If he/she is able to pay your salary he/she probably has more experience with or without a license. Pull all you want, just don't be surprised when you get put in your place. If you work for them you are below them on the totem pole...
You shouldn't be responsible for your boss's decisions because you don't have control over the decisions they make. If your stamp is going on their drawings, you're responsible.
Plenty of people find themselves in upper management or partner roles without ever going through the licensing process. I guess it all depends on who's stamp and who's insurance backs up the drawings... but like jlax says above, chances are they are far more experienced than you are so thread lightly if you're going to start a pissing contest.
Im not talking about myself here... Just wondering.... I am an independent practitioner anyway... But it just kills me to not know what other architects, especially at larger offices, feel when they get a boss who did not go through the licensing process. Doesn't it make you feel like you did it for nothing?
Aside from responsibility, it just is what it is. If you're not stamping drawings, and they're not stamping drawings, then there isn't much of a difference.
could be they have more experience, and may even be more competent in the role they're in. could also be favortism or nepatism or just dumb luck that got them into the position they're in. either way, getting a license doesn't mean you get a better job.
I don't know what the reason is, but I would never hire a project architect/project manager who is not licensed. It is a prerequisite to legitimizing to clients the work I am doing. Would you like to go to a hospital where only one doctor is board certified? My wife is a doctor and she says that there are many doctors who have an MD next to their name without ever getting their board certification. Although producing work under the "responsible control" of an architect is a mandate in California, it is not required in NY, but the only way I can truly feel that the work is actually under my responsible control, is if my senior staff are licensed.
I think actual ability and knowledge should ALWAYS top paper credentials. Personality matters too. I wouldn't put too much faith in any standardized test. Why is s/he your boss? Why do you need a boss?
We are professionals. Lets stop outsourcing what me market as our expertise to non-licensed individuals. That way we keep pur profession legitimate. Right now we are basically Master Construction and Design Coordinators, not Master Builders. We need to re-legitimize our profession by selling our expertise, and not telling clients- we need to hire consultant x, y, and z because we are too incompetent to do the work ourselves. A consultant in the true sense of the word is not someone who does the work for you. He/she is someone who confirms that your work is ok and recommends enhancements and or corrections to your work. It is unfortunate that consultants have become the main source for any work an architect does not want or could not do. An architect should theoretically be able to do all of the consultant's work. How many of you are actually familiar with Chapter 16 (Structural Design) of the IBC other than Deflection criteria? I bet you all outsource that to your structural engineers. Same goes for lighting, acoustics, MEP, etc. You don't have to be an expert, but don't outsource the work as if you expect all of it to be done by someone else.
I know plenty of individuals with licenses who I would not want running projects or assembling CDs. I also know plenty of B.arch and Techs who can totally save the day. A piece of paper does not equal competence and as long as the work is produced under the office's stamp/certificate of practice, then whom ever, licensed or not, is an acting agent of said stamp.
For the record Bulgar, I'm very familiar with my country's structural code. If I would work in small residential... I would certainly do all the consultant's work. Not so much when it's large office buildings.
You don't have to be an expert, but don't outsource the work as if you expect all of it to be done by someone else.
But, you HAVE TO outsource the work that you are not an "expert" in. Otherwise, you are doing the client a disservice. You are proposing that architects also become professionally competent in multiple branches of engineering as well. Do you really think that is realistic?
I am proposing that we restore the glory of the profession as it existed in the days of FLW. Nowadays, clients ask us questions and we're speechless because we always have to tell our clients that we have to ask our consultants. If I were the client, I'd ask- if you don't know the answer, then why the hell did I hire you and not them in the first place?
And Tintt- no need to hire me. I'm doing very well on my own ;) I don't disagree with you that you need the expertise of a structural engineer or other consultants on your projects. All I am saying is that there seems to be a massive reluctance by Architects to give any answers about the specialty items without having a consultant hold the architect's hand through the process. We design shit without knowing a ballpark size of a beam for example. We can't even do a simple load check because we outsource it to consultants. You're right- some architects do know their shit, but I am not talking about the few. I'm talking about the profession as a whole.
Aren't the unlicensed partners usually the ones in charge of the business? They usually have MBA's and therefore are way more qualified than someone who focused entirely on architecture to take care of marketing and business development and usually have nothing to do with quality control of projects which is left for the partner with a license.
