Anecdotes are fine, they just don't bring us closer to consensus. There are some big institutions that would have to change the way they do business if we forced them to wake up and reform.
2/3 of the faculty of NAAB-accredited programs are unlicensed. There are professors who still teach in Illinois I think, who were charged with practicing without a license, brought before the state board. They didn't get fired. Talk about contempt.
In NYS if you work for a firm that is not properly constituted, i.e. if one of the principals is not licensed in the state for example, when you go to get your license your experience will be discarded. Interns who work for some starchitects are going to be real disappointed, and, in my opinion, will have a legitimate cause of action there.
i'm still trying to figure out why that guy who was fired from SOM (as a partner) when it was discovered he had lied about being licensed is now FAIA (!!)
The report and all the supporting documents are posted at www.tinyurl.com/ConcerningLicensure (google docs downloadable). I'd really like to put the information into as many hands as possible.
No matter how hard you try to avoid them - the lawyers will find a way to insinuate themselves into everywhere and set up a stand. Before you know it, the IDP and reciprocity paperwork will be so complex that you'll have to hire a lawyer to take care of it.
oh, one more thing...as far as i'm aware, an architectural intern who is not eligible to sit for the exams is not legally considered a 'professional' and therefore not subject to the professional exemption from overtime pay. any intern enrolled in idp is entitled to time-and-a-half overtime pay as a technical employee.
despite the dangers of lawyers, i'd really like to see a couple of serious, high-profile class-action suits happen in this profession....
If interns were paying for their internship experience it would be sufficient, professional, rapid, and comprehensive, I am sure. The different groups that provide it would publish the success rates of their graduates, and would probably do projects all over the world. Their supervisor's primary objective would be to provide the necessary instruction and experience. They would write proposals, negotiate contracts, review project budgets, prepare programs, do design, run projects, manage bidding, contribute to contractor selection, participate in construction and construction administration, marketing, testimony, etc. etc.
Elinor, unfortunately when the Dept. of Labor is called in to investigate architecture firms, they generally find that interns with professional degrees (B.Arch or M.Arch) and at least one year of full time experience can in fact be classified as exempt professionals. The license is not the key determinant - it's the professional degree, in combination with the firm demonstrating that the employee has some amount of autonomy. I know - it's ridiculous that firms are able to convince the DOL that most interns have any latitude in how and when they do their work or any management role - nonetheless that's the usual outcome.
Matt_A I'm not convinced that if interns were paying for their internship it would be sufficient, professional, or comprehensive. Rapid maybe. I think it might turn out like the many for-profit LEED experience providers that have sprung up now that the LEED accreditations beyond LEED GA all require documented experience on LEED projects. There are two versions of this: 1. real firms doing real LEED projects who register extra people on the project in exchange for a fee, and 2. companies that exist solely as LEED experience providers, who invent imaginary LEED projects and register them with USGBC. Either of these could arguably provide sufficient, comprehensive experience, if the participants were really part of a team and doing real research, problem-solving, documentation, etc. on real projects. But, Particularly in the 2nd model, the people paying for LEED experience generally participate remotely, by teleconference, as part of a large "team" of others also seeking LEED experience, and the experience consists mainly of discussing ways to gain points for non-existent projects. I tend to think that, if pay-for-IDP were an option, similar situations would arise.
LEED is a voluntary standard, and has no force of law; an architect's license is an entirely different matter.
The idea I outlined is far from complete, but if such a studio were set up, say one in each of the NFL cities, I think most of your concerns could be assuaged. Internship is intended to be experience under the supervision of an architect licensed in the jurisdiction, this concept doesn't challenge that. If that architect is practicing architecture, then that standard would still apply. If that architect is not practicing architecture, then I am not sure the time would count towards licensure. Since the whole idea is to distill the internship experience, I don't think webinars (which might work great for Candyland-APs) wouldn't cut it.
Yes, I've seen this article. I was hopeful when this came out in 2004 that the policies would be enforced the way that the "official at the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Compliance Office in Jacksonville, FL (whose brother happens to be an architect in Boston)" interprets it in the article. Unfortunately that has not been the case across the board.
..Frankly, Bloopox, I would be willing to bet money that, given any aspect you would like to measure there would be no difference between someone who has completed IDP in a given amount of time and someone who has ignored IDP and worked the same amount of time.
Changes to the system do not frighten me; I think we can scarcely do worse.
