but it shouldn't be that way. and, once upon a time, it wasn't nearly this difficult.
my theory is that people are putting it off because due to high student debt the ability and desire for people to start their own firm has greatly diminished - especially in the past decade or so. This means too many people feel the need to keep working for someone until they are in a better place financially and able to take on the risk.
NCARB is a barrier to entry into a market place. The market for design services for the largest and most expensive things humans make. As such it has stopped many worthy, ambitious and talented people from pursuing architecture as a means to produce income or fortune and as a platform to inspire. What is left is a community of people so desirous to become an architect that no amount of punishment, laws (really internal accounting policy...yes, the 6-month rule), or financial hardship will deter them. The others making up the population to becone architects are, just like anywhere else in life, the rich who can afford to have the resources for homes, families, vacations, living wages from other sources, and so on, to spend an inordinate amount of time on the requirements of NCARB. The effect is that those with resources and means remain the individuals who get to shape our world and our future the way they always have. Oh, yes and NCARB's policy like the Devine Right of Kings is not subject to any review or legal oversight. The elected member boards in empowering NCARB wash their hands of their responsibility. Don't rationalize that NCARB is any more than this.
i r giv up - thats the bag man to pay off the various state boards that some how managed to do this themselves for half the cost and agrevation before the invention of the NCARB / University racket.
Well, I am a licensed architect in California, and I think NCARB is an organized crime racket in bed with the AIA, and I can not wait to see the States decide that both groups need to be investigated under RICO laws!
But, seriously ...I loved ink stamping things with my little architect stamp, it is so 19th century retro!
" ...and desire for people to start their own firm has greatly diminished."
This really isn't limited to architecture. For as many reasons as there are to start your own business, there are equally as many reasons to not start a business.The American economy depends greatly on the trial and error of entrepreneurs.
The difficulty with Architecture is that many states have outright forbid non-licensed architects from owning, operating or managing architectural firms.
So, there largely exists this inability for architects to spend more time being architects. And those with the experience and education in business management largely have no motivation to work for a firm where they lack control or executive power.
So, NCARB actually published their data, and all of the questions about mean and median and whatnot are pretty clearly illustrated with candlestick-looking graphs or line graphs with both the mean and median. For those interested in the survey and their numbers, it's worth a read (if my link works) bit.ly/NFxy2c or http://www.ncarb.org/en/About-NCARB/NCARB-by-the-Numbers.aspx
look at page 14 - IDP completions had a precipitous drop off when the economy tanked - but also what is crazy is that the number of people completing IDP stayed very steady until ramping up in the late 90s. I'm beginning to think that we're graduating way too many people from arch programs.
James R. - there is NO such person as a "non-licensed architect." The difficulty with architecture is those who call themselves architects whom are not architects, confusing the general public as to what is or isn't an architect and contributing to the constant devaluation of "ARCHITECT."
Either you're licensed or you're not. Only licensed individuals can majority-own architectural firms. However, you can own a "design" firm without a license.
What you're suggesting is equivalent to a non-licensed dentist owning a dental office and providing dental services to the general public...huh?!?
Architectural Firm : Design Firm as Dental Office : Teeth Whitening Kiosk in the Mall
It seems there has been an increase in graduates, but a sharp decrease in intern record holders. i'm not positive as to what an intern record holder is, but i would assume someone who has started idp w/ ncarb.
it certainly seems we have more architects than jobs, and more aspiring architects than openings for them to fill.
bad economy = less money = less building = less design = fewer architectural jobs = more people in the pool (more layoffs + more graduates = over-saturation and "competitive" wages for everybody)
What you're suggesting is equivalent to a non-licensed dentist owning a dental office and providing dental services to the general public...huh?!?
False. a dentist poses an immediate risk to a patient. An architect designs a building that must pass inspections and codes. There are checks and balances between the architect and the public. An architect is a person who designs buildings regardless of what ncarb or the state says. If you design buildings then you are an architect by a definition that is thousands of years older than ncarb.