In terms of the consultant argument, if you are working on smaller scale construction I think it would make more sense to try and do design build than do Struct. and MEP drawings. Also, since you will need a structural engineer to stamp engineering drawings he can't legally do that unless his work was prepared under his own guidance and control.
I guess I am approaching this from the perspective of work in NY where the architect can sign and seal any work type. If NY would allow that, I would damn sure expect that any licensed architect in NY be able to do that type of work...
In order to be a "Master Builder" in today's day and age ( not FLW) you need a contractors license not an Architectural License. Maybe you need both? Either way, last I checked, Architects don't build anything... just saying.
exactly- how can you know how to build without ever building... that's like teaching someone how to sing without ever singing. But this is for a different thread. My point is different- architects rely wayyyy too much on their consultants, and in the process dilute their expertise to a point where very few actually have any expertise. And to bring it around to the very original post on this thread, if few architects have expertise, then how can the license holder rely on non-licensed individuals to their work? Sounds very risky...
Bulgar, I think you are approaching it from the perspective of working with shiftless and incompetent people. There are good architects out there too. The really good ones can tell you who the best engineers are for a given situation, and understand what value expertise brings to each aspect of a project. Smart clients want to work with the smartest teams, not the cheapest one-man shops.
FLW studied civil engineering btw. But he also was incompetent at many aspects of designing durable and effective construction (see fallingwater cantilevers, johnson wax windows). He is valuable to architecture because he had fascinating spatial ideas and a new approach to styling, not because he was good at everything he did. He himself didn't really understand that though...
Bulgar, can you design MEP as efficiently and effectively as an expert? If not, you are opening yourself to a world of liability and malpractice...its your duty to your client to engage the proper consultants when in their best interest.
The good ones also tell their engineers what to do... and follow through by reading their specs and drawings.
For what it's worth... I can swing a framing hammer just as well any anyone. I can also weld, operate a fork-lift/stacker and use a sewing machine. Renaissance man right here.
What bulgar is attempting to gain legitimacy at the expense of good business Practice. Any competent business person would try to limit liability and outsource time consuming/high liability work that detracts from the true value of their particular area of expertise...
bulgarblogger. yes in NYC and RA=PE and the older guys had true "consulting engineers". most architects do not take all on especially if busy. for instamce in 2013 I did a full MEP filing on a job with an AOR. I do limited structural like floor framing, openings in exterior walls? but even then I am working with a structural engineer.....the reluctance comes from being overworked and liable. its less of a big deal to spec a nom ADA compliant toilet then undersize beams etc...also insurances and lawsuits have for a good part discouraged model. i have been in arbitration and worked in forscenics and lawsuit type work so I am less likely to back off and I have no issur with trusting my engineers....
Guys - the question isn't about efficiency here.. I understand that argument, and agree with it. However, I would wager that most architects these days (not saying all) would argue that if they had all the time in the world, they could figure out how to design a structure or mep system, but in reality I don't think that this is really the case. Most architects (and even moreso non-licensed architects) don't even know how to even approach a structural problem. I can't tell you uow many candidates who have taken the ARE's have said something to the effect of, "I totally brain dumped the material after the exam". Is this really the expectstion, what a licensed professional needs to do? You can argue the economics of outsourcing etc. But at the end of the day, what value does your license have if you can't ever utlize your knowledge because you have no clue?
Another thing, Bulgar, hate to break it to you, but licensed architects are dime a dozen, even in this business environment. We just hired a licenced architect with 20 years experience by paying her 10k more than what she was making....
When I had my firm, I had a rebellion over this topic. Basically, I had 2 architects who had 6-8 years of experience that took it personally I put a draftsman in the role of quality control overlooking their work. Thing is, this “draftsperson” had 30 years of experience and training and could rip apart their details… and I was having a quality control problem with drawings the architects were producing.
For this (and because they wanted stock in the company for free) they left and burned bridges. F’N egos often get in the way.
NS that reminds me....worked in this very large firm once and if you wanted a detail you went up the stairs and to the back office through areas of workstations and found this little old Asian dude often with a line at his desk. He had a small 24"x18" vinyl laminated wood pad and T-Square, trace paper, and a pencil....all day, any detail you wanted. then you went back to your desk and took like 3 hours drafting what he did in like 5 minutes....
