Letters to the Editor and Errata

Educational Decrees

Tom,

I would like to respond to Earl Henderson's "stirring the pot" guest editorial (August 2007 Vol. 27 No. 8) and his highly speculative opinions on allowing surveyors to be uneducated but well trained.

A degree in any discipline provides an education in the theory and fundamentals of that discipline. It is up to the profession to provide the training to allow that education to be put into practice. Hence the need for the two years experience as a SIT under responsible charge. Yes, it was possible in the past to educate yourself while coming up through the ranks from field hand. However, this took many years to achieve, currently the low numbers of surveyors does not allow such inefficiencies. Today, a bright young mind with a focus on being a professional surveyor can achieve the same status in half the time.

Would Mr. Henderson engage a lawyer without a law degree? Go to a doctor who did not have a medical degree? Why does he expect the public to have less an opinion of surveyors than the other professions? Like most surveyors who distain surveying education he has his vision of the surveying profession in the past, focused on the need for just training, not education and training in tandem. Nowhere does Mr. Henderson mention the value that surveyors provide society by allowing the real estate market to flourish and how much of the economy is riding on the fact that a deed description can be located on the ground and a newly subdivided parcel can be staked on the ground, mathematically described, and converted into a legal description allowing for its eventual sale and development.

Surveyors like Mr. Henderson undervalue the entire profession by not seeing the big picture. Does Mr. Henderson charge his clients based on this value, or just the time he took to undertake the survey at the going hourly rate?

Does he realize he is creating value for all his clients and all those that buy and sell the land he has surveyed since he became a PLS? Each owner gaining from his efforts as the land increases in value? (Probably not because Mr. Henderson's education is in biology, not surveying.) Surveyors create legal descriptions of real estate for the real estate market to operate efficiently, why do surveyors demand so much less that the legal profession for such work? Maybe the lawyers figured this out long ago in law school.

Of course a degreed graduate will expect to be paid well. A graduate should also expect to be mentored in all aspects of the profession, not just "project management". The future of the profession is in the hands of the profession. If the profession treats graduates like Mr. Henderson has described and does not train graduates in the field as well as the office then this is what the profession wants. At least the trend is not what Mr. Henderson desires, an uneducated profession that operates like it did in the past. Informed clients and most of the profession are demanding and paying for educated surveyors that are also well trained and looking towards the future, not the past.

Sincerely,
—Gary Jeffress, Ph.D., RPLS,
Corpus Christi, Texas

I just sat and read your editorial and all I can say is thank you for expressing what I have tried to find the words for for many years. I was carrying brick when I was 7 and laying them when I was 9; I helped my father build a house when I was 14 and was offered a chance to work on a survey field crew when I graduated from high school; within a year because of my high school math education and understanding I was leading a field crew. I laid out 6.5 miles of the Sawgrass Expressway, Coral Springs, Florida before I was 24. I am a much better field person than an office asset and always found pride in what I have accomplished. For the last 12 years I have operated my own Practice here in Ohio and feel that I have the respect of my peers. My major complaint is with all those that have known me and believe that I should have been so much more than a simple surveyor; personally I believe that I have aspired to be the best man that I could be and this profession which, sometimes because of the continued move toward exclusion, can be frustrating has allowed me to be someone special to and for those I associate with.

I wish those that enter the profession through the education route would show those of us that have spent our lives doing the dirty work and sweating the respect that we are due. It takes a special person to wade chest deep into a swamp to set initial control for a highway or head out to cut line on a 100 degree day; thing is the public does not respect that surveyor on the other end of the phone that he never meets but instead does hopefully respect that professional that he meets on the site that hopefully extends to him the respect that we should give to everyone; yes, even the adjoiner that is questioning our set corners.

We are becoming a profession that expects respect and does not see the need to earn it and that is why the state of the profession is slipping; it is not our lack of education as you so well understand but how do we as individuals bring true positive change to this profession that we do love and right the ship so that those that follow in my footsteps can also share the bright future that I have.

With Regards,
—Robert Joseph Shannon
New Richmond, Ohio

Propaganda vs. Fact.

