I am surprised so many people are pissed off on here (possibly including myself). I simply wish to be able to call myself an architect. Given my education, etc., etc.
I work for myself, and have since graduating, so no, I don't think this is a traditional path. Not better, not worse, just different.
As I mentioned, I have no problem with having a new title "Registered Architect", for those that are licensed. Not one person I know from my class, 5 years out, is licensed. Not one. Some are close, but most aren't. It just takes too much time. Has nothing to do with the money, beyond taking time off from work to study.
I take a little offense, on the behalf of my friends (and some myself, as I am anything but 'lazy', as anyone that knows me would attest), to being called 'lazy'. I don't believe anyone with a degree in architecture from a half decent school can be called 'lazy'.
taking exams now. will have license soon. still will think it's a stupid process. i'll agree, lawyers and insurance companies are partially to blame.
let me make my point in another way. perhaps my railing against old white men is clouding the issue.
I believe that the 'system' (IE: school, IDP, NCARB, ARE, AIA, insurance, lawyers, etc) does not produce superior architecture and does not do the profession justice. I believe that the profession will suffer as a result. I believe that smart young people will avoid architecture and go into other professions.
in a way, I'm jealous of the old geezers, because they didn't have to jump through all these hoops.
gruen ... okay, now we have some common ground ... i agree with your entire 3rd paragraph ... so, what's a solution (besides just piling up all the old geezers and setting them on fire) that we can all work towards
and, by the way, we still had our own hoops to jump through (Viet Nam; Nixon; civil rights; the first energy crisis; 18% interest rates, etc.) ... they were just different hoops than the one's you face ...
jabber- ( more generalizations?) I believe in the profession…. the promise of the profession perhaps the way one might believe in the promise of …lets say America…..Architects are typically trained to have a very Liberal and a visionary moral compass.
DREAMERS right?
But isn’t this also often their downfall when times are tough and the market place and raw commercialism is what is driving every decision, who do you think is better prepared to weather the storm.
Rarely is it architects. Because of the services we provide at it’s best can be considered a luxury, and very often we are not trained this way. We are trained to look down our noses at commercialism.
Don’t bother us with that stuff where trying to save the world damnit. ICK.
This is the reality of the profession as it now exists.
We have to be smarter, more adaptable.
Most people have no idea what we do.
Ask them What a lawyer does?
A doctor does?
We have high moral fibre ( GENERALY) but can we make enough money and create enough influence to put ourselves in a position to hold on to it.
a friend of mine graduated with a BS in MME (materials, mechanical engineering) from iit... decided not to go into what he studied and is now working in the board of trade (in chicago)... hes training to be a trader... works 22 hours a week, and will make 120,000 next year...
i cried when he told me this last night
not really
but seriously
i cried
allow architects to take the exam after a 4 year degree. make the exam very very hard (it's extremely simple now, but takes forever to take)
this allows smarter people, or ones that are able to study/learn more, to pass earlier and develop more quickly as architects. those who choose to wait, are allowed to do their own internship, at their own pace.
if you choose to do an advanced degree, it is for your own professional development, not for legal requirements.
the profession (in this case I mean the AIA and individual firm principals) work hard to raise public awareness of what architects do, and ultimately raise the level of pay for firms and employees.
we train young architects how to run a business, so that when they become principals and/or owners, they aren't undercutting themselves and their firms.
1. You don't want to get licensed? Dont'....there are too many architects anyway. Less architects=more work/money for those that are licensed. Supply and demand.
2. You SHOULD have to be licensed to practice any profession where you are charged with "protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the public." I don't think any of us wants just anybody designing a high rise that could house thousands of people.
3. Of course it has nothing to do with skill....as far as I know, no one ever said it did. It is about jumping through hoops and just being able to stick with it. It is boring, irrelavent, overly long material. Those with endurance get the little slip of paper and a pat on the back...oh yeah, and the legal right to call yourself an architect.
4. As for recognition in the office, montu, you have it all wrong. You are immediately taken more seriously in every situation if you can say you are licensed. Let's face it, architecture is still somewhat of a "club" and the access to the club is licensure.
yeah, i would respectfully disagree with the assessment of senior principals as useless old bastards who can't cad to save their lives -- my 70-year-old (yes, 70) can draft with the rest and best of us and is always learning new things...
but on topic: i would make a case that if one wants to perform the functions of an architect in the US -- that is, design buildings and supervise their construction -- then one should take advantage of the legal protection that is granted to those who hold architecture licenses. if nothing else.
in TX an architect's liability for ANY claims that arise from a project designed and built under their supervision only lasts for 10 years. if a claim is made there is a 2-year time limit (theoretically) for resolution of that claim. there is no such protection for those who do not have licenses or for projects not done under seal.
and as i had mentioned in another thread a while back: people will sue for no good reason if they're mad enough or greedy enough.
but i tend to be a fan of the system in europe -- especially in those places where an architect undergoes a very rigorous education and then becomes certified/licensed upon graduation. this is how the system works in sweden and finland, for example. i look back on my five years in school and wonder if all i really learned to do was smoke and take criticism without throwing something.
maybe i should work for your old guys instead of my old guys.
actually, maybe I'm part of the problem. i want to get my license so I can get out from under their thumb. I don't think I can be part of any solution unless I can be legal.
i'd like to share a perspective about the ARE that i don't often hear others discuss
we have here at our firm a very bright, very capable young architect who completed the ARE about a year ago. after he learned that he had passed the final part, i was welcoming him into the "club" -- during that conversation, he reminded me of something i hadn't thought about since i passed the exam myself eons ago.