The institutionalization of architecture as a "profession" is the reason why there are so many fucking grads. It is also the reason why there are so many crap architects out there. If little timmy's mom knew that there was no standard path to becoming an architect, and it was a tough gig with no structure where most people fail, there would be far less grads out there. Only the most determined would attempt it. IDP masks itself as a structured way in, but what it really does is create a barrier to entry to maintain a monopoly and limit competition. It allows shitty architects maintain their legitimacy, by the title that they hold rather than the quality of work that they do. The whole system supports mediocracy. This is why the profession is in the shit box (besides the economy)not because.. "confusing the general public as to what is or isn't an architect and contributing to the constant devaluation of "ARCHITECT."
jla-x, i think you equate all licensed architects with only having "technical" skills. i agree, there are people who ignore design issues, but there are plenty of licensed architects who went to top design schools AND have licenses. but either way, your logic is specious - yes, architects are people who design buildings, but we EARN the right to do it from a licensing body to protect the public, so NCARB (or a state) has to sat we are architects before we can do it LEGALLY. i concede that the process could be different, but plenty of people find a way through it. your complaints seem a bit like sour grapes. i know it's tough out there, but life is not fair. we've all seen our shares of bumps and bruises.
so i personally am fine with a high barrier to entry. it does not keep competition DOWN, it makes sure the standards are HIGH. frankly, i think NAAB's standards are not high enough. the AMA limits grads for a reason - supply and demand. the supply of doctors is kept low, so the demand stays high.
curt - not as much of an increase in graduates as I thought (still probably too many) - but it looks like the increase coincides with the 6-month rule - before then you could just submit all your years of experience when you opened your record. NCARB tried to encourage people to start IDP early by giving a large discount if you started your record right out of school - but if people weren't ready to take the exams for whatever reason, what was the point of continually paying NCARB to maintain an inactive record? IMO - 6 month rule seems mostly to capture people who would otherwise put-off getting a license if they aren't entirely sure they're going to even stay in the profession.
so - I wonder if the new rules actually encourage people to stick around the profession longer than they would otherwise. If people are truly committed they're going to complete IDP and get licensed right away - but if people are on the fence (or have marginal skills), they're the ones who put things off... I'm not sure if it's a good thing for NCARB to almost coerce these people into sticking around longer than they should. I'd much rather be working with people who are really committed to the profession - instead of a bunch of half-there people continually asking "what the hell did I get myself into?"
NCARB (and IDP) are organized to expose recent grads and those seeking licensure to the truth of architecture: an architect's sole purpose is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Nothing more, nothing less. The universities refuse to explain this other than one semester of "professional practice" and they shouldn't otherwise. Schools should be about fun and design, you'll face enough building officials, tenants, developers, etc. that will reduce your precious designs to the cheapest buildable product available.
You have recent grads thinking they're architects and can go out and design the next Sears Tower without ever once opening a code book, performing a load calculation, meeting a client face-to-face over budget issues, or having to submit CDs to the building department for review. You can "design" but an "Architect" assumes liability that the "design" will not harm the public. If a doctor makes a mistake, one person dies; if an Architect makes a mistake, 100 people die!
If you guys don't want to jump through all of the hoops and certifications, barriers as you call them, that are established to PROTECT the public and PROVE competency, then you're in the wrong profession. Imagine a 21 yr old with zero experience authorized to design a 52 story highrise in downtown Chicago, you've got to be kidding me!! Oh how many people would die because the young lad has never drawn a wall section or life safety plan!! Oh but check out this pretty rendering I did...
"an architect's sole purpose is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare"
Sole is a great exaggeration, you're boiling it down purely to a legal point of view. Public health, safety, and welfare are just part of it, not the sole purpose. Not many clients come to architects saying they want their public health, safety, and welfare protected. That is a standard part of being an architect.
What you're suggesting is equivalent to a non-licensed dentist owning a dental office and providing dental services to the general public...huh?!?
Yes. Many people who are not doctors or dentists own and operate clinics and hospitals. The CEO of Hospital Corporation of America, the largest for-profit hospital chain in the US, is Richard Bracken. He has a Master's of Hospital Administration and as far as I can tell is not a licensed doctor or able to practice medicine.
Business people who want to sell architectural services usually start up real estate development companies where they skirt liability by subcontracting out architects anyways.
