats of OIT grads vs. Fresno grads on the exam. My money is on OIT!