Archinect

Architectural Ellipsis

... Intern Architect ...

  • anchor

    NCARB Punted the Intern Title Debate

    Everyday Intern
    Jun 26, '15 5:58 PM EST

    Preface: The news is out and already old. This post has gone through plenty of iterations. I've tried writing a response to the news that NCARB is sunsetting the term intern various ways and none of them seem to really sit well with me. I've tried to discount their stance. I've tried getting angry at it. I've tried determining what I think the best title for those who will be formerly known as interns. I've even tried to support it ... none of it works for me. In the end this is what I'm left with. I don't think it quite accurately describes my full feelings on the subject, but at least it continues the debate in a way I haven't seen anyone else comment on. Taking advantage of the football metaphors yet to come, I felt a lot like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football ... full of hope and excitement, then disappointed and embarrassed at my naivete in putting my trust in something I should have seen coming the whole time.

    (Image source)

    Despite their claims otherwise, NCARB didn’t tackle the great intern title debate … they punted it. By way of explanation for the uninitiated, in [American] football, a tackle is a defensive maneuver used to control and stop an opponent attempting to advance the football toward their goal.* A punt is when your opponent has prevented you, or your team’s incompetence has prevented you, from advancing the football and your only option is to give your opponent the ball by kicking it downfield, attempting to extend the ground their offense must cover in their subsequent offensive possession.

    I have not been able to find a copy of the final report online from the Future Title Task Force, but based on NCARB’s statement, their recommendations (which were unanimously accepted by the NCARB Board of Directors) were that NCARB restrict the role of title regulation to the title “architect” and that those pursuing licensure do not need to be regulated. First, let me agree that the title “architect” should be regulated for the reasons that NCARB outlines. However, where I disagree is where NCARB punts the intern title issue downfield by saying that it doesn’t need to be regulated.  

    NCARB wants to get out of the intern title ballgame. If there is any question as to why, look no further than NCARB’s President, Dale McKinney, FAIA, and his comments that the title debate is “fraught with controversy.” Consequently, NCARB wants to take the easy way out. They want to focus on the title “architect” (which is already widely agreed upon and accepted) instead of focusing on a meaningful debate on what to call those of us working toward licensure. I suppose it is easier to simply say that if you aren’t an architect, call yourself whatever you want, “just don’t use ‘intern.’”

    Overall, this approach seems misaligned with NCARB’s influence when it comes to the profession. NCARB is not solely focused on registered architects and protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the public by regulating the title “architect.” If they were, no one would have to deal with them until they became licensed. A big part of what NCARB does is administer the Intern Development Program (IDP) and the Architectural Registration Examination (ARE). Both of these are focused on those who aren’t architects yet. Additionally, the recommendations of the task force are counterintuitive with regard to focusing on only regulating titles where needed to protect the public. They make statements that aren’t focused on regulating a title in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public when it comes to architects after retirement.

    There are three groups in the general lifespan of an architect’s post-graduation career. NCARB and the task force identify them as follows:

    1. Those who are pre-licensure (now formerly known as interns),
    2. Those who are practicing and post-licensure (widely acknowledged as architects),
    3. Those who are post-licensure and post-retirement (which some jurisdictions honor with the title “emeritus”).

    The task force confirms the title for group 2 as “architect” and will encourage jurisdictions to regulate this title through resolutions, model laws and regulations. Group 3 was addressed by the task force as well. According to the published comments, “architect emeritus is an acceptable term because it identifies those who have obtained a license but are no longer practicing.” 

    NCARB focuses enough effort to confirm that “architect emeritus” is appropriate for someone after they are done practicing architecture. They say this provides “appropriate notice to the public,” but what notice does the public need for someone who isn’t practicing? Is there any threat to the health, safety and welfare of the public if grandma or grandpa says they used to practice architecture without actually having been registered? No, the regulation of this title isn’t about protecting the health, safety and welfare if the individual isn’t practicing. These are honorary titles that are granted by some jurisdictions that now apparently NCARB and the task force is helping to define. I'm not certain if this term will make it into NCARB's Legislative Guidelines and Model Law in the future. Currently "emeritus" only appears in the model regulations when noting that continuing education requirements need not apply to architects with an inactive status.

    NCARB is willing to advocate for and acknowledge proper terms for architects and post-architects, but nothing for pre-architects. Compared to post-architects, wouldn’t it be more appropriate for the health, safety and welfare of the public to promote a title that identifies those who are actively doing the same job as the architects, but do not carry a license and a stamp? This is, at its essence, what the purpose of IDP is; aspiring architects are to gain experience doing the things an architect does, under an architect’s direct supervision. Between you and me, sometimes aspiring architects even do more of the work of an architect because the architects don’t want to do it anymore (and they’ve earned that ‘rite’ to delegate menial tasks … right?). This whole ‘pre-architect - architect’ relationship is by design, NCARB’s design. NCARB makes aspiring architects dependent on the actual architects for admittance into the profession. NCARB makes aspiring architects do the work of actual architects for admittance into the profession. Now NCARB doesn’t want anything to do with defining a title for those that NCARB itself is creating (or more accurately, not directly creating but at least advocating for the creation of the group by individual jurisdictions through model law, regulations and code).

    NCARB is turning its back on an integral group of the profession that I feel deserves some sort of title. If not deserved out of simple respect, at least deserved out of a duty to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Previously, NCARB advocated for the title of “intern architect” or “architectural intern” in NCARB’s Model Law. Now, most likely because the issue is “fraught with controversy” they want to get rid of the title “intern” but they have fallen short by not offering an alternative regardless of whether or not they advocate for regulation of the title. 

     

    *The football metaphor that NCARB chooses to use is one that causes me to question where they feel like they stand on the issue. Tackling is a defensive maneuver; did NCARB feel like it was on defense with the intern title debate? Were we, the interns, actually on offense the whole time? Did we punt the issue to NCARB to begin with by not coming to some agreement on a title that better served us? If NCARB punted the debate, are we back in control? Do we need to come to an agreement on our own and start advocating for ourselves rather than waiting on NCARB to come up with something? 

     

    ** Follow up to this post here **



     
    • 58 Comments

    • Simple... here's some of your title options:

      BUILDING DESIGNER ( the safe way to saying architectural designer without getting yourself into donating money to the licensing board )

      or DESIGNER

       

      DRAFTER / DRAFTSMAN / DRAUGHTSMAN  - if your role is basically drafting either traditional paper/pen or pencil or with computer 

      CAD Technician (another variant for the Drafter role.

      BIM Drafter, Manager, Technician.... more variant.

      PROJECT MANAGER - if your role is project manager

      DESIGN TEAM Member ? Why not. or Design Staff member

      We already have had for the past 95+ years titles for people in your role that doesn't violate the architect title law.

      BUILDING DESIGNER is appropriate title for ANY intern because ANYONE who designs buildings is a building designer including Architects. However, not every building designer is an Architect.

