California Surveyors Forums

They way it was put to me some time back by a member of the Board is that there was, at that time anyway, no obvious correlation between a continuing education requirement and the number of complaints to the Board and/or of citations issued by the Board.

That's not quite the same as "no public benefit", but it is arguably the best metric available to the Board to make a justification as to whether to support or not support a CE requirement.

Having just read a recently issued citation from the Board to a colleague, I believe that the first licensees who should be subject to a CE requirement are those who offer services as Expert Consultants to the Board.

An expert should have a proper understanding of what is acceptable boundary evidence before opining whether or not another surveyor should have considered a particular piece of evidence. when the courts have repeatedly accepted a certain type of evidence, and the Board issues a citation based, in part or in whole on the expert's opinion that the certain type of evidence cannot be used as a matter of accepted land surveying practice, there is a real problem with the system.

But I'm beginning to go off on a tangent, so I'll stop now.

Evan, do you feel comfortable posting the citation? You've peaked my interest!

There's at least one reason why, even without scientific proof, I can imagine a benefit to requiring CE: those LSs among us who wouldn't be caught dead at a seminar or conference. Those who are most in need of some training. Just one example: Jeff Lucas's seminar on the Pin Cushion Effect.

Do we really have to have some sort of concrete evidence to back up the notion of CE? Isn't it obvious?

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

If anyone on here has ever gone thru union apprenticeship classes you know what I am talking about, and those are the ones who got the local 12 survey program broken into two 2 year courses instead of one 4 year. Chainman status in 2 years and certified chainman in one more - might as well give it to them when they signed up for what they knew after 3 years instead of 5.

Forced education is only profitable to those presenting the material.