In New Mexico you must have a Masters in Architecture from a NCARB accredited school - I think this is true in most states.

New Mexico is truly the standard in the US lol

New Mexico? Sure, quality place.

Land of soft organic architecture and solar energy from our two national laboratories - your arrogance is on display - we actually have FLW's Pottery House in Santa Fe ...

When it says PROFESSIONAL DEGREE (they mean B.Arch and M.Arch degrees (2yr and 3 year). 1 Year Masters degree in architecture is customarily not NAAB accredited and is called a post-professional degree [if you took the B.Arch]. 

If you seek to be a professor, the universities will typically require you to have am Masters level degree.

I'll be calling NM Board of Architects to verify the facts here. You should do that, yourself. You do realize that that the Board does not have the authority to require more than what the codified statutes AND administrative rules requires. NM doesn't administer NCARB Certification. NCARB does.

https://www.ncarb.org/ncarb-ce...

NAAB accredited degrees are 5-year B.Arch, 2-year M.Arch (for those with a pre-professional 4-year (BA/BS in architecture), and 3+ year M.Arch (if someone has a bachelor's degree in a non-architecture degrees. 

It sounds like you're blowing your horn on false information. DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND CALL THE NEW MEXICO BOARD OF ARCHITECTS and set yourself straight. You are entitled to proceed through licensure in accordance with the codified statutes and rules not some made up phantom rule that isn't public law. 

I am not saying the board can't change their administrative rules. While the precise accepted degrees do not have to be stipulated in statutes, they do have to publish those under the administrative rules if it isn't spelled out in the statutes. Those can be changed by the board and signed by the governor. A little different process than the statutes which requires going through a process with the state's legislature and then signed by the governor if passed through both houses of the state legislature. They can not legally string people along on a mysterious path to licensure adding or changing requirements on the whim without an open public process. This isn't to say they won't in the future decide that B.Arch's be discontinued and architecture school be a grad school thing. However, this would also be ripe with complications. The whole profession has to move in that direction. It would result in fewer people entering the profession and getting licensed. Why? B.Arch degrees being an undergraduate degree benefits from federal pell grants and the likes that are not loans so this eases the burden of the cost of such a degree.

"It may say this but the State is requiring a Masters in Architecture to be NCARB certified which is everything - my topic post was about a profession under siege at many levels - no one wants to talk about the other discussion points - understand?" 

Because you are full of shit about NM requiring a person to have to have a Masters of Architecture (M.Arch) to be NCARB Certified. WRONG. NM doesn't administer NCARB Certification. NCARB does. NCARB doesn't administer the state licensing requirements. The individual states do. Those requirements are REQUIRED to be in codified law accessible to the public (statutes or administrative rules). The BOARD of the state, administering the licensure process are REQUIRED to adhere to the adopted statutes and the rules as adopted. Any change in the administrative rules has to be PUBLIC process which means there has to be public meetings with public notices. 

Requiring an M.Arch as the absolute minimum to becoming license in New Mexico, would have been big news in the Architecture community because it would be the ONLY state in the entire United States to make M.Arch degree mandatory and that a B.Arch degree is not enough to be licensed. You would see this from California, New York, or Illinois before we would see such a thing out of New Mexico. Why? Those states have major cities with high rises and such which often are very complex structures where requiring more than a mere B.Arch *might* make sense. There would likely be a host of other requirements.

There would be complications associated with making such changes. I think you are spouting bullshit, to be honest because you are misinformed. If you have a non-architecture bachelors degree or a 4 year BA/BS in Architecture, you would need to either get enrolled into a B.Arch program OR enroll in an M.Arch program. NOTE: Where you go to college has no bearing with the state you get licensed in. 

Take a breath Richard.

While OP may be making a face value technical error in their statement… it’s not really the point of the post, and you seem real hung up on it. And real upset… not sure why.

If you want to interpret a little bit, consider that NM only has 1 accredited school, which is a master’s program. So if you live in NM, and want to stay in NM (which is reasonable for personal and economic “in-state” reasons), then you have to get a masters degree. Something OP could be reasonably upset about.

Perhaps but even then, a person doesn't have to go to that university and still remain in NM. You know that. As time moves on in the decades into the future more of the colleges will be hybrid or online with the architecture program. Just a matter of time.

As to what the OP argument or insenuating relating to racism.... I don't buy it for a second. First: If ANYTHING --- It's just plain old fashion.... stifle competition to reduce competitors. They don't care about the skin color someone has. It's more like they just want to make it harder for people to get licensed so they don't have too many architects with license but not enough projects so they can earn a livable income. Supply & Demand issue. That is more likely the case than skin color / race.

If I am upset about anything... if they are in fact requiring people to have an M.Arch, it is more like why are they not following their own statutes and administrative rules? The laws and rules don't say M.Arch. It says professional degree accredited by NAAB. That includes B.Arch... which is a professional degree accredited by NAAB. It would be deceptive and everyone would be reasonably upset if they apply for registration after having completed NAAB accredited B.Arch, AXP, and the ARE and then to be denied by the board staff as... "You don't have an M.Arch" line of b.s. They have no excuse of not knowing a B.Arch is an NAAB accredited professional degree. Hell, it was that way in NM at one time as well when there were no such thing as M.Arch degrees... when NAAB didn't accredit master degrees at all. They know that. B.Arch was the first professional degrees accredited by NAAB and been that way for like a CENTURY!

If this person wants to stay in state, then it's a "requirement". They are not required to do it that way by the state. It's semantics. Clearly the board is not actually requiring someone to specifically have an March to get licensed. It’s just the only local option for an education that qualifies.

Are there fully online accredited BArcs? Serious question, I'm not aware of any. 

yes.

https://www.academyart.edu/art-degree/architecture/online-degrees/

Just naming one but I suspect in time there may be more degrees that are either fully online or hybrid but over time.

The issue at hand may be cost but that's not saying they can't have such degrees. There is some that are almost entirely remote with periodic intensives like the BAC program. Those can be mostly done locally with visit to architecture school campus for those "intensive" (charette like) sessions that are like maybe a week long, a number of times. I'm pretty sure it can be manageable for some students like the OP if they work even part-time while attending classes.

I agree with you that if the person wants to stay in-state, it is currently the only option. Given UNM is the only accredited program in the state. NM isn't very highly populated state, the last I recall. That's besides the point. Oregon had only one accredited architecture school (with B.Arch, and two M.Arch tracks and the MS/MA in architecture which once was called M.Arch but NAAB cracked down on schools referring to non-NAAB accredited degree as M.Arch... but that's sidetracking) until PSU became accredited and we now have two schools. In the case of PSU, we have both M.Arch tracks there as they also have a pre-professional architecture program that facilitates the 4+2. Students have an option to go the 4+2 and take the undergrad at PSU and take the M.Arch at either PSU or UO or another school altogether. That's nice. On the west coast, we might be a little more relaxed with Oregon being the strictest of the three coastal states on the west coast when it comes to pathways to licensure.

In my personal case (somewhat off-topic), I can add an architect (with a license in Oregon & preferably also Washington) and as a business we could offer architectural services in addition to building design & other services in Oregon. Would have to register the firm but with the new amended statutes, it would be easier to do that and exempt projects would not necessarily have to be stamped/seal (unless prepared by an architect, of course). It was something that I discussed with the board on that. However, it would be wise that whoever does exempt projects without an architect license is competent and able to do the work in similar standard of care as the license architect would. Conceivably, I could gain AXP if work is done under a supervision and control of a business partner but gets a bit iffy if the architect was merely an employee... that can be a bit more problematic from my recollection in conversations with NCARB over the years. Getting an M.Arch is an option when it comes to being able to secure student loans but I have to be attentive to my student loan debt amount and keep that under reasonable control and then there is that element of enrollment level. I can keep enrollment levels modest enough to also work so 3 years can become 6 years but if I avoid need of student housing, that would be a positive but I have to assess the strategy. I have access to taking the ARE now, via state of Washington. When dealing with licensure back in Oregon, I have to assess options of NCARB Certificate portfolio process or get that M.Arch which would likely be the 3+ year track which I may pace it out over 6+ years so it depends. Either way, I have options but B.Arch or BA/BS in Architecture is less likely due to financial resources needed being harder to obtain since I wouldn't be able to get Pell grants at this stage and undergrad student loan limits are a real pain in the rear to get enough to enroll and cover housing and all that bloated expense.

For me, the pros for going after the M.Arch once I wrap up the bachelor's degree and enroll in M.Arch and get it is: A) reduce additional AXP / supervised experience under an architect to just that of the AXP hours. B) Places me on a clear cut path to licensure in both Oregon & Washington due to NAAB accreditation. Con: The likely student loan debt. It can be paid off if I get busy on that front and do that. I didn't mention ARE because it would be the same requirement in all scenarios. Getting the M.Arch would save years of supervised experience under an architect that I wouldn't have to log. In addition, it would be a less complicated process for NCARB Certificate if I so choose to get it. It would be less frustrating than the NCARB Certificate Portfolio process... whatever the f--- that is. The key, however, is being committed to completing these courses and figuring out that while also working. I think it could be done. Getting the bachelors degree done FIRST is required and that is being worked on, now.

TLDR... except the first two responses.

Interesting! I mean, great that there are more opportunities. Never heard of that school and would never want to recommend or go there based on it being For-Profit, but hey... someone can do it. Technically there is an option without moving. 

True but it comes down to total cost of attendance. It depends on the personal situation.

It's not. It is however causing people to do $50-60K in debt to get a degree.

Requiring an accredited degree has been the standard for getting licensed. It's not much different than most states requiring a person who seeks to become a lawyer to go to an ABA-accredited law school or otherwise an approved law school. Yes, it comes with a debt. A solution may involve multiple solutions to work. For example, capping tuition increases to not exceed COLA changes, increasing funding in the Pell grants, adding more scholarships (not just scholarships targetting women and ethnic minorities but a broader population). Interns should be starting out at 150% of the rate of which places like McDonald's pays high school students and 18 year old young adults at starting wage. Why? So they can afford rent, pay the student loan payments and still have a life where they can progressively improve their living lifestyle by the year not by the decades or by the number of life times they have to live. These will come at a cost but the means of handling those costs AND live a life worth living. We need to make that happen.

I get that part but that's a purely USA! pew pew USA! thing. 8-) OP is suggesting that requiring a accredited degree somehow equate racism.

Yeah it's not racist. The degree is expensive and that is a limiting factor for certain. That being said you can attend a state school with lower cost.

I am not sure how the OP is even arriving at how this equates to racism. Maybe because there is a conflation of racism = oppression and the power to oppress. The power to oppress seems like one must be in a privileged position and I am not sure how merely one's skin color equals being in a position of power to oppress on basis of race. However, I am not sure merely oppression equals racism. Is it simply licensing boards stifling people on the way to becoming licensed architects... racism or is it simply to limit the number of people in the profession so as not to have too many competitors (supply) competing for projects (demand). If the demand is low and there is too much supply, the competition becomes a race of who is going to be the cheapest. I'm not sure that's on basis of racism. Racism would imply there is some racial / ethnic bias and racial/ethnic hatred.To be a racist, one has to hate or dislike of at least certain races and oppresses because of this hatred. The person could have a hatred or dislike or look down upon anyone of races other than a specific race or ethnicity. Hence racial bias. Racists must have racial bias. Racist is a word that attaches to the person. It's a title applied on a character of racial bias. How does the decisions on the qualification paths and the requirements equate to racism? Is the decisions made by the members of the various licensing board, NCARB, etc. based on racial biases like intent to oppress and use their role to oppress on basis of racial selection.