his perspective is this: "yeah, they taught me all of these facts that i needed on the exam in school, but i was mostly interested in design theory then and i only paid lip-service to all the technical stuff so i would get good grades. since i've been here at the firm, i've had to apply a lot of that 'book learning' to the real world ... plus, studying for the exam forced me to go back over stuff i hadn't thought about in years ... studying for the exam while i was working here in the office really helped me pull it all together into a useful body of knowledge ... i see much better now how all the pieces work together ... i don't necessarily know more facts now, but i do have a much better understanding about how those facts relate to each other and how to apply those facts to the making of good buildings"
i had the same experience -- that studying for the test was actually a very useful and beneficial effort. (but i actually paid attention to non-design courses in school...or at least i ignored non-design courses as much as i ignored design)
my problem is with IDP, not licensure. It's extremely expensive for debt-laden new graduates. Bureaucratic in the extreme. Inflexible. Ridiculous in many ways. For instance, why should I have to teach/work full-time rather than part-time for that to count towards requirements? This kind of rule is not meant to nurture a young architect, it's designed to make it difficult to get into the club. I do not for a minute buy the rationale that it's a measure of your commitment.
I believe the current requirements should become 'guidelines'.
One should be allowed to take the exam at any time, since that is the real measure of what one knows..
Several points of view and case studies on IDP and licensure. Expands on some thoughts given here, and offers new thoughts.
"Cutler says that in some jurisdictions, test-takers are expected to read the study guide and spout back the answers verbatim, or fill in multiple-choice answers. “To me, that's like high school,†he says. “Having architects sit down with a group of peers and be questioned about the depth of their knowledge of architecture and ethics seems to me to be a better way to register architects.â€"
"In her analysis of a study commissioned by NCARB two years ago, Beth Quinn concluded... “Should we not question the success of an educational program in which 43 percent of the participants feel their experience is ‘adequate' at best and ‘very poor' at worst, and one out of four feel they are learning little to nothing?†she writes. “Can a program be justified when more than one-third of participants feel it does not help or even detracts from their experience?â€"
I would say IDP does detract from the experience - very much so!!!
You can start taking the test prior to finishing IDP in several states - and you don't need to actually reside in that state or even take the test in that state in most cases - you just need to register through that state's board.
IDP is not really particularly expensive to new grads - because if you start your record during school or immediately after graduation most of your fees are deferred until you finish.
Personally I didn't find IDP to be that big of a deal or detraction from my experience in architecture. I didn't take the exam until I had about twice as many years of experience as were necessary for IDP, and I filled out all my IDP forms at once at the end of the process. Periods of part-time teaching/part-time work didn't count toward IDP and I didn't expect them to. The reason I ultimately decided to get registered is because opportunities to do projects independently were starting to come to me and in some cases registration was a necessity for these. Even in cases in which a project doesn't need an architect (most residential in most states, for example) it can make the process much smoother. So much is at the discretion of local building departments, and I was finding that they could really create hassles and impediments when they were skeptical of a young-ish designer with no registration. Having a seal seems to have gone a long way toward streamlining those interactions.
It seems to me that IDP, ARE, etc. can seem insurmountable to those who are trying to get registered quickly (less than 3 or 4 years) but that it doesn't seem like as much trouble as time goes on. For me the expense was all covered by the firm, the tests weren't particularly difficult and I think easier than they would have been right out of school, and there were definite benefits foreseeable.
It usually seems like arguments against registration are really about why that particular writer is not registered. I certainly don't think that registration is necessary for everyone. But I'd be interested in reading reasons why registration is a bad thing - why a generic person considering it should NOT pursue it?
Hey something funny happened this week that is relevant to this thread. Back in '94, when I started my IDP file (Steven, as you alluded to above, it took me TEN years from IDP establishment to getting the damn license - I'm a major procrastinator), you were required to list three registered architects as references. NCARB has since abandoned that requirement, I believe.
I listed a friend from Portland who had his own firm, and as far as I recall he knew and agreed to be a reference. I lost contact with this friend when I left PDX. Then last week I Googled him, and guess what came up? Minutes from the Oregon Board of Licensure (or whatever) meeting several years ago at which he was censured and fined (I think) $10,000 for representing himself as an architect when he's not in fact licensed. Ooops! I guess it's a good thing I ended up not needing him as a reference!
Also, trace - I'm not saying you're lazy, I'm not saying any particular person who doesn't want to get a license is lazy - but I do think that not doing it is in large part just not wanting to deal with the hassle of it. My business partner is one of these people - he doesn't need to be registered for the kind of work he does, and now that I'm his partner the firm is an architecture firm whether he's licensed or not. I certainly don't have a problem with him not being licensed, it really doesn't matter, either for his work or our work. And he's also definitely not lazy - he just has other things going on and is being quite successful without it. But he doesn't spend any time complaining about NOT being licensed or how he can't do it because IDP is too onerous or it's an old boys club that he doesn't think is fair to young grads or it might limit his creativity - the fact that he's not licensed is something that rarely crosses his mind. And he's happy that I have mine.
i would agree with you liberty bell. the licence isn't a bad thing and the process of getting it is hardly onerous or even overly challenging, nor is it useful to complain abouti ts existence cuz there is a good reason for the whole thing.
still, i find the system that goes with it is not very useful to making good architects and am inclined to criticise that more than anything. the waste of so many bright minds in the bureacratic mentality that suffuses firms is really sad. it isn't realistic to think the process of getting a licence would contribute to making good architects i know, but somehow i still yearn for that to happen. form reading above i think most complaints are more about that than anything...
