Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc)
Pratt Institute
University of Southern California (USC)
Tulane University
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
Temple University
University of Oregon
Cranbrook Academy of Art
New York Institute of Technology (NYIT)
Kansas State University
San Francisco Institute of Architecture (SFIA)
http://www.cab.ca.gov/pdf/packets/2014/2014_12_10-11_bd_packet.pdf
Quote:
The proposed change to the BEA program reduces the amount of experience required by a licensee to complete the program. Under the proposed change, licensees completing this program must: 1) meet a Member Board’s education and experience requirement for initial licensure, 2) successfully complete the ARE, and 3) maintain a license to practice architecture in the jurisdiction of initial licensure in good standing without disciplinary action for one year.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I see at this meeting for BEA simply requires I meet a member board's initial registration requirement and practice in good standing for one year in California. That would be easy. If california requires me to do a little more documenting my experience, so be it. This is pretty normal for experience path licensing.
So be it.
What are they to document if there is no known deficiency?
You're confusing two different types of deficiencies.
What deficiencies are there? You take complete IDP and you pass the exam.... what other deficiency can there be other than education which is EXACTLY what EESA evaluation is for in the BEA.
According to the California Architect Board meeting board packet, they would be eliminating the EESA, dossier, etc. recognizing that those doing the experience based path to licensure already undergoes additional experience requirements just to become licensed in lieu of a degree. Let assume, 10 years of experience path plus 1 to 2 years of post licensure experience. We are talking twelve years and currently in many states, an architect on normal path can be licensed in as little as <6 years. Assuming you nail IDP while in college and then take your ARE exam and pass it within one year of licensure. So, 8 years of experience on top of IDP hours is fair for experience path to meet initial license.
Then I spend perhaps two whole years of post licensure experience being licensed without being disciplined.
The point of BEA/BEFA is to eliminate all this extra rigors with no practical sense. Why is there all this extra crap in the BEA in the first place?
It makes no sense other than to stifle reciprocity for those going by experience path. Rigor for rigor sake is nonsense.
Sure, there should be some rigor but not need to be unnecessarily burdening.
Where are you getting the combined eesa/dossier stuff?
http://cab.ca.gov/pdf/packets/2015/2015_03_12_bd_packet.pdf
Jump down to the part regarding BEA
This is pretty damn current as I can get without hacking into Harry Falconner's office computer. No, Harry, I won't do that to you. Not worth the trouble.
Here is a snippet so you can use Control + F and paste the text below to get you to the spot:
At its December 4-6, 2014 meeting, the BOD voted to modify the proposed changes to the BEA program that adjust how an architect, without an accredited degree, could apply for an NCARB Certificate by demonstrating competency through experience to compensate for deficiencies in education. The proposed adjustments now would: 1) require two years of post-licensure practice, combined with compliance with twice the IDP requirements for those holding a preprofessional degree or three times the IDP requirements for those holding an unrelated degree; 2) eliminate NCARB Certificate eligibility for those holding only a high school diploma; and 3) eliminate the Education Evaluation Services for Architects and dossier requirements, eliminate the fees associated with those two steps, and automate the entire process, using IDP as the metric for dictating additional experience in lieu of education.
Pg. 25 of the PDF file.
2 years post licensure experience and say 3x the standard IDP training hours which would fulfill California experience. I believe the allowed number of hours I can report them under experience category O and S would be limited to what is currently and the remaining hours would have to be under experience setting A. At least that would be how I would go about it at first unless rules are amended by CAB are satisfactory or OBAE does some amendment to the rules for an experience path to licensure under this rule. It would be interesting nonetheless. I'll be watching this process.
This would be sort of in line with what I said.
This means 6 years of California's 8 year education/experience requirement which would allow me to fulfill this in about 7 to 8 years. I have a degree so I would not be disqualified from NCARB Certificate eligibility. How hard is it for someone to get at least a one year certificate or an AA from a community college.
why did I just read this entire thread on a friday night??? Damn,that medical stuff is potent.
CA is a step behind in responding to the most recent proposal, or perhaps in posting their response.
In any case, you should probably take a look at your past predictions of how your alternative routes would work out and how long they'd take, and compare the results. Then consider realistically whether this latest scheme will follow that pattern.
Googling you turns up nearly a decade of this sort of thing. In 2008 you were sure UO would grant you an honorary degree based on your illustrious building designer career, and you'd be done with IDP by 2011. In 2011 UO wouldn't even let you into the architecture major at sophomore level, but you were going to finish a major in something else and be halfway through an M.Arch by now. In the latest version you're sure that you can get through the BEA process - though that has less than a 35% success rate even among architects who have been licensed and practicing for a decade. So far you've spent 14 years in school and have yet to work in an architecture firm, but you're sure you can finish IDP in less than the usual time frame. You have a lot of confidence in your abilities - past evidence suggests probably too much.
just move to northern europe...
just be careful...the public is at great danger in Sweden witn all the unlicensed archs.
