It really depends on the company you work for. I've seen it go both ways. Some firms will pay for your registration fees and will pride themselves for having an additional registered architect on staff. Other firms will not give a flying fuck about your professional development.
Sad part? The later business model is just as successful as the former.
In every-which case it makes sense to get registered. Ironically, state-mandated requirements for registration is what keeps truly horrible practices in business. YMMV
Not sure what size firm you work for...also the current economic climate plays against you...
I've never personally seen an increase in pay but according to other threads it does happen on occasion... Think about it from the firm's point of view: How do they benefit from having you licensed? Short answer in most cases they don't. You are not going to be stamping/sealing the drawings, the higher ups are... They may be able to give you a new title with a higher hourly fee/multiplier in which case then you stand a better chance of negotiating for more money. Usually not though.
I agree with toasteroven, you may have to threaten them.
Ask yourself why you pursue licensure. It's probably not for your firm, which generally doesn't need your license. It's probably for yourself and the long term career flexibility it affords. It's so you can call yourself a professional and stand on your own if the need arises. It's a personal professional credential, like your education. It's what makes you an Architect.
The simple fact is that you (we) aren't really worth a dime more to a firm the day after a license is obtained than you (we) were the day before. If one's perspective is that near-term focused, then one is bound to be disappointed.
Licensure - like education - is about the span of a career. What you can do - and what you actually do - is what determines your compensation. A license is only a credential, albeit a very important one.
One is to be highly congratulated on the attainment of license. It's a great achievement. But, it's not about what happens next week, next month -- or even next year.
I think it depends on the size and type of firm you work for
For a large firm you are slightly more valuable because when applying for public work they use the amount of licensed people, LEED AP's, etc. in there RFP's.
I think it gives you some leverage also because there are alot of positions that only require a licensed architect ...so if they like you they probably should give you a raise
"The simple fact is that you (we) aren't really worth a dime more to a firm the day after a license is obtained than you (we) were the day before." <-- Talk about being short sighted. I can't stand this mentality. So the license is for personal satisfaction? Why is it so incredibly worthless?
to take the question a bit further...if getting your licence early in your career (say late 20's like mentioned above) typically does not make you much more valuable to your firm, could being a young registered achitect actually inhibit your ability to gain employment?
I ask bc seeing how fees are being reduced these days and that a licenced architect generally requires higher fees, would companies actually see "RA" or "AIA" next to an applicants name and dismiss the candidate based on the assumption that they are seeking salary higher than what an unlicenced employee with the same amount of experience would demand? I am trying to keep a mindset that becoming a young licenced makes me in higher demand than an equally experience unlicenced employee but the more and more I hear and read I cant help but think, in the short term, that licensure may not be advantageous in this market. .... any thoughts?
cc14 - maybe, but highly doubt it. if anything, overall length of work experience may sway some (a 20yr PM vs. a 8yr PM doing garden variety 10M classroom buildings....yeah, i'll admit i'd probably assume the 20yr will cost more to do what very well could be the same quality of work).
@strawbeary - really? you're that surprised? i don't think it's entirely worthless, but for most situations (especially with clients), there isn't an automatic, intrinsic worth that would translate to increased fee. on the flip side, if you're showing real potential as a rainmaker, that license would be an absolute necessity if you're traveling around to help develop relationships with potential clients.
what this downturn has really opened my eyes to is the almost unbelievable injustice occurring whereby interns who are out of work have no ability to gain their license (and have a chance to fend for themselves in terms of offering services) and no hope of doing so unless they can somehow find someone to hire them or fake their paperwork. even the doctor's have mandatory teaching hospitals that make sure every qualified intern has the opportunity to complete their training and get their medical license....
Yes, that is true, It is also true that firms need all sorts of skills and people - including non-Principal licensed architects.
There definitely is a need for firms to encourage licensure among their staff. Licensure is important to firms because the individuals with that credential comprise the group from which most client managers, project managers, project architects, associates and principals typically are drawn. It is an important credential (along with appropriate skill and knowledge) that leads to promotion.
However, I stand by my earlier post ... receiving a letter stating that one has passed the last section of the ARE does not, in itself, mean someone is instantaneously more valuable to the firm. It's but one step - albeit an important step - in the evolution to higher responsibility.
