So, in my experience the US decouples the final exams at accredited schools from the ARE exams. Whereas typically European schools like to couple them. A young achitect graduates from an accredited school and he or she becomes an architect.
Why is this somehow different in the US? What purpose does this disconnect serve? Am I missing something?
My understanding is that the construction process and liability related to it is very different in the US from anywhere else, so we have a different internship process.
the exams that one takes in school are not comprehensive, really. they're individual tests of very narrow parameters. and they have little to do with the concerns that the ARE is meant to test to assure public safety and welfare.
as donna notes, the burden of responsibility and liability for european architects seems to be very different. while i'm responsible (as a US architect) for not only the design and documentation of the project, but also coordination such that the grease trap is properly trapped and vented and the allowances for bad soil replacement are used correctly and all agency and utility approvals have been properly attained, etc, i don't think all of these things fall under the bailiwick of someone in my position in a dutch firm, for instance. at least that's what i understood when i was talking to folks in rotterdam. is that wrong?
Why do we need two exams?
Can anyone seriously just answer this question?
So, in my experience the US decouples the final exams at accredited schools from the ARE exams. Whereas typically European schools like to couple them. A young achitect graduates from an accredited school and he or she becomes an architect.
Why is this somehow different in the US? What purpose does this disconnect serve? Am I missing something?
This is just an honest question.
My understanding is that the construction process and liability related to it is very different in the US from anywhere else, so we have a different internship process.
Because it is another body that can charge another fee.
Because you don't really learn that much about the actual practice of architecture in school.
the exams that one takes in school are not comprehensive, really. they're individual tests of very narrow parameters. and they have little to do with the concerns that the ARE is meant to test to assure public safety and welfare.
as donna notes, the burden of responsibility and liability for european architects seems to be very different. while i'm responsible (as a US architect) for not only the design and documentation of the project, but also coordination such that the grease trap is properly trapped and vented and the allowances for bad soil replacement are used correctly and all agency and utility approvals have been properly attained, etc, i don't think all of these things fall under the bailiwick of someone in my position in a dutch firm, for instance. at least that's what i understood when i was talking to folks in rotterdam. is that wrong?
It was a decision made at the Department of Redundency Department.
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.