That just means you get a smaller piece of the pie and your name more-or-less detached from the original product unless you're high-profile enough that a marketing firm can use it as leverage.
Imagine a 21 yr old with zero experience authorized to design a 52 story highrise in downtown Chicago, you've got to be kidding me!!
That would never happen in a million years. No one is going to trust a 21 year old with no experiance to build a tower haha. Anyone with all that money would hire someone with many years experiance. Most likely the 21 year old would get to remodel a bathroom or design a backyard if they are lucky. We don't need ncarb around. the market will self regulate.
A CEO does not necessarily equate to having ownership in a business/company...It's more so a title for manager/boss. Huge difference, especially with liability.
"Architect" is purely a legal term. It means you assume liability for the documents you seal. It means you can get sued, legally. The problem is a lot of people want to use the title "architect" for more than it really is. Shore up on your state architecture board's rules and regulations, they are more articulate than I can ever hope to be. THEY define what is "architect" and can legally enforce its use or misuse.
jla-x - I would hope the market would self regulate but unfortunately we can't risk the public's safety with hopes and aspirations. The key word is "authorized." Imagine if Donald Trump's kid just graduated some school, he'd get his new architect kid to complete construction documents for the next Trump Tower and BOOM...Ever think why non-licensed individuals can only design very small offices or residential homes? Because only the user is at risk, not the general public.
It's all about liability. The governing bodies will always ensure a difficult path to licensure. As they should, for the SOLE purpose to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
saying developers or other construction industries would self-regulate in a manner that protects minimum standards of public health and safety would be like saying the financial derivatives markets would self-regulate in a manner that ensures their minimum survival. a lot of large and old companies went through bankruptcy because it doesn't work that way. people in this day and age are looking for quick profit. people would build buildings that fall down as long as they can stand up just long enough to get sold and get liability transferred to the next person, kind of like the model house in arrested development.
another analogy would be occupational safety. people would not follow those standards if they didn't have government mandates and stiff penalties. they would expect their workers to be smart enough to not fall off ladders and roofs and such, but real life suggests accidents happen even to people who don't want to fall off ladders and roofs.
assuming that a building inspector or plans examiner or whatever other city/county official is going to have any responsibility or accountability or liability in construction suggests that you have not worked with these individuals very often. i have an education and stamp that my local plans examiner does not have, which says i should be more capable than them at understanding relevant code issues and standard building practices to protect public health and welfare. i'm not really sure what the minimum requirements are to be a plans examiner or building inspector, but i think they're well below the standards expected of my position. I'm sure we do more than just take responsibility for the architectural portions of design and construction documents, but that is an important part of what we do.
jla-x - I would hope the market would self regulate but unfortunately we can't risk the public's safety with hopes and aspirations. The key word is "authorized." Imagine if Donald Trump's kid just graduated some school, he'd get his new architect kid to complete construction documents for the next Trump Tower and BOOM...Ever think why non-licensed individuals can only design very small offices or residential homes? Because only the user is at risk, not the general public.
That is a valid point, but remember that there are other countries out there that do fine without idp. Not sayin to get rid of all rules and regulations, but we need to make the path toward licensure fair and based on individual merit. The only thing that is a problem imo is the fact that we must rely on others and in many ways burden others during this process. In this economy the system does not work for newcommers.
@jla-x: "we need to make the path toward licensure fair and based on individual merit"
Aside from a reliance on others for mentoring and supervision, what is it about the IDP process that you find to be unfair and a hindrance to those with "individual merit".
stone, people who are able to move around (rich kids with no family) can hop around from job to job city to city to find work and fulfill idp. I know some real lazy ass gobers that have 2/3rds complete. People who show up to reviews with crap that I could have done in 20 mins. some of these a-holes are borderline retarded. A prof. told one of them to switch to another field because they have no understanding of arcitecture. I know some really smart hard working people who have zero done because they are older, have families, mortgages, etc....basically landlocked in a city with one job posting a month... if people were given autonomy over their own careers they could at least get the license and try to compete in business. It is scary to think that some of these morons would be allowed to design a chair let alone a building. IDP does nothing to weed out the stupid grads, instead it weeds out the poor and older grads.
moving for work maybe takes a certain personality more than a particular social status, no? i've always found it so.
architectural wanting-to-bes here in japan are able to take the exam pretty early on but many find it hard to pass without experience in office. Makes sense. Experience is important for learning the things not teachable by books.
