With growing criticism over how lengthy, expensive, and exclusive getting licensed can be, and a rising cohort of unlicensed practicing designers reshaping what it means to work in architecture, architectural licensure finds itself in a moment of relative crisis. Will the long-standing arrangement of education, apprenticeship, and rigorous examination continue or will new titles and firm structures usher in a post-licensure era?
To add to the conversation surrounding these licensure issues, Archinect recently connected with Robert M. Calvani, FAIA, NCARB and Alfred Vidaurri Jr., FAIA, NCARB, AICP, the 2020 President and 2021 President-Elect, respectively, of the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, the independent organization that coordinates and supports licensure in the United States.
Archinect caught up with Calvani and Vidaurri to discuss their plans for the next two years, how NCARB is aiming to support diversity initiatives, and how the profession might move forward during this time of tumult, questioning, and change.
What are some of the goals you have set for the next year / two years leading NCARB?
Robert Calvani: As NCARB’s 2020-2021 president, one of my main areas of focus this year is on architectural practice and ethics. More specifically, I have started several task forces that will explore the issues of incidental practice (when related professionals such as engineers or interior designers offer services that should be done by a licensed architect) and responsible charge when signing and sealing documents. These can be gray areas of practice many architects encounter on a daily basis, and I believe NCARB can offer leadership and insight into these issues to help guide both licensing boards as they regulate the profession and architects as they practice.
NCARB has a very important role to play in the ongoing discussions regarding equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in the architecture profession
I’m also eager to see NCARB go further in communicating the work that it and the state licensing boards do, to better raise awareness of both the importance and the process of earning an architecture license. By doing this, we can help consumers of architectural services make more informed choices, as well as encourage individuals of all backgrounds to pursue architecture as a career path.
And finally, NCARB has a very important role to play in the ongoing discussions regarding equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in the architecture profession. This year, our Diversity Collaborative Task Force is charged with providing suggestions to increase diversity in NCARB’s leadership pipeline, and I hope NCARB and those it serves will see the results of their work in the years ahead.
Alfred Vidaurri: Like President Calvani, I am also eager to see NCARB fully embrace its role in encouraging EDI in the profession. Next year, I will become NCARB’s first ever Latino president, and I look forward to using that position to encourage equity at each stage of the licensure process—starting at the very beginning, by working with our partner organizations to raise awareness of the licensure path. I want us to identify potential impediments along the path and within our own organization’s path to leadership. As architects, we are trained to be problem solvers, so I have great confidence that we’ll rise up to the challenges before us.
I want us to identify potential impediments along the path and within our own organization’s path to leadership.
In addition, my year as president will likely include finalizing the results of NCARB’s next Analysis of Practice, a study that explores current and near-future architecture practice and informs the evolution of NCARB’s programs. One of my goals is to ensure that the path to licensure remains relevant and forward-looking for years to come. Similarly, I want us to use the insight and research from our Futures Task Force to continue to inform and impact our future strategies and goals. Our profession also continues to be challenged with efforts of deregulation, which I believe would be harmful to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Because of this, we’ll need to continue to support and be a crucial resource for jurisdictions in the area of advocacy.
What insights from your past professional or academic experience are you hoping to integrate or utilize while you lead this organization?
RC: Throughout our profession, architects are thought of as problem solvers. That expertise is applicable and valuable to me with an organization like NCARB. Problems and opportunities arise as the profession and world changes. With our various groups of stakeholders—like our 55 jurisdictions and their Member Boards, our volunteers and staff, our Certificate holders and emerging professionals, and partner organizations—a collaborative approach is needed to build consensus regarding a number of initiatives. Architects use a model to identify goals and needs, then develop concepts to arrive at solutions. This same model will apply to various problems we need to resolve within our committees and task forces.
AV: I have been a practitioner for 37 years and have personally witnessed amazing change and evolution within our profession. Through my journey, I have gained many important lessons that are timeless and still relevant today. I started my regulatory experience when I was appointed by the Texas Governor to the state’s licensing board—serving on the Texas Board for 12 years and as the chair of the board for the last seven years. It is through that board service that I first became involved with NCARB. Since then, I’ve stayed connected with architectural education as an adjunct professor, represented NCARB on two Accreditation Review Conferences, and conducted a number of National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) visits across the country. All of these experiences have provided me with a sound foundation of understanding and interest, which I plan to bring to the table while president.