Matt_A the current IDP guidelines do not require that the supervisor be licensed in the same jurisdiction in which the intern is seeking licensing. "Remote" supervision is also now permitted. From the IDP Guidelines:
“Direct supervision” of interns shall occur either through personal contact or through a mix of personal contact and remote communication (e.g. e-mail, online markups, webinars, internet)...
I recently saw a state disciplinary board's report on an applicant who was denied a license and fined for fraudulently representing his credentials. It was noted that much of his reported IDP experience was supposedly supervised remotely by his brother, a licensed architect in another state (he also did not meet the state's education requirements). But the reason that this experience was not accepted by the state was that it predated the change in the IDP Guidelines that allows remote supervision. It was noted in the report that current IDP Guidelines would allow this experience.
So, while I understand your thinking about a limited number of established IDP academies, I also see the potential for IDP-by-webinar to turn into a similar situation to the pay-per-LEED experience.
elinor, I worked in firms that paid overtime to interns to, and some that did not. One of the latter was investigated by the DOL while I worked there, and was ordered to pay several years of back overtime - but only to those who had less than one year of experience and a professional degree, or those who did not have professional degrees and had less than 8 years experience and were not in management roles.
These cases do not all have the same outcomes - it comes down to the interpretation of the investigating team. (It seems to be somewhat similar to different code officials' interpretations of the same code...)
I'm aware of the revision they recently made to the language, which allows, for example, experience gained while acting as a contract-employee to qualify for IDP.
I think we can scarcely do worse than what we're doing now, and I'm certain that if such an experiment were tried, concerns such as yours would have to be accounted for.
The fact that the current system is subject to abuses such as the one you describe tells me that it is not well-designed or well-implemented or both.
Here's a question that's been bothering me: If IDP is so vital, why is NCARB now allowing testing to begin before IDP has been completed? Under such circumstances, if the ARE measures minimum competence, what is the purpose of IDP?
..much of his reported IDP experience was supposedly supervised remotely by his brother, a licensed architect in another state (he also did not meet the state's education requirements). But the reason that this experience was not accepted by the state was that it predated the change in the IDP Guidelines that allows remote supervision.
What changed to make the remote supervision a valuable learning experience? On the date they said it was ok it became magically helpful for an aspiring architect! **Talk about bureaucracy and petty BS** Maybe they just wanted to throw the book at him, but nothing "real" changed about remote supervision.
i think that would be fine, unless you're specifically offering architectural services...
it's not NCARB, it's the state that would care. NYS once told me to stop calling myself an architect on my website. i was licensed out of state but i also listed a new york address somewhere, and they thought it could mislead people...
i can't imagine they wouldn't allow you to claim a degree that you earned.
"just so you know, you'll find a very rare few IDPs completed where the intern actually worked the required hours in the required areas. Everyone understands this, and i bet if you asked honestly, most would admit they 'fudged' some hours here and there...
the fact that you have to cheat to complete IDP though is an indication its a less than ideal system though..."
I dont think making the requirements stricter is a better solution though. Every project is different, so you cant really have a super specific type of hours to log, and to be honest, you will most likely get "fudging" no matter what, unless NCARB will now be reviewing the actual work you did for said hours. Which would be impossible since they would need to have people in your office to watch you work.
Filling out your IDP hours is part of the ethics of being an architect. If you are cheating on that, then what else will you begin "fudging" in your career?
Honestly though, I think the cheating part of filling out your hours is a bit exaggerated.
Unless you are someone who sits in the corner and does renderings all day, but are filling out that you are out on jobsites and doing CA work 40 hours a week just because someone in your office will sign off on it, I think it is generally followed to the spirit of the categories.
I think we shouldnt give more responsibility to NCARB to audit our hours, when it is simple professional responsibility and ethics that can handle that aspect of the job.
jbushkey: I agree completely, and I think that this was what the state was noting as well - that they were able to reject this person because the experience that he was claiming was remotely supervised happened before this was permitted - but if this happens 2 years from now they may not be able to do anything about it, even though it would be exactly the same experience.
Because NCARB does not release the number of those who complete passing the ARE in given years, there is no way currently to determine if there is a correlation between the number of "suites of seven" passes obtained by graduates of any given program and the number of graduates who are licensed.
NCARB does not want us to know the licensure rates of the graduates of accredited programs. The schools either don't want us to know this, or they don't care, not a single architecture program in the country will provide any information on this subject regarding their graduates. Kinda funny, no?
It's all so subject to individual circumstances, so everyone is a little different. But you are right, it would be interesting to have some actual stats on the subject.
Though i am not sure what it would really tell us, as i dont know if a school would say that its main function is to get their graduate licensed. If that was a goal of theirs, they would have actual prep classes for taking the exams (which i actually dont think would be a bad thing).
