4-5 decades ago, those exams were paper & pencil exams, administered only ONE TIME A YEAR at the State Capitol not a local prometric center.
Just nit-picking here, but that's wrong. The pencil test was a 3 day long test offered twice a year in most States; It was not at the State Capitol, but a testing facility, usually a college. Fully proctored exam (as in security walking around logging you in and out for bathroom/lunch breaks). I had that option.
But I volunteered to test the new computerized system with a group of about 40 others nationally. That was '95. So I was the first to take the full ARE vignette style exam on the computer at a testing agency (they had rolled out the multiple choice a few months earlier on computer, but the design part was all new).
An 'oddball' is that I'm also one of the very few to get a full debrief after the exam by the test reviewers... they wanted to shake out the bugs in the system and the problems. They also liked me since I had taken the full practice exam, fully proctored, in the pencil/paper and knew the old system well.... my school did this as part of their senior graduating class of architects to help prep us for the real deal.
How do you force yourself to quit the money and do something enjoyable stimulating but starting from the bottom again? Getting real tired of doing my career path.
^ yeah, let's de-regulate doctors too while we're at it. And for God's sake, my Rikki knows more about lawing than most fucking attorneys, let's get rid of that too. Shit, get rid of police and dog catchers.
jla-x, as do architects and associated building professionals. I'm not a landscape architect so I don't know quite how I feel about them being licensed, but I can think of several instances where it could impact life, liberty, and public safety.
I don't know about you, but the plan review process here does not instill confidence in having that and codes as the only things ensuring buildings are built correctly. Also, I never met a small (or big) city code that didn't have at least some questionable things in it.
I can't wait to live in the theocratic feudalist state the right-wing is trying to create in this country. Fortunately public opinion is against them. Unfortunately, the political process has been so hijacked by them that everything but national elections are rigged in their favor.
Its (sic) not the states job to protect the comfortable monopoly afforded to certain trade groups.
I would argue that it's exactly the state's job to ensure competency in the trades. It's not a monopoly, that's hysterical language. Become a member of one of those trade groups and see how you feel about someone with zero training or experience comparing their abilities to yours.
No one is saying the license to be a cosmetologist is equal to the license to be a doctor. The entire notion is that there should be a verification process to determine whether someone else has the requisite training to be offering the kinds of services other people are paying for. If not a license, what do you suggest?
1- Non , if that's all you use your LA for, why are you using an LA? Call a horticulturalist or a turf specialist (just wondering).
2-LA is more than gardening in a manner that is akin to Arch being more than decoration. LA's never have to deal with safe, health and welfare, until the weak limbed plants that were specified injure someone, or damage the foundation of a structure- not to mention when the slope across a surface has been incorrectly designed and leads to soil failure (not to mention EIS's).
3- Why is it that when there are calls for eliminating licensure for architects because they aren't the code- but follow them- there's pushback, but when an complementary profession with a similar charge is threatened to be deregulated, the response is "meh?"
Become a member of one of those trade groups and see how you feel about someone with zero training or experience comparing their abilities to yours
See the link to the Louisianna monks building caskets I posted earlier (maybe the other thread) - No one commented on that- Simply, one trade interest using that monopoly to eliminate competition. I'm not saying this does or doesn't correlate to architecture. Just pointing out that this not "hysterical language"
Licensure isn't "restraining trade". In my case, it's ENHANCING trade! And anyone at all can do the same thing, if they do the same training that I did and continuing education that I do.
There's no scary licensing monster with its foot on your throat, jla-x. Just get your license, jeez.
Per the monks, I don't care to read the article but of course laws are used to thwart other people very unethically all the time. But we live in a society that offers redress if one wants to pursue it, and the amount of times the regulations are used poorly is minimal compared to the world we live in that has come about due to the times they have been used wisely.
The first bill on the list is an Arizona bill that would de-license landscape architecture practice, among other practices. So far it has the support of the house.
jla - i don't think it always needs to be about us vs. them or "red vs blue" but there are many people who don't think government has any place in people's lives and there are others who understand what good government can and should provide. Of course there is a spectrum here, but I don't think getting rid of professional licensure is practical. There is no way that every project could be reviewed in the kind of detail that would be necessary to enforce everything solely through codes and standards.
I understand what you are saying about "regulate the game, not the players," but we regulate the players so that we don't need as many refs keeping an eye on the game. I think in an ideal world, we would do what you are suggesting, but this isn't that.
The problem with the regulating the game vs. regulating the players argument is not the high barrier to entry. It's that quite often the players regulate the players. Hence Equity by Design/ missing 32%.
Or- the high barrier is all too often not a high barrier, but a glass ceiling.
Feb 19, 16 4:46 pm ·
·
mightyaa,
They were usually administered at the city that board will meeting as those exams were conduction in conjunction with the scheduled board meeting. In most states, it was only once a year. Some states, may have got it up to 2 to maybe 4 exams a year by the 1960s but it was typically once a year. A limited number was 2. Very rare over 2 times a year.
For the most part, there was no such thing as proctoring services administering the exams of licensing. This was conducted directly by the state itself. In those days, they hired a staff of examiners/graders to conduct the grading and when the grading is complete, it passed on to the board of examiners. Those who pass all the exams will then go before the board. Oregon still conducts part of that pre-ARE legacy to this day. Except we replaced the core architectural exams by NCARB's exams and that became less synchronized with a one or two time a year exam. Remember, the number of architects that got licensed a year is much lower than it is today. MUCH lower. It would take 40-50 years or so, give or take, to have 1000 licensed architects to have ever been licensed in Oregon. It's 1000th licensed architect was in around 1966-67.
There was also a cap on how many can take the exam as there were a limit on the number of seats. These little measure, were effective at controlling the number of licensees.
I've known architects who were licensed in those times. NCARB's policies since those days, increased the number of architects going through licensing each year. The fact that you can retake failed sections in less than 6 months, now. The fact that you can take the exams in more locations, and have several times a year that the exam is administered, you can pretty much increase your chances of passing the exam within one year.
More people can take the exam at their convenience. The more can possibly pass the exams and be licensed. This is how we increase the number of licensees. Add to that, the number of NAAB accredited architecture programs have increased. The fact that we can license over 250 architects even in Oregon. Illinois is ~3.5x larger than Oregon by population (due to Chicago).
I'm not talking about the paper & pencil ARE exam that was administered by Prometric up until they started doing the computerized examination. I'm talking PRE-ARE exams. They were paper & pencil exams. The first NCARB national exam was modeled off the state architectural exams. The ARE was modeled after that with modifications.
State government & licensing didn't really get into using private sector testing centers. They may use a college. Sometimes, the board may meet once or twice a year at a University campus and they utilized the physical and human resources of the state employees. They would rather pay staff at a public state university to help in the grading and proctoring administration than to use a private entity as the money flows within the state.
There was a significant separation of public and private sector. Especially in the public / political side of things. Public and private co-mingling was kind of looked down upon. While the views were shifing over the decades of the 1900s/1910s/1920s to the 1960s and 1970s and afterwards. Political culture at the time.
but we don't all go around claiming to be scientists.
not all of us, but there are a too many climate-change deniers claiming to be 'scientists' without having the requisite qualifications. same with various sorts of creationists or pro-lifers or todd akin who said women can't become pregnant if they're raped because that's not how science works. perhaps 'scientist' should be a more closely regulated title?
without reading all of the above post, did RB just tell someone who took the are how the are works?
Feb 19, 16 5:18 pm ·
·
Donna,
It isn't the state's job to ensure competence in every occupation. It is only to ensure competence if there is a serious and documented risk of physical harm to health, safety and welfare of people.
Aside from that, it is the role of CERTIFICATION entities to distinguish competence and quality. That is what self-regulation of the profession is. A profession self-regulates and demonstrates to the public a distinction of quality and competence through certification.
NCBDC is one example. If NCBDC and AIA worked together on certification levels, we can probably self-regulate without so much state licensure. While states may still have some state regulations and oversight.
That's something else but an option if one ever took it seriously.
Feb 19, 16 5:21 pm ·
·
Sorry, unless Mightyaa is like 65+ years old and took exams back in 1965 or earlier, I think he is confusing the paper & pencil ARE with the paper & pencil exams that I am talking about.
I've known architects who took the exams in 1967, and also earlier such as architects who took the exams back in the late-1930s/1940s. These architects have passed but they were licensed well before the ARE even existed.
The whole administration and proctoring process is different then the ARE even the paper & pencil examination of the ARE in the 1980s. We are talking about a shift towards private-sector proctoring services versus state government operated proctoring.
I am aware of how the ARE works and how NCARB does the proctoring process. That's public knowledge. I was talking about pre-ARE. You should pay attention to what I mean.
He commented on what I said. I was talking about pre-ARE when states did their own architectural licensing exams. This is what Illinois would be effectively going back to if they are removed from NCARB.
Feb 19, 16 5:32 pm ·
·
Lets not circulate too much over semantics of the above points. I don't disagree with mightyaa about how the ARE itself was in the paper & pencil days. I am talking about pre-ARE so I'm not interested in circling over that and try to catch up on the topic flow which is now more on license vs deregulation.
architects aren't the only ones on state boards, that would be too easy. if we de-regulated architecture, as a profession, that wouldn't necessarily improve, or get rid of barriers.
Sorry, tint, I skipped over your first comment. The proposal to de-license engineers didn't move forward. It was in the first draft of the committee's recommendations, but then the whole initiative was tabled when the governor saw how angry people -especially cosmetologists - were getting. It may rear its ugly head again in the next legislative session; as s friend of mine said it's an idea that's "too dumb to die".
Feb 19, 16 7:00 pm ·
·
I'm going to have to do more work in Portland, Oregon.... lol !!!! Yet, live in Astoria..... LOL!
Carrera, you mean the mob? even a good mafioso knows he needs an engineer to calculate beams and shit.
Feb 19, 16 8:12 pm ·
·
Ironic that we got into all this after a topic regarding Illinois and possible removal from NCARB.
I am not sure if its good or bad but I know some people are going to be pissed in deregulation and in loss of NCARB membership by Illinois and potentially others. If the profession deregulates then what the hell....
design/build is what we should be doing anyway......the Germans practice very close
Feb 19, 16 8:28 pm ·
·
ivorykeyboard,
I have to reason and assume you are a member of that board because I wouldn't imagine the licensing board handing that letter out to the public. They would naturally want to keep that to themselves.
Feb 19, 16 8:55 pm ·
·
Whose going to fine the Illinois Architect Board if they lose membership with NCARB. It's a statutory requirement.
They send these letters every year to whichever states are in the midst of budget freezes. The delinquent states pay up or make arrangements to and the threatened resolutions don't go to a vote - if they're even drafted. It's just a collection tactic.
Feb 19, 16 9:41 pm ·
·
Okay. Thanks Sponty. I would have thought they be nicer and gentler in their way of speaking.
NCARB... NCARB.....
I think it will just return to normal as soon as the politicians get their head out of their asses long enough to get their house in order and get the damn budget taken care of.
In the mean time, the licensing board should work off their fees they collect from fines they levy, the various fees from the applicants and registrants. The $11,000 would be covered pretty quickly. Once state reinstates funds coming in, they should then use the money to cover what otherwise would have been covered and work out the matters. It's messy but it works out.
Rick the "going before the board" part of Oregon's process these days isn't a test. It's just a group info session for all the current candidates, where the board congratulates them, explains the continuing ed requirements and the alternate-year dues, how to keep up with the statutes, and how to register a firm. That's about it. There's one of those sessions in each of the board meetings - it's allotted about a half hour. Or did you mean that multiple choice/true false open book online quiz of the state regulations?
As for testing in pre-ARE days: everyone's experiences were different depending on the state and the year. The "old architects" I know who tested in the 50s and 60s mostly tested in a warehouse in lower Manhattan - even those who were testing in order to get their licenses in CT or NJ. There are photos of those tests - there were easily several hundred candidates and the proctors were mostly women, so not likely that they were board members - more likely just temps.
Feb 20, 16 12:45 am ·
·
eeayeeayo,
Yes, true... but the process is morphed a little bit. They used to still pepper one with little questions but I can see that.
In Oregon, we have the jurispudence exam about the laws. Easy test. I could pass it. I know but I can explain that later. As for the oral interview, that process has certainly morphed over the years with less questioning about the moral character and the "what would you do" scenario questions to judge moral character. Given the legal culture and point of views on the legal justification of that. However, 50 years ago, they did that more. They were doing that from 1919 into the 1960s.
The oral interview is still there out of legacy but I believe you in what you said. They used to ask questions under various scenarios as a measure of moral & ethical character but since that time, asking those kinds of questions had became more difficult to legally justify as it becomes less quantifiable. Having the oral interview came out of that legacy.
That was I meant there.
I agree that they had used various temporary workers and state staff used to proctor exams like CAT test or the Iowa tests in schools to aid when they needed the extra hands to hand out the exams to the candidates. They had graders as well. They had some architects temporarily serving to grade the design portion.
Yes, the board members themselves did NOT physically administered the exams but they scheduled the exams during the week in which the board will meet and coordinated the schedule that way. The location of the exams were usually close. Now, the east coast in the eastern seaboard / new york/NJ area would have made sense to have a centralized testing in an area within close proximity.
In that situation, due to the close proximity, it was centrally located and inter-state administering of the exam and sometimes the exam was literally the same because New Jersey, Conneticut and New York used a common core architectural exam that was the de facto exam used in the immediate region.
I would agree with you on that.
What I was getting at is state licensing boards in those days didn't use private proctoring companies like Prometric. It was a different beast.
Feb 20, 16 2:31 am ·
·
eeayo,
Apologize if the above is rough and off. Just happens when one gets a little tired and exhausted but yeah. I think I agree with your points as well.
I watched David Cronenberg's Maps To The Stars last night. Not a great movie at all, but really great performances throughout. Every character is loathsome and wonderful. Pretty sick movie, overall! Also lots of brief views of California MCM architecture throughout.
Rick I"m licensed in Oregon, I took the jurisprudence exam - that's what I was referring to as an open book multiple choice/true false computer quiz. Of course you could pass it - so could most third graders. It's just to verify that you've looked at the regulations. I can't imagine anyone ever failing.
As for "rough and off" - why do you feel compelled to write about things when you know you might be rough and off? When you don't know what you're talking about or don't have time to get it right, don't write.
Feb 20, 16 4:11 pm ·
·
Ok. I was writing it initially about the processes initially, it was meant to be general. We will find variations. It is absolutely impossible to write about all the little variables in the past. Even in Oregon when it isn't documented and verifiable.
Thinking about these past issues, I don't think anyone can really 'get it right' because there is too many informational gaps, variability, etc. What we know only is an abstract. You'll agree with that.
Looking back on Illinois practice where this topic began, if they lost NCARB membership (unlikely), they would be forced back to administering their own exam. That is something Illinois hadn't done in a very long time.
When Oregon was administering their exams before there was the ARE or NCARB's first national exam, Oregon board through temporary staffing administered the exams. They had the jurispudence exam and the oral interview. Back in the 1960s and earlier, the oral interview was administered more as a test of moral character, ethics, etc. There wasn't formal questions but how you answer those questions can ultimately effect whether or not the board agrees to issue the license or to deny licensure.
These days, they don't do that so much. For one, legal justification standards. The other is, there is far more candidates for licensure or applicants for licensure than it was. There are more licensed architects in Oregon, today, than there was all the licensed architects from 1919 to 1967 combined. Oregon licenses about 30-100 or so new architects (not including reciprocity or renewal but in-state new architects by exams) a year. Add reciprocity and the role of enforcing and less on actually doing examining... I think the board's focus has changed somewhat from how it was pre-ARE era.
It was rough and little off because I was tired at the time but that's just an excuse.
Re-circle back, I apologize and should do better. We are often compelled to converse on the forum. I suppose, life does kind of suck when you are a sole-practitioner all alone without the professional colleagues near by as part of the profession.
If you don't mind, would you PM me to know who you are. I don't mind getting to know who I am talking to and a little about what they do.
I promise not to disclose your identity on the public forum unless you do so yourself.
Really compelling work, of course, but they guy was so different from other architects in temperment which made it a real pleasure. Slightly self-effacing, humble, and not caught up in graphics or archi-speak jargon but still incredibly intelligent and focused on the users of his buildings and cultures they are inserted into more than any architect I can currently think of.
Rick, I am hesitant to even engage with you at all for fear of triggering a 1000-word response that clogs up TC, but I will pass this great advice on to you that I was given when I was around 15.
John Wayne's advice on how to comport yourself in public discussion, vis-a-vis my crazy uncle: "Talk low, talk slow, don't talk too much."
Feb 20, 16 6:36 pm ·
·
Ok, archanonymous.... but remember this is a forum. Talk is all any person does on a web forum. Well.... actually, it's writing but the same point.
Can somebody help me understand something – Visited the Abercrombie & Fitch headquarters in Columbus, Ohio, was jaw dropping (to me)…done by an obscure firm (to me) (Anderson Architects, NY) that went from doing shoe stores & winery barns (albeit good) to a $130 Million headquarters building then back to shoe stores? How does that happen?
Just studying the phenomenon…following De Leon & Primmer Architecture Workshop, same run-up, barns…Roberto de Leon just made FAIA and is ripe for the same breakout, but wonder.
Anybody know anything about Anderson Architects? His website is my first clue, looking for others.
Thread Central
Donna, is there still a requirement for a structural stamp for building plans?
4-5 decades ago, those exams were paper & pencil exams, administered only ONE TIME A YEAR at the State Capitol not a local prometric center.
Just nit-picking here, but that's wrong. The pencil test was a 3 day long test offered twice a year in most States; It was not at the State Capitol, but a testing facility, usually a college. Fully proctored exam (as in security walking around logging you in and out for bathroom/lunch breaks). I had that option.
But I volunteered to test the new computerized system with a group of about 40 others nationally. That was '95. So I was the first to take the full ARE vignette style exam on the computer at a testing agency (they had rolled out the multiple choice a few months earlier on computer, but the design part was all new).
An 'oddball' is that I'm also one of the very few to get a full debrief after the exam by the test reviewers... they wanted to shake out the bugs in the system and the problems. They also liked me since I had taken the full practice exam, fully proctored, in the pencil/paper and knew the old system well.... my school did this as part of their senior graduating class of architects to help prep us for the real deal.
How do you force yourself to quit the money and do something enjoyable stimulating but starting from the bottom again? Getting real tired of doing my career path.
jla-x, as do architects and associated building professionals. I'm not a landscape architect so I don't know quite how I feel about them being licensed, but I can think of several instances where it could impact life, liberty, and public safety.
I don't know about you, but the plan review process here does not instill confidence in having that and codes as the only things ensuring buildings are built correctly. Also, I never met a small (or big) city code that didn't have at least some questionable things in it.
I can't wait to live in the theocratic feudalist state the right-wing is trying to create in this country. Fortunately public opinion is against them. Unfortunately, the political process has been so hijacked by them that everything but national elections are rigged in their favor.
I rely on my landscape architect to specify low-flammable plants for vegetated roof tops. That seems to have a little life-safety in it.
Its (sic) not the states job to protect the comfortable monopoly afforded to certain trade groups.
I would argue that it's exactly the state's job to ensure competency in the trades. It's not a monopoly, that's hysterical language. Become a member of one of those trade groups and see how you feel about someone with zero training or experience comparing their abilities to yours.
No one is saying the license to be a cosmetologist is equal to the license to be a doctor. The entire notion is that there should be a verification process to determine whether someone else has the requisite training to be offering the kinds of services other people are paying for. If not a license, what do you suggest?
Few points-
1- Non , if that's all you use your LA for, why are you using an LA? Call a horticulturalist or a turf specialist (just wondering).
2-LA is more than gardening in a manner that is akin to Arch being more than decoration. LA's never have to deal with safe, health and welfare, until the weak limbed plants that were specified injure someone, or damage the foundation of a structure- not to mention when the slope across a surface has been incorrectly designed and leads to soil failure (not to mention EIS's).
3- Why is it that when there are calls for eliminating licensure for architects because they aren't the code- but follow them- there's pushback, but when an complementary profession with a similar charge is threatened to be deregulated, the response is "meh?"
Become a member of one of those trade groups and see how you feel about someone with zero training or experience comparing their abilities to yours
See the link to the Louisianna monks building caskets I posted earlier (maybe the other thread) - No one commented on that- Simply, one trade interest using that monopoly to eliminate competition. I'm not saying this does or doesn't correlate to architecture. Just pointing out that this not "hysterical language"
Licensure isn't "restraining trade". In my case, it's ENHANCING trade! And anyone at all can do the same thing, if they do the same training that I did and continuing education that I do.
There's no scary licensing monster with its foot on your throat, jla-x. Just get your license, jeez.
Per the monks, I don't care to read the article but of course laws are used to thwart other people very unethically all the time. But we live in a society that offers redress if one wants to pursue it, and the amount of times the regulations are used poorly is minimal compared to the world we live in that has come about due to the times they have been used wisely.
De-regulation is key
You don't need a license to be a structural engineer anymore in Indiana, but do you still need a stamp?
I think engineers do train each other really well. Thereisalessonintheresomewhere.
Yes Donna,
B3tadine's words were funny as hell but try to keep composure you know.
I come to like that about b3tadine(sutures).
Saw this via my ASCE feed:
http://www.azleg.gov/SearchResults.asp?SearchedFrom=%2FBills.asp&Scope=%2Flegtext%2F52leg%2F2R&SearchPhrase=geologists&x=0&y=0
The first bill on the list is an Arizona bill that would de-license landscape architecture practice, among other practices. So far it has the support of the house.
jla - i don't think it always needs to be about us vs. them or "red vs blue" but there are many people who don't think government has any place in people's lives and there are others who understand what good government can and should provide. Of course there is a spectrum here, but I don't think getting rid of professional licensure is practical. There is no way that every project could be reviewed in the kind of detail that would be necessary to enforce everything solely through codes and standards.
I understand what you are saying about "regulate the game, not the players," but we regulate the players so that we don't need as many refs keeping an eye on the game. I think in an ideal world, we would do what you are suggesting, but this isn't that.
Whoops, should've read the thread first... Donna beat me to the punch!
The problem with the regulating the game vs. regulating the players argument is not the high barrier to entry. It's that quite often the players regulate the players. Hence Equity by Design/ missing 32%.
Or- the high barrier is all too often not a high barrier, but a glass ceiling.
mightyaa,
They were usually administered at the city that board will meeting as those exams were conduction in conjunction with the scheduled board meeting. In most states, it was only once a year. Some states, may have got it up to 2 to maybe 4 exams a year by the 1960s but it was typically once a year. A limited number was 2. Very rare over 2 times a year.
For the most part, there was no such thing as proctoring services administering the exams of licensing. This was conducted directly by the state itself. In those days, they hired a staff of examiners/graders to conduct the grading and when the grading is complete, it passed on to the board of examiners. Those who pass all the exams will then go before the board. Oregon still conducts part of that pre-ARE legacy to this day. Except we replaced the core architectural exams by NCARB's exams and that became less synchronized with a one or two time a year exam. Remember, the number of architects that got licensed a year is much lower than it is today. MUCH lower. It would take 40-50 years or so, give or take, to have 1000 licensed architects to have ever been licensed in Oregon. It's 1000th licensed architect was in around 1966-67.
There was also a cap on how many can take the exam as there were a limit on the number of seats. These little measure, were effective at controlling the number of licensees.
I've known architects who were licensed in those times. NCARB's policies since those days, increased the number of architects going through licensing each year. The fact that you can retake failed sections in less than 6 months, now. The fact that you can take the exams in more locations, and have several times a year that the exam is administered, you can pretty much increase your chances of passing the exam within one year.
More people can take the exam at their convenience. The more can possibly pass the exams and be licensed. This is how we increase the number of licensees. Add to that, the number of NAAB accredited architecture programs have increased. The fact that we can license over 250 architects even in Oregon. Illinois is ~3.5x larger than Oregon by population (due to Chicago).
I'm not talking about the paper & pencil ARE exam that was administered by Prometric up until they started doing the computerized examination. I'm talking PRE-ARE exams. They were paper & pencil exams. The first NCARB national exam was modeled off the state architectural exams. The ARE was modeled after that with modifications.
State government & licensing didn't really get into using private sector testing centers. They may use a college. Sometimes, the board may meet once or twice a year at a University campus and they utilized the physical and human resources of the state employees. They would rather pay staff at a public state university to help in the grading and proctoring administration than to use a private entity as the money flows within the state.
There was a significant separation of public and private sector. Especially in the public / political side of things. Public and private co-mingling was kind of looked down upon. While the views were shifing over the decades of the 1900s/1910s/1920s to the 1960s and 1970s and afterwards. Political culture at the time.
but we don't all go around claiming to be scientists.
not all of us, but there are a too many climate-change deniers claiming to be 'scientists' without having the requisite qualifications. same with various sorts of creationists or pro-lifers or todd akin who said women can't become pregnant if they're raped because that's not how science works. perhaps 'scientist' should be a more closely regulated title?
without reading all of the above post, did RB just tell someone who took the are how the are works?
Donna,
It isn't the state's job to ensure competence in every occupation. It is only to ensure competence if there is a serious and documented risk of physical harm to health, safety and welfare of people.
Aside from that, it is the role of CERTIFICATION entities to distinguish competence and quality. That is what self-regulation of the profession is. A profession self-regulates and demonstrates to the public a distinction of quality and competence through certification.
NCBDC is one example. If NCBDC and AIA worked together on certification levels, we can probably self-regulate without so much state licensure. While states may still have some state regulations and oversight.
That's something else but an option if one ever took it seriously.
Sorry, unless Mightyaa is like 65+ years old and took exams back in 1965 or earlier, I think he is confusing the paper & pencil ARE with the paper & pencil exams that I am talking about.
I've known architects who took the exams in 1967, and also earlier such as architects who took the exams back in the late-1930s/1940s. These architects have passed but they were licensed well before the ARE even existed.
The whole administration and proctoring process is different then the ARE even the paper & pencil examination of the ARE in the 1980s. We are talking about a shift towards private-sector proctoring services versus state government operated proctoring.
I am aware of how the ARE works and how NCARB does the proctoring process. That's public knowledge. I was talking about pre-ARE. You should pay attention to what I mean.
He commented on what I said. I was talking about pre-ARE when states did their own architectural licensing exams. This is what Illinois would be effectively going back to if they are removed from NCARB.
Lets not circulate too much over semantics of the above points. I don't disagree with mightyaa about how the ARE itself was in the paper & pencil days. I am talking about pre-ARE so I'm not interested in circling over that and try to catch up on the topic flow which is now more on license vs deregulation.
architects aren't the only ones on state boards, that would be too easy. if we de-regulated architecture, as a profession, that wouldn't necessarily improve, or get rid of barriers.
I'm going to have to do more work in Portland, Oregon.... lol !!!! Yet, live in Astoria..... LOL!
Moment of tangent complete.
Would bet that the GC lobby is behind the deregulation of architects & engineers….would be the death knell for both.
Carrera, you mean the mob? even a good mafioso knows he needs an engineer to calculate beams and shit.
Ironic that we got into all this after a topic regarding Illinois and possible removal from NCARB.
I am not sure if its good or bad but I know some people are going to be pissed in deregulation and in loss of NCARB membership by Illinois and potentially others. If the profession deregulates then what the hell....
^ No I mean design/build....once contractors pull that off then 98% of architects will end up in GC workstations....
design/build is what we should be doing anyway......the Germans practice very close
ivorykeyboard,
I have to reason and assume you are a member of that board because I wouldn't imagine the licensing board handing that letter out to the public. They would naturally want to keep that to themselves.
Whose going to fine the Illinois Architect Board if they lose membership with NCARB. It's a statutory requirement.
Hmmm.....
They send these letters every year to whichever states are in the midst of budget freezes. The delinquent states pay up or make arrangements to and the threatened resolutions don't go to a vote - if they're even drafted. It's just a collection tactic.
Okay. Thanks Sponty. I would have thought they be nicer and gentler in their way of speaking.
NCARB... NCARB.....
I think it will just return to normal as soon as the politicians get their head out of their asses long enough to get their house in order and get the damn budget taken care of.
In the mean time, the licensing board should work off their fees they collect from fines they levy, the various fees from the applicants and registrants. The $11,000 would be covered pretty quickly. Once state reinstates funds coming in, they should then use the money to cover what otherwise would have been covered and work out the matters. It's messy but it works out.
Rick the "going before the board" part of Oregon's process these days isn't a test. It's just a group info session for all the current candidates, where the board congratulates them, explains the continuing ed requirements and the alternate-year dues, how to keep up with the statutes, and how to register a firm. That's about it. There's one of those sessions in each of the board meetings - it's allotted about a half hour. Or did you mean that multiple choice/true false open book online quiz of the state regulations?
As for testing in pre-ARE days: everyone's experiences were different depending on the state and the year. The "old architects" I know who tested in the 50s and 60s mostly tested in a warehouse in lower Manhattan - even those who were testing in order to get their licenses in CT or NJ. There are photos of those tests - there were easily several hundred candidates and the proctors were mostly women, so not likely that they were board members - more likely just temps.
eeayeeayo,
Yes, true... but the process is morphed a little bit. They used to still pepper one with little questions but I can see that.
In Oregon, we have the jurispudence exam about the laws. Easy test. I could pass it. I know but I can explain that later. As for the oral interview, that process has certainly morphed over the years with less questioning about the moral character and the "what would you do" scenario questions to judge moral character. Given the legal culture and point of views on the legal justification of that. However, 50 years ago, they did that more. They were doing that from 1919 into the 1960s.
The oral interview is still there out of legacy but I believe you in what you said. They used to ask questions under various scenarios as a measure of moral & ethical character but since that time, asking those kinds of questions had became more difficult to legally justify as it becomes less quantifiable. Having the oral interview came out of that legacy.
That was I meant there.
I agree that they had used various temporary workers and state staff used to proctor exams like CAT test or the Iowa tests in schools to aid when they needed the extra hands to hand out the exams to the candidates. They had graders as well. They had some architects temporarily serving to grade the design portion.
Yes, the board members themselves did NOT physically administered the exams but they scheduled the exams during the week in which the board will meet and coordinated the schedule that way. The location of the exams were usually close. Now, the east coast in the eastern seaboard / new york/NJ area would have made sense to have a centralized testing in an area within close proximity.
In that situation, due to the close proximity, it was centrally located and inter-state administering of the exam and sometimes the exam was literally the same because New Jersey, Conneticut and New York used a common core architectural exam that was the de facto exam used in the immediate region.
I would agree with you on that.
What I was getting at is state licensing boards in those days didn't use private proctoring companies like Prometric. It was a different beast.
eeayo,
Apologize if the above is rough and off. Just happens when one gets a little tired and exhausted but yeah. I think I agree with your points as well.
^curt, there are also 1000 or so licensed architect 911 truthers...
that is not something to be proud of. maybe they can add a question to the are.. 'are you a 911 truther?' if you answer 'yes,' you're out.
so I avoided the TC bar last night, all this talk about licensure and architecture, real buzz kill
I watched David Cronenberg's Maps To The Stars last night. Not a great movie at all, but really great performances throughout. Every character is loathsome and wonderful. Pretty sick movie, overall! Also lots of brief views of California MCM architecture throughout.
what's with all the stock photos of architects and hard-hats? And ties? makes me angry.
Rick I"m licensed in Oregon, I took the jurisprudence exam - that's what I was referring to as an open book multiple choice/true false computer quiz. Of course you could pass it - so could most third graders. It's just to verify that you've looked at the regulations. I can't imagine anyone ever failing.
As for "rough and off" - why do you feel compelled to write about things when you know you might be rough and off? When you don't know what you're talking about or don't have time to get it right, don't write.
Ok. I was writing it initially about the processes initially, it was meant to be general. We will find variations. It is absolutely impossible to write about all the little variables in the past. Even in Oregon when it isn't documented and verifiable.
Thinking about these past issues, I don't think anyone can really 'get it right' because there is too many informational gaps, variability, etc. What we know only is an abstract. You'll agree with that.
Looking back on Illinois practice where this topic began, if they lost NCARB membership (unlikely), they would be forced back to administering their own exam. That is something Illinois hadn't done in a very long time.
When Oregon was administering their exams before there was the ARE or NCARB's first national exam, Oregon board through temporary staffing administered the exams. They had the jurispudence exam and the oral interview. Back in the 1960s and earlier, the oral interview was administered more as a test of moral character, ethics, etc. There wasn't formal questions but how you answer those questions can ultimately effect whether or not the board agrees to issue the license or to deny licensure.
These days, they don't do that so much. For one, legal justification standards. The other is, there is far more candidates for licensure or applicants for licensure than it was. There are more licensed architects in Oregon, today, than there was all the licensed architects from 1919 to 1967 combined. Oregon licenses about 30-100 or so new architects (not including reciprocity or renewal but in-state new architects by exams) a year. Add reciprocity and the role of enforcing and less on actually doing examining... I think the board's focus has changed somewhat from how it was pre-ARE era.
It was rough and little off because I was tired at the time but that's just an excuse.
Re-circle back, I apologize and should do better. We are often compelled to converse on the forum. I suppose, life does kind of suck when you are a sole-practitioner all alone without the professional colleagues near by as part of the profession.
If you don't mind, would you PM me to know who you are. I don't mind getting to know who I am talking to and a little about what they do.
I promise not to disclose your identity on the public forum unless you do so yourself.
I saw Craig Dykers of Snohetta speak last night.
Really compelling work, of course, but they guy was so different from other architects in temperment which made it a real pleasure. Slightly self-effacing, humble, and not caught up in graphics or archi-speak jargon but still incredibly intelligent and focused on the users of his buildings and cultures they are inserted into more than any architect I can currently think of.
Rick, I am hesitant to even engage with you at all for fear of triggering a 1000-word response that clogs up TC, but I will pass this great advice on to you that I was given when I was around 15.
John Wayne's advice on how to comport yourself in public discussion, vis-a-vis my crazy uncle: "Talk low, talk slow, don't talk too much."
Ok, archanonymous.... but remember this is a forum. Talk is all any person does on a web forum. Well.... actually, it's writing but the same point.
Can somebody help me understand something – Visited the Abercrombie & Fitch headquarters in Columbus, Ohio, was jaw dropping (to me)…done by an obscure firm (to me) (Anderson Architects, NY) that went from doing shoe stores & winery barns (albeit good) to a $130 Million headquarters building then back to shoe stores? How does that happen?
Just studying the phenomenon…following De Leon & Primmer Architecture Workshop, same run-up, barns…Roberto de Leon just made FAIA and is ripe for the same breakout, but wonder.
Anybody know anything about Anderson Architects? His website is my first clue, looking for others.
http://www.andersonarch.com/
http://www.andersonarch.com/projects
I kind of feel like the project list builds up to it, or maybe that's how it works in NYC?
You do all this random shit until someone gives you the big one...that's kind of what I've seen in NYC.
^ but nothing since, is my question, AF was 15 years ago.
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.