Ok.Is there anybody here who got their license working for years and years to compensate for their "lack of education";like people with 4 year Arch. degrees or no degrees at all.From what people told me it takes about 5 years of work experience to be qualified for ARE if you have the 4 year pre-professional degree.Anybody followed that route? I'd like to hear your experience and feelings about that.
Im not sure if this is the same for all states but in NY ..you have to work for 12 years if you dont have a degree, 5 years with a preprofessional degree, and 3 years with a professional degree
Also if you have a 4 year degree you have to work for 2 years before you can start taking the ARE's concurrent with IDP.
"Also if you have a 4 year degree you have to work for 2 years before you can start taking the ARE's concurrent with IDP. "
Is this 2 years included in 5 years?
i'm not sure I know what to think of this whole thing...i mean if someone doesn't get a professional degree they can still be a licensed architect in the same time frame as someone who did the extra school. I think that is wrong. There needs to be a more substantial reward for spending 5 or 6 years in school accumulating debt instead of being out there working.
talkiteckt,I think people should get licensed because they know design,construction,mechanical equipment and all those things that you should perform in architectural field instead of the amount of debt you accumulate! Apprenticeship makes sense for me because I'll be in the field talking to contractors,construction managers,preparing construction drawings,talking to clients and learning a lot in the process whereas the school eggheads will be in their studios doing their 3D nancy fancy buildings which can't be in any way applied to the REAL WORLD.
talkitect - the $$ reward for going through extra schooling is that it helps in terms in future job security, network, time and support to push your skills to make you more marketable, and increase the potential that you'll actually get to do the kind of work you really want to do. If you are spending the money on a professional degree, you'd better get more out of it than just a degree so you can get licensed. If that's all you were looking for with your degree, then quite frankly, you've wasted your money.
If someone is capable and experienced enough, they should be able to sit for the ARE. The ARE doesn't test your ability to do great design work that gets published. It tests to make sure you know how to design/manage something that doesn't hurt or kill people.
I agree with you. But then shouldn't anyone who passes the ARE be an architect regardless of how long they have practiced or studied - meaning why would you have to practice or study at all other than for the exam? Why can't anyone just take the exam at any point regardless of experience? Why even have an exam? Why not just prove that you have designed and built a building (or two or three) and then you can be considered an architect. (I believe this is the system they use n Germany in some capacity).
I loved architecture school. And I have no regrets at all. My only meaning with the above post is that quality of design should be an important factor of calling oneself an architect. I think the majority of buildings in the world are quite awful and I think to call oneself an architect you should have to know more than the technical aspects of getting a building built.
"Why can't anyone just take the exam at any point regardless of experience?"
I think the exam sets a standard.They should be able to distinguish the capable ones from the incapable ones.I know the ARE preparation and procedure is very rigorous in US.In Europe the college is only 4 years and after you finish the 4 years in some countries you get automatically licensed.Now that is wrong because architects need a long intensive work experience because it is a very tough field and it takes a very long time to understand how it really works.Personally if I did the 5 year program and the 3 year IDP maybe I could pass the ARE but I still wouldn't feel ready to stamp the drawings. When the number of lawyers in this country are multiplying each year I wouldn't be in such a rush to stamp any drawings so 5 years of waiting doesn't matter for me.
As Vitruvius stated we should seek 3 things in a building:firmness, commodity, and delight but nowadays school put all the importance to the artistic part of the design and ignore the other aspects.
Listen to what Robert Stern says about this issue: http://bigthink.com/topics/architecture-and-design/ideas/is-architecture-art
He basically summarizes my opinion.
Paradox ...yes that 2 years IS included in the total 5 years .. I am in that boat so I have done a lot of research on it. Also, you have to get your boss or bosses to sign and seal an approval / evaluation letter stating that youve worked for atleast 2 years
talkitect: I apprenticed into the profession but I also had some college education under my belt but no degree. I have had a slew of art classes, landscape architecture classes, general studies and architecture classes. When I was in school I was running projects with people assisting me with Master's Degrees. One thing I learned is that one can learn alot about design in an office as University Professors don't hold the whole bag of tricks. I have had my own firm for the past ten years and were still riding out the bump in the road at the moment. I suspect people wouldn't come to me if I didn't have a worthy product to sell. We sell Design or I can say it sells itself. Many of our clients are return clients, which has been most helpful in the downturn market.