My feeling is that it depends on the role of the boss. I have worked in a firm where the owners are not registered architects, in a state where architecture firms do not need to be owned by licensed architects. I felt perfectly ok about this, because the owners were not in design roles - they were pretty much hands-off about all design and production, leaving that entirely to the registered architects who were managers and senior designers. The owners have business school backgrounds and spend their time drumming up new projects, wining and dining potential clients, and negotiating contracts. The firm does well-regarded work, wins lots of awards, pays employees comparatively very well, and consistently makes money - and that's better than many architect-owned firms can boast.
I have worked for firms that do a lot of retail, were really profitable, and won lots of "awards". The work however, was complete shit by critical architectural stabdards. So just because you win awards and are profitable doesn't really mean that the firm is a place where an employee may want to grow... Every firm has its role in one's professional development and career, but at the end of the day, I believe that firms with registered architects are more legit because the training predisposes architects to want to seek out clients who will give them work that they will want to do. If you treat architecture purely as a business, then you will lose sight of the true value of architecuture in society that you once perhaps wanted to contribute to.
The firm I worked at doesn't do any retail - it does mostly public buildings like libraries, and concert halls, and museums, and a smaller percentage of private higher ed and tech industry work. They are the sort of projects that I do want to work on. It didn't seem to me that a license was necessary for that model. A viable firm is a business - I don't understand why architects feel that letting business-trained people run it as such is necessarily bad for the architecture.
Your boss is unregistered, and you are
How do you RA's feel about having bosses who are unregistered? Do you ever feel like you want to pull the "license" card on them?
Worse by far is computer illiterate.
If he/she is able to pay your salary he/she probably has more experience with or without a license. Pull all you want, just don't be surprised when you get put in your place. If you work for them you are below them on the totem pole...
You shouldn't be responsible for your boss's decisions because you don't have control over the decisions they make. If your stamp is going on their drawings, you're responsible.
Plenty of people find themselves in upper management or partner roles without ever going through the licensing process. I guess it all depends on who's stamp and who's insurance backs up the drawings... but like jlax says above, chances are they are far more experienced than you are so thread lightly if you're going to start a pissing contest.
Im not talking about myself here... Just wondering.... I am an independent practitioner anyway... But it just kills me to not know what other architects, especially at larger offices, feel when they get a boss who did not go through the licensing process. Doesn't it make you feel like you did it for nothing?
Oh and jla-x- of course you would have that view because you housrelf are not licensed.
Aside from responsibility, it just is what it is. If you're not stamping drawings, and they're not stamping drawings, then there isn't much of a difference.
could be they have more experience, and may even be more competent in the role they're in. could also be favortism or nepatism or just dumb luck that got them into the position they're in. either way, getting a license doesn't mean you get a better job.
I don't know what the reason is, but I would never hire a project architect/project manager who is not licensed. It is a prerequisite to legitimizing to clients the work I am doing. Would you like to go to a hospital where only one doctor is board certified? My wife is a doctor and she says that there are many doctors who have an MD next to their name without ever getting their board certification. Although producing work under the "responsible control" of an architect is a mandate in California, it is not required in NY, but the only way I can truly feel that the work is actually under my responsible control, is if my senior staff are licensed.
Architects are not doctors.
Bad analogy.
I think actual ability and knowledge should ALWAYS top paper credentials. Personality matters too. I wouldn't put too much faith in any standardized test. Why is s/he your boss? Why do you need a boss?
We are professionals. Lets stop outsourcing what me market as our expertise to non-licensed individuals. That way we keep pur profession legitimate. Right now we are basically Master Construction and Design Coordinators, not Master Builders. We need to re-legitimize our profession by selling our expertise, and not telling clients- we need to hire consultant x, y, and z because we are too incompetent to do the work ourselves. A consultant in the true sense of the word is not someone who does the work for you. He/she is someone who confirms that your work is ok and recommends enhancements and or corrections to your work. It is unfortunate that consultants have become the main source for any work an architect does not want or could not do. An architect should theoretically be able to do all of the consultant's work. How many of you are actually familiar with Chapter 16 (Structural Design) of the IBC other than Deflection criteria? I bet you all outsource that to your structural engineers. Same goes for lighting, acoustics, MEP, etc. You don't have to be an expert, but don't outsource the work as if you expect all of it to be done by someone else.