LOL!

Also, OP: your questions have the cadence of Q drops and it tickles me a great deal.

or 6. They are too busy with their own life and profession working hard to bring home money to pay the bills, have a roof over his or her family's heads and so forth. Maybe we don't have all day every day to be advocating. There is also the fact, we can all advocate until we turn plaid, and still be totally ignored because not a single word we say or write even has to be listened to or considered. They have their minds set often before meetings even happen so its like why would they care. They have an agenda. They got on these board, committees, etc. to execute an agenda not pander to the public or anyone. Remember, board members of licensing boards are APPOINTED not elected like the Supreme Court. They are selected and appointed by the Governor of a state. The staff are employees and only answers to their higher ranking employee. They answer to state legislature and the governor. People's voice begins and ends at the vote. After that, we don't mean shit.

Sorry, I'll clarify my last point: unions. Plenty of workers find the time because it benefits them enormously. Withholding labor is also likely more powerful than electoral politics at this point. I don't have much hope for this in architecture, sadly. Ignorance is powerful.

Sure, some do but that's usually those who have the time to spare. When you don't, they are probably too busy with life and such. Part of it also comes down to, is it even worth the time to even waste breath trying to convince someone whose mind is set. Problem with most adults, once the mind is set, no one, not even the divine almighty, is going to convince them of another option. So it comes down to it. If even trying is pointless, maybe it isn't worth exerting the time. Many also don't feel their voice isn't even wanted let alone worthy enough to be heard. Its like, you are a worthless meaningless pee-on who has nothing valuable to convince. You don't have money so nope, cash isn't there to convince so why should we care what your thoughts are. Something like that. I know, rough. There is that overcome and deal with otherwise, you'll be ignored and pissed on. Pun is intended.

I agree with you on "union". Might be something to it. Have to see what that entails.

To add, self learning requires a level of self discipline that most people simply don’t have. School is probably necessary for most people as a starting point regardless of requirements.

education is a good investment when you get a good return, which apparently is not happening - it's not ok to say, "You need to do a Master's because your undergrad is good for nothing" because after a while the Masters degree will be useless as well. (Not sure it's good for something right now if most people here are saying you need to do an internship afterwards to learn how to architecture)

I'm not sure if self learning would be possible to the vast majority of people with architecture. Wouldn't you still need the resources and time to learn the material?  I suspect this would be a barrier to most non wealthy people in the US. I wonder if self learning would limit access to an education even more than now.

What do you do when you get out of school if you don't self-learn? Does someone sit at your desk and tell you what to do? Genuine question.

For sure, but School gives you a boost

As for ROI, it’s true that there are no guarantees you will get a good return. That’s why architecture is generally still a profession for more upper middle class and upper class kids, not because of racism. Working class folks often enter professions with better and more stable ROI. For instance there is a higher disparity in architecture than medicine, but medical school is more expensive and arguably harder.

It’s counterproductive to focus on racism. The structural inequalities are more a class issue, and class and race tends to have strong correlations. Racial disparities is an indirect thing imo

Wilma - school gives you a base of knowledge. So dose your internship. Hopefully, you continue to build on that base throughout your career. Regardless - learning on your own still takes time and resources.

x-jla wrote: 

"It’s counterproductive to focus on racism. The structural inequalities are more a class issue, and class and race tends to have strong correlations. Racial disparities is an indirect thing imo"

I don't agree with that.  However, I'm going to argue with you about it.  

OddA, it certainly does take time and resources to learn on one's own. But I didn't have any other options.

Not everyone can take the time or have the resources to devote to pursuing an alternate path to licensure. What's it up to now , 10 years with a non accredited degree, 15 or 20 years with no degree? I can't recall.

got it. I misunderstood something. Yes, in Colorado it is 10 years but the people I know who did this got licensed faster and moved up the ranks quicker and with less pain than many of us that got degrees. My daughter wants to be an architect. I think the best route for her is to work with me for 10 years, with or without a degree. Not everyone has that chance, but for those that do, it is very lucrative. Nepotism is popular for a reason.

Wilma Buttfit - I'm not familiar with the alternate methods you're referring to that shortened that timeline.

If you have a non accreted architectural degree it's ten years of internship.  Allowed in 12 states

If you have a B.Arch it's around four years.  An M.Arch is around three years.  Required in 38 states. 

No degree but working under an architect is 15 or 20 years. I think this is allowed in maybe three states. 

Wilma, true, not an architect licensed in the U.S. Not all countries regulates the the title - Architect. However, I am a building designer. There's perhaps some joy of not spending 25 years failing every division of the ARE ten times over before finally passing it. There is perhaps also that joy of not being a chronically miserable architect who is always miserable and without any joy or soul. Perhaps that's better than a license.... to have a fucking life with some joy and soul.

You only have five years to pass all of the exams. After that you loose any passed divisions older than five years.

This is known as the rolling clock.  

With the rolling clock going away, interesting matters, now.

Nope.  They still expire.  On average it takes 7 years for  a new ARE to come out.  

https://www.ncarb.org/pass-the...

FYI Odd, the Rolling Clock is no more, except for I believe one jurisdiction that had it in a practice act (like we did in IL until recently).

Edit: I see what you mean with the new exam versions and that language remaining though.

Yeah, the five year rolling clock is out. The various other limitations make it a 7 year rolling clock though. Kind of sneaky on NCARB's part however I see the relevance.

While the ARE can shift from 5.0 to 6.0. There is no requirement that NCARB has to change the exam every 7 years. They can change or update the pool of questions and answers without necessarily changing the exam division structure. Therefore, there wouldn't necessarily be a invalidation of the passed ARE exam divisions. While it is possible that the exam divisions becomes invalidated but it also possible that it doesn't. NCARB was ARE 1.0 for awhile before the briefly lived 2.0 that became 3.0. I believe it was significantly more than 7 years during that cycle. With the new exam delivery model being online, they wouldn't really need to become 6.0 for awhile. Part of the reason for change from 3.x to 4.x and then to 5.x was because they had issues with the old Flash based ARE software that dates back to the 16-bit era Windows. The new 5.x replaced that Macromedia Flash based software with new software that can be live updated with updatable client that allows it to be more "futureproof" (as futureproof as it may be). They updated that so there isn't these issues so as long as exam division structure isn't changed in major ways that would make it difficult to translate to 6.x. NCARB's handling of the 3.x/4.x changes and the 4.x to 5.x cycle has caused issues. As a matter of fact, they had even been reversing the expiration of former 4.x exams for a number of exam candidates. NCARB may be learning from past decisions that caused problems for licensure candidates so if they retain the lessons they learned from those decisions and the aftermath, the ARE exams might not expire and a number of states have taken effort to remove the rolling clock and also restore ARE 4.x scores. I'm a bit foggier on that area so its worth checking with NCARB website on that. I haven't really been paying all that much attention to the 4.x stuff but read some blurb about it on NCARB.

Kind of. I've participated in discussions with NCARB about testing. Anyone can do this, they happen all the time. The goal is to update the exam every 5-7 years in order to keep up with the changing requirements of the profession.

That's true but how changes are implemented may or may not require the exam structure to change. They can update the pool of questions and it would still be "ARE 5.0". It depends on how changes are implemented. One goal of ARE 5.0 is to make it more updateable on the server side without necessarily restructuring the whole divisions and still be relevant. We can only see if they hold to that or they hold to past pattern. Anyone who starts ARE should be complete the exams in a timely manner of 5-7 years but if the patterns stretches to 10 years before a 6.0, they would be nice. If NCARB doesn't want to cause a lot of heartache and trouble, they can add a division and retain existing divisions so the exams that were already taken doesn't get invalidated. Or they update the pool of questions and if you passed a division today, it be valid 10 years from now and when you pass a division later on closer to 8-9 years into the future, it is all valid. You would likely be keeping up with some learning. Maybe, they could employ some requirement of continuing education for ARE candidates that they have to take every so many years to keep fresh on things. Hard to say how that would work. Just an off the cuff idea thrown out there.

Kind of. The mentioned 5-7 year mark is when NACARB expects to change the exam, not just update the questions. In addition, once enough of the questions are changed NCARB moves to a new version of ARE. The exception to this was 10-14 years ago when a big cheating ring was discovered and NCARB had to quickly write and change all of the test questions for the ARE 4.0.

yeah but I think there was also a somewhat modest timeline between 4.x to 5.x because they needed to get off that Flash based exam as Flash was... well.... basically dead... sort of. So they overhauled it. In the intervening time between 4.x and 5.x change, there was also a restructuring of IDP to the AXP. However, the original ARE 1.x (1.0 or whatever) was in use throughout the 1980s. 

You don't necessarily need to redesign the whole exam and structure of divisions. They are broad categories in the first place. If you update the questions and the code cycle of the I-codes they may reference, it remains relevant. The exam isn't about what software tools may be in fashion to design. What really is different about the profession beyond code changes and maybe questions involving building science / sustainability practice which we already incorporate to some level in the question pool. We keep those up to date. We may not even need version numbers anymore. ARE 5.0 could simply be called ARE and be updated and maintained relevance by keeping things relevant to the practice.

 Most of the stuff would be kind of timeless stuff. Some of it would be updated like if there is change in the ADA law, they would be reflected in the exam questions. So then, how do you maintain examinees are keeping up. 

Updated questions that are relevant to current editions of the codes and associated standards, as well as perhaps some continuing education requirement of examinees / licensure candidates every 2, 3, or 5 years or whatever that remains valid. These 'continuing education' could have some quiz element so it is proof of understanding these things. They would be a way to validate that you are keeping with the times even when you take a snails pace through the exams. An idea but how to implement it is not something I have an answer to. It might be a good practice for licensure candidates taking the ARE to do so on their way to licensure. It would be a practice they should be getting used to if they intend to become licensed.

Feel free not to believe me. My views are from my conversations the NCARB has with architects about testing.  

I believe you that they like to do these things. They don't necessarily have to replace and redesign the exam structure every 5-7 years. They don't have to is the point. What's the point of changing the number of divisions and all that about? Sounds more like trying to rip off licensure candidates and screw them over. They have an opportunity to not be making unneeded changes for the sake of making changes for change sake. I can understand keeping the pool of questions fresh and relevant. Are we really testing ARE candidates on how to use the new fangled trendy software tools of the year? I don't think so. I know some things are updated frequently like building codes and engineering standards and so forth. If we want candidates to be ready to enter the profession if they took the ARE early in their licensure path and then took a decade afterwards to complete AXP and any other educational/experience requirement, why not require continuing education along the way. We do that with licensees.... why not? I can understand not requiring continuing education if enrolled in an architecture degree program but if they are not, have them do some kind of continuing education. Should that be NCARB led or state licensing board lead, I don't know. Maybe a little of both.

I didn't say NCARB has to change the exam every 5-7 years. I said they desire to change the exam every 5-7 years to keep the material 'relevant' to the practice of architecture.

Isn't that what you are doing when you update and replace questions in the pool of questions for the respective divisions? 

It isn't like the changes so much every 5-7 years that the broad categories in the ARE division would not be relevant. All of those 6 divisions would be relevant even in 250 years. The practice of architecture in general is stabilizing. That's the nature of professions maturing. Updates to reflect current law like the codes by updating the questions and supporting material provided in the exam. When ICC updates the I-codes, we update the exam questions, right?

