Like Archinect on Facebook.
Sign up to our mailing list.
I've known a number people who were hired by arch firms who then supported their education. Usually they came in with some sort of 1 or 2 year technical training at a community college. not all firms have the resources to put someone like that through school, though... and I know several people who ended up doing the alternate route in neighboring states (usually they end up in CA, but still do pretty well in this profession). btw, I work in an extremely competitive market with many graduates from top programs, and you still get plenty of people who are pushing 40/50 and going to school at night working on their bachelors after a stint in construction or the military. and it's not that people are getting jobs straight out of HS - they're getting jobs in arch after working in another field for years... plus - if you have kids and are working to support your family - going to school full time is a luxury. There are maybe only a couple programs in the entire country that allow someone to work during the day and go to school at night.
this is who the alternative path is designed for - not recent HS grads.
plenty of people do make mid-career changes INTO architecture.
there is no there, yeah residential. I know its difficult territory, but I would like to design and be the developer of sustainable, well designed "architecture" homes in the 150-500k price range... I am not claiming to be some big shot entrapenuer...Business was actually a huge weak point for me until I just jumped into it....I got started out of the desperation of not having a job after graduating 2 years ago. Some people take swimming lessons and others get thrown into the water and either figure it out or die. I was always more interested in the arts and sciences, but business can be learned even if it's not in ones comfort zone.
Now I am doing mostly small design projects for landsape contractors. I have some rendering and drafting work as well. Also did a few remodel/flips Nothing fancy yet, but once in a while I do get to design some thing cool. I have even been offered some small commercial projects, but despite the fact that a stamp was not required, I turned them down and refered them to a local architect because I didn't feel that I had enough experiance to do them efficiently, and I didn't want to learn on my clients dime.
I know that I can do the work without a stamp....thats not the issue. It is about being part of the profession that I love, and being able to represent myself to clients. Without following this ridgid course, you basically have no alternative paths towards licensure. There are many people like me out there. I know of a few very talented designers that have really great residential work that gets published in all the fancy arch mags.....Some of them have 10 years exp. working in arch firms, but still no license. Why should entrapenurers be punished? There should be alternative paths toward licensure that do not require employment in a firm. I have a few ideas, but it seems that organizations like NCARB care more about the monopoly than about the profession.
1 idea would be to offer a 3-5 year probationary license upon completion of either 5 years exp. or an M-arch and passing of the ARE's. After the 3-5 year period, if you stay out of trouble and can show a substantial amount of work, your license would become full.
I'm on board with the idea of a "provisional" license, to keep people from stamping CD's too soon. License quickly, to get it over with, and stamp later, once you are comfortable that what is there is complete and accurate, to a level you feel comfortable with.
jla-x: "Why should entrapenurers be punished?"
Well -- I guess you could also say "Why should medical school graduates who don't want to suffer through a residency be punished?"
Our profession - which you profess to love - has made certain decisions which it regards to be appropriate about the path to licensure. You don't agree with those decisions - I get that. So, let's get back to your OP - a class action lawsuit.
Once again, I raise the question raised by others here -- how have you been harmed? What damages can you prove? While I recognize that jla-x is not the creator of this thread, in your post immediately above, you confirmed that you don't really need a license to do what you want to do for a living.
jla-x's main argument seems to be "It is about being part of the profession that I love, and being able to represent myself to clients." I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's not sufficient basis for legal action in our courts.
file, The above was in response to a question from another post. It has nothing to do with the legal argument at all or the op. I already stated the legal theory on page 1....since then the discussion got off track as usual.
How have I been harmed? It is more a question of... how have we been harmed? and would only have merit as a class action case.... Our "interns" path to licensure has been met with unneccessary and overly burdensome barriers to entry. This is legal basis. There is legal precident.
It is protectionism when an industry limits competition by creating such barriers. One's right to due process is violated when such protectionist measures are taken, and they limit ones economic liberty. We have a constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. economic liberty is part of that. When we are denied economic liberty because of protectionist measures, our due process rights to achieve life, liberty and the pursiut of happiness is violated. Liberty is not absolute, however the limitations and regulations put into place that limit ones liberty must be for the sole purpose of public safety. If they are not, they are in violation of the 14th.
what is unneccessary? It is unneccessary to require IDP because it was put into effect for no apparent reason in a non-reactionary way, and it is of no measurable benefit to the safety of the public. It has only served to benefit existing architects by the creation of the indentured "intern" and the limitation of competition. This is protectionism. protectionism is not allowed. those accused of protectionism must prove that the barriers are in the best interest of the public which they cannot.
Why is it overly burdensome? It is overly burdensome because IDP relies on the cooperation of private businesses that have no incentive to administer what is being mandated. Due process is also violated, because of the way the system is unevenly administered. Some take 3 years others take 15 years....and it has little to do with ones merit and all to do with the way the private business decides to cooperate.
Residencies are highly regulated and there is alot of oversight. No hospital will make a resident read x-ray's for 7 years. The hospitals have to conform to the strict guidelines of the residency in order to hire someone as a resident. If a doctor's office hired a resident, payed them as a resident, claimed them as a resident, and in reality treated them like a physicians assistant, the medical board would come down on them with a shit storm.
Since interns have taken steps to enter the profession by aquiring a degree, they have an economic interest in licensure. It is different if an arbitrary group of people with no investment tried to sue NCARB. Your point that there is no shortage of architects, or that they can do other things any way may be true, but regulatory measures to control competition based only on these arguments is not legal as it creates economic hardship for a large class of people and limits their economic liberty without adding any measurable benefit to public safety.
All professions must have some regulation, but the barriers to entry must be reasonable and must be aligned with the public interest (not the professions interests). All I am saying is that these particular barriers are not reasonable.
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?