When approaching challenges, I like to seek insight and hear the voices of others first. I enjoy challenging the current models of process and thinking beyond today. Being a focused and careful listener, while encouraging diverse voices to participate in the conversation has been one of the most important lessons I’ve learned to date, and has become a common practice in my day-to-day work and career.
What are some of the biggest challenges facing people who are pursuing licensure today?
RC: Although the path to licensure continues to evolve with the profession, the biggest challenges we see candidates facing are similar to those that I saw when I was pursuing a license: cost and time. The licensure process requires a significant investment of both. When it comes to cost, NCARB is doing everything we can to keep the cost of licensure as low as possible for candidates—in fact, the cost of the AXP and ARE are subsidized by our programs for licensed architects.
Our data shows that people of color are 31 percent more likely to stop working toward licensure than white candidates, and we’re working with NOMA to fully explore why that is and where we can offer support to reduce that disparity.
But when it comes to time, I’d like to see NCARB continue to explore ways to shorten the time to licensure. Maintaining the rigor of the licensure process is important; however, the path to licensure is nearly 13 years, which may prevent some of the best and brightest people from entering our profession. I’d like to look at shortening that time by understanding how our different programs work together, how they don't work together, and where we can make adjustments. In addition, we think it’s important for higher education to revisit its current models.
Additionally, disparity along the path is something NCARB is committed to studying and offering solutions to this year. Our data shows that people of color are 31 percent more likely to stop working toward licensure than white candidates, and we’re working with the National Organization of Minority Architects (NOMA) to fully explore why that is and where we can offer support to reduce that disparity. We are also continuing a “bias audit” of both the AXP and the ARE to ascertain whether we can adjust the content and delivery of those programs should there be findings of unconscious or conscious bias. So far, the findings indicate no issues, but we will know more in the coming year.
How would you like NCARB to have changed during your tenure?
RC: One of the things I’d like to see change is shortening the path to licensure by continuously evaluating and updating our programs. As I mentioned above, while I believe that maintaining the rigor of the licensure process is important, the path to licensure as it stands may prevent some of the best and brightest people from joining our profession. As president, I’d like to enact updates that will take effect within the near future.
while I believe that maintaining the rigor of the licensure process is important, the path to licensure as it stands may prevent some of the best and brightest people from joining our profession.
AV: In the past, the organization has issued data, created a task force, issued a statement, and sought new partnerships as means of improving diversity along the licensure path. We are now seeing more diversity among candidates and students, but collectively we and other organizations still have more work to do. I’d like to see NCARB go even further with our own EDI efforts, such as identifying and addressing specific barriers along the path to licensure through our ongoing audits and surveys. And while we have a diverse pool of committee volunteers, the larger pool of licensing board members and those who are elected to serve in leadership are areas needing improvement so we can better reflect the diverse communities we serve.
There has been renewed debate over the continued need and relevance of professional architectural licensure in recent years, especially with regards to how lengthy, expensive, and difficult it is to attain licensure for marginalized and underrepresented groups. What can be done at this point in time to reverse that legacy?
RC: Let’s start by acknowledging that the primary contribution to length and expense in the licensure process is architectural education. We believe that it is feasible to offer a four-year accredited degree and still comply with existing standards, which would address access and cost. Further, the “legacy” of longer times in the experience and examination phases is being slowly erased in several ways. Most significantly, the 21 programs that now participate in the Integrated Path to Architectural Licensure (IPAL) are providing the opportunity to complete AXP and take each division of the ARE before graduation. In addition, the reduction of AXP hours by one third and the addition of the AXP Portfolio option for those who have stepped out of the licensure path have addressed time and inclusion issues. The elimination of one ARE division and the reduction of the retest wait time from six months to 60 days along with instant unofficial delivery of test results before leaving the test center has added to a sense of quicker accomplishment. The existence of alternatives and the improvements in outreach have contributed to the current data indicating an increasingly diverse candidate pool.
We believe that it is feasible to offer a four-year accredited degree and still comply with existing standards
Further, in the spring of this year, we conducted a survey with NOMA to better understand the specific areas where marginalized and underrepresented groups struggle compared to their peers. We had an overwhelming response to the survey, and throughout my year as president, we will be working with NOMA to analyze the results and offer solutions.
Part of that process includes looking at the AXP and ARE with a critical eye, to see if there are areas where these programs disproportionately impact minority professionals and make adjustments as necessary. We plan to continue our ongoing bias study of both programs.