      Jun 29, 15 3:04 am

      The problem is people are expecting a title be entitled to them. 

      There is alot of titles already available and in use by people in such a role. You are not qualified to a protected title. 

      We agree.

      You are not an architect by statutes of law and therefore you may not represent yourself as such.

      Getting a high school diploma or equivalent doesn't mean anything because that is all that is required to enroll in IDP. When you graduate from architecture school, you are an architecture school graduate. 

      Some states have adopted titles for those in IDP and they almost all use the word "Intern" in the title. 

      In Oregon, you can only use the title "architectural intern" once you have authorization to test for ARE after you obtain an approved professional degree of architecture. Only apply to those with undergoes the professional degree+IDP+ARE path.

      Then again, that is the only initial path to licensure in Oregon at this time.

      Jun 29, 15 3:22 am

      Richard, those formerly known as interns always had those title options and many more. I don't have an issue with anyone using an appropriate title. I'm not sure I'm understanding your point. None of those titles signifies that a person is pursuing licensure. 

      I'm not asking for an entitlement, nor am I asking for a protected title. I actually agree with NCARB and the task force that a title for interns does not need to be regulated. However, I feel it would be appropriate for NCARB to at least acknowledge a title that would signify an aspiring architect's position and status in the profession. All it would have to be is what they are already doing for architect emeritus ... just acknowledge that an appropriate title for those pursuing licensure and currently active in IDP or taking the ARE is ___________.

      To me, the issue really isn't about what can I call myself right now. I think I'm self-actualized enough in my current position that I know what my current title is. However, my current title doesn't even hint at the fact that I am pursuing licensure. However, that is really only a small part of it, a symptom really of a much larger underlying issue. The architecture profession marginalizes its young. The intern title debate is just the most recent manifestation of it. NCARB, rather than putting something out there decided to let the title go away and was hoping that no one would pay attention to the big dot dot dot they left in its place.

      Jun 29, 15 12:29 pm

      Thank you for this, Everyday Intern. I'm in complete agreement with you and also felt very disappointed and let-down after the Future title task Force announcement at the convention.

      My personal hope - apparently too radical - had been for deregulation of "architect" to those with an accredited degree and the new term Registered Architect for those who are licensed. 

      If that was too radical, I was really hoping for an endorsement of Architect-In-Training or Associate Architect or something official that would make a distinction for those who are post-graduation but not yet registered. This is a *required* part of our professional apt; it would seem appropriate to have a formal title for this required episode.

      So, <sigh>. Seemed like a lot of serious effort that hasn't yet been explained sufficiently as to why no serious changes came out of it.  And the direction to "call yourself whatever you want" is insulting, in my opinion.

      Jun 29, 15 12:52 pm
      knoa

      I agree with Everyday Intern, "intern" as a term should be abolished and once you are doing the work of an Architect you should be called an Architect.  People should be allowed to use the term once they start IDP.  All of the other professions allow the use of the full title on graduating school or while working during school, why should we be any different?

      Jun 29, 15 12:56 pm

      We did discuss the NCARB announcement on the podcast the week after it happened.

      Jun 29, 15 1:00 pm

      Thank you Donna, I appreciate your comments. I also appreciated the discussion on the podcast after the announcement at the AIA convention. Your discussion was able to suss out a lot of my initial reactions as well. Many of those I did not feel I needed to repeat here, allowing me more freedom to reanalyze my thoughts on the subject. 

      I'm still on the fence about deregulating "architect" allowing recent graduates to utilize the title and regulating "registered architect" as the title to depict one who has their license. On paper I think it makes a lot of sense, but in reality I think it would make this all more confusing to the public. 

      I would fully stand behind "Architect In Training (AIT)" or "Associate Architect" as long as the profession was in some sort of agreement. It is extremely frustrating when there is not some sort of agreement on title and firms are advertising jobs for Associate Architects, Junior Architects, etc. and one is left wondering exactly what the title means ... is a Junior Architect an intern architect, or a licensed architect with less than X number of years in the profession? For all the issues with "intern," at least it was a standardized title that you could point to a definitive source (NCARB) for it's appropriate use. 

      This is why NCARB's announcement was so frustrating. They offered nothing except, call yourself whatever you want, just not intern. I never really liked calling myself an intern, but I did it anyway because it was the proper use of the term. I actually preferred "Intern Architect" because it was appropriate, proper, and less confusing than just straight "intern." It also distinguished an intern working toward licensure from an intern in a firm's accounting department for example.

      Jun 29, 15 1:55 pm
      ARP1

      So knoa, you think 18 year old graduating high school students who sign up for IDP and get a job drafting during their first year in school should be able to call themselves Architects?  I think that does a disservice to the Public who feel somehow a professional title should come along with experience and knowledge.

      Jun 29, 15 1:57 pm

      ARP1, in knoa's defense, the change to allow high school graduates to enroll in IDP is a very recent change, yes? Didn't one previously have to have at least a few years of experience in an accredited program to enroll in IDP?

      I don't think anyone feels good about a high school grad calling themselves an architect. I preferred the title still be reserved as a regulated title, but one allowed to be used only by those who graduate from an accredited program. This keeps NCARB/NAAB as authorities regarding use of the term.

      Jun 29, 15 2:12 pm
      ARP1

      Well Donna, I am not sure it matters when the change was, the fact of the matter is one can be doing "Architect's Work" at 18 years old and receive NCARB sanctioned credit for it through IDP, and so if that is part of the criteria then it follows HS graduates should be able to call themselves Architects.  I don't agree with it of course but that would logically follow.

      I can tell you right now the websites that advertise Architects in my city have listings for many people who are not Architects.  I have two clients right now (and had more throughout the last few years) that were LITERALLY deceived by the designers they hired into thinking they could sign off on projects, only to find out after paying most of the fees that they had to hire an Architect as well.  How did this happen to smart people?  Because the designers had the term Architect in their title.  They felt "I deserve to be an Architect" but were not, and my clients suffered.  This is extremely bad for public perception of our profession.  It's bad enough seeing what the registered architects pull sometimes, but to have anyone who feels entitled to call themselves an Architect because they signed up for IDP or took drafting classes at the local college is a disservice to the profession and the public.

      Jun 29, 15 2:24 pm

      I wish I had some more information from the task force to confirm this thought, but I think ultimately the task force could not come up with a title that would be acceptable to the jurisdictions.

      Think about it and any future title the task force would come up with needed to meet certain criteria. It needs to be appropriate and respectful (no intern). It needs to be easily understood (Architect In Training, etc.). However, it also needs to not use the word "Architect" or it's derivatives (architectural, architecture, etc.). 