There is a concurrent thread where architects are saying they stopped learning math and science in the 10th grade....! And are proud of it!
I know plenty of individuals with licenses who I would not want running projects or assembling CDs. I also know plenty of B.arch and Techs who can totally save the day. A piece of paper does not equal competence and as long as the work is produced under the office's stamp/certificate of practice, then whom ever, licensed or not, is an acting agent of said stamp.
For the record Bulgar, I'm very familiar with my country's structural code. If I would work in small residential... I would certainly do all the consultant's work. Not so much when it's large office buildings.
You don't have to be an expert, but don't outsource the work as if you expect all of it to be done by someone else.
But, you HAVE TO outsource the work that you are not an "expert" in. Otherwise, you are doing the client a disservice. You are proposing that architects also become professionally competent in multiple branches of engineering as well. Do you really think that is realistic?
^If you've never worked on a big project, you wouldn't know that. I would never hire Bulgar Blogger, I know that!
I am proposing that we restore the glory of the profession as it existed in the days of FLW. Nowadays, clients ask us questions and we're speechless because we always have to tell our clients that we have to ask our consultants. If I were the client, I'd ask- if you don't know the answer, then why the hell did I hire you and not them in the first place?
And Tintt- no need to hire me. I'm doing very well on my own ;) I don't disagree with you that you need the expertise of a structural engineer or other consultants on your projects. All I am saying is that there seems to be a massive reluctance by Architects to give any answers about the specialty items without having a consultant hold the architect's hand through the process. We design shit without knowing a ballpark size of a beam for example. We can't even do a simple load check because we outsource it to consultants. You're right- some architects do know their shit, but I am not talking about the few. I'm talking about the profession as a whole.
Aren't the unlicensed partners usually the ones in charge of the business? They usually have MBA's and therefore are way more qualified than someone who focused entirely on architecture to take care of marketing and business development and usually have nothing to do with quality control of projects which is left for the partner with a license.
In terms of the consultant argument, if you are working on smaller scale construction I think it would make more sense to try and do design build than do Struct. and MEP drawings. Also, since you will need a structural engineer to stamp engineering drawings he can't legally do that unless his work was prepared under his own guidance and control.
I guess I am approaching this from the perspective of work in NY where the architect can sign and seal any work type. If NY would allow that, I would damn sure expect that any licensed architect in NY be able to do that type of work...
In order to be a "Master Builder" in today's day and age ( not FLW) you need a contractors license not an Architectural License. Maybe you need both? Either way, last I checked, Architects don't build anything... just saying.
exactly- how can you know how to build without ever building... that's like teaching someone how to sing without ever singing. But this is for a different thread. My point is different- architects rely wayyyy too much on their consultants, and in the process dilute their expertise to a point where very few actually have any expertise. And to bring it around to the very original post on this thread, if few architects have expertise, then how can the license holder rely on non-licensed individuals to their work? Sounds very risky...
Bulgar, I think you are approaching it from the perspective of working with shiftless and incompetent people. There are good architects out there too. The really good ones can tell you who the best engineers are for a given situation, and understand what value expertise brings to each aspect of a project. Smart clients want to work with the smartest teams, not the cheapest one-man shops.
FLW studied civil engineering btw. But he also was incompetent at many aspects of designing durable and effective construction (see fallingwater cantilevers, johnson wax windows). He is valuable to architecture because he had fascinating spatial ideas and a new approach to styling, not because he was good at everything he did. He himself didn't really understand that though...
Bulgar, can you design MEP as efficiently and effectively as an expert? If not, you are opening yourself to a world of liability and malpractice...its your duty to your client to engage the proper consultants when in their best interest.
The good ones also tell their engineers what to do... and follow through by reading their specs and drawings.
For what it's worth... I can swing a framing hammer just as well any anyone. I can also weld, operate a fork-lift/stacker and use a sewing machine. Renaissance man right here.
^ can you yodel though?
No.... and I cry myself to sleep everynight due to being such a failure.