I think schools may view it negatively in that they dont want to be seen as a trade school type just to churn out licenses
What would people think if medical schools didn't want to just churn out medical licenses? This profession is getting to be parody of itself. I realize the medical profession has doctors and nurses. Nurses however are not unlicensed doctors.
Marmkid I think you are right about the school's attitude. What does this say about licensure?
@marmkid: "I think schools ... don't want to be seen as a trade school ... just to churn out licenses..."
I wonder if the schools that produce lawyers, accountants and doctors (professions that seem to provide their members with fairly strong economic rewards) worry about being seen as "trade schools".
If a school does not take seriously the idea of preparing its graduates for the realities of the marketplace, what is the point ?
i think comparing architectural licenses to medical licenses and a lawyers license is not really the same at all
its a different type of school and career path, and in those fields, to the best of my knowledge, the license is a necessary and critical step. the way things are set up now, an architectural license is not necessarily required.
medical schools and law degrees dont have the same type of "artistic" and "design" aspect that architectural schools do, and architectural schools, for better or worse, put a large emphasis on the "design" aspect of things, which really doesnt have to have anything to do with a license.
"If a school does not take seriously the idea of preparing its graduates for the realities of the marketplace, what is the point ?"
I agree completely, and I think schools should balance it out a bit more toward real world preparation.
I think we need to abandon the constant comparison to lawyers passing the bar or med students getting their license. It's not the same thing at all. Architectural careers are somewhere in between being an artist and being a lawyer/doctor type. The education and license should be something that reflects that. Right now it seems education is leaning towards putting most if not all emphasis on the artistic part, while the license puts all its emphasis on the technical aspect. Neither really is a complete picture of what an architect does since its a combination of the 2
"What would people think if medical schools didn't want to just churn out medical licenses? This profession is getting to be parody of itself. I realize the medical profession has doctors and nurses. Nurses however are not unlicensed doctors."
Doctors have a clear low career ceiling though if they never get their medical license. Architects dont have nearly as low a ceiling if they never get their architectural license.
Doctors really cant be doctors without their license. Architects can be architects without their license (ignoring the formal title of Architect here)
"
Though i am not sure what it would really tell us, as i dont know if a school would say that its main function is to get their graduate licensed. If that was a goal of theirs, they would have actual prep classes for taking the exams (which i actually dont think would be a bad thing).
I think schools may view it negatively in that they dont want to be seen as a trade school type just to churn out licenses"
There is little danger of that. Fewer than a third of graduates are going on to licensure these days. Also keep in mind that the *only* reason for NAAB-accreditation is licensure. You can get all the education you want, anywhere you want, the only reason you might want an accredited degree is that it is required on the path to licensure.
Unlicensed architects are not architects, any more than people without an M.D. are doctors.
"Unlicensed architects are not architects, any more than people without an M.D. are doctors."
Architect vs Doctor is not an apples to apples comparison by any means. Doctors NEED their license. Architects, the way things are right now, dont NEED their license
I tend to agree with you that a license is essential to an architect, but you are just talking semantics if you think being unlicensed as an architect is really that much of an issue in the real world
Architects really need to get over the constant comparison to lawyers and doctors
@marmkid: "Architects really need to get over the constant comparison to lawyers and doctors"
While I tend to agree with this sentiment, I only raised the comparison because we constantly lament how well doctors and lawyers are paid in comparison to architects. We really want their level of economic success, but generally are unwilling to change our behavior in ways that make that possible.
Having said that, one could argue - I suppose - that if we really aspire to that level of compensation, then perhaps we might want to emulate more of what happens within the realm of education and practice for the medical and legal professions.
Law and Med schools are required to published their grad employment rates, while art schools, which is what these programs are becoming, don't need to. That's where the comparison ends.
It's that mentality, that kids are going to "accredited" arch schools, so they can have a "professional" degree, and meanwhile are being taught garbage theory by clowns who own psuedo-firms and couldn't teach the science along with the art that drags down this profession.
Add that to the graduates who come out of these schools and say "oh, we don't need to get licensed," and we've really fucked ourselves over.
Apparently, you don't need to be an "architect" to teach a "professional" program, nor do you need to be an "architect" to have a career as someone's monkey.
@ quizzical
I agree completely. I say that architects need to stop the comparison with the way things are right now. It tends to get thrown out there that architects are the same as lawyers and doctors because we all require a license, and then architects use that as a reason to whine about lower salaries in comparison.