After recent scandal with crooked architect faking structural site checks (and a few buildings needing to be torn down) there is now a couple years of office experience required AFTER getting license before architect is legally allowed to stamp drawings. That is kind of annoying. I imagine the govt saw it as sufficient punishment for having low standards for licensure, which may be a fair assessment, truth be told...
lowering standards may make things easier but not better.
I have about 12 years of professional experience and have done fuck all to seek licensure. I don't think I'll ever need it. Friends and acquaintances that have recently gotten registered have followed a very similar path: lock yourself up for a year and study, study, study. Less if you are a gambling man.
Here is what bugs me about the tests. I took a sample test on a subject that I specialize in and should have aced without studying at all. I deal with this shit on daily basis. I found the sample questions to be poorly worded, intentionally misleading, or downright incorrect. A lot of the questions should have had e) It depends. as the only acceptable answer. I got like 65%. One really needs to study TO the test. I strongly suspect a registered architect would fail most of the tests if they were asked to retake them a few years later without studying. What's the point then?
ncarb needs competition. This is exactly what happened in (most provinces of) Canada. You have an option of two competing paths to licensure. Without going into details, it worked like a charm.
The best, harshest, reality-check advice I received early on in my career. This should only serve as encouragement to the newcomers.
1. "It's easy to distinguish licensed Architects from non-licensed individuals, take heed to what the Architects are saying and doing."
2. "You're not qualified to have that opinion or make that statement." NAAB Degree(s) + 3 yr IDP + 7 AREs + open your own practice, get clients, and survive a few recessions. THEN can you complain about the profession, its process, its faults, and MAKE those improvements yourself. Until then, most people aren't qualified to express disdain of a profession they've only been in for 5 minutes. Yeah the process is tough, it's meant to be difficult. Our profession is VERY unique and beautiful. What other "honored profession" can you obtain a license and start your own practice, create your own destiny by the age of 25 (if you're motivated, talented, with enough ambition and a bit of luck)?
"You're not qualified to have that opinion or make that statement."
I understand where your comming from, but I disagee with the idea that we have no say in a system that is hindering our future. Many of us are 100k in debt from grad school and have little hope of getting out. The problems with the profession are seldom pointed out from those at the top. These policies effect us and we have a right to challenge them. Many 18 year olds have no understanding of politics, but they can still vote. As in politics, it is often the case that the older folks vote to maintain their own position of privilage. It is not much different in this debate.
It is kind of like saying "you're not allowed to change your future when you're young, but can only complain about the past when you're old enough and its too late"
jla-x: "The problems with the profession are seldom pointed out from those at the top."
That statement is 180 degrees off what my own experience would suggest. The problem is that young people deciding to pursue architectural education rarely, if ever, ask the kind of questions that would give them a realistic understanding of their career prospects after graduation. "Those at the top" are - in my experience - wholly prepared to share objective information if they are asked. Heck -- "those at the top" are the one's most vocal about there being too many architects chasing too few projects.
You can't blame others if you don't ask the right questions and verify the facts for yourself. Nobody forced you to take on $100k of student debt.
All during the boom and even before there were plenty of people in this profesion and on this board calling for the return of the 4 year degree, the madness of architectural noneducation, the cultish obsession with certain schools, and these people were mocked or ignored. I feel no sympathy. Revit and a spare room is all I really need to run what used to take 3 people, and if I had to ramp up I might concider hiring an idp candidate or a laid off experianced person. The sooner you learn this is an evil every person for themselve world the sooner you wont get duped into paying 100K for a worthless diploma mill program. Id hire a high school kid even, at least I can make sure they learn architecture. 100K lol!
Nobody forced you to take on $100k of student debt.