Your posts show an obsession with how you compare to the people who would be your classmates if you were currently in architecture school. This really seems to be holding you back. Instead of ranting about how much better your skills are than those of the average college freshman, consider your skills against the average architect or building designer of your own age. By their mid 30s a typical design or technical school grad has been out of school for some years, and depending on the type and scale of projects that they've worked on they may have anywhere from a few to hundreds of completed projects in their portfolios at this point. They've worked in multiple firms and possibly for themselves, gaining experience in most project phases and aspects of firm management, taken multiple projects through permitting, gotten a good amount of field experience, etc.
Yes you have more experience than the average college freshman or sophomore. But fixating on the perceived unfairness of having to take classes with recent high school grads has kept you from moving forward with your career goals for a very long time, and ironically has stalled you at a level far behind where you'd be expected to be if you'd just sucked up your pride 10 or 15 years ago and gone at this by the more typical route. You may eventually get to a license by some alternate route. At what cost? Many earning years lost. A resume and portfolio that don't even match that of a 23-year old with an internship or two under his belt. Student debt incurred at 2014 prices when you could have done it at 2004 prices - and you're not done with school yet. Your pride and stubbornness are very expensive.
A lot of it is false or distortion of facts with no recollection. Hmm... lets see...my IDP record started when? I began my IDP in, I believe 2011. I may have had been sort of in the system for awhile sort of but when IDP 2.0 came into effect, I got my IDP starting date so to speak.
It's relatively easy to work for someone and get IDP hours. Some of it, I already am working with as it is. I've renewed my IDP for the next year. So, IDP isn't an issue. Before I can finish a bachelor's degree, I would need funding to the courses and the housing. I would be outside that scope given the fact that I would be up against the 150% rule for FAFSA on a standard bachelor's degree. Regarding an M.Arch, I would be resetting the clock again like I did from Associates to Bachelors. The problem is, Eugene is 200+ miles of road travel from Astoria. I don't have a permanent residence in Eugene. They don't pay enough money for it on the shit amount they give out on loans and grants. I have to have a little patience here. You assume I would retire at 65. Not likely if it is my choice.
You say I haven't worked in an architectural firm.
There is no architectural firms in Astoria except one that borderlines being a firm. More like a sole-proprietorship with maybe a few employees on a good year. So, really... firms??? Unless I am getting moving expenses covered, why would I pay the $1,000 that it cost to rent a moving vehicle, and $6,000+ of rent that I would have to pay as a deposit (6 months rent minimum deposit) for rent in Portland, Oregon. Rent is $1,000 a month in Portland, Oregon area. There better be a better option on rent. That's not an insurmountable but I'm not going to be wasting money unless there is a strategy worked out. I'm not going to jump to working in Portland without thinking out how the hell I am going to get there and not be living on the street because you will be dead within one single night of Oregon winter. literally. I maybe willing to commute for the first month or so until I have rent established but keep in mind, that's 3 to 4 hours each day provided the road is clear so I would need enough flexibility in hours.
You are complaining I haven't worked for an architectural firm. I'm not interested in trying to sell my soul like a whore to some firm wasting $100 worth of paper and postage as well as thousands of hours of packaging a resume/portfolio for ever single firm.
I'm not interesting in joining an architecture firm to be a firm's IT bitch. My training and experience in software development was creating software and video games. I was most active in that for Commodore 8-bit ans Amiga computers. I am not too inclined in webpage development. You even implied that I could have been working for an architecture firm. Really. My client projects are almost always small projects because they are exempt projects.
Regarding BEA...
You realize the issues causing that success rate in BEA is the impediment they have indicated multiple times that they are working to eliminate from the BEA. The point is they were working to eliminate those impediments in the BEA, The point is that the states themselves will have their own intensive process of assuring minimum competence. Therefore, if you are competent to practice in a state and demonstrate that you are practicing in good standing in a state without disciplinary action, you would then why should NCARB place additional impediment to prove what you already proven competence.
Frankly sir, show me something more newer in terms of the proposal. The second link was from the proposal determined by December 2014. NCARB is gettting feedback from all the member boards from their updates on this. You show me a proposal from NCARB on the BEA process that is newer than this.
Under the latest proposal as shown in California, there is no EESA evaluation required. The very impediment is the bullshit process. Perhaps, there maybe an optional program to be available for those who got initially licensed in a state with a lower requirement for initial license like 8 or 9 years experience path and then they want to go to a state where there is a requirement for 15 years... so as to make that up.
I'm not particularly planning to go to New York for initial path to licensure. You even said, they would be eliminating EESA evaluation which effectively makes Dossiers under the current system broken. Otherwise, there is made-up contrived deficiencies being made and imposed with no reason.
