i was thinking about this last night...
i want to get registered for my own feminist agenda and because i want to have the option of someday going out on my own.

Being licensed gives me peace of mind. My attitude was, once I'm registered, no one can ever take that away. I'm a licensed architect, period, and even if I decide to stop working in the architecture field altogether, I'll never feel like I set a goal I didn't reach (like how I fell 3 credits short of a degree from UMich and feel like there's this small but perpetually unfinished thread in my life).

Also, in school, I generally had more respect for my professors who were licensed than not. And since I teach, I wanted to be able to tell my students that I'm registered.

Getting licensed is both a major accomplishment and a relatively painless process. Frankly I don't understand why anyone would not, if they can, just do it. Having a piece of paper on my wall in no way either enhances or detracts from my design abilities, but it does avoid those embarassing conversations that go "Yes, I'm an architect, but, well, technically I'm not..."

Ah yes liberty bell, the "emabarrasing conversation". I concur. That always bugged me as well before I was registered. While I have personal issues with some of the validity and certainly the time and financial strain of registration exams, I do feel it's important to be registered. No one can take it away from you.

I can say with certainty that I would not have gotten solo projects on my own if I was not registered. It's sometimes the first thing people ask, "Are you regisered?" While I don't believe that automatically registration=good designer it does illustrate you are taking responsibility for your work, your seal is on the drawings. Conveying you are taking responsibility for your own work I believe adds more value to the profession at large and in the end is part of being a solid architect.

Im not registered, but someday hope to. (once i get out of school).

but to me, i cant see why anyone would reject registration... if only because it does avoid thos silly moments where you would have to explain to someone (client) why you are capable of doing things even though you techincally arent licensed, and oh, that hell have to spend some more money (or youll ahve to make less) so you can hire someone to stamp your drawings...

but to me, it always seems like the argument against getting licensed is the same arguement students use as to why knowing dates and names of buildings isnt important..

they spend a lot of time comming up with politics or other reasons but in the end it always seemed to me to be a way to rationalize laziness.

Every single firm I've worked at has a guy around 40 who proudly states he'll never get licensed. His reasons are that he hates the aia, or that there's one test he just can't pass so he's given up, or he wants the firm to take on the liability of his registration, or that he just doesn't need it because he only does home renovations on the side.

I don't think it's a coincidence that he's also the most bitter, negative guy in the firm, because he's stuck. He'll always be working for somebody else, doing their jobs, their designs. He'll have to work harder to leverage his way up in this field.

This is my motivation for getting licensed--I don't wanna become this guy.

Liberty Bell, I’ll one up you on the embarrassment scale. Not only do I do the “I’m an architect but not really…”, I also have to contend with the “so what school did you go to”.

Confession: What I am about to say is extremely sacrilegious in the world of archinect and I am probably the only one on this site who has the displeasure of saying this, but…I have never obtained and an undergrad or grad. degree. The highest degree I have to this point is an AA from a local community college (with a well respected arch. program…relatively speaking). The short reasons: 1) I had zero credit and did not qualify for a lona at the time 2) no family support (both financially and motivationally) 3) biggest reason of all, since I reside in California my arch. professor stated that a degree was NOT (and still is not) required to become a registered architect so long as you have 8+ years work experience. What he did not tell me at the time is that most states will not permit reciprocity without an accredited degree…dough!.

As for now, I am presently taking courses to obtain a simple undergrad degree to permit me to eventually apply in an accredited graduate degree program. I have nearly completed the ARE and plan on obtaining immediate registration in both Arizona & Colorado this year while I go through the California supplemental process.

If I had it to do all over again, I would have most definitely found a way to go to school…but at the same time, the work experience was invaluable and I was lucky enough to have 4+ very knowledgeable mentors (and the most knowledgeable of which never obtained a degree and is registered). As for the original thread question, I do not see one fit reason (outside of laziness) not to become registered…I mean, you may NOT title yourself as an architect otherwise.

Bula,
How are you getting registered in AZ & CO w/o an accredited degree & therefore IDP? "Broadly experienced architect" provision?

As far as I know AZ permits initial registration by expierence in much the same way as CA...they also do not require IDP at this time I believe. Colorado is similar.

