I don't have time for a long post, so I'll have to come back and write more on this later. But I can't get this article out of my head.

Architects, doctors and lawyers have all traditionally needed licenses to practice professionally. But young architects [including this one] are questioning the necessity and value of a license in their own lives. For me, the idea of going back to school and then sitting through exams sounds like an awful lot of time and money, and I'm questioning the direct benefit. Not all architecture requires a license. My skill set is applicable to many other things besides architecture. I mean, that's what this blog is all about. I've been thinking for quite some time that It might not be worth it for me to get licensed, that I can practice in other ways successfully.

But this article stopped me in my tracks: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/no-we-cant-let-just-anybody-be-a-lawyer/247467/

Disclaimer: it's about lawyers, not architects. If you hate lawyers, hate reading about them, hate thinking about them, don't read this article.

Apparently, there is a pair of scholars, Clifford Winston and Robert Crandall [those are like WASPy movie character names!] traveling around preaching a revolutionary idea about the law industry: deregulation. They say, "the legal industry works like a cartel. Requiring lawyers to graduate law school and pass a state bar exam artificially limits the supply of lawyers, pushing up prices. The process also blocks potential business innovations that would bring down costs."

This sounds like standard modern business rhetoric: open up the playing field, let people compete, let innovation happen.

The interesting part of their argument [for me] was this: "ABA occupational licensing requirements have allowed lawyers to create a club with a limited membership that is able to raise prices to consumers, which is how top lawyers can get away with charging upwards of $1000 per hour for their time."

I think their argument is flawed, and here's why. If exclusivity sets the high prices, then why can't architects charge at the same level? Architects have a much harder time billing for their hours than other professional practices--doctors and lawyers.

It's not the club, because we have that too. It's not the rigorous education or the arduous exam process--we've got that down.

It's the circumstances under which we're hired. Doctors and lawyers are hired out of necessity, and often fear. They are hired to clean up messes, to make problems go away.

We are hired for a very different reason. Sure, we clean up messes; sure, we deal with complicated problems. But our value is not just one of coordination and technological expertise. Our value is beauty, joy. People are willing to pay to escape misery, but they skimp on attaining joy.

My question is: what can we do to fix this?

My other question is: if the exclusivity of licensure increases our value, are we [am I] doing myself a disservice by pursuing alternate routes?