I’ve been trying to get a answer about what I need to qualify to becoming a licensed architect in NY.
I’d graduated Parsons with a BFA in interior design. I’ve worked for 5 years under the direct supervision of a licensed architect at an architecture firm.
I know I need a total of 12 credits to qualify but I don’t know how to quantify my education since Parsons isn’t a NAAB accredited program.
If my friend majored in graphics design and learned interiors on the job, and there are interior designers who never went to school, then perhaps its time to spit out the harsh reality: interior design is a specialty for those who couldn't do architecture... Interior design is "almost" architecture...
You need 12 years of work experience in your sutuation, not 12 credits... Otherwise get an accredited degree in architecture...
Where have you been hiding, Bulgar? Funny. So, you're recommending the OP goes to get an accredited architecture degree, meaning the M.Arch.? I thought you didn't like the M.Arch. 3 year crowd.
OP person, you can work 12 years or get a M.Arch., or a second degree via a B.Arch. ID majors tend to fare decently in a M.Arch. program. In California, you can work for 8 years. However, if you're in NY and can get a job in NY, then stay in NY, especially if you like it. Moving to another state to get a few years chipped off the licensing requirement when you have a "bird in the hand" doesn't make sense.
Bulgar, for those who like ID, why knock it, especially if they earned a degree in it? Some people like the work. It's hard enough keeping abreast of material, code, software, and business changes in architecture, and then throw in changes in ID practice on top of that. Sometime architects who crank out some ID work, like decking out lobbies or offices, choose a safe, and trite, palette when ID specialists may be more up-to-date.
There is nothing wrong with LIKING ID. I have worked with talented ID's before. But in all cases, what I dont get is that ID is directly related to architecture and if that is a specialty they want to pursue, then why dont they start in architecture so they at least know what they are talking about when they discuss details related to the project? I mean the IIDA certificate aims to close that gap, but if you are going to go through the trouble of becoming a "licensed ID" then why not go through the trouble of becoming a licensed architect? I mean "licensed ID" just sounds ridiculous! What- you have the license to choose colors, visit the D&D building, and space plan?? Get real! :)
Last but not least- i would like to redefine my stance on the M.Arch1:
I still think the 4+2 is B.S. (kind of like running a marathon and givig up on the 25th mile)
And secondly, those going into an M.Arch 1 from an unrelated field do not have as much developed graphic sense the B.Arch's who spend most of their first two years in foundation studios that allow them to explore methods of representation. Im sorry, but even if you had a class for one semester as an M.Arch1 in graphic representation, how the hell are you supposed to hit the ground running if you dont have a background in architecture?? And by methods of represetation, I dont mean studying CAD and Rhino...
So in an attempt to redirect this forum back to the original query..
Can someone with relevant NY experience advise me as to how to quantify my past academic credentials into NYSED credits (as defined in the resource below.) I believe BeepBeep's logic is sound - looking for verification.
Side Note to VulgarBlogger - Your nihilistic disdain for an entire industry is odd. The angst is truly too much. I graduated interior design because its relevant to my ventures as a restaurateur. One of my GCs, realizing how long I've held down my day job at an architectural firm (an equity position) advised me that I could technically stop paying architects in my private ventures by getting on the road to licensure. I communicate this to you in an attempt to better us both (it was hard for me not to curse you out.) The goals of an individual mustn't be unilaterally pressed as a standard to the collective. Better thyself - I can only do the same. Hustle hard brother - use that fire for good.
I have lived in Manhattan almost my entire life so as a NY'er and someone who is apmost licensed in NYS, I can take it; but let me clarify:
I live, breathe, eat, and sleep this industry and this profession. I love it more than my own parents and personal relationships. I would and have sacrificed a lot to do what I do and where I am today. So, yes I am opinionated about where I stand on the difference between ID and architecture.
Yet- I still tried to help you by answering your question: You need 12 years of work experience in your sutuation, not 12 credits... Otherwise get an accredited degree in architecture... And what prompted the above comments originated from your question of whether or not a BFA in ID is worth anything. My own opinion is: no.
For being an architectural entity, their spacing is piss poor and this is hard to read. Scroll down to questions 5, 6, and 7. It indicates 5 years of experience for a B.A./B.S. in architecture and it indicates 12 years with a high school education. So, you're in a blend zone. Then look at this, which is also linked above:
Scroll down to Education Requirements. It looks like if you get your degree classified as Category G, you need 10 years of experience. If you get your degree classified as Category H, you need 8 years of experience. I'm sure they've had applicants from Parsons, so the State Board will readily be able to tell you.
And secondly, those going into an M.Arch 1 from an unrelated field do not have as much developed graphic sense the B.Arch's who spend most of their first two years in foundation studios that allow them to explore methods of representation. Im sorry, but even if you had a class for one semester as an M.Arch1 in graphic representation, how the hell are you supposed to hit the ground running if you dont have a background in architecture?? And by methods of represetation, I dont mean studying CAD and Rhino...
Bulgar, while I disagree on your overall stance, I do agree with you on this, and experts weigh in on this much the same way. I call it the "tea bag steeping" syndrome. The 5 year B.Arch. can spend the first year and second year developing their graphic sense and then concentrate on design quality more heavily from years 3 through 5. The M.Arch. 1, over 3.5 years, has 1 or 2 terms in which to accomplish that. Some students don't do a good job of doing that. However, if they are able to merge into the mindset somewhere in the 2nd year, they'll be fine. Students coming from any background involving visual creativity make the transition to competence in graphics quite well. Even those from other fields can make the leap. However, your stance on 4+2 is absurd. In Canada, it is the only model. In the U.S., if you want to commute from home, and you live in Buffalo, Albuquerque, or Oakland/Berkeley, it looks like you'll be doing a 4+2 and probably have more money in your pocket at the end, and more varied experiences, than someone doing a B.Arch. Pencil it out.
3+ students wiped their asses with the 4+2 crowd overall. Many like myself came from fine arts and science backgrounds. We mixed with the 2 year Marchs, and upon graduation the 3+ people were on top of the class. Not sure why the beef with 3+.
I think Bulgar must have done a 5 year B.Arch. in which case a 4+2 program is rarely a concurrent event on the same premises.
As for 3+, the first year was hard. Fortunately, I took some graphics at a c.c. before starting. Undergraduates got to revel in the graphics part longer than we did, so I was a little envious of that. But it sort of evens out for most of the crowd, by about halfway through. The most perturbing thing of 3+ was the sharp divide - undergrads who thought the 3+ people were like exotic animals in a zoo exhibit ... and undergrads who sort of sought them out because they thought they were neat, kind of like some college freshmen who want to interact with the seniors.
Navigating the NY Architect's Licensing route has given me an aneurysm.
I’ve been trying to get a answer about what I need to qualify to becoming a licensed architect in NY.
I’d graduated Parsons with a BFA in interior design. I’ve worked for 5 years under the direct supervision of a licensed architect at an architecture firm.
I know I need a total of 12 credits to qualify but I don’t know how to quantify my education since Parsons isn’t a NAAB accredited program.
Resource:
http://www.op.nysed.gov/prof/arch/archlic.htm
You need 12 years of work experience in your sutuation, not 12 credits... Otherwise get an accredited degree in architecture...
So my 4 year BFA in interior design accounts for nothing? I guess the next step is to quantify how much that education is worth (if anything at all?)
You should get 2 - 4 credits for having a degree related I think then probably 8 years work exp.
Category d on your link up to 5 credits so contact the board to see if you need to do idp as well so you can start now !
If my friend majored in graphics design and learned interiors on the job, and there are interior designers who never went to school, then perhaps its time to spit out the harsh reality: interior design is a specialty for those who couldn't do architecture... Interior design is "almost" architecture...
You need 12 years of work experience in your sutuation, not 12 credits... Otherwise get an accredited degree in architecture...
Where have you been hiding, Bulgar? Funny. So, you're recommending the OP goes to get an accredited architecture degree, meaning the M.Arch.? I thought you didn't like the M.Arch. 3 year crowd.
OP person, you can work 12 years or get a M.Arch., or a second degree via a B.Arch. ID majors tend to fare decently in a M.Arch. program. In California, you can work for 8 years. However, if you're in NY and can get a job in NY, then stay in NY, especially if you like it. Moving to another state to get a few years chipped off the licensing requirement when you have a "bird in the hand" doesn't make sense.
Bulgar, for those who like ID, why knock it, especially if they earned a degree in it? Some people like the work. It's hard enough keeping abreast of material, code, software, and business changes in architecture, and then throw in changes in ID practice on top of that. Sometime architects who crank out some ID work, like decking out lobbies or offices, choose a safe, and trite, palette when ID specialists may be more up-to-date.
There is nothing wrong with LIKING ID. I have worked with talented ID's before. But in all cases, what I dont get is that ID is directly related to architecture and if that is a specialty they want to pursue, then why dont they start in architecture so they at least know what they are talking about when they discuss details related to the project? I mean the IIDA certificate aims to close that gap, but if you are going to go through the trouble of becoming a "licensed ID" then why not go through the trouble of becoming a licensed architect? I mean "licensed ID" just sounds ridiculous! What- you have the license to choose colors, visit the D&D building, and space plan?? Get real! :)
Last but not least- i would like to redefine my stance on the M.Arch1:
So in an attempt to redirect this forum back to the original query..
Can someone with relevant NY experience advise me as to how to quantify my past academic credentials into NYSED credits (as defined in the resource below.) I believe BeepBeep's logic is sound - looking for verification.
Resource:
http://www.op.nysed.gov/prof/arch/archlic.htm
Side Note to VulgarBlogger - Your nihilistic disdain for an entire industry is odd. The angst is truly too much. I graduated interior design because its relevant to my ventures as a restaurateur. One of my GCs, realizing how long I've held down my day job at an architectural firm (an equity position) advised me that I could technically stop paying architects in my private ventures by getting on the road to licensure. I communicate this to you in an attempt to better us both (it was hard for me not to curse you out.) The goals of an individual mustn't be unilaterally pressed as a standard to the collective. Better thyself - I can only do the same. Hustle hard brother - use that fire for good.
Side note to ^
I have lived in Manhattan almost my entire life so as a NY'er and someone who is apmost licensed in NYS, I can take it; but let me clarify:
I live, breathe, eat, and sleep this industry and this profession. I love it more than my own parents and personal relationships. I would and have sacrificed a lot to do what I do and where I am today. So, yes I am opinionated about where I stand on the difference between ID and architecture.
Yet- I still tried to help you by answering your question: You need 12 years of work experience in your sutuation, not 12 credits... Otherwise get an accredited degree in architecture... And what prompted the above comments originated from your question of whether or not a BFA in ID is worth anything. My own opinion is: no.
OP, think of this in terms of years instead of credits. When I have a question about what states want, I look at this:
http://www.ncarb.org/Getting-an-Initial-License/Registration-Board-Requirements/Initial-Registration-Requirements.aspx
For being an architectural entity, their spacing is piss poor and this is hard to read. Scroll down to questions 5, 6, and 7. It indicates 5 years of experience for a B.A./B.S. in architecture and it indicates 12 years with a high school education. So, you're in a blend zone. Then look at this, which is also linked above:
http://www.op.nysed.gov/prof/arch/archlic.htm
Scroll down to Education Requirements. It looks like if you get your degree classified as Category G, you need 10 years of experience. If you get your degree classified as Category H, you need 8 years of experience. I'm sure they've had applicants from Parsons, so the State Board will readily be able to tell you.
And secondly, those going into an M.Arch 1 from an unrelated field do not have as much developed graphic sense the B.Arch's who spend most of their first two years in foundation studios that allow them to explore methods of representation. Im sorry, but even if you had a class for one semester as an M.Arch1 in graphic representation, how the hell are you supposed to hit the ground running if you dont have a background in architecture?? And by methods of represetation, I dont mean studying CAD and Rhino...
Bulgar, while I disagree on your overall stance, I do agree with you on this, and experts weigh in on this much the same way. I call it the "tea bag steeping" syndrome. The 5 year B.Arch. can spend the first year and second year developing their graphic sense and then concentrate on design quality more heavily from years 3 through 5. The M.Arch. 1, over 3.5 years, has 1 or 2 terms in which to accomplish that. Some students don't do a good job of doing that. However, if they are able to merge into the mindset somewhere in the 2nd year, they'll be fine. Students coming from any background involving visual creativity make the transition to competence in graphics quite well. Even those from other fields can make the leap. However, your stance on 4+2 is absurd. In Canada, it is the only model. In the U.S., if you want to commute from home, and you live in Buffalo, Albuquerque, or Oakland/Berkeley, it looks like you'll be doing a 4+2 and probably have more money in your pocket at the end, and more varied experiences, than someone doing a B.Arch. Pencil it out.
3+ students wiped their asses with the 4+2 crowd overall. Many like myself came from fine arts and science backgrounds. We mixed with the 2 year Marchs, and upon graduation the 3+ people were on top of the class. Not sure why the beef with 3+.
jla-x:
I think Bulgar must have done a 5 year B.Arch. in which case a 4+2 program is rarely a concurrent event on the same premises.
As for 3+, the first year was hard. Fortunately, I took some graphics at a c.c. before starting. Undergraduates got to revel in the graphics part longer than we did, so I was a little envious of that. But it sort of evens out for most of the crowd, by about halfway through. The most perturbing thing of 3+ was the sharp divide - undergrads who thought the 3+ people were like exotic animals in a zoo exhibit ... and undergrads who sort of sought them out because they thought they were neat, kind of like some college freshmen who want to interact with the seniors.
I meant to say 5+2. My bad.
Is there an article on how to cure the NY Architect's Licensing program as well?
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.