What bulgar is attempting to gain legitimacy at the expense of good business Practice. Any competent business person would try to limit liability and outsource time consuming/high liability work that detracts from the true value of their particular area of expertise...
bulgarblogger. yes in NYC and RA=PE and the older guys had true "consulting engineers". most architects do not take all on especially if busy. for instamce in 2013 I did a full MEP filing on a job with an AOR. I do limited structural like floor framing, openings in exterior walls? but even then I am working with a structural engineer.....the reluctance comes from being overworked and liable. its less of a big deal to spec a nom ADA compliant toilet then undersize beams etc...also insurances and lawsuits have for a good part discouraged model. i have been in arbitration and worked in forscenics and lawsuit type work so I am less likely to back off and I have no issur with trusting my engineers....
Guys - the question isn't about efficiency here.. I understand that argument, and agree with it. However, I would wager that most architects these days (not saying all) would argue that if they had all the time in the world, they could figure out how to design a structure or mep system, but in reality I don't think that this is really the case. Most architects (and even moreso non-licensed architects) don't even know how to even approach a structural problem. I can't tell you uow many candidates who have taken the ARE's have said something to the effect of, "I totally brain dumped the material after the exam". Is this really the expectstion, what a licensed professional needs to do? You can argue the economics of outsourcing etc. But at the end of the day, what value does your license have if you can't ever utlize your knowledge because you have no clue?
Or maybe because you don't even know where to start. No- I am not talking about you specifically
Most architects (and even more so non-licensed architects) don't even know how to even approach a structural problem.
Is there a secret structural class you take during the ARE that is beyond what you learn in school?
^ I think the ARE is easier than acing structures classes.
Fuck you idiots using your license as your Trump card. Being a boss is not all about licensure
Another thing, Bulgar, hate to break it to you, but licensed architects are dime a dozen, even in this business environment. We just hired a licenced architect with 20 years experience by paying her 10k more than what she was making....
and you can get your license with your degree at some places now.
When I had my firm, I had a rebellion over this topic. Basically, I had 2 architects who had 6-8 years of experience that took it personally I put a draftsman in the role of quality control overlooking their work. Thing is, this “draftsperson” had 30 years of experience and training and could rip apart their details… and I was having a quality control problem with drawings the architects were producing.
For this (and because they wanted stock in the company for free) they left and burned bridges. F’N egos often get in the way.
^the first paragraph defines my office %100.
NS that reminds me....worked in this very large firm once and if you wanted a detail you went up the stairs and to the back office through areas of workstations and found this little old Asian dude often with a line at his desk. He had a small 24"x18" vinyl laminated wood pad and T-Square, trace paper, and a pencil....all day, any detail you wanted. then you went back to your desk and took like 3 hours drafting what he did in like 5 minutes....
Olaf, that's about right... and I tend to do the same when I need to communicate with the junior staff.
In California, you don't need a real degree, or even a fake one to become an architect.
but in CA you need 8 years of experience; if you graduated with a 5 year degree, those 5 years count toward your experience ;)
/\ and thats a joke, the 5 years of school as experience.
its actually true...
In a perfect society such as Anarcho-Capitalist aka voluntaryist society there will not be no licensing.
My feeling is that it depends on the role of the boss. I have worked in a firm where the owners are not registered architects, in a state where architecture firms do not need to be owned by licensed architects. I felt perfectly ok about this, because the owners were not in design roles - they were pretty much hands-off about all design and production, leaving that entirely to the registered architects who were managers and senior designers. The owners have business school backgrounds and spend their time drumming up new projects, wining and dining potential clients, and negotiating contracts. The firm does well-regarded work, wins lots of awards, pays employees comparatively very well, and consistently makes money - and that's better than many architect-owned firms can boast.
I have worked for firms that do a lot of retail, were really profitable, and won lots of "awards". The work however, was complete shit by critical architectural stabdards. So just because you win awards and are profitable doesn't really mean that the firm is a place where an employee may want to grow... Every firm has its role in one's professional development and career, but at the end of the day, I believe that firms with registered architects are more legit because the training predisposes architects to want to seek out clients who will give them work that they will want to do. If you treat architecture purely as a business, then you will lose sight of the true value of architecuture in society that you once perhaps wanted to contribute to.
The firm I worked at doesn't do any retail - it does mostly public buildings like libraries, and concert halls, and museums, and a smaller percentage of private higher ed and tech industry work. They are the sort of projects that I do want to work on. It didn't seem to me that a license was necessary for that model. A viable firm is a business - I don't understand why architects feel that letting business-trained people run it as such is necessarily bad for the architecture.
Threesleeve, it's not bad. Architects are terrible business people. The worst, actually.
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.