I did not see any raise, althought did get a one time bonus, which is better than most firms I guess. Truthfully, passing a test does not make one a better Architect, but it does make you relevant. The practice that bothers me is promoting non-Architects to management level. As a profession we collectively don't like computer programmers using our title, however we don't bat an eye at promoting people in our own field who refuse to follow the clearly defined path of professional registration?!? It's not hard and IMO, those who think they are above it shouldn't be rewarded, regardless of their work experience.
The practice that bothers me is promoting non-Architects to management level. As a profession we collectively don't like computer programmers using our title, however we don't bat an eye at promoting people in our own field who refuse to follow the clearly defined path of professional registration?
it's because keeping your head down and only doing "what you are supposed to do" gets you nowhere. the only way to get ahead quickly in this profession is to take risks, speak up, and break the rules (when necessary) from time to time. If you think there is a clearly defined slow and steady advancement path that cannot be deviated from then you're going to end up frustrated while watching people pass you by.
hahaha...several of my former firms have fired those who were about to pass the last test because they had a policy of a raise when getting your license. it might actually work AGAINST you...good luck, and congratulations if you are close. it is still great even if the firm doesn't care!
If you think there is a clearly defined slow and steady advancement path that cannot be deviated from
All I said is there is a clear path to registration, i.e. professional development. It's not some mystery as to how to become an "Architect." My issue is with firms that don't value professional development. In bigger firms where only a handful actually sign drawings it may seem no big deal, but promoting a non-architect is a clear sign that the registration really isn't of much value. Something I clearly disagree with.
Now as for day to day office procedure, etc., yes one does need to be visible and speak up to rise through the ranks.
i wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the value of the license in a firm. even small firms need to show off their design teams on RFPs. having licensed architects as project architects or lead designers looks good, the same way having LEED APs. even if your practical worth doesn't increase, your marketing one certainly does. that's a little cynical, but seems like this is a somewhat cynical thread already!
Our practice recognizes personal development, but not licensure specifically. Why?: Folks that display the initiative to pursue licensure are generally making more than their colleagues before they get their license, and continue to make more thereafter.
The certificate is, as Strawbeary says, more or less for their own gratification or sense of achievement. I don't think this is a bad thing. In my view, for every State except California the exams are so elementary that they serve more as a test of perserverance than of skill. If it was more difficult maybe I would have a different perspective, but I prefer to reward individuals (always) for what they bring to the firm (design, software skills, technical ability, client skills, code knowledge, whatever) that makes the firm more valuable.
Regarding billing: we can't pass on higher T&M rates to our clients simply because someone has a license - we bill our clients "Architect" scale rates when the individual in question has skills which merit the increased fee to the client.
And to superinterestings point: There is a value to having more architects in a firm from a marketing perspective, but it is one of diminishing marginal returns. We are a firm of 25 with 8 licensed Architects on staff; the 9th one doesn't really make us look any more competent. This would certainly be different if we were like a certain design-oriented firm in Los Angeles (to be un-named for dramatic effect) who at one point numbered 45 staff and struggled to maintain one Architect on board.
Theoretically, every firm, whether they be in Europe or the States, or Asia, or anywhere on earth, bills out licensed A[capital A]rchitects higher than 'interns,' 'juniors,' or 'assistants.' Also, therefore [theoretically] the individual in question should see that in portion as an increase in salary.
Whether or not this happens in reality is a whole 'nother matter.
Were I to become licensed in any jurisdiction, and not to receive an immediate increase in compensation, I would immediately take it up with my superiors. I would also cite liability and experience in that same discussion, and if the talk didn't amount to a raise, or at least the promise of one, I would leave the firm on the grounds that they do not respect their people.
Our liability premiums INCREASE when we add licensed individuals to our staff. The insurer assumes (correctly) that the work of licensed Architects is held to a higher standard of care than that of general staff.
Forgive me if we must disagree, but the difference between a licensed architect and that same person a week before they received their letter from the State Architects Board is... a letter from the State Architects Board.