Not according to what NCARB wants to do. Expect to have ARE 5.1, 5.2, ect.

Probably true. Expecting NCARB to be different is probably wishful thinking. NCARB loves the idea of ripping off candidates to make more money. Same con, different year.

That's kind of how it used to be. Eight divisions, test offered twice a year. Took 3-4 days. If you failed one exam you failed them all. You had to get an 80% to pass.

True but what I stated above would be a more extreme version of that, obviously. Of course, the above was inspired by that old process and put to an extreme so I think AXP is a more palatable than the extreme version indicated above. We want architects to be competent. Ideally, everyone who designs buildings including building designers designing exempt buildings. It isn't the paper with a number that proves competence. It is actual knowledge, skills, etc. that shows. However, as a licensed profession much like it is with certified building designers, exams is a third-party assessment tool to gauge that minimum standard to practice.

The flip side of that issue is, if there wasn't that complex "puzzle of 3 dimensional regulations", there wouldn't be a need for a PROFESSIONAL (architect) to guide the client through. It is this that defines that professional service not doodling. Anyone can draw pictures.... good or bad and with even a mind training and practice can draw decent. What makes you a professional is the service. It isn't just drawing pictures, it is navigating through the labyrinth of regulatory snares, designing and proposing practical solutions to the clients "design needs". We design. Yes. 

What you do is more than the pencil and paper sketching. It is making design solutions and guiding clients towards a successful outcome whenever possible. I understand there are times clients that wants the impossible or is just going to be a disaster. It happens. Being forthright and candid, yet professional about it, is part of the job. 

It is the regulatory layers and complexity that shines the need of a design PROFESSIONAL. Sure, clients could try to go it alone on their custom designed home, but then they have to figure all that out and likely you know how that outcome would likely be in many cases. It isn't all bad. It is how you look at handling this nebulous regulatory environment and how to guide clients. 

Like lawyers have to deal with the ever and constantly changing and evolving laws and the muckery some peckerwoods in black robes in DC can just fuck up established laws and precedence and cause trouble throughout the court houses from sea to shiny sea. Not an easy job. Not easy money. 

This isn't a job where you spend 6-9 months and can get several millions of dollars. This is a professional consultant industry. You work hard for every dollar. You might make enough to be an upper middle class or lower part of the upper class doing this type of work. This is because we aren't executives running a manufacturing business producing a mass-produced consumer product so there are some effective cap on how much we can earn as consultants. There is certain fundamental nature of the business of professional consulting services compared to other kinds of businesses.

If we have a sound understanding of the role of professional consultants in the architectural design field, we can set real expectations about what to expect instead of some fantasy about making it Bill Gates level rich. It isn't that field. Understanding how much consumers invests into consultants and the whole economy of consultant-type businesses and market in comparison to other types. We must understand that reality not fantasy and where spending habits goes in the world.

Why bury this thread? - you can just cruise on by - my salient point was that this profession is under siege as a long-time architect told me - not one of these responses said that it wasn't - just excuses as usual - do you believe this profession is not under attack from many quarters including consulting engineers, building departments, and NCARB?

do a salary survey innit

How about shut the fuck up and live with the fact the world is fucked up... ALL occupations are under siege in some way or form that any person can find and make such an argument. All licensed professions are created for the purpose of gatekeeping. Every profession established these licensing laws for their respective professions by proposing licensing to state legislature and convincing those politicians that there is a need to regulate these professions through licensure. 

The only "REAL" or SURREAL underlying reason any of these people proposed these laws was because they sucked at procuring clients and can't compete because they don't understand the world of competitive business and that supply & demand... so they then create these regulations in some way to legislate out of business huge swatch of their competitors and then put tedious hurdles to getting license so as to systemically limit competition. This wasn't for reasons of race. Not really. Although it did effect people of ethnic minority that didn't have have financial wealth so it was mainly a socio-economic class discrimination but it wasn't even so much as that. 

In the case of architecture, AIA created architectural licensing because it was ivory tower academic architects that were creating these laws because they weren't competitive with the "architect-builders" and non-degreed architects who either apprenticed or had very little college or something. So these architects that spent the equivalent of $50,000 [or more] a year (today) for four or so years for that fancy architecture degree or go all the way to Paris for that prestigious Ecoles-Beaux-Arts architecture schooling and then to come back and having a hard time because these non-schooled architects were getting the clients and not them. Lets be real, it was anger, envy, jealousy, and all that bullshit that driven their desire to legislate out their competitor. Their original scheme with their created AIA failed. They were proposing they be the direct gatekeepers basically. There were issues with that including some of the anti-trust laws and the thing that government law in the U.S. can not be used to established a singular non-government private entity as the regulator of a profession. It would kind of create a oligopoly and that it would not be under government oversight. Additionally, since licensing laws comes out of the provision of the Constitution of "police powers" (I am not talking cops specifically but the collective power to regulate)... and it had to be on matters of public health, safety, and welfare before a state agency can be established to regulate a profession. Then came all the piped up and exaggerated issues and the false narrative that licensing would be the golden answer to all our woes after the events of the Chicago fire and such. Ugh... it didn't. 

You see, blind leading the blind. So building codes and regulations that are amended and updated and scientific research and testing became the real solution. The license didn't magically make an architect more intelligent or have a better understanding of science. The license, however, made it easier to hold architects accountable because it is easier to have a licensing board revoke a license than getting a court to issue the nuclear-powered "permanent injunction" which judges hate to issue because it is very powerful and failure to comply means contempt of court that can lead to imprisonment. 

Licensed professions isn't necessarily under siege by outsiders more than it is under siege by the very profession itself. When there is downturns, all those licensed blowhards always whine about... LEGISLATE OUT THE R.B. UNLICENSED DESIGNERS of the various state because we are taking away all the single-family residential projects. Same shit, different day for a century. They carved out the exemptions but they don't want to do the single-family residential projects when the commercial, institutional, governmental, large-scale multi-family residential markets are doing great.... because the pay usually sucks. A lot of work for very modest pay. The payout is better on the big commercial in many cases. When things turn south as they periodically do, as they do in the residential, they come into the residential sector and complain if they aren't getting the client and so they go "Lets legislate out the unlicensed designer". 

We unlicensed designers are kind of limited to the residential and maybe a little small commercial stuff and small farm-ag stuff depending on the state. We can't really go from our sector to the other unless we decide to break the law. When any of us do, those of us that do are vigorously fined to the maximum extreme whenever possible. We are in this sector through the good and bad times. When I see a whiny bitch-baby architect whining about unlicensed designers outcompeting them in the residential field, then too fucking bad. Same fucking shit, different day for over a century. 

Now, you whine about the regulatory barriers and the issues making it difficult to getting licensed, its literally because of this Architecture profession doing it to itself and fucking itself. Architects, for whatever reason, HATES competitors and would bitch, moan, and groan to politicians in their state legislature, to amend the laws and rules and make licensing more difficult and figure out how to legislate more of their competitors. They are the kind of dickheads that would contrive the idea of making a D.Arch the minimum level degree to be licensed followed by 10 YEARS of AXP and expanding the ARE into exam-hell that would consist of 1500 to 2,500 HOURS worth of exams and imposing it. Even making it mandatory for renewal that licensees must meet the new requirement of they are no longer abled to practice (except unless they already have a D.Arch and a license at the time the amendment goes into effect). Basically a FUCK YOU message to the entire profession because they are colossal dicks.

*Please note, this message contains profanity, exaggerated satire, and occasional mockery and a pinch of sarcasm and criticism but enjoy and half a little laugh unless you are a soul-less dipshit.*

Richard - you get it - the underlying reason for all of these actions is to restrain the architectural trade - architects now eat their own ...

However, the main actors restraining this profession and the barriers is not the politicians. They really wouldn't care that much other than it answers a problem that is a public problem. Yeah, the Chicago fire was a public problem. People want answers and solutions so such would not happen again. Sure.

The biggest problem is its not under siege by outside forces as much. Aside from having codes and regulations mostly intended for buildings to be safer. Sure. The real actors is the profession with their anti-competitive... legislate their competitors out of business approach and put up walls to limit new competitors. So as to keep the number of competitors to a relative level that they perceive would assure themselves a good livable income.

You can put Balkins on ignore, make Archinect better

your opinion is noted ...

Is it really or are you just waiting for that one wanker to come along and say something that matches your misinformed assumptions?

thx ...

I pressed “post too quickly”. To just add to the above: there is nothing “structurally racist” about a country that gives people an opportunity to have children and raise them however you want. Why have children if you can’t take care of them or give them the attention they deserve at home, both on a play level and an education level? Is it “structurally racist” for parents not to read to their children? Is it structurally racist for parents not to do homework and spend extra time in addition to their homework with their children? Does it cost anything to go to the library with their kids on their days off?

I pressed “post too quickly”. To just add to the above: there is nothing “structurally racist” about a country that gives people an opportunity to have children and raise them however you want. Why have children if you can’t take care of them or give them the attention they deserve at home, both on a play level and an education level? Is it “structurally racist” for parents not to read to their children? Is it structurally racist for parents not to do homework and spend extra time in addition to their homework with their children? Does it cost anything to go to the library with their kids on their days off?

So no: the profession is not “under siege” by professionals. If anything, it is under siege by loud inexperienced (sometimes incompetent) voices that want to make it ever more easier to get a quick reward with less effort. I don’t know that this is just a phenomenon in the architectural profession, but certainly the architectural profession is more vulnerable than others because it is both a creative and technical profession. If we are bad as a body of professionals in substantiating our fees to ignorant clients, how are we supposed to substantiate the rigor of the licensing process?

BB, some good points there.

Really - structural racism within the profession and not in the country at large (there is plenty of it there in the Trump cult) - one might ask why only less than 2% of architects are Black - something tells me you are a male and not a minority - if you were you would understand racism and wouldn't post this dribble - ignorant clients, really? - respectfully ...

Something tells me you didn’t read my posts fully. Victim hood is a comfortable place to take shelter in, I guess. I’m a first-generation immigrant with a tough story. I probably grew up in some ways more disadvantaged than some native minorities in this country. The idea that self-actualization isn’t possible because of structural racism isn’t something I am convinced by at all. I never saw anyone being prohibited from accessing the public library in NYC because there was some sign saying “whites only”. Therefore, this proves to me that the issue of seeking out knowledge (or not) through free resources is an issue about one’s attitude toward education, which isn’t a function of the educational system, but of the family-atmosphere in which a person is raised. Certainly there are black and other minority architects, but the reason (I am arguing) that there aren’t more, isn’t because there is some informal policy out there that is trying to prevent it; rather that the minorities believe they aren’t good enough to do so. And this last point I made, isn’t so much because such minorities can’t get there, but because I believe many of them actually believe that their entire lives, they focused on other things other than the educational tools they could have sought out (independent from the school system) to get better at (science, math, etc), but didn’t. This lack of self-confidence stems from a place of reality for them, but this reality isn’t because some system told them they can’t get there. It’s because they didn’t have the family atmosphere and the family values to get to where they needed to. I think Asians are excellent example of how that is true.