This morning the July 2007 Professional Surveyor Magazine arrived with its "RENEW TODAY" flyer attached. Being swamped with mail and in a clean-it-out mood I made a quick evaluating skim of your magazine intending to chuck it in the round can, hoping you would cancel my subscription. Now, really, I read all three survey related magazines within hours of their arrival, make notes on the covers and store them for future reference, but like I said I was in a clean-it-out mood.

I skim from the back, the pages flip easier, and the second page to flip open was page 78 on which was David Rolbiecki's rebuttal of John Failla's article on George Washington. My first thought was that maybe I should renew the Professional Surveyor Magazine subscription, for the George Washington article was one of the most illuminating that I had ever read. Being a history buff I was already aware that, all propaganda aside, George's defensive generalship in the early part of the Revolution was disastrous, George's treatment of the Whiskey Rebellion was hypocritical in the extreme, that Thomas Jefferson's charge that George and the Whigs intended a new monarchy for this nation was probably correct, and now it was revealed that young George wasn't much of a surveyor either! Such a good, consistent, illuminating article, what could Rolbiecki have to say about it?

Whoa, what was I now reading from Rolbiecki's pen? That a man who has outgrown knee britches would prefer fable to fact? That a member of our profession prefers good taste to correctness. That a Surveyor who is charged with searching for truth and defending it would prefer to be hindered by heritage! A CONTROVERSY!

Please, please, accept my renewal application!

—Chad Erickson
Erickson Land Surveys
Kamiah, Idaho

Good morning Tom,

I read with some interest and trepidation Mr. Rolbiecki's response to the article written by Mr. Failla. I do not remember seeing any comment in Mr. Failla's article denouncing George Washington's ability as a military leader, president or anything other than the facts disclosed by his research on this survey. I also don't believe that I could survey a thousand acres in a day. Is there the slightest possibility that George Washington had at least one character flaw? If what Mr. Failla's research disclosed is in fact true, it still does not diminish my respect for one of our country's greatest leaders. In regard to your magazine publishing Mr. Failla's work, I think that our founding fathers would wholly support your right and duty to present information to the public. I think that is what many hundreds of thousands of men and women have and still are giving their lives for. The right for people to freely express opinions, especially those based on hard research. I too may take offense at what I sometimes read, but I would never suggest censoring writers or publishers simply because their ideas may not be popular. Please keep on writing. I want the choice to read it or not.

—Martin L. Sikorski, PLS, PP, CLA
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Edison, New Jersey

Arrowhead Artifacts

I would like to address an issue that was raised by the "American Indian Artifacts and Surveyors" article in the July issue of PSM. This article implicitly advocates the destruction of the archaeological record. Archaeologists acquire information through the examination of artifacts and their context. The bread and butter of archaeological reconstruction are artifact associations: groups of artifacts and where they occur. Selective removal of individual artifacts biases the information that can be recovered from any site. Archaeological remains are already limited and every bit of information contributes to a cumulative base of knowledge about the past. Archaeology is the only way to learn about the at least 97.5% of human history for which we have no written records. Unprofessional removal of artifacts destroys that history. That is not to say that professional archaeologists have a monopoly on understanding the past. Amateur and avocational archaeologists have made valuable contributions to a composite understanding of the past. The key is contributing to a cumulative knowledge base. There are many different groups of people interested in the past and any information about the past should be systematically collected and made available for consumption by all of those groups.

—Kevin C. Nolan,
MA. Columbus, Ohio

This is a summary of Mr. Nolan's letter; you can read the full letter online here: Nolan Letter.pdf

MAPPS

Laurence Socci writes: "Several GIS firms filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief opposing the plaintiffs' contentions in the lawsuit."

No, no GIS firms were involved, just a handful of organizations involved in geospatial: AAG, GISCI, GITA, UCGIS, and URISA.

Also, I'd like to know why John Palatiello, executive director of MAPPS's smiling face is in the article and on your home page. He's not even mentioned. The choice to include the picture simply confounds me!

—Michael,
via email

Michael is correct in noting that no GIS firms submitted briefs. John Palatiello's name is not present in our story, he is the official spokesperson for MAPPS.

Drop Us A Line!

Send us your letter … tom@reedbusinesss-geo.com or shelly@reedbusinesss-geo.com

» Back to our September 2007 Issue