You are definitely right in that it is something that architects should aspire towards, especially when we look at the economic success in both of those fields.
It requires changes in both the education system as well as the license procedure
About a third of the faculty in the US is licensed (in some jurisdiction, not necessarily where they teach). There are about 3000 total faculty in all the schools, so about 1000 of these are architects. The others have not demonstrated minimal competence sufficient to practice architecture unsupervised.
"Add that to the graduates who come out of these schools and say "oh, we don't need to get licensed," and we've really fucked ourselves over. "
yeah the mentality that there is a separation between a designer and a licensed architect hurts the profession as a whole
several of my grad school classmates, even while in school, had the metality that they did not want to spend any time working doing any of the "grunt work", i.e. detailing, rest room details, etc. So leaving school, many would already feel above that part of the profession. Essentially, this idea that if you are not doing the overall "concept" design, you are not an architect, or you are above putting together a CD set is the height of arrogance and a bit absurd
"Essentially, this idea that if you are not doing the overall "concept" design, you are not an architect, or you are above putting together a CD set is the height of arrogance and a bit absurd"
No one wants to be sitting behind a desk spitting out the same details everyday.We've all been there. Did you expect the firm to offer you and your intern classmates the lead design role as summer interns? Or would it be "arrogant" to expect this?
Law and Med grads are financially motivated to get their licensed very early one. Most do so before entering the work force within months of graduation. It's almost a prerequisite for working. A law grad with a license can command 2-3 times that of an unlicensed and good luck finding work if you don't have a Med license. It comes down to is $$$. But in architecture, the schools are more worried about their own business of art/theory than than business of the profession so they put out an oversupply of monkeys and relatively unskilled artist workforce to compete for chump change.
"No one wants to be sitting behind a desk spitting out the same details everyday.We've all been there. Did you expect the firm to offer you and your intern classmates the lead design role as summer interns? Or would it be "arrogant" to expect this?"
yes, it would be arrogant to expect to be handed that instantly without any experience of any evidence that you can do it
I never said I expected anyone to offer me lead design roles instantly, if you read what i wrote. I was giving an example of what i witnessed with some of my classmates
I think its arrogant to NEVER expect to ever have to do anything of the sort though. To think that you can instantly begin working doing only the things you think is fun and interesting while picking and choosing what tasks you would like to do is absurd.
well, here's a thought--an architecture graduate comes out of an mArch program and has the option of going into either practice or academia. academic positions come with salaries similar to entry-level salaries at firms--50-65k or so for a full-time gig, or about 12k per semester per course as an adjunct...so 2 courses per year will get you 48k. yet as an academic you work probably half the hours, you are paid to think, you get respect, and you have time (are encouraged, actually) to do your own work/research on the side. you'll probably never get licensed, but you also don't spend those 'obligatory' 5 years earning your stripes on toilet partitions. and, you'll probably have work that is more likely to get published, which is a shorter and more effective path to launching a successful independent practice than having a license these days.
Concerning Licensure
Anecdotes are fine, they just don't bring us closer to consensus. There are some big institutions that would have to change the way they do business if we forced them to wake up and reform.
2/3 of the faculty of NAAB-accredited programs are unlicensed. There are professors who still teach in Illinois I think, who were charged with practicing without a license, brought before the state board. They didn't get fired. Talk about contempt.
How's that for an anecdote?
;)
Here's another anecdote:
In NYS if you work for a firm that is not properly constituted, i.e. if one of the principals is not licensed in the state for example, when you go to get your license your experience will be discarded. Interns who work for some starchitects are going to be real disappointed, and, in my opinion, will have a legitimate cause of action there.
i'm still trying to figure out why that guy who was fired from SOM (as a partner) when it was discovered he had lied about being licensed is now FAIA (!!)
The new president of NCARB is a lawyer. Henceforth - There Shall Be No fudging on IDP.
http://www.architectmagazine.com/architects/michael-armstrong-new-ceo-for-ncarb.aspx
Good discussion though.
I can think of one an$wer.
Menona -- I thought you hired a lawyer when you wanted to fudge.
i plan to give matt's report the attention it deserves before i continue contributing to this discussion. (hello, fellow cooper grad, btw).
=)
The report and all the supporting documents are posted at www.tinyurl.com/ConcerningLicensure (google docs downloadable). I'd really like to put the information into as many hands as possible.