In this day and age, it might actually be easier for a 'native' (as in born in the U.S.) ethnic minority in the U.S. to get college funding than the vast majority of white Americans... especially if you are male. Why? There are grants or scholarships exclusive for women and for ethnic minorities (no military service required). An student of ethnic minority U.S. citizen has the same access to Federal financial aid as I, a white male. The federal pell grant and most others federal aid and work study is based on need as in financial need. The federal student loans are also to some extent subject to financial need but less so than the grants. None of that is decided on race or privileged to anyone based on that. They don't decide whether you get it or not based on your race/ethnicity or gender. If you are denied, it is because either you or your parents income level exceeded the threshold. That is in part depends on whether your aid is based on your income tax or your parents. Between 18 and I think something like 23 or 24, it is based on parents, as general policy. 

As for scholarships and grants beyond the stuff from FAFSA, if you are a woman or an ethnic minority, there are a long list of scholarships and grants that exists that YOU can get that I would not because I am not what is classified as an ethnic minority in the U.S. or a woman. If you happened to be both, it is even easier to get those because there is more options for getting them. Sure, it is competitive because there is so many that apply and there is some finite volume of grant. So when you can even have those options on top of all of the other possible scholarships and grants that exists for students going into STEM or STEAM or particular major. There are all these possible choices that you can go to. Your list of possible scholarships you can seek would exceed mine simply on basis of being a minority or a woman. If you are both, then your list is even longer. It is presumptive assumed without factual basis that because I am white and male that I must automatically have this socio-economic privilege of automatically having millions of dollars that can be dropped into my hands at an instance of beck and call. As if we are all a bunch of BILL GATES and WARREN BUFFETS. That is systemic prejudice against me on basis of me being white and male. It's pre-assuming and prejudgment to assume being white and male EQUALS being rich and privileged. There's no such thing as scholarships or grants dedicated to white male students. It doesn't exist because such would be ILLEGAL. I have lived with that reality. 

To the OP, if you are of ethnic minority, an American (full citizenship status) - why aren't you seeking out these scholarships and grants? If you are a woman or both, WHY ARE YOU NOT SEEKING OUT THESE SCHOLARSHIP AND GRANT AID to help pay for college and reduce your student loans if not entirely pay for cost of attendance without requiring student loans? There is enough that if you got the federal aid AND these scholarships and grants that you can have little to maybe no student loan debt throughout the undergrad studies. So why don't you bluecorn? 

If you can work while also going through your college degree, you could reduce student loan debt footprint. Unless you are from a rich white family that can put aside $250K or more for college when you become an adult and have that gravy train life, you aren't going to have that. If you are me, you wouldn't have many of those resources that have been established. I have less options for scholarships and grants than women and ethnic minorities. 

What I have access to, they access to but they also have access to more. To assume I would have a higher pay than women or an ethnic minority because of being both male and white.... that is pretty assuming. I'd first, have to even be able to get the job which before that could happen, have to be able to get the college degree in the first place which if I can't even get the scholarships and grants would be near impossible to pay and thus becomes a stillbirth situation in the first place. If I can't even get the degree, then how do I even get the job from which I am presumed would be paid more than women and ethnic minorities. Wow... a presumption that is quite the horse being put way before the cart.... before the cart is even designed and materials bought or the horse being acquired. So yeah, maybe the barrier isn't all that about race and maybe the racial discrimination is against the white male since the 1960s. Then what do you do? Do what my fellow black man did in the age of segregation and got their degree through hard work without all the hand out assistance because they didn't exist... without trust fund luxuries. Then became well to do, well respected, well educated, and well articulate respectful men and women of society. 

Luckily, I am not quite as without assistance and resources as they were back then. I have more options than they did back then. However, I also have a more limited options for college educational funding than women and ethnic minorities of today. So I have to live with that. There is nothing I can really do to change that. I can either spend all day being a whiny bitch-baby, crying about myself being white and male all to the effect of criticism and boo hoo whoopy do responses.... or do something about my life and do what I can do to do something about my life to accomplish my goals.  

If college is the barrier, do what you need to do and deal with it. Fight the fights you can do something about. Do what you need to do to accomplish your goals. Otherwise, you'll waste time complaining instead of accomplishing your goals.

Why are there only 2% of the profession being Black? Maybe architecture isn't all that interesting to them. Maybe given architecture school curriculum is so European centric about Architecture styles and several of the prized architects celebrated by architecture school or Germans from the xenophobic Germany era which also had an effect on nearby countries which were also once part of the German kingdom but became their own countries but still had a bit of german racial theory / taxonomy.... kind of like how they also brought us the taxonomy of dog breeds system. This was a systemic way of thinking that was centuries old but Germany and numerous nearby nations had a sort of xenophobic/racial discriminatory view that predates WW I and WW II. You have some architects that are famed which were sympathizers of the Nazi. With that, in mind, I can see how that's kind of distasteful and not desired by some blacks who rather not be studying about all these white honky architects and want to know a little more about architects that might have a little more ebony to their skin tone. People whom they might relate with more. Maybe someone like Paul R. Williams or Moses McKissack, or Robert Robison Taylor or any number of others.

I think what you are getting at here Rick is that if someone has Merit, they have a way to get educated. It would be pretty entitled of anyone (not just minorities) to believe that they are entitled to anything let alone architectural licensure, without merit. But I think the bigger issue is that the vast majority of people know deep down that they aren’t qualified based on merit alone. If I were a straight A student and got a top SAT score, that would give me a certain amount of confidence that I would get “something” at the very least- no? The anxiety around financial aid comes from the lack in self-confidence about merit. In any event, we circle back to the point that in this day and age, there are many opportunities to self-actualize (determine one’s own destiny and future), but unless you do the “work” simply relying on government hand-outs and entitlements isn’t a recipe for instilling motivation in people. Communist governments around the world have tried that many times and have failed, producing overall less-motivated societies. When we talk about education, education starts at home, and no amount of money or opportunity can replace the deeply-rooted values that you build like “muscles at the gym” than the values your parents through care, attention, patience, persistence, and example instill upon their children del

…from a young age.

General point, yes. Merit and to an extent the initiative to do what it takes. Sure, there is some aid and assistance but I agree, an outright and complete entitlement without merit would be wrong and if it was that simple... what's the point of architectural licensing. There has to be some measure and rigor and there as to be pathways attainable but it can't be something where it's like "given" because then we don't have appropriate measure to keep those that don't possess the knowledge and skills to be professionally practicing in the capacity of being in responsible charge. I agree with you on your points about it starts from home. If parents suck, it becomes even more incumbent on the child to to self-initiative because in the end and ultimately where it matters is you the "child" taking the reins of your life. You want to learn something and read it, take the initiative. Find someone that will help you learn to read if necessary. Often a teacher will help. Once you know how to read, you can read and learn from anything ever written in the language(s) you know. Obviously. The problem is a lot of children don't have that self-initiative and maybe they get it or they don't by end of high school. It is nice to have parents that encourages learning and take an active role in that. It isn't always the case but even one parent even taking the time to help in these early stages in life to get someone started on a path to some self-driven learning. It isn't always that you have to hand hold the learning but being a positive person supportive and even showing an indication that you give a fuck and that you support their learning... matters.

Exactly. So this idea of “structural racism” is BS.

BulgarBlogger wrote:

"Exactly. So this idea of “structural racism” is BS"

I dunno. I've seen it and experienced it.  

How Structural Racism Works — Racist Policies as a Root ...

The Historical and Contemporary Context for Structural, ...

Systemic And Structural Racism: Definitions, Examples, ...

11 Examples of Systemic Racism in the U.S.

Black Americans most likely to see structural racism, not ...

10 Examples of Systemic Racism in the USA

I wouldn't say structural racism doesn't exist. I'd say that the licensing process to become an architect isn't exactly driven on the basis of racism as much. Albeit, there may be areas throughout the U.S. where there is more racism and maybe some reasons some decisions made being based on racism but most of that are more historical than present day and most of architectural licensing has been updated and the reasons the updates and amendments made are not made on the basis to keep blacks from becoming architects. That isn't why we have the ARE. Where there may be some racism (structural or systemic) is most likely to come from the individual architectural employers... well some of them but not all.

My main point is the regulatory requirements for requiring educational and experience requirements and passing some exams (such as NAAB accredited degree, AXP, and passing the ARE) is not driven on the motive of keeping ethnic minorities from the profession. It is highly doubtful there is much at all of that incentive. I argue there were other motives and it wasn't about race. It may have made it more difficult for minorities but that's a side effect versus purposefully designed for that purpose.

Richard Balkins wrote:

"I wouldn't say structural racism doesn't exist. I'd say that the licensing process to become an architect isn't exactly driven on the basis of racism as much"

I can somewhat agree with that. 

I don't think that the process to become an architect is racist.  I do think the structural racism in general society is keeping non whites out of the architectural field though.  

BulgarBlogger wrote:

"I happen to think that NCARB did a disservice to the profession by simplifying the structural and MEP subjects on the 5.0 version of the ARE (ex. Eliminating an entire exam in 4.0 and doing away with 80% of calculations). "

When I took the ARE 4.0 there where not many calculations in any category. I think I only had to do two actual calculations in the structural exam and all the formulas were provided. The MEP section had no calculations.

I do find it odd that you're lamenting the entitlement,  lack of knowledge,  and poor work ethic of people.   

Yet - You've called yourself a 'code expert' who's designed many high-rise buildings yet had to come here for help with a simple exiting code question that most second year interns could answer.  

"I can somewhat agree with that. I don't think that the process to become an architect is racist. I do think the structural racism in general society is keeping non whites out of the architectural field though. " 

Perhaps but can you be more specific as to what structural racism issues in general society that is a barrier for minorities in to the architectural field. I suspect architecture as a curriculum being so centric around white architects... some of them being Nazi sympathizers could be a detractor. I don't know if that is structural racism but I think it can have an effect. Can you elaborate a little from your words and citing cases (sure, you can point to links for further reading on but at least some points to be made in words on the thread.

1. Unequal Health Care
2. Lending practices
3. Housing values
4. Housing availability
5. Employment equality
6. Segregation
7. Quality of K-12 Education

BB talk of “victimhood” coming from a committed Zionist, that’s rich.

And people don't think this comment is racist. Wow haha

BulgarBlogger wrote: 

 "We all discriminate; but for everything I have said on this thread, I have never ever thought once about not hiring someone on the basis of their skin color or socio-economic background. I enjoy training and helping others. But I don’t like to cajole others by saying or adopting the stance that somehow the “system is to blame”. "

So when it's convent for you racism exists? You're a hypocrite BB. 

Try harder little troll.  It's been fun but you're running out of material having trouble keeping up with your BS.  

BB, what's wrong "victim" don't like being called out on your racism? Zionist.

What are you called if you want both sides to live peacefully together and don't support what either government (and their supporters) is doing?

First, there are no both sides. There's an apartheid regime and actual real victims of said regime. You can't be an occupier and claim the land you occupy has anything resembling a government. Did the colonies have their own government before the revolution, or were they under the thumb of the crown? Let's start there. You can either be a pluralistic democracy or a white supremacist ethnostate, you can't be both. However, as I've declared many times; UN peace keeping force, minimum 2 generations of pluralistic governance, zero settlements and right of return. At a minimum.

I disagree b3t. 

There are two sides. 

Both should be able to exist in that location without fighting. 

As for your colonists comparison - they were free to govern themselves per England's decree. It wasn't until taxes were illegally imposed on America things got ugly.

I would much rather have a pluralistic democracy than any type of ethnostate. Unfortunately each sides government wants their own ethnostate with total control. One is white, one is brown. Both are wrong.