      This last point is based on the fact that NCARB has worked so hard for so long to regulate the title "Architect" and its derivatives, and the various ways that member boards adopted and regulated the term. In order to get a title that all the jurisdictions could agree upon, it would by necessity need to eliminate the word (or derivation) that has caused issues in the past with previous titles. I [sarcastically] love AIA Austin's approach in their terms and conditions to changing titles used in postings on their job boards; "The word "architect" in most states is protected by law. In Texas, you may not attach any prefix or suffix words to "architect," particularly as it regards interns.  AIA Austin will, without notice to the Company, change any such incorrect listing to “Architectural Intern”.

      Can anyone think of a title that is easily understood, appropriate, and doesn't use architect, architectural, etc.? 

      Jun 29, 15 2:29 pm

      ARP1, I don't think your logic follows at all. The entire point of regulating a term is that one has to achieve certain measurable accomplishments to be allowed to use it. I can't call myself a college graduate if I only have a high school degree, why would one be able to use the title of the next-level achievement if one hasn't achieved it yet?

      No one is saying that someone with no accredited degree at all should be able to call themselves an architect (you don't have to capitalize it - it's the word itself that is the regulated title).

      Your clients who thought they were hiring an architect most likely have a fraud claim and I hope they pursue it. But is architectURAL a regulated term in your state? In some it is, in some it isn't.

      Which brings me back to your post, Everyday Intern. I think you are probably right that NCARB was faced with a very challenging task to find a term that could be agreed upon by all the states. They said that this is the first step in a longer process, and I'm trying to be optimistic.  Maybe their plan is to work with the states to remove "intern" from formal usage, and from that process learn more about how to implement a new term across all the jurisdictions?

      Jun 29, 15 2:43 pm

      Everyday Intern:

      Why does it matter to the public that you are pursuing licensure. It isn't you that the client is talking to about matters requiring a licensed design professional. For the most part, you don't talk to the client directly. You talk to your supervisor. 

      If you are in a rather unusual position of being a co-owner (co-principal) of an architectural firm [ legally of course ], then it really doesn't matter. You are a co-owner and the principal with a license to practice architecture where the project is located will be involved with the client's project. If you so choose to tell them you are pursuing licensure... fine. 

      But keep in mind, you're pursuing licensure is a personal act not a public act. You go to college and complete your IDP and take the ARE for personal certifying. Technically, you are not pursuing licensing until you file your application for licensure and paid the fee and submit your records. However, aside from loose talk, this is a personal driven professional development choice. Until you are being legally responsible for a client's project, only then would they care about you possessing a license and to them they don't care if you are pursuing license. They only care if you possess or don't possess an architect license for whatever reason be it that their project requires plans prepared with an architect stamp on it OR they want some degree of assurance you have been 'certified' by third-party which licensing is a form of certification much like professional certifications like NCBDC's CPBD certification program. There is reasons but they don't give a shit about the people hired to assist the preparation of plans and specifications except they want assurance that the project is professionally prepared. 

      Regarding other discussion points: 

      Architectural Firms aren't suppose to be assigning position titles of a protected title to unlicensed persons. Otherwise, I believe that would be a technical form of aiding and abetting unlawful practice of architecture.

      Firms need to stop issuing position titles containing a protected professional title to those who are not licensed.

      Jun 29, 15 4:21 pm

      Noone in the IDP program has to use the Intern title so what the heck is all this attention, focus and energy on this matter.

      Just use some other title that doesn't violate licensing laws.

      Why aren't you guys just calling yourselves designers or 'building designer"?

      You don't need to represent yourself to the public. You are the person the client doesn't see or speak to, that gets things done while the architect is at the meeting. You are the person that goes around taking measurements and photographs while the architect is meeting with the client to discuss project details. 

      You are the person that aids in preparation of powerpoint slides, and pinup the drawings, setup the poster boards on stands and helps sets things up for the 'star' (architect). You are the person who sits in the back of the townhall meetings taking notes from public comments and questions. 

      Remember, the role of a non-architect design staff.... that is YOU in the IDP program, is assisting. You are support cast not the stars. That is your job until you get your license or when you do entire projects with contract in YOUR name in which YOU bear full responsibility for. The purpose of this structured experience program is that you learn from those licensed how to conduct meetings and how to practice as an architect through observation and learn what information needs to be collected during meetings with clients, etc. 

      In other words, you aren't suppose to outshine and draw attention to you. You are suppose to be 'faceless'. This is because you aren't suppose to distract client/public from the architect who is speaking. 

      When you are in meetings within the firm, about design, you again are a supporting role not a leading role because you aren't suppose to be leading anything as that is a distraction and creates confusion about who is in charge and competing for leadership.

      You aren't suppose to compete for leadership. You create your leadership role when you form your own business or when you are CHOSEN (called) to a role of leadership. 

      Some of you, it seems to be where you want to be the star of the show. It's about glamour and glory. 

      It shouldn't matter because frankly, you're not suppose to be dealing with public and client directly in connection with architectural projects.

      This principle is also at heart of the contention between Architects and building designers like myself. You can always be an independently practicing building designer but don't expect Architect ran licensing boards to accept such experience for qualifying because you are going against the grain of the "vision". People like me, are the thorn in the vision.... the thing that goes against the Grand Scheme. I am the ant--grain. I am the antithesis of the thesis. I'm the fly in the ointment. Architectural licensing is the process of the Grand Scheme in which you can be an ARCHITECT in the grand scheme. People like me, are seen as a spoiler because I don't comply with the vision of the GRAND SCHEME.

      But doing so doesn't give me any recognition for experience. 

      If you want the ARCHITECTS to make you part of the club... fraternity, you need to not be the fly in the ointment. 

      Jun 29, 15 5:16 pm

      Richard, you post a lot here, and a lot of it is useful, but your two posts above are gobbledygook. You don't know what you're talking about.

      Jun 29, 15 5:42 pm

      Richard, It is very apparent you do not know what it is like to work at an architecture firm. Interns are commonly placed before clients, the public, consultants, contractors, etc. in the fulfillment of their job duties. Again, this is by design. NCARB wants interns to be able to, at the end of IDP and the ARE to be self-sufficient in practicing architecture. In the 2012 NCARB Practice Analysis of Architecture: Internship Report NCARB states, "By completion of their internship experience, interns are expected to be able to perform the tasks included in the IDP without assistance." This may sound pretty simplistic, but you don't learn how to do architecture, without doing it. This is why education alone does not equal experience in pursuing an architectural license. 

      Even without the goal of IDP to allow independent performance of tasks, Owners still care who is doing the work on their projects and whether or not they are licensed. You must have missed the news article posted about a month ago where an Owner was awarded $5.5 million in a lawsuit filed against their architect because the architect misrepresented their staff.

      Even without the desire to accurately represent yourself (or staff) to a client, consultants, contractors, etc., an accurate and respectful title is important professionally to communicate your intentions to potential employers, or in looking for potential employees. There are times when firms will only be looking for drafters. There will also be times when firms are looking for motivated recent graduates who are looking to become licensed and a firm is willing to aid and support them in that pursuit. A very easy way to communicate this intention is with appropriate titles. I know from personal experience that when I am interviewing for the wrong position because of a lack of clarity in the posting, it is a waste of my time and the potential employers time.