Why did I leave school, well I wasn't that challenged by the university setting and I saw how much money I was throwing at it. I managed to pay my tutition, rent, food, gas while I was a student by working in Architecture Firms, usually around 30 hours a week. I spent every school vactaion working tons of hours inorder to be able to sign up for next semester classes and pay for them without school loans.
I recall walking into the exam hall and knowing about half of the people sitting in the room from the University. As the day moved along I saw alot of them pack up their things and leave the design exam early because of frustration. It kind of felt good I could muster the brain power and the determination to suceed where others had failed.
I believe strongly in apprenticeship as a path to registration. It opens the doors to a more diverse group of individuals who might not otherwise consider architecture as a profession.
I'm licensed and have only a 4 year pre profesional degree. I'd say that path has made all the difference in the world for me. I've been free to work at various jobs within the industry in construction and architecture, international work in China to non-descript auto repair shops in the city and strip malls, international hotels and high end modern residential design. I say it's made all the difference for one reason - no debt. Cheap in state school for only 4 years, no inflated grad school costs allows one the freedom to explore and not become indentured.
its 5 years IDP for a 4 year pre-prof degree and only then if approved by your state board. Some states will not accept a 4year degree anymore. I hope this changes as I see the advanced degree requirements limiting the people coming into the profession.
Limit people via the test then, make it harder to pass, but dont use ability to pay and willingness to postpone life as the limiting factor. I just feel too many technical minded individuals - mechanics - aren't going through school any more. Before I get jumped on again let me explain that a mechanic can be every bit of the designer a non mechanic can be, they will approach the task differently because they think differently. All this school is doing in muy opinion is narrowing the vision of the profession - ironic considering the message thats being sold.
In Illinois at least they announced the switch about 10 years ago then pushed it back to 2014. I suspect it's it written in the professional practice act governing your state. Go to your State's dept. of professional registration and look it up - they dont just switch these requirements overnight. But be aware - NCARB refuses to recognize 4 year architects so getting reciprocity between states can be difficult - you'll have to practice for 8 years then petition NCARB to grant it to you as a broadly experienced architect OR petition the other State directly - some are pro 4 year degree some are anti 4 year degree. Anyone find it ironic the states containing New York City and Chicago are pro 4 year at the moment?
§69.1 Professional study and experience requirements for architecture
1. Definition. Unless otherwise provided, acceptable accrediting agency means an accrediting agency which is recognized by the United States Commissioner of Education as a reliable authority for the purpose of accreditation at the postsecondary level, and which applies its criteria for granting accreditation in a fair, consistent and nondiscriminatory manner.
2. Licensure requirement. To meet the professional education and experience requirements for licensure as an architect in this State, the applicant shall submit evidence of either:
1.
1. graduation from a professional program in architecture registered by the department, accredited by an acceptable accreiting agency, or determined by the department to be the equivalent of a registered or accredited program; and
2. receipt of the degree of bachelor of architecture or master of architecture, or the equivalent as determined by the department, from a school offering a program which meets the requirements of subparagraph (i) of this paragraph; and
3. completion of a minimum of three years of architectural work experience of a scope and nature satisfactory to the State Board for Architecture; or
2. completion of experience in architectural work acceptable to the State Board for Architecture or a combination of education and experience totaling 12 years which is determined by the department to be the equivalent of the education and experience described in paragraph (1) of this subdivision.
3. The department may accept a second professional degree in architecture in lieu of not more than one year of work experience.
Category A:
First professional degree from a program accredited by the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB)
Maximum credit granted: 9 units
Category B:
First professional degree from a program not NAAB-accredited
Maximum credit granted: 8 units
Category C:
Partial completion of an NAAB-accredited program or a four-year preprofessional degree in architecture (or equivalent in course credit): two units of credit for each year completed up to a maximum of 7 credits
Maximum credits granted: 7 units
If full curriculum of an NAAB-accredited program was completed but no degree was granted, a maximum of 8 units may be allowed.