You’d be wrong.

The American colonies had three different structures and to varying degrees some, some “freedom”. However, none of them were autonomous by any means. And they most did not have a collective autonomous government. https://constitutingamerica.org/90day-aer-royal-self-governing-and-proprietary-colonies-advancing-from-british-rule-toward-american-independence-guest-essayist-tom-hand/

Again, you can’t occupy a people, put them in an open air prison and call that freedom. It’s a concentration camp.

I agree you can't occupy and imprison people and say they are free. I never said that it could be considered freedom. 

I noticed that you're not commenting on "each side" wanting their own ethnostate. 

As for your American colonies argument and degrees of freedom - that's kind of true. In the two year before the revolution England had taken a very 'hands off ' approach and let the colonies govern themselves. In fact England agreed to cut the colonies loose and allow them to be sovereign nation. Then England illegally imposed taxes on the colonies. This caused the colonies to doubt that England would follow through with their agreement to sovereignty.  You know the rest. 

You're right. I'm not going to be lured into both sides arguments. They're unserious. Because I see with my own eyes the lies we've been told, and the people doing the dying don't have a media/government/cruise missiles speaking on their behalf.

I've spoken with both Jews and Palestinians about what's happening.  The contentious is that both sides government are lying.  The majority of the people don't have issues with the other and just want to live in peace.  Each sides governments have different ideas.  

When both sides government want to obliterate the other neither is morally 'right'. 

I know you believe that the only way to have peace is to destroy all the Jews.  It's the same ideology that Israel has against the Palestinians.  

This is horrible idea that will never bring about peace.  You will never convince me otherwise. 

I've spoken with Jews, Christians, Palestinians, and B'Hai. Their contention is that Zionism is ethnonationalism. I know that you're a bald face liar. You don't know what I think. Zionism is not Judaism, if you equate the two, you're the antisemite.

b3tadine[sutures]

How do you know that I'm a bald face liar? 

Zionism is an ideology based on historical ties and religious traditions linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel. While the ideology isn't uniformed all versions of Zionism share the belief that Jews are to control the land that is modern day Israel. 

Things you've said:

• Being a Zionist is being racist 
• All the Jews should be removed from Israel
• No Jew in Israel is 'innocent' or a 'non combatant'.

You must be aware what it would take to remove all Jews from Israel.  

"The State of Israel as we know it today is a product of Zionism. Zionism is a political philosophy of Jewish nationalism. It combines partly religious and partly historical ideas that claim the world’s Jewish population has a right to that part of the modern Middle East that has, for thousands of years, been home to Palestinian Arabs (Muslims, Christians and Jews)."

https://www.counterfire.org/article/the-origins-of-zionism-and-the-balfour-declaration/

I've started this thread, where did I write anything you've stated? https://archinect.com/forum/thread/150401129/genocide-central

Your and my definition of Zionism sound very similar.

The bolded bulleted points are my interpretations of what you've posted here.  If I am mistaken I apologize.  

• Being a Zionist is being racist

Are you calling BB a racist because he’s a Zionist or a racist and a Zionist?  Serious question.  

 • All the Jews should be removed from Israel 

So, unless Israel stops being Jewish it cannot exist? I don’t think that will happen. Sounds like the only way this would work would be to remove the Jews from the area. 

You support the PLO. On 10/29/18 the PLO suspended the Palestinian recognition of Israel. 

 As you’ve said before the PLO isn’t fighting anyone. The PLO isn’t asking for the removal of Israel. The groups fighting for the PLO (liberations / freedom fighters) are Hamas and Hezbollah. Both of those groups have publicly stated they want to kill all Jews 

 • No Jew in Israel is 'innocent' or a 'non combatant'. 

Sounds like you’re calling for the killing of innocent, noncombatants.  I believe you also agreed with someolddoctor when he said that because all Israelis  have to serve their armed forces all of them are fair game regardless if they're actively serving.  

EDIT:

I apologize to someolddoctor. He didn't say that all Israelis could be targeted. It was Ivanmillya / Jovan Millet.

Zionism is ethnonationalism. Ethnostates are Apartheid Regimes. As Ta-Nehisi stated for you libs, I'm against Blood and Soil Nationalism in all forms.

If the Zionists that are watching as the IOF murder innocents like they are at a beach party, that are also conscripted into the military, and also believe that raping Palestinian hostages is fine. Then they are combatants. I am firmly rooted on the resistance and will not bend the knee to genocidal maniacs.

" • No Jew in Israel is 'innocent' or a 'non combatant" --------- I can't do anything about your interpretation or projection.

• All the Jews should be removed from Israel ------------- Nothing I wrote stated that. All your interpretation and projection. Your brainwashing and lack of independent thinking is remarkable.

By threatening to revoke its recognition of Israel, the Palestinian leadership once again reminds the world that it, in fact, accepts the legitimacy of Israel. It also indicates that it will continue to do so as long as Israel is kind enough to give them a few crumbs. This kind of hypocritical bargaining is nothing but a green light for Israel to continue its colonialist practices, to thrive and persist in its violent plunder of Palestinian lands, resources, and the slaughter of the Palestinian people.

Let us remember that this slaughter is not simply a memory of the past, an occurrence that only took place 70 years ago during the Nakba. It’s still ongoing. Since March 30 of this year alone, in a single city – Gaza – at least 218 Palestinians were killed.

Your "I talked to some Jews and Palestinians " line is the most laughable. You're an unserious person, in a very serious time. Go back to architecting some dopey buildings.

Excuse me. 

I've spoken with hundreds of Jews and Palestinians. I have in-laws that are Palestinian and Jewish. 

 You support the PLO which doesn't recognize Israel. 

 You support Hamas and Hezbollah who hate Jews. 

This means at the very least you support removing all Jews from Israel by any means. At worst, you agree with H and H's views that all Jews should be driven from the Middle East. 

You keep bringing up the same version of 'well Israel did worse so this justifies anything'. That's BS thinking.  You have to be better than your unethical oppressors.  If not then you're the same as them.  

Sure. Okay. And I bet you have black friends.

Where did I support Hezbollah and Hamas? The PLO? Yawn. Again you're simping for a genocidal regime. You're effectively a bloody baby killer. Byyyyeeeeeee..

You stated that you support any 'freedom fighters' that are trying to free Palestine. 

The majority of those fighting on the Palestinian side are Hamas and Hezbollah. You're supporting murderous religious fundamentalists that are anti women, anti LGBT, and also kill children.  

Again, I'm simping for no one. H/H and IDF can both go f themselves.

You're a hypocrite.

Byyyyyyeeeeee.  

I find it interesting that BulgarBlogger is basically saying it's not structural racism but laziness.

BulgarBlogger wrote:

 ". . .in this day and age, there are many opportunities to self-actualize (determine one’s own destiny and future), but unless you do the “work” simply relying on government hand-outs and entitlements isn’t a recipe for instilling motivation in people."

Exactly what I believe, which is instilled from a very young age through parent absenteeism (physical or mental; using the TV as a babysitter vs reading for example)

Interesting. 

That's what you believe however, the data shows otherwise. See the links I provided above. 

Aren't you the one that complained how your talents weren't being properly used, that you weren't being paid enough, and that you didn't get enough financial aid? It seems like you should of simply worked harder to get those things.

I think you're confusing me for someone else. lol I don't recall saying what you just said I did. In any event, statistics (data) are always interesting, but never accurate. 

I'm not confusing you with someone else. 

I do find it concerning that you simply ignore any data that contradicts your opinions and beliefs. Knowing that, It's pointless to discuss anything with you or lend credibility to anything you say.

OddArchitect, some of what is being said by BB is actually true and real. There are those who play victimhood because there are some people who know there are bleeding heart liberals / social justice warriors that will give them free money. However, we shouldn't be so assuming that just because they are a minority they don't have a pathway to success even to becoming upper class. Simply assuming they are all viciously oppressed is assuming things that aren't real, either. There are those who can do something to change their situation but they won't. This is because they want it GIVEN to them. They want the government to go extract $5 BILLION from Donald Trump's bank accounts and give it to them. They just want to be instant billionaires without working on what it takes to move up the socioeconomic ladder of society. When you go up a ladder, it takes work. It takes work of lifting one foot at a time to go up one rung at a time. They just want to be magically teleported to the top without the work of getting there. This isn't a racially exclusive thing at all. Lazy people exist regardless of ethnicity. Should be reward a lazy person because of his or her gender or that he or she is an ethnic minority. If we are going to talk about the world, lets talk about it entirely for what it is. Not forgetting to factor the issues that are inconvenient to the political narratives.

Some is true. There are some lazy people out there that do want things to be provided for them. That's not what BB is saying though. BulgarBlogger is saying that there is no systemic / structural racism keeping people down. Instead, BB is saying that they are just lazy. That is not correct.

I'm not discussing this with you anymore Richard. 

Sure, there are systemic racism. You can't completely eradicate it. It is important to not to assume or label all barriers as systemic racism because that's the easy thing to do. I say, talk about the real world not abstractions of it to project a narrative for perhaps some agenda. The story below is a binary story. Sure you might find people whose life almost perfectly fits the mold for each column. Guess what, in the real world, the life of "Richard" and "Paula" do in fact exists in a flipped experience where "Richard's" life is like Paula below and Paula's life is like Richard. In addition, there are many whose lives are more like some combination of both or in other cases, different. Being white doesn't equal being privileged. That's the first misnomer in some of this system racism talk. Being white does NOT mean being in a position to oppress. If telling me that because I have my own business that I am privileged? What, you're telling me that if I was a minority in today's America that I can't possibly earn enough money to pay the $100 for a state business registration. I don't buy that kind of b.s., either. The thing is no one on the anti-"systemic racism" push wants to even talk about the issues of those lazy people getting all the hand outs because they just happened to be hispanic or black. Yeah, you know some of them were born to well to do hispanic and blacks....many of whom are well paid lawyers, doctors, etc. Does this son or daughter of a lawyer is going to be guaranteed a plush life style? No. What is the process in place for dealing with that issue? Is it even talked about. no. It isn't because it is an inconvenient fact of reality that muddies up the pretty damn poetic bullshit narrative. All political sides do this. There is a point still to be made. Instead of painting bullshit narratives, lets talk real world... the good, the bad, and the ugly muddy crap we don't even want to talk about because it fucks up a perfectly good binary bullshit narrative.

I agree that BB is wrong that there is no systemic racism. I believe there is some. How much is unclear. It doesn't mean that the issue is everywhere. Sure, the biggest thing was, the government didn't take 75% of the wealth of all the upper class citizens and give it to the former slaves by outright taking it and redistributing it. That would have resulted in a major 5th Amendment "illegal takings" lawsuit like we never ever saw in history.

Systemic racism exists in the US.

Difficult for people to argue against the status quo while using your real name Balkins. anyway- not advocating for treating existing Paula’s in a non-empathetic way. Simply arguing that people who don’t have the means to adequately raise their children (rich or poor) are making a bad decision that impact their children’s lives negatively. This is all I am saying. Did I mix in a correlation with minorities? Certainly. But this is also true for white folks in the south. The poorest demographic in the US is white single mother households from the South. If we wanted to “fix” poverty we should address people’s decision making rather than blame it on the system.

To add- the “system” after they made their decision to have children when they can’t dedicate enough time to properly instill educational values in their children at home.

