Archinect
anchor

How do you measure "experience?"

So, I've had this discussion a lot throughout the years, but there's always a mixture of views on the topic. I'm curious what you all have to say. I've always been a big believer that experience is a combination of both length of time and depth of exposure. 

Basically, if someone had 2 years of experience, an exceptional mentor, and more opportunities to work on all phases of a greater number of projects, then they would be more valuable than someone with 4 years of experience who only had experience up to, say, DD phase, for example.

I'm particularly interested in what the older (more experienced) ones among you think. I do think that age brings a certain wisdom and maturity that may not translate into tangible work, but would still prove valuable to a team. Just curious to broaden my thinking regarding this...

 
Nov 6, 19 2:22 pm
Formerlyunknown

In the situation you describe, the person with 2 years of experience on all phases of projects might very well be "more valuable".  On the other hand, if the person with 4 years of DD experience was being considered for a job for which they'd mostly be doing SD and DD, they might be more valuable.  Either one of them might be the more useful/valuable if they were any number of things:  more extroverted, more familiar with the firm's niche market, more succinct and focused in presenting their portfolio, had the better resume for including in proposals, was a better public speaker, and a million other reasons specific to my reasons for hiring and what my firm needs right now.

As one of the "older (more experienced) ones" I don't make much distinction at all between 2 and 4 years of experience - I'd consider them both for the same types of positions.  Those are both pretty much in the experience range where I expect the person to know basic industry conventions, and to be ready to take on gradually increasing responsibilities for their own work, but I wouldn't expect to be hiring them directly into a managerial or lead designer role.  Which one I'd hire, if I had to choose just, would probably not be based primarily on 2 vs 4 years of experience, and would depend much more on which fit our current project needs, fit into the firm's current makeup best, could start when we need them, has the best references... 

If your question was the same except that your characters had 10 and 20 years of experience, respectively, then the 20-year person would have clearly defined themselves as a niche specialist, and would likely be seen as not so useful in a generalist role, and vice versa.

Nov 6, 19 2:44 pm

Thanks a lot. this is a good framing. I hadn't thought of it this way. 2 to 4 years is very close, but 10 years vs 20 years creates an entirely different set of variables to consider.

BulgarBlogger

Ah- excellent question. What AXP (for example) doesn't measure is the quality of one's experience- just the longevity. Quality is difficult to define, but I would say the quality of one's experience has a lot to do with how well your experience allows you to practice on your own successfully without incurring liability. Please note that the word "successfully" means different things for different people/firms, but for the most part it is a combination of financial success, client satisfaction, technical execution, environmental stewardship, and living up to your contractual responsibilities- all the while limiting your liability by consistently applying a high standard of care.

So working just on one phase vs another, doesn't by itself make you ready to practice on your own successfully and without incurring liability. 

Nov 6, 19 4:02 pm
mightyaa

Disagree; You have to know a lot of stuff in a pretty broad range of roles. The IDP is also set up so you have to do more than sit drafting details. And that's all setup by the school accrediation that also requires a lot more education than just studio. Essentially, the systems in place to become a architect are setup to give you a broad range of practical experience to avoid creating architects who can only design ANSI compliant bathrooms. They try to give that quality by forcing you to be educated and have work experience outside just a drafting station. I will agree the time you spent doing something like contracts would be subjective to how in-depth that experience was... but at least we have it.

BulgarBlogger

sorry- very much disagree. Are you telling me that if an intern does photoshop work on a presentation related to programming, that intern can't just log his hours under programming? He/she isn't ACTUALLY doing programming. So please: the system only works if the supervisors take it seriously, and half the time, office politics comes into play because the supervisors don't wan't to be the asshole who doesnt apprrove someone's hours.

Such a good point. BBlogger I like the bit about practicing without liability particularly. And you're spot on with AXP, depending on the individual signing off on the hours, candidates can receive credit for areas for time spent, but not necessarily an adequately robust depth of experience.