Item # 2c

Bula, you are not alone. I have no degree whatsoever, having dropped out of a 5 yr Arch. program after 4 yrs. I too will become licensed in Colorado, and judging by some of the degreed, registered 'architects' I have worked with, Colorado will be relieved to have us both. So, when the good ol' boys of architecture come at us with torches and pitchforks, I got your back.

jeffe- Colorado is one of the states which recognizes the disparity btw education and practice, as well as the fact that one's skills are not always accurately portayed by one's paperwork and vice versa. Education requirements can be replaced with (significant) additional practical experience, or in my case, a combination of both.

then what's the worth of an architectural education?

An architect who I highly respect, Will Bruder, never received an architecture degree, as far as I know. He just worked for architects and got enough work experience to take the exam (back when that process was allowed in more states).

shigeru ban never got a licence and i think ando may still not have one, and it don seem to bother them much. i know a few others less famous who never bothered. i don't entirely understand the reasons behind each person's choice but suspect it was mostly about desire to start at the top. which they all did, more or less. ironic ennit? childs has a licence and is a design git, ban has nought and is pushing boundaries.

not having a licence is a liabilty thing more than anything and a bit of a pain for the office, but in the end the whole process is a bit daft ennit? good folks in UK thought so a few years back anyway...

If you're only interested in "design" anyway, you can easily practice without a license by taking projects through DD and then partnering with an associate architect to do CD/CA. All the fun, half the fat.

Licensure is, imo, hindering progress and detering people from continuing on with this profession. Not only does someone have to have a professional degree, but then wait 2 years, pay thousands, just to have a piece of paper?
IT's just one more headache in a profession that gives little, if anything, back to the younger generations.

I, and many others, find it frustrating to go to reputable colleges, study hard, do very well, all just to get kicked to the street when we graduate.

You can already put up small buildings without a license. For larger ones engineers will be brought in and take responsibility for mechanical, structural, etc.

So why do you need it? Obviously it does not ensure good buildings nor does it encourage good design (or let alone environmental issues).

I find it more apppealable to be LEEDS certified than to get my license. At least that is somethin that I need to learn more about and will help get clients. Not to mention, ideally, actually help to make a positive impact on the built world.

It's a waste of time and money for everyone involved and it's taking a it's toll.

registration bodies are clubs which stick up for the interests of their members.
Claims of upholding a level of quality, can simultaneously be interpreted as maintaining the privileges of a select group, preventing their financial value from decreasing due to over supply in the market. (c.f. protectionist economics?)

Architectural registration emerged at the same time as a bourgious class. Architects managed to make themselves seem closer to educated professionals than artisan/craftsmen. All the philosophical stuff surrounding architecture can also be seen as a means to mystification and social climbing. (wasn't it that even Vitruvius was writing to impress clients.)

Architects who are 'officially' uneducated are of course not welcome, as they decrease the precieved value of the job. This does not mean their work will be of less quality.

playing the game:
i was able to break out on my own because of an opportunity that presented itself predicated on my having a CA license (I live in new mexico). Not to say I couldn't have broken out based upon other criteria, but it did open a huge door at the right time.

questioning the game:
As to the larger question of licensure....I don't really see the need for a requirement. Negligent drawings/behavior can be litigated regardless and the presumption of increased safety is false IMHO.

It is absolutely true that registration has no bearing on design quality.

That being said, would you have major surgery from an unlicensed doctor or put a significant lawsuit regarding your personal property in the hands of an unlicensed lawyer?

As I see it, registration is a commitment. I prefer, in all trades, to deal with people who are responsible and committed.

And being licensed gives me more freedom.

a few comments.

again, people are starting to complain about licensing only because they dont want to put in the effort to get it, not because of the merits of a registration system... thats fine, but recognize that you just dont want to put in the effort, not that you think its a bad thing.

two.. people love to bring up 3-4 architects that dont have a license, or didnt go to architecture school, and then extend that to explaining how a license or architecture school are unecessary, and "limiting" or "hold people back" from designing. you should recognize how stupid and fallous this arguement is...people like to bring this up about einstein too.. he didnt finish high school, therefore not finishing high school should make people better geniuses..

well.

how any great architects can you list that didnt go to school or have a license (of course after school and licensure existed).. i bet youll come up with 3 or 4. thats not many, especially considering 100+ years of schooling and licensing in the world....

Mollie Baird's comments about the quasi-economic custom of professions limiting their membership via licensure is accurate. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, nurses, teachers, contractors, accountants, and others do it as well. This part of it is an economic phenomenon, and charging "admission" by requiring registration is the means. By its very nature, it keeps the number of bona fide practitioners limited.