      Jun 29, 15 6:36 pm

      Donna,

      The issue is interns are missing the point. They are spending too much time, energy, etc. worrying about an official title. They are unlicensed designers just like me or anyone else. They are no more an Architect than I am. Just call themselves designers or something else other than saying intern.

      What else I am getting at is they are not suppose to be directly involving themselves with the client or even the public when it comes to architectural projects. They are support role like support cast. They are not the stars. Only principals/owners of an architectural firms and those who are licensed and are the architect of record should be engaged in the star role.

      That was the vision of the Grand Scheme of architectural licensing and those who are not licensed working for architects. Architects are suppose to be the "alpha" personality type making themselves the center of attention. Those who are not, are suppose to be subdued and basically 'faceless' until they earn the role of Architect upon licensure or they can choose to be unlicensed and form their own building design business but don't expect the architect ran licensing boards and NCARB to accept independent building design experience to be acceptable experience not when architects culturally think of building designers as sort of 'cheating'.

      I suppose my similies or metaphors are somehow lost but the role of interning is learning by observation of leadership over an architectural project, conduct leadership in non-architectural works as practice and learning what needs to done for architectural work to be prepared so when they become a principal of a firm, they can instruct and direct the next generation of trainees. 

      IDP training is basically an extension of academic education as a practicum education. It is about learning not about becoming the star. You become the star when you become license and take charge and responsibility to projects or simply when you take charge and legal responsibility to projects. 

      In the mean time, those aspiring to become architects and working towards completing licensure requirements, needs to focus on learning what it is to be an Architect not titles like intern. Come on. You're still a student/apprentice until you are licensed then you can become the teacher. (metaphor) In fact, they have a great number of titles they can use that doesn't violate licensing law. In fact, they do not yet have a responsibility to the public (at least most of them). The public doesn't care. The client doesn't care. They can care less about the design staff. It is like the client can care less about the individual laborers working for a contractor. They don't care if you are licensed or on licensure path. That's a personal thing. It is like don't care if someone is on licensure track to become a doctor or a psychologist or a lawyer. We only care if they have their license. 

      They don't care if you are working on becoming license. The only want to know if you are licensed or not licensed. In other words, keep it to yourselves about whether you are working on the path to licensure well to your professional peers which are the only people who gives a f---. If someone outside the profession asked if you are licensed or not.... just say... "I am not yet licensed. I am working towards becoming licensed."

      You can simplify it further but that is all. That is all they care to know. No one outside this profession cares about the professional licensure process to have a discussion on that. It isn't an interesting subject.

      Jun 29, 15 6:51 pm

      Everyday Intern,

      Yes. I agree but remember, you're the messenger.

      No one working on IDP is suppose to ever work on all phases of any one project and make the decisions on all parts of a project. As that is violation of professional practice of an architect to stamp such projects.

      Just reviewing and stamping drawings and specifications prepared by an unlicensed person is not responsible control or responsible or direct supervision. It is plain out aiding and abetting unlicensed practice of architecture.

      This isn't common only to Oregon. It is pretty much normal throughout most of the U.S.

      Generally, you are not suppose to be the star. Yes, you may contact the client and these other parties but you are suppose to be straight to the point, and keep contact to the minimum. You aren't suppose yo get into deep conversation with the firm's client. In fact, when establishing project program, the architect is suppose to be there. You are suppose to be taking notes.

      During design meetings, the questions and dialog is suppose to be between the client and the Architect. Your dialog with them are strictly incidental and minimal. When talking to contractors, it is suppose to be gather information or relaying information and limited communication as needed. In fact, the architect should have contacted these people to inform them of you going to the job site and why you are there and already have a list of instructions for you and questions that need to be asked. Again, your role in direct communication is minimal and incidental to fulfilling your duties.

      Nowhere during that time would you need to tell any of these parties about you being on licensure path. If asked what your position is, then state it.... "My position is ___________". Any position title using the work "Architect" should be replaced with "Designer" if you are unlicensed. If Project Architect is the normal title... if you are unlicensed then its "Project Designer".

      After all, you are suppose to get the task done and get back. Not a second or two longer than you need to be. You aren't suppose to go to lunch with the client unless with your Architect supervisor. Even then, most of the lunch talk should be between them  and you're just there. Sure, you need to be socially pleasant but besides that, you aren't there to draw attention to yourself. That's my point.

      Jun 29, 15 7:11 pm

      E I,

      Yes, clients cares about who is doing their work. They don't care if you are working towards licensure or not. They care if you are or aren't licensed. 

      I think I said that earlier.

      They can care less about whether you are working towards licensure. If they are asking about your licensure status, they are simply wanting a Yes or No answer on "Are you licensed?" Nothing else.

      Jun 29, 15 7:15 pm

      No one working on IDP is suppose to ever work on all phases of any one project and make the decisions on all parts of a project. As that is violation of professional practice of an architect to stamp such projects.

      Just reviewing and stamping drawings and specifications prepared by an unlicensed person is not responsible control or responsible or direct supervision. It is plain out aiding and abetting unlicensed practice of architecture.

      Richard, none of this is true, and I bolded the most egregious part of your statement. Practice acts (definitely in my state and I'm certain in others) specifically reference that employees under an architect can perform all acts of the work except the stamping:

      Indiana Code: IC 25-4-1-18 Employees under direction of architect 

      Sec. 18. Nothing contained in this chapter shall prevent the draftsmen, students, clerks of works, superintendents, and other employees of those lawfully practicing as registered architects, under the provisions of this chapter, from acting under the instruction, control, or supervision of their employers, 


      And worse, you're missing the overall point. People want to be licensed because it's the culmination of reaching a given level of expertise. People want to work with licensed architects because they know those people have reached a given level of expertise.  

      As Everyday Intern said above, you must not have spent any time working in architecture firms, because you're displaying here either a lack of knowledge about how most firms work or that your only experience has been in really shitty firms.

       

      Jun 29, 15 7:23 pm

      You might want to check: 

      804 IAC 1.1-4-6 Supervisory control; use of signature and seal; gifts; fraud

      http://www.in.gov/pla/files/BRALA_2014_Compilation.pdf

      Professional Standard of care regarding supervisory control essentially mandates that no one unlicensed person prepares plans and specifications in which an architect will be stamping in connection with any one given project. 

      If the unlicensed person prepares every single drawing making decisions on all of it, this gets really into a dangerous territory of "Plan Stamping" because of lack of exercising responsible control which includes exercising restraining powers.

      The fundamental legal intent and enforcement practice of Indiana isn't all that different than Oregon.

      http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_800/oar_806/806_010.html

      806-10-0045

      Then add the NCARB Model Law which is basically integrated into the policy handling of all the licensing board laws and had substantially been integrated into the statutes and regulation of every member board of NCARB.