I'm scheduled as a guest on Burning Down the House internet radio on April 10 with Curtis B Wayne (also Cooper alum). http://www.heritageradionetwork.com/programs/18-Burning-Down-The-House
No matter how hard you try to avoid them - the lawyers will find a way to insinuate themselves into everywhere and set up a stand. Before you know it, the IDP and reciprocity paperwork will be so complex that you'll have to hire a lawyer to take care of it.
Danger - Danger. Danger, I say!
Thats just great Matt. Goodbye unpaid internships. Hello IDP tuition ;)
Actually I think everyone not yet licensed appreciates your efforts.
oh, one more thing...as far as i'm aware, an architectural intern who is not eligible to sit for the exams is not legally considered a 'professional' and therefore not subject to the professional exemption from overtime pay. any intern enrolled in idp is entitled to time-and-a-half overtime pay as a technical employee.
despite the dangers of lawyers, i'd really like to see a couple of serious, high-profile class-action suits happen in this profession....
...maybe that would get employers/firms interested in reforming the licensing process?
If interns were paying for their internship experience it would be sufficient, professional, rapid, and comprehensive, I am sure. The different groups that provide it would publish the success rates of their graduates, and would probably do projects all over the world. Their supervisor's primary objective would be to provide the necessary instruction and experience. They would write proposals, negotiate contracts, review project budgets, prepare programs, do design, run projects, manage bidding, contribute to contractor selection, participate in construction and construction administration, marketing, testimony, etc. etc.
...and every now and then do toilet room elevations too.
Elinor, unfortunately when the Dept. of Labor is called in to investigate architecture firms, they generally find that interns with professional degrees (B.Arch or M.Arch) and at least one year of full time experience can in fact be classified as exempt professionals. The license is not the key determinant - it's the professional degree, in combination with the firm demonstrating that the employee has some amount of autonomy. I know - it's ridiculous that firms are able to convince the DOL that most interns have any latitude in how and when they do their work or any management role - nonetheless that's the usual outcome.
Matt_A I'm not convinced that if interns were paying for their internship it would be sufficient, professional, or comprehensive. Rapid maybe. I think it might turn out like the many for-profit LEED experience providers that have sprung up now that the LEED accreditations beyond LEED GA all require documented experience on LEED projects. There are two versions of this: 1. real firms doing real LEED projects who register extra people on the project in exchange for a fee, and 2. companies that exist solely as LEED experience providers, who invent imaginary LEED projects and register them with USGBC. Either of these could arguably provide sufficient, comprehensive experience, if the participants were really part of a team and doing real research, problem-solving, documentation, etc. on real projects. But, Particularly in the 2nd model, the people paying for LEED experience generally participate remotely, by teleconference, as part of a large "team" of others also seeking LEED experience, and the experience consists mainly of discussing ways to gain points for non-existent projects. I tend to think that, if pay-for-IDP were an option, similar situations would arise.
not if they're in idp. it has been enforced in the past at arch firms.
http://www.archvoices.org/pg.cfm?nid=home&IssueID=1346
just a discussion, but it outlines several key points.
LEED is a voluntary standard, and has no force of law; an architect's license is an entirely different matter.
The idea I outlined is far from complete, but if such a studio were set up, say one in each of the NFL cities, I think most of your concerns could be assuaged. Internship is intended to be experience under the supervision of an architect licensed in the jurisdiction, this concept doesn't challenge that. If that architect is practicing architecture, then that standard would still apply. If that architect is not practicing architecture, then I am not sure the time would count towards licensure. Since the whole idea is to distill the internship experience, I don't think webinars (which might work great for Candyland-APs) wouldn't cut it.
Yes, I've seen this article. I was hopeful when this came out in 2004 that the policies would be enforced the way that the "official at the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Compliance Office in Jacksonville, FL (whose brother happens to be an architect in Boston)" interprets it in the article. Unfortunately that has not been the case across the board.
..Frankly, Bloopox, I would be willing to bet money that, given any aspect you would like to measure there would be no difference between someone who has completed IDP in a given amount of time and someone who has ignored IDP and worked the same amount of time.
Changes to the system do not frighten me; I think we can scarcely do worse.
i worked at a place that paid the o/t. i heard it was because of past legal action, but can't say for sure.
Matt_A the current IDP guidelines do not require that the supervisor be licensed in the same jurisdiction in which the intern is seeking licensing. "Remote" supervision is also now permitted. From the IDP Guidelines:
“Direct supervision” of interns shall occur either through personal contact or through a mix of personal contact and remote communication (e.g. e-mail, online markups, webinars, internet)...