RickB-Astoria

BBlogger, there is indeed some weaknesses in the AXP training hours. You are right, the AXP supervisor (I'll add also the AXP trainee) must take it seriously. When I have to do the AXP and required experience hours, I'll have to go above and beyond in documenting the experience beyond just the hours and categories. Why, pray tell? (rhetorical question) The reason being relates to NCARB Certification's "Certificate portfolio". I have to finalize the portfolio after the three years of licensure. Waiting until then to document is likely to be inadequate or not the best time to document the experience in the detail that the NCARB Certificate Portfolio would need. Best to do the 'journaling' when the experience is gained. You can look at the NCARB Certificate Guideline (current) so I don't have to repeat it. If AXP trainee documented their experience like this in addition to their AXP hours, there is a chance it will improve the quality because you aren't just coming in at 8AM and doing things on rote and leave at 5pm without thinking about what you learned.

https://www.ncarb.org/sites/default/files/Certification_Guidelines.pdf

https://www.ncarb.org/sites/default/files/NCARB-Cert-Portfolio-Applicant-Guide.pdf

In a long enough experience, the documented content can and very well maybe more then what will need to be submitted so you will have to be selective for the NCARB Certificate portfolio but your master journal/portfolio would be documented in more detailed and retained as long it takes be it 10 years, 15 years, or 25 years but annotated and documented. 


RickB-Astoria

I'm reading through it again and even if I can't use some of the stuff from pre-licensure stuff, it can still be useful for a variety of purposes outside of NCARB Certificate Portfolio and fundamentally a practice for the post-licensure experience used for NCARB Certificate portfolio.

RickB-Astoria

Can't we have a little more time to edit or delete a post? Anyway, for what it is worth, journaling the experience in more depth than a couple sentences, and the hours and category would be better than not documenting experiences. The problem is people can kind of just plug the hours but not ever think about how the experience teaches them.

5839

From the AXP supervisor point of view: these days there isn't really any particular way for the supervisor to "take it seriously" or not. When I first started supervising people the forms were 4 pages long, with much finer break-downs of experience categories and sub-categories, and a page for the supervisor to grade the candidate in several different areas. But as of about 10 years ago we no longer get a breakdown of hours per task - it went from that 4-page report down to just one dumbed-down screen: it just provides an hours total per category for that reporting period, with no other info at all. The only thing I can really do is check it against employees' time sheets and see if it roughly jives. There are also no grades/ratings anymore - the only choices for the supervisor are: approve the form as submitted; return it to the candidate for changes; or reject the hours.  Often candidates don't even report a lot of their experience until after they're no longer working in our firm, especially when they were summer interns or 1-semester co-op students.  Often they're no longer even local, so it's not as if there's any opportunity to review it with them in-person.  Basically the NCARB system sends an automatic email, and subsequent reminders, until I push one of the three buttons.

placebeyondthesplines

no one (not even you it seems, since you never make any meaningful progress) cares about your epic quest for licensure, balkins.

RickB-Astoria

What I want to do, when I want to do, and why I want to do it (eg. licensure) is my own matter. You don't care about my quest for licensure but don't speak for everybody and frankly no amount of license or accolades qualifies you to speak for anyone but yourself. Same with me. I speak from my perspective not someone else's. I'm perfectly fine with you not liking or giving a shit about my own decisions regarding licensure. It isn't like I am retiring at 65 or anything like that. Maybe I'll stick around longer than Master Yoda. If I get licensed and it pisses you off, that's just a little icing on the cake. You know it would require working for an architect or architectural firm. So be it. At least I can choose to work for good architects/firms.

RickB-Astoria

5839, I still have the old IDP Worksheet excel spreadsheet on file still. Surprising. That was still using the training units system vs. individual hours. Recording the hours in those ways are somewhat difficult to translate over to the current system. Before, IDP/AXP, experience was unstructured. All you had to do was show that you were employed under an architect for full-time or equivalent. Mostly, a stub of hours per year worked at a particular firm for the duration of employment and what that is. At first, it may be barely validated beyond the employer indicating hours per week worked and the start and end date of employment. Show enough altogether for the 3 or more years that maybe required. Also, there was a time when the architect exam was administered once or twice a year depending on the state. The problem is, it is entirely impossible to know what the experience was and for how many hours. IDP and now AXP stipulates a prescribed minimum number of hours in various areas. This is now prescriptive which before IDP, there was nothing prescribed other then the statutory number of years of experience/education/examination. While it has its flaws, the AXP prescribes at least some level of experience requirement makeup. So the person doesn't just have 3 years of employment for an architect as a receptionist and drafter of door and window schedules. Ok. Why do we require this and what drove it. That may require some history lesson dating back to the 1960s or 70s. I agree that the hours should be reported frequently and I think there is now a reporting period for this. Maybe a disciplinary approach like reporting once a month or every pay period or something. It would be better then waiting 6 months.

5839

You're talking about a long time ago vs. now. I'm not talking about pre-internet Excel-spreadsheet era IDP, or the time before IDP. I'm talking about the IDP/AXP supervisor's experience in the fairly recent past (say 10 years ago) vs. now. 