When i get my license it will be so i can be my own boss period, not so i can climb the corporate ladder, have you guys seen how terrible everything being built these days is? It is a desert out there, no talent in sight.
houseofmud - your contradict yourself there. First you say that the insurer increases premiums because a licensed Architect is held to a higher standard, but then state that the licensed Architect only has a piece of paper from the state board. So, are you trying to say the increase not warranted. Do you discourage professional registration because it will cost you more and theoretically not yeild anything? I would think the insurer is right, an "Architect" is held to a higher standard and in a perfect world that should be recognized with compensation.
Were I to become licensed in any jurisdiction, and not to receive an immediate increase in compensation, I would immediately take it up with my superiors
jplourde - I worked at a firm that had an unwritten policy that non-licensed staff could not earn more than $40k/year. They stated that significant pay raises and promotion would come upon licensure - not before. At the time I was essentially underpaid by 20% so I left to a firm that paid me what I was worth, but didn't give raises for professional development acheivement. It's a give and take.
Aquapura, to clarify: The insurers recognize that the courts hold licensed professionals to a higher standard. What I am saying is that one doesn't obtain competence when a license is issued; knowledge and skills are obtained gradually, and we recognize individual achievement incrementally as individuals gain these skills. I think this is a more fair approach... the granting of a license is a threshold event that has legal implications, but reflects little benefit for our firm on its own. We have people here that have only completed half of their exams that have higher salaries than some of their colleagues with licenses.
Another way that to say it?: We compensate people based on contribution, not credentials. The piece of paper might mean a lot to you, the knowledge that one might gain obtaining it is what matters to us.
This has turned into one weird-ass thread. Whole lotta confusion on how architects form contracts with clients.
@houseofmud:"The insurers recognize that the courts hold licensed professionals to a higher standard."
This does not compute. At least not when it comes to legal documentation of a structure.
Lawyer: So you see your honor, the building collapsed because ratio of interns to registered professionals was quite high. Since we can't blame the interns for it, the jury must acquit!
Judge and Jury: Ahhhh!
@jplourde:Theoretically, every firm, whether they be in Europe or the States, or Asia, or anywhere on earth, bills out licensed A[capital A]rchitects higher than 'interns,' 'juniors,' or 'assistants.' Also, therefore [theoretically] the individual in question should see that in portion as an increase in salary.
Every standard project comes with a pre-determined fee. It doesn't matter how many architects or highschool kids work on it. You will not get money from the client higher than the fee cap. You may bill additional hours for extra services (which happens often in projects), but all that timesheet keeping is mostly for internal review only.
@Don: "have you guys seen how terrible everything being built these days is? It is a desert out there, no talent in sight.
Yeah. No talent anywhere. Lot's of hot gas though. Right Don?
Maybe a question to ask is about the appropriateness of staff who are un-licensed being in management roles like project managers? Conceptually (to me at least) it should be a pretty bright line that one who oversees the work of others should meet this basic professional requirement. If we as Architects can't be on board with this, what's the use of thinking of it as a profession.
I tend to believe that on average, someone who holds a license is a stronger professional that someone who doesn't. The benefit of more people being licensed is that it improves the overall strength of Architects and the work they do as a whole.
@druf:Conceptually (to me at least) it should be a pretty bright line that one who oversees the work of others should meet this basic professional requirement.
In most cases work overseers are fully qualified for positions they hold. Licensure may or may not add useful items to their skillset.
"If we as Architects can't be on board with this, what's the use of thinking of it as a profession."
Are you licensed? Did you magically become smarter/better leader/designer by passing those tests? Those tests reflect the suburban bias of building code(s): calculating parking spaces, fire truck access roads, random setbacks, etc... Stuff useful to kinds of developments that will make any modern Architect feel kind of depressed about the profession.
"I tend to believe that on average, someone who holds a license is a stronger professional that someone who doesn't."
The older and more experienced you get, the bigger chances are that you have passed your licensing tests. Your observation is not very profound.
I don't get your insurance v. higher standard either. If your insurance is charging you higher fees for carrying more licensed professionals, they (insurance guys) are assuming that you plan on letting all of the licensees to stamp drawings. That is just not the case with most offices. One stamp is all you technically need.
i just started a new job ...and today in a firm wide meeting ...the principal said that he cant stress enough the importance of a license ...also after talking to the other people that were just hired ..it seems that they all (including me) are working on there licenses
stlstds - I think we are saying the same thing. Our insurance company bases our premiums on perceived liability, the number of licensed professionals in the firm* (more licensed persons, higher premiums), project mix, and revenue (higher again costs more). Having another licensed person in the office raises the price of our insurance, but doesn't necessarily lower our liability unless that person is competent to act as an Architect. Nor does it necessarily increase our revenue. So... an individual with the skills of an intern who happens to have a license is a net liability. And we won't pay them any more than anyone else (licensed or not) with the same skills. I'm not going to tell anyone not to get licensed because they "aren't ready", but at the end of the day it's not the piece of paper that makes you valuable (or not valuable) to the firm - it's what you do with your head.
I remain totally baffled as to why firms should pay licensed people who are only moderate contributors more than unlicensed people that have more to offer the projects and clients. The ultimate goal of our firm is to recognize individual contribution, give our clients great service and designs that blow their f---ing minds, and to and maintain a meritocracy. We don't care at all about collecting framed certificates.
*Doesn't matter to our insurer that these folks aren't stamping drawings. If they were, it would cost even more to add them as named insureds.
I think we all can agree that passing a test does not make one a more qualified Architect, however it does make one an "Architect." From my experience that has a significant bearing in bringing work into the firm. I am firmly aware that my name and credentials are listed on RFP's while there are unlicensed individuals with more experience and higher positions that are not even mentioned on the same RFP. Why? Because to the client, the layman, the license has a higher value than to the internal workings of the firm itself.
<i>Maybe a question to ask is about the appropriateness of staff who are un-licensed being in management roles like project managers?<i>
I agree with this statement primarily because I think we as a profession need to emphasize the importance of professional registration. We already have far too many people from the outside chipping away at our role. The last thing we need is people internal to our profession ursurping the role of Architect. When a client sees that his project is handled by non-licensed people and the "professional" is a figure head position that only signs drawings it makes it look like the job of an "Architect" is largely regulatory.
Isn't our common goal to better the built environment? I don't think this comes across to the general public when they see that a license isn't required to design - but only make a design legal to get permit.
But the general public doesn't know the difference between a licensed "Architect" and an unlicensed "architect".
Since anyone can put up a building, how do you quantify or qualify a title, when, to the average person, an "Architect" designs builds. But anyone can design a building, big "A" or not.
I get the idea, but until "Architects" are the only one that can design and build, it becomes more of a technicality than anything to do with quality.
I understand where you come from, but it's a sad place: being an architectural Luddite.
All of that artificial protectionism hurts the profession more than it helps it. Take the current economy: our profession has already managed to keep 'the rest of them' out of it, and as a result 'the rest of them' have managed to keep us away from all kinds of business and career opportunities.
Professional registration is an extremely recent development in a profession that spans a millennium+. If 'powers that be' decided that architectural registration should have a tiered system (like LEED) where you get accredited for being allowed to only produce certain types of work (NCARB church, NCARB sport facilities, NCARB jails, etc...) there would still be groups of people crying about 'the rest of them' encroaching in their field.
Such fragmented accreditation would at least be good for answering the age old question: "OH?! You're an architect? What kind of architecture do you do?"
ss - I believe my opinion differs from ap's fairly dramatically. Obviously what I suggested would never occur, which, to me, make the the "Title" significantly less meaningful. (My opinions on the usage of the word "Architect" is well documented ;-) )
This isn't medicine, we aren't handling people's safety or well being in our hands, that is what the various laws, codes, etc., do - not us. We just follow them, which, just about anyone can do (and therefore, Joe Stud will always be able to build his house without an "Architect").
Oct 8, 10 9:18 am ·
·
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.
Licensure and Pay Raise
What are most people's experience once they have achieved licensure, have you gotten a pay raise?
Yes and no.
It really depends on the company you work for. I've seen it go both ways. Some firms will pay for your registration fees and will pride themselves for having an additional registered architect on staff. Other firms will not give a flying fuck about your professional development.