I recently saw a state disciplinary board's report on an applicant who was denied a license and fined for fraudulently representing his credentials. It was noted that much of his reported IDP experience was supposedly supervised remotely by his brother, a licensed architect in another state (he also did not meet the state's education requirements). But the reason that this experience was not accepted by the state was that it predated the change in the IDP Guidelines that allows remote supervision. It was noted in the report that current IDP Guidelines would allow this experience.
So, while I understand your thinking about a limited number of established IDP academies, I also see the potential for IDP-by-webinar to turn into a similar situation to the pay-per-LEED experience.
elinor, I worked in firms that paid overtime to interns to, and some that did not. One of the latter was investigated by the DOL while I worked there, and was ordered to pay several years of back overtime - but only to those who had less than one year of experience and a professional degree, or those who did not have professional degrees and had less than 8 years experience and were not in management roles.
These cases do not all have the same outcomes - it comes down to the interpretation of the investigating team. (It seems to be somewhat similar to different code officials' interpretations of the same code...)
Bloopox --
I'm aware of the revision they recently made to the language, which allows, for example, experience gained while acting as a contract-employee to qualify for IDP.
I think we can scarcely do worse than what we're doing now, and I'm certain that if such an experiment were tried, concerns such as yours would have to be accounted for.
The fact that the current system is subject to abuses such as the one you describe tells me that it is not well-designed or well-implemented or both.
Here's a question that's been bothering me: If IDP is so vital, why is NCARB now allowing testing to begin before IDP has been completed? Under such circumstances, if the ARE measures minimum competence, what is the purpose of IDP?
What changed to make the remote supervision a valuable learning experience? On the date they said it was ok it became magically helpful for an aspiring architect! **Talk about bureaucracy and petty BS** Maybe they just wanted to throw the book at him, but nothing "real" changed about remote supervision.
Also if this is true: Why does NCARB charge $400 for to transmit record? they are not going to willingly give up any of their profiteering...errrrrrr I mean responsibilities
Thank you Matt A, you are my hero!
Question: If "Architect" or "Architecture" is technically illegal, what if you were to advertise yourself as this:
"Burningman, Bachelor of Architecture" or "Master of Architecture" on your business card.
How about "Burningman, Architecture Professor?"
What if I had business cards that said that, what would NCARB do?
i think that would be fine, unless you're specifically offering architectural services...
it's not NCARB, it's the state that would care. NYS once told me to stop calling myself an architect on my website. i was licensed out of state but i also listed a new york address somewhere, and they thought it could mislead people...
i can't imagine they wouldn't allow you to claim a degree that you earned.
"just so you know, you'll find a very rare few IDPs completed where the intern actually worked the required hours in the required areas. Everyone understands this, and i bet if you asked honestly, most would admit they 'fudged' some hours here and there...
the fact that you have to cheat to complete IDP though is an indication its a less than ideal system though..."
I dont think making the requirements stricter is a better solution though. Every project is different, so you cant really have a super specific type of hours to log, and to be honest, you will most likely get "fudging" no matter what, unless NCARB will now be reviewing the actual work you did for said hours. Which would be impossible since they would need to have people in your office to watch you work.
Filling out your IDP hours is part of the ethics of being an architect. If you are cheating on that, then what else will you begin "fudging" in your career?
Honestly though, I think the cheating part of filling out your hours is a bit exaggerated.
Unless you are someone who sits in the corner and does renderings all day, but are filling out that you are out on jobsites and doing CA work 40 hours a week just because someone in your office will sign off on it, I think it is generally followed to the spirit of the categories.
I think we shouldnt give more responsibility to NCARB to audit our hours, when it is simple professional responsibility and ethics that can handle that aspect of the job.
jbushkey: I agree completely, and I think that this was what the state was noting as well - that they were able to reject this person because the experience that he was claiming was remotely supervised happened before this was permitted - but if this happens 2 years from now they may not be able to do anything about it, even though it would be exactly the same experience.
marlowe wrote:
"I wonder if there is a correlation to the difficulty of admittance to a professional degree program and the probability of licensure within 5 years."
I have no idea, but I would speculate that there is a strong inverse correlation.
In 1985, more than half of new licenses were issued to people who had been out of school for five years or less. Today that is less than 5%.
Highly selective schools tend to have smaller graduating classes, I think.
