When I've dug a little deeper most of my "conscientiously unlicensed" colleagues explain that what this really means is they have disapproval of, frustration with, and/or fear of the training/testing/licensing process and associated costs.
If the process is so daunting that you're somehow protesting that by opting out of the process and being successful in the field anyway, then more power to you! Sometimes though when I've delved deeper into colleagues' reasons for staying unlicensed, I've learned that these people are misinformed about the requirements and costs - for example one former coworker was under the impression that the cost to take the ARE was over $9000, and she and her husband had argued repeatedly over taking out a loan - but they hadn't ever verified those costs before she decided to remain "conscientiously unlicensed", they'd just gone on rumor and exaggeration. Other unlicensed colleagues have given up after failing one or more tests, or after their paperwork has been rejected by the state one or more times, sometimes for trivial and easily addressed reasons - or without even starting the tests or the paperwork, on the basis that they'd heard scary stories from others about failure and rejection and crazy fees. Conscientiously unlicensed is a bit of a contagious status - and no there aren't any great benefits to it.
And well Sneaky... There's only one Captain of the ship. Being a small minority in the amount of folks working on a project hardly denotes the authority you carry or whom they go to for answers. Architects are the very few with the education and experience that crosses over multiple disciplines and one of the very few people on a project with vast approval / rejection authority over everyone else's work.
What would you do if you found that the captain of your star ship was trained on sailing vessels and never updated his or her training? I think that's the spirit of what EI was getting at. Seriously, defending a word that has lost so much meaning that it basically means "The Dad in The Brady Bunch" or "Frank Lloyd Wright" to people outside the industry and "That prima donna in black who doesn't know his or her ass from a hole in the ground" to people inside it is a waste of time.
Sneaky, short answer is no, it's not typical in my area... and not even typical in my office, but I don't see why it is'nt. I guess some just don't make the effort to, like mightyaa says, to become the captain. No one is just handed the keys to the ship (do ships even have keys?) just because they have a few fancy letters tacked next to their name in their email signatures.
That's true. I still fail to see why the discussion regarding our professional responsibility and the (IMO futile) discussion regarding the title need to be intrinsically linked.
Think of it this way; Mr. Brady did not have a calculator, computer, the internet, or things you take for granted. He probably sized and did all the structural and mechanical calculations. He detailed the whole stick framed house and most the windows made from trim stock. He even did the grading and landscape plan. And he was limited by the stock from the local lumber yard. And once he committed to ink, there wasn't a 'edit'.
So do you think he'd be scared of learning about a rainscreen system? You think that is more complex than a built-up wood panel system or plaster detailing?
I get you though... the skillset of a residential designer is not the same skillset of someone doing high-rise. It doesn't have a thing to do with 'when you learned' though... It's more of a experience issue with what you've been doing professionally.
did I give you the impression that I disrespect architects?
I don't disrespect an entire group which contains within it experts and dilettantes alike.
I'm the one on the team that does the research. Does the work. Puts in the time.
Anyone else who's with me on that team gets my full support. Regardless of accreditation or license status. I know the legal requirements for construction and follow them. But I don't pretend that a word defines what I do or is somehow a substitute for the work. Sometimes I feel like "designer" is a worthier self-appellation because people understand the word. Architect just clouds the issue and adds little other than perhaps an unearned attaboy. When I stop meeting licensed people who use it as a cudgel all the while devaluing it because all they wanna do is "concept" I might care. The license for me is a hurdle, not the finish line.
To be 100% clear, I am not speaking of anyone on architect, the people I mention are from my personal experiences.
Sneak, I don't actually like when people refer to me as the architect during project meetings... and I'm not that found of being labeled as senior architect in my office either (I'll be 33 before the year is done). I'm where I am because I worked for it and demonstrated that I can kick ass both on site and in the office.
The term 'Architect' is more important for the legal implications than anything else. To clients with projects that require an 'Architect,' really nothing else will do, perhaps by design. I have met a lot of folks that were designers and really talented, and some architects that left me wide eyed in disbelief that they had a stamp.
As far as the title is concerned- I think it is important that applicants earn it- you not only have to complete the specified educational curriculum, but also the IDP time, crazy and ridiculous paperwork with schools, NCARB, local government entities and license boards, pay fees, schedule and take the tests, basically manage your licensure. This extended process is a good analogy for what you will eventually be entrusted to do in practice, only at a much larger and more complicated scale.
Having a license also helps if you ever need to relocate...
getting a job after relocation is potentially big benefit of the license if you don't have a network in the new area!
I agree with tintt that i would like either the tests to be more specific or in depth on some issues or a second level exam would be nice, "board certified" or something. Personally i found the whole process to be more of a war of attrition than something that required superior knowledge of anything.