Sad part? The later business model is just as successful as the former.
In every-which case it makes sense to get registered. Ironically, state-mandated requirements for registration is what keeps truly horrible practices in business. YMMV
for most people I know the bump in pay usually only happens if you switch firms or threaten to switch firms.
Not sure what size firm you work for...also the current economic climate plays against you...
I've never personally seen an increase in pay but according to other threads it does happen on occasion... Think about it from the firm's point of view: How do they benefit from having you licensed? Short answer in most cases they don't. You are not going to be stamping/sealing the drawings, the higher ups are... They may be able to give you a new title with a higher hourly fee/multiplier in which case then you stand a better chance of negotiating for more money. Usually not though.
I agree with toasteroven, you may have to threaten them.
Ask yourself why you pursue licensure. It's probably not for your firm, which generally doesn't need your license. It's probably for yourself and the long term career flexibility it affords. It's so you can call yourself a professional and stand on your own if the need arises. It's a personal professional credential, like your education. It's what makes you an Architect.
The simple fact is that you (we) aren't really worth a dime more to a firm the day after a license is obtained than you (we) were the day before. If one's perspective is that near-term focused, then one is bound to be disappointed.
Licensure - like education - is about the span of a career. What you can do - and what you actually do - is what determines your compensation. A license is only a credential, albeit a very important one.
One is to be highly congratulated on the attainment of license. It's a great achievement. But, it's not about what happens next week, next month -- or even next year.
I think it depends on the size and type of firm you work for
For a large firm you are slightly more valuable because when applying for public work they use the amount of licensed people, LEED AP's, etc. in there RFP's.
I think it gives you some leverage also because there are alot of positions that only require a licensed architect ...so if they like you they probably should give you a raise
"The simple fact is that you (we) aren't really worth a dime more to a firm the day after a license is obtained than you (we) were the day before." <-- Talk about being short sighted. I can't stand this mentality. So the license is for personal satisfaction? Why is it so incredibly worthless?
But you have to! No options :)
You can get registered by your late 20's. You will probably not get to use that stamp for another decade or so. It's a valid observation.
to take the question a bit further...if getting your licence early in your career (say late 20's like mentioned above) typically does not make you much more valuable to your firm, could being a young registered achitect actually inhibit your ability to gain employment?
I ask bc seeing how fees are being reduced these days and that a licenced architect generally requires higher fees, would companies actually see "RA" or "AIA" next to an applicants name and dismiss the candidate based on the assumption that they are seeking salary higher than what an unlicenced employee with the same amount of experience would demand? I am trying to keep a mindset that becoming a young licenced makes me in higher demand than an equally experience unlicenced employee but the more and more I hear and read I cant help but think, in the short term, that licensure may not be advantageous in this market. .... any thoughts?
cc14 - maybe, but highly doubt it. if anything, overall length of work experience may sway some (a 20yr PM vs. a 8yr PM doing garden variety 10M classroom buildings....yeah, i'll admit i'd probably assume the 20yr will cost more to do what very well could be the same quality of work).
@strawbeary - really? you're that surprised? i don't think it's entirely worthless, but for most situations (especially with clients), there isn't an automatic, intrinsic worth that would translate to increased fee. on the flip side, if you're showing real potential as a rainmaker, that license would be an absolute necessity if you're traveling around to help develop relationships with potential clients.
what this downturn has really opened my eyes to is the almost unbelievable injustice occurring whereby interns who are out of work have no ability to gain their license (and have a chance to fend for themselves in terms of offering services) and no hope of doing so unless they can somehow find someone to hire them or fake their paperwork. even the doctor's have mandatory teaching hospitals that make sure every qualified intern has the opportunity to complete their training and get their medical license....
your firm has no use for your license, really unless you are a principal?
firms need worker bees.
Yes, that is true, It is also true that firms need all sorts of skills and people - including non-Principal licensed architects.
There definitely is a need for firms to encourage licensure among their staff. Licensure is important to firms because the individuals with that credential comprise the group from which most client managers, project managers, project architects, associates and principals typically are drawn. It is an important credential (along with appropriate skill and knowledge) that leads to promotion.
