Non replied while I was typing this comment. Jinx, Non.

so... we both recommended time travel? Are we the same person?

It just means our advice is objectively correct.

While it's true that there are many alternative routes to a license in some states, they add a lot of limitations to the careers and mobility of a lot of people. You only need to scroll through this forum to see 20 years of laments from those who had no idea how difficult it would be (or impossible in some states) to get an initial license without an NAAB-accredited degree, or to get hired by some firms, or to move to and/or practice in additional states.

Rick you yourself have posted many times about your frustrations that employers often advertise for applicants with NAAB degrees - it's been one of your most oft-repeated excuses over the years for why you would not be able to find a job in an architecture firm.  It's mind-boggling that you have spent 15+ years and counting encouraging people to take alternative routes that have not worked out for you yet in all that time, despite your constant spelling out of various schemes and resolutions (I recall your plan to be licensed by 2011!) 

Rick is an excellent example of that. OR won't let him get licensed without the education. He could get licensed in CA or WA without the accredited degree, but needs work experience. He can't get the work experience because no one will hire him (not that he looks, he's made it clear he won't work for someone).

Rick, if that was really your goal in all this, all you had to do was say, "NS and tduds are correct. Check with NCARB and your state for licensing paths and education requirments."

Rick I have an idea for you: there are far more forums about the legal profession, full of prospective students looking for advice. Those questions are nearly always answered with information about attending law school - and virtually never answered with information about alternative routes, though a few people do still use those routes to become lawyers. Why don't you take your censorship concerns to those forums, and apply your time to finding every post about law school and appending to it the information that it's still possible in four states to sit for the bar and become a lawyer without first obtaining a degree? You'll have a much larger world of places to put that information, and a much larger audience. 

Rick, what year did you begin your plan for finishing up licensure by 2011? ... 2008? ... 2009? ... 2010? ...earlier? Because 2011 is the first year that I recall things actually were starting to pick up and firms were beginning to hire again.

Rick, I know the west region lagged behind a bit compared to others, but following a lot of my classmates who went out and got jobs in the west, including a fair number in Portland, OR around that time ... well, I think you're simply making excuses like you usually do. The reality is, in the time since you got your first associates degree, I've completed an undergrad degree, MArch degree, multiple certifications, been licensed, been employed at a handful of firms, including a couple of the ARCHITECT Top 50 firms, and have made my way up to quite a valued position (in both expertise and salary) at both of those firms. If I wanted to, I could start my own business as a consultant to some of the top firms in the nation and would probably have the ability to turn away work because I would be so busy (I've even had former coworkers ask that if I do this, that I hire them so they can work with me again). 

None of this is an exaggeration. Yet I'd guess that most people familiar with you would say that your "business" is mostly exaggeration. If you don't want to, or can't get licensed, that's fine. Just stop pretending like it's always some other issue (economy, location, etc.) that's held you back ... you've been making basically a decade of excuses at this point. And even if you don't do that, stop pretending like you're an expert in how to get licensed because it's pretty clear you are not. Simply direct people to the appropriate resources.

Anticipating some Balkins comeback excuses here ... I graduated from a state school (no private school connections to get me where I'm at now) where I graduated with a little more than $25K in student loan debt (mostly because I worked multiple jobs through college to pay for it). The most my parents gave me was $300 to put toward some textbooks my first semester (though I should also thank them for not making a lot of money so I got some decent Federal Pell Grants until I was no longer eligible). I've always been able to afford the loan payments and was this close to paying the rest of the loans off with savings before COVID-19, mainly because I make too much now and the IRS won't let me deduct student loan interest paid from my taxes. However, now with 0% interest on them because of the federal response to the pandemic, I have some extra time to pay them off without any penalty so I'm keeping that money saved away in case I need it.

Respectfully I don't think the issue with recent grads not being able to put a drawing set together is because they only know BIM. Putting a drawing set together requires specific knowledge the construction process and building science. You're ability to know any type of modeling / drafting software will not improve those skills by themselves.

I will add on the Chad and says that the average fresh grads does not know BIM (even if they self-grade themselves 9.5 out 10 in their silly resume sheet). All they know is what they needed to know to make their portfolio images... not document a building.

Adding on that the reason they don't know BIM is because that's not what the curriculum is designed to teach. An architecture degree isn't meant to teach you software, it's meant to teach you to think critically and how to design.

Design skills mean nothing if you can’t put a wall assembly together.

It’s disappointing that there still aren’t a lot of options for students if they’re interested in learning the basics of this profession. A lot of fluff classes in other soft skills that would take a competent student a week or two to become adequate at though.

ARECoach is getting at something, though i don't think BIM is to blame. i'm old enough to have gone to a program that rigorously taught drafting, and i'm thankful for it because it allows me to think better in plan, section, etc and then eventually develop a design into a more complex 3-dimensional manifestation later. i think the complete domination of digital 3dmodeling in general has produced students who are more comfortable modeling something first and then producing plans and sections from that model, meaning they have a weaker understanding of generating 2-dimensional drawings themselves.

We had a semester of construction documents and detailing in college. Obviously I still wasn't great at it but I could put a wall assembly together and not put the vapor barrier (now a vapor retarder) on the correct side. Don't programs teach this type of stuff anymore?

I think square makes a great point. I too had a heavy hand drafting and hand modeling education. It’s amazing how much easier it is having the undo and copy/paste commands. 8-)

yeah- i've been on some reviews lately and i'm honestly pretty shocked at how thin alot of the plans and sections are.. it's incredibly obvious when one was produced in rhino vs constructed through drawing, which to me has a lot to do with the ability to make a good wall section

I wish the schools taught more building science and how to put a wall assembly together. I think the programs generally focus way too much energy on the design (read that as SD level work and renderings) and should probably get rid of a couple of studio courses and replace them with some building science. When I was going through school, we still had one course that focused on hand drafting as an entry-level studio. If fact, there was more time spent in that class than any other class to teach autocad, revit, or 3D modeling software ... but it quickly became apparent that if you wanted to look good for final reviews, you needed to have fancy renderings so everyone picked up rhino, sketchup, revit, vray, etc., etc., etc. It was a type of equalizer as a poor design could be dressed up to look better. Only the best students stuck with the hand drawing and drafting techniques. Even then, if they didn't have a flashing rendering, the final presentation went over as fairly blah. I'm sure they got good grades though.

I think school are just responding to the profession. The firms and projects that get published and hyped aren't because of good detailing, building science, or keeping the water out. It's because of flashy renderings and good ideas. We may bemoan that but I'm not sure what most of us are doing to change it?

I don't understand why more schools don't try to incorporate building science topics into studios. Want to design a glass box library? Cool, but tell me where the water goes. Want to design a crinkled looking art museum? Fine, but tell me what kind of roofing system you're going to use. IMO I'd like to see year-long studios where the first half is the traditional SD/renderings, and second half is technical detailing/producing CD-level documentation.