When I was first supervising candidates, in the 10-20 years ago timeframe, the online reports were far more detailed in their breakdown of hours, and required the supervisor to individually assess each task. What I'm saying is that in the last few years the NCARB supervisor's interface has been seriously dumbed down. We're no longer grading/rating anything, and we aren't approving individual tasks anymore. Example: in the "old days" if an intern had submitted 30 hours for construction documents and 5 hours for field observation, but I knew he hadn't actually done any field observation, I could reject those five hours individually. And if an intern had done unsatisfactory work in some categories I could grade it that way - and in theory if someone got a lot of low ratings then NCARB could/would require additional documentation or possibly more experience.

It doesn't let us do any of that anymore - we're can't reject portions of hours on a report or grade them unsatisfactory anymore. We only have ONE button push per entire report now: approve, return to candidate for changes, or reject. Basically if I want to reject the 5 hours of field experience I have to reject the entire report. There's just not really any opportunity for the supervisor to do this process "seriously" or not.  Either I push the approve button or I don't - that's pretty much all it boils down to, particularly when the experience reports aren't even submitted until after someone isn't working here anymore.  

5839

To bring this back to the OP's question and away from the Rick Show: for employment purposes, experience is subjective. Nobody is likely to look at the resumes of the person with 2 years of experience and the person with 4, and summarily reject either one based on years of experience alone. There are far too many other factors. An employer may advertise a job saying "3-5 years of experience" as a general idea of what they think they're looking for, but they're almost certainly not going to throw your resume away without evaluating it just because you only have 2 years of experience. 

For NCARB IDP/AXP purposes experience is more quantifiable by years and training units.  If you want your supervisor to be seriously involved in your progress in that then you need to proactively schedule discussions with your supervisor while you actually work for the firm, and work through how/if it's possible to get the experience you need in all the tasks at that firm, and what the plan and timeline for that might be. If you wait until you don't work there anymore and then submit reports of months or years of experience that happened in the past, then your supervisor's involvement is pretty much limited to receiving an email from NCARB stating that you've submitted that report, and approving or rejecting it.  Some candidates seem to prefer that disconnected after-the-fact approach to things, and that's fine I guess, if they understand the downsides. At that point it's obviously too late for a firm to help you in getting any particular experience areas that you're missing, or especially interested in, or feel weaker in.

RickB-Astoria

I've noticed the same things as well 5839 as far as the categorization. I've seen how the online submission has changed. We can talk about that later.

SpontaneousCombustion

Rick what you want to do, when, and why is indeed your business. But you already made a thread for that, so could you please keep it there? That way anybody who wants to know about your issues and discuss them with you can do it in that appropriate thread. How you plan to track experience for a post-licensure NCARB certification portfolio is your business - but it's business which has nothing at all to do with this otherwise-interesting thread about how employers evaluate the experience of applicants with 2 to 4 years of dissimilar experience.

threeohdoor

AXP/IDP is a joke. The only "gate" comes via the AREs, and they aren't difficult or really a good measure of a candidate's ability. I'd say make the AREs actually challenging a la the NY or CA Bar and do away with the AXP all together. You graduate with a B. Arch or M. Arch? Great, now take a monster test whenever you like and you get your license. Until then, work in the field (or don't)...no one cares. The AREs test for "minimum viable" and that bar is so close to the ground that it might be a tripping hazard.

RickB-Astoria

Sponty, I was a little slow to deleting everything on those comments but a "." So lets not continue discussing this side-track. Why do you think I said to 5839 that we can talk about that later. It's not really just for him or her. Yes, I agree with you.

placebeyondthesplines

by all means, continue on this inevitably fruitless path. it won’t piss me off if you get licensed, for two reasons: a) you will never be licensed to practice architecture in the United States, period, full fucking stop, and b) I don’t care whether you do or not. but you won’t. ever.

RickB-Astoria

Keep telling yourself that. I don't think any rational person on this forum buys it for a second that you don't care because the idea of me getting licensed bothers you and we all know it.

placebeyondthesplines

then you just don’t get it. I truly don’t care whether you are ever licensed or not because licensure just isn’t the holy grail of accomplishment that you’ve built it up to be. it means a) the authority to stamp drawings and b) the associated liability with doing so. that’s it, and though I know you’ll never will, if continuing to fail at this gets you going, it‘s only your own time being wasted so have at it. what does bother me is that you consistently represent yourself as someone who knows anything about architecture, or is qualified to give advice about anything related to architecture, which you absolutely are not.