However, I stand by my earlier post ... receiving a letter stating that one has passed the last section of the ARE does not, in itself, mean someone is instantaneously more valuable to the firm. It's but one step - albeit an important step - in the evolution to higher responsibility.
I did not see any raise, althought did get a one time bonus, which is better than most firms I guess. Truthfully, passing a test does not make one a better Architect, but it does make you relevant. The practice that bothers me is promoting non-Architects to management level. As a profession we collectively don't like computer programmers using our title, however we don't bat an eye at promoting people in our own field who refuse to follow the clearly defined path of professional registration?!? It's not hard and IMO, those who think they are above it shouldn't be rewarded, regardless of their work experience.
it's because keeping your head down and only doing "what you are supposed to do" gets you nowhere. the only way to get ahead quickly in this profession is to take risks, speak up, and break the rules (when necessary) from time to time. If you think there is a clearly defined slow and steady advancement path that cannot be deviated from then you're going to end up frustrated while watching people pass you by.
I think we can agree that obtaining the license won't necessarily get you ahead, but it might help keep you from getting behind.
hahaha...several of my former firms have fired those who were about to pass the last test because they had a policy of a raise when getting your license. it might actually work AGAINST you...good luck, and congratulations if you are close. it is still great even if the firm doesn't care!
All I said is there is a clear path to registration, i.e. professional development. It's not some mystery as to how to become an "Architect." My issue is with firms that don't value professional development. In bigger firms where only a handful actually sign drawings it may seem no big deal, but promoting a non-architect is a clear sign that the registration really isn't of much value. Something I clearly disagree with.
Now as for day to day office procedure, etc., yes one does need to be visible and speak up to rise through the ranks.
what's more frustrating than non-licensed architects in management positions? unregistered principals. ugh.
i wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the value of the license in a firm. even small firms need to show off their design teams on RFPs. having licensed architects as project architects or lead designers looks good, the same way having LEED APs. even if your practical worth doesn't increase, your marketing one certainly does. that's a little cynical, but seems like this is a somewhat cynical thread already!
Our practice recognizes personal development, but not licensure specifically. Why?: Folks that display the initiative to pursue licensure are generally making more than their colleagues before they get their license, and continue to make more thereafter.
The certificate is, as Strawbeary says, more or less for their own gratification or sense of achievement. I don't think this is a bad thing. In my view, for every State except California the exams are so elementary that they serve more as a test of perserverance than of skill. If it was more difficult maybe I would have a different perspective, but I prefer to reward individuals (always) for what they bring to the firm (design, software skills, technical ability, client skills, code knowledge, whatever) that makes the firm more valuable.
Regarding billing: we can't pass on higher T&M rates to our clients simply because someone has a license - we bill our clients "Architect" scale rates when the individual in question has skills which merit the increased fee to the client.
And to superinterestings point: There is a value to having more architects in a firm from a marketing perspective, but it is one of diminishing marginal returns. We are a firm of 25 with 8 licensed Architects on staff; the 9th one doesn't really make us look any more competent. This would certainly be different if we were like a certain design-oriented firm in Los Angeles (to be un-named for dramatic effect) who at one point numbered 45 staff and struggled to maintain one Architect on board.
Theoretically, every firm, whether they be in Europe or the States, or Asia, or anywhere on earth, bills out licensed A[capital A]rchitects higher than 'interns,' 'juniors,' or 'assistants.' Also, therefore [theoretically] the individual in question should see that in portion as an increase in salary.
Whether or not this happens in reality is a whole 'nother matter.
Were I to become licensed in any jurisdiction, and not to receive an immediate increase in compensation, I would immediately take it up with my superiors. I would also cite liability and experience in that same discussion, and if the talk didn't amount to a raise, or at least the promise of one, I would leave the firm on the grounds that they do not respect their people.
Our liability premiums INCREASE when we add licensed individuals to our staff. The insurer assumes (correctly) that the work of licensed Architects is held to a higher standard of care than that of general staff.
Forgive me if we must disagree, but the difference between a licensed architect and that same person a week before they received their letter from the State Architects Board is... a letter from the State Architects Board.