There is a chart of ARE performance by school at my google docs page:
here https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6pgQmW4YXbGZDA3ZTg0YTAtNmJkOC00Zjc1LThhNGMtODRkNTFkYmM3MWQ5&sort=name&layout=list&pid=0B6pgQmW4YXbGMjQwMGY5ODYtOTIwZC00YjViLTgxMzEtMWM3YjMzMmRjOTgx&cindex=16
and here https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6pgQmW4YXbGMGViZTE1NjgtMWM3My00ZmMwLTlhMTUtYmYzZGU4MGI3YjYx&sort=name&layout=list&pid=0B6pgQmW4YXbGMjQwMGY5ODYtOTIwZC00YjViLTgxMzEtMWM3YjMzMmRjOTgx&cindex=17
if you're interested in specifics.
Because NCARB does not release the number of those who complete passing the ARE in given years, there is no way currently to determine if there is a correlation between the number of "suites of seven" passes obtained by graduates of any given program and the number of graduates who are licensed.
NCARB does not want us to know the licensure rates of the graduates of accredited programs. The schools either don't want us to know this, or they don't care, not a single architecture program in the country will provide any information on this subject regarding their graduates. Kinda funny, no?
It's all so subject to individual circumstances, so everyone is a little different. But you are right, it would be interesting to have some actual stats on the subject.
Though i am not sure what it would really tell us, as i dont know if a school would say that its main function is to get their graduate licensed. If that was a goal of theirs, they would have actual prep classes for taking the exams (which i actually dont think would be a bad thing).
I think schools may view it negatively in that they dont want to be seen as a trade school type just to churn out licenses
What would people think if medical schools didn't want to just churn out medical licenses? This profession is getting to be parody of itself. I realize the medical profession has doctors and nurses. Nurses however are not unlicensed doctors.
Marmkid I think you are right about the school's attitude. What does this say about licensure?
@marmkid: "I think schools ... don't want to be seen as a trade school ... just to churn out licenses..."
I wonder if the schools that produce lawyers, accountants and doctors (professions that seem to provide their members with fairly strong economic rewards) worry about being seen as "trade schools".
If a school does not take seriously the idea of preparing its graduates for the realities of the marketplace, what is the point ?
i think comparing architectural licenses to medical licenses and a lawyers license is not really the same at all
its a different type of school and career path, and in those fields, to the best of my knowledge, the license is a necessary and critical step. the way things are set up now, an architectural license is not necessarily required.
medical schools and law degrees dont have the same type of "artistic" and "design" aspect that architectural schools do, and architectural schools, for better or worse, put a large emphasis on the "design" aspect of things, which really doesnt have to have anything to do with a license.
"If a school does not take seriously the idea of preparing its graduates for the realities of the marketplace, what is the point ?"
I agree completely, and I think schools should balance it out a bit more toward real world preparation.
I think we need to abandon the constant comparison to lawyers passing the bar or med students getting their license. It's not the same thing at all. Architectural careers are somewhere in between being an artist and being a lawyer/doctor type. The education and license should be something that reflects that. Right now it seems education is leaning towards putting most if not all emphasis on the artistic part, while the license puts all its emphasis on the technical aspect. Neither really is a complete picture of what an architect does since its a combination of the 2
"What would people think if medical schools didn't want to just churn out medical licenses? This profession is getting to be parody of itself. I realize the medical profession has doctors and nurses. Nurses however are not unlicensed doctors."
Doctors have a clear low career ceiling though if they never get their medical license. Architects dont have nearly as low a ceiling if they never get their architectural license.
Doctors really cant be doctors without their license. Architects can be architects without their license (ignoring the formal title of Architect here)
marmkid wrote:
"
Though i am not sure what it would really tell us, as i dont know if a school would say that its main function is to get their graduate licensed. If that was a goal of theirs, they would have actual prep classes for taking the exams (which i actually dont think would be a bad thing).
I think schools may view it negatively in that they dont want to be seen as a trade school type just to churn out licenses"
There is little danger of that. Fewer than a third of graduates are going on to licensure these days. Also keep in mind that the *only* reason for NAAB-accreditation is licensure. You can get all the education you want, anywhere you want, the only reason you might want an accredited degree is that it is required on the path to licensure.
Unlicensed architects are not architects, any more than people without an M.D. are doctors.
"Unlicensed architects are not architects, any more than people without an M.D. are doctors."
Architect vs Doctor is not an apples to apples comparison by any means. Doctors NEED their license. Architects, the way things are right now, dont NEED their license
I tend to agree with you that a license is essential to an architect, but you are just talking semantics if you think being unlicensed as an architect is really that much of an issue in the real world
Architects really need to get over the constant comparison to lawyers and doctors
@marmkid: "Architects really need to get over the constant comparison to lawyers and doctors"
While I tend to agree with this sentiment, I only raised the comparison because we constantly lament how well doctors and lawyers are paid in comparison to architects. We really want their level of economic success, but generally are unwilling to change our behavior in ways that make that possible.
Having said that, one could argue - I suppose - that if we really aspire to that level of compensation, then perhaps we might want to emulate more of what happens within the realm of education and practice for the medical and legal professions.
Law and Med schools are required to published their grad employment rates, while art schools, which is what these programs are becoming, don't need to. That's where the comparison ends.
It's that mentality, that kids are going to "accredited" arch schools, so they can have a "professional" degree, and meanwhile are being taught garbage theory by clowns who own psuedo-firms and couldn't teach the science along with the art that drags down this profession.
Add that to the graduates who come out of these schools and say "oh, we don't need to get licensed," and we've really fucked ourselves over.
Apparently, you don't need to be an "architect" to teach a "professional" program, nor do you need to be an "architect" to have a career as someone's monkey.
@ quizzical
I agree completely. I say that architects need to stop the comparison with the way things are right now. It tends to get thrown out there that architects are the same as lawyers and doctors because we all require a license, and then architects use that as a reason to whine about lower salaries in comparison.
You are definitely right in that it is something that architects should aspire towards, especially when we look at the economic success in both of those fields.
It requires changes in both the education system as well as the license procedure
About a third of the faculty in the US is licensed (in some jurisdiction, not necessarily where they teach). There are about 3000 total faculty in all the schools, so about 1000 of these are architects. The others have not demonstrated minimal competence sufficient to practice architecture unsupervised.
"Add that to the graduates who come out of these schools and say "oh, we don't need to get licensed," and we've really fucked ourselves over. "
yeah the mentality that there is a separation between a designer and a licensed architect hurts the profession as a whole
several of my grad school classmates, even while in school, had the metality that they did not want to spend any time working doing any of the "grunt work", i.e. detailing, rest room details, etc. So leaving school, many would already feel above that part of the profession. Essentially, this idea that if you are not doing the overall "concept" design, you are not an architect, or you are above putting together a CD set is the height of arrogance and a bit absurd
"Essentially, this idea that if you are not doing the overall "concept" design, you are not an architect, or you are above putting together a CD set is the height of arrogance and a bit absurd"
No one wants to be sitting behind a desk spitting out the same details everyday.We've all been there. Did you expect the firm to offer you and your intern classmates the lead design role as summer interns? Or would it be "arrogant" to expect this?
Law and Med grads are financially motivated to get their licensed very early one. Most do so before entering the work force within months of graduation. It's almost a prerequisite for working. A law grad with a license can command 2-3 times that of an unlicensed and good luck finding work if you don't have a Med license. It comes down to is $$$. But in architecture, the schools are more worried about their own business of art/theory than than business of the profession so they put out an oversupply of monkeys and relatively unskilled artist workforce to compete for chump change.
"No one wants to be sitting behind a desk spitting out the same details everyday.We've all been there. Did you expect the firm to offer you and your intern classmates the lead design role as summer interns? Or would it be "arrogant" to expect this?"
yes, it would be arrogant to expect to be handed that instantly without any experience of any evidence that you can do it
I never said I expected anyone to offer me lead design roles instantly, if you read what i wrote. I was giving an example of what i witnessed with some of my classmates
I think its arrogant to NEVER expect to ever have to do anything of the sort though. To think that you can instantly begin working doing only the things you think is fun and interesting while picking and choosing what tasks you would like to do is absurd.
well, here's a thought--an architecture graduate comes out of an mArch program and has the option of going into either practice or academia. academic positions come with salaries similar to entry-level salaries at firms--50-65k or so for a full-time gig, or about 12k per semester per course as an adjunct...so 2 courses per year will get you 48k. yet as an academic you work probably half the hours, you are paid to think, you get respect, and you have time (are encouraged, actually) to do your own work/research on the side. you'll probably never get licensed, but you also don't spend those 'obligatory' 5 years earning your stripes on toilet partitions. and, you'll probably have work that is more likely to get published, which is a shorter and more effective path to launching a successful independent practice than having a license these days.
which would you choose?
elinor that's a terribly rosy view of academia, and mostly inaccurate.
you think? why, exactly? this comes out of a conversation with friends who are teaching, plus my past experience as an adjunct...
none of my friends who teach are remotely interested in working at firms, or getting licensed, for these reasons....
Where were you teaching that for two courses you were being paid $12,000/semester?
Sorry, I mean $12,000 per course?
those who can, do....those who can't.....teach at the U and write 3 books about those who can.
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.