bureaucracy and paperwork are part of being a member of any profession and nobody likes it. cops don't like it, teachers don't like it, and architects don't like it. we don't like filling out our tax forms. but it is a part of life.
you either decide that a license is worth the paperwork or it isn't. and either decision is a good one if it's the one that suits you better.
if you are conscientious about recording your hours -- being proactive and thinking ahead about what moves you'll need to make to fulfill all the competencies -- and are aggressive about learning as much as you can then the IDP process is relatively painless. most likely you will need to make at least one job change during the process, which is probably for the better anyway. most likely you won't make enough money for some or all of your internship. and you will definitely have to keep some files and records on hand.
but everyone has to make the decision for themselves: what is important to them when it comes to architecture? you either think it's worth it to get a license or you don't.
the system is not intended to make "good" architects, it is designed to make "competent" architects. "good" architects are definitely made by other systems altogether...
"the system is not intended to make 'good' architects, it is designed to make 'competent' architects"
ochona, you got that right -- although we have to be careful about the definition of 'competent' -- licensure is intended to protect the public from unsafe buildings -- not ugly or inefficient buildings
the demand for "good architecture" will come from the public -- not the state
I think people should be very weary of expectations for a license to choose "good architects" over competant ones..
it would be a horrible thing to have design value given license preference...
im a bit amazed that people want the license to be a judgement of good design over bad design...can you imagine how much those same people would bitch when the licensure board tells them they cant be architects because their design was ugly or unfit ofr architecture...man alive
wed have a billion threads on archinect about how its insane for people to deny license based on how your projects looked and they should just judge whether they are safe or not...
i just turn to 50 Y.O 3 weeks ago.yes i know to a lot of you that is ancient. but 24 years after graduating from architectural shool and working in the field on and off for that many years, doing set designing, interiors, architecture, construction labor etc., and designing few houses to my name, i've finally recieved a pass letter from california architects board that i passed the oral exam and i am done with exams and my architect certificate will be mailed in 6-8 weeks.
having a license by no means is a qualitative designation on your talent. but let me tell you, if you are going to stick with architecture, please get your licence. it took me many years to warm up to it and i am glad i didn't loose my interest. lets face it, calling yourself an architect without the authorization from your state is like (was for me) living a double life and constant worries for how to dodge the question when asked by a potential client (they really ask these days).
- are you a licensed architect?
-well umm. you don't need a license for your house remodel, besides engineer will stamp the drawings.
well, many times this translated to a following phone call.
- abra, we really liked your work and what you have done, but it is just too much of an investment for us to go with an unlicensed designer. sorry. we really would work with you if you had a license.
it doesn't look like licensing will be abolished. so, no matter how old you are, start the process. fighting it now is going to hunt you later in your carier.
once you start the process you'll get it in 4 years at the most. it took me a almost two years with school and work experience taken care of years ago. i didn't have to do IDP which has just started in cali this year.
again, try to get your license, you'll be glad you did it..
there are few exceptions but that is all, they are exceptions.
i am a 50 years old young architect. how great is that folks?
I agree, el jeffe! The worst headache I've ever had came the moment I walked out of that room with the examiners. My noggin felt like it had been crushed under a boulder.
to make matters worse (but it was wholly appropriate) my oral exam was in an embassy suites hotel next door to the taco bell world headquarters in irvine. i had to keep myself from vomiting in my mouth as i was driving around looking for a parking space. i remember being shit scared looking at the faces of the people leaving after their exam. these people looked like they had left the emergency room of a hospital after losing a loved one...they had such a glazed forlorn expression.
thanks guys. hey jeffe, i wish i could pick up all the usual suspects from the archinect and bust your party in front of beautiful water melon mountains. you guys have fun..
1) To quote Sam Mockbee, "Architecture has to be about more than just architecture." If you want to do the (relatively narrow) set of things that your particular state requires a license for, then of course you get licensed. However, it's a huge mistake to think that what kept most of us up late at night throughout architecture school is remotely coextensive with what a state legislature would decide endangers the health, safety and welfare of the public. To ask why people finished school if they don't want to get licensed is like asking why they play video games if they don't want to join the Army. That's not the point at all.
2) The decision whether to get licensed is a question of costs versus benefits. Everyone here (even the "lazy" ones) does a lot of bullshit on a regular basis. Some things are worth the bullshit and other things aren't. Here the point about architecture school brings the issue into focus: why do people regularly go through the "bullshit" associated with architecture school, but bail out on the licensure process? Easy. The benefits far outweight the costs. If people quit graduating from your alma mater, you wouldn't think, "cool, my degree is worth more now"--you'd think, "who the heck is in charge and what's going wrong!?"
I have a B.Arch, but I also have a law degree. Lawyers know about bureaucracy. I deal with a heck of a lot of bureaucracy every single day. And because of that, I can say that the bureaucracy surrounding IDP and the ARE is mindless, self-important, incompetent bureaucracy. NCARB is a state-sponsored monopoly, minus the direct public oversight and input that most state sponsored monopolies in the U.S. work within. It is the bureaucracy of Kafka, the U.S.S.R. and the movie Brazil.
And it's amazing to see so many talented and creative people defend it, even applaud it.