When i get my license it will be so i can be my own boss period, not so i can climb the corporate ladder, have you guys seen how terrible everything being built these days is? It is a desert out there, no talent in sight.
houseofmud - your contradict yourself there. First you say that the insurer increases premiums because a licensed Architect is held to a higher standard, but then state that the licensed Architect only has a piece of paper from the state board. So, are you trying to say the increase not warranted. Do you discourage professional registration because it will cost you more and theoretically not yeild anything? I would think the insurer is right, an "Architect" is held to a higher standard and in a perfect world that should be recognized with compensation.
Were I to become licensed in any jurisdiction, and not to receive an immediate increase in compensation, I would immediately take it up with my superiors
jplourde - I worked at a firm that had an unwritten policy that non-licensed staff could not earn more than $40k/year. They stated that significant pay raises and promotion would come upon licensure - not before. At the time I was essentially underpaid by 20% so I left to a firm that paid me what I was worth, but didn't give raises for professional development acheivement. It's a give and take.
Aquapura, to clarify: The insurers recognize that the courts hold licensed professionals to a higher standard. What I am saying is that one doesn't obtain competence when a license is issued; knowledge and skills are obtained gradually, and we recognize individual achievement incrementally as individuals gain these skills. I think this is a more fair approach... the granting of a license is a threshold event that has legal implications, but reflects little benefit for our firm on its own. We have people here that have only completed half of their exams that have higher salaries than some of their colleagues with licenses.
Another way that to say it?: We compensate people based on contribution, not credentials. The piece of paper might mean a lot to you, the knowledge that one might gain obtaining it is what matters to us.
This has turned into one weird-ass thread. Whole lotta confusion on how architects form contracts with clients.
@houseofmud:"The insurers recognize that the courts hold licensed professionals to a higher standard."
This does not compute. At least not when it comes to legal documentation of a structure.
Lawyer: So you see your honor, the building collapsed because ratio of interns to registered professionals was quite high. Since we can't blame the interns for it, the jury must acquit!
Judge and Jury: Ahhhh!
@jplourde:Theoretically, every firm, whether they be in Europe or the States, or Asia, or anywhere on earth, bills out licensed A[capital A]rchitects higher than 'interns,' 'juniors,' or 'assistants.' Also, therefore [theoretically] the individual in question should see that in portion as an increase in salary.
Every standard project comes with a pre-determined fee. It doesn't matter how many architects or highschool kids work on it. You will not get money from the client higher than the fee cap. You may bill additional hours for extra services (which happens often in projects), but all that timesheet keeping is mostly for internal review only.
@Don: "have you guys seen how terrible everything being built these days is? It is a desert out there, no talent in sight.
Yeah. No talent anywhere. Lot's of hot gas though. Right Don?
I don't get your analogy.
Maybe a question to ask is about the appropriateness of staff who are un-licensed being in management roles like project managers? Conceptually (to me at least) it should be a pretty bright line that one who oversees the work of others should meet this basic professional requirement. If we as Architects can't be on board with this, what's the use of thinking of it as a profession.
I tend to believe that on average, someone who holds a license is a stronger professional that someone who doesn't. The benefit of more people being licensed is that it improves the overall strength of Architects and the work they do as a whole.
Best pay raises were based on performance although I did get a small bonus for passing exams.
@druf:Conceptually (to me at least) it should be a pretty bright line that one who oversees the work of others should meet this basic professional requirement.
In most cases work overseers are fully qualified for positions they hold. Licensure may or may not add useful items to their skillset.
"If we as Architects can't be on board with this, what's the use of thinking of it as a profession."
Are you licensed? Did you magically become smarter/better leader/designer by passing those tests? Those tests reflect the suburban bias of building code(s): calculating parking spaces, fire truck access roads, random setbacks, etc... Stuff useful to kinds of developments that will make any modern Architect feel kind of depressed about the profession.
"I tend to believe that on average, someone who holds a license is a stronger professional that someone who doesn't."
The older and more experienced you get, the bigger chances are that you have passed your licensing tests. Your observation is not very profound.
@houseofmud:"I don't get your analogy."