RickB-Astoria

If you truly don't care then shut up and ignore me like any other person who truly don't care. Be careful about use of "absolutes". Of what you said, I agree with you in that licensure is not some holy grail. I agree with you about authority to stamp drawings and associated liability. However, licensure is in fact a major milestone in a person becoming a licensed architect and the scope of services that person maybe authorized to design and be in responsible charge over. A lot of opportunities. Passing the state bar is the mile stone that allows a person aspiring to become a lawyer to practice as a lawyer and represent clients in the courtroom. It does mean something. I'm not saying it is the holy grail but it does matter. If it didn't, would you ever had got an architect license?... assuming you have one since you haven't proved it to me and simply assuming you are not lying to me.

RickB-Astoria

Just to be clear, I do know that you have no legal obligation to prove anything to me and I don't have a legal obligation to prove anything to you or any person on this forum.

placebeyondthesplines

ignoring your atrocious grammar for the moment, I actively choose not to ignore you because you are a blight on this forum and, again, *absolutely* unqualified to give any advice or input on any matters related to architecture. but let’s examine a reality you blissfully ignore: getting licensed requires work experience, which requires getting hired by someone willing to give you that experience. with no relevant educational credentials and no portfolio to show your (nonexistent) design/technical ability, no one will ever consider hiring you. okay, so just for fun let’s say you discover some loophole in the licensure process that lets you become licensed without work experience. then you’re licensed! hooray you fucking did it. now what? you’re either back to the problem of getting hired with no education, experience, or portfolio (but with a sparkly new but profoundly meaningless license), OR you go out on your own. where do your clients come from? why would they choose you over anyone that went to architecture school and worked in offices and can present a portfolio of design work? how will you convince them that you are worth investing in? by waving your license around and desperately hoping they'll be impressed by a credential that honestly just isn't that hard to acquire? 

code

It's the depth of experience - people who are good to begin with straight of a real good school will advance faster as they get tapped for more responsibility - this contrasts to average grade who take 5 - 7 years to acquire the same skill set - years of experience doesn't tell the whole story

Nov 6, 19 4:38 pm
BulgarBlogger

What about people who do really well in school, but get really shitty experience? Happens all the time.

SneakyPete

I went to an average school and then to a really good firm. Wouldn't have had it any other way.

code

same here, started at a top firm, definite payoff, a "state school" grad in there with the ivies

Nov 6, 19 7:43 pm

The obvious is that you can’t get depth of experience without length of time. The not so obvious is that sufficient depth of experience in one area is largely transferrable to other areas (although not necessarily technical, which is almost completely lacking in architectural education).

Nov 6, 19 8:24 pm

That's true: Depth isn't possible without time, while length of time doesn't necessarily equal depth. I hadn't dialed it in quite that far.

Happy Anarchy

If I hand you something at any phase of a project with regard to any type of project with regard to any aspect of a project with close to no explanation and receive what I'm looking for, even if I all I gave you were examples; and you executed the task in an acceptable amount of time - then you are experienced. (or really intelligent)

With each question I dock points.

With each delay I dock points.

and at some point I'll just say "forget it."

and for the kids, if you ever do a board/zoning or whatever hearing often on the board are the zoning experts for the town, the town engineer and council, the building inspector, etc...and you will - under oath - without looking like a fool need to be capable of answering questions from what Floor Area Ratio you can have to what type of sprinkler system to structural limitations and with little time.  If you look stupid, often these vultures with agendas, will tear into you quickly.  I tend to do absent minded professor first, let the agressors get their agenda out and then slowly and methodically cite  the facts and with good council (lawyers/attorneys) on my side we can often make the board look like one big fat political agenda (fake news ;)) or get them to bicker among themselves...

Nov 6, 19 8:34 pm
threeohdoor

The second paragraph makes sense, but the first shows a lack of business intelligence and a disregard for communication skills. An employee should never be in a position where they are completely blind to incoming tasks. If that's happening in a firm, than that firm is operating at a steep discount from full steam. Not everyone needs to be read into every job, but holy moly, grease the wheels a bit before you start Professor McGonagalling everyone with demerits.

tintt

I want to know my stats. Points?