AV: In addition, there is a real need to see minority professionals in leadership positions within architecture—at the firm level, as well as at the organizational level. In particular, NCARB is working to increase representation in our volunteer pool including governor-appointed licensing board members, which in turn will increase the pool of potential future leaders, so that people of all backgrounds have a voice and a hand in evolving our programs and services.
there is a real need to see minority professionals in leadership positions within architecture—at the firm level, as well as at the organizational level.
In 2019, the AIA, along with NCARB and other professional organizations in various industries, launched the Alliance for Responsible Professional Licensing (ARPL), “a new coalition of technical professions focused on educating policymakers and the public about the importance of rigorous professional licensing standards.” How is this effort going and what are its ultimate goals?
RC: Over the past several years, a number of states have introduced legislation that could restrict or completely eliminate licensing boards’ ability to protect the public—unknowingly making the licensure process for architects more difficult to complete when compared to the established NCARB Certificate process. However, NCARB, along with the rest of ARPL’s member organizations, understood that eliminating professional licensing would shift the burden of determining “bad actors” from regulatory boards to consumers. Because of this, ARPL was created, and largely focuses its efforts on promoting the benefits of reasonable regulation, professional licensing, and proven mobility pathways; educating policymakers on the important role complex professions play in protecting the public’s health, safety, and welfare; and advocating for clear, uniform paths to licensure and reciprocity.
ARPL was created, and largely focuses its efforts on promoting the benefits of reasonable regulation, professional licensing, and proven mobility pathways
Since its inception in early-2019, NCARB has facilitated many of ARPL’s core data studies, including a partnership with Benenson Strategy Group to conduct a survey on the public perception of licensure. Currently, NCARB is closely working with ARPL to investigate additional research opportunities to develop data that reinforces the benefits licensing provides to refute oft-cited claims—mainly stating that licensing creates barriers to entry into a profession and has a dampening effect on a state’s workforce availability, economy, and competitiveness.
In recent years, with the retirement of the “intern” job title, there has been a growing effort to recognize and identify those design professionals who work in the field but are unlicensed. At the same time, the terms “architect” and even “architectural designer” are often illegal to use for unlicensed individuals; Can you share your thinking on how these workers might identify themselves moving forward and how NCARB is engaging with the growing number of unlicensed architecture workers?
RC: Retiring the title “intern” has been a long-standing discussion in our profession. In May 2015, NCARB announced our decision to stop using the term at the organizational level, acknowledging professional titling to be at the discretion of each jurisdiction. However, given that our members’ focus has not been on regulating unlicensed individuals other than those practicing without a license, replacing the term is a much more complex task that ultimately relies on what is allowed by your state board and is arguably as much a business decision as a legal one.
Each state regulates architecture within its borders, including the architecture title. Because of varying terminology and each jurisdiction’s independent rule-making process, it is unlikely that there will be a single replacement for the term intern. NCARB refers to unlicensed individuals who are pursuing an architecture license as “licensure candidates.” This is a phrasing that makes sense in the context of an individual applying for licensure, but we recognize it doesn’t function as a professional job title.
it is unlikely that there will be a single replacement for the term intern
There are ongoing conversations about the “para-professionals” in our community who provide significant project and client support. Terms ranging from senior designer, to project manager and other designations are at the discretion of employers. Legal terms of art such as those contained in the International Codes and NCARB Model Law restrict the use of “architect,” “professional,” and their derivatives.
The COVID-19 pandemic has shut down licensure examinations across the country, though there has been an effort to re-open testing facilities in recent weeks. How has this disruption influenced thinking around the format of ARE examinations?
RC: Starting a number of years before the pandemic hit, NCARB—including its staff, volunteers and consultants—had been actively exploring the feasibility of remote examination delivery. In the recent past, the ability of vendors to meet NCARB’s security and rigor standards, as well as address customer expectations, has improved dramatically. The testing industry has learned, sometimes the hard way, how to deliver lesser credentialing exams in the remote format, which in turn has laid the foundation for more complex licensing examinations to follow. Now, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought many unforeseen challenges to the profession, including the disruption of many candidates’ licensure journey due to test center closures and limited seat availability. Because of this, we have prioritized our efforts to research and understand ways we can best enable current (and future candidates) to take the exam both through a reliable test center network and remote proctoring, while also ensuring the preservation of the exam’s rigor expected from all member licensing boards.
the COVID-19 pandemic has brought many unforeseen challenges to the profession, including the disruption of many candidates’ licensure journey due to test center closures and limited seat availability.