My hair cutter was very impressed when i told her my profession the other day, good thing she didn't see my car
There is no downside, most states require you have to have a licenses in order to practice architecture, so if you are a smart businessman, entrepreneur, and care about the profession of architecture and its integrity, then a license should be your priority.
Does having a license make you a good architect? absolutely not.Architecture is a craft, it is developed over time and years of experience. A license proves to the state that you are someone worthy to protect the health and safety of the public, just as a drivers license, real estate license, medical license, law and other professional license obtain to achieve.
AIA, your employer, or your "design" skills wont be by your side when you are on your own and need to use your years of schooling and experience to pay the bills. A license will, because it automatically gives you ability to be an entrepreneur.
What does a license have to do with entrepreneurship? The smartest kid in my class started a business right out of school. He must have simply forgot he was supposed to show allegiance to the profession first. Or maybe it was intentional?
Validation- that's what this is all about, the brand of being an architect. Brad Pitt can pass off as a designer if he wants to and in the end, can get better clients than any of us will.
Having said that, my circumstance working in the U.S. while being registered overseas made me think that licensure as the grandaddy of the profession- I am now slowly convinced that this isn't the case and that I should hold up to a higher goal than just being licensed. lol.
What does license have to do with entrepreneurship? - well we are in an architect forum and specifically discussing entrepreneurship from an architects point of view. We didn't go to business school, we went to architecture school, and the best way to take advantage of the 5 years or more of your degree is to get licenses so that it opens doors for you. Plus you cant practice architecture without a license in most states.
would you go to a doctor without a license? would you go to a lawyer without a license?
An entrepreneur sees a license as an obstacle to overcome, a means to an end. In no way does a license automatically give you ability to be an entrepreneur.
Tintt, I agree, and also delayed entrepreneurship is a big downside to licensure. If you look at european firms where the licensure process is absent, you will notice a huge decade+ head start these firms have. Many successful firms owned by people in their 30s.
What is the downside to being licensed?
You do your own engineering? Specs? Contracts? CDs? Hardware Schedules? Life Safety? Shop drawings? Fabrication? Do you build your buildings?
When I've dug a little deeper most of my "conscientiously unlicensed" colleagues explain that what this really means is they have disapproval of, frustration with, and/or fear of the training/testing/licensing process and associated costs.
If the process is so daunting that you're somehow protesting that by opting out of the process and being successful in the field anyway, then more power to you! Sometimes though when I've delved deeper into colleagues' reasons for staying unlicensed, I've learned that these people are misinformed about the requirements and costs - for example one former coworker was under the impression that the cost to take the ARE was over $9000, and she and her husband had argued repeatedly over taking out a loan - but they hadn't ever verified those costs before she decided to remain "conscientiously unlicensed", they'd just gone on rumor and exaggeration. Other unlicensed colleagues have given up after failing one or more tests, or after their paperwork has been rejected by the state one or more times, sometimes for trivial and easily addressed reasons - or without even starting the tests or the paperwork, on the basis that they'd heard scary stories from others about failure and rejection and crazy fees. Conscientiously unlicensed is a bit of a contagious status - and no there aren't any great benefits to it.
Great. Do you believe it to be the case for the majority of the profession?
I'm not trying to trap you rhetorically, I simply think that your experience isn't typical, and you tend to make blanket statements as if it were.
And well Sneaky... There's only one Captain of the ship. Being a small minority in the amount of folks working on a project hardly denotes the authority you carry or whom they go to for answers. Architects are the very few with the education and experience that crosses over multiple disciplines and one of the very few people on a project with vast approval / rejection authority over everyone else's work.
Good point, and well stated.
What would you do if you found that the captain of your star ship was trained on sailing vessels and never updated his or her training? I think that's the spirit of what EI was getting at. Seriously, defending a word that has lost so much meaning that it basically means "The Dad in The Brady Bunch" or "Frank Lloyd Wright" to people outside the industry and "That prima donna in black who doesn't know his or her ass from a hole in the ground" to people inside it is a waste of time.
Especially on the internet.
i want to be ted mosby. ted mosby is an architect because ted mosby isn't afraid of a test! brady bunch is so 4 decades ago.
I actually prefer Bronson.
Sneaky, short answer is no, it's not typical in my area... and not even typical in my office, but I don't see why it is'nt. I guess some just don't make the effort to, like mightyaa says, to become the captain. No one is just handed the keys to the ship (do ships even have keys?) just because they have a few fancy letters tacked next to their name in their email signatures.
That's true. I still fail to see why the discussion regarding our professional responsibility and the (IMO futile) discussion regarding the title need to be intrinsically linked.