      "“Responsible control.” That amount of control over and detailed professional knowledge of the content of technical submissions during their preparation as is ordinarily exercised by a registered architect applying the required professional standard of care, including but not limited to an architect’s integration of information from manufacturers, suppliers, installers, the architect’s consultants, owners, contractors, or other sources the architect reasonably trusts that is incidental to and intended to be incorporated into the architect’s technical submissions if the architect has coordinated and reviewed such information. Other review, or review and correction, of technical submissions after they have been prepared by others does not constitute the exercise of responsible control because the reviewer has neither control over nor detailed professional knowledge of the content of such submissions throughout their preparation."

      Direct Supervision - defined in NCARB IDP Guidelines and Supervisor Guideline.

      There is basically direct supervision, responsible supervision and responsible control.

      Indiana is fairly similar to Oregon even by statutory language and this policy is held in Oregon and I am certain similarly held in Indiana. 

      The problem is when an intern (unlicensed designer) prepares all the drawings and specifications for a project in which the architect would be stamping because there would be lack of detailed professional knowledge of the content of submissions (such as: detailed knowledge of information submitted by contractors, manufacturers, and others as the architect would not have evaluation, review and decision making input over the adequacy of submissions or design suggestion of various parties when integrating into the plans).

      If the intern does all the work and the architect is merely reviewing at the end and stamping then this can become a serious problem.

      Sure, an intern may be involved in all aspects of architecture but exercising control and limiting what an intern does on any given project is assuring there is not inadequate responsible control and supervision. There is a line where this becomes unlawful plan stamping and you can get into a lot of trouble which can include revocation or suspension of license and a fine.

      No architect I know lets an intern work and prepare plans and specifications on all portions of any given project. The architects do some portion directly themselves or the work is split across two or more interns and other staff while being supervised. 

      The preparation of plans and specifications includes making design decisions.

      The point is not to let interns go about free reign to do whatever they want and then review at the end. They have to be involved throughout from pre-design through construction document phase. It is an HSW and professional standard of care matter.

      Jun 29, 15 8:47 pm
      JBeaumont

      Richard makes up his own hilarious interpretations of rules and regulations.  Here's some he wrote on another forum claiming that students aren't allowed to dimension their drawings in studio!

      "Have you not noticed that studio projects do not put construction dimensions and students do not prepare comstruction documents in university if the building is non-exempt. This is because if you put dimensions notes indicate the dimensions of walls and the like, for drawings of a non-exempt building.... YOU CAN BE FINED for practice of architecture. In fact, students have been fined in the past and the laws does NOT make legal defined distinction. Students are not exempt.

      I learned this from a retired architect who's wife (also a retired architect) served on the Oregon Board of Architect Examiner's as the first woman in Oregon to serve on the licensing board in the 1960s. 

      So, it matters. Dimensions should not be present.

      I was referring to dimensioned drawings of a non-exempt building UNLESS the student is under supervision and control of a licensed architect. Unless the student is licensed or the project is for such a project in a place where a license is NOT required.

      NAAB does not have legal jurisdiction to require a school to require a student to break the law. There must be an explicit notice that such may not be submitted for permits and that it is conceptual classwork.

      There is NOTHING in the law that exempts students or student classwork. Show me a law that says a student can not be held in violation of the practice of architecture for classwork assignment."

      Teacher assigns you to design the corporate headquarters for an internet big shot company that will be 10 stories tall on a site. Then you are on your own designing it with little to no supervision, or exercised control over the design decisions and have essentially a carte blanche and at the end of the term, you present your construction documents, presentation pinup drawings and model.... That will be a problem for you.

      If those CDs have dimensions whether they were ever really going to be submitted or not - will be a problem. Of course students won't get fined just because they are students. They could and probably would get fined for preparing dimensioned drawings of non-exempt buildings unless they are supervised by an architect. If they are not and does not have the legally required supervision, they could be fined because they are not licensed."

      Jun 29, 15 9:16 pm
      Olaf Design Ninja_

      Richard you have clearly never held a real job in your life, let alone one in an architecture office. Your statements are so naive and off base its hilarious.

      Jun 29, 15 9:19 pm

      Drawings drawn to scale with dimensional information is a construction document. Preparing constructions of a non-exempt building is unlawful practice of architecture regardless of your academic enrollment. If you do so, you must be supervised by a licensed architect.

      It's as stone cold black and white as the text of state statutes says. How is a student exempt from disciplinary action of the licensing board or are they violating the laws they are required to follow?

      Jun 29, 15 9:52 pm

      Richard you wrote this: The point is not to let interns go about free reign to do whatever they want and then review at the end. They have to be involved throughout from pre-design through construction document phase. It is an HSW and professional standard of care matter.

      And again, you're revealing that you don't know anything about how an architecture firm works, because no firm actually works in practice under your exceptionally slippery-slpoe reading of the statue, AND again you're missing the entire point of this discussion which is regarding the regulated term architect.

      And I'm sorry, students could be accused of practicing architecture w/o a license based on their studio work? You're delusional! School isn't business!

      OMG never mind. It's hopeless to try to discuss things of  nuance with you. But I really enjoy your one-liner snipes you toss out every now and again.
       

      Jun 29, 15 10:43 pm
      JBeaumont

      "I am the ant--grain."

      Yes, I think that is the truest thing you've written about yourself Richard.

      And that is not a regulated title so it won't get you in hot water with the board. Just don't dimension anything...

      Jun 29, 15 10:52 pm

      Donna,

      School and Business overlaps a lot more often than you're implying. Especially when schools are engaging in the practice of architecture.

      You do know that happens. I've seen projects done by students for City government and private sector clients that are suppose to be hiring actual architectural firms. If the academic project is PURELY and I mean absolutely PURELY hypothetical for Academic purpose ONLY then yes... but that clean line between school academia and business isn't so clean cut, you know.

      Jun 30, 15 12:01 am

      Donna,

      How exactly is a student preparing construction documents in school for a non-exempt building not unlawful practice of architecture?

      Just because the professor assigned it? The professor might not be licensed and if licensed isn't providing professional degree of supervision and not stamping the drawings.

      Schools are engaging in the business of architecture and are practicing architecture. They been doing that for the past 15-20 years. 

      Under what codified law (statute or administrative) rule allows a licensing board to ignore such acts. The only exemption of Architect licensing laws in Oregon are found in ORS 671.030. There is no other exemption. 

      I've looked at quite of few states' architectural licensing laws, I never seen exemption for school students doing purely academic work. These are like made up rules.

      Licensing boards are no permitted to make up laws or make up rules not explicitly authorized and rules only to scope permitted by the particular statutes. 

      Some of those NAAB accredited schools are businesses and private institutions. How do we know school work isn't also business?