NCARB has indicated an expanded internship option and NCARB Board of Directors meets like what is it 3 times a year other than annual meeting. That's being optimistic on the national. So, if there is a newer proposal approved by the NCARB Board of Director, it would have came out last month at the earliest if not this month and the only ones to know would have been the BEA committee which I believe includes Harry Falconner.
Unless you are Harry himself or on the BEA committee itself, I doubt any of the boards would have seen any further updated proposal to the BEA streamlining than what has already been proposed last in December so the last update from California is pretty darn as up to date as any board would have seen.
Getting IDP hours completed, is easy once you get employed. Just do them, report the hours and get on with it. If you plan to have me document the experience more than just reporting the hours, ok. IDP is also being worked into the newer format that would align with ARE 5.0
omg I have never seen so many excuses in my entire life. You can't get a job because you'd have to spend thousands of hours packaging portfolios? Dude, no firm wants a paper resume or portfolio anymore. You make one pdf and send the same one to every firm. Rent is impossible? Everybody else managed to move out on their own sometime, why can't you? You used up all your financial aid eligibility? How did you manage to do that without getting a degree? It's not anybody else's fault that you can't graduate on time, apply for jobs, or scrape up enough for rent. Why should there be a special way for you to get licensed that's different than how everybody else does it? What's so special about you? If anything all these failures and excuses should make your architecture board think twice, not give you special preference.
Bloopox and others,
There is no way in hell I will have the money to attend an NAAB program that I can attend while working. The fact is I won't get paid sufficiently enough to pay the courses and I wouldn't be able to get the student loans if I was working. The amount we make in this profession is the cut off point for student loans. If I were to attend, I would not make enough money to pay the courses and cost of living. To attend an NAAB accredited college full-time and work full-time, you need to be making $60K as the online / distance learning programs charges around $30K on the tuition fees and books but you need to make about $20K to pay for living expenses such as food, rent, utilities.
On-campus would be a no go because I wouldn't be able to work at a firm while attending because firms don't tend to work around class schedules. If you can't be able to work during the firm's office hours full-time, you don't get hired or you get fired/laid off. Understand?
I can do the experience path and BEA under the proposed rule. Either way, I'd be working and getting paid so even if by the time I'm licensed, my portfolio would nonetheless be better anyway. So what if it takes 8-10 years to get initial licensure. And then another 2-3 years for BEA and reciprocity.
The low success rate for BEA is because of the EESA/Dossier crap that many just give up and stop because it is an impediment full of subjectivity and such. Reporting IDP hours has a much higher success rate. so instead of reporting 3740 hours... you'd be reporting 11,220 or so hours. Therefore, more experience under an architect.
If you do the math, IDP hours per year is pretty close to 35 hours a week x 52 weeks a year. That aligns with a typical 7 hours of working in a typical 9-5 office hours. Remember, you work around 7 hours of an 8 hour work shift. Do the math. In an 8 to 5 job, your work shift spans 9 hours. 1 hour off for lunch so it's 8 hours but you got 15 minutes breaks every 2 hours approx. Plus there is some time you spend that is not IDP.
Then you have opportunity to attain hours while not in employed or outside the work shift. There is all sorts of opportunities.
It just means not being lazy and not report hours. Reporting hours weekly is a good practice to do or bi-weekly from your pay stubs and submitted time sheets with the office.
If I were to make hours on this stuff, great. Either way, I would be improving things for myself nonetheless while getting to my goal.
Should I go through experience path->BEA or should I get an M.Arch? How would I be able to get the M.Arch if there is no money? I don't get scholarships because none of the scholarship programs for architecture will give out scholarships to white males especially due to the fact I am a building designer and do not have an "architect" sounding name. My last name doesn't sound like a last name of an architect. There is all that kind of bullshit discrimination that goes on in scholarship programs. Do I have an ethnic sounding name? No. Not really.
I've had too many issues with such in the past. Add to the fact that I am not related to an architect or have a relative on the scholarship committees so it is a waste of my time so everything is either loans or out of pocket at this point.
Explain to me, how I would make that kind of money in this profession?
Richard, it called a barrier to entry...this is what keeps competition down. thats the main purpose of the ncarb system. its intentionally long and expensive. Its also the reason why the profession is full of upper middle class white men. Then the brain dead bastards sit around wondering why there are so few minorities...." maybe if we invite kanye, yeah that will do it" the profession is exclusive as is the narrow market it serves.
Here's an action plan for you.
1. GET A FULL TIME JOB. Any job. Janitor, trash man, burger flipper, convenience store cashier, ANY job that's available. Do NOT start saying you can't do this because of your businesses. If your businesses were making any money you'd already have money for rent.
2. Stop paying money to the AIA, Building Designer institute, and for domains for your websites, and all other expenses related to operating your not-very-successful businesses. Put all of that on hold. Use the money saved to MOVE.
