No sour, nor insecurity here - legit question. Have a lot to learn and thought to look to the master. To be honest, I was looking for a shortcut - choose 1 or 2 and head straight towards the bank. Perhaps the sum is greater than the parts?
if you can, get your license as soon as possible. i'm just saying it's not the end all in architecture. i spent a lot of time working in the uk before coming back to the states and that didn't allow for ARE testing, and that was fine. i'm working toward it now, but more so i can focus on developing full time.
just saying, if you define your career goals in different terms, than the time frame of getting your architecture license isn't going to limit you one way or the other.
oh, and buff-fill, for me the mup was more valuable (but more so for the value of the real estate classes taken concurrently)
Agreed, punky, that learning as much as possible on the job is valuable for young interns. And yes there are many many ways to structure an architecture career, not all of which require a license. But I still think if you have the B or M Arch you should just go ahead and get it.
And lest I sound hypocritical, I should come clean: I interned for a total of ten years (partly while in school) before I got licensed at age 37. I encourage people to just get the license, whatever age you are, and if you are younger, it may help your career advance.
I also agree with what Old Fogey said above, about us accepting a level of professionalism and seriousness that we would like the public to believe we have. My accountant, as we filed our corporate papers, advised us "Now that you are a corporation you have to act like a corporation." meaning to take our position and the commitment to professionalism seriously.
So I better stop posting on Archinect during the workday ;-)
say it ain't so, lb. i bet posting on archinect isn't unprofessional but instead the essence of professional behavior - though maybe usually related to a bigger corporation than yours.
in the field of architecture as it is typically practiced in the US, a license at a young age is worth at least five years of experience in terms of an increase in responsibility and salary. "a young age" meaning five years or less in meaningful architectural experience. whether or not that jump happens at the same firm or at another firm, there is a jump.
that being said, there are people for whom it's just not that much of a priority or a benefit, and that's OK. recently i've gotten down off my soapbox about how we should all get licensed...now it's whatever works for you.
now THAT having been said, i was damn tired of calling myself a "designer" and i detested the term "intern". and, i now don't have to worry about future changes to the exams and IDP which will NEVER do anything but make the process either outright harder or harder by stealth.
Not to mention even if you pass the exams are you really ready to accept the risks? I talk with my boss about this all the time. He jokes they would never have started their firms in the 70's if they knew what they knew now about risk - but than again their lawyer contemporaries had'nt completley mutated yet either.
Before working, I thought I wanted to be called an architect before being licensed. Now when people refer to me as an architect, I remind them that I am not there yet and that I have a long way to go. Its almost insulting that people might think that being an architect is that easy. Back to topic...
Ideally, anyone that is ready and willing to take the AREs should be ready to take on the responsibilities as an architect. Not necessarily on the management, marketing or business end, but on the practice of architecture. I think there is a clear separation there. There are many talented people 30 or even younger that are capable of putting a great building together, but that doesn't mean they are able to be at the principal/partner level to manage an office/studio.
Ochona - I thought I was the only one that hated the "designer" term! I think over the years (media perhaps?) there was some kind of a connotation change in "designer." Everytime I hear it I think of a crazy flamboyant fashion designer with a fur coat and a little chihuahua. Maybe its just me...
opening an office before thirty would have this as a draw back...what about the clients - either they would have no repect for you as a professional or they wouldnt select you as their architect.
i see no draw backs in getting your liscence before thirty...more power to ya!
About a year ago NCARB announced plans to eventually let candidates start testing prior to completion of IDP (this is already allowed in 7 states). NCARB hasn't finalized how this will work. They've stated that two or three of the nine exams won't be allowed to be taken until after IDP is complete, but that the others can be taken concurrently. Most state boards are in agreement with this plan.
That should help a little bit with reducing the 7 1/2 year current average between graduation and licensing. I didn't finish much under that average. For me the most frustrating part was not the difficulty of completing IDP or of the exams themselves, but the wait times for all of the different "processing" and "verification".
It only took me 6 months to get through all 9 tests, but 15 months to get from the end of IDP until having a license in my hand. It's crazy that I could study for and take all those tests in less time than NCARB and the state board could get around to completing the 8 or 10 different stages of paperwork processing (and then after I was licensed it took 8 months to get an NCARB certificate so I could get reciprocity in another state.)
I think sometimes people think they can wait now because they'll get licensed someday when they need the license for something in particular. I have to caution against that because once you find you need the license - for a particular employment situation or project/client that comes along - it will be too late to get through the process in time. Even if you imagine doing all 9 tests in record time (reportedly about 2 weeks) you're still facing months of paperwork first to get to the point of being authorized to test and then possibly months afterward as well (depends somewhat on your state.)
no drawbacks. if you're looking to stamp drawings you probably don't have much to loose if you get sued. but if you're planning on staying in an office an eventually sign drawings, then the idea is great. the earlier you experience the hassle the better. but if you're thinking of working on your own, then you're probably too inexperienced for that. or not.
Licensed at 30
No sour, nor insecurity here - legit question. Have a lot to learn and thought to look to the master. To be honest, I was looking for a shortcut - choose 1 or 2 and head straight towards the bank. Perhaps the sum is greater than the parts?
I sense all sorts of grapes and chips (shoulder-type) and what not in this thread. Who's insecure? I forgot.
~steering back to thread~
if you can, get your license as soon as possible. i'm just saying it's not the end all in architecture. i spent a lot of time working in the uk before coming back to the states and that didn't allow for ARE testing, and that was fine. i'm working toward it now, but more so i can focus on developing full time.
just saying, if you define your career goals in different terms, than the time frame of getting your architecture license isn't going to limit you one way or the other.
oh, and buff-fill, for me the mup was more valuable (but more so for the value of the real estate classes taken concurrently)
Agreed, punky, that learning as much as possible on the job is valuable for young interns. And yes there are many many ways to structure an architecture career, not all of which require a license. But I still think if you have the B or M Arch you should just go ahead and get it.
And lest I sound hypocritical, I should come clean: I interned for a total of ten years (partly while in school) before I got licensed at age 37. I encourage people to just get the license, whatever age you are, and if you are younger, it may help your career advance.
I also agree with what Old Fogey said above, about us accepting a level of professionalism and seriousness that we would like the public to believe we have. My accountant, as we filed our corporate papers, advised us "Now that you are a corporation you have to act like a corporation." meaning to take our position and the commitment to professionalism seriously.
So I better stop posting on Archinect during the workday ;-)
say it ain't so, lb. i bet posting on archinect isn't unprofessional but instead the essence of professional behavior - though maybe usually related to a bigger corporation than yours.
don't behave too much like a corporation
your accountant should see or read this
thecorporation
in the field of architecture as it is typically practiced in the US, a license at a young age is worth at least five years of experience in terms of an increase in responsibility and salary. "a young age" meaning five years or less in meaningful architectural experience. whether or not that jump happens at the same firm or at another firm, there is a jump.
that being said, there are people for whom it's just not that much of a priority or a benefit, and that's OK. recently i've gotten down off my soapbox about how we should all get licensed...now it's whatever works for you.
now THAT having been said, i was damn tired of calling myself a "designer" and i detested the term "intern". and, i now don't have to worry about future changes to the exams and IDP which will NEVER do anything but make the process either outright harder or harder by stealth.
Not to mention even if you pass the exams are you really ready to accept the risks? I talk with my boss about this all the time. He jokes they would never have started their firms in the 70's if they knew what they knew now about risk - but than again their lawyer contemporaries had'nt completley mutated yet either.
im way pass 30 and aint even got my idp done yet. i did get the thrillin new issue of ncarb's direct connection today though.
Before working, I thought I wanted to be called an architect before being licensed. Now when people refer to me as an architect, I remind them that I am not there yet and that I have a long way to go. Its almost insulting that people might think that being an architect is that easy. Back to topic...
Ideally, anyone that is ready and willing to take the AREs should be ready to take on the responsibilities as an architect. Not necessarily on the management, marketing or business end, but on the practice of architecture. I think there is a clear separation there. There are many talented people 30 or even younger that are capable of putting a great building together, but that doesn't mean they are able to be at the principal/partner level to manage an office/studio.
Ochona - I thought I was the only one that hated the "designer" term! I think over the years (media perhaps?) there was some kind of a connotation change in "designer." Everytime I hear it I think of a crazy flamboyant fashion designer with a fur coat and a little chihuahua. Maybe its just me...
opening an office before thirty would have this as a draw back...what about the clients - either they would have no repect for you as a professional or they wouldnt select you as their architect.
i see no draw backs in getting your liscence before thirty...more power to ya!
About a year ago NCARB announced plans to eventually let candidates start testing prior to completion of IDP (this is already allowed in 7 states). NCARB hasn't finalized how this will work. They've stated that two or three of the nine exams won't be allowed to be taken until after IDP is complete, but that the others can be taken concurrently. Most state boards are in agreement with this plan.
That should help a little bit with reducing the 7 1/2 year current average between graduation and licensing. I didn't finish much under that average. For me the most frustrating part was not the difficulty of completing IDP or of the exams themselves, but the wait times for all of the different "processing" and "verification".
It only took me 6 months to get through all 9 tests, but 15 months to get from the end of IDP until having a license in my hand. It's crazy that I could study for and take all those tests in less time than NCARB and the state board could get around to completing the 8 or 10 different stages of paperwork processing (and then after I was licensed it took 8 months to get an NCARB certificate so I could get reciprocity in another state.)
I think sometimes people think they can wait now because they'll get licensed someday when they need the license for something in particular. I have to caution against that because once you find you need the license - for a particular employment situation or project/client that comes along - it will be too late to get through the process in time. Even if you imagine doing all 9 tests in record time (reportedly about 2 weeks) you're still facing months of paperwork first to get to the point of being authorized to test and then possibly months afterward as well (depends somewhat on your state.)
no drawbacks. if you're looking to stamp drawings you probably don't have much to loose if you get sued. but if you're planning on staying in an office an eventually sign drawings, then the idea is great. the earlier you experience the hassle the better. but if you're thinking of working on your own, then you're probably too inexperienced for that. or not.
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.