      Jun 30, 15 12:17 am
      Olaf Design Ninja_

      Richard, the real world is much different than you imagine.

      Jun 30, 15 6:46 am
      curtkram

      I'm sure the studios in school that work on actual buildings have the students working under direct supervision of an architect.  Which is clearly allowable.  Architects are allowed to have staff and draftsman and secretaries and such.  

      Jun 30, 15 7:37 am
      knoa

      We should just give the license when one signs up for IDP, it would make this so much easier.  We want easy exams, less training time and to use the professional title early.  I really don't see why everyone hasn't figured this out.  Do you think Palladio, FLW, Gaudi had to take exams or do IDP?  Nope - and look at them.  I agree with Donna and Everyday Intern - let's make it a clean path to licensure.  Sign up for IDP and as long as you are pursuing your hours you are a registered Architect.  All you old-timers like Richard need to understand the world has changed and we are in charge.

      Jun 30, 15 7:38 am

      Seriously, Richard, what Olaf said. Anyone reading this please take everything Richard says on this topic with a HUGE grain of super-skeptical salt.

      knoa: Sign up for IDP and as long as you are pursuing your hours you are a registered Architect.

      I disagree with this. I think one should have passed the exams and filed the proper paperwork with the state to be a registered architect.

      I think the use of the term "architect" should be allowed only by those who have received an accredited degree. They can't stamp drawings or own a professional corporation but they can use the word architect without fear of being sued.

      This discussion isn't about the PATH to licensure, and it isn't about design ability, it's about legal nomenclature and this professional liability and responsibility.  In terms of nomenclature, graduates of accredited programs working in the field shouldn't be equated with college students with a summer job, i.e., interns.

      I'm pleased NCARB made the decision to stop using "intern" in an official capacity and is working with the states to codify this. But by not replacing "intern" with some other formal term it leaves all of us in confusion.

      Jun 30, 15 8:37 am
      kjdt

      Richard, as your board is not open yet for business today, I called my own state's board this morning.  Our rules' definition of "practice of architecture" is identical to Oregon's.  Here is what I was told, verbatim:

      '“Practice of architecture” means the planning, designing or observing of the erection, enlargement or alteration of any building or of any appurtenance thereto other than exempted buildings.  If no building is to be erected, enlarged, or altered then there is no practice of architecture, therefore the vast majority of academic work does not fall under rules or oversight of this board.  An exception would be an academic project that is to be erected -  that would constitute the practice of architecture, and the construction documents might require an architect's stamp, depending on the nature of the project.'

       

      Perhaps your own board has a differing interpretation - you may want to check with them.  In the meantime I will continue to require my students to dimension drawings, without fear of regulatory repercussions.

      Jun 30, 15 9:41 am

      kjdt:

      https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2013ors671.html

      ORS 671.010

       671.010 Definitions for ORS 671.010 to 671.220. As used in ORS 671.010 to 671.220, unless the context requires otherwise:

            (1) “Architect” means an individual qualified and registered to practice architecture under ORS 671.010 to 671.220, a consulting architect or a foreign architect.

            (2) “Board” means the State Board of Architect Examiners.

            (3) “Building” means any structure consisting of foundations, floors, walls and roof, having footings, columns, posts, girders, beams, joists, rafters, bearing partitions, or a combination of any number of these parts, with or without other parts or appurtenances thereto.

            (4) “Consulting architect” means a person who is licensed or registered by a jurisdiction in the United States or Canada to use the title of “Architect” and engage in the unlimited practice of architecture and who is not subject to practice restrictions as the result of disciplinary action by any architect licensing or registration board.

            (5) “Firm” means a corporation, limited liability company or partnership operating under a corporate or assumed business name and engaging in the provision of architectural services.

            (6) “Foreign architect” means a person who is licensed or registered by a country other than the United States or Canada to use the title of “Architect” and engage in the unlimited practice of architecture and who is not subject to practice restrictions as a result of disciplinary action by the architect licensing or registration board issuing the license or registration.

            (7) “Practice of architecture” means the planning, designing or observing of the erection, enlargement or alteration of any building or of any appurtenance thereto other than exempted buildings.

            (8) “Registered professional engineer” has the meaning given that term in ORS 672.002.

            (9) “State building code” has the meaning given that term in ORS 455.010. [Amended by 1957 c.408 §1; 1961 c.585 §1; 1977 c.803 §1; 2003 c.763 §1; 2013 c.196 §1]

       

      This basically means anything not exempted under ORS 671.030 (2)(b) and (2)(c) and (2)(d). There are other exemptions in ORS 671.030 but they are not particularly referring to defining buildings exempt from requiring a license.

      The ORS (statutes) and the OAR (administrative rules - ie. OBAE rules) is available online 24/7.

      http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_800/oar_806/806_010.html

      806-010-0075

      The Practice of Architecture

      (1) The "Practice of Architecture" is defined in ORS 671.010(7) and relates to the professional activities of the registered architect. These activities include all analysis, calculations, research, graphic presentation, literary expression, and advice essential to the preparation of necessary documents for the design and construction of buildings, structures and their related environment whether interior or exterior.

      (2) Individuals or firms may participate in a public architectural design competition in Oregon without first being registered by the Board if the individual or firm holds an active registration to practice architecture in another jurisdiction recognized by the Board subject to all of the following:

      (a) The individual or firm may use the architect title by complying with OAR 806-010-0037.

      (b) If selected as the architect for the project, the individual must apply for Oregon architect registration and is not authorized to perform architectural services on the project until registered by the Board.

      (c) Prior to performing architectural services on the project under any firm name, the architect's firm must meet the requirements of OAR 806-010-0080, 806-010-0110, and ORS 671.041, and become registered with the Board.

      Stat. Auth.: ORS 670 & 671 
      Stats. Implemented: ORS 671.010 
      Hist.: AE 5, f. 12-22-64; AE 1-1979, f. 5-31-79, ef. 6-1-79; AE 1-1984, f. & ef. 8-22-84; BAE 4-2005, f. 8-29-05, cert. ef. 8-30-05; BAE 1-2006, f. & cert. ef. 3-10-06; BAE 2-2006(Temp), f. 3-14-06, cert. ef. 3-15-06 thru 9-8-06; BAE 5-2006, f. & cert. ef. 9-5-06; BAE 6-2014, f. & cert. ef. 7-24-14

      Jun 30, 15 1:01 pm

      kjdt:

      If your board has that codified in the board's administrative rule as it is suppose to be and published that's fine. This needs to be codified and published publically in perpetuity.

      It has to be published publically in perpetuity. Boards are to enforce the statutes and administrative rules pretty much to the letter within a very limited degree of reason. It is not suppose to be read or interpreted in a willy nilly fashion. That you, I and Donna has to agree with. Boards has to be clear and largely consistent with its rules and policies as codified and they can't just make up rules and laws. If you read the statutes and rules as it is written, then you can see what I am talking about. Most states do not have codified statutes or rules exempting activities of students doing activities that are purely academic in nature.