But it is not a useless idea. The notion of a basic threshold of competency in professions dealing with health and life safety is not outrageous. And local governments recognize this, by allowing a number of small, simple structures to be designed and engineered by unlicensed folks.

When all is said and done, remember that according to many (all?) states, you are not an "architect" unless you're licenced. The use of the very term, even mitigated versions like "architectural designer," is not allowed. Every quarter I get the California Architect newsletter, where they list some of the "unlicensed individuals holding onesself out as an architect." Some of these are handymen/builders/designers for whom a slap on the wrist and a fine is no big deal. But some of those people are interns or other professionals-in-training for whom having this on their record could derail future licensure or practice. Be careful.

i think the main question i have to most people is, are they really against licensing or just dont like the current system of registration because they think its too hard..

i still dont see the logic in how being licensed can be limiting... as some have said.. and the reality is that in the game of architecture, 2-3 years out of your career to get a license is nothing. considering we can practice until our 80s and wont even get many comissions til will mid 40-50...whats a few years of effort in your 20s/30s

I don't think the curent system of licensure is too hard, I simply don't believe that in our current world of checks and balances (ie, also needing a structural engineer, etc to sign off) that it's necessary.

That said, I do also feel that getting a professional degree from a university should count for more than it does towards licensure.

At the very least I think changes should be made so that graduates of such programs can take the exam upon graduation. After all, what are we talking about -- the knowledge of the material on the exam or the value of the intern architect experience? These are not equitable, nor are they exclusive of each other and there is value in each for different folks.

Still, I know too many people who simply cram for their ARE in order to pass and move on to see any value in it.

Solution: make the ARE harder AND reduce internship requirements. Let grads of accredited programs take the exam whenever they want, but hold them to a higher standard. If you can't cut it, spend time at a firm to learn the things you don't know.

Either way -- knowledge and ability should be the focus, not the certification and hours logged that IDP enables/provides for.

Simply put -- if you can pass the exam you should be licensed as an architect.

Now -- does this license mean you're a "good" architect -- of course not, but when has it ever anyway?

By not getting licensed, you are contributing to the pool of non-licensed non-architects who design terrible housing developments on golf courses across the country. Well, not literally. But you are encouraging states to not require a licensed professional in order to design a building. That means contractors. It is not that difficult. Get off your ass and take the test. Currently I am waiting for NCARB to transmit my council record to the state of NY so I can do the same. IDP and NCARB is a whole nother argument.
But I only have a 4 year degree, so trace, you do not need a professional degree. And it is not thousands, but is over one.

"If you're only interested in "design" anyway, you can easily practice without a license by taking projects through DD and then partnering with an associate architect to do CD/CA. All the fun, half the fat."

----and half (if any) of the profit. looking at it from a business/economic point of view: in many states, you can't practice architecture unless the firm is a real business, and you can't own an architecture firm unless you are registered. so if you aren't registered, you would be required to partner with someone (that is a limitation of not being registered). Also, in regards to the above quote, yes, that's true about being able to do most of the design with very little liability, however, alot of the detail design comes out in CD's, and as i said above, CD's is where the profit is made. So for architects that actually have to work for a living, this would make to become registered, no?
there are many other reasons, economic and otherwise, to get registered, the above are just a couple.

so what if the test costs money? school costs alot more than the ARE, but I know several "professional students" who keep getting MArchs, MDesS, and MSAAD's because they like to design. That gets pretty expensive.

being a registered doesn't put you in a club.....registration doesn't automatically put you in the AIA (which is a useless, political, bureaucratic boys' club which does very little for the good of most of us in this profession. being registered just means that you are minimally competent in the eyes of the law to put buildings together

and what is this notion of being more limited by being registered? that is nonsense. in fact the opposite is true: an "architect" doesn't have to worry about the size of the building they are designing, or whether they will have to partner with someone to build it.

it's not about jumping through hoops. registration is not about design. it is about the law and our profession, whether the law makes sense or not. i like the analogy about being operated on by a non-licensed surgeon.....does it mean that they wouldn't be able to do the surgery? no, in fact they might do a cleaner job than a licensed one....but at least i know that they know the protocol of what they are doing, and they are honest and ambitious (they aren't breaking the law, just because they want all the fun, but half the fat)

"it's not about jumping through hoops. registration is not about design"

agreed that it shouldn't be about jumping through hoops.
but it really SHOULD be about design.

this is where we're loosing the battle.

also, if you're willing to accept "half the profit" (though I'd say more like less the profit, as it varies) for doing "pure" design then so be it! why should that be a bad thing so long as your are up front with your client and willing to accept the shortcomings associated with it?

The true battle lies not in ensuring that people building things are licensed (a battle we've already lost to contractors and developers) but in regaining an elevated status for trained designers that can address problems and programs in an innovative way.

In my experience, this is not something that the ARE tests for.

How it could or should is something of real merit the AIA should be adressing but isn't.

db, childes dunce cap you design test with, hoo, hoo, hoo!

db-

i say "design" only in terms of aesthetics....i absolutely believe that registration should make good designers in terms of weathertight details, sustainable/energy considerations, buildings that won't fall apart, etc....

i believe that the ARE is already trying to cover that, it just needs to be improved......but these things aside, how is not becoming registered a good thing; how does that help anything. Why do you think that being registered takes away from aesthetics? It doesn't, if believe that "design" involves more than making good photographs. By being registered, it just means that you are likely competent enough to take things like energy consumption and good practice into consideration.

I've had a bad day and this thread is really starting to get annoying. Going back and rereading your post, Trace, this statement really bothers me:

You can already put up small buildings without a license. For larger ones engineers will be brought in and take responsibility for mechanical, structural, etc..

Why on earth would I not want to take responsibility for my own project?! I want this world to be populated by people who take responsibility for their actions, take pride in their work, and try to make the world a better place through their example. If I want to live in that world then it starts with me.

I can easily see a future where architects are deemed unecessary, and I think the general profession's attempts to limit our responsibility for our work is a major factor in the decline of public opinion that we provide a necessary service. It leads to the common misconception that architects only care about how things look, not about how they are made, function, or contribute to the world.

Yes, the structural engineer is responsible for the structure, but as the architect I am responsible for the overall building. The structural engineer is my consultant so I'm responsible for picking an engineer who is competent. And I'm sure as hell not picking one who isn't licensed.

If you're not willing to take responsibility for an actual inhabitable 3-dimensional object that comes forth from your brain and then exists in our society then don't take on anything other than rendering jobs. For chrissakes, people.....

I agree with pollen - just get off your ass and take the test.

cynic- through last school door you not architect good. what make better you from school after to exam sit.
you school no good. get you money from snake men back.

basically my point is that by being against registration, you aren't helping anything.....if you really want to help improve the profession in these terms, than you should get registered to set an example (assuming that your skills would be great enough to do so). and i'm not saying this as an attack, but it is much easier to criticize than to help (trust me on this, i'm cynical and highly critical myself) if you are a great designer, then become registered and show those hacks what a true registered architect should be.

cf, is there another language that you would prefer to speak in....no offense, i'm just having trouble understanding you :)

lb says it best. [everyone say, 'yes ma'am']

architects are unnecessary. why would we want to further marginalize our profession by willingly giving more control to others?

and arguing that our professional license is worthless is arguing against the profession. i swear...some of you architects aren't architects at all.

however, I would argue that being register does not necessarily mean "that you are likely competent enough to take things like energy consumption and good practice into consideration"

I know more than a few who are and do not.

frankly, this is a serious issue the AIA should address and they are NOT doing so. They are hiding behind licensure as a gauge for ability rather than addressing the problems in architectural education that graduate inept designers that avoid liability and accountability through registration.

IF IF IF IF IF we believe that our knowledge MEANS something, then we should respect KNOWLEDGE rather than certification and allow architects to take the exam upon graduating from an accredited program

I would be more than happy to take the ARE and be licensed. I simply don't believe that IDP and internship has anything to offer that I don't know or can't learn otherwise.

Simply put: I agree that people should be licensed if we're allowed to take the damn exam!

Let's face it, IDP isn't 3 years -- it's a series of hoops that wherever you work may or may not help you jump through.

so fine -- say that you have to work for 3 years at an accredited or recognized firm. Fine. But them please can we take the exam.

THe thing people don't recognize is that there are hundreds of young architects out there WANTING to take the exam and be registered. The only issue is letting us. IF we don't pass -- fine. BUt at least let us sit for the damn thing!

Maybe it'll actually strengthen the value of internship for those that can't cut it, but there's no reason to hold the rest of us back -- let those of us that can cut it loose and watch the profession grow --

as may be obvious, I have nothing against registration per se, only against the registration process.

and as we know....it's all about process....

so, assuming IDP was abolished, you would argue that a person who has no CA experience yet can read a study guide and answer a few mulitple choice questions meets the requirements of a licensed professional?

i disagree. 240 hrs of real world experience (IDP requirement for CA) is far more informative than study guides.

or 'bypassed', sorry. not 'abolished'.

NO -- I'm arguing that those few multiple choice question become more difficult and accurate gauges of the knowledge we need to practice.

AND I'm arguing that given a more difficult and accurate model of practice (is CA ever multiple choice?) we might actually start licensing people that can fight for the profession rather than be relieved they're part of it.

--- I'm sure this will be an unpopular sentiment -- but for all of you that are registered -- where are you on the WTC and other issues -- too busy? -- I rest my case -- more of us is BETTER not worse ---

db-

i dont' think that the AIA has anything to do with how much an architect knows about putting a building together, nor do i think they care. whether they should or not is another topic......the group responsible for teaching interns and students about making real buildings is not the AIA, nor the universities (although systems and construction should be taught, schools should primarily teach design skills, or how to think and solve problems), but the practicing architects. if more firms would actually teach the next generation of architects, instead of using them as gophers or CAD monkeys, then there would be more architects who could design AND build those designs themselves.

as for WTC, the solution should begin this way: stop the political pissing contest, and make an elegant building that doesn't pretend to be something it's not (monument, statue of liberty, twin towers, etc)

no matter how difficult make the ARE it will never substitute real experience, which is where i see the value in IDP--it forces some level of experience in our licensed professionals. in your scenario, a person has the chance at becoming licensed and gaining a commission without ever having visited a job site (or worked on mechanical systems, or participated in contract negotiations, or...).

i think that young architect's first client deserves some assurance that the professional he's hired has some experience in actually getting a building built--in all phases.

schools architecture not teach architecture, what wrong you people?

well, you point to a seperation I wholeheartedly disagree with. We are required to study and receive professional degrees yet they are not responsible for teaching us about "making real buildings"? So what's the point -- let's just let high school students go right into working for firms where they can learn what's REALLY important.

However, I do understand the distinction you're making, but simply will argue that whether schools address such issues or not should not be part of licensure (part of accredidation is another thing and they should be held accountable in that regard).

There is a simple thing I believe:
pass the exam >>>> get license.

also though:
licensure DOES NOT EQUAL good design

this is where the schools and profession could play more of a role.

we should not be focused on licensure, but on GOOD DESIGN

again, this is where our battle lies....

besides, your argument that more is better is contengent upon the "more" being highly capable people. by loosening the requirements for becoming licensed, you are actually creating more architects of lesser quality.

was busy typing while others wee posting ------

st. -- I think the issue iis as you state it: confidence.

people build things every day -- with or without architects

the issue is one of quality; and as you say, of confidence.

perhaps it is an issue for the market to sort out. and perhaps it should be.

not confident; not talented -- go the corporate route.

got the goods and can do the job: go for it.

and if you pretend you can and you don't deliver: get sued for misrepresentation and drift into obscurity.

overall, I think it better to let more into the profession than less and go head to head with the developer and contractors with some numbers and fire behind us.

what in exam makes architect better?
-know structure? school teach, no office
-know office paper working? any can do.
-know code? any engineer can know.
-know who design Water Falling? big horse drop.
-know chair with wheels slope for? any engineer can know.
can walk this dog day long.

show how exam make good architect.

OK -- I was typing while st. posted --

Actually, I'm NOT suggesting lessening the requrements for licensure; in fact, I'm proposing raising them. Lessen IDP, raise ARE. Let the market sort it out.

yes, and passing an exam does not equal competence.

TRUE -- passing an exam does not equal competence -- except that by current standards and licensure requirements it stands in for it ---

change the exam -- change licensure --

ensure competence.

change exam, ok
what put you in new exam?

sorry. i'm lagging on the posts.

really, how is an exam more valuable than experience? you're allowing someone with zero experience to call themselves a licensed architect and make rookie mistakes, which can cost the client money. how is this a good thing for the profession? word gets around, man. how are more inexperienced architects good for the WTC debate (which you brought up)? or in the fight against developers? i think it's a dangerous proposal.

no. IDP ensures competence, the exam is simply a hurdle.


IDP is to AP Calculus, what ARE is to:

c)SAT