With so many changes and updates due to the status of the global pandemic, NCARB—with the help of subject matter experts, staff, volunteers, and psychometricians—to effectively deliver remote proctoring exams safely and securely as soon as possible. Currently, we’re in the process of selecting a test administration vendor and determining the exact changes needed to be made to the exam’s structure and format. Because we understand how time-sensitive this is, we’re focusing a majority of our efforts to re-approach and best execute a national examination prepared to withstand the challenges of today and those the future may hold.
Antonio is a Los Angeles-based writer, designer, and preservationist. He completed the M.Arch I and Master of Preservation Studies programs at Tulane University in 2014, and earned a Bachelor of Arts in Architecture from Washington University in St. Louis in 2010. Antonio has written extensively ...
24 Comments
Good interview, on an important topic. I just can't help but think: If these gentlemen and their ideas are the future of the profession in this tumultuous time, where we are we headed? We ought instead to be questioning how architects and the profession have long been complicit in the structural racism and increasing inequality of our society, and looking for more creative and radical reforms to who is an architect and who should be served by the profession.
very on point.The problem is the members who populate AIA,NCARB and ARCHITECTURE schools.The people create the systems.Licensed Members have destroyed the profession through biased gatekeeping.Architecture is a subjective profession therefore it is easy to create barriers to entry for people that are different from whoever is hiring.AIA members have failed miserably and now a huge cohort of the profession is facing retirement having been unable to train a demographic that reflects the society to replace them;a long term crisis in the making.there is a likelihood that architects will lose out as technology transforms society and developers take a prominent role.This interview should have happened a long time ago.These people have been in the profession almost 40 years.They benefited from the structural problems by minimizing competition.Change can be difficult.The profession has failed to change to be equitable and honest.Technology will render architects obsolete in their current roles and as demographics change they will be unable to serve the society effectively.
It's debatable whether NCARB should exist at all. In theory, it should be a small coordinating council of free-thinking state boards, but the reality is the opposite. NCARB dictates their self-serving and self-perpetuating policies in a top-down arrangement from NCARB HQ in Washington. This set-up is funded by crazy-high fees for reciprocal licensing, AXP, and the ARE.
It's amazing how an non-governmental organization like NCARB has assumed de facto control over government agencies (state boards) across the USA.
Most state boards have a deeply incestuous relationship with NCARB and thus will never consider any alternatives to the status quo NCARB licensing monopoly. This will not change until state board members are barred from accepting anything of value from NCARB and NCARB's luxurious conferences and events for state board members are eliminated.
This is why the profession does not reflect the underlying demographics at least if it was a state body it would have been easier to set regulatory standards that champion equity and diversity.
There is no need whatsoever to reflect the underlying demographics for architects to do a good job, it is about clients and client needs, that's our job irregardless of our skin colour, ethnicity, sex, religion, sexuality or whatever and irregardless of the skin colour, ethnicity, sex, religion, sexuality or whatever of the client. To assume that only people of the correct "chosen" background can serve that same demographic is divisive, segregationist, racist and sexist and goes against every notion of equality and humanity and the universal declaration of human rights.
NCARB exists because licensure in the USA is a matter of state law, so some sort of clearinghouse entity is necessary to make it easier for licensed professions to work across state lines. All the other stuff NCARB does outside of that is just bureaucratic featherbedding for their own purposes.
It probably should be a federal org, and not private the way it is now. We would also probably be better off if there were fewer licensed architects out there rather than more.
NCARB can't have it both ways. NCARB can't remove the barriers to licensure for BIPOC designers and maintain the status quo.
"When it comes to cost, NCARB is doing everything we can to keep the cost of licensure as low as possible for candidates—in fact, the cost of the AXP and ARE are subsidized by our programs for licensed architects."
Not nearly subsidized enough. The exam itself is a minimum of $1,410 + the cost of an NCARB record. Then there's the giant and predatory test prep industry that has formed around the ARE.
"Let’s start by acknowledging that the primary contribution to length and expense in the licensure process is architectural education. We believe that it is feasible to offer a four-year accredited degree and still comply with existing standards, which would address access and cost."
This is NAAB's jurisdiction. I find it interesting that NCARB wants to make changes to education while continuing to collect fees for the lengthy AXP and ARE process. Also, removing 1 year from education brings us down to 12 years? The average amount of time for African Americans by the way is 14.5 years so I dont find this change to be significant at all. The bulk of the time is wasted in the ARE and AXP not the 3-5 years spent on an education.
