My first column on this topic (CE News, April 2007) ended with the statement, "Land Surveying should remain an honored and respected profession." The responses that column elicited were almost unanimous in their agreement that land surveying is, indeed, a profession, but readers disagreed on the appropriate qualifications for licensure.

Bob Fentress, P.L.S., assistant director of the Kentucky State Board for Professional Engineering and Land Surveying, made perhaps one of the more cogent remarks. He has been a licensed land surveyor since 1974 and, after a number of years in private practice, became the assistant director of the Kentucky licensing board in 1992. Currently, his primary function is managing the state’s licensure enforcement program.

His honest commentary included the admission that at the time he achieved licensure, he was unprepared to practice because he had qualified for licensure based only on his surveying experiences. He said that both he and the public were fortunate that he was able to "grow into the role [as a land surveyor] without damaging someone or something along the way. A higher standard [at the time of his licensure] would have made me better-prepared to serve the public." In his current position, he said that he sees "far too many licensees who are ill-prepared to provide an appropriate level of service to their clients."

Fentress applauded my April column and ended with the comment: "The public and our professions [both in engineering and land surveying] need a better educated and prepared practitioner. Those [who] promote something else are simply trying to degrade and devalue the service provided." He obviously hopes that professional land surveyors will never, under any circumstances, lower the bar.

A less complimentary missive from Lawrence Lopresti of West Easton, Pa., disagreed with my characterizations of the four proposed tracks to licensure. In general, he felt that my opinions on, and opposition to, proposed changes to New Jersey law were not stringent enough.

Lopresti said that Track 1 (civil engineering degree plus 12 surveying credits and 3 years of responsible experience) is a relatively low standard, and that "Pennsylvania only requires a civil engineering degree with 10 surveying credits and 5 years of experience." He has expressed his opinion to the members of the Pennsylvania licensing board that the standard should be higher. He considered Track 2 (licensure after passing a two-year curriculum in surveying and six years of experience in land surveying) more exacting than Track 1. I disagree with that appraisal.

Lopresti added that Track 3 (licensure after passing a two-year curriculum in surveying and passing certain specific courses) is useless; and that Track 4 (high school diploma and 15 years of apprenticeship in land surveying) should not be permitted at all. "Surveying has become too diverse and complicated to be pursued without [a proper] education," he said.

Lopresti noted that he qualified as a land surveyor in Pennsylvania with 42 college credits by the time he took the licensing examination. He intends to return to engineering college for the one last course he needs to qualify for a bachelor’s of science degree. I urge him to do that so no one ever questions his credentials in his chosen profession.

The reader with the most vehement objection to my position in this matter wrote an 800-word account of why he disagreed with me. His reasons were epitomized by his short opening paragraph: "I have to laugh whenever someone only considers someone else a ’professional’ if [that] someone else has a degree." Did my first column say that?

He added, "Which would you consider a ’professional,’ the person with a degree that has nothing at all to do with the vocation chosen, or the on-the-job trained person who has more knowledge of the work than many college graduates?" I don’t believe I suggested the need for a choice between those two ’tracks’ to licensure in my last column.

I hope I have not unnecessarily stepped on anyone’s toes concerning existing and proposed requirements for licensure as a land surveyor. I have been, and continue to be, in favor of relatively strict standards for achieving the right to use the title "Professional Land Surveyor." Lowering the bar will only result in a lower standard of work. Public well-being requires that the quality of the work by professionals—be they in the surveying, engineering, legal, medical, architectural, or any other profession—remain high. To permit anything less would prove to be a disservice.

Alfred R. Pagan, P.E., P.L.S., is a consulting engineer in Hackensack, N.J. He can be reached at 201-441-9719; or e-mail him at pagan@cenews.com.