In NY they dock you 1 year for being a pre-prof bach even though you will have 1 year or more experiance is what I gather. I dont see a time limit - but you may want to dig deeper. NY is complex - they dont make it simple to find stuff do they
I think theory is an important part of our profession and you don't get as much exposure to it while practicing. Its not impossible to read and research on one's own but it is a valuable aspect of being in a university environment. I also think at University you are exposed to a wide range of viewpoints, experiments, research, and precedents that just isn't commonly present in most architecture offices. I don't think going through an apprenticeship is a bad path by any means. I'm sure it prepares you well for the job and gives you the skills necessary to complete projects and satisfy clients - in some cases it probably prepares you more than being at school. I just think it doesn't offer the same range of skills you earn at school for better or worse.
Can a lawyer practice Law without a degree?
Can a doctor practice medicine?
I really don't know.
i am not sure i understand the rational for suggesting school is not the place to learn to be an architect.
if you define architecture as a simple service or a mechanical operation that can be learned at the drafting board then i guess that makes sense. i don't see it that way myself.
for me school IS an apprenticeship. it is the first steps of the process and they are very important. here in japan you can take the test without going to university if you work for 7 years. many of the people in my old office went that route, and i saw first hand how the lessons learned at the drafting table can lead to very bad habits later on. some people are able to overcome that environment, but most cannot, and so i think standards are worth having.
i am quite glad that in japan you don't need university education to pursue career in architecture. still, i would question anyone who convinces themself that just because they can't afford it it must be without value - that is a kind of sad delusion, isn't it.
I have had the opportunity to work with both Undergrads who have an intrinsic understanding of Architecture and Construction (with practical experience), and also Grads with 3 years of Arch School and No practical experience. In my honest opinion, after several years in an office your education becomes less and less relevant, while those things you learned in the field prove to be more useful than jabs at the "Less Educated" pragmatists (with less School Debt).
Another fact is most of history's greatest architects began as Tradesmen:
Palladio; Stonecutter
Mies; Stonecutter
Wright; Farmer, Never Graduated....
The list goes on.
It's all about who you know and what you were born with...education is paper, albeit necessary.
i don't know about the rest but mies was a draftsman not mason in his father's business and hated it. the list goes on, but not very far.
like i said it is possible to do well without formal education in university, but i think it is rather difficult to do really well without it.
not sure if you mean me, but i am taking no jabs at the less "educated". i think everyone has to get to where they want to be in whatever way they can - there is no dishonor in that. but people who choose to spend time at uni are not being less pragmatic. they are learning impt things. things that can't be learned in the office. it is short-sighted to dismiss that.
i finished phd and owe essentially nothing. m.arch was more or less free also. my education cost me little financially. and has put me in a place that i just would not be if i had spent all that time in the office. i coudn't say either route is better, but am quite certain going to shool has its place.
Jump,
1. I didn't say Mason.
2. I didn't mean you only...there are alot of architects clinging to their Diplomas...(good for them), and it's also short-sighted to dismiss someone for their level of lesser-education.
3. Where is that 'place' you've found yourself, and how were you afforded your education without owing anything? I'm guessing it was either through an assistantship or it was provided for you by your parents or through grants? Please contextualize your position for the rest of us, as this thread is predicated on your concern for people who aren't in the same place as you.
Thanks in Advance.
not sure if it is entirely relevant, but i paid for phd with scholarships. i paid for masters by saving money while working in office for too many years, and then got a scholarship and came out ahead. i paid for undergrad with a loan in first 2 years, realised i couldn't afford that, quit school, worked for 3 years, came back and paid the rest in cash. my parents were farmers who left the farm and had no money to pay for my education. i am not inclined to apologise for earning those scholarships. it was not easy getting them.
no you didn't say mason.
there is an excellent article about mies' mythological history by Beatriz Colomina that describes what he did as a youth and how he created his own past, how the hagiography is a construct, etc. a very good read.
i guess i was unclear, but what i meant was that there are many ways to become an architect and all of them are valid. my only point is that people going to school and then working in office are not fools for doing so. vice versa is also true of course.