People’s desire to be accommodating and empathetic appears to be more important than tackling the real issues honestly and upfront. I have always been after looking for the “root” of a problem and frankly, for me, the issue of “systemic racism” isn’t something I think is a hurdle in the same way it was in the 60s. Would you hire someone who had face tattoos to interface with you client? Honestly- couldn’t someone argue that you are discriminating against their “rights” to self-expression? We all discriminate; but for everything I have said on this thread, I have never ever thought once about not hiring someone on the basis of their skin color or socio-economic background. I enjoy training and helping others. But I don’t like to cajole others by saying or adopting the stance that somehow the “system is to blame”.

Maybe read a history book or something?

Stop inflating your importance. You aren't in a position to hire anyone. 

 The issue is this: the people that are able to get an interview with you have been fortunate enough to not have the same obstacles as the majority of non whites. 

 People have overcome obstacles that others don't. That's not the same as systemic racism. 

 For example: I'm a type 1 diabetic. This makes every aspect of my life quite difficult and quite frankly, most people wouldn't of been able to accomplish what I've done with this genetic condition. Now, if the world was set up to be agains type type 1 diabetics I would of had an ever harder time. 

 For example: 

•  Not allowing me to take breaks to eat or take medication when I need to
• Not allow me to see a doctor
• Not allowing me to use the medication I need
• Denying me company provided health insurance
• Not allowing me to attend certain schools because I'm diabetic
• Paying me less because I'm diabetic

Now replace the diabetic with non whites and those are all things that non whites still have to deal with today.

Actually, I am. I have (hired people). Not sure why you'd assume otherwise. In the case of diabetes, you can't change your situation; you are not in control of that. Being black or any other minority, you are absolutely in control of your ability to educate yourself. What an ad hominem.

I assume otherwise because you've been less than honest in the past. 

You can't change being diabetic.

You also can't change your race either. 

I can manage (not control) some aspects of my diabetes. There are aspects of my diabetes that are completely out of my control and no matter what I do I can't change things. If people did the things in my above post I would be doomed. 

It's not an ad hominem, it's a comparison in hopes you understand how systematic racism can impact people.   

Your diabetes would be a disability issue. Race is not a disability. ADA requires us to accommodate for your disability like allowing you to take breaks to eat or take medication when you need to, or to see a doctor and so on. Comparing racial matters to disabilities is kind of like comparing apples to um... pumpkins. Seriously. 

 FYI: There is not a single state where discrimination on race or disability is lawful. NOT A SINGLE ONE. It is also illegal under FEDERAL law and state laws of ALL STATES. If you are saying this profession is DISCRIMINATING against minorities or that the licensing process is discriminating then what do you propose.... GET RID OF LICENSING LAWS for minorities? 

Allow them to get licensed by merely paying a fee to the licensing board with proof of nothing but maybe a high school diploma or equivalent. Yeah... lets do that.

Disabilities requires special accommodation. Are you suggesting we have to make special accommodation for people who are of ethnic minorities? I do not know of any law or how one would or why. Already, the law requires that employers do not discriminate on basis of race, gender, age, disabilities, etc. ADA is an additional set of laws for addressing accommodation of those with disabilities. Accredited colleges and universities are not allowed to discriminate on those same reasons.

No. 

 What I'm saying is that if people were to actively have policies in place to discriminate against me because I'm a diabetic then I would of been doomed. There are people and polices in place that discriminate against non whites, aka systemic racism.

What active policies in the ARCHITECTURAL LICENSING process is in place for the PURPOSE to discriminate against non whites. If the policy is not for the PURPOSE to discriminate on basis of race, it is NOT systemic racism. It may be a systemic barrier but for it to be racism, the reason for the policy HAS to be on the based on racism. Otherwise ALL barriers that we have in society would be racism and thus systemic racism. 

However, YOUR point fails to relate properly. You are comparing a discriminations and non-accommodation matter to racism. Your diabetes maybe a disability under the ADA and requires accommodation. Race is NEVER a disability. You are not disabled or unable to work simply because of the color of your skin. Not accommodating for diabetes is a real and serious potential life or death situation for you. 

There is no special need to accommodate for race as it is for a medical condition. We are not in the pre-1960s. Lets wake up, we are in 2024 not 1954 or 1854 or 1754. When it comes to hiring, we can't legally make hiring decisions on basis of race. We can't legally consider a person's race at all. When hiring, we can't have a different pay based on your race or gender. That is ILLEGAL everywhere in the United States. If an employer is discriminating and making decisions regarding employment or positions based on race or gender or any other employment/labor related decisions on those grounds, THEY ARE VIOLATING THE LAW. How hard is that to understand. Is it really worth it to go to jail, have your business license revoked, and barred from operating or owning any business that does business in a particular state. Is it worth it? NO FUCKING WAY!!!! Get it? Being an ethnic minority is NOT a disability. 

It is to be presumed that you are able to work unless there is a medical disability from which there would need to be accommodation for from which the employer shall within reason accommodate but otherwise the person is able to work with the accommodations.

 What need of ACCOMMODATION do we need to provide to a non-white? Free architectural license? There's nothing wrong with providing special accommodation if there is an actual need. What I am trying to figure out is why would someone's skin color have a special accommodation need? 

Why can't the person just do the licensure process? If you want to be a doctor, you go to medical school. You want to be a lawyer, you go to law school. Is requiring a qualification requirement as a condition of licensure.... systemic racism? If you want to be an architect, you have multiple options and pathways. You may need to make a choice sometimes, whether you get licensed in state A or state B or not pursue the license. It is up to you whether you have the will and determination to get your license. It's not an entitled right. It's a privilege that you must earn by going through the steps of licensure.

I have been told that multiple times including by YOU !!!!

For example: 

 Not allowing me to take breaks to eat or take medication when I need to 

 A) This is an ADA required accommodation matter. To do that would violate the ADA and also violate anti-discrimination laws. There are also state versions of these laws as well. 

 Not allow me to see a doctor 

 A: That would be a violation of the anti-discrimination laws and the ADA. 

Not allowing me to use the medication I need 

 A: This would be violating the anti-discrimination law. It would also be violation of the ADA laws and possibly also state laws on the subject matter. 

Denying me company provided health insurance 

A: This may or may not be discrimination. Some small firm may have no company health insurance. Depends on the size of the firm and whether they are required to provide such. However, it would be if they provide others such but not you. 

Not allowing me to attend certain schools because I'm diabetic 

 A: This would be illegal discrimination. Paying me less because I'm diabetic A: This would be illegal discrimination.

----------

You see, you were inserting "special accommodation" matters. There is no similar "special accommodation" legal requirements with regards to a person's race. There is one special accommodation for gender, relating to pregnancy and such.  Any violation of the ADA or state law equivalent is also a violation of the anti-discrimination laws.

NOTE: Those that aren't special accommodation matters that you mentioned are discrimination which is illegal in the United States. Employers are not allowed by letter of the law to do those things. 

Further add, NO accredited college or university ( I don't mean NAAB, I mean institutional accreditations not program accreditation) is allowed to do any of that. If they did, they lose accreditation which means their degrees and courses are not worth the paper it is written on or transferable, respectively. Students can't obtain stafford loans or most student loans from banks if the college institution is not accredited. It is also likely that colleges with architecture programs would lose their NAAB accreditation if the college or university loses it institutional accreditation. Such institutions are not allowed to discriminate on basis of any protected class... ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES !!!!

There is three stages to architectural licensing (normal track): Architecture degree (NAAB accredited), AXP structured supervised experience, and the ARE examination. What systemic system is established FOR THE PURPOSE of prohibiting non-whites from architectural licensure?

Upper Class privilege in a nutshell - thank you, my friend ...

Question: forget about money; why did Paula's parents have her if they don't have time for her? A 5 second orgasm results in a lifetime of adversity for the created child... Comfort in having sex without a condom? Pride in power to create in the absence of other empowerment of self-confidence? Let's talk about that instead of structural racism being the so-called "root cause" of poverty in this country. 

Question: did Paula's parents have access to things like birth control and abortion like Richard's parents?

so you can hire her and pay her minimum wage to buy your Porsche and your yacht, why else?

So you're saying that all "Paulas" were born as accidents? Some- sure. But the vast majority of babies born into situations that Paula are in, were created very intentionally...which for me is the saddest part.

Roughly 57% of all pregnancies that are carried to term are unplanned. 

So the majority of 'Paula's' are accidents.  You still haven't answered my questions though. 

  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK232124/#:~:text=As%20noted%20above%2C%20the%20most%20recent%20data,unwanted%20pregnancies%20that%20led%20to%20live%20births.

the saddest part is your monetized view of life in general

I'm more concerned with BulgarBlogger's libertarian views that lack any credibility.I do wonder what type of socio-economic upbringing he had to instill these beliefs.

You know what, not going to do it - but Bulgar, you need your head checked.

First, that left column is assuming ALL white people are like that. I know JLC probably chose that particular one because a character happened to be named Richard and trying to play some message against me. First, my life wasn't all like that left column. My life is more closer to the column on right but not entirely. Somewhere in between but in ways more closer to that on the right. My public school while living in Carson was mostly hispanics, blacks, asians, etc. I was the ethnic minority in that school because there would be maybe less than 100 students out of a school of 2000+ students that was white european ethnicity (french, irish/scottish/celtic, british, germanic, eastern europe, nordic). Classes were often large. Teachers often on verge of a breakdown. Under resourced, etc. 

While I understand the narrative where the "Richard" character and family versus Paula. These binary stories are for one is not really the way things are. It isn't a binary thing. It isn't like I have $100,000+ a year family lifestyle or a $15,000 a year lifestyle. It wasn't the case. I know my socio-economic privilege doesn't exist. I don't have the great privilege of having having this thing like "You're so & so's kid, lets get you an internship here." While my Dad may have enjoyed that but that's where it ended. That benefit didn't get passed on down to me. My Dad, if he went to college and do the stuff, that would get him into say aeronautical engineering, he might have had an opportunity to get an in at McDonnel-Douglas because of his father. That isn't exactly a privilege that passes down more to grand children because those people who were connected with my grandfather would not be around so much. Likely retired or passed on. My father would have to have worked for that company for such a privilege to maybe pass on to me but reality was, he never did. He never went on to college and such. So that privilege isn't all it is portrayed to be in real world. 

Not all people of ethnic minorities are quite like the Paula's story. While I may have the privilege to not have all the shit show of Paula's story. However, my life's story isn't some rosy story of luxury. There is a real world where a lot of people fall into in all ethnicities. That middle story that falls between that left column and right column story. Don't tell me if your story falls in between the two columns that you can't make a path forward in life. If you are in the middle, you need to work hard to succeed and if you do the work it takes, you can succeed in any career in America. You can get into any occupation. You don't have to be rich privileged. You aren't denied admissions because of your ethnicity. You are not denied occupational license because of your ethnicity. Blacks can obtain architectural license in ANY state. Whether they want to pursue architecture is another story.

I'm not reading that. Systemic racism exists and negatively impacts non whites. Period. End of debate. No amount of saying 'but what about . . ' or 'some people are . . .' is going to change the facts of this.

I said "Upper Class" - this includes a multitude of races ...