      I read the part in the administrative rule of "... and relates to the professional activities of the registered architect." to relating to any professional services, marketing or other activities that an architect does regardless of whether or not a project is exempt. In that the board still considers "practice of architecture" to apply to architect even if the building is exempt so that architects can not claim their work is not practice of architecture to skirt out of disciplinary actions for unprofessional conduct.

      Because a strict interpretation of the statutes would imply that practice of architecture does not apply to any exempt buildings. To a point, that would be true BUT because the board rule for practice of architecture, it means that even if the project is exempted building under ORS 671.030 (2)(b) or (2)(c) or (2)(d), it is still practice of architecture if an architect is preparing the plans and specifications for the project (or it is prepared under his/her supervision and control). 

      There is reason for that interpretation because you have to read back on the context of the board administrative rules as it has changed over the years as well as other emphasized points made by the board over the years regarding activities of a licensed architect. 

      This is where digging into some really old board minutes brings light to that. 

      Jun 30, 15 1:27 pm

      Donna,

      The term "intern" doesn't mean summer unpaid temp jobs.

      The simple problem is IDP is an extensively long structured internship by design. The closest thing to this role is apprentice but apprentice is a term used in trades like the construction trade.

      The simple problem is there is NO term in English language that would be equally or better fitting without turning the whole architectural title law on its head. It means we would have to loosen up on the Architect title like Architect-In-Training (AIT). The IDP be renamed (AITDP)

      But here's the thing, our policy is you're not an Architect until licensed. 

      Where to controversy falls is we don't have an english word in our english language that would be appropriate and there is the inherently controversial allowance of titles consisting of "Architect" by those not licensed. That is what someone in IDP is. UNLICENSED.

      We know damn well, those fogies don't want me using such a title.

      Jun 30, 15 1:40 pm
      jla-x

      RB is a time traveling bot sent from the post apocalyptic future by the 'future title task force' to make non-licensed people look like idiots...see, in the future ncarb lets anyone call themselves architects which eventually leads to the apocalypse...to save humanity ncarb creates RB to change public perception of the unlicensed practice of architecture so that the title can remain protected and humanity can survive...Im working on the screen play...Sure hope Steve Buschemi is available to play RB.     

      Jun 30, 15 1:46 pm

      Richard, do you have an accredited architecture degree, or do you qualify to sit for the exam under  the BEA terms?

      In most professions the word "intern" means someone who likely isn't getting paid, is likely is still in school, and is likely very young relative to the profession. Within the architecture profession, we all know that 50-year-old "interns" exist - those who just never bothered to get licensed but can't use the term architect legally.

      Think about this scenario: three firm members go to interview for a commission and one of them is introduced as a firm Partner, one as a Project Manager, and one as an Intern.  The interviewers - who are not architects and not well-versed in our nomenclature - will tend to classify the intern as someone young and inexperienced and possibly even unpaid.

      It's good for our whole profession to stop using intern to describe people who likely have a lot more experience and knowledge than what people imagine when they hear the word "intern". I'm disappointed that NCARB didn't suggest a new term that would cover it.

      Jun 30, 15 1:55 pm

      Look at what the definition of the word "intern" is? Not because pop culture application of the term. If we go by every bastardized use of the term in our clinically insane pop culture, we might as shit can our whole english language and make up a new words with a regulatory board in control of establishing new words to the language and its definition. 

      I already told you guys how to not use the intern title that already is available. Just use those titles. How the hell is NCARB going to rename the IDP program? God only knows.

      People are too worried about a title used strictly for administrative purposes of paper work processing. What you tell people is what your position title is in a legally compliant manner. Such as "Project Manager". That's what he/she is. 

      Donna, BEA terms requires 10 years of POST-LICENSURE experience. If I have an accredited degree, I wouldn't be in the BEA track. I have to get initial licensure somewhere for that. 

      Do I qualify to sit for the ARE, it depends on the state and when they allow someone to start taking the ARE.

      The problem is there is only two alternative terms that are universal for this. Lets not even have a title. Here is how we can rename IDP altogther.

      Architectural Structured Experience Program - (ASEP).

      Before, IDP, people were known by their positional title in a manner that complies with the laws. At interview or commission, you simply don't misrepresent an unlicensed person as a licensed person and simply use position titles that are legally compliant and use those positional titles. If you are a principal of a firm, it is your collective responsibility as principals (partners) of the firm to make sure the position titles are legally compliant and are appropriate to the role. The client can care less about whether someone is in IDP or whatever it be called. They only care if someone is licensed or not and who that is licensed will be responsible for the plans and specifications for the project so they know who to hold accountable.

      The public at large and clients literally do not give a fuck if someone is on their path to licensure or where they are at. They don't give a shit about how many training hours Mr. Jones has. Those matters are between the person enrolled in IDP and their supervisors. It isn't a matter to the general public interest or even to those interviewing your firm. 

      They will at most want to  see essentially a resume profile not the IDP training hours spreadsheet.

      Jun 30, 15 2:26 pm

      BEA terms requires 10 years of POST-LICENSURE experience.

      Wait, what?

      Jun 30, 15 3:47 pm

      OK, sorry, I was confused. Aren't there still a few states where one can get a license without any accredited degree and also without being registered in another jurisdiction already, but just by having practiced in a firm for enough years? I think Will Bruder got licensed this way.

      Back to the word intern: you missed the part where I said non-architects have a set meaning in their mind when they hear the word "intern". That's not a pop bastardization of a term, that's a reality of language.

      Jun 30, 15 3:52 pm
      kjdt

      On the intern issue: The reason that NCARB didn't recommend a particular title is that when the task force ran the issue by the state boards many were adamant about their own currently allowed and disallowed titles.  About 15 states allow "Architect in Training" (AIT) for somebody with an active NCARB record - most of those indicated they'd strongly prefer to keep this title - while many other states indicated a strong position against allowing any title with any variation of the word architect in it.  Because of that fundamental split, NCARB chose merely to eliminate "intern" and leave the states to their own devices as to what to replace it with, if anything.  If you feel strongly about a particular title, or about differentiating between those on the license path and those who are languishing drafters, make some noise at your state board.

      As for the dimensioned drawing issue: when I called my state this morning I spoke with the legal counsel in the office of the Commissioner of the DCP (that's the department that oversees the architecture board here.)  I was told that the operative word in the definition of architectural practice is "building".  Drawings, planning, etc. that is undertaken by students for academic purposes is not done in the service of erecting or altering buildings or their purposes, or even for speculative purposes in the consideration of possibly erecting or altering buildings.  It's purely academic (notional, conjectural, for purposes of learning or demonstration).  Therefore student work does not fall under the purview of the board in the first place.