3. Save up 4 months of rent (first, last, security, and an extra month for initial living expenses.)
4. Move out of your parent's house. Move out of Astoria. It's a dead end, you can't get any experience there, you've said so yourself 10000 times.
5. GET A JOB in your new city. Any job. Same as in #1 above.
6. Spend you non-working time making a portfolio. Send one pdf file of portfolio and resume to every architecture firm, design firm, construction firm, kitchen planning firm, etc. in the city. Follow up on all of them. Find mentors, ask to shadow people in firms, network with architects and builders (NOT at AIA meetings. Take them out for coffee and ask them to tell you all about themselves.) Keep doing this until you find a job more closely related to architecture.
7. WORK. Stop thinking up alternatives. Just work and get experience. In 3 or 4 years reevaluate whether you still want to get a license, whether you want to go back to school, whether current BEA or whatever options let you get around that somehow, whatever. But don't make that the immediate priority. The priorities should be get out of Astoria and get some experience.
kjdt,
My projects are done either by hand on 24x36 sheets or they are done in Autocad as construction documents. The design sketch portion is usually done on large format sheets and then I may shift to using CAD. How do you think I am going to put such drawings on pdf without having a large format scanner. I do not have the spare cash to spend half a grand to have them scanned. You might say, photograph it. I don't have a 50 mega pixel camera and lighting sucks for it. Also, not only do the images get grainy and pixelated... losing detail, they also lose chroma value. Often looking like shit. Some are not colorized. Not all projects I do, I do fancy renderings.
Regarding the education:
I was also doing a historic preservation minor. I started taking courses in architectural history and other courses and eventually shifted to a major. However, it would have taken maybe 2 terms at full-time to complete what remains. Some courses weren't available in the timing needed so I had to take some courses just to maintain 12 credit minimum enrollment for the other grant money and campus housing. So, it didn't help exactly.
Lets also remember that not all my community college courses are applied to the degree evaluation.
As for resume:
You make and package your resume and cover letter a little bit for each firm. Especially the cover letter but sometimes how you arrange your educations, skills, etc.
Most firms requires an NAAB degree. Finding the ones that don't is a pain in the butt.
If you know firms in Portland, Oregon that do, it would be great to know.
It's a case law requirement for professionals to keep their client information confidential. We have a legal duty to confidentiality as professionals because we are privy to personal information that should not be disclosed to others and even a portfolio may expose that information and who they are. My building design projects are not disclosed for matters of confidentiality.
That is why so few projects are even disclosed. If I disclose them or their identity and they are contacted, they may sue me for breaching confidentiality.
Here's the bottom line: If you want me to take an NAAB degree, either help me resolve the financial cost of it or shut the hell up about that path. After all, NCARB and a number of states do provide for alternate paths to initial licensure.
An experience path to licensure is an option that doesn't have $25,000+ upfront price tag. I can work around issues of getting to work in Portland but it would need to be sequenced appropriately.
A number of my building design projects I can not use for portfolio if I am going to be adhere to professional responsibility to confidentiality of client information, contact, and other information. In other words, I can only disclose the info on a "need to know" basis to those explicitly in a need to know basis. The curiosity of a prospective employer that I choose to apply to does not rise to the legal level of a "need to know" basis.
If I were to disclose confidential information outside requirement of a legal proceeding, or permission of the client or otherwise is public information via newspaper or other similarly disseminated public information, it maybe a breach of legal responsibility to a client to not disclose such project information to others. Even if the information is submitted to building department, and technically information maybe accessed by FOIA, I still have to be confidential about information on my part. Understand?
The curiosity of a website or web based forum is not sufficient reason for disclosing confidential information.
Dick Balkins, nobody here gives a fuck if you take an NAAB degree, feel your past work is "confidential" or owes you any help in resolving your own internal strife. You have a damn novel of ranting about your problems, and every solution that has been suggested, you respond to with a 500-word dossier about how it isn't possible. Either sack up and go do the work necessary to become an architect, or quit bitching about it on a forum aimed at architects.
You should really consider writing that fan-fiction novel. If you don't, I probably will.
I don't want you to do an NAAB degree. I didn't suggest it. I suggested not thinking about school at all for several years. I didn't suggest disclosing clients' identities either.
Usually with projects for private clients in portfolios we just title them by their location, or even simply "private residence" or whatever. You only need a few projects for an entry-level portfolio so you don't need to even use any of your projects for clients if you don't want to. You could use work from your school projects, or even make a couple new imaginary projects in CAD. That should be really easy for you given your skills. If you're going to get a job in an architecture firm ever you're going to have to do something to make a digital portfolio. I haven't received a paper portfolio from a job applicant in more than 10 years. Saving up the money to scan one or two projects on a large format scanner at a copy place is another option. This isn't expensive these days - a few dollars a sheet at most to scan and give you an image file, and your portfolio doesn't need to be any more than 10 or 12 pages so this shouldn't break the bank.