We are heading off topic here but the whole student loan thing is a RACKET. If you go for a mortgage on a house there are a bunch of qualifications they demand you meet, but an 18 year old kid who had a summer job making $9 will be given a loan that would take 10 years to pay back at $1100/month.
It doesnt matter if the kid never paid a bill in their life and had food, their car, and the roof paid for by mommy. Goto college is drilled into these kids multiple times per day. Very few people bother pointing out that you can commit financial suicide by taken too much college loan debt.
Nobody forces kids to eat all their Halloween candy in one night either, but they will if you dangle it in front of them.
"...the whole student loan thing is a RACKET" I agree, but so are loan sharks and guys on the street who try to sell you a fake Rolex watch and used car salesmen who swear up and down that Granny only drove the car to church on Sunday. At some point, we all have to take responsibility for our own actions and we can't blame others for our own bad choices.
"Nobody forces kids to eat all their Halloween candy in one night either, but they will if you dangle it in front of them." Yes - that can be true, unless there are parents involved who are doing their job. But, we're not really talking about children here, are we? We're talking about young adults who are beginning to live their lives on their own.
With respect to education and student loans, those young adults have two choices -- a) they can make their own choices about their education and student loans - and then live with the consequences of those choices; or b) they can seek, and heed, advice (from parents or other responsible adults) about these very challenging life choices.
By extension, much of this specific discussion comes right back to NCARB and the whole IDP process. If young graduates don't want to serve an internship or work under reasonable supervison or sit through an exam in order to qualify for a license, they're going to end up in a place where they don't want to be somewhere down the road. Yet, all too often some young adults refuse to acknowledge that someone older might actually have some useful insight regarding how to prepare for a career in architecture.
Its not just the kid's fault. If you're told your whole life by everyone that you have to have a $100,000 bag of marbles in order to have a good life and future, but you cannot pay for it, but you get offered loans every month, while never being fully informed of the consequences. Everyone blames the kid for dong what they have to to achieve what they've been told their whole life, but they seldom question why the bag of marbles cost so much, the intent of those offering loans, or why the kid was never fully informed of the extent of the consequences before.
stone, you're usually a good poster here, but your last few posts have been pedantic and really off the mark. They read like someone who doesn't entirely understand an issue or someone who refuses to acknowledge a problem in order to rationalize a long-held belief, not unlike NCARB itself. You are entitled to your opinions, but I do think it would behoove you to better understand why people disagree rather than dig in your heals.
Life is full of temptations and Madison Avenue induced expectations. Still, at the end of the day, it's your life and your responsibility.
We have one child who didn't want to take our counsel regarding life-style expectations during college and the related expenses. That child ran up uncomfortably large student loan levels (which we refused to co-sign) and today - 7 years after graduation - lives a much more challenging economic life than would have been the case had frugality governed during the college years.
Our other child approached college much more cautiously, kept expenses very low, didn't spend the full amount we made available to support college, worked hard (including having a paying job all four years) and was awarded a 'free ride' to grad school. That child today is debt free.
Each child was raised more-or-less the same loving way and we provided each the same level of economic support for their college experience. Each child approached college in their own unique way; each child had access to our counsel and advice whenever it was wanted and each made their own choices. The contrast between their current situations is stark.
ncarb explains the numbers...
Ncarb's numbers on IDP are almost completely irrelevant when you have an entire generation of people locked out of or leaving the profession.
but it shouldn't be that way. and, once upon a time, it wasn't nearly this difficult.
my theory is that people are putting it off because due to high student debt the ability and desire for people to start their own firm has greatly diminished - especially in the past decade or so. This means too many people feel the need to keep working for someone until they are in a better place financially and able to take on the risk.
NCARB is a barrier to entry into a market place. The market for design services for the largest and most expensive things humans make. As such it has stopped many worthy, ambitious and talented people from pursuing architecture as a means to produce income or fortune and as a platform to inspire. What is left is a community of people so desirous to become an architect that no amount of punishment, laws (really internal accounting policy...yes, the 6-month rule), or financial hardship will deter them. The others making up the population to becone architects are, just like anywhere else in life, the rich who can afford to have the resources for homes, families, vacations, living wages from other sources, and so on, to spend an inordinate amount of time on the requirements of NCARB. The effect is that those with resources and means remain the individuals who get to shape our world and our future the way they always have. Oh, yes and NCARB's policy like the Devine Right of Kings is not subject to any review or legal oversight. The elected member boards in empowering NCARB wash their hands of their responsibility. Don't rationalize that NCARB is any more than this.