      Certainly there are some student projects that are intended to be built, and are built.  My M.Arch is from a school that undertakes one or more real building projects every year.  The supervision and methods of production of those drawings that were developed into construction documents for permitting purposes were different than for the average studio project, and in line with the type of supervision that occurs in firms, and were stamped by a licensed professional.  That type of project falls under the definition of "practice of architecture", but the vast majority of student projects do not - according to my state's attorney for professional practice matters. 

      If you really believe that Oregon shares your community college "You And The Law" course level interpretation, why don't you write a letter to them and get an official position to back you up?

      Jun 30, 15 3:54 pm
      kjdt

      Yes, there are several states where one can still get a license with no degree.  In some only a high school diploma is required.  The years of practice required range from 7 to 13 in various states, and depending on the applicant's education and work history.

      Re "intern" - I absolutely agree Donna.  It's been more than a decade since I've been an intern, but I learned very quickly not to use that around non-architects.  Many would hear "intern" and immediately ask me what year in college I was and when I was going back to school.  One of my employers asked me not to use it because it gave the impression I was temporary, and much less experienced than I was at that point.

      Also because of the era in which I was an intern, the word had a widely-understood salacious undertone (think Monica Lewinsky.)

      Jun 30, 15 3:59 pm

      kjdt:

      Laws are to be enforced the way they are written. This is because law is to be transparent with zero hidden meanings like intent because intent is a perspective that each and every member of legislature of any state or the U.S. will have their own opinion.

      Laws are written and amended over time but they must hold their written meaning without hidden meaning.

      At least that is what they are hired and paid or otherwise tasked to do with honor of privileges of serving the public on these board with trust.

      When they are not, then we have a problem of management and a deeper troubling situation where the board makes up rules on a willy nilly fashion without authority to do so including favoritism and god knows what else. Now there is an ethics topic.

      Jun 30, 15 5:08 pm
      kjdt

      It IS being enforced as written.  It is written to define the practice of architecture as applying to buildings or additions or alterations to buildings or their appurtenances.  If there's no building as the end product - even speculatively - then there's no practice of architecture.

      If I, as an architect, draw a building because a client plans to build it, that's practicing architecture.   If I draw a building for speculative purposes - say for example that somebody wants to have a cost estimate based on my drawings, to see if the project is feasible, or somebody wants to see what can fit on the site and how, that's also practicing architecture.  But there is no actual or speculative building involved when I student draws for academic purposes. 

      I'm going home this evening to draw a fully dimensioned, detailed castle for myself with a full set of specs, and I'm going to frame it and have it hung in an art gallery.  The board can't do anything about me not stamping it, or about it being structurally unsound, having no ADA access to the turrets, no indoor plumbing, too many inches of unprotected spray foam insulating the door to the torture chambers, and 92'-7 1/2" taller than allowed by zoning.  There's no real or speculative building.  It's art. I can draw whatever I want and put dimensions all over it.

      It's astounding to me that you don't understand this. It's not complicated. Ask your own state board's legal counsel to explain it to you better.

      What if I come to Oregon and while I'm there on vacation I dimension drawings for a client's 4002 square foot office building in my home state? If Oregon finds out am I going to be fined for unlawful practice of architecture?  What if I draw the same office building while in Oregon but it's intended for publication in Office Building Monthly?  What if I draw the same office building here in my own state, but I draw it on a map of Astoria, Oregon? Practicing unlawfully? What if I draw it on Mars? How about if I tattoo the plans on my cat? What if the cat stows away in a truck and turns up in Oregon?  What if 1000 monkeys go to community college to learn AutoCAD and one of them accidentally designs Astoria City Hall?  Is the monkey trainer practicing unlawfully?

      Jun 30, 15 5:31 pm
      jla-x

      Did they recently legalize marijuana in Oregon?

      Jun 30, 15 5:59 pm

      What about stock plans for prototypical buildings that are non-exempt? What if that is the academic assignment and neither the professor is a licensed architect nor a licensed architect involved providing supervision and the school's client decides to take the plans to the building department. 

      Of course if you are designing for a building that is clearly and contractually written indicating the project is not in Oregon, it doesn't matter where you are. If however, the project is speculative to be built anywhere then you could be in violation of licensing law not just in Oregon but just about every state. Who says the student's work doesn't get submitted for permit?

      I avoid placing dimensions on academic work for reason that I would be preventing the drawings from being submitted for permits.

      The best thing to do is A) not show dimensional information and B) Don't have indication of any particular site location... ie. don't state which state or city and state or anything that would indicate where the the project is proposed to be located.

      I'd make it clear, I don't care if you visit Oregon on vacation and work on a project for an out of state client but if you work on a project to be located in Oregon or you take a building you designed for another state and reuse it here in Oregon using a site plan in a location in Oregon and you don't have a license in Oregon, I can report your butt  if I want to. 

      Of course, designing a planet on Mars would be out of Oregon jurisdiction and would be the jurisdiction of whatever government having authority on Mars if there even one.

      I don't care if you design a building to be located in UrAnus. Just make sure you don't have Klingons.

      For all its worth, if licensing boards are going to not hold academic work as practice of architect, then make sure it is CLEARLY indicated in administrative rules at the very least. 

      Jun 30, 15 7:35 pm

      jla-x, maybe some of the smoke drifted down from Washington. Just wait a bit and the paranoia will wear off. Someone get RB a bag of Cheetos.

      Jun 30, 15 7:45 pm
      alphabits

      If someone is going to take drawings done by a student for an academic project and submit them for a permit for a real non-exempt building, they'd have to get someone to stamp those drawings.  It isn't the student who is at any fault in that situation or who is practicing illegally, it's the architect who stamps the drawings without having been involved in their creation.  Who cares if the class publishes a book of stock plans of student designs for non-exempt projects? If someone stamps them, they're the one practicing illegally, not the students.  The students aren't practicing architecture at all.  The law as you quoted it is quite clear on that - you're the one who seems to be lacking clear comprehension.

      Your logic seems to be that if an unlicensed person draws something with dimensions and leaves it lying around, somebody else is going to pick it up and try to get a building permit with it.  If someone tried that they'd be told they need stamped drawings, and then they'll need to go find an architect, and then if the architect just stamps the students' drawings then the architect is the one violating the law. 

      Jun 30, 15 7:55 pm
      Olaf Design Ninja_

      lay off the weed man.

      Jun 30, 15 8:08 pm

      Block this user


      Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

    • Back to Entry List...
  • ×Search in:
 

About this Blog

An ellipsis [...] is used to signal an omission, an unfinished thought, aposiopesis, or brief awkward silence. Architectural ellipses are those aspects of the profession we (perhaps intentionally) omit, gloss over, or let dwindle in silence. Generally applied this blog should encompass many aspects of the profession. Yet, as an intern architect I'll focus primarily on the architectural ellipses that occur in the internship process.

Authored by:

Recent Entries