As for firms requiring an NAAB degree: don't take anything in a job ad too seriously. If you can satisfy even a third of the stated requirements you should apply. They may consider you for the job anyway, or for a different one.
You're making too many excuses. Follow the action plan.
kjdt,
You realize I am basically an executor to a living trust which includes this house in Astoria in which I would have some stake on this house in case anything happens to my father.
On the software business which I'm spending capital to develop software until I run a crowd-funding campaign. In the old days, before crowdfunding, we used to have to create the software on essentially a soda pop and cold pizza or noodle budget and then sell the software and make the money.
I can probably get enough money to effectively crowd-fund development of a video game which I can budget enough money off to the side to put the money for rent. Like I said, it is solvable to get into Portland. However, I don't exactly know how a video game development project will communicate in a portfolio to an architecture firm.
On the other hand, I could say forget about architecture licensing altogether and get out of this business altogether. I could make more money in software than I probably could ever in building design/architecture so maybe not worry about it. I can nonetheless work on a chunk of the IDP without being employed by an architect.
We'll see !!!!
Great. Then go work on the software so you can get to the crowdfunding that much sooner, and stop asking for advice about how to bypass an architecture degree!
As for the house and your father: basically everybody in our age bracket whose parents are still alive is in the same situation. It doesn't keep most of us from moving out of our parents' attics and having independent lives. Stop making excuses. The bottom line is you don't make enough money in what you're currently doing to move to somewhere where you can get IDP experience, therefore you either need to follow the plan that I gave you, or give up on getting IDP experience. Either way, what good is ranting endlessly about architecture licensing regulations doing for you?
I gave you a realistic plan. You just gave a million more excuses. I'm done.
damn Richard, stop with the excuses...
kdjt:
Alright. BTW: I can get IDP training hours without being employed. That is what EPC and such is available.
That's another thing you've been saying forever. How many units have you earned from EPC so far?
Let me guess: none? And your excuses are?...
Sorry kjdt,
I'm lagging behind posts that were being posted while I was writing.
Software project can help that funding part to get to where jobs are. In addition, building design business itself could be closed or merely maintained on paper. On the other hand, I can still run the software business in a sort of 'moonlight' fashion as that doesn't really effect work as my hours on that can be worked around my own schedule and not necessarily has to be running as a daytime-weekday business so to speak.
I just explaining where things are right at the moment not to say these reasons at the moment aren't insurmountable. My software business is more or less mobile better than my building design business which I'll be sort of closing it after I clean up some financial stuff.
As for developing a portfolio... ok.
What good is ranting about architectural licensing doing for me? Hmmm... ventilating about the crap at least so far...
So you say don't take job ads too seriously. Hmm... okay. Most other occupations, they are dead serious about what they state. In if it is required, they mean it with zero exceptions. Perhaps, architecture firms hiring practices aren't such anal retentive drones.
EPC... well... college courses and assignments. Other part is getting things coordinated with an IDP Mentor/supervisor.
So far, it has been a little challenging to work with at the moment. It is not that it can't be done but finding an architect to coordinate the EPC activity and doing the work in accordance with the EPC process has been difficult to get established.
The idea isn't suppose to be me just do it all and then find someone to approve them. It is suppose to be coordinated much like a back and forth deal.
One architect I was thinking about working with when I got back from Eugene in doing this had passed away not long ago. So, that kind of disrupted that so here we go. Finding an architect that is actively licensed that I can work with.
This thread has yet to stop being entertaining.
Richard, how about this: Go get something in writing that says your entitled, special treatment, desperation workaround plan will be accepted. No one on this forum is going to be able to give you any kind of approval that will be of any substantive use to you. As far as I can tell, the people who have responded to your posts unanimously agree that this will not work. That should tell you something.
By all means, feel free to prove us wrong. But you should also be prepared for the very strong likelihood that you will have to go through the exact same process as everyone else, regardless of your experience or age or perceived level of ability.
If you want to make a case for something based on your experience, submit a killer application portfolio, hope for merit-based financial aid, and then try to get as many courses waived as you possibly can. This is done all the time. If you've worked on as many projects as you say you have, you should be able to get out of the construction sequences, environmental controls, drawing, maybe history, which mostly would just leave studios and a handful of electives (a number of courses potentially low enough to allow you to keep working).
So prove us wrong or fucking get to work. Your attitude so far makes you look like someone wholly undeserving of any favors or special consideration.
placebeyondthespline:
LOOK HERE:
THERE ARE MULTIPLE PATHS TO LICENSURE.
Not all of them require a degree including paths ways of reciprocity that doesn't always require licensing.