True, we can agree to disagree lol Half the country thinks one way and half the country thinks another way. Apparently, more liberals on this forum are active. That's all. Good luck!

bUlgarBlogger, you're really being a jerk. "Paula" is here, she exists. Hundreds of thousands, millions, of Paulas exist. Are you saying that *as a society* we should let them all suffer and wilt because of the circumstance of their birth? That we shouldn't try, *as a society*, to improve opportunities for all the Paulas, even if it costs a bit more in taxes for the Jacobs or whatever the boy in the cartoon was named? 

Personally, I'm ready to eat the billionaires.

I know who BulgarBlogger is and where he currently works. I will never dox him. The odd thing is that what he posts here would not go over well at the firm he's employed by.

Wouldn't the barriers actually have to be a barrier that exclusively impacts negatively non-white. If it is not then how is the barrier at all about race? If the barrier itself is not about excluding non-whites as to its purpose, than all societal barriers would be systemic racism. If we can't have systemic racism then we can't have any societal barriers which effectively means no laws. No licensing laws. No laws that prohibits in any way or form. We need to tailor and narrow what system racism is to a rational level otherwise we are labeling everything system racism '

Paula's story isn't even exclusively an ethnic minority story. The story of Paula and Richard can be applied to every race. How do I know? I know there are those Paula's that became rich and wealthy. I know there are Paulas' that have grown in life of privilege. There are people who lived the "Paula" story and the "Richard" story from all ethnicities. Being rich and privileged isn't exclusively white. It hasn't been that way in America for quite awhile. Even before the end of segregation.

Systemic racism exists in the US.

So what is systemic racism? You KNOW it exists, so you must know what it is and therefore can explain and define what it is.

People use these words SOOO much but they don't actually define it. If asked what it is or something more than just saying the words "systemic racism", it kind of means it is being used by people who don't even know what it is. I'm not going to define it.

What's the difference between "systemic racism" and "institutional racism" and say structural racism or societal racism. The words have been so interchangeably used that it is confusing but if they are to have proper understanding, they need proper meaning. It makes no sense all these various "racisms" all means the same. There has to be distinction between the terms... the types of racisms.

Systemic racism exists in the US. See the links I provided or look it up yourself.

OddArchitect. Do it. I have nothing to lose.

No. It's a violation of your privacy and against the TOS for the site. You've chosen to have a screen name. If you want to post using your actual name then it would be different.

C’mon do it. You’d be surprised how many people agree with me at my firm. :) and if it is a violation of my privacy, how do you know who I am (genuinely curious)

If you released information that ultimately lead to your identification especially if it were in a post that eventually got deleted. It is possible to know who you are from that. People sometimes reveal information about who they are. Since you are not actively using your real name, OddArchitect is right about what he said. Even though I could say OddArchitect's real name, it isn't sufficiently obfuscated enough, I am not stating it. Then I don't need to. If you have half a brain cell, you should be able to figure that out.

"bUlgarBlogger, you're really being a jerk. "Paula" is here, she exists. Hundreds of thousands, millions, of Paulas exist. Are you saying that *as a society* we should let them all suffer and wilt because of the circumstance of their birth? That we shouldn't try, *as a society*, to improve opportunities for all the Paulas, even if it costs a bit more in taxes for the Jacobs or whatever the boy in the cartoon was named? Personally, I'm ready to eat the billionaires." There's an inconvenient truth to this. You will find hundred, thousands, even millions of Paulas and Richards (or Jacob) in this story in all ethnic stripes. You say, "Are you saying that *as a society* we should let them all suffer and wilt because of the circumstance of their birth? That we shouldn't try, *as a society*, to improve opportunities for all the Paulas, even if it costs a bit more in taxes for the Jacobs or whatever the boy in the cartoon was named?" 

I am not saying they should just suffer and wilt but you might need to open your eyes to the fact that not all those Paula's are brown or ebony in tone. They aren't all "ethnic minority". There are many societal barriers that has to do with socioeconomic class and effects many white people... perhaps more than any singular ethnic minority as well. If you are going to go with the "shouldn't we try to improve opportunity for all the Paulas" that we don't just conveniently forget some just because they are white and male. 

I am for the idea of helping ALL to have opportunities for success. Of course, helping is fine. Merely gifting opportunity for success for some just because they are minorities while denying those that also in needs like Paula but just happens to be white and male is discrimination no matter how you cut it. Basing assumptions on things that really doesn't exist. 

Not ONE employer have I ever had hired me because I am white. There's not ONE single employer in architecture field that I could ever apply for a job with that would hire me because I am white and male. Period. Would you? Maybe if I was Brad Pitt, Donna but I am not Brad Pitt. I think it is safe to say the answer to that would be a resounding NO FUCKING WAY! 

So if we really want to remove any possible system racism from the licensing process... get rid of the licensing process, entirely. Oh, of course not. That would NEVER happen. If it did, I would be an ARCHITECT !!!! We can't let the R.B. building designers of the world have that opportunity!!!!

BulgarBlogger wrote:

"C’mon do it. You’d be surprised how many people agree with me at my firm. :) and if it is a violation of my privacy, how do you know who I am (genuinely curious)" 

No. 

It's a violation of your privacy for me to disclose who you are.  It's not a violation of your privacy for me to discover who you are.  Hence why I won't dox anyone here.   

Rather easy to figure it out though. 

You've posted a lot here (like 2,700 posts). Using  AI and a custom post search tool (helps to have experienced CS friends)  it's not difficult to have it review all your posts and come up with identifying markers. Then it's just some Google searching.  The entire process takes a total of 15 minutes you have an identity.  

BulgarBlogger - how about this. If you have nothing to loose, post under your real name.

I don't think I can trust the public to have the maturity to show self-restraint in non-violent ways with ideas they disagree with. I could care less about the PR. This is more about physical security.

BulgarBlogger -

So you could care less. 

I don't believe that you're scared for your physical security. You've talked tough here before about how you could 'handle yourself' if needed. 

Either you're having trouble keeping up with your trolling OR your a liar and a coward. Either way, good luck with that.

So is having a different opinion now considered “trolling”? Lol

No. Being that hypocritical and disingenuous is a good sign that you're trolling. I suppose you could just be that obtuse.

Hypocritical? How?

This is how. 

" Advocating for children to be born (not into wealthy families), but families that actually have the bandwidth to dedicate real attention to their children- to educate them rather than stick them in-front of a TV so they can free up mental capacity after working two jobs." 

This isn't the problem. I think we all can understandably agree on that. Think a little harder about what you wrote entirely. What else did you write that could perhaps be the rub.

I honestly don't get it. And I don't care. I'm not running for president and even if I was, I can't hardly compete with how low politicians have gone these days.

What is being referred to has nothing to do with if you are running for political offices of any level (President or otherwise). Lets start with your "apparent" denial of the various systemic, societal, cultural, structural, and related racisms beyond that of the direct personal level racism. That's a starter cue based on what OddArchitect said earlier in the thread:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I find it interesting that BulgarBlogger is basically saying it's not structural racism but laziness.

BulgarBlogger wrote:

 ". . .in this day and age, there are many opportunities to self-actualize (determine one’s own destiny and future), but unless you do the “work” simply relying on government hand-outs and entitlements isn’t a recipe for instilling motivation in people."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that would be a staring clue.

.advocating for murder, even if it is against racist cunts, is still not a good look Ricky.

NS, you're right. I agree with you. I'll state (albeit can't edit the post itself) for record, I retract that advocation from the "Now, those mother... to the end of the paragraph. The preceding sentence and second paragraph remains unretracted.

You are not Black - you have no right to speak for them or speculate what they would do in any given situation - the USA belongs to all her citizens ...

While that is true, I agree but my argument of the point is I wouldn't stay in a play where I would be killed because of my race. It would be the same thing as a white man just isn't welcome in a place like Harlem where they'll gut you with a knife or shoot you (well... some of them) because you are white and not welcomed. There are equally brutal groups of blacks in various locations throughout America that are as gruesome as KKK but on the flip side. 

My point isn't that America isn't rightfully belong to all but really if we are truthful, it belongs to neither whites or blacks. Every square inch of it belongs to the natives indigenous people that we stole from more than it belongs to any of us. U.S., it it were to do what is morally right is cease to exist. White people go back to Europe. Blacks go back to their ancestral home and so forth. Ultimately, returned to the indigenous people who were here before any of us. However, we know that isn't going to happen. 

If you want to succeed in a career, one prerequisite is to actually live. If you are dead, you aren't living to enjoy being successful, are you?

As a member of the Washoe Tribe of NV & CA (Lake Tahoe) you are wrong - it took us all these years to figure out how to get even - without you White Eyes our casinos would go broke ...

Fair enough point. I was making a general point, if we are going to do right, you give back what you stole. However, we know it isn't going to happen. There is that word reparations and that is one thing that never happened. This also would have meant giving back the ill gotten gains because of how we got the gains through ill gotten means. Which means, give it back. In which case, your casinos won't be broke and you would have the wealth given back to you because it was taken from you. Then you wouldn't need the casinos. It's a situation we know won't happen and I understand that now you won't necessarily want to go back on a massive reset and all. It would likely be that that if white were sent back, they'd be taking their wealth with them that they stole from the indigenous populations which I can see why you wouldn't want that.

Those Washoe Tribe folks manage to turned a f---ed up situation into a gain. Took awhile but it happened. Probably why we wouldn't get those tribes that we kept pushing off their native land to the Oklahoma area and they struck it rich with the black gold and yeah, the white honkies tried to take that land away just as they did already twice and they learned there was something these white man wanted and they made a way to get even like the Washoe Tribe did as well. They got even by getting rich off that oil.

Good point logon!

Well said ...

So am I, logon'slogin! I'm an old white lady and yet I'm so excited for the old white folk (like me, but especially those OLDER than me) to be out of the profession so we have room for a profession that looks more like the people who actually use our cities.

TLDR? Okay, maybe the above is a TLDR. Lets put in straight forward terms. This thread's contextual scope would require relevance of response to the path of licensure. If you want to get licensed, there are places. You can even get licensed as an architect without even a degree. Just a HIGH SCHOOL diploma or GED or such equivalents. You need to work for an architect for sufficient duration and pass the ARE. 

If you want to be an architect and enter this profession without an NAAB accredited degree, you go where you can get licensed. I'm close enough to a state where I can get licensed without an NAAB accredited degree. I lived in another state that I could, as well. While I do not have to MOVE to the neighboring states. I can do so as long as I can get the AXP hours working for an architect and required years of experience in lieu of a degree. Then I can be licensed in Washington. 

So if I want to get the license, it is up to me to do what I need to do to meet the licensure requirements. The question really is, is the licensing laws the barrier or is it you? Are you the barrier. People have essentially said that to me. Is it really the licensing law or is it really just me being the barrier? Think this through, Bluecorn and others. 

Is it really just me not going where the work is where I could get the AXP hours and being the road block to my own success. Honestly, most roadblocks to people's success is them not the government and not other people? 

It is more often just themselves defeating themselves because if you in fact have the will and determination, YOU can do about anything you put you mind and will to accomplish. If you want to get to the moon, YOU CAN. You have to do what it takes to have your seat on that trip. If you want to be a lawyer, you do what it takes. If you want to be an architect, do what it takes. Educate yourself on options and pathways. Set up real goals that you can accomplish at each step of the way.

As the "user" you mentioned, I'll relate my story as an example.