Happy Anarchy

the point system is moving target, you asked questions but they were not basic to the task rather considering the items the task addressed, and then once you knew the task I would realize what i didn't know, so above 100 with 100 perfect. 4

Threeohdoor, generally speaking I could walk into any situation with zero info and solve the architectural problem and did this time and time again with work I had never seen, so that's the bar. Don't really care if some people can't do it, don't need them around now.

code

also if someone has 10 years of experience at the 3-5 level, they only have 3-5 years net effective experience - too many try to pass years of exp. as a metric of ability, i'ts not

Nov 12, 19 11:48 am
Non Sequitur

+1 to this. I've known people with nearly 15y work experience who could not put together a basic CD set because the majority of that 15y was spent messing around in sketchup and talking to lightning reps. Same goes for those coming out of large A&E firms who've done nothing but the same stair details month after month after year.

5839

I strongly agree with that. I've worked with people who have represented themselves as having decades of experience, but they're really serial job-hoppers who have started over and over again in nearly-entry-level roles from which they've jumped ship (or been tossed overboard) within a year or two. Some have never even been with one firm long enough to witness a project go from programming to substantial completion, let alone work on all phases themselves.

code

for people like that, it's a proficiency issue, they never made the grade - they don't pack the right gear

On the fence

Licenses and certifications.

Nov 12, 19 11:59 am
joseffischer

We have people with 20+ yrs experience, some with registration, who have become pigeonholed into drafting/assisting roles in putting DD and mostly CD sets together, but who can not do things like "storyboard" a set, set up a sheet (unless it's their very specific expertise like roofs or ceiling plans) or take an intern out to measure existing conditions.  They fit in their role picking up redlines and finishing details, but cannot reliably train younger employees on the why's or how's of what they do. 

I can't imagine, if they were trying to find another job, how a potential firm would be able to weed them out, or at least identify them correctly as draftsmen.

Nov 12, 19 12:08 pm
5839

That's what interviews are for. It's not always apparent from a resume what exactly a person's experiences or strengths might be. My "weeding out" of resumes is based on a much broader assessment. But usually most of where they do or don't "fit in" can be determined over the course of an interview or two, by asking them pointed questions about their projects and their experiences in past firms, and just as much by listening to the questions they ask and to what they say about the work in their portfolios.

code

People don't grow when they are pigeonholed into production roles, chasing deadlines and picking up redlines. Many firms only allow the "chosen few" to advance into design and eventually architect 

Nov 12, 19 12:44 pm
Non Sequitur

Not everyone gets to be big shooter PA... we need people doing work in all phases.

code

If you get stack of redlines at 5:30pm and are told it needs to be done by 9:am the following day? and this happens everyday except friday - "so what are you doing this weekend?" it becomes necessary for one to leave in order to grow

Nov 12, 19 1:23 pm

this used to happen to me a lot. I hated it

atelier nobody

In my fantasy hiring process, everybody would be given what should be a fairly simple task for the level job they're applying for, and I would evaluate the results blindly before I ever met with anyone.

Nov 13, 19 12:59 pm
code

All of the  structural engineering firms I applied to gave me a test for BIM, Structural knowledge and SE drafting 

Nov 13, 19 2:49 pm
atelier nobody

CAD and BIM tests are common, but they're really only relevant at lower experience levels. I've never seen a test beyond that in an architecture firm, perhaps for the reason Formerlyunknown gives below.

Freehand draw and annotate a detailed wall section from footing to eave. Here’s a sketch pad, a graphic pen, and a desk to work at.

<timer starts>

Nov 13, 19 4:19 pm
Formerlyunknown

That was a trend in the early 90s - the "in box test". The firms would tell you to schedule a half or whole day, talk to you and look at your portfolio for 15 minutes, then stick you at a desk with a stack of tasks and leave you to your own devices. Rejected interviewees started reporting companies for unpaid labor, some had to pay everyone they'd interviewed in the past few years for the "work", and it fell out of favor.

atelier nobody

Miles, that's exactly the sort of thing I have in mind, although I might be nicer and only have them do, say, a parapet detail instead of the whole wall section.

On my most recent (and hopefully last) round of interviews, I left the portfolio home and showed up with a roll of sketch, pens, a pocket scale, and a "pocket pal" template. None of them took me up on my offer to do a detail for one of their active projects.

mightyaa

Guess “experience” would depend on the position. For me, my test would be to throw a few construction photos in front of them. “Tell me what you think is wrong in these photos.” based on that, pull the CD’s. “Has your opinion changed?” Followed with; “Tell me what should have been done.” And the true test: “Why should it be done your way?” It is the answer to why that gives me insight into your experience level. If you don’t know the “why” of how things should go together, you won’t ever be able to identify why you want to take a photo there in the first place and spot things before they manifest in building damages.

tintt

Miles, how many years of experience should it take to be able to do that?