In fact, there had been experience based paths to licensing in most states since long before anyone here has been alive. However, it wasn't until the 1980s when the architecture got into this mentality of rigor for rigor sake and abusing licensing laws so use it for purpose of limiting competition.
Licensing law is was adopted by the State legislators to protect the physical health, safety and welfare of the public which was meant to refer to people occupying buildings. It was motivated by public outcry after the Chicago fire. Especially buildings of public accommodation. I know this for a fact in ways you can never believe. The story obviously wasn't so clean and noble. AIA seized on the issue for their political agenda for the architecture schools. Lets remember there was a political issue at the time between academically trained architects (those whom were the main membership of AIA at the time and whom AIA was founded) and the architect-builder whom were often not formal trained but were trained in experienced based path to licensure.
When I talked to NCARB, NAAB, and OBAE administrator, nothing has been indicated by them that bars me from taking EESA. In fact, nothing in the education guidelines says they can not evaluate someone who has a U.S. based degree that isn't NAAB accredited or on the BEA. Given they are eliminating requirement of EESA/Dossier from being required under BEA and BEFA according to officially signed proposals documents signed by Michael Armstrong, Executive Director of NCARB to the boards to gather review and opinion and feedback from the boards, and all other publicly indicated proposal by NCARB, they have indicated the intent to remove these impediments because it causes unnecessary burden to those who have passed the licensure requirements of states and causing unneccessary burden for reciprocity.
I understand such proposals would be amended and adjusted over time, but remember, these are the officially approved proposals that have been approved by the BOD of NCARB at their quarterly meeting. They just had a meeting December and that is what California was looking at in their March meeting. The only meeting NCARB BOD would have had is their spring meeting which would assume if they had it in March. It might not have happened yet, either. Let me ask this question, for SpontaneousCombustion, what document do you on regards to the BEA/BEFA streamline proposal that is dated AFTER their December meeting. Which would mean that SpontaneousCombustion is on the Broadly Experienced Research Committee - of the Broadly Experienced Committee.
I'm curious about this EESA stuff he mentioned. If they remove EESA, perhaps I may forgo looking at SFIA stuff for using EESA for licensure.
What that means is experienced based initial licensure and use my education for whatever it is weighted for and work with that and watch how the states work with their licensing programs. This may mean I look at California or if Oregon implements an experienced based path to licensure using IDP as the metric in lieu of a degree that will satisfy then so be it. The licensing board can add such a path by administrative rule adoption and implement it in a year's time.
Especially if BEA isn't such a total PITA process that it currently is. You have to agree that removing the EESA/Dossier requirements post-licensure would greatly increase success rate of the BEA.
For me, I have two options: (assuming EESA is eliminated or limited to those who are foreign educated but not qualify for BEFA.)
1. Get NAAB accredited degree, finish IDP and get licensed under that path.
2. Get licensed by experience and undergo BEA under the new BEA policy.
Note: #2 would mean I could be working for an architecture firm, sooner as I would not need to be unemployed while in school. When you go to college, you basically are eliminating yourself from being employed because 90% of firms will not hire you or they'll lay you off because you are going to college because you won't be available full-time.
At the same time, I would not be increasing student loan debt that I would end up having to pay for another 20 years after graduating which would be pretty close to 20 years after licensure.
#1. May mean I get licensed sooner but it doesn't mean I get paid better substantially. In fact, the norm is either no pay increase or you see only a very modest pay increase which isn't jack shit. I have rarely heard anyone seeing a big boost in pay after licensure.
Lets be honest with ourselves, how many of you are as good as John Yeon or Frank Lloyd Wright. All this formal education, what I see is usually crap. Shouldn't you all be better at designing than either of those two?
I'm aware that there are multiple paths to licensure. You started this conversation by asking about an unaccredited university architecture program and how you might weasel your way into getting it to count toward a license.
Regardless, you're not getting any closer to licensure by endlessly writing about it on a forum. It has been established that you've made some highly questionable decisions with regard to your education and professional career. The energy and time you are putting into arguing this nonsense (yet another poorly considered choice) could be much better applied to the actual pursuit of one of these licensure paths.
You are literally the only person here who gives a shit whether you are licensed. If you want to get licensed, pick a path and go do it. Whether you want to try some stupid technicality, or if you want to extend your illustrious community college pedigree, or if you want to get licensed via experience, you're going to have to actually go do it, rather than talking about it for ten years.
I don't see it happening. But I hope you prove me wrong.
It is not necessarily a matter of 'weaseling" ones way into but using the words of the legally binding terms of NCARB. Remember something about law of contract, how you say something counts.
However, the most valid point by Spontaneouscombustion is that with all the changes happening at NCARB, it maybe that EESA would be eliminated or altered before I reach a point where I can do such. Given that BEA would eliminate it based on documented proposals by NCARB, for example.... EESA may very well no longer exist. The EESA as we know it may morph into something like what he said but may also be strictly used for foreign trained applicants that would not qualify for BEFA. So, what would that mean? Maybe nothing much.