Like i said it is common practice here in japan to become an architect without going to school, and many who do so are quite fine.
having said that, the difference in their work, at least based on my observation in the office was that a degree mattered to the quality of the work because the folks who did not go to school were never taught to think about why they practiced architecture. most of them thought the purpose of design was to make complicated details.
so my feeling is that if you can afford it or can otherwise manage it, the early apprenticeship that is a university education is worth the investment. if you can't swing it, fair enough, but that doesn't make it any less valuable.
in canada it's theoretically possible to do so through the RAIC syllabus program, but from what i understand the program is fading into oblivion. i think it takes 15 years or something. why would anyone want to do it this way? you'd just be creating problems for yourself down the road. architecture school was a great experience.
I think its fair to say that licensing requirements should represent a minimum as opposed to a maximum level of qualification. Believe it or not, you can take the bar exam in many states and become a lawyer without ever going to law school. I agree with Toasteroven, having a degree from a leading professional program creates employment opportunities and enhances job security, but having an elite degree should not be a requirement for licensure... to insist that it is would, in my opinion, be somewhat elitest.
I don't understand why an advanced degree would enhance the job security. I got laid off from my previous job because of my lack of understanding of construction and how things worked. I had the highest education level in that office.I believe if you know what you're doing and making the company get more money they will keep you regardless of your education level. They may require an advanced degree in some offices but I don't plan to work for any "starchitects". I don't mind learning more about real estate and business though!
May 18, 09 5:07 pm ·
·
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.
Anybody here got their license via work experienceand not school?
Ok.Is there anybody here who got their license working for years and years to compensate for their "lack of education";like people with 4 year Arch. degrees or no degrees at all.From what people told me it takes about 5 years of work experience to be qualified for ARE if you have the 4 year pre-professional degree.Anybody followed that route? I'd like to hear your experience and feelings about that.
I am and it is great but now i need to pay for my own last ARE tests
Im not sure if this is the same for all states but in NY ..you have to work for 12 years if you dont have a degree, 5 years with a preprofessional degree, and 3 years with a professional degree
Also if you have a 4 year degree you have to work for 2 years before you can start taking the ARE's concurrent with IDP.
"Also if you have a 4 year degree you have to work for 2 years before you can start taking the ARE's concurrent with IDP. "
Is this 2 years included in 5 years?
i'm not sure I know what to think of this whole thing...i mean if someone doesn't get a professional degree they can still be a licensed architect in the same time frame as someone who did the extra school. I think that is wrong. There needs to be a more substantial reward for spending 5 or 6 years in school accumulating debt instead of being out there working.
The current system does nothing to promote quality architecture, that's for sure.
talkiteckt,I think people should get licensed because they know design,construction,mechanical equipment and all those things that you should perform in architectural field instead of the amount of debt you accumulate! Apprenticeship makes sense for me because I'll be in the field talking to contractors,construction managers,preparing construction drawings,talking to clients and learning a lot in the process whereas the school eggheads will be in their studios doing their 3D nancy fancy buildings which can't be in any way applied to the REAL WORLD.
talkitect - the $$ reward for going through extra schooling is that it helps in terms in future job security, network, time and support to push your skills to make you more marketable, and increase the potential that you'll actually get to do the kind of work you really want to do. If you are spending the money on a professional degree, you'd better get more out of it than just a degree so you can get licensed. If that's all you were looking for with your degree, then quite frankly, you've wasted your money.
If someone is capable and experienced enough, they should be able to sit for the ARE. The ARE doesn't test your ability to do great design work that gets published. It tests to make sure you know how to design/manage something that doesn't hurt or kill people.
I agree with you. But then shouldn't anyone who passes the ARE be an architect regardless of how long they have practiced or studied - meaning why would you have to practice or study at all other than for the exam? Why can't anyone just take the exam at any point regardless of experience? Why even have an exam? Why not just prove that you have designed and built a building (or two or three) and then you can be considered an architect. (I believe this is the system they use n Germany in some capacity).
