The 56-Month Experience Record With an Eight-Month Supervisory Gap
An applicant files a Kansas land surveyor application in January 2026. She earned a B.S. in surveying and geomatics from a regionally accredited university in May 2021; the program is not ABET-accredited and does not appear on the board's approved-curriculum list. She passed the NCEES FS exam in November 2020, during her final semester. She has worked continuously at one firm from May 2021 to the present, a total of 56 months. Her supervisor held a Missouri land surveyor license, not a Kansas license. From January through August 2023 that supervisor was on military leave; during those eight months a Kansas-licensed surveyor in the same firm reviewed and sealed all work, but the applicant's day-to-day direction came from the firm's unlicensed project manager. The experience verification form lists only the Missouri supervisor and is signed by him for the entire period, including the leave months. Board rules as published: a four-year surveying degree earns 24 months of credit toward the 48 months required; at least 12 months must be progressive experience under a licensed land surveyor verified on the board form; the FS may be taken in the final semester; the PS exam requires board approval of the application first.
1. Evaluate the 56 months of experience. How many months should be claimed, and how should the eight-month leave period be documented?
Read the worked answer
Credit calculation. The board matrix credits the degree with 24 of the 48 required months, leaving 24 months of qualifying experience. She has 56 months of employment, so even a conservative reading leaves her well over the threshold - the question is accuracy, not maximizing the count.
The gap. The stated test is experience "under a licensed land surveyor," verified on the board form. During January–August 2023 her day-to-day direction came from an unlicensed project manager. The Kansas surveyor's seal on the plats shows he was in responsible charge of the firm's product; it does not by itself show he directed her work. Those eight months should not be claimed at face value.
Correct presentation. Claim 48 months (56 minus 8). If she wants the eight months counted, obtain a separate verification from the Kansas surveyor attesting that he assigned her scope, reviewed her field data and computations, and gave her technical direction during that period. Disclose the arrangement in a cover letter rather than letting the Missouri supervisor certify months he did not supervise. She still clears 24 months either way, so nothing is gained by inflating the record - and a false certification is independently a basis for denial.
2. What is the correct sequence of steps for the education evaluation, the LSIT designation, and the PS exam, and what should she file now?
Read the worked answer
1. Education first. Because the program is not on the approved list, the board must evaluate it as a qualifying or equivalent curriculum. Request the official transcript be sent directly to the board and ask, in writing, how the degree is credited. Do not assume the 24-month credit until the board rules; a different credit changes the experience arithmetic.
2. LSIT. Passing the FS in her final semester was permissible, but the intern designation follows degree conferral plus a board application. File the FS pass verification, transcript, and intern application together if that has not already been done.
3. PS. Her sequence should be: complete board application (education evaluation, verified experience forms, references, fee) → board review and approval → then NCEES PS registration for Kansas. Scheduling the PS in anticipation of approval is a common and avoidable error; NCEES will not release a Kansas result without board authorization, and a failed authorization wastes a test window.
What to file now: intern/LSIT paperwork if outstanding, the application with the 48-month experience record and dual verification plan, and a short cover letter flagging the non-listed degree and the supervisory change so the board sees the issues before a reviewer finds them.
3. The applicant proposes having the Missouri supervisor sign a revised form covering the whole period and citing the Kansas surveyor's seal on the plats as proof of supervision. Advise her.
Read the worked answer
Reject the proposal. A seal on a plat proves the sealing surveyor was in responsible charge of that plat; it does not prove he supervised this applicant's daily work, and it cannot convert an unlicensed project manager's direction into licensed supervision. Asking the Missouri supervisor to certify January–August 2023 is worse: he was on military leave and cannot truthfully attest to supervising work he was absent for. A knowingly false verification is a falsification of a board record - grounds for denial now and a permanent credibility problem in any later application or comity request.
What to do instead. (a) Two verification forms: the Missouri supervisor for May 2021–December 2022 and September 2023–present; the Kansas surveyor for January–August 2023, but only if he can honestly describe technical direction and review. (b) A firm letter describing the leave, who assigned work, and who reviewed it. (c) If the Kansas surveyor declines to sign, drop the eight months and claim 48.
Framing for the applicant. The board is not looking for the largest defensible number; it is testing whether the record can be defended. A clean 48 months with a disclosed gap is stronger than a contested 56.