I don't get your insurance v. higher standard either. If your insurance is charging you higher fees for carrying more licensed professionals, they (insurance guys) are assuming that you plan on letting all of the licensees to stamp drawings. That is just not the case with most offices. One stamp is all you technically need.
i just started a new job ...and today in a firm wide meeting ...the principal said that he cant stress enough the importance of a license ...also after talking to the other people that were just hired ..it seems that they all (including me) are working on there licenses
stlstds - I think we are saying the same thing. Our insurance company bases our premiums on perceived liability, the number of licensed professionals in the firm* (more licensed persons, higher premiums), project mix, and revenue (higher again costs more). Having another licensed person in the office raises the price of our insurance, but doesn't necessarily lower our liability unless that person is competent to act as an Architect. Nor does it necessarily increase our revenue. So... an individual with the skills of an intern who happens to have a license is a net liability. And we won't pay them any more than anyone else (licensed or not) with the same skills. I'm not going to tell anyone not to get licensed because they "aren't ready", but at the end of the day it's not the piece of paper that makes you valuable (or not valuable) to the firm - it's what you do with your head.
I remain totally baffled as to why firms should pay licensed people who are only moderate contributors more than unlicensed people that have more to offer the projects and clients. The ultimate goal of our firm is to recognize individual contribution, give our clients great service and designs that blow their f---ing minds, and to and maintain a meritocracy. We don't care at all about collecting framed certificates.
*Doesn't matter to our insurer that these folks aren't stamping drawings. If they were, it would cost even more to add them as named insureds.
I think we all can agree that passing a test does not make one a more qualified Architect, however it does make one an "Architect." From my experience that has a significant bearing in bringing work into the firm. I am firmly aware that my name and credentials are listed on RFP's while there are unlicensed individuals with more experience and higher positions that are not even mentioned on the same RFP. Why? Because to the client, the layman, the license has a higher value than to the internal workings of the firm itself.
<i>Maybe a question to ask is about the appropriateness of staff who are un-licensed being in management roles like project managers?<i>
I agree with this statement primarily because I think we as a profession need to emphasize the importance of professional registration. We already have far too many people from the outside chipping away at our role. The last thing we need is people internal to our profession ursurping the role of Architect. When a client sees that his project is handled by non-licensed people and the "professional" is a figure head position that only signs drawings it makes it look like the job of an "Architect" is largely regulatory.
Isn't our common goal to better the built environment? I don't think this comes across to the general public when they see that a license isn't required to design - but only make a design legal to get permit.
But the general public doesn't know the difference between a licensed "Architect" and an unlicensed "architect".
Since anyone can put up a building, how do you quantify or qualify a title, when, to the average person, an "Architect" designs builds. But anyone can design a building, big "A" or not.
I get the idea, but until "Architects" are the only one that can design and build, it becomes more of a technicality than anything to do with quality.
aquapure & trace:
I understand where you come from, but it's a sad place: being an architectural Luddite.
All of that artificial protectionism hurts the profession more than it helps it. Take the current economy: our profession has already managed to keep 'the rest of them' out of it, and as a result 'the rest of them' have managed to keep us away from all kinds of business and career opportunities.
Professional registration is an extremely recent development in a profession that spans a millennium+. If 'powers that be' decided that architectural registration should have a tiered system (like LEED) where you get accredited for being allowed to only produce certain types of work (NCARB church, NCARB sport facilities, NCARB jails, etc...) there would still be groups of people crying about 'the rest of them' encroaching in their field.
Such fragmented accreditation would at least be good for answering the age old question: "OH?! You're an architect? What kind of architecture do you do?"
In the meantime guys, don't be so daft.
<rant>
Please, for the love of god:
If we divide ourselves into neat little "Architect" categories, can we at least agree that NCARB will not be a part of them?
Please???
</rant>
ss - I believe my opinion differs from ap's fairly dramatically. Obviously what I suggested would never occur, which, to me, make the the "Title" significantly less meaningful. (My opinions on the usage of the word "Architect" is well documented ;-) )
This isn't medicine, we aren't handling people's safety or well being in our hands, that is what the various laws, codes, etc., do - not us. We just follow them, which, just about anyone can do (and therefore, Joe Stud will always be able to build his house without an "Architect").
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.