You probably should understand what was going on in my life for the reasons of my decisions. I won't go into it.
I'm simply looking for the easiest path with least financial burden.
Re changes to the BEA process: so far most states that have formed a position have been negative about the proposed changes. Some have indicated their state will stop accepting BEA certifications for reciprocity. There are already several states that do not accept a BEA. Adding several more to that will make it an even less useful route to licensure as it will further limit one's ability to practice in other states.
Re current EESA eligibility: if you don't have an EESA tab on your MyNCARB page, you're not eligible for EESA evaluation. Period.
Now one more time: we all understand that you're looking for the least expensive option. But we're noticing that your past attempts have only resulted in expense with not much to show for it. You spent 3 years at UO, incurring 50k in loans, but you didn't graduate. You spent at least 10 years of earning potential in school, or operating businesses that don't seem to have made you enough money to stand on your own two feet, not to mention the years of your life spent ranting online. You don't have a good track record with finding the least expensive path, so you should listen to others - but you don't have a good track record with that either.
YAWN! You racked up $50K in loans after one year. Technically my loan base is closer to $35-$40K but interest over payment period would put it up there a tad.
You say 10 years of earning potential. Ok... from... what switching careers from software business to 'architecture'?
Perhaps.
Um... there is no determining eligibility of EESA eligibility because transcripts have not been submitted to NCARB as of yet. However, they did send this notification which would more of a yellow bar not long ago.
They won't know if I am EESA eligible until I submit transcripts. I have to file some forms but guess what I haven't send that yet because you don't get an EESA tab until you get an initial review because the tab that you are talking about is for submitting information for deficiencies. Then again, they don't even have that stuff you are talking about set up yet because there are changes. You used to have to go to naab's EESA site.
It isn't that I am or am not eligible. It is that it is more in state of limbo per se.
I would rather finish my AA in historic preservation at CCC before I have the transcript for that degree, submitted. I could have the other transcripts sent.
I can have the first AA degree and the CADD certificate sent over the next week or two. I have a few things on my schedule this week so it depend. It would take them a little bit of time to have it sent.
It isn't new.
I racked up $50k in one year?? When was that? I must have slept through that year, and so far haven't received the bills... As far as I know I racked up well under 50k, combined total through undergrad and M.Arch, even though I had no parental support. Of course I didn't refuse to take the SAT, so I wasn't disqualified from my intended major or from merit-based financial aid in college. And I finished my first degree early - I didn't hang around taking random classes that didn't pertain to my major. And I ranked highly in my class and had a strong portfolio, so I had my pick of M.Arch programs and got a substantial amount of grant money. And I had many part-time jobs during college, and architecture firm and teaching assistant gigs in grad school, which helped with living expenses but also gave me a solid resume to get my foot in the door when I looked for my first full time architecture firm jobs.
These are all reasons why I and others here try to give you advice: we've already done it, and we got through it more easily and inexpensively than you are doing it.
As for SFIA: it's been "pursuing accreditation" throughout its history. That seems to be more of a marketing claim than a real goal. It's a perfectly fine option for bored wives of doctors, and trust fund kids with architectural fantasies, but not for anyone who plans to use academic credit as any part of satisfying any path with any credentialing entity.
If you just want to argue against all advice, why do you keep posting?
Our CFO drove me to the airport with the windows rolled down. It was seventy five degrees in Phoenix, the sky a perfect, cloudless blue. I was wearing my favorite shirt - short sleeves and white silk; I was wearing it as a farewell gesture. My carry-on item was a parka and a tape-measure.
In the Olympic Peninsula of northwest Washington State, a small firm named Olson Kundig existed under a near-constant cover of clouds. It was in this firm that I'd been compelled to spend many long nights until I hit my early thirties. That was the year i finally put my foot down and left architecture. For the past three years I have been working as a consultant and owner's rep in Pheonix and spending summers in California.
It was to Olson Kundig's stuffy office that i now exiled myself - an action that took great horror. I detested Architects, but our CFO and board had selected them to build our newest addition. I loved Phoenix. I loved the sun and the blistering heat. I loved the vigorous, sprawling city, and I loved Denise Scott Brown.
There you go, Richard, I wrote the first three paragraphs of your fan-fiction novel for you. You can pay me back when it makes it big.
Ok Spontaneous,
Ok, $50K may have been a little bit exaggerated but reality is it can be in some of these colleges especially grad school when there is no pell grant.
Is my path the most cost efficient.... no. I'm not looking at what would have been my most easiest/cost efficient path 10 or 15 years ago. Then again, not everyone had the option to go to a university at 18 years of age. I didn't and it wouldn't have been an option until I was 24/25 years old. Which would be 2005/2006. Ok, 10 years ago.