I really dont understand why people think its that difficult to do IDP. Its not that hard really.. you people make it out to be some kafkaian exercise. Its quite simple.. Get the form. fill it out. send it in with check.. get your record number.. start recording your hours. every month or so. send in a work sheet.. when youre done.. poof. youre done. take the tests. theyre not that hard.. spend a few weeks studying for each test. and then. poof.. licesnse...
are you people really that inept and easily confused that you believe this process to be that tragically flawed?
hmmm, this isn't the first time hotsies has had "blind faith" in fear of authority. Don't bother to question IDP's usefullness, hotsies, I'll do it for you. Now go jump off a brigde.
its not blind faith strawberry. its that i have better things to do with my career than bitch about IDP being unfair.. its not that hard. just do it. and spend your energy on things you really care about..
my personal preference is to work on design and architecture and concern myself with the systemic injustices in getting things built... im not to concerned with spending the time and effort to fight something as easy to get through, albeit boring, as IDP..
but you are more than welcome to make your own descisions as to how you want to make your stand.
hotsies, so does IDP work? or do you think we should do it because we are told to and those are the rules? That was my point. I don't think anyone's saying that it is "just boring" or "unfair", you have a way of demeaning and twisting concepts and words. I'm saying it is unsuccessful as a program. When I see things that don't work that I am involved in, I tend to call it as such and work to develop a good argument against it. I think that's what this thread is, a collection/exchange of ideas and you did not contribute.
What can you say in SUPPORT of IDP instead of just ripping on those who have issues with it?
Me, i'd rather work on architecture and design than IDP.
so. does idp work? what is idp supposed to do? i think its supposed to be a method to gauge interns exposure to all general aspects of the process of architecutre.. not necessarily to make sure the are experts in it, but just to measure their level of exposure.
its a step in a better direction than just saying. work three years. and youre good to go!.
how could it work better? im not sure.. youd want something that is general enough that it covers most areas of the design-construction-business process...how do you do something like that and make it uniform? idp seems to me to be a pretty fine way to do it.
i think all standardized testing is dumb and pointless because it has no capacity to account for individual circumstances...so some people may find it difficult or tough. but im not sure you could ever come up with a system for everyone...
why do you suggest? seems like most people against idp dont really suggest alternatives either. just bitch about how it doesnt measure your ability as a designer..
IDP and NCARB are not onerous to get through but put interns in shitty positions because they are not able to do the exams wihtout going through the office bureacracy. while some firms are cool, so many are not.
Here in Japan to qualify to take the exam you have to work 2 years after a BArch, 7 years if you have no post-secondary education, and nothing at all if you have a MArch. most of the kids in my school (university of tokyo where i am doing phd while running a wee business) get their licence in the first year of their phd studies. none of them have worked in offices except for model building stints for ito or sejima, maki and the like. When they finish phd they open an office and go to it. and they do well.
I first heard about this system a few years ago when i became aware of coelecanth (a very good/famous and probably in the usa an unknown firm), each of whose principles finished MArch, took the test and proceeded to build an office without working for anyone else. They didn't do internships and the quality of their work clearly shows they didn't need it.
Similar with firms like MVRDV. sure they worked with oma, and that was probably an internship worth doing, but they weren't beholden to him to get the licence. they were licenced when they graduated. This kind of freedom from offices and bureaucracy is very important. For our profession, and also for the quality of work that gets produced beyond all of the legal structures. It is not reasonable Hotsies to assume that one does not affect the other.
hotsies, I have suggested alternatives, many of them. One of them is to make experience merit based, not because IDP "says so". If you do well and show interest, talent, and promise, then you will be rewarded and exposed to more areas of the profession. Then you will be able to pass the exam. Simple.
I think IDP was set up as a way for timid, untalented interns to have bargaining chips with their employers. I am in a unique situation where I have all of my experience (that I bargained for sans IDP summaries), but NCARB doesn't have it on record (my fault) and with some studying if I can pass the exam, what's wrong with that? Hence my attitude.
but jump... in japan. the license is somewhat different.. be fair.
in the US. you are either a licensed architect or not.
in japan there are 3-4 (wooden traditional structures) different levels of being licensed.. so. people getting right out of school in japan and getting their license have a license equivalent different than the license in the US..
anyhow.. i think the japan system is great. and if we could work a system with multiple levels of licensure.. one fro post graduation.. one for after experiecen, etc.. i think it would be great....
and strawberry. again.. if you did the work. thats great. and thats the individual circumstance i speak of.. but how is anyone to know you did the work if its not on record.. it suck, surely, but there needs to be of course some way to make things equal, right?
anyhow.. look i really dont care.
if people dont want to get licensed. thats their choice. but then i think those people shouldnt complain about the problems of being licensed.
otherwise. get your license,d and then start spending some energy with AIA/NCARB to change the idp structure...
i didnt enjoy the process either..but it wasnt that bad. and now im done with it. and now i dont need to explain to clients why im not licensed or such..
and i have nothing really good to add either. youre right. so this is mylast licensing post.
Licensure ... the case for / the case against
I am surprised so many people are pissed off on here (possibly including myself). I simply wish to be able to call myself an architect. Given my education, etc., etc.
I work for myself, and have since graduating, so no, I don't think this is a traditional path. Not better, not worse, just different.
As I mentioned, I have no problem with having a new title "Registered Architect", for those that are licensed. Not one person I know from my class, 5 years out, is licensed. Not one. Some are close, but most aren't. It just takes too much time. Has nothing to do with the money, beyond taking time off from work to study.
I take a little offense, on the behalf of my friends (and some myself, as I am anything but 'lazy', as anyone that knows me would attest), to being called 'lazy'. I don't believe anyone with a degree in architecture from a half decent school can be called 'lazy'.
taking exams now. will have license soon. still will think it's a stupid process. i'll agree, lawyers and insurance companies are partially to blame.
let me make my point in another way. perhaps my railing against old white men is clouding the issue.
I believe that the 'system' (IE: school, IDP, NCARB, ARE, AIA, insurance, lawyers, etc) does not produce superior architecture and does not do the profession justice. I believe that the profession will suffer as a result. I believe that smart young people will avoid architecture and go into other professions.
in a way, I'm jealous of the old geezers, because they didn't have to jump through all these hoops.
gruen ... okay, now we have some common ground ... i agree with your entire 3rd paragraph ... so, what's a solution (besides just piling up all the old geezers and setting them on fire) that we can all work towards
and, by the way, we still had our own hoops to jump through (Viet Nam; Nixon; civil rights; the first energy crisis; 18% interest rates, etc.) ... they were just different hoops than the one's you face ...
good luck with the exam ...
jabber- ( more generalizations?) I believe in the profession…. the promise of the profession perhaps the way one might believe in the promise of …lets say America…..Architects are typically trained to have a very Liberal and a visionary moral compass.
DREAMERS right?
But isn’t this also often their downfall when times are tough and the market place and raw commercialism is what is driving every decision, who do you think is better prepared to weather the storm.
Rarely is it architects. Because of the services we provide at it’s best can be considered a luxury, and very often we are not trained this way. We are trained to look down our noses at commercialism.
Don’t bother us with that stuff where trying to save the world damnit. ICK.
This is the reality of the profession as it now exists.
We have to be smarter, more adaptable.
Most people have no idea what we do.
Ask them What a lawyer does?
A doctor does?
We have high moral fibre ( GENERALY) but can we make enough money and create enough influence to put ourselves in a position to hold on to it.
I will step of my sop box now
a friend of mine graduated with a BS in MME (materials, mechanical engineering) from iit... decided not to go into what he studied and is now working in the board of trade (in chicago)... hes training to be a trader... works 22 hours a week, and will make 120,000 next year...
i cried when he told me this last night
not really
but seriously
i cried
my vote is this:
allow architects to take the exam after a 4 year degree. make the exam very very hard (it's extremely simple now, but takes forever to take)
this allows smarter people, or ones that are able to study/learn more, to pass earlier and develop more quickly as architects. those who choose to wait, are allowed to do their own internship, at their own pace.
if you choose to do an advanced degree, it is for your own professional development, not for legal requirements.
the profession (in this case I mean the AIA and individual firm principals) work hard to raise public awareness of what architects do, and ultimately raise the level of pay for firms and employees.
we train young architects how to run a business, so that when they become principals and/or owners, they aren't undercutting themselves and their firms.
Ok, this may have been mention already but......
1. You don't want to get licensed? Dont'....there are too many architects anyway. Less architects=more work/money for those that are licensed. Supply and demand.
2. You SHOULD have to be licensed to practice any profession where you are charged with "protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the public." I don't think any of us wants just anybody designing a high rise that could house thousands of people.
3. Of course it has nothing to do with skill....as far as I know, no one ever said it did. It is about jumping through hoops and just being able to stick with it. It is boring, irrelavent, overly long material. Those with endurance get the little slip of paper and a pat on the back...oh yeah, and the legal right to call yourself an architect.
4. As for recognition in the office, montu, you have it all wrong. You are immediately taken more seriously in every situation if you can say you are licensed. Let's face it, architecture is still somewhat of a "club" and the access to the club is licensure.
yeah, i would respectfully disagree with the assessment of senior principals as useless old bastards who can't cad to save their lives -- my 70-year-old (yes, 70) can draft with the rest and best of us and is always learning new things...
but on topic: i would make a case that if one wants to perform the functions of an architect in the US -- that is, design buildings and supervise their construction -- then one should take advantage of the legal protection that is granted to those who hold architecture licenses. if nothing else.
in TX an architect's liability for ANY claims that arise from a project designed and built under their supervision only lasts for 10 years. if a claim is made there is a 2-year time limit (theoretically) for resolution of that claim. there is no such protection for those who do not have licenses or for projects not done under seal.
and as i had mentioned in another thread a while back: people will sue for no good reason if they're mad enough or greedy enough.
but i tend to be a fan of the system in europe -- especially in those places where an architect undergoes a very rigorous education and then becomes certified/licensed upon graduation. this is how the system works in sweden and finland, for example. i look back on my five years in school and wonder if all i really learned to do was smoke and take criticism without throwing something.
Chcgo Arch
4. I accept point 4 is the goal but it is rarely the case.
The entry in to the club ( that counts) is simply not only licensure.
maybe i should work for your old guys instead of my old guys.
actually, maybe I'm part of the problem. i want to get my license so I can get out from under their thumb. I don't think I can be part of any solution unless I can be legal.
i'd like to share a perspective about the ARE that i don't often hear others discuss
we have here at our firm a very bright, very capable young architect who completed the ARE about a year ago. after he learned that he had passed the final part, i was welcoming him into the "club" -- during that conversation, he reminded me of something i hadn't thought about since i passed the exam myself eons ago.
his perspective is this: "yeah, they taught me all of these facts that i needed on the exam in school, but i was mostly interested in design theory then and i only paid lip-service to all the technical stuff so i would get good grades. since i've been here at the firm, i've had to apply a lot of that 'book learning' to the real world ... plus, studying for the exam forced me to go back over stuff i hadn't thought about in years ... studying for the exam while i was working here in the office really helped me pull it all together into a useful body of knowledge ... i see much better now how all the pieces work together ... i don't necessarily know more facts now, but i do have a much better understanding about how those facts relate to each other and how to apply those facts to the making of good buildings"
i had the same experience -- that studying for the test was actually a very useful and beneficial effort. (but i actually paid attention to non-design courses in school...or at least i ignored non-design courses as much as i ignored design)
and, my worst job was working for a 36-year-old -- who sounds exactly like your boss, gruen. get your seal and screw him. (not literally, mind)
dreaming of a magical profession outside of architecture...
my problem is with IDP, not licensure. It's extremely expensive for debt-laden new graduates. Bureaucratic in the extreme. Inflexible. Ridiculous in many ways. For instance, why should I have to teach/work full-time rather than part-time for that to count towards requirements? This kind of rule is not meant to nurture a young architect, it's designed to make it difficult to get into the club. I do not for a minute buy the rationale that it's a measure of your commitment.
I believe the current requirements should become 'guidelines'.
One should be allowed to take the exam at any time, since that is the real measure of what one knows..
Write a letter to your state board:
http://advocacy.archvoices.org/
Several points of view and case studies on IDP and licensure. Expands on some thoughts given here, and offers new thoughts.
"Cutler says that in some jurisdictions, test-takers are expected to read the study guide and spout back the answers verbatim, or fill in multiple-choice answers. “To me, that's like high school,†he says. “Having architects sit down with a group of peers and be questioned about the depth of their knowledge of architecture and ethics seems to me to be a better way to register architects.â€"
"In her analysis of a study commissioned by NCARB two years ago, Beth Quinn concluded... “Should we not question the success of an educational program in which 43 percent of the participants feel their experience is ‘adequate' at best and ‘very poor' at worst, and one out of four feel they are learning little to nothing?†she writes. “Can a program be justified when more than one-third of participants feel it does not help or even detracts from their experience?â€"
I would say IDP does detract from the experience - very much so!!!
You can start taking the test prior to finishing IDP in several states - and you don't need to actually reside in that state or even take the test in that state in most cases - you just need to register through that state's board.
IDP is not really particularly expensive to new grads - because if you start your record during school or immediately after graduation most of your fees are deferred until you finish.
Personally I didn't find IDP to be that big of a deal or detraction from my experience in architecture. I didn't take the exam until I had about twice as many years of experience as were necessary for IDP, and I filled out all my IDP forms at once at the end of the process. Periods of part-time teaching/part-time work didn't count toward IDP and I didn't expect them to. The reason I ultimately decided to get registered is because opportunities to do projects independently were starting to come to me and in some cases registration was a necessity for these. Even in cases in which a project doesn't need an architect (most residential in most states, for example) it can make the process much smoother. So much is at the discretion of local building departments, and I was finding that they could really create hassles and impediments when they were skeptical of a young-ish designer with no registration. Having a seal seems to have gone a long way toward streamlining those interactions.
It seems to me that IDP, ARE, etc. can seem insurmountable to those who are trying to get registered quickly (less than 3 or 4 years) but that it doesn't seem like as much trouble as time goes on. For me the expense was all covered by the firm, the tests weren't particularly difficult and I think easier than they would have been right out of school, and there were definite benefits foreseeable.
It usually seems like arguments against registration are really about why that particular writer is not registered. I certainly don't think that registration is necessary for everyone. But I'd be interested in reading reasons why registration is a bad thing - why a generic person considering it should NOT pursue it?
Hey something funny happened this week that is relevant to this thread. Back in '94, when I started my IDP file (Steven, as you alluded to above, it took me TEN years from IDP establishment to getting the damn license - I'm a major procrastinator), you were required to list three registered architects as references. NCARB has since abandoned that requirement, I believe.
I listed a friend from Portland who had his own firm, and as far as I recall he knew and agreed to be a reference. I lost contact with this friend when I left PDX. Then last week I Googled him, and guess what came up? Minutes from the Oregon Board of Licensure (or whatever) meeting several years ago at which he was censured and fined (I think) $10,000 for representing himself as an architect when he's not in fact licensed. Ooops! I guess it's a good thing I ended up not needing him as a reference!
Also, trace - I'm not saying you're lazy, I'm not saying any particular person who doesn't want to get a license is lazy - but I do think that not doing it is in large part just not wanting to deal with the hassle of it. My business partner is one of these people - he doesn't need to be registered for the kind of work he does, and now that I'm his partner the firm is an architecture firm whether he's licensed or not. I certainly don't have a problem with him not being licensed, it really doesn't matter, either for his work or our work. And he's also definitely not lazy - he just has other things going on and is being quite successful without it. But he doesn't spend any time complaining about NOT being licensed or how he can't do it because IDP is too onerous or it's an old boys club that he doesn't think is fair to young grads or it might limit his creativity - the fact that he's not licensed is something that rarely crosses his mind. And he's happy that I have mine.
i would agree with you liberty bell. the licence isn't a bad thing and the process of getting it is hardly onerous or even overly challenging, nor is it useful to complain abouti ts existence cuz there is a good reason for the whole thing.
still, i find the system that goes with it is not very useful to making good architects and am inclined to criticise that more than anything. the waste of so many bright minds in the bureacratic mentality that suffuses firms is really sad. it isn't realistic to think the process of getting a licence would contribute to making good architects i know, but somehow i still yearn for that to happen. form reading above i think most complaints are more about that than anything...
hate to be the guy with the castor oil here but:
bureaucracy and paperwork are part of being a member of any profession and nobody likes it. cops don't like it, teachers don't like it, and architects don't like it. we don't like filling out our tax forms. but it is a part of life.
you either decide that a license is worth the paperwork or it isn't. and either decision is a good one if it's the one that suits you better.
if you are conscientious about recording your hours -- being proactive and thinking ahead about what moves you'll need to make to fulfill all the competencies -- and are aggressive about learning as much as you can then the IDP process is relatively painless. most likely you will need to make at least one job change during the process, which is probably for the better anyway. most likely you won't make enough money for some or all of your internship. and you will definitely have to keep some files and records on hand.
but everyone has to make the decision for themselves: what is important to them when it comes to architecture? you either think it's worth it to get a license or you don't.
the system is not intended to make "good" architects, it is designed to make "competent" architects. "good" architects are definitely made by other systems altogether...
jump ... you might enjoy checking out another discussion thread here ... "Death of a Creative Mind"
"the system is not intended to make 'good' architects, it is designed to make 'competent' architects"
ochona, you got that right -- although we have to be careful about the definition of 'competent' -- licensure is intended to protect the public from unsafe buildings -- not ugly or inefficient buildings
the demand for "good architecture" will come from the public -- not the state
I think people should be very weary of expectations for a license to choose "good architects" over competant ones..
it would be a horrible thing to have design value given license preference...
im a bit amazed that people want the license to be a judgement of good design over bad design...can you imagine how much those same people would bitch when the licensure board tells them they cant be architects because their design was ugly or unfit ofr architecture...man alive
wed have a billion threads on archinect about how its insane for people to deny license based on how your projects looked and they should just judge whether they are safe or not...
Well-stated summary, Ochona.
...and, many times, a little castor oil is precisely what we need.
here is a little story from abra.
i just turn to 50 Y.O 3 weeks ago.yes i know to a lot of you that is ancient. but 24 years after graduating from architectural shool and working in the field on and off for that many years, doing set designing, interiors, architecture, construction labor etc., and designing few houses to my name, i've finally recieved a pass letter from california architects board that i passed the oral exam and i am done with exams and my architect certificate will be mailed in 6-8 weeks.
having a license by no means is a qualitative designation on your talent. but let me tell you, if you are going to stick with architecture, please get your licence. it took me many years to warm up to it and i am glad i didn't loose my interest. lets face it, calling yourself an architect without the authorization from your state is like (was for me) living a double life and constant worries for how to dodge the question when asked by a potential client (they really ask these days).
- are you a licensed architect?
-well umm. you don't need a license for your house remodel, besides engineer will stamp the drawings.
well, many times this translated to a following phone call.
- abra, we really liked your work and what you have done, but it is just too much of an investment for us to go with an unlicensed designer. sorry. we really would work with you if you had a license.
it doesn't look like licensing will be abolished. so, no matter how old you are, start the process. fighting it now is going to hunt you later in your carier.
once you start the process you'll get it in 4 years at the most. it took me a almost two years with school and work experience taken care of years ago. i didn't have to do IDP which has just started in cali this year.
again, try to get your license, you'll be glad you did it..
there are few exceptions but that is all, they are exceptions.
i am a 50 years old young architect. how great is that folks?
congratulations abra!
just think, at 50, you only have 10 more years
to go before you start getting really good commisions!
yeah architecture.
(seriously though, congratulations.)
Well done and well said, Abra... or should we now say:
Abracadabra, Architect.
thank you, thank you o+.
a ... what a terrific story ... and life lesson
congratulations !
a BIG congratulations, abra, and doesn't it feel great?!?!!!! WAhoooooo!!!!
Go for it, everyone, get the license.
congratulations abra!
don't know about you, but the oral exam rated in the top 5 most nerve-wracking experiences in my life...
I agree, el jeffe! The worst headache I've ever had came the moment I walked out of that room with the examiners. My noggin felt like it had been crushed under a boulder.
abracadabra, FAIA
very well done abra, and as always, well said. i raise a glass to you.
to make matters worse (but it was wholly appropriate) my oral exam was in an embassy suites hotel next door to the taco bell world headquarters in irvine. i had to keep myself from vomiting in my mouth as i was driving around looking for a parking space. i remember being shit scared looking at the faces of the people leaving after their exam. these people looked like they had left the emergency room of a hospital after losing a loved one...they had such a glazed forlorn expression.
thanks guys. hey jeffe, i wish i could pick up all the usual suspects from the archinect and bust your party in front of beautiful water melon mountains. you guys have fun..
thanks - wish you were here too - we'd toast your license!
Two points about getting/not getting licensed:
1) To quote Sam Mockbee, "Architecture has to be about more than just architecture." If you want to do the (relatively narrow) set of things that your particular state requires a license for, then of course you get licensed. However, it's a huge mistake to think that what kept most of us up late at night throughout architecture school is remotely coextensive with what a state legislature would decide endangers the health, safety and welfare of the public. To ask why people finished school if they don't want to get licensed is like asking why they play video games if they don't want to join the Army. That's not the point at all.
2) The decision whether to get licensed is a question of costs versus benefits. Everyone here (even the "lazy" ones) does a lot of bullshit on a regular basis. Some things are worth the bullshit and other things aren't. Here the point about architecture school brings the issue into focus: why do people regularly go through the "bullshit" associated with architecture school, but bail out on the licensure process? Easy. The benefits far outweight the costs. If people quit graduating from your alma mater, you wouldn't think, "cool, my degree is worth more now"--you'd think, "who the heck is in charge and what's going wrong!?"
I have a B.Arch, but I also have a law degree. Lawyers know about bureaucracy. I deal with a heck of a lot of bureaucracy every single day. And because of that, I can say that the bureaucracy surrounding IDP and the ARE is mindless, self-important, incompetent bureaucracy. NCARB is a state-sponsored monopoly, minus the direct public oversight and input that most state sponsored monopolies in the U.S. work within. It is the bureaucracy of Kafka, the U.S.S.R. and the movie Brazil.
And it's amazing to see so many talented and creative people defend it, even applaud it.
I really dont understand why people think its that difficult to do IDP. Its not that hard really.. you people make it out to be some kafkaian exercise. Its quite simple.. Get the form. fill it out. send it in with check.. get your record number.. start recording your hours. every month or so. send in a work sheet.. when youre done.. poof. youre done. take the tests. theyre not that hard.. spend a few weeks studying for each test. and then. poof.. licesnse...
are you people really that inept and easily confused that you believe this process to be that tragically flawed?
grow up. stop being victims.
hmmm, this isn't the first time hotsies has had "blind faith" in fear of authority. Don't bother to question IDP's usefullness, hotsies, I'll do it for you. Now go jump off a brigde.
its not blind faith strawberry. its that i have better things to do with my career than bitch about IDP being unfair.. its not that hard. just do it. and spend your energy on things you really care about..
my personal preference is to work on design and architecture and concern myself with the systemic injustices in getting things built... im not to concerned with spending the time and effort to fight something as easy to get through, albeit boring, as IDP..
but you are more than welcome to make your own descisions as to how you want to make your stand.
hotsies, so does IDP work? or do you think we should do it because we are told to and those are the rules? That was my point. I don't think anyone's saying that it is "just boring" or "unfair", you have a way of demeaning and twisting concepts and words. I'm saying it is unsuccessful as a program. When I see things that don't work that I am involved in, I tend to call it as such and work to develop a good argument against it. I think that's what this thread is, a collection/exchange of ideas and you did not contribute.
What can you say in SUPPORT of IDP instead of just ripping on those who have issues with it?
Me, i'd rather work on architecture and design than IDP.
Congrats Abra, but did I miss WHY you never got licensed? Why?
fair comments, straw.
so. does idp work? what is idp supposed to do? i think its supposed to be a method to gauge interns exposure to all general aspects of the process of architecutre.. not necessarily to make sure the are experts in it, but just to measure their level of exposure.
its a step in a better direction than just saying. work three years. and youre good to go!.
how could it work better? im not sure.. youd want something that is general enough that it covers most areas of the design-construction-business process...how do you do something like that and make it uniform? idp seems to me to be a pretty fine way to do it.
i think all standardized testing is dumb and pointless because it has no capacity to account for individual circumstances...so some people may find it difficult or tough. but im not sure you could ever come up with a system for everyone...
why do you suggest? seems like most people against idp dont really suggest alternatives either. just bitch about how it doesnt measure your ability as a designer..
well said scratches.
IDP and NCARB are not onerous to get through but put interns in shitty positions because they are not able to do the exams wihtout going through the office bureacracy. while some firms are cool, so many are not.
Here in Japan to qualify to take the exam you have to work 2 years after a BArch, 7 years if you have no post-secondary education, and nothing at all if you have a MArch. most of the kids in my school (university of tokyo where i am doing phd while running a wee business) get their licence in the first year of their phd studies. none of them have worked in offices except for model building stints for ito or sejima, maki and the like. When they finish phd they open an office and go to it. and they do well.
I first heard about this system a few years ago when i became aware of coelecanth (a very good/famous and probably in the usa an unknown firm), each of whose principles finished MArch, took the test and proceeded to build an office without working for anyone else. They didn't do internships and the quality of their work clearly shows they didn't need it.
Similar with firms like MVRDV. sure they worked with oma, and that was probably an internship worth doing, but they weren't beholden to him to get the licence. they were licenced when they graduated. This kind of freedom from offices and bureaucracy is very important. For our profession, and also for the quality of work that gets produced beyond all of the legal structures. It is not reasonable Hotsies to assume that one does not affect the other.
hotsies, I have suggested alternatives, many of them. One of them is to make experience merit based, not because IDP "says so". If you do well and show interest, talent, and promise, then you will be rewarded and exposed to more areas of the profession. Then you will be able to pass the exam. Simple.
I think IDP was set up as a way for timid, untalented interns to have bargaining chips with their employers. I am in a unique situation where I have all of my experience (that I bargained for sans IDP summaries), but NCARB doesn't have it on record (my fault) and with some studying if I can pass the exam, what's wrong with that? Hence my attitude.
good post jump, foreign input is always enlightening.
but jump... in japan. the license is somewhat different.. be fair.
in the US. you are either a licensed architect or not.
in japan there are 3-4 (wooden traditional structures) different levels of being licensed.. so. people getting right out of school in japan and getting their license have a license equivalent different than the license in the US..
anyhow.. i think the japan system is great. and if we could work a system with multiple levels of licensure.. one fro post graduation.. one for after experiecen, etc.. i think it would be great....
and strawberry. again.. if you did the work. thats great. and thats the individual circumstance i speak of.. but how is anyone to know you did the work if its not on record.. it suck, surely, but there needs to be of course some way to make things equal, right?
anyhow.. look i really dont care.
if people dont want to get licensed. thats their choice. but then i think those people shouldnt complain about the problems of being licensed.
otherwise. get your license,d and then start spending some energy with AIA/NCARB to change the idp structure...
i didnt enjoy the process either..but it wasnt that bad. and now im done with it. and now i dont need to explain to clients why im not licensed or such..
and i have nothing really good to add either. youre right. so this is mylast licensing post.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.