As a healthy white male born in the early 1970s, with a very strong work ethic drilled into me--my dad literally had me mowing acres of lawns for him and neighbors starting at 5-6 years old. I worked full-time every summer starting at 11, started my first business at 15, etc. I attended a well-respected university where I had five classes a day, five days a week, starting at 8am every day, graduated with honors and award money for entreprenuership--and making the best decisions I could at every step of the way, it wasn't until I had graduated that I realized that I essentially had no viable path to become an architect. I couldn't afford the drop in pay to work as a drafter at a firm. I didn't have the right degree (which nobody told me in a way that I understood) to be an architect without getting (and paying for) a master's degree.

I tried going back to my local community college in my 30s to get an architecture degree but my dad had died and my mom got a brain tumor and needed support, my wife was in grad school so I had to work more than full time to pay our bills, and after taking a couple of classes I met with an advisor who said that not only would ZERO of my credits from Tufts count, I would also have to take two years of language classes that I hadn't needed for my BSE at Tufts. The advisor literally had Fine Homebuilding magazines with articles I had written about designing and building on his shelf while we were talking.

Now at 51, I am one of the better-known residential "architects" in my state, nationally known (in small circles) for the book I co-wrote, the articles I have written and the building science movement I started, yet I would still have to work for 13 years under the direct supervision of a licensed architect--OR take 2-3 years off work to get a master's, at a cost (including opportunity cost) of $400-500K.

I simply can't afford to do either, because even though I have had almost every advantage there is, and I challenge anyone to have had a better work ethic, I did not have the right people to open the right doors at the right time for me, or to guide me in the right directions at the right times.

I am not bitter about it (most of the time), I just relay this to say that if I can't do it, how do you expect someone who grew up

without some of the many advantages I have had to do it? Certainly many do, but if it was just up to effort, then I would be a fucking architect by now. (Pardon the poor grammar—too short on time to fix.)

Wood Guy - My Houston business partner and me (New Mexico) have Matrix Modular USA where our housing and commercial units utilize our patented motorized, symmetrical, and synchronized horizontal actuator assemblies to increase the single level foundation/floor plate by a factor of 2.5 (unlike currently trending "tiny houses" with so-called sleeping lofts) - we could use your design talents and project management skills as MMUSA has monumental potential especially as it relates to affordable, transportable, and relocatable housing stock - please email MatrixModularUSA@yahoo.com so we may talk - I'm 72 so I come from the generation where the telephone and fax machines were king (not to mention drafting tables with 3 HP electric erasures) - I longed to be an architect but no more - title has been replace by Corporate Executive (entrepreneurial businessperson).

Yes, and those situations exists with all. We all have parents that will die or become ill at some point. Those are life situations. There is also multiple states where you can get licensed without an NAAB accredited degree. Albeit, a number of them are on the west coast. Many of them won't require 13 years of supervision under an architect. The question might be how important is having a license as an architect, in your home state where you live? Now, you had become a fine building designer. I know there are many people that go through architecture school. It isn't like they were all children of architects. They are plenty who have no special privilege. They just did the homework of figuring our what the requirements were before attending college while in high school. Some do end up going to a pre-professional architecture degree or changing careers. 

Whenever anyone who is established in a career for awhile, when they change careers, they take a pay cut. They don't enter a new career gaining as much money or more than they are making after 10-15 years into a career. Because when you start out in any career, you start at the bottom at the lowest pay level because you are at the lowest rank. Maybe that is the thing that holds you back. You became too good as a building designer that going back on to the "licensure" track would equate to a massive pay cut and you are not comfortable with sacrificing that much in income. It sounds familiar too me. If someone is determined enough to become a licensed architect, they would do it. Now, you are 51, so at this stage, the idea of 13 years working for an architect at below your current income may be a reasonable detractor. You'd be like... 66 or 67 when you get licensed by the 13-year path or maybe 58-60 years old by the M.Arch degree path. If you are looking to retire at 67-70 years of age, then it would not likely sound like it is worth the investment because the ROI would not be there. 

A lot of other people usually do this while they were in their 20s. This is why some architects do not suggest people to pursue architectural license after they are in their 30s let alone 40s.... and do not recommend architecture as a second career to switch into after another. They have their points that has some level of merit. Whether that merit is enough to listen to is another story. 

If you want to be an architect, you would need to consider spending 20-25 years after licensure for it to be perhaps a good investment. Which means, you may need to consider working as an architect into your 80s to 90s. Even if you get licensed, what projects would you be working on that would warrant the license? 

If what you would be doing doesn't need the license, you already became the "architect" that you need to be.

Your life put lead you to a different destination. A different track of being an "architect" than the licensed practice of architecture. The track of being a "building designer" or "residential designer". You found a path to a career that you have been doing well in. You became the "architect" you needed to be for your community. 

My prior points is if someone wants to become a licensed architect, they would make whatever decisions they needed to make to get there. They would dedicate their time, energy, money, and effort to get there regardless of the circumstances of parents dying or getting ill. They would not let anything get in the way of their objective even it it meant they would become kind of an asshole along the way. Of course, even if they followed your track to some degree, if they want that license bad enough, they'll sacrifice the $400-500K or years of pay cut to get it IF they want it that badly. Whether the license is worth it, that's another question altogether.

There are the paths to becoming a LICENSED ARCHITECT. Then there are paths to becoming a non-licensed "architect" legally referred to as "building designer" or "residential designer" as most states do not regulate the title "residential designer" and no state regulates the title "building designer". This is also a valid and respectable career that you can choose if licensure isn't worth it. Of course if you are not licensed, you don't call yourself an Architect. Those pesky rules to follow but in the end, that is what you are doing. One of the finest architects of our nation, most of what he did was residential homes. You can be a fine building designer. Yes, you CAN be an "architect" for your community whether that is through becoming a licensed architect or through being a building designer. There is even a building designer certification if one wants a little extra "third-party" credential to their name. AIBD's Certified Professional Building Designer (CPBD) certification. AIBD (American Institute of Building Design). In the end, you are doing architecture and if you do a fine job... you're an "architect" for all that matters in the end. Take case point, John Yeon !!!!

There is nothing wrong with a person deciding to change their career course or accept a different career track. Life is a fluidic flow of circumstances. When I say hard work is necessary, it also means navigating the ebbs and flows of life's circumstances as well. Sometimes, you may settle in a different destination. Here's an example from a true story. 

Back in the early 1900s, around 1903, a young aspiring architect named John E. Wicks (then his legal name being Johannes Erik Wiik or Wiiks) after attending a 3 year architecture correspondence schooling in a SINGLE year, he was then working for a architect for a brief time in Leadville, Colorado. He had an opportunity to go to Stanford for further College education. He chose a different path. He went to Astoria, Oregon where he opened his architectural practice. From there, he went on to become a successful architect. He became one of the first 5 architects to be issued a license in the state of Oregon in 1919. License number 3. He was chosen to serve on the very FIRST board of the Oregon State Board of Architect Examiners. He later served again on the board. His daughter became the first woman to be licensed by the exam process and she became the first woman to serve on the board of Architect Examiners. This was especially difficult time in architecture for women. It was a very male dominated profession and women were very much discriminated. She had to confront that era of discrimination. 

John Wicks lived on to be practicing architecture for over 50 years. You became your own kind of "architect" for your community. You are making a good career of it. As for licensing, in the end it may not even matter. 

While everyone's life story will be distinctly their own story. Life can pose different paths and opportunities. If John Wicks went to Stanford, there would be different outcomes. Your life took you into a different path. It is perfectly valid and acceptable for someone to start their journey pursuing architecture and shift to a different path. Maybe it would be closely related to architecture like building design, or it can be completely different. Your path and your life, is steered by you and your choices. If someone wants to be licensed, they have to make the choices that takes them down that path. If not, the person can choose different paths. Maybe in the end, it doesn't even matter..... if you get the architectural license. If it is that important to you, you'd do what you need to do. If not, you don't.

I'm not reading all of that but I read enough to see that you missed the point entirely. The question was whether there is structural racism within the architectural system. I relayed an anecdote to illustrate the challenges I faced, as a way to say that if I couldn't reach licensure easily, how easy would it be for someone without my advantages/privileges?

That's a rhetorical question, I won't be commenting further.

Glad to hear your full story, Wood Guy. You're one of the good guys in our profession, license or not!

Wood Guy, you made decisions and choices that resulted in complications added that would make it harder. These are consequences of choices made not race. Someone who is an ethnic minority could make much more smoother process to licensure because they made the choices that made their path to licensure easier. When you became a building designer, when you did good at it (as you have) it made it harder to swallow choice of becoming an architect. It would cause you pay scale drop to bottom of the barrel intern rate and lousy pay (being common). If you are lucky, you might not be so screwed. Your connections you made in the profession may make your life or process of undergoing AXP not as rough. If it is a structural racism, there would be a structural barrier prohibiting non-whites from ever getting licensed. If there IS such a structural racism, it would be a structural system that would affect ALL those racially prejudiced by the system from ever getting licensed before 51 years of age. 

How is it there are non-whites and blacks getting licensed under the same licensing path as whites (as it is the same licensing path(s) for everyone)... many before they are even 30 years old? How is it they get an NAAB accredited degree, do the 2-3 years of AXP and pass the exam within 5 years of completing AXP? How are they managing to get licensed in 10-12 years after graduating from high school? How are they doing it when the system is structurally and racially rigged against them even more than you? 

When people lose their parents or they have health problems, that can affect anyone but when that happens is not someone anyone controls. You were unfortunate to have had that situation hit it at that time. Others, it could happen earlier or later in life. That is a variable that we have no control over and having the best health care insurance is no guarantee. There are situations like cancer that not even a billion dollars an hour insurance coverage would make a damn difference. 

If ANYONE made your decisions, they would likely have had to face some setback or added a wrinkle to path that may result in less efficient and straightforward path to licensure. Here, you already know that I been on this course and for some crazy ass long time with a crazy f---ing load of college credits. Which mean little to nothing for architectural licensing as it is written. Absolutely zero credit for building design experience because they won't even evaluate such an experience. Architecture schools don't really do shit about advanced placement on those grounds. 

For me, the only difference from you, is how many years of experience under an architect that I would have to take if I get licensed by a state based alternative path (in WA, a neighboring state to me and close enough to me to have some value) and then what hell I have to go through for NCARB Certificate. That, or undergo an M.Arch which would speed that up. I'm a little too past the point of using the B.Arch path unless I somehow get a nice chunk of money that would pay for that. M.Arch would be possible and can do that is 7 years (part-time). I can see myself potentially able to do that. This also can allow time to get the AXP hours and ARE exams done concurrently. That is IF I need to even do that. 

I am curious about NCARB's Multiple Paths thing they are talking about. I won't hold my breath on anything as I'd be dead of lack of oxygen waiting... long before they get that finalize even if they did so quick by NCARB standard. 

How easy would it be for someone who is non-white.... if they choose to enter an NAAB accredited architecture degree program from get go, actually not that hard. They don't even need to be privilege. I've seen plenty that just started back in 2011 and are probably licensed already or close to completing their licensure and were non-whites. Some of it is making the right choices and having done the homework and getting into an NAAB architecture degree from start. It sucks for people coming in from another undergraduate degree into architecture. 

The system is really structured in a way that if you start your undergrad in another field to finish it and then get in under the M.Arch 3+ year track. These weren't systems built with the notion or idea that keep non-whites from getting an architecture license. It is built against people switching into architecture mid-stream from another unrelated undergraduate degree. It was really geared for students entering from HS directly, or students with a recognized pre-professional degree in architecture where you might enter in with advanced placement depending how closely the curriculum lines up.