Think of it this way; Mr. Brady did not have a calculator, computer, the internet, or things you take for granted. He probably sized and did all the structural and mechanical calculations. He detailed the whole stick framed house and most the windows made from trim stock. He even did the grading and landscape plan. And he was limited by the stock from the local lumber yard. And once he committed to ink, there wasn't a 'edit'.
So do you think he'd be scared of learning about a rainscreen system? You think that is more complex than a built-up wood panel system or plaster detailing?
I get you though... the skillset of a residential designer is not the same skillset of someone doing high-rise. It doesn't have a thing to do with 'when you learned' though... It's more of a experience issue with what you've been doing professionally.
did I give you the impression that I disrespect architects?
I don't disrespect an entire group which contains within it experts and dilettantes alike.
I'm the one on the team that does the research. Does the work. Puts in the time.
Anyone else who's with me on that team gets my full support. Regardless of accreditation or license status. I know the legal requirements for construction and follow them. But I don't pretend that a word defines what I do or is somehow a substitute for the work. Sometimes I feel like "designer" is a worthier self-appellation because people understand the word. Architect just clouds the issue and adds little other than perhaps an unearned attaboy. When I stop meeting licensed people who use it as a cudgel all the while devaluing it because all they wanna do is "concept" I might care. The license for me is a hurdle, not the finish line.
To be 100% clear, I am not speaking of anyone on architect, the people I mention are from my personal experiences.
Sneak, I don't actually like when people refer to me as the architect during project meetings... and I'm not that found of being labeled as senior architect in my office either (I'll be 33 before the year is done). I'm where I am because I worked for it and demonstrated that I can kick ass both on site and in the office.
The term 'Architect' is more important for the legal implications than anything else. To clients with projects that require an 'Architect,' really nothing else will do, perhaps by design. I have met a lot of folks that were designers and really talented, and some architects that left me wide eyed in disbelief that they had a stamp.
As far as the title is concerned- I think it is important that applicants earn it- you not only have to complete the specified educational curriculum, but also the IDP time, crazy and ridiculous paperwork with schools, NCARB, local government entities and license boards, pay fees, schedule and take the tests, basically manage your licensure. This extended process is a good analogy for what you will eventually be entrusted to do in practice, only at a much larger and more complicated scale.
Having a license also helps if you ever need to relocate...
Chicks dig real architects!
getting a job after relocation is potentially big benefit of the license if you don't have a network in the new area!
I agree with tintt that i would like either the tests to be more specific or in depth on some issues or a second level exam would be nice, "board certified" or something. Personally i found the whole process to be more of a war of attrition than something that required superior knowledge of anything.
My hair cutter was very impressed when i told her my profession the other day, good thing she didn't see my car
downside to license? cape and beret dry-cleaning bills.
There is no downside, most states require you have to have a licenses in order to practice architecture, so if you are a smart businessman, entrepreneur, and care about the profession of architecture and its integrity, then a license should be your priority.
Does having a license make you a good architect? absolutely not.Architecture is a craft, it is developed over time and years of experience. A license proves to the state that you are someone worthy to protect the health and safety of the public, just as a drivers license, real estate license, medical license, law and other professional license obtain to achieve.
AIA, your employer, or your "design" skills wont be by your side when you are on your own and need to use your years of schooling and experience to pay the bills. A license will, because it automatically gives you ability to be an entrepreneur.
What does a license have to do with entrepreneurship? The smartest kid in my class started a business right out of school. He must have simply forgot he was supposed to show allegiance to the profession first. Or maybe it was intentional?
Validation- that's what this is all about, the brand of being an architect. Brad Pitt can pass off as a designer if he wants to and in the end, can get better clients than any of us will.
Having said that, my circumstance working in the U.S. while being registered overseas made me think that licensure as the grandaddy of the profession- I am now slowly convinced that this isn't the case and that I should hold up to a higher goal than just being licensed. lol.
What does license have to do with entrepreneurship? - well we are in an architect forum and specifically discussing entrepreneurship from an architects point of view. We didn't go to business school, we went to architecture school, and the best way to take advantage of the 5 years or more of your degree is to get licenses so that it opens doors for you. Plus you cant practice architecture without a license in most states.
would you go to a doctor without a license?
would you go to a lawyer without a license?
Entrepreneurship implies tapping into markets or opportunities that are missed by others.
An entrepreneur sees a license as an obstacle to overcome, a means to an end. In no way does a license automatically give you ability to be an entrepreneur.
^ Woke AF! nice
Tintt, I agree, and also delayed entrepreneurship is a big downside to licensure. If you look at european firms where the licensure process is absent, you will notice a huge decade+ head start these firms have. Many successful firms owned by people in their 30s.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.