Arguments supporting Architects becoming a Direct commissioned in the military?


Hey guys I have to argue in favor of Architecture being a direct commissioned position in the Military. I'm looking for whatever pros and cons that are available. Thanks and take care.

Oct 9, 18 3:15 am

What are you going to do for the army, pretty up those blast barricades?

Oct 9, 18 3:58 am

What do you mean direct commissioned? As opposed to winning a commission via RFP? All Federal construction is Bid Contracts. You'd have to argue that negotiated contracts are of bigger public benefit, and that they are not ripe for corruption from literally all sides. Good luck with that one. 

Oct 9, 18 9:53 am

I don't think you fully understand the term. College graduates, even those with law degrees, have to go through the regular commissioning process such as ROTC, OTS, or the service academies. Even medical doctors have to go through an abbreviated school before becoming commissioned. A 'direct commission' is reserved for something truly outstanding such as an army sergeant taking over after his unit suffered casualties and being awarded a 'battlefield commission' for saving lives, and even that may not be permanent. To think some architect could get a direct commission is really misinformed.   

Oct 9, 18 10:06 am

Well the direct commission fields for the Army are listed here

Now going back to my question if one had to argue for making Architecture one of those Direct Commission fields along with the ones listed in the link above what would be the best argument to use it's favor? Thanks

Oct 10, 18 1:07 am

Do your own homework.


The DoD already hires architects.  Why not just go that route? 

Oct 10, 18 8:36 am

Yes. Anyone old enough to remember the infamous person that NCARB made an example out of for sharing test content on the old areforum will recall that even though she got banned from taking the licensing exams for several years, she managed to become an "architect" more quickly than anyone who was actually testing - she just applied for a civilian "architect" job with the Navy - no license required.


Mainly directed at Nick Marsala,

Yeah, look up USAJOBS and voila. One thing people might not realize is with exception of specific federal territories (via the specific territorial laws), there is no licensing laws with regards to Federal jobs as an architect or engineer. This is because there is no federal architectural licensing program that is across the board of the United States. Usually in the situation of federal jobs, you are either working as an employee of the federal government or working under a contract. For example, I can work for the federal government as an "architect" without having to have an architect license. Having said that, each department or agency will set forth and determine the minimum qualifications. In which case, they may require or desire candidates for the job who possesses an architect license which for the Federal government is like a certification. The federal government doesn't exactly regulate the title or practice of architecture except specific territories. 

However, this allowance to practice architecture without obtaining a state-license for the federal government does not allow the person to practice as an architect on non-federal buildings and on non-federal lands in any given state. While I could work for the federal government, it doesn't mean I am allowed to practice architecture on non-federal lands in any of the states. I am only allowed to work on exempt buildings. However, if you want to work in the U.S. without an architect license on non-federal projects.... there is American Samoa as they have no architectural licensing but the building departments will likely prefer to see someone with an active license in any of the states. NOTE: American Samoa building code is the 1964 UBC from what I can gather from the laws. It would be an interesting beast for some of you to have to go back to such an archaic building code but hey..... Anyway, from what I gander from USAJobs and contracting for architectural projects, these can be quite decent pay so there is no reason or need to be commissioned into the military service. If you want to carry a gun and shoot people and get paid for it fighting Trump's war against the world, enlist. 

Why would you need or want to be commissioned... for what... to command military troops? You don't. Do you think those nuclear scientists in Los Alamos or those rocket scientists working for Werner von Braun were commissioned officers? No. They were civilian employees of the Federal government and they can have decent pay and benefits.


You already ran this same thread last December.  The same still applies.  To whom do you have to argue this position anyway? 

Oct 10, 18 12:37 pm

I'm writing to my representative in the House and my two Senators in the Senate. I'm writing to ask them to support expanding opportunities for people to serve. Raise the age limit, offer people of various and different occupations the chance to commission into the service the same way for JAG, the medical field, Chaplains, etc.


Raising the age limit for people to voluntarily serve.... sure... perhaps. They'll have to pass the physicals... perhaps. However, LEAVE the draft (selective service) age limit alone. I'm happy to not have to worry about that, anymore.


In addition I'm also going to write to the Secretary of each branch of the Service along with the Vice President and the President. 

Oct 11, 18 12:17 am

I actually would love to see selective service abolished once and for all but yes definitely raise the maximum age to enlist. No question about it.

Oct 11, 18 9:08 am

I agree with you about getting rid of the maximum age. It should be based on ability not age.

Oct 11, 18 9:50 pm

Block this user

Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

  • ×Search in: