can you point to any problems with the profession? we've seen your opinion, quite often, that education is the problem because it sets overinflated standards and produces "underdeveloped" graduates (to which i somewhat agree and disagree). any critiques on where we spend the bulk of our time in this discipline?

genuine question.

Appreciate the genuine question and agree with your summary. My pov here is that prof-practice needs to be treated as more important than studio (because it is)... and should be a perpetual course (like most graduate level thesis projects) that spans the entirety of the M.arch instead of one or two courses that can be glazed over near the end of your degree. I just can't take anyone seriously when they claim their arch education is hard because they spent 80hrs per week on studio work. Studio is the easy stuff. Construction and prof-prac is the hard stuff.

to be fair, you probably thought it was hard when you were doing it. i only push back because i think you tend to present things from a present-dominant narrative, which devalues the difficulty of architecture school at times. just because we're professional architects in this moment doesn't mean our experience is more real or valuable than a current students. i distinctly remember that architecture school was the hardest thing i had ever done while i was doing it, and honestly i think my job is a lot easier in many ways. the mental fortitude required to get through school is pretty demanding, and anyone who can do it should be commended.

that being said, i tend to agree.. education should probably more closely mirror where the profession is. my problem is i don't like where the profession is, and i worry it's only getting worse with more and more consultants, technology, software, etc to manage, not to mention any of the issues relating to money. in other words i think architecture is wrapped up in some pretty big systemic forces that we can't affect, and i'm not sure it's a grind i can keep at.

I don't intend to state that studio is not challenging. I was that night owl student constantly in studio t'il 3-5am (hand drawings and wood models... so, there was a fair amount of labour involved) but I also worked in an office between my studio and other courses so I had a decent understanding of the difference between school and work. I just don't agree that the focus of school should be on design studio. Encourage creative &critical problem solving by all means, but pump out grads that know a thing or two about the built-world instead of indebted and disgruntled idealists.

hey now- i'm an indebted, disgruntled realist

Studio: getting a B was easy, getting an A was hard. You really had to not try AND ignore/fight whatever your professor said to get a C. I never got a studio A during a semester that my side work picked up. I had a professor chat with me for a long time about some projects that most likely were "A" material on how I wasn't choosing my priorities correctly... it was a competition semester and I got an honorable mention and my B. I think back on that now and then and remind myself he was right, I worried way too much about studio. Glad the sidework taught me construction and kept my bills low.

yes, i guess another way of summarizing it for me: i think the design-focused curriculum used to be appropriate preparation for a career in architecture (major asterisk here as the neo-liberal cult of personality has been a terrible influence on this since the 80s), but that's no longer the case, which makes me sad. i can see how those interested by the more technical side of the profession are content with the work but not the education.

I've had discussions with a former professor regarding the courses that have been the most helpful in actual practice. Without hesitation I told him that pro practice and materials and methods of construction were the most helpful. Other lecture courses were also near the top (they were also quite helpful for ARE preparation). Studios were formative, but not to the extent that schools and students prioritize them. This professor had been wondering if we shouldn't be getting rid of a few studio courses and filling in with other courses more directly relatable to practice. I would have loved to have more pro practice curriculum with a professor that actually enjoyed teaching it. 

BTW, courses in software (AutoCAD and 3DS Max) have been the least helpful in my career. Caveat: I was fairly fluent in ACAD from a computer-aided drafting class in high school, otherwise it would have been more helpful.

I think a flaw in your argument NS is the emphasis on design... That is the school and educators. But if you look at the NAAB accreditation requirements, AXP requirements and ARE test stuff all tracked by NCARB... design IS NOT a big part or emphasis; it is the prof-practice stuff. So we need to beat on the colleges that make studio the primary focus.

Mighty, that’s right, but how many people who come here to complain claim they need more money because prof practice courses were so demanding? Anyways, we have the same accreditation reqs up here and our exams have maybe a dozen design questions (out of 400ish).

100k debt? I know a lot of peeps from schools like Sci-Arc (NOT Ivy League) that have 300k debt. Idiots.

^F

 "that being said, i tend to agree.. education should probably more closely mirror where the profession is."

square—

FFS didn't we just have a discussion in another thread where after I complained that architecture schools are producing too many designers and not enough individuals with practical skills that are more aligned with what the profession needs to innovate an be more relevant... then you said that you question whether licensing should exist to begin with? What's with the sudden change of heart?

AIA,architecture schools and NCARB have refused to change with the times.The writing is on the wall;Technology will change the role of architects and developers will have the last laugh.Allowing AIA members to determine who gets licensed through internships has led to a profession that does not reflect the underlying demographics of society and therefore contributed to social ills instead of being the custodian of social solutions.

excellent analogy

Great Analogy. One that stuck with me was told to me by a "starchitect" in my earlier years of school....... 'Engineers/specialists know everything about one thing, and Architects know a little about a lot of things'. We are one of the last good generalist professions, and in terms of design/construction can "see the forest for the trees" when others cant.

I had an Environmental Controls (HVAC, lighting, etc) prof in grad school who perfectly summed up how I approach the profession: "I'm not here to teach you how to do this, I'm here to teach you enough to know when your consultants are lying to you."

in another words, a master of none!

See David Epstein

https://youtu.be/ER2R-F68L0c

Unfortunately for you, I am correct with my “empty opinions”.

" Imagine some jackass building an ammonium nitrate facility just outside city limits where the city has no jurisdiction in a county where there is no adopted code by the county. Imagine if it was negligently designed and built. It can be a serious disaster." It did happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_explosion

Yeah, I have read the responses and sifted through the emotional stuff ... Nobody has clarified what architects do that isn't offered by others... 

I don't think you did because I did.

this person has clearly not reviewed shop drawings and dealt with the growth of "by others" in our field. My job is daily about getting the "experts" in the room together and asking "who's supposed to know how your part fits to yours" and both of them shrugging. Then I have to let them know how it's going to happen.

@joseffischer that's the part I hate the most in architectural practice... telling people how to do their jobs (properly). I once worked with a global engineering consulting firm that the entire team (Strct,MEP, facade...etc ) never communicate internally before turning up to the meeting.... bloody nightmare.

It's not just the coordination either, it's problem solving, the amount of time that "i'm not an (person's profession), but couldn't you do _____" has solved a problem for me blows my mind. 

I already commented but I wish I hadn't. This is the best one-liner response to the question/rant.

As well as have someone, who understands all that, set priorities and give direction and balance the consultants. Ever seen a building designed by an engineer or a code professional? You can pretty much guess at what will be developed and refined, and what is an afterthought. So you end up with exposed conduit just in case you need to work on and service the wiring after a weather event :P

"...and prices high." I dunno about that.

You really think clients would pay more if there were more architects?

number of licensed architects has less impact on value than the number of unlicensed design and production staff who are doing the work under them; that's where the labor laws of supply and demand come into play. licensure has more to do with who gets to call the shots within the profession. if you actually wanted to affect compensation from the credentialed side, there would be a fee schedule, but we know what happened there...

You really think clients would pay more if there were fewer architects?

The fewer architects that bid on a job the higher the winning bid is going to be. It seems like basic supply and demand to me. Do you have an argument as why hiring an architect would be any different?

yes, reality. you began your post stating that prices are high, which is the first time i've heard anyone say that architects are paid well. the burden of proof is on you.

The architectural service economy doesn't simply follow basic supply and demand economics. While not truly inelastic, the services architects provide have somewhat inelastic demand thanks to a government-granted monopoly to licensed individuals on architectural services. Not to mention that the services those licensed individuals provide are not commodity-like services.

Also, the point of NCARB and ARE is not to make getting a license complicated. It's to make it a measure of competency. Argue that it doesn't fulfill the purpose of measuring competency if you want to, but they aren't setting out trying to make it complicated for the sake of complication and difficulty. The test is set up to establish what a minimally competent architect would know. If you pass that bar, you pass the test. Setting that bar is complicated and it's not a perfect system ... I'm not saying it can't be better. But your off target if you think they are making it difficult just for fun.

I appreciate your willingness to jump in where you know little Rick, but maybe sit this one out before you broadcast your lack of knowledge even more.

"high" prices is all relative. Just because we all wish clients paid more doesn't mean they couldn't possibly pay less. Just to be clear, I'm claiming firm profits will go down, not necessarily that wages will go down. The more people that are bidding on a job, the more likely it is that someone will undercut you because they are OK with taking less profit, or taking the job at cost becasue they need any job to keep going. Im sure you can see it whenever theres a slowdown, but I don't have any data to back it up.

One flaw in your argument is that you assume clients are shopping for architects primarily based on price. I'm sure there is a segment of the industry where this happens, but it's a pretty small segment of the industry in my estimation. Your argument is more apropos to describing contractors competing and bidding on construction work rather than architects competing with each other for design work.

Clients are interested in value, not price.

Pretty big swing and miss there ballerina.

Pretty big swing and miss there ballerina.

in private sector architects can price too low and disqualify themselves. i've worked at a developer and seen this happen. 4 firms invited to submit rfp, 3 are +/- 10% of our target, the other was 40% under target. we assumed that firm either misunderstood what we were asking for or planned to understaff the project. experienced clients don't want their project to fall behind schedule to save 2% of cost on fees.

it is not at all like buying apples, because the "product" doesn't exist yet so you can't actually compare cheap apples to regular ones. But you also know that the cost of labor / services is roughly similar within any market so you can expect any much cheaper one is just going to give you less.

this metaphor is not working.

Balkins' return to the forums is not working.

For the sake of the metaphor ... the client goes to the farmer's market and asks a bunch of architects to give them proposals for a bag of apples. The architects figure out the apples they can put in the bag and the price they think is appropriate. Client looks at the proposals and picks one of the architects. The client isn't simply focused on price per bag (or price per apple) as a simple supply and demand economy would lead you to believe. Instead, they are looking at the bags and the apples they contain to select the bag they think fits their program the best. Then they try to get the architect to lower the price of the bag of apples. They also try to get the architect to include additional apples for no added cost. 

Balkins comes into this metaphor because he's the guy outside the market with a bag of wadded up balls of red paper he learned about at Clatsop County CC. He says they are close enough to apples but he can only sell them as apples in Sweden, or he can only sell one of them as an exempt apple as long as the paper ball is less than 4 inches in diameter per Oregon's practice law (but he's the one holding the tape measure and won't allow anyone else to read it). He also goes online and tries to talk with architects about what it is like to cultivate and grow apples despite never having done it before.

PPD and PDD are pretty comprehensive tests under 5.0. You can't really pass them without knowing a lot of material. In that way, I think they are a better test for competency of well-rounded individuals. Every person I know that had taken the approach of studying for these tests as a way to become a better, more well-rounded, architect has done well on them. The people that I've seen struggle have been the ones that want to cram all the information into their brain, take and pass the test, then forget it.

EA - i've also been finding that approach helpful while in the process of taking my exams (3/6 down so far). Admittedly, yes, taking time away from visiting people/spending time with friends to read about contract law, etc. does kind of suck, and I'd prefer to be elsewhere. But as a method for improving my own daily value to my projects, the prep material and subsequent testing has really helped me improve my skills in the field. There's so much not covered in school, that does need to be covered at some point before getting to the coveted license - I've actually found the process of hard-nosed, head-down reading to be incredibly useful (if often a drag).

When did you get your license Quentin?

2016, completed within a year

So you where on the ARE 4.0?

He would have been. First scores for 5.0 tests weren't released until 2017.

I thought so but couldn't recall when 5.0 kicked in.

Quentin - you should know that while the 5.0 doesn't have the vignettes anymore they do have pro practice and contracts spread throughout all of the exams. While it's now five exams instead of 7 you're tested on the same amount of information. Basically all they did was cram 7 exams of questions into 5 exams.

6 exams. 5 was only for those transitioning between 4.0 and 5.0 and had passed the right ones in 4.0 first.

Whoops! So 7 exams worth of questions in 6 tests. That's marginally better. :)

Says the unlicensed looser.

I'm not only licensed, I own my own practice, good try Chad.

This can be true as to practice actual architecture you'll need to do things project management, proposals, ect. Not all of your time will be spent designing buildings.

"special interests took over the profession" ..For example? 

"I would be happy if architects used an early 1920s modernist process" Also would love some elaboration on what this process is, to you.

"Ideally, architects would have a general knowledge of all of the specialties, not a requirement of mastery for every engineering field." 

This was the statement I was wondering about. How is this different today? I don't know about you all, but I feel like I have a "general knowledge of [most] specialties" rather than a "mastery for every engineering field." I don't think I know a single architect that I would think has a mastery in any type of engineering field. 

.... except "Value Engineering"

I know very damn few architects and zero engineers or construction managers who have mastery in value engineering.

does anyone have mastery in value engineering? I mean real value engineering, not cost cutting.

i despise the way terms like value engineering have snuck into the jargon in order to obscure what is they're actually describing. VE properly done implies a change that increased costs could be made if it proportionately increases value. This is never what is really desired though... since it's just an unnecessary euphemism for cost reduction.

There was a time when I would deliberately add things to projects as a ruse to direct the VE efforts. Higher finishes in places that did not matter, SS handrails in egress only stairs, that sort of thing. I made it easier to negotiate on the items that mattered. Can't do that anymore tho. We work with CM offices that VE everything.

NS that reminds me of a story I read once about a software design firm who would include a picture of a duck on every page in the software they designed so that when the client reviewed the work they would say "Looks great! Just get rid of the duck."

One of my prof-prac teachers had a similar story where they would include a section in their spec book that required the GC to buy pizza for each meeting just to see if they read the docs. Only once, if I recall correctly that a GC followed through and paid for lunch. A credit for the value of future lunches was issued afterwards.

We did the same thing at the first firm I worked at. In the GC of the specs we had the contractor required to buy beer. No one reads the GC of the spec until there is a problem.

Ah, the Brown M&M clause. Brilliant move.

During the recession, I worked a short construction job for a certain renowned hippie environmentalist architect, and in his contract he required the client to show up at 4pm with enough beer for the whole crew. Every, single, day. Fun job.

4:30 pm - nothing is square or plumb. A lot of hammers and speed squares misplaced.

back when i worked with my hands, the firm owner would leave on Friday to go get beers and that was all of our cue to clean up. A spotless shop upon return meant he was paying for the beer that week.

Since I'm a pedant I'll point out that the specs don't have General Conditions (GC). They have the General Requirements (Div 01). The construction agreement has the General Conditions.

That's probably an ARE question so I guess we're back on topic!

You know it! https://archexamacademy.com/know-the-difference-general-conditions-general-requirements-supplementary-conditions-special-conditions/

as a tangent i always bring these up when people make vague complaints about how architects mismanage costs and schedule. as if civil infrastructure projects without architecture management go any better. (the big dig, second ave subway, any airport runway expansion, power plants, etc) the main issue is that the people with expertise are rarely the ones deciding key issues of process, budget, and goals.

LOL! I worked for one of the big dig firms roughly 10 years ago! The firm leaders gave the architects a lot of freedom, with the exception that projects had to make money. No such thing as a "loss leader" or a low margin "prestige" project. Fortunately I was 1,000 miles away and had no connection to the Big Dig!

OP is a disgruntled wanker who has no idea what architects do so it's no big loss. Just an old man yelling at clouds. Nothing to see here.

he took his belongings and went home

yet this thread gained a lot of traction. definitely some truth to complaints regarding ncarb. i agree the exams aren't that tough, but they are unnecessarily lengthy and costly. i'm fortunate to have the adequate resources to tackle them, but not everyone does.

alternative take: people like you, who think that only 5% of those in architecture are "real designers" and "leaders," are "why our profession [is] fucked"

I was being generous by saying that there were 5%. It's the same in every profession, think about it, not everyone needs or wants to be the Alpha Male / Female that the profession needs. It's not an ego trip, it's a commitment.

2% is what Frankie would say...

no, it's really not. architecture is unique in how wrapped up it is in neoliberal, ego-based individualism. most of the teachers, doctors, and policy people i know could give two shits about "making a significant contribution"- they simply aim to do their work well.

i'm glad younger generations aren't falling for this attitude; hopefully we'll see it die out. funny how the oldies think the young ones are the snowflakes who need trophies and praise..

absolutely agree Whistler! I haven't been out of school (that) long and arch education has already changed so much! We started with 97 students in a 5-year Masters program and of those like 19 graduated. The rest failed out or were strongly encouraged to find another profession. I teach now and I can't even give a goddam "C" without getting threatening emails from some spoiled brat's parents, or questions from the administration about why students are struggling so much in my studio. Why? Because they are a fuckin ding-dong who has no business being an architect.

I'm with Frank! Although I couldn't live in any of his house's

it does seem that a lot of dissatisfaction in architecture seems to come from people who don't even like designing buildings or even understand what the role of a designer is.

the irony is you don't see the connection between the idealist, entitled graduates you all complain about and the overinflated sense of importance, competition, and ego you attached to architecture studio. 19/97 graduating isn't something to be proud of, it's an embarrassment for your program. med school is much more difficult than architecture school, yet the graduation rates are much higher.

https://www.aamc.org/data-repo...

architecture isn't rocket science; maybe if you spent less time trying to be frank and more time teaching the basics, we'd have a better prepared work force.

If we spent less time coddling entitled kids and encouraged them to go into a profession they could hack it in, we would also have a better prepared workforce.

There is a habit of people in this field not being able to balance what is good for them and what they want. I applaud your ability to stop. Your colleagues shouldn't be disappointed, they should be proud of you for doing what was best for you.

I had a good friend in a similar situation, and the reality is that I could never tell if it was that she was bad at tests, unlucky, or just really didn't try hard enough at studying. I realized that it wasn't my damn business or place to judge. She was good at her job, and did what was best for her by stopping. Those are all anyone should hold you accountable to. 

i'd agree the essence of ncarb is creating an unregulated intermediary to siphon money out of a regulatory system that's of no interest to the public. good for you that you figured out you can do your work without their sanction. it's essentially a lawful cartel.

Bulgar, residential still needs to go through permitting, inspections, etc. the builders are also licensed. The safety stuff is covered, so why should an architect license be required? It’s a bit different in commercial, because you are dealing with more complex issues, but residential is pretty straightforward.

How many times do you have to be kicked off a forum before you get the hint, Balkins?

It's there to ignore you until you get banned again. How many times has Balkins been kicked off this site?

You've been banned, several times. I think that is relevant to any thread you post in.

I think we should have a feature installed that hides Balkins posts with a warning about questionable information, similar to Twitter.

Or the admins could just kick out the latest version of Balkins.

There seems to be a reluctance.

when you think you're contributing something useful.. the key word is credibility, and you ain't got it.

Agree and disagree. It’s like being a chef, some freeze a pea in liquid nitrogen, put it on a lamb testicle, and sell it for 200$ a plate...others cook food that most people want to eat, and call it a day. There is a place for everything, and it’s stupid that ncarb makes someone who designs houses jump through the same hoops as someone who designs skyscrapers.

So you chose not to become licensed because NCARB made it too difficult?

Just providing instructions on how to put something together... and vision of what that something is. Oh and please translate the current modes of production, economic efficiencies, and cultural zeitgeist into something both beautiful and build-able. Oh, also make sure the thing you design is safe and no one dies in a fire. Oh yeah, almost forgot, can you make it accessible to the differently-abled? Remember also we have a maximum budget. And it can't just be all these things, it has to comply with the adopted legislation (sometimes thousands of pages long) codifying these things.

It's no wonder you didn't become an architect...

I often wonder who makes all these one hit wonders that get the regular's all worked up here at archinect.

True - but it doesn't mean you shouldn't. Now go get banned again .

Blah, blah, blah. I'm not reading that. You've been banned multiple times for sexist and racist posts. Take the hint and leave. You're not welcome here.

Rick: "Small residential projects, the typical stuff is going to treat you like a Chinese sweat shop making you work 80-100 hours a week for peanuts and nickels"

Nope. I work 55 hours a week (because we're inundated with projects), and we make out just fine as a firm with our residential work.

"With residential projects, you are competing with contractors providing the "same" (from the perspective of the client) services you are
offering "on paper""

Try again. Our clients come to us because, as architects, we're educated and trained to understand not only aesthetic design, but also budget and time management, and coordination between the G.C., our consulting engineers (of which there are many here in Florida), the various trades, and the whims of the Owner. We're providing services the G.C. could never achieve on their own, and it's in large part due to the training and education we do in our specific profession as architects.

I did my contractors license instead...design-build is so much more lucrative.

“guess people get what they pay for in terms of design when they hire a contractor.” I have an m-arch and I’m a very good designer. I also know how to build things. You jelly?

“All a contractor/builder cares about is two things: executing a design per plan that is on time and on budget.” Tell that to my stone fabricator lolololol.

“No, because if your work is a McMansion, your comment about being a “good designer” cancels itself out.“ - what makes you think I do McMansions? I don’t even do houses, I do landscapes...and my ceilings are always nicer than yours.

BB, you missed my joke...my ceilings are the sky...get it. Never mind

“his ability” “his design training”...very sexist

In a time where half of academia is female, at least take a second to write “he/her”. As a professional you can do better to lift up our sisters.

"A mid-rise residential tower was recently built in Dallas and it was entirely factory built/modular. Not sure if an architect was involved, but since each dwelling unit was designed/constructed individually in a factory, not sure an architect was required."

I presume by "was built" this implies you were not involved.

My office has worked on several modular projects recently, and it has required every bit as much attention from the architect. It's just a construction type, it still needs design and coordination from someone, IE an architect. Sure, the architect could be inside the manufacturer or contractor team, but people are still there doing architecture. (it's probably a distinct separate firm though) 

Is there not a McForum where you can take your McMoney and talk your McShit while beauty, art and culture in the mother of all arts dies over here with the real architects?

excuses are easy. sorry, excuses are Mceasy.

If you want an echo chamber of your own opinion, a discussion forum isn't the best place to be. Do you have any critical thought/ideas to add?

Yeah, but can a kangaroo design a house in Oregon without a boxing license or does they has to be a human?

"Buildings are art and science, but architects don't do the science because they lack the expertise"

Really? God must be nice to just get paid to draw pretty pictures of buildings that other people do all the work to actually get built indicated by the fact that you have to do no details, coordination, construction administration, and have the smallest sheet set.... oh wait. 

Ha, so funny seeing so many egotistic "architects" or "architect wannabe" getting enraged by Janette. From the posts above, seems like Janette is doing those boring 2x4 vinyl houses in Texas that does not require licenses to stamp drawing. It is definitely good money, if you utilize your drawing library and do repeat build. To me, it is not architectural success, more of business success, architecture is just the medium in this case, not much different from selling cars. Hard to judge because it is all about ones value. One could be a licensed architect working in firms like KPF 60 HR/week doing skyscraper tower stair details making 65K.

6 digits, site-built homes.

Hey, 6 digits can be 100,000 to 999,999. There is a huge difference. 100K is not bad but meh still achievable with salary. 200k-300k, now we are talking sweet stuff.

I have done some factory-built homes; not double-wide mobile homes, for example check out Blu Homes. I want to do more of these. The level of detail and accuracy one can achieve with factory-built versus site-built is incredible. My hubby and I live in a factory-built and nobody can even tell.  Anyways, I think I am done here...  there isn't much "discussion" on this forum, it's seems like it's about a bunch of guys saying the same thing over and over to inflate their ego...  licensed folks have a lot of power - change the system!  Call out your state boards and NCRAP.  

Janette - seriously, post up some of your work and how much you make - it will shut up the haters. I know you said six figures but as Jay said - that's a huge range. Also how many hours a year do you work?

Pre-fab house and site built are the same thing. Factory has more control offering higher consistency and quality. The cost is the same though, that is why prefab never took off in the market. Low end residential house is not really a market for architect.It is the same blue print used repeatedly for mass produced product. Only 2% residential project involves architect, mostly high end custom stuff. If one architect touches those vinyl house, the person definitely failed the business in public, have to retreat to the cheap markets. Public work like education is way more lucrative in terms of smash and grab projects.1st firm i worked out of school loves those low end smash and grab projects, often does not want to actively pursue large projects. Did a Roof replacement job in two weeks from survey to CD set out to bid. I think the fee was around 20K for that. 2 Weeks of intern survey & drafting with few hours supervisor review for $20K. Of course often time we troll around and drag the time longer. Imagine you work 2 weeks and get paid 20K, man that is awesome, of course there are some overheads, but how much can that be. Now remember, you need license to sign and seal those drawings for public jobs. That is why i am trying to get it, studying for test now. Oh sht, have i let the secrets out.

I try to remind myself not to be as territorial but it never works. One of the reasons I pushed early for my license was because it bothered me that I couldn't call myself an Architect. Every time I see someone calling themselves one when they're not licensed I involuntarily twitch even though I tell myself it doesn't affect me one way or another. Either you can sign drawings or you can't, the rest is just semantics.

I think when you're on the unlicensed side of the gate it's natural to be adversarial to the system, I know I repeatedly cursed about the exams. But it was more of a "It's me vs these exams" kind of way not a "I don't like these so they shouldn't be here" kind of way.

It's not that bad.  

There was a rant here an hour or so ago that dragged this horse back into the beating circle. That user used their real name so probably deleted their account to save themselves some embarrassent.

Wait, your real name isn't Non Sequitur?!?

Yours isn't RJ87?! I'm disappointed.

I'd forgotten about the apple metaphor

Your response was beautiful

Wow, yeah. That's art EA.

Thanks. Every once in a while I have a good day. I think Rick's response of just "ok..." is what seals it.

I'm surprised the internet as a whole was permitted to continue it's existence following that apple example.

it really isn't though- it's an economic tool to control the number of licensed professionals. and it's a relatively new one at that. codes and zoning do far more to keep people safe than credentials.. as you said, there are plenty of successful individuals participating in architecture, safely, without licenses.

https://www.economist.com/unit...

Testing is not a quantifier of knowledge for many reasons. Tests for licenses do not set a bar for competencies because most tests are based on academia and not practicum.Ironically the individuals who build these exams do not live in practicum but rather have academic presence and notoriety and to quote "cannot make it in the real world". Do we "pour or place concrete" the answer to an academic in the profession will tell you "place" the practicum will tell you "pour"...the tests are written for people 3 years out of school...need I say more?

This is not true. Have you ever been to one of the NCARB volunteering opportunities to help write testing?

I'm waiting on the day they start making people 75+ retake the exam every few years.

They should, but the skilled professionals on some faculties are also outnumbered by the de facto artists and PhDs more interested in that one book they read on object oriented ontology than in the art and science of building. Their work focuses on ... themselves - studying the study of architecture rather than making architecture.

I'm of the opinion that construction methods & design studios should hold equal weight in school. 

 Another glaring difference with architecture schools is that it's objectively hard to "fail". Because design studios are so subjective, as long as you show up and produce something you'll pass. As a result you end up with a lot of folks with an undergraduate (or even graduate) degree that just kind of floated through school. In other professional degrees, there's usually a number of exams along the way that ensure a higher minimum competency of graduates.

Unless they make the exams easier (which I would surely hope they don't), I don't see pass rates improving significantly as long as the profession doesn't require licensure to participate in the majority of tasks related to architecture. As long as they can put graduates into the profession, schools won't particularly care if you get licensed or not so they won't focus on preparing you for the exams. Compare it with doctors, nurses, lawyers, even hairdressers that can't fully operate within the profession without a license.

Good TED talk.

I'll take things that didn't happen for $100 Alex.

I don't think the profession is f$*&ed. I don't think the licensing process is f*#@ed. Are there improvements that can be made - sure. Are improvements being made - sure. Will the profession or the licensing process be perfect - never.

I think the general direction of the profession is actually heading in a good direction (albeit slowly). In stark contrast to many other professions, it seems like the older architects in the industry genuinely want the younger generation to be able to do better for themselves and the world than they could.

By contrast, it seems that a lot of the people complaining about the nebulous "profession of architecture" never really jumped fully in anyway (those who gave up on licensure, or who fell through the cracks and jumped to another profession altogether). All this is just my own experiences, so yada yada grain of salt.

I'm always astonished how little, people know what NCARB does, who is responsible for establishing the organization, and who funds it.

I'm assuming Chad's comment was to someone else who has since had their comment(s) removed from the thread. Otherwise, I don't know why Chad is responding the way he is.

You would be correct EA. My response was to a comment from Rick that has been removed.

Beautiful. Found your blog and going to check it out now. Recently watched a few vids of this ride. How are you feeling post ride? I hope it was an amazing time. Have you watched TWO YEARS ON A BIKE on youtube by Martjin D.? Highly recommend....

I watched 2 years and it is a very good production. It is interesting to me that he needed the desert to formulate his thoughts and to recalibrate because that is what I felt in the desert. The solitude forces one to be introspective. Most of the time when I think back I place myself i n the desert. Alone.