I loved architecture school. And I have no regrets at all. My only meaning with the above post is that quality of design should be an important factor of calling oneself an architect. I think the majority of buildings in the world are quite awful and I think to call oneself an architect you should have to know more than the technical aspects of getting a building built.
"Why can't anyone just take the exam at any point regardless of experience?"
I think the exam sets a standard.They should be able to distinguish the capable ones from the incapable ones.I know the ARE preparation and procedure is very rigorous in US.In Europe the college is only 4 years and after you finish the 4 years in some countries you get automatically licensed.Now that is wrong because architects need a long intensive work experience because it is a very tough field and it takes a very long time to understand how it really works.Personally if I did the 5 year program and the 3 year IDP maybe I could pass the ARE but I still wouldn't feel ready to stamp the drawings. When the number of lawyers in this country are multiplying each year I wouldn't be in such a rush to stamp any drawings so 5 years of waiting doesn't matter for me.
As Vitruvius stated we should seek 3 things in a building:firmness, commodity, and delight but nowadays school put all the importance to the artistic part of the design and ignore the other aspects.
Listen to what Robert Stern says about this issue: http://bigthink.com/topics/architecture-and-design/ideas/is-architecture-art
He basically summarizes my opinion.
Paradox ...yes that 2 years IS included in the total 5 years .. I am in that boat so I have done a lot of research on it. Also, you have to get your boss or bosses to sign and seal an approval / evaluation letter stating that youve worked for atleast 2 years
talkitect: I apprenticed into the profession but I also had some college education under my belt but no degree. I have had a slew of art classes, landscape architecture classes, general studies and architecture classes. When I was in school I was running projects with people assisting me with Master's Degrees. One thing I learned is that one can learn alot about design in an office as University Professors don't hold the whole bag of tricks. I have had my own firm for the past ten years and were still riding out the bump in the road at the moment. I suspect people wouldn't come to me if I didn't have a worthy product to sell. We sell Design or I can say it sells itself. Many of our clients are return clients, which has been most helpful in the downturn market.
Why did I leave school, well I wasn't that challenged by the university setting and I saw how much money I was throwing at it. I managed to pay my tutition, rent, food, gas while I was a student by working in Architecture Firms, usually around 30 hours a week. I spent every school vactaion working tons of hours inorder to be able to sign up for next semester classes and pay for them without school loans.
I recall walking into the exam hall and knowing about half of the people sitting in the room from the University. As the day moved along I saw alot of them pack up their things and leave the design exam early because of frustration. It kind of felt good I could muster the brain power and the determination to suceed where others had failed.
I believe strongly in apprenticeship as a path to registration. It opens the doors to a more diverse group of individuals who might not otherwise consider architecture as a profession.
I'm licensed and have only a 4 year pre profesional degree. I'd say that path has made all the difference in the world for me. I've been free to work at various jobs within the industry in construction and architecture, international work in China to non-descript auto repair shops in the city and strip malls, international hotels and high end modern residential design. I say it's made all the difference for one reason - no debt. Cheap in state school for only 4 years, no inflated grad school costs allows one the freedom to explore and not become indentured.
its 5 years IDP for a 4 year pre-prof degree and only then if approved by your state board. Some states will not accept a 4year degree anymore. I hope this changes as I see the advanced degree requirements limiting the people coming into the profession.
Maybe limits are a good thing?
Limit people via the test then, make it harder to pass, but dont use ability to pay and willingness to postpone life as the limiting factor. I just feel too many technical minded individuals - mechanics - aren't going through school any more. Before I get jumped on again let me explain that a mechanic can be every bit of the designer a non mechanic can be, they will approach the task differently because they think differently. All this school is doing in muy opinion is narrowing the vision of the profession - ironic considering the message thats being sold.
Yeah that's what I fear..I'm in NY and I think what if I decide to do the 5 year IDP and in my 4th year they decide to change the procedure!!!
In Illinois at least they announced the switch about 10 years ago then pushed it back to 2014. I suspect it's it written in the professional practice act governing your state. Go to your State's dept. of professional registration and look it up - they dont just switch these requirements overnight. But be aware - NCARB refuses to recognize 4 year architects so getting reciprocity between states can be difficult - you'll have to practice for 8 years then petition NCARB to grant it to you as a broadly experienced architect OR petition the other State directly - some are pro 4 year degree some are anti 4 year degree. Anyone find it ironic the states containing New York City and Chicago are pro 4 year at the moment?
new york state code governing architecture
link
comissioner's regulations on architecture code
link
education requirements
link
§69.1 Professional study and experience requirements for architecture
1. Definition. Unless otherwise provided, acceptable accrediting agency means an accrediting agency which is recognized by the United States Commissioner of Education as a reliable authority for the purpose of accreditation at the postsecondary level, and which applies its criteria for granting accreditation in a fair, consistent and nondiscriminatory manner.
2. Licensure requirement. To meet the professional education and experience requirements for licensure as an architect in this State, the applicant shall submit evidence of either:
1.
1. graduation from a professional program in architecture registered by the department, accredited by an acceptable accreiting agency, or determined by the department to be the equivalent of a registered or accredited program; and
2. receipt of the degree of bachelor of architecture or master of architecture, or the equivalent as determined by the department, from a school offering a program which meets the requirements of subparagraph (i) of this paragraph; and
3. completion of a minimum of three years of architectural work experience of a scope and nature satisfactory to the State Board for Architecture; or
2. completion of experience in architectural work acceptable to the State Board for Architecture or a combination of education and experience totaling 12 years which is determined by the department to be the equivalent of the education and experience described in paragraph (1) of this subdivision.
3. The department may accept a second professional degree in architecture in lieu of not more than one year of work experience.
Category A:
First professional degree from a program accredited by the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB)
Maximum credit granted: 9 units
Category B:
First professional degree from a program not NAAB-accredited
Maximum credit granted: 8 units
Category C:
Partial completion of an NAAB-accredited program or a four-year preprofessional degree in architecture (or equivalent in course credit): two units of credit for each year completed up to a maximum of 7 credits
Maximum credits granted: 7 units
If full curriculum of an NAAB-accredited program was completed but no degree was granted, a maximum of 8 units may be allowed.
In NY they dock you 1 year for being a pre-prof bach even though you will have 1 year or more experiance is what I gather. I dont see a time limit - but you may want to dig deeper. NY is complex - they dont make it simple to find stuff do they
Maybe limits are a good thing?
who are you proposing we limit entering into the profession?
why do we need an advanced degree to become an architect? What can I learn in a professional program that I cannot learn through experience?
I think theory is an important part of our profession and you don't get as much exposure to it while practicing. Its not impossible to read and research on one's own but it is a valuable aspect of being in a university environment. I also think at University you are exposed to a wide range of viewpoints, experiments, research, and precedents that just isn't commonly present in most architecture offices. I don't think going through an apprenticeship is a bad path by any means. I'm sure it prepares you well for the job and gives you the skills necessary to complete projects and satisfy clients - in some cases it probably prepares you more than being at school. I just think it doesn't offer the same range of skills you earn at school for better or worse.
Can a lawyer practice Law without a degree?
Can a doctor practice medicine?
I really don't know.
of course they can't talkitect.
i am not sure i understand the rational for suggesting school is not the place to learn to be an architect.
if you define architecture as a simple service or a mechanical operation that can be learned at the drafting board then i guess that makes sense. i don't see it that way myself.
for me school IS an apprenticeship. it is the first steps of the process and they are very important. here in japan you can take the test without going to university if you work for 7 years. many of the people in my old office went that route, and i saw first hand how the lessons learned at the drafting table can lead to very bad habits later on. some people are able to overcome that environment, but most cannot, and so i think standards are worth having.
i am quite glad that in japan you don't need university education to pursue career in architecture. still, i would question anyone who convinces themself that just because they can't afford it it must be without value - that is a kind of sad delusion, isn't it.
I have had the opportunity to work with both Undergrads who have an intrinsic understanding of Architecture and Construction (with practical experience), and also Grads with 3 years of Arch School and No practical experience. In my honest opinion, after several years in an office your education becomes less and less relevant, while those things you learned in the field prove to be more useful than jabs at the "Less Educated" pragmatists (with less School Debt).
Another fact is most of history's greatest architects began as Tradesmen:
Palladio; Stonecutter
Mies; Stonecutter
Wright; Farmer, Never Graduated....
The list goes on.
It's all about who you know and what you were born with...education is paper, albeit necessary.
i don't know about the rest but mies was a draftsman not mason in his father's business and hated it. the list goes on, but not very far.
like i said it is possible to do well without formal education in university, but i think it is rather difficult to do really well without it.
not sure if you mean me, but i am taking no jabs at the less "educated". i think everyone has to get to where they want to be in whatever way they can - there is no dishonor in that. but people who choose to spend time at uni are not being less pragmatic. they are learning impt things. things that can't be learned in the office. it is short-sighted to dismiss that.
i finished phd and owe essentially nothing. m.arch was more or less free also. my education cost me little financially. and has put me in a place that i just would not be if i had spent all that time in the office. i coudn't say either route is better, but am quite certain going to shool has its place.
Jump,
1. I didn't say Mason.
2. I didn't mean you only...there are alot of architects clinging to their Diplomas...(good for them), and it's also short-sighted to dismiss someone for their level of lesser-education.
3. Where is that 'place' you've found yourself, and how were you afforded your education without owing anything? I'm guessing it was either through an assistantship or it was provided for you by your parents or through grants? Please contextualize your position for the rest of us, as this thread is predicated on your concern for people who aren't in the same place as you.
Thanks in Advance.
poczatek,
not sure if it is entirely relevant, but i paid for phd with scholarships. i paid for masters by saving money while working in office for too many years, and then got a scholarship and came out ahead. i paid for undergrad with a loan in first 2 years, realised i couldn't afford that, quit school, worked for 3 years, came back and paid the rest in cash. my parents were farmers who left the farm and had no money to pay for my education. i am not inclined to apologise for earning those scholarships. it was not easy getting them.
no you didn't say mason.
there is an excellent article about mies' mythological history by Beatriz Colomina that describes what he did as a youth and how he created his own past, how the hagiography is a construct, etc. a very good read.
i guess i was unclear, but what i meant was that there are many ways to become an architect and all of them are valid. my only point is that people going to school and then working in office are not fools for doing so. vice versa is also true of course.
Like i said it is common practice here in japan to become an architect without going to school, and many who do so are quite fine.
having said that, the difference in their work, at least based on my observation in the office was that a degree mattered to the quality of the work because the folks who did not go to school were never taught to think about why they practiced architecture. most of them thought the purpose of design was to make complicated details.
so my feeling is that if you can afford it or can otherwise manage it, the early apprenticeship that is a university education is worth the investment. if you can't swing it, fair enough, but that doesn't make it any less valuable.
Anybody here got their license via work experienceand not school?
in canada it's theoretically possible to do so through the RAIC syllabus program, but from what i understand the program is fading into oblivion. i think it takes 15 years or something. why would anyone want to do it this way? you'd just be creating problems for yourself down the road. architecture school was a great experience.
I think its fair to say that licensing requirements should represent a minimum as opposed to a maximum level of qualification. Believe it or not, you can take the bar exam in many states and become a lawyer without ever going to law school. I agree with Toasteroven, having a degree from a leading professional program creates employment opportunities and enhances job security, but having an elite degree should not be a requirement for licensure... to insist that it is would, in my opinion, be somewhat elitest.
I don't understand why an advanced degree would enhance the job security. I got laid off from my previous job because of my lack of understanding of construction and how things worked. I had the highest education level in that office.I believe if you know what you're doing and making the company get more money they will keep you regardless of your education level. They may require an advanced degree in some offices but I don't plan to work for any "starchitects". I don't mind learning more about real estate and business though!
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.