Non Sequitur

This is probably the only reality show i’d watch.

tintt

I would be on that reality show

tintt: One project.

tintt

Ok good, I was wondering. Do architects even draw wall sections anymore? I do but I am old fashioned suddenly. Can't you just cut a slice in a model?

tduds

I disagree strongly with "task tests" as an interview tactic. Expertise isn't knowing things, it's knowing how to find things, and how to absorb & analyze information quickly. The most intelligent people know how to learn.

Depends on the position. I’ve had the opposite experience, where seemingly intelligent people aren’t good for shit. I don’t want to hear about it, I want you to show me.

Non Sequitur

Tduds, we've been burned hard by many people because they gave the impression that they knew something. We now have some sort of basic CAD test for new techs and I'll certainly ask to be part of the next "revit kid" interview. Expertise is knowing what is correct or how to make something right... not how to plug in keywords into google and search, copy/paste, and go home early. Again... see my first sentence. At least that's been my experience.

tintt, architects most definitely still draw wall sections/details, a cut through a model would be too "course" for actual documentation. But I think your question was hypothetical. I find detailing to be the most fun, personally.

Non Sequitur

Sean, everyone in our office is expected to draft sections and details since we don't box out project phases to different teams. Very few are able to draft with significant oversight tho... and I feel this may be tied to a growing trend of either "the tech/GC/specs/sauron will figure it out" or "this is how they showed us how to use revit in school" attitudes. If you draft then you are accountable for mistakes and you don't learn what works and what does not work unless you take the time to do the work yourself.

Non Sequitur, nice. I think there is definitely a balance in having a certain command over the technology, but I'm not yet convinced that a software can "figure it out" as you say. Ultimately, I need to know if the software is on the right track. Not relying on the software to confirm my accuracy. I see it as a tool, like a pencil or paper, to communicate the design intent. In the end, the architect is the driver.

Non Sequitur

Correct. knowing software means dick if you don't know what the pieces you're drawing are. Expecting revit to fill the gaps for you just means I now have to fix all your mistakes.

kjdt

A person I worked with mirrored a grand piano in a restaurant plan (i.e. the low notes/long strings were on the right), because it let it fit around a column. Just because you can do something with software doesn't mean you know anything or can think.

Non Sequitur

^left handed piano? I kid I kid... I'd lose my shit if I saw that.

tduds

Nevermind that nestling a piano around a column is just a terrible place to put a piano.

Thayer-D

Experience is very important, but more important is how quickly you can solve a problem.  Whether drawing a detail or working out a plan, you need to know where to look for examples and who to ask for help.  Be a sponge and don't worry about authorship.  And it goes without saying that the smaller the firm, the more range in tasks you will get, unless the firm is highly hierarchical.   But everyone's different so find your passion and pursue it as far as it takes you, whether you love the politics, the design work, or just how buildings are put together.

Nov 14, 19 6:13 am
RickB-Astoria

Non Sequitur, 

If they use Revit, then they should know how to create Profile families, sweeps, etc.. If they can model a historic building with lots of ornate details and such that requires very good handling custom profiles and such then they have some skill with the tools. This can be quite a loaded test. Maybe more than a simple interview but a trial period test.

The biggest challenge with these "practice tests" is how do you administer this "practice test" in the limited time frame of a job interview process.

In the old days of architect testing, there used to be some kind of design test you had to complete in like 8 or 12 hours and it was paper and pencil/pen. They weren't easy and you had to know your shit.


Nov 14, 19 1:06 pm
Non Sequitur

Key word is "should" and this is very hard with new or almost new grads that come loaded with shiny portfolios filled with group assignments. I don't really know what we've done in the past but I don't need to see someone use revit to get a feeling on their skill set. I just need to ask a few questions regarding workflow, graphics, and doc creation to know how much of the software they do know and how hard will it be to correct bad habits. Same thing with technical knowledge. Asking someone to draw up a simple base of wall detail c/w membrane & flashing lap is not difficult as an example and it will show how much they understand the job. Anyone can design anything. Very few know that membranes require positive lapping. (edit: on this last part... even contractors don't know this)

atelier nobody

"even contractors don't know this" - A fight I've had in the field more than once...sigh.

Non Sequitur

more than once PER project. fixed it for you. sigh

RickB-Astoria

Surprising they don't know this concept of lapping. How else is the moisture barrier is suppose to work at preventing moisture penetration. How do they think lap siding and roof shingles work? Right.... should and does isn't always true.

Block this user


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

  • ×Search in: