Stop accepting the title intern. NCARB cannot force you to accept the title intern. You do not have to submit to this nonsense. Call yourselves something else whatever you want, but not intern it's bad for us all.
@jlarch: I am curious, what prompted this? My understanding is that if you are not registered, you are either a Designer or an Intern. There is, generally, a huge difference between an Intern Architect and an Architectural Intern -- are you talking about the latter?
What's so wrong with being called an intern? I too was an intern for 6 years after graduating,
until I grew tired of the title and gained another title.....Architect.
Unfortunately, I have been called far worse names and titles in my life than Intern.
Doctors are called interns, lawyers aren't, engineers are called eit (engineers in training)
so we are not alone.
AsnSoon as you get sick enough of that title, hopefully you can loose it. And for all of the people over 40 with 15 plus years of architectural experience that cannot pass the test for whatever reason ( financial, never finished college, received a non professional Architecture degree, or became a parent too early/ other family issues, or ADD) I consider you to be an
architect albeit unlicensed one.
we need a more empowering title for new commers, thats all I'm saying. Young energy is important. I guess I was inspired by the "working out of the box" series. I think a more telling title for non-registrants would empower them to become entrepreneurs. We need to diversify the profession and allow for non-traditional "architects" to have some way of expressing who they are to the public. I am not implying a state sanctioned title, but rather a new informal title for architectural designers. I feel that the current system is set up to encourage traditional practice, and does not support people "working outside the box."
I do wish we had better titles. I work outside of traditional practice, and usually have to explain a bit to engineers and/or other non-architects that 'intern' means 'actual billable staff' and not 'coffee-getter'.
For now, I change what I call myself depending on who I'm talking to. Architects understand 'intern', but not everyone else does, so I use the term 'architectural designer' or 'architectural professional' to describe myself (NB: different from 'professional architect'). This is mostly for conversation, however; my resume says 'intern architect' because that was my official title; if they're unfamiliar with the title and ask, I explain that it's a pre-licensure state for architects.
Nowadays, I'm just a 'consultant' anyways. I suppose I could call myself an architect once I've finished out the license, but the title might not reflect that.
How about calling us unlicensed folk "Architects", and call the licensed guys "Licensed Architects"? Similar to Registered Nurse or Registered Structural Engineer?
An interesting question - what if I am an Architect in another country, but not in the US, and I live in the US?
you can't sue a code, or a code reviewer, you can however sue an architect. as for protecting the public crap; health, safety and welfare, that's what architects are responsible for.
now, as for titles, Architect is reserved for licensed professionals, and for whatever you decide to tell grandma what it is you do for a living/non-living. i do however believe that non-licensed professionals should be allowed to operate in a grey area that would satisfy your need for titles. at the same time, let me ask you this, what is it that you get with a title? is it so that you can tell your non-architect friends something that sounds slightly more intriguing than garbage collector? i labored under some of the same quandaries you guys/gals did, but then i figured designer sounded cooler anyway, and i went with that. if you like tilting at windmills, and think title will satisfy you more than getting some self respect, and not working for free, then have at it Man of La Mancha.
I never really understood what the big deal was. What do I tell my friends i do when they ask? I say i am an architect, I dont say I am an architectural intern who is 4/7 of the way to my license. If it gets into that much detail in a conversation, I explain it.
If its a business setting, as long as you arent presenting yourself in a manner that implies you are something that you are not, I dont see the big deal. Do engineers in training always refer to themselves that way? I dont think so. My colleagues just refer to themselves as a structural engineer.
I always view it as what level of context is it
If its something generic, where it is mainly to just describe yourself to someone who knows nothing about you, or someone who is not a work related contact, just tell them you are an architect.
If it is a business contact, who you are discussing a project, as long as its made clear your position at the beginning, you say it once, but then for the duration of the project, why go into such detail every time it comes up? Every project i have been working on during construction, I have been refered to as the architect, as i am representing/ part of the architectural team.
Titles only seem to matter on your email signature, and even then, really is it a big deal? If you dont like the title "intern", dont use it
look, either being an Architect means something, or it doesn't. if your 5+ years of education, the untold hours of work, and ridiculous amount of debt is worth a title, then have at it. i now deem you, Architect. now finish those red-lines i gave you last friday, Architect!
We're supposed to be EIT (it's the only initials we can put until PE, other than professional memberships and other certifications)... every time I have to explain what it stands for, I feel like I'm wearing diapers. Engineered diapers, but still. I'd stay away from pushing for AIT.
All we want is a fair process where we do not have to rely on others to get our licence.
How do you propose this being possible though? I think an architects' license, perhaps more than engineers license, needs the experience factor to help its value.
That being said though, I do agree that there needs to be something done to help offset economic situations like this. I think taking the exams before the IDP hours are filled is one way to help. I am not sure of the buffer time frame you are given then, say you finish your exams right away and then have to complete all your IDP. How long before your exam results are void I wonder
Make the exams harder and get rid of IDP. There is no experiance requirement in many countries like Germany. They do OK without it. Most people are going to get experiance anyway before they go off on their own. Why mandate it.
Part of what a licensed architect in the US represents is someone with a base level of knowledge (passing the exams) and experience (X number of hours working in the industry).
Taking away half of that and just saying that they passed harder exams changes what the license means. And not necessarily in a negative way or anything, just that it changes it.
What is the reason for it, beyond there currently being a tough economy
The reason is that without any experiance No One will hire. People either have to move to find work or are forced to take non-architecture jobs and give up. Not everyone can move around for internships, and the current system favors younger people from wealthy families who have some form of financial support. Without such support and without any significant experiance many graduates are left in the dust with no alternative but to either give up, or to get freelance design work. The later is great, however there is no way for a self employed person to satisfy the experiance requirements. The current path to licence is very ridgid. It is also, in my opinion, a form of class discrimination. If you have kids there is no way one can move to NY or Cali to chase "internships." Also, the system assumes that all graduates are created equal, and does not consider ones past experiances such as running businesses, construction, etc. IDP is a glass ceiling for so many people. It is also a burden for firms. The responsibility to get a licence should be 100% in the hands of the person seeking the licence. This is how it is in law. Many people that I have talked to feel that their career is being stalled by forces that are external. Also, I think if we got rid of the experiance requirement the field would benefit greatly by the increase in practicioners from more diverse backgrounds.
If one feels like they are capable of starting a practice with no experiance, then so be it, but most people won't anyway. "Protecting the public" The codes and inspections do this anyway. I could not build something that is a danger to the public, because I would not get a permit to build it. The idea that the licence is there to protect is then a redundent protection that has really no purpose other than to monopolize and institutionalize the industry. If this is the case, then it is also unconstitutional. Interior design licensure was ruled to be unconstitutional in the state of alabama because of this reason. We should leave a persons career path to their own merit. If it was this way then no one would be able to complain. I am all for strengthening building regulations and codes if they make sense. But regulating individuals is not productive. There are many ways to become a chef. This does not hurt the quality of food. There are still great chefs out there. Some still take the traditional route despite the fact that they do not have to by law.
The reason is that without any experiance No One will hire. People either have to move to find work or are forced to take non-architecture jobs and give up. Not everyone can move around for internships, and the current system favors younger people from wealthy families who have some form of financial support. Without such support and without any significant experiance many graduates are left in the dust with no alternative but to either give up, or to get freelance design work. The later is great, however there is no way for a self employed person to satisfy the experiance requirements. The current path to licence is very ridgid. It is also, in my opinion, a form of class discrimination. If you have kids there is no way one can move to NY or Cali to chase "internships."
Is this a product of a completely broken system, or just a terrible economy though? Jobs are tough to find out there right now regardless, so recent grads will have no better a chance to get the job if there were no IDP hours. I’m going off your premise that the exams would then become much harder to compensate, which in turn would, I think, make it that you cant just graduate and pass your exams.
One of the positives of the exams as they are now (and I will freely admit there are far more negatives than positives, as I am in the middle of taking them, with having to deal with absurd “vignette” scoring that they don’t actually have to justify to you unless you want to pay a hefty fee) is that there is a decent % of the questions that are basically real world experience questions. A lot of it seems tough to know if you have no experience.
Also, the system assumes that all graduates are created equal, and does not consider ones past experiances such as running businesses, construction, etc. IDP is a glass ceiling for so many people.
I do agree that there should be a viable alternate route. That there isn’t is a bit ridiculous, considering the varied possible fields that relate to architecture.
It is also a burden for firms. The responsibility to get a licence should be 100% in the hands of the person seeking the licence. This is how it is in law. Many people that I have talked to feel that their career is being stalled by forces that are external.
I think comparing an architectural license to a law license is apples to oranges
I don’t think its really a burden for firms though, actually it seems more of a burden on the intern, as a firm can easily just point to the lack of jobs as a reason to limit an interns work only to what is necessary for the firm. It seems more than ever it is up to the intern to find the different categories of hours
Also, I think if we got rid of the experiance requirement the field would benefit greatly by the increase in practicioners from more diverse backgrounds.
It just needs to be done in a way that doesn’t devalue the actual license or make it that we now have a ton more “licensed” architects. Something to avoid it becoming the new “LEED AP” on everyone’s email signatures.
How do you feel about someone who does not have an architectural degree, but a related background, being able to be licensed? I’d say that an architectural degree, plus passing the exams are requirements, but the IDP hours is one that, while beneficial to the actual intern, is not really all that necessary.
Just because you can call yourself an architect doesn't mean that a job will be any easier to find. Firms will still look for architects who have experience, not just a title. I'd venture to say that it would be more difficult to find a job if we were just able to pass the exams without experience and become architects. We'd then be competing for jobs with the other architects that have experience, not just fellow interns looking for experience and IDP credit.
I'm not saying that NCARB shouldn't take a look at IDP and perhaps make some changes. I just think that it goes much deeper than just saying that the title 'intern' is somehow beneath the amount of schooling we've gone through and we should be able to be 'architects' sooner.
A lot of this has been discussed recently but it usually fizzles out because the push for change seems to come from the lack of jobs, not necessarily from a broken system (although, the argument might be made that it is precisely because of a broken system that there aren't any jobs ... but I don't think I've seen anyone do this convincingly).
I think Gregory Walker had the best attempt to start a decent discussion about the system in his blog and again on the forums. But note that his attempt wasn't focused on just getting young grads jobs or changing the titles we use, it was focused on understanding the system and working within it given certain constraints like accountability, etc. and still allowing young grads the opportunity to take their career path in their hands. He still acknowledged the fact that "... we’ve left our young in the most precarious and morally unconscionable position imaginable: relying on forces beyond their control to provide enough work so that they can gain enough experience to sit for a test to finally obtain a license in the profession they trained and studied so long for."
I know most of the key players in this thread were involved in the other so I know you're familiar with Gregory's posts, but all of this sounds too much like a broken record and it isn't satisfying to listen to, forget the fact that it isn't changing anything. It's time we changed the record and sing a different tune.
It just needs to be done in a way that doesn’t devalue the actual license or make it that we now have a ton more “licensed” architects. Something to avoid it becoming the new “LEED AP” on everyone’s email signatures.
It does not matter how many people call themselves architects. It is called competition. If you are good at doing the work and getting the work you win, if not you lose. I feel that the older folks want to surpress the younger generation because they know we will put them out of business or at the very least corner certain markets. This is masked as "its for your own good." B.S young creative businesses will be healthy for everyone. After all, even if we do start a firm with no experiance, no one will give us any large projects. We will have to start on small things until we have enough experiance to get bigger work. This process is self learing. This experiance is much more valuable and important than any internship can provide. I been freelancing (starting a small design business) for a few months I learned alot. But there is no way to get licenced this way.
How do you feel about someone who does not have an architectural degree, but a related background, being able to be licensed? I’d say that an architectural degree, plus passing the exams are requirements, but the IDP hours is one that, while beneficial to the actual intern, is not really all that necessary.
I would say open the word architecture to anyone who can do architecture. Just because the word artist is not regulated does not mean that anyone will call themself an artist or that anyone will be able to create large public sculptures that endanger the public. If you claim to be able to do something and you sell that service, then you are liable by law if anything goes wrong. I would keep the test as a way to gain the title "registered architect." but I would not require school to be an architect. Ando was self taught after all. I am not just complaining about the system because it is difficult or annoying, I really believe that this type of reform would be a great thing for architecture.
Brian, it is not about finding a job. It is about being an entrapenuer. It is about an infussion of young creative energy into an old dying profession.
No one is stopping you from being an entrepreneur. They are just saying you can't call yourself an architect while doing it unless you jump through the NCARB hoops. A true entrepreneur isn't going to be held back by a title. They would instead take their "young creative energy" and put it to work. If that means that an "old dying profession" finally goes the way of the dodo, so be it. It wasn't a bunch of horse-drawn buggy manufacturers that sat down and invented the automobile was it?
It does not matter how many people call themselves architects. It is called competition. If you are good at doing the work and getting the work you win, if not you lose. I feel that the older folks want to surpress the younger generation because they know we will put them out of business or at the very least corner certain markets. This is masked as "its for your own good." B.S young creative businesses will be healthy for everyone. After all, even if we do start a firm with no experiance, no one will give us any large projects. We will have to start on small things until we have enough experiance to get bigger work. This process is self learing. This experiance is much more valuable and important than any internship can provide. I been freelancing (starting a small design business) for a few months I learned alot. But there is no way to get licenced this way.
I don’t know, didn’t this thread start because someone didn’t like calling themselves “interns”?
I agree completely that there should be an alternate route to licensure. I just don’t understand how the profession would be all that different if they got rid of all requirements and just allowed anyone to take the exams and get their license. Are there really that many “interns” dying to open their own firms who are being “held back” by IDP? Not for nothing, but there will still be the same lack of work out there right now, so if you just up and start your firm, there wont be all these small jobs waiting for you to practice on.
Also, and this is an honest question I am a bit on the fence about. What is more beneficial for the career of a young architect who wants to open his own firm:
1. Work for an established firm on larger projects more the type you want to do when you open your own firm. Then you have gained experience in the type of work you want to be doing with your own practice.
2. Open your own firm right away. Only work on the small jobs that you could get, which gains you valuable experience, but also doesn’t get you experience on what you might want to be working on.
So after 5 years of working, Option 1 might leave you ready to be on your own and work on the type of projects you want, since you have experience with them, have gained contacts which will help you win the jobs, etc. Option 2 would leave you ready to handle what it means to run the projects as your own firm, but you may not have the contacts or experience to actually win the jobs.
It’s obviously not the only 2 routes available by any means, but just an example.
My career ambitions though have never been to solely just run my own firm as quickly as I can, so my opinion is a bit slanted in that direction to begin with.
I would say open the word architecture to anyone who can do architecture. Just because the word artist is not regulated does not mean that anyone will call themself an artist or that anyone will be able to create large public sculptures that endanger the public. If you claim to be able to do something and you sell that service, then you are liable by law if anything goes wrong. I would keep the test as a way to gain the title "registered architect." but I would not require school to be an architect. Ando was self taught after all. I am not just complaining about the system because it is difficult or annoying, I really believe that this type of reform would be a great thing for architecture.
Being an artist is a completely different thing than being an architect. I don’t see the comparison at all, just as I don’t understand what you mean by saying “anyone who can do architecture”.
I also don’t really buy into the whole argument of the 0.001% who were self taught and became Starchitects as a justification for getting rid of all requirements.
I do have to say though, that if we just turn things over in this way, there most likely will be a larger number of registered architects out there, and by your statements, a lot trying to branch out on their own as individual firms earlier in their careers than they would have in the past. I wonder how much in general that would lower the fees we as architects would be getting, considering, if I were a younger firm owner starting out, I would be more willing to take less fee if it got me the opportunity to get a good project. This would further dilute a problem that currently exists out there now
I am not saying that is a reason to keep IDP and the license path as they are now forever. Just something to think about in general, when lessening the value of the license itself.
I don’t understand what you mean by saying “anyone who can do architecture”.
I mean anyone who can deliver the goods. This is a small minority anyway. opening the title up will not allow people to automatically call themselves architects just like the title "Chef" (not being regulated) does not allow just anyone to call themself a chef. One has to be able to live up to the name or it becomes meaningless anyway. It is self regulating and should not require state regulation.
Being an artist is a completely different thing than being an architect.
I know that but it is just an analogy (maybe not the best one). I am saying that title is earned by ones work and reputation, and should not/can not be guaranteed by a series of tasks. Before the term was regulated, did everyone call themself an architect? NO They earned the term on their own merit and that often meant being an apprentice for years anyway and going to school. Regulating the title gives "honor" to those who do not deserve it (the architect who designs all the burgerkings). If the title was not regulated, and was earned by ones ability to deliver quality work, it would have more meaning and be held at a higher level of prestige. You can't burn your eggs and call yourself a chef!
@Kevin W.
As for "young energy" I am not saying that old people are any less creative (in architecture especially the opposite is usually true), but the older folks have less of an ability to make radical moves with regards to business. Young people are typically more willing and able to tap into non-traditional areas.
I mean anyone who can deliver the goods. This is a small minority anyway. opening the title up will not allow people to automatically call themselves architects just like the title "Chef" (not being regulated) does not allow just anyone to call themself a chef. One has to be able to live up to the name or it becomes meaningless anyway. It is self regulating and should not require state regulation.
I don’t understand what you mean by “deliver the goods” then. Are we talking about just bringing in a project on time and under budget? Are we talking about creating innovative design, that perhaps goes over the budget, but delivers an acceptable end product? Are we talking about a building that people think is “cool”
And I really don’t know how you can call it self regulating either. State regulation is required for construction, and it is for those taking responsibility for the design of that construction.
What do engineers have to go through before their exams I wonder?
I am on board with their being less stringent “experience” requirements, as that is very arbitrary and not something really in your control all the time. I just don’t follow your reasoning behind it I guess.
I know that but it is just an analogy (maybe not the best one). I am saying that title is earned by ones work and reputation, and should not/can not be guaranteed by a series of tasks. Before the term was regulated, did everyone call themself an architect? NO They earned the term on their own merit and that often meant being an apprentice for years anyway and going to school. Regulating the title gives "honor" to those who do not deserve it (the architect who designs all the burgerkings). If the title was not regulated, and was earned by ones ability to deliver quality work, it would have more meaning and be held at a higher level of prestige. You can't burn your eggs and call yourself a chef!
This is a little more clear now. I think perhaps you are putting too much stock in what a license means. It is a completely different time now, and the industry and profession in general are not what they were then, for good or bad.
IDP basically is trying to be that apprenticeship you mention.
And who then deems that your work is quality and deserving? And who deems what projects are worthy of this “honor” you are talking about? I have worked on a strip mall and a car wash in the past. By your estimation, that’s not architecture
I think that overall, there shouldn’t be as stringent of rules as to what “experience” falls into their liking. Whether that just means some alternate routes available, or getting rid of the experience requirement altogether, I don’t know.
Its when you get into what the idea of being called an “architect” actually means is where you lose me, because being an architect is more than just having your license or not. You can work your entire career and design everything under the sun and not have your license. That doesn’t make your career any less “architect” than someone else just because they have a license.
But then again, my experience so far hasn’t been that the profession is losing out because talented people are leaving because of IDP. But that’s just my personal experience, so I could be wrong.
I think "in profession", no one is fooled by who is an architect and who is not, going by your definitions. I think actually it is very clear
Just out of curiousity, how old are you and how long have you been working? I am 32 and have been working for 7 years. It doesnt justify or negate my or your opinions, just curious
I don’t understand what you mean by “deliver the goods” then.
I am talking about designing projects that are innovative, functional, and that meet or exceed the needs and expectations of the client. I am talking about creating "architecture." Not all buildings are architecture. Architecture is something more. It is hard to define this, but I think you know what I mean. We all know the difference between Falling water and a house on the "Real housewifes of NJ" haha. (sorry for not being clear...I am trying to write and work at the same time..) I guess what I mean is that architecture is a result that cannot be guaranteed, and that can be achieved by someone who took a non-traditional path in life. Ando, Scarpa, etc are all examples of that.
IDP basically is trying to be that apprenticeship you mention.
And who then deems that your work is quality and deserving? And who deems what projects are worthy of this “honor” you are talking about? I have worked on a strip mall and a car wash in the past. By your estimation, that’s not architecture
The difference is that the apprenticeship was never a mandate. IDP is a control mechanism to ensure some level of competence. Competence can be reached in a number of different ways.
Architecture or Architect is a term that is owned in this current system. The term architecture is a description of a certain quality of project (this is subject to both objective and subjective critique) however if one creates architecture then he/she is an architect by definition. By regulating the term,the term has lost its meaning and its ability to be a mesure of quality (in the eye of the public). Architects are no better now then they were 500 years ago despite all the regulation.
Just out of curiousity, how old are you and how long have you been working? I am 32 and have been working for 7 years. It doesnt justify or negate my or your opinions, just curious
I'm 31. Since graduating I have been doing landscape design and residential remodel design. prior to that I did remodels for 5 years for an investor. As a new business owner I was thrown into a totally unfamiliar territory. I am very comfortable with design work, but business is a whole differnt thing. However, I have learned more over the past 6 months than I would have in any internship. I am also working my way toward designing homes (if the economy picks up) but for now, in my area, remodels and landscape design is pretty hot due to all the people buying forclosures and flipping them or moving into them.
Architects do not pose a direct danger to society, Architecture does, and architecture is already subjected to checks through codes and inspections. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, is a different thing....
Do you think that protecting the title "architect" has benefited the profession in any way? If so, how? Also, do you think the lax regulation in europe has resulted in better or worse architecture? The only thing this title has done is institutionalized the profession. For a profession that values diversity, innovation, and creativity, we are a bunch of conformists when it comes to this subject. We try to redesign society and come up with all kinds of revolutionary ideas with regard to cities, etc..but at the same time we can't even get our own profession out of this ridgid status quo.. How do we expect anyone to take us seriously "cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks." If we deregualte we liberate. We open the doors to new people and ideas. New ideas bring on innovation we like innovation so why not?
Personally, I think the restriction on the term architect should be more strict. By limiting it, we are protecting our fees (albeit minimally at this point) because if everyone could call himself or herself an architect, a client would not have a lot to help with the selection besides the fee (I know we love to think it's our creativity, or pretty design skills). So with a completely unregulated market, fees would plummet even more than they already have. If we value the profession, we should fight for even more regulation.
haha my point is proven....Only one thing it is an abuse of power to regulate a profession for the purpose of protecting fees. Do you fear competition?
Also in certain cases such as interior design, title reguation has been ruled unconstitutional in court because the purpose of regulation is not to protect the public but rather to create a monopoly over licence. The florida supreme court ruled it to be a violation of the First Amendment to regulate the term "interior designer" and it was changed to "registered interior designer." Interior design is a description of ones work, and cannot be subject to regulation. Why not do the same thing in arhitecture. The title "registered architect" is fine in my opinion.
I do not fear competition. There needs to be some barrier for entry in professions that carry liability. This is simple stuff here. If we could al call ourselves doctors, then fees would plummet, and many people would choose a doctor based on lowest fee (this would especially harm those with fewer means). Since there would be no barrier to entry, there would be nothing protecting the public from choosing an unqualified, low cost doctor. This is the logic that applies to architecture as well. Admittedly, we haw given much of our liability away to engineers now, but there are plenty of us who perform our own structural, electrical, mechanical work, and I sure would not want someone who had not spent years training and practicing to do it. Sorry, no stamp means you're not liable for those things for a reason. Experience and training protect the public. So as long as there is any chance for an architect to have liability for health safety and welfare, we should not allow it to be left simply to "competition." if you're that great a competitor, wouldn't passing some tests be easy for you? I realize idp is tough with no jobs, but the same thing happened in the early 2000's, and the 90's, and the 80's before that. It's just the nature of construction and capitalism.
In theory, you are right. In the real world though, if the license was made "easier" to get, fees would go down because there would be an increase in people offering these services, and, I am pretty sure, that young firms trying to make it on their own for the first time will absolutely lower their fees to get "this" job with the idea that the "next" job will make up for it.
Not everyone is as concerned as you are with making what you define as "architecture", and will absolutely do it in the least expensive way possible, even if that means making it less Falling Water and more Real Housewives
I dont think everyone not able to fill their IDP hours right now who want an alternate route are these innovative geniuses looking out for the greater good of architecture as a whole
Would it ruin the profession? Probably not. It would actually probably not change things all that dramatically, as most jobs just wont be given over to someone with no experience, just for a lower fee. But there would definitely be an effect
It sounds like you are thinking only about the theoretical and creative side of designing, and not at the realities of the profession as it is today.
I think there is a middle ground needed somewhere, but just havent really heard of a realistic idea. Getting rid of the IDP hours and making the tests harder is very vague.
I think there is a middle ground needed somewhere, but just havent really heard of a realistic idea. Getting rid of the IDP hours and making the tests harder is very vague.
I do not think anything will change anytime soon, but we should keep the debate alive for arguments sake.
I think the following should be done...
1. deregulate the designer and beef up regulation on the design itself with regard to sustainability...co2 footprint, walkability, etc.... The codes need to be revised for the 21st century. This would require more know how and make it difficult for just anyone to design something that will pass code....It will keep us relevant. The developers will be faced with problems that require solutions from people who know what they are doing.
2. Regulate the title "registered architect" and leave the title architect unprotected. This will open the door to non-traditional folks.
To make this work we should allow "stamping." I do not see why this is illegal. A registered architect should be allowed to stamp a drawing in the same way an engineer does. This is only illegal for the purpose of creating a monopoly and controlling fees. Let anyone design and use the title architect if that is what they do. Reserve the title "registered architect" for those who earned it and who the state trusts with such a responsibility based on tests and experiance.
jla - but.... that's what we do already. we simply have the title 'architect' for it. same with a doctor - there's no 'doctor' title that anyone can claim simply by showing an interest in medicine, but then there's a 'licensed doctor' that you might actually want to get care from.
i'm also confused by how you're describing 'stamping'. does that mean an architect should simply be allowed to stamp another, non-licensed designer's work, without actually having performed it? because it was legal at one point in time (waaaay back). or, at least it wasn't prohibited by the practice laws in most states. however, what it does create is the possibility of a shell company 'stamping' hundreds of designs they know nothing about and then folding up tent at the first sign of trouble. most states simply want the person who is signing/stamping the work to know something about what they are actually verifying.
if you're serious about idp reform, that's a whole other matter. i've put out my theory on my archinect blog here. there's plenty of discussion in another forum post. in a nutshell, yes, idp can seriously be reformed, but i don't believe that should come at diluting the value a license holds. and, yes, as someone who's been through the process, i'm not particularly friendly towards the idea of letting just any designer call themselves an 'architect' simply because they want to find an 'alternative' way into practice. you're free to do so, but don't ask for the title.
does that mean an architect should simply be allowed to stamp another, non-licensed designer's work, without actually having performed it?
Yes. Your logic that architects will go crazy and stamp anything that comes their way without thouroughly reviewing it contradicts the idea that a licenced person is a competent and responsible person whom the public is safe from. By stamping they take on the liability, so if they are irresponsible they will eventually get sued. Also, when it was legal was it a problem?
Last time I checked thoughtless crap gets built anyway and fills up 99.9% of the american landscape. I just think that there is a sort of dillusion out there among most architects. They forget or ignore the fact that in europe - where you graduate and then are considered an architect, the architecture is much much better. Here, despite all the hoops one has to jump through, 99% of the built environment is worse than horrible. This implies that NCARB is useless and has no real effect anyway. It also implies that the forces guiding the built environment are more political and cultural, then a result of the structure of the profession. The only legal justification for licence is to protect the health.." "...of the public. If there is another way to work while still ensuring the protection of the public, then it should be legal. Licence is not there to create a monopoly by reducing entry into a profession. This is an abuse of power and has no place in any profession, especially a creati not in a creatiive one.
I think the whole licence thing is there to legitimize architecture as a "real profession." Ever hear of the term "physics envy" I think there is alot of "professional envy" out there. Architecture is not medicine or law. Everything does not have to be a sanctioned profession to be important. Architecture is one of the most difficult and important things with or without NCARB.
I think structure also increases the number of people trying to get into the field by promising a clear logical career path and offering a professional degree. If it were not a professional degree, and one had to do alot of self education, less people would be inclined to take on the challenge. It would be more difficult, and only the most determined and brightest people would attempt it. In the long run this would increase fees.
To make this work we should allow "stamping." I do not see why this is illegal. A registered architect should be allowed to stamp a drawing in the same way an engineer does. This is only illegal for the purpose of creating a monopoly and controlling fees. Let anyone design and use the title architect if that is what they do. Reserve the title "registered architect" for those who earned it and who the state trusts with such a responsibility based on tests and experiance.
I dont follow. How is this something that doesnt happen now? If you are the one stamping, its stupid on your own part to not review the drawings, as its your ass on the line. But really, no one is forcing you to be competent.
Not every design out there is done by a registered architect, yet the drawings get stamped
I know, but it is illegal if you stamp the drawing of a non-employee designer. Makes no sense because engineers do this all the time. Not really sure if it is enforced, but it is illegal.
NCARB cartel.
Stop accepting the title intern. NCARB cannot force you to accept the title intern. You do not have to submit to this nonsense. Call yourselves something else whatever you want, but not intern it's bad for us all.
@jlarch: I am curious, what prompted this? My understanding is that if you are not registered, you are either a Designer or an Intern. There is, generally, a huge difference between an Intern Architect and an Architectural Intern -- are you talking about the latter?
What's so wrong with being called an intern? I too was an intern for 6 years after graduating, until I grew tired of the title and gained another title.....Architect. Unfortunately, I have been called far worse names and titles in my life than Intern. Doctors are called interns, lawyers aren't, engineers are called eit (engineers in training) so we are not alone. AsnSoon as you get sick enough of that title, hopefully you can loose it. And for all of the people over 40 with 15 plus years of architectural experience that cannot pass the test for whatever reason ( financial, never finished college, received a non professional Architecture degree, or became a parent too early/ other family issues, or ADD) I consider you to be an architect albeit unlicensed one.
we need a more empowering title for new commers, thats all I'm saying. Young energy is important. I guess I was inspired by the "working out of the box" series. I think a more telling title for non-registrants would empower them to become entrepreneurs. We need to diversify the profession and allow for non-traditional "architects" to have some way of expressing who they are to the public. I am not implying a state sanctioned title, but rather a new informal title for architectural designers. I feel that the current system is set up to encourage traditional practice, and does not support people "working outside the box."
I do wish we had better titles. I work outside of traditional practice, and usually have to explain a bit to engineers and/or other non-architects that 'intern' means 'actual billable staff' and not 'coffee-getter'.
For now, I change what I call myself depending on who I'm talking to. Architects understand 'intern', but not everyone else does, so I use the term 'architectural designer' or 'architectural professional' to describe myself (NB: different from 'professional architect'). This is mostly for conversation, however; my resume says 'intern architect' because that was my official title; if they're unfamiliar with the title and ask, I explain that it's a pre-licensure state for architects.
Nowadays, I'm just a 'consultant' anyways. I suppose I could call myself an architect once I've finished out the license, but the title might not reflect that.
"Architect In Training" has a nice ring to it. Think the engineers would mind if we co-opted it?
How about calling us unlicensed folk "Architects", and call the licensed guys "Licensed Architects"? Similar to Registered Nurse or Registered Structural Engineer?
An interesting question - what if I am an Architect in another country, but not in the US, and I live in the US?
Agree!
I don't buy the whole protecting the public crap. Thats what codes, permits, and inspections do. It is really about protecting the title monopoly.
you can't sue a code, or a code reviewer, you can however sue an architect. as for protecting the public crap; health, safety and welfare, that's what architects are responsible for.
now, as for titles, Architect is reserved for licensed professionals, and for whatever you decide to tell grandma what it is you do for a living/non-living. i do however believe that non-licensed professionals should be allowed to operate in a grey area that would satisfy your need for titles. at the same time, let me ask you this, what is it that you get with a title? is it so that you can tell your non-architect friends something that sounds slightly more intriguing than garbage collector? i labored under some of the same quandaries you guys/gals did, but then i figured designer sounded cooler anyway, and i went with that. if you like tilting at windmills, and think title will satisfy you more than getting some self respect, and not working for free, then have at it Man of La Mancha.
I never really understood what the big deal was. What do I tell my friends i do when they ask? I say i am an architect, I dont say I am an architectural intern who is 4/7 of the way to my license. If it gets into that much detail in a conversation, I explain it.
If its a business setting, as long as you arent presenting yourself in a manner that implies you are something that you are not, I dont see the big deal. Do engineers in training always refer to themselves that way? I dont think so. My colleagues just refer to themselves as a structural engineer.
I always view it as what level of context is it
If its something generic, where it is mainly to just describe yourself to someone who knows nothing about you, or someone who is not a work related contact, just tell them you are an architect.
If it is a business contact, who you are discussing a project, as long as its made clear your position at the beginning, you say it once, but then for the duration of the project, why go into such detail every time it comes up? Every project i have been working on during construction, I have been refered to as the architect, as i am representing/ part of the architectural team.
Titles only seem to matter on your email signature, and even then, really is it a big deal? If you dont like the title "intern", dont use it
b3tadine[sutures]
You would still be able to sue the "architect" if the title was not protected under the Title Act as long as he or she was at fault.
look, either being an Architect means something, or it doesn't. if your 5+ years of education, the untold hours of work, and ridiculous amount of debt is worth a title, then have at it. i now deem you, Architect. now finish those red-lines i gave you last friday, Architect!
If you can't finish IDP due to the shit economy then what do you do? There is a point where things seem to be out of our hands. This is unacceptable.
All we want is a fair process where we do not have to rely on others to get our licence.
We're supposed to be EIT (it's the only initials we can put until PE, other than professional memberships and other certifications)... every time I have to explain what it stands for, I feel like I'm wearing diapers. Engineered diapers, but still. I'd stay away from pushing for AIT.
All we want is a fair process where we do not have to rely on others to get our licence.
How do you propose this being possible though? I think an architects' license, perhaps more than engineers license, needs the experience factor to help its value.
That being said though, I do agree that there needs to be something done to help offset economic situations like this. I think taking the exams before the IDP hours are filled is one way to help. I am not sure of the buffer time frame you are given then, say you finish your exams right away and then have to complete all your IDP. How long before your exam results are void I wonder
Make the exams harder and get rid of IDP. There is no experiance requirement in many countries like Germany. They do OK without it. Most people are going to get experiance anyway before they go off on their own. Why mandate it.
Part of what a licensed architect in the US represents is someone with a base level of knowledge (passing the exams) and experience (X number of hours working in the industry).
Taking away half of that and just saying that they passed harder exams changes what the license means. And not necessarily in a negative way or anything, just that it changes it.
What is the reason for it, beyond there currently being a tough economy
The reason is that without any experiance No One will hire. People either have to move to find work or are forced to take non-architecture jobs and give up. Not everyone can move around for internships, and the current system favors younger people from wealthy families who have some form of financial support. Without such support and without any significant experiance many graduates are left in the dust with no alternative but to either give up, or to get freelance design work. The later is great, however there is no way for a self employed person to satisfy the experiance requirements. The current path to licence is very ridgid. It is also, in my opinion, a form of class discrimination. If you have kids there is no way one can move to NY or Cali to chase "internships." Also, the system assumes that all graduates are created equal, and does not consider ones past experiances such as running businesses, construction, etc. IDP is a glass ceiling for so many people. It is also a burden for firms. The responsibility to get a licence should be 100% in the hands of the person seeking the licence. This is how it is in law. Many people that I have talked to feel that their career is being stalled by forces that are external. Also, I think if we got rid of the experiance requirement the field would benefit greatly by the increase in practicioners from more diverse backgrounds.
If one feels like they are capable of starting a practice with no experiance, then so be it, but most people won't anyway. "Protecting the public" The codes and inspections do this anyway. I could not build something that is a danger to the public, because I would not get a permit to build it. The idea that the licence is there to protect is then a redundent protection that has really no purpose other than to monopolize and institutionalize the industry. If this is the case, then it is also unconstitutional. Interior design licensure was ruled to be unconstitutional in the state of alabama because of this reason. We should leave a persons career path to their own merit. If it was this way then no one would be able to complain. I am all for strengthening building regulations and codes if they make sense. But regulating individuals is not productive. There are many ways to become a chef. This does not hurt the quality of food. There are still great chefs out there. Some still take the traditional route despite the fact that they do not have to by law.
The reason is that without any experiance No One will hire. People either have to move to find work or are forced to take non-architecture jobs and give up. Not everyone can move around for internships, and the current system favors younger people from wealthy families who have some form of financial support. Without such support and without any significant experiance many graduates are left in the dust with no alternative but to either give up, or to get freelance design work. The later is great, however there is no way for a self employed person to satisfy the experiance requirements. The current path to licence is very ridgid. It is also, in my opinion, a form of class discrimination. If you have kids there is no way one can move to NY or Cali to chase "internships."
Is this a product of a completely broken system, or just a terrible economy though? Jobs are tough to find out there right now regardless, so recent grads will have no better a chance to get the job if there were no IDP hours. I’m going off your premise that the exams would then become much harder to compensate, which in turn would, I think, make it that you cant just graduate and pass your exams.
One of the positives of the exams as they are now (and I will freely admit there are far more negatives than positives, as I am in the middle of taking them, with having to deal with absurd “vignette” scoring that they don’t actually have to justify to you unless you want to pay a hefty fee) is that there is a decent % of the questions that are basically real world experience questions. A lot of it seems tough to know if you have no experience.
Also, the system assumes that all graduates are created equal, and does not consider ones past experiances such as running businesses, construction, etc. IDP is a glass ceiling for so many people.
I do agree that there should be a viable alternate route. That there isn’t is a bit ridiculous, considering the varied possible fields that relate to architecture.
It is also a burden for firms. The responsibility to get a licence should be 100% in the hands of the person seeking the licence. This is how it is in law. Many people that I have talked to feel that their career is being stalled by forces that are external.
I think comparing an architectural license to a law license is apples to oranges
I don’t think its really a burden for firms though, actually it seems more of a burden on the intern, as a firm can easily just point to the lack of jobs as a reason to limit an interns work only to what is necessary for the firm. It seems more than ever it is up to the intern to find the different categories of hours
Also, I think if we got rid of the experiance requirement the field would benefit greatly by the increase in practicioners from more diverse backgrounds.
It just needs to be done in a way that doesn’t devalue the actual license or make it that we now have a ton more “licensed” architects. Something to avoid it becoming the new “LEED AP” on everyone’s email signatures.
How do you feel about someone who does not have an architectural degree, but a related background, being able to be licensed? I’d say that an architectural degree, plus passing the exams are requirements, but the IDP hours is one that, while beneficial to the actual intern, is not really all that necessary.
Just because you can call yourself an architect doesn't mean that a job will be any easier to find. Firms will still look for architects who have experience, not just a title. I'd venture to say that it would be more difficult to find a job if we were just able to pass the exams without experience and become architects. We'd then be competing for jobs with the other architects that have experience, not just fellow interns looking for experience and IDP credit.
I'm not saying that NCARB shouldn't take a look at IDP and perhaps make some changes. I just think that it goes much deeper than just saying that the title 'intern' is somehow beneath the amount of schooling we've gone through and we should be able to be 'architects' sooner.
A lot of this has been discussed recently but it usually fizzles out because the push for change seems to come from the lack of jobs, not necessarily from a broken system (although, the argument might be made that it is precisely because of a broken system that there aren't any jobs ... but I don't think I've seen anyone do this convincingly).
I think Gregory Walker had the best attempt to start a decent discussion about the system in his blog and again on the forums. But note that his attempt wasn't focused on just getting young grads jobs or changing the titles we use, it was focused on understanding the system and working within it given certain constraints like accountability, etc. and still allowing young grads the opportunity to take their career path in their hands. He still acknowledged the fact that "... we’ve left our young in the most precarious and morally unconscionable position imaginable: relying on forces beyond their control to provide enough work so that they can gain enough experience to sit for a test to finally obtain a license in the profession they trained and studied so long for."
I know most of the key players in this thread were involved in the other so I know you're familiar with Gregory's posts, but all of this sounds too much like a broken record and it isn't satisfying to listen to, forget the fact that it isn't changing anything. It's time we changed the record and sing a different tune.
It just needs to be done in a way that doesn’t devalue the actual license or make it that we now have a ton more “licensed” architects. Something to avoid it becoming the new “LEED AP” on everyone’s email signatures.
It does not matter how many people call themselves architects. It is called competition. If you are good at doing the work and getting the work you win, if not you lose. I feel that the older folks want to surpress the younger generation because they know we will put them out of business or at the very least corner certain markets. This is masked as "its for your own good." B.S young creative businesses will be healthy for everyone. After all, even if we do start a firm with no experiance, no one will give us any large projects. We will have to start on small things until we have enough experiance to get bigger work. This process is self learing. This experiance is much more valuable and important than any internship can provide. I been freelancing (starting a small design business) for a few months I learned alot. But there is no way to get licenced this way.
How do you feel about someone who does not have an architectural degree, but a related background, being able to be licensed? I’d say that an architectural degree, plus passing the exams are requirements, but the IDP hours is one that, while beneficial to the actual intern, is not really all that necessary.
I would say open the word architecture to anyone who can do architecture. Just because the word artist is not regulated does not mean that anyone will call themself an artist or that anyone will be able to create large public sculptures that endanger the public. If you claim to be able to do something and you sell that service, then you are liable by law if anything goes wrong. I would keep the test as a way to gain the title "registered architect." but I would not require school to be an architect. Ando was self taught after all. I am not just complaining about the system because it is difficult or annoying, I really believe that this type of reform would be a great thing for architecture.
Brian, it is not about finding a job. It is about being an entrapenuer. It is about an infussion of young creative energy into an old dying profession.
Why do you assume youth equals creativity?
No one is stopping you from being an entrepreneur. They are just saying you can't call yourself an architect while doing it unless you jump through the NCARB hoops. A true entrepreneur isn't going to be held back by a title. They would instead take their "young creative energy" and put it to work. If that means that an "old dying profession" finally goes the way of the dodo, so be it. It wasn't a bunch of horse-drawn buggy manufacturers that sat down and invented the automobile was it?
It does not matter how many people call themselves architects. It is called competition. If you are good at doing the work and getting the work you win, if not you lose. I feel that the older folks want to surpress the younger generation because they know we will put them out of business or at the very least corner certain markets. This is masked as "its for your own good." B.S young creative businesses will be healthy for everyone. After all, even if we do start a firm with no experiance, no one will give us any large projects. We will have to start on small things until we have enough experiance to get bigger work. This process is self learing. This experiance is much more valuable and important than any internship can provide. I been freelancing (starting a small design business) for a few months I learned alot. But there is no way to get licenced this way.
I don’t know, didn’t this thread start because someone didn’t like calling themselves “interns”?
I agree completely that there should be an alternate route to licensure. I just don’t understand how the profession would be all that different if they got rid of all requirements and just allowed anyone to take the exams and get their license. Are there really that many “interns” dying to open their own firms who are being “held back” by IDP? Not for nothing, but there will still be the same lack of work out there right now, so if you just up and start your firm, there wont be all these small jobs waiting for you to practice on.
Also, and this is an honest question I am a bit on the fence about. What is more beneficial for the career of a young architect who wants to open his own firm:
1. Work for an established firm on larger projects more the type you want to do when you open your own firm. Then you have gained experience in the type of work you want to be doing with your own practice.
2. Open your own firm right away. Only work on the small jobs that you could get, which gains you valuable experience, but also doesn’t get you experience on what you might want to be working on.
So after 5 years of working, Option 1 might leave you ready to be on your own and work on the type of projects you want, since you have experience with them, have gained contacts which will help you win the jobs, etc. Option 2 would leave you ready to handle what it means to run the projects as your own firm, but you may not have the contacts or experience to actually win the jobs.
It’s obviously not the only 2 routes available by any means, but just an example.
My career ambitions though have never been to solely just run my own firm as quickly as I can, so my opinion is a bit slanted in that direction to begin with.
I would say open the word architecture to anyone who can do architecture. Just because the word artist is not regulated does not mean that anyone will call themself an artist or that anyone will be able to create large public sculptures that endanger the public. If you claim to be able to do something and you sell that service, then you are liable by law if anything goes wrong. I would keep the test as a way to gain the title "registered architect." but I would not require school to be an architect. Ando was self taught after all. I am not just complaining about the system because it is difficult or annoying, I really believe that this type of reform would be a great thing for architecture.
Being an artist is a completely different thing than being an architect. I don’t see the comparison at all, just as I don’t understand what you mean by saying “anyone who can do architecture”.
I also don’t really buy into the whole argument of the 0.001% who were self taught and became Starchitects as a justification for getting rid of all requirements.
I do have to say though, that if we just turn things over in this way, there most likely will be a larger number of registered architects out there, and by your statements, a lot trying to branch out on their own as individual firms earlier in their careers than they would have in the past. I wonder how much in general that would lower the fees we as architects would be getting, considering, if I were a younger firm owner starting out, I would be more willing to take less fee if it got me the opportunity to get a good project. This would further dilute a problem that currently exists out there now
I am not saying that is a reason to keep IDP and the license path as they are now forever. Just something to think about in general, when lessening the value of the license itself.
I don’t understand what you mean by saying “anyone who can do architecture”.
I mean anyone who can deliver the goods. This is a small minority anyway. opening the title up will not allow people to automatically call themselves architects just like the title "Chef" (not being regulated) does not allow just anyone to call themself a chef. One has to be able to live up to the name or it becomes meaningless anyway. It is self regulating and should not require state regulation.
Being an artist is a completely different thing than being an architect.
I know that but it is just an analogy (maybe not the best one). I am saying that title is earned by ones work and reputation, and should not/can not be guaranteed by a series of tasks. Before the term was regulated, did everyone call themself an architect? NO They earned the term on their own merit and that often meant being an apprentice for years anyway and going to school. Regulating the title gives "honor" to those who do not deserve it (the architect who designs all the burgerkings). If the title was not regulated, and was earned by ones ability to deliver quality work, it would have more meaning and be held at a higher level of prestige. You can't burn your eggs and call yourself a chef!
@Kevin W.
As for "young energy" I am not saying that old people are any less creative (in architecture especially the opposite is usually true), but the older folks have less of an ability to make radical moves with regards to business. Young people are typically more willing and able to tap into non-traditional areas.
I mean anyone who can deliver the goods. This is a small minority anyway. opening the title up will not allow people to automatically call themselves architects just like the title "Chef" (not being regulated) does not allow just anyone to call themself a chef. One has to be able to live up to the name or it becomes meaningless anyway. It is self regulating and should not require state regulation.
I don’t understand what you mean by “deliver the goods” then. Are we talking about just bringing in a project on time and under budget? Are we talking about creating innovative design, that perhaps goes over the budget, but delivers an acceptable end product? Are we talking about a building that people think is “cool”
And I really don’t know how you can call it self regulating either. State regulation is required for construction, and it is for those taking responsibility for the design of that construction.
What do engineers have to go through before their exams I wonder?
I am on board with their being less stringent “experience” requirements, as that is very arbitrary and not something really in your control all the time. I just don’t follow your reasoning behind it I guess.
I know that but it is just an analogy (maybe not the best one). I am saying that title is earned by ones work and reputation, and should not/can not be guaranteed by a series of tasks. Before the term was regulated, did everyone call themself an architect? NO They earned the term on their own merit and that often meant being an apprentice for years anyway and going to school. Regulating the title gives "honor" to those who do not deserve it (the architect who designs all the burgerkings). If the title was not regulated, and was earned by ones ability to deliver quality work, it would have more meaning and be held at a higher level of prestige. You can't burn your eggs and call yourself a chef!
This is a little more clear now. I think perhaps you are putting too much stock in what a license means. It is a completely different time now, and the industry and profession in general are not what they were then, for good or bad.
IDP basically is trying to be that apprenticeship you mention.
And who then deems that your work is quality and deserving? And who deems what projects are worthy of this “honor” you are talking about? I have worked on a strip mall and a car wash in the past. By your estimation, that’s not architecture
I think that overall, there shouldn’t be as stringent of rules as to what “experience” falls into their liking. Whether that just means some alternate routes available, or getting rid of the experience requirement altogether, I don’t know.
Its when you get into what the idea of being called an “architect” actually means is where you lose me, because being an architect is more than just having your license or not. You can work your entire career and design everything under the sun and not have your license. That doesn’t make your career any less “architect” than someone else just because they have a license.
But then again, my experience so far hasn’t been that the profession is losing out because talented people are leaving because of IDP. But that’s just my personal experience, so I could be wrong.
I think "in profession", no one is fooled by who is an architect and who is not, going by your definitions. I think actually it is very clear
Just out of curiousity, how old are you and how long have you been working? I am 32 and have been working for 7 years. It doesnt justify or negate my or your opinions, just curious
I don’t understand what you mean by “deliver the goods” then.
I am talking about designing projects that are innovative, functional, and that meet or exceed the needs and expectations of the client. I am talking about creating "architecture." Not all buildings are architecture. Architecture is something more. It is hard to define this, but I think you know what I mean. We all know the difference between Falling water and a house on the "Real housewifes of NJ" haha. (sorry for not being clear...I am trying to write and work at the same time..) I guess what I mean is that architecture is a result that cannot be guaranteed, and that can be achieved by someone who took a non-traditional path in life. Ando, Scarpa, etc are all examples of that.
IDP basically is trying to be that apprenticeship you mention.
And who then deems that your work is quality and deserving? And who deems what projects are worthy of this “honor” you are talking about? I have worked on a strip mall and a car wash in the past. By your estimation, that’s not architecture
The difference is that the apprenticeship was never a mandate. IDP is a control mechanism to ensure some level of competence. Competence can be reached in a number of different ways.
Architecture or Architect is a term that is owned in this current system. The term architecture is a description of a certain quality of project (this is subject to both objective and subjective critique) however if one creates architecture then he/she is an architect by definition. By regulating the term,the term has lost its meaning and its ability to be a mesure of quality (in the eye of the public). Architects are no better now then they were 500 years ago despite all the regulation.
Just out of curiousity, how old are you and how long have you been working? I am 32 and have been working for 7 years. It doesnt justify or negate my or your opinions, just curious
I'm 31. Since graduating I have been doing landscape design and residential remodel design. prior to that I did remodels for 5 years for an investor. As a new business owner I was thrown into a totally unfamiliar territory. I am very comfortable with design work, but business is a whole differnt thing. However, I have learned more over the past 6 months than I would have in any internship. I am also working my way toward designing homes (if the economy picks up) but for now, in my area, remodels and landscape design is pretty hot due to all the people buying forclosures and flipping them or moving into them.
Architects do not pose a direct danger to society, Architecture does, and architecture is already subjected to checks through codes and inspections. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, is a different thing....
Do you think that protecting the title "architect" has benefited the profession in any way? If so, how? Also, do you think the lax regulation in europe has resulted in better or worse architecture? The only thing this title has done is institutionalized the profession. For a profession that values diversity, innovation, and creativity, we are a bunch of conformists when it comes to this subject. We try to redesign society and come up with all kinds of revolutionary ideas with regard to cities, etc..but at the same time we can't even get our own profession out of this ridgid status quo.. How do we expect anyone to take us seriously "cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks." If we deregualte we liberate. We open the doors to new people and ideas. New ideas bring on innovation we like innovation so why not?
Personally, I think the restriction on the term architect should be more strict. By limiting it, we are protecting our fees (albeit minimally at this point) because if everyone could call himself or herself an architect, a client would not have a lot to help with the selection besides the fee (I know we love to think it's our creativity, or pretty design skills). So with a completely unregulated market, fees would plummet even more than they already have. If we value the profession, we should fight for even more regulation.
haha my point is proven....Only one thing it is an abuse of power to regulate a profession for the purpose of protecting fees. Do you fear competition?
Also in certain cases such as interior design, title reguation has been ruled unconstitutional in court because the purpose of regulation is not to protect the public but rather to create a monopoly over licence. The florida supreme court ruled it to be a violation of the First Amendment to regulate the term "interior designer" and it was changed to "registered interior designer." Interior design is a description of ones work, and cannot be subject to regulation. Why not do the same thing in arhitecture. The title "registered architect" is fine in my opinion.
I do not fear competition. There needs to be some barrier for entry in professions that carry liability. This is simple stuff here. If we could al call ourselves doctors, then fees would plummet, and many people would choose a doctor based on lowest fee (this would especially harm those with fewer means). Since there would be no barrier to entry, there would be nothing protecting the public from choosing an unqualified, low cost doctor. This is the logic that applies to architecture as well. Admittedly, we haw given much of our liability away to engineers now, but there are plenty of us who perform our own structural, electrical, mechanical work, and I sure would not want someone who had not spent years training and practicing to do it. Sorry, no stamp means you're not liable for those things for a reason. Experience and training protect the public. So as long as there is any chance for an architect to have liability for health safety and welfare, we should not allow it to be left simply to "competition." if you're that great a competitor, wouldn't passing some tests be easy for you? I realize idp is tough with no jobs, but the same thing happened in the early 2000's, and the 90's, and the 80's before that. It's just the nature of construction and capitalism.
Sorry for typos. Autocorrect is not always helpful.
Do you fear competition?
In theory, you are right. In the real world though, if the license was made "easier" to get, fees would go down because there would be an increase in people offering these services, and, I am pretty sure, that young firms trying to make it on their own for the first time will absolutely lower their fees to get "this" job with the idea that the "next" job will make up for it.
Not everyone is as concerned as you are with making what you define as "architecture", and will absolutely do it in the least expensive way possible, even if that means making it less Falling Water and more Real Housewives
I dont think everyone not able to fill their IDP hours right now who want an alternate route are these innovative geniuses looking out for the greater good of architecture as a whole
Would it ruin the profession? Probably not. It would actually probably not change things all that dramatically, as most jobs just wont be given over to someone with no experience, just for a lower fee. But there would definitely be an effect
It sounds like you are thinking only about the theoretical and creative side of designing, and not at the realities of the profession as it is today.
I think there is a middle ground needed somewhere, but just havent really heard of a realistic idea. Getting rid of the IDP hours and making the tests harder is very vague.
I think there is a middle ground needed somewhere, but just havent really heard of a realistic idea. Getting rid of the IDP hours and making the tests harder is very vague.
I do not think anything will change anytime soon, but we should keep the debate alive for arguments sake.
I think the following should be done...
1. deregulate the designer and beef up regulation on the design itself with regard to sustainability...co2 footprint, walkability, etc.... The codes need to be revised for the 21st century. This would require more know how and make it difficult for just anyone to design something that will pass code....It will keep us relevant. The developers will be faced with problems that require solutions from people who know what they are doing.
2. Regulate the title "registered architect" and leave the title architect unprotected. This will open the door to non-traditional folks.
To make this work we should allow "stamping." I do not see why this is illegal. A registered architect should be allowed to stamp a drawing in the same way an engineer does. This is only illegal for the purpose of creating a monopoly and controlling fees. Let anyone design and use the title architect if that is what they do. Reserve the title "registered architect" for those who earned it and who the state trusts with such a responsibility based on tests and experiance.
jla - but.... that's what we do already. we simply have the title 'architect' for it. same with a doctor - there's no 'doctor' title that anyone can claim simply by showing an interest in medicine, but then there's a 'licensed doctor' that you might actually want to get care from.
i'm also confused by how you're describing 'stamping'. does that mean an architect should simply be allowed to stamp another, non-licensed designer's work, without actually having performed it? because it was legal at one point in time (waaaay back). or, at least it wasn't prohibited by the practice laws in most states. however, what it does create is the possibility of a shell company 'stamping' hundreds of designs they know nothing about and then folding up tent at the first sign of trouble. most states simply want the person who is signing/stamping the work to know something about what they are actually verifying.
if you're serious about idp reform, that's a whole other matter. i've put out my theory on my archinect blog here. there's plenty of discussion in another forum post. in a nutshell, yes, idp can seriously be reformed, but i don't believe that should come at diluting the value a license holds. and, yes, as someone who's been through the process, i'm not particularly friendly towards the idea of letting just any designer call themselves an 'architect' simply because they want to find an 'alternative' way into practice. you're free to do so, but don't ask for the title.
does that mean an architect should simply be allowed to stamp another, non-licensed designer's work, without actually having performed it?
Yes. Your logic that architects will go crazy and stamp anything that comes their way without thouroughly reviewing it contradicts the idea that a licenced person is a competent and responsible person whom the public is safe from. By stamping they take on the liability, so if they are irresponsible they will eventually get sued. Also, when it was legal was it a problem?
Last time I checked thoughtless crap gets built anyway and fills up 99.9% of the american landscape. I just think that there is a sort of dillusion out there among most architects. They forget or ignore the fact that in europe - where you graduate and then are considered an architect, the architecture is much much better. Here, despite all the hoops one has to jump through, 99% of the built environment is worse than horrible. This implies that NCARB is useless and has no real effect anyway. It also implies that the forces guiding the built environment are more political and cultural, then a result of the structure of the profession. The only legal justification for licence is to protect the health.." "...of the public. If there is another way to work while still ensuring the protection of the public, then it should be legal. Licence is not there to create a monopoly by reducing entry into a profession. This is an abuse of power and has no place in any profession, especially a creati not in a creatiive one.
I think the whole licence thing is there to legitimize architecture as a "real profession." Ever hear of the term "physics envy" I think there is alot of "professional envy" out there. Architecture is not medicine or law. Everything does not have to be a sanctioned profession to be important. Architecture is one of the most difficult and important things with or without NCARB.
I think structure also increases the number of people trying to get into the field by promising a clear logical career path and offering a professional degree. If it were not a professional degree, and one had to do alot of self education, less people would be inclined to take on the challenge. It would be more difficult, and only the most determined and brightest people would attempt it. In the long run this would increase fees.
To make this work we should allow "stamping." I do not see why this is illegal. A registered architect should be allowed to stamp a drawing in the same way an engineer does. This is only illegal for the purpose of creating a monopoly and controlling fees. Let anyone design and use the title architect if that is what they do. Reserve the title "registered architect" for those who earned it and who the state trusts with such a responsibility based on tests and experiance.
I dont follow. How is this something that doesnt happen now? If you are the one stamping, its stupid on your own part to not review the drawings, as its your ass on the line. But really, no one is forcing you to be competent.
Not every design out there is done by a registered architect, yet the drawings get stamped
I dont see what the problem really is
I know, but it is illegal if you stamp the drawing of a non-employee designer. Makes no sense because engineers do this all the time. Not really sure if it is enforced, but it is illegal.
what do you mean its illegal to stamp the drawing of a non-employee designer?
its called being the "architect of record", is it not? or am i just not seeing what you are saying
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.