"We are also continuing a “bias audit” of both the AXP and the ARE to ascertain whether we can adjust the content and delivery of those programs should there be findings of unconscious or conscious bias. So far, the findings indicate no issues, but we will know more in the coming year."
Please publish this audit and the findings from the study. I am highly skeptical. I address a lot of these concerns in this blog post: https://medium.com/ctrl-alt-de...
"So far, the findings indicate no issues, but we will know more in the coming year."
This was the first thing that caught my eye. I want to know what criteria they used to get to this conclusion; the how, matters.
60-70 year plus, white architects, cannot be trusted, and they don't even acknowledge their own blind spots, or biases.
If there were no issues the profession would be reflecting underlying demographics.Architects cannot regulate themselves just us the schools cannot regulate themselves.One of the ways schools can eliminate bias is having outside examiners to come in multiple times during the semester and grade students.Then the average from both internal and external scores is used with continuous bias training among the faculty.The schools have been a pipeline of perpetuating inequaties.
The medical profession has set standards for increasing equity and diversity and it is helping;without punishment nothing will change.
Licensing requirements of internships should be shifted from individual members to schools aided by a professional program run by licensed faculty whose sole job is to prepare students for licensing while in school.These programs can be supported by projects solicited by the school,state and students in this program.In return the school must expand their recruitment efforts to reflect underlying social demographics.Architecture affects literaly everyone including the homeless.
Schools should also vet their faculty afresh and take them through bias training so they become professionals that understand the challenges facing society.The medical profession and the military though not perfect are at least headed in that direction.Accreditation should be tied to equity and fairness like they have done with medical schools.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/12/04/673318859/the-push-for-diversity-in-medical-school-is-slowly-paying-off
On the subject of the burden of training for licensure being place on the schools, NCARB launched a program called IPAL in 2015 that is something along the lines of what you're describing. It's an opt-in and application-based program, but I would really like to see it grow into something that is more robust and not simply attempting to make graduation = licensure.
https://www.ncarb.org/become-architect/ipal
I don't think it's going to win any fans in this forum re: our opinions about AIA, NCARB, NAAB, architecture schools etc.... but at least it's a start.
"60-70 year plus, white architects, cannot be trusted, and they don't even acknowledge their own blind spots, or biases."
Isn't that both ageist and racist? How about your own blind spots and biases against elderly white architects ;-)
Weren’t we all told when we started this profession that we were in for long hours, no overtime pay, no recognition (until we’re maybe 60, for that one project that took 20 years to build and nobody in the general public likes), and that HGTV stars would be bigger household names than us?
The profession is too old and white, I get it, we now need more than ever a more accurate representation of society reflected in architecture and our institutions across the board.
That said, isn’t one of the biggest issues that a small group of expensive, trend-setting schools are producing too many “designers”?
These schools are increasingly popular due to their flashy instagram pages and video reels from thesis presentations, driving up tuition prices and attracting an privileged global class of students that are seeking the credentials of attending a high-ranked school, not the practical skills required to survive in the profession because—let’s face it—these kids don’t need skills for the real world and never will when the whole world is a giant country club to them.
I was told all the time in both undegrad/grad school not to worry about these practical skills and that you’ll learn them on the job, but when you can’t get a job because you don’t have fundamental skills other than clicking and pointing a mouse to lines on a computer it’s pretty much failure to launch for most young and aspiring architects. Unless your parents are in the profession or have a lot of money to help you out, then you're gonna be like me one day eating rice once day for months until you actually get paid enough to survive.
I’m not licensed, but on the path to and determined to do so because I’m personally sick of the conversation, “OH! You’re an ARCHITECT!” …”no…. well, not really, I’m not listened yet… it’s complicated and stupid… blah blah.”
I’m was raised middle class and white so I already had some advantages that others didn’t, so for me the biggest obstacles on the path to licensure is finding a proper job with growth potential, mentorship, and decent enough pay to cover basic costs of living and mountains of student loan debt. Entry level work was extremely hard to find for me, especially due to the timing of finishing undergrad right around the last recession in 2009/2010. I used that time to change cities and to attend grad school, which overall has provided me with a better opportunity, but even now it's almost impossible to get an interview now in the pandemic even with 5 to 7 years of experience between architecture firms, contractors, fabrication…. etc. Even that path for some individuals will be a privileged one at this point. Nobody is going to pay $50k for a school when they can't even step foot on campus
Bottom line of what I’ve been told my entire career…. unless you’re scrappy, lucky, or have family money to prop you up. GOOD LUCK OUT THERE. The profession chews up and spits out a lot of really talented and thoughtful people from all walks of life, and it’s a travesty.
Hey NCARB, If you *actually* want more architects, then maybe you and NAAB should actually get off your ass and rattle the cages of our most prestigious architecture schools and tell them to start teaching skills that can transform our profession to make us more, not less relevant to the AEC industry. Architects constantly talk shit on contractors and engineers but frequently these are the individuals that I find myself going to in order to figure out industry standards and how to stop drawing stupid details that don't make much sense outside of aesthetics.
Maybe some of you out there think that our only job is to determine the aesthetics of what a building should be and we shouldn't be concerned about building but I'm so sick of being relegated to the overly simplistic definition that "architects draw" / "builders build". There is definitely a time and a place for speculative and conceptual architectural projects, but now is not the time for ideological talking points. We design buildings—it’s a lot more practical and straightforward than a lot of us make it out to be.
PS sometimes I hate the comment editing system after I re-read my typo-laden, shitty stream of consciousness... happy to have a conversation regardless
That said, isn’t one of the biggest issues that a small group of expensive, trend-setting schools are producing too many “designers”?
no. you need to think bigger. it's an issue, but it's also a bit heavy-handed to lay these problems at the feet of a few elite schools; you're giving them too much credit. over production of design staff certainly contributes a bit, but every profession (today) over produces labor. it's a feature of the system. the question is why do architecture firms make such little money in the first place relative to the other sectors?
school tends to be everyone's favorite punching bag, because it's an easy target. the more difficult challenge to examine where the profession has situated itself relative to money (developers) and buildings (contractors). the professionalization of the industry lead to an intentional distancing from these two sectors, sectors which are far more critical in the creation of a building than architecture.
so yes, there will also be graduates, in every profession, who are ill-prepared. but it's backwards to think making "better" graduates will fix the systemic problems you're rambling about.
Ok, I see your point, but who gets to determine who meets the criteria to be a part of this “labor”?
I think an over production of “labor” is directly tied to the explosion of university programs that are essentially diploma mills for some arbitrary metrics that NAAB and NCARB set. It’s not just the elite schools, it’s also the smaller universities that adjunct faculty inevitably flee to in order to continue their grift about “parametric scripted forms”, or even worse—the ones that are stuck in some twilight zone of modernist ideology where they cram “Literal and Phenomenal Transparency” by Colin Rowe down your throat for 4 years. Is the school accredited? OK NO PROBLEMS THEN.
I agree with some of what you say, but to push back a little bit, architecture firms make so little money because it’s literally their job to monetize their services to draw and navigate the legal pitfalls of the AEC industry. It’s almost like the opposite business model of contractors are constantly cutting corners to try to make money by taking lower bids that will still produce the (same-ish) product and pass inspection.
How is a student supposed to learn that they are preparing to work for a a business when they can’t even find an economy to how they use their time?
At the end of the day, as an architect, you also have to run a goddamn business making drawings and taking on liability for them. Plain and simple. I don’t remember where I saw the comment elsewhere on archinect but I wholeheartedly agree that the reason architects are relevant is that they take on liability. Faced with these facts, many of my friends have left the profession because they simply don’t want to put up with the reality that it’s not as flashy and glitzy as we’ve all been told.
So many professors said while I was in school, “Why would you want to become licensed? You’re just going to get sued. You’re going to get sued anyway.”
It’s extremely tough for architecture firms to make money when you aren’t working from a standard set of details and you’re trying to use literally every last bit of your fee to design every last detail on your CD set just in case a contractor accidentally doesn’t align some drywall. I feel like every project I worked on at a firm we were reinventing the wheel, and we somehow lost money, go figure…. It’s ridiculous in some ways.
Yes, I agree with your point that every profession over produces “labor”, but wouldn’t most of that go away if we force schools to become less design focused and to get students to think more in terms of being legal clerks for specialized drawings? I realize there is also a surplus of lawyers, so pardon the poor analogy, but really I'm picking up on a point from Monica Ponce de Leon, even though I don't agree with some of what she says either.
i would argue that the construction industry takes on much more liability (their employees have the real risk of dying on site, for instance, in conjunction to the safety of the building on the public), which is why they make more money, not only because they "cut-corners" (arguable at best, and not true for all contractors). aia contracts are loaded with language that shift the real liability to the construction industry. our liability is fabricated one thanks to the over-lawyering of america.
and in terms of education, i think there's a distinction between quantity and quality.. increasing the "quality" of graduates without reducing the supply won't change much. again, these are related to much bigger structural issues, because good luck convincing potential graduates to stop pursuing higher education, when the recent jobs number show that those with a college degree are far less likely to either be fired or work in an industry that requires them to be at risk and in contact with others.
"Weren’t we all told when we started this profession that we were in for long hours, no overtime pay, no recognition (until we’re maybe 60, for that one project that took 20 years to build and nobody in the general public likes), and that HGTV stars would be bigger household names than us? "
Nope. I was told about the licensing process while in school. In the 18 years since I graduated I've NEVER worked worked long hours for no overtime pay. I've been recognized in person and print for my contributions to design work and projects. This is because I worked for good firms that didn't take advantage of people. Also I was very clear that I wan't going to allow that to happen.
As for your last comment about being a household name - that's just pure ego. Check that crap at the door.
Chad—
Maybe the context of my initial comment wasn’t clear. I don’t personally care that much about being a household name. I was speaking extemporaneously about how myself and many of my other colleagues were told that going into the architecture field was shoveling a lot of shit in a profession. Not in your experience? Fine… great conversation starter.
I’m glad to hear that you have a different experience than mine, but you also graduated a decade before me. Maybe you had the advantage of finding entry level work once you graduated, or perhaps even an internship while you were in school, a modicum of mentorship, and didn’t graduate in the middle of a recession.
I went to a graduate school with a completely different design ethos than my undergraduate, but the resounding message at both of those schools is that becoming a “real” architect is for chumps.
Maybe that’s not the experience that some of you have, but I would say it’s a fairly accurate assessment from my friends and colleagues that MOST schools aren’t practical training grounds for the profession. We can debate whether or not this is the function of schools or not, but how are we expected to produce young architects that understand what it is that the day-to-day tasks of a firm will demand of them immediately after graduating if we’re constantly infantilizing them?
If it takes so long to actually understand the complicated nature of the profession, why don’t we buckle down and get a good head start? At the very least maybe we could have a terminal presentation go through some kind of planning or city council approval in the jurisdiction that the student is studying in. What a concept!
square—
to your comment about construction companies taking on more liability… yes, that’s kind of exactly my point. Construction is *profitable* because they’re willing and able to take on actual liability and risk and try to figure out clever ways to do things because the architects don't want to be held liable for specifying the wrong thing that they would rather have a contractor provide. Again, architects make money selling their services to draw… if you're not offering any other added value then drawing is simply a lot harder to monetize.
Again, we can debate why that is the case if you want or we can agree to disagree. Isn’t one of the major hurdles to licensure not being able to afford staying in the profession because we don’t get paid well and decide to go into other fields? Isn't this also one of the major reasons of the class gap that we're trying to fix as well? Our business model needs to be reinvented but we can't begin to fix it by creating new trainees that don't even care about the practical issues of running a business and would rather design for someone else than to take the harder route and try to incrementally fix the profession.
yes, sure. i agree that ncarb is bloated, as is the entire process of licensure. i even question the need for licensure in general. where i disagree is that creating a pool of students who only know skills, are more practical, etc. will deeply affect the industry. could help a little, but won't be transformative.
You're right, I was fortunate. First off I didn't go to graduate school - I have a Bachelors of Architecture from North Dakota State University. Never heard of it? Well it's a 5 year program that at the time taught classes in professional practice and detailing with four years of practical studio projects. Second, I had two years of working as a student intern while in school. Third, I was hired by a good firm right out of school where I worked until the recession hit us in late 2010.
FFF. I've been working outside of the USA for 10 years now and I need to pay $80/year to maintain my "record" or loose it all (almost finished hours - and cant finish abroad). That's $800 so far to NCARB just in case I ever feel like moving back. All they do is a bit of computer admin.
NCARB admits that big chunk of those fees are subsidizing their AXP-ARE sh*tshow, so you can take comfort in that.
good journalism bruh....
and yes whenever white men get organized, holy shit! imagine when they meet in secret, circa early 1900's, even the Germans knew better, but too late...
No, seriously - good job Antonio! ;)
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.