Regardless, what I have studied all applies to professional practice in architecture such as CAD and historic preservation.
Now, right now.... 2015 not 2005.... I am seeking what would be easiest path for me to licensure that won't break the bank and leave me with excessive debt load for the pay level in architecture.
just go to U of O for a B.Arch state school solid and cheap, and it will make you a better designer by a lot. You may even get some AP for CC courses you have taken, if you want to get licensed you need to do the same shity overpriced route as he rest of us, it sucks ass but you have to do it.
Richard,
I took the traditional path to licensure.
The ARE changed 3 times.
IDP changed 3 times.
The CSE changed 3 times.
I believe that if you try to find an alternate path that depends on some fiat of arcane technicality it will only result in a fruitless and frustrating waste of time and money.
Enrolling in an architecture program that is 1 step above a diploma mill can not help you.
I believe NCARB is moving toward a national boilerplate path which includes an accredited professional degree, some form of IDP and ARE and that any path that does not recognize that will prove quixotic at best.
You asked and every single person commenting on this thread has given you sound advice.
Beepbeep: He already attended U of O, but they wouldn't let him into the B.Arch program because it's a competitive major, his community college grades weren't good, and he refused to take the SAT. So he stayed for 3 years, using up most of his financial aid eligibilty, while taking courses that didn't manage to satisfy the minimum requirements of any major. That's why he's stuck now. He can't finish a bachelor degree because he can't afford it because he can't get financial aid.
Of course, at the time he ranted about the unfairness of university policies, comparative stupidity of his classmates, and so on and so forth - and everybody told him to suck it up and take the damn SAT, but he steadfastly refused, and said he had another "alternative" figured out. Here we are, four years later, same old sob stories. All those stupid architecture student classmates have graduated and moved on to careers, and he's back in his parents' attic.
Beepbeep,
Since I am less than a year's worth of courses from completing a Bachelor's degree, it might be in my best interest to go M.Arch. The reason for it is that I would have access to the student loans again and curriculum would be scheduled around a 3 year window not a 5 year which may make going to Portland more viable option.
I'm not ruling out UO but if I had to attend part-time, I can potentially do that at Portland even while living in Astoria. It is possible to attend a school with two hour commute if I could be completed with IDP at that point, all the better in my opinion. Commuting to Eugene is a little bit hard to do as that would eat up too much time on the driving.
If I go M.Arch, it would just take GRE,
Just so you know.... Sponty, architecture wasn't my first field or career direction.
Richard, I went to PSU for architecture - undergrad. If you end up going to PSU, you should strongly consider living in Portland. Like most architecture programs, the studio environment there requires a lot of time, late nights, etc, and living two hours away would definitely get in the way of getting the most out of the program. It's a great program, but you'll need to get the most out of it and go above and beyond to get a good job and make it worth it. Let me know if you'd like more info.
I agree. However, if I was doing this part-time like if I was doing the 4+2 program (whether that makes any sense to do is another question) or attending part-time (half-time enrollment. There really is no reason why I couldn't find enough time to do the assignment of the studio.
So please don't take it is saying no to living in Portland. I just have to look at what the situation be - be it the 4+2 program or the 3yr M.Arch. I probably would have a place there but in example of doing the 4+2 program, I would have so little course load that I could be doing the commute in the first year or two. It is undecided yet, though because I have to get the financial stuff lined up. I have to get things logistically worked out financially and so forth.
If I was working in Portland, I would reason that I be reaching the 'critical level of time in Portland" that I would need to have a place there.
So zg_a, the above is not meant to reject your statement. I agree it would make sense to have a place there that I can be at the least to sleep short of setting up tent in the hallway making the university really happy with me.
BUMP: People's scroll wheel must be broken
Oh wait... they must have old mac mouses.
zg_a,
Since you offered more info, I'll take you up on that offer. Obviously info that would supplement but not in the "books" as I can read the website info.
jesus christ, there is no need to fucking 'bump' this stupid thread when less than 12 hours have passed. what the fuck more do you want?
Rickardo....you ever Call Fred?
pbtsplines,
Pretty obvious... AIA licensure and a rimjob.
To keep the thread from being buried,
Snooker... not yet. Anyone got his phone number?
It's a fairly new program, so the reputation alone will not get you a foot in the door at a firm.
The program is relatively philosophical and artistic, compared to most programs (and U of O). Some people did well with it (full rides to MIT, SciArc, etc) and others, a lot actually, who didn't really go all in, ended up working in other fields.
I personally loved it there, and I really respect the faculty there, but I had to put in a lot of extra effort after graduating to get the kind of job that I wanted. This is partly because they're more focused on teaching students how to develop meaningful space and architecture, and not necessarily how to produce a slick, polished end product.
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.