Tax data on NCARB.
http://www.faqs.org/tax-exempt/DC/National-Council-Of-Architectural-Registration-Boards-Ncarb.html#otherEmployees_a
The CEO apparently makes $271k a year.
+1 for beast troll.
i wanna take a second to point at the expense accounts for officers #4 and #5.
i r giv up - thats the bag man to pay off the various state boards that some how managed to do this themselves for half the cost and agrevation before the invention of the NCARB / University racket.
i thought so...
i suppose it takes a lot of tax-deductible dining and wine-ing to get public officials to do anything, i guess.
Well, I am a licensed architect in California, and I think NCARB is an organized crime racket in bed with the AIA, and I can not wait to see the States decide that both groups need to be investigated under RICO laws!
But, seriously ...I loved ink stamping things with my little architect stamp, it is so 19th century retro!
I'm 25 and my IDP is at 0%. I should probably jump off a bridge now.
@w.architect you are my Hero.
I wander what is the percentage of people that take and pass all their exam before the finish their IDP.
" ...and desire for people to start their own firm has greatly diminished."
This really isn't limited to architecture. For as many reasons as there are to start your own business, there are equally as many reasons to not start a business. The American economy depends greatly on the trial and error of entrepreneurs.
The difficulty with Architecture is that many states have outright forbid non-licensed architects from owning, operating or managing architectural firms.
So, there largely exists this inability for architects to spend more time being architects. And those with the experience and education in business management largely have no motivation to work for a firm where they lack control or executive power.
So, NCARB actually published their data, and all of the questions about mean and median and whatnot are pretty clearly illustrated with candlestick-looking graphs or line graphs with both the mean and median. For those interested in the survey and their numbers, it's worth a read (if my link works) bit.ly/NFxy2c or http://www.ncarb.org/en/About-NCARB/NCARB-by-the-Numbers.aspx
look at page 14 - IDP completions had a precipitous drop off when the economy tanked - but also what is crazy is that the number of people completing IDP stayed very steady until ramping up in the late 90s. I'm beginning to think that we're graduating way too many people from arch programs.
James R. - there is NO such person as a "non-licensed architect." The difficulty with architecture is those who call themselves architects whom are not architects, confusing the general public as to what is or isn't an architect and contributing to the constant devaluation of "ARCHITECT."
Either you're licensed or you're not. Only licensed individuals can majority-own architectural firms. However, you can own a "design" firm without a license.
What you're suggesting is equivalent to a non-licensed dentist owning a dental office and providing dental services to the general public...huh?!?
Architectural Firm : Design Firm as Dental Office : Teeth Whitening Kiosk in the Mall
This is from NAAB and towards the end has some trends in people graduating and such:
www.naab.org/documents/streamfile.aspx?name=2011+Report+on+Accreditation+in+Architecture+Education.pdf&path=Public+Documents%5cNAAB+Presentations%5cFor+ACSA%5c
It seems there has been an increase in graduates, but a sharp decrease in intern record holders. i'm not positive as to what an intern record holder is, but i would assume someone who has started idp w/ ncarb.
it certainly seems we have more architects than jobs, and more aspiring architects than openings for them to fill.
DING DING DING. We have a winner.
Curtkram is dead on! Good research.
bad economy = less money = less building = less design = fewer architectural jobs = more people in the pool (more layoffs + more graduates = over-saturation and "competitive" wages for everybody)
What you're suggesting is equivalent to a non-licensed dentist owning a dental office and providing dental services to the general public...huh?!?
False. a dentist poses an immediate risk to a patient. An architect designs a building that must pass inspections and codes. There are checks and balances between the architect and the public. An architect is a person who designs buildings regardless of what ncarb or the state says. If you design buildings then you are an architect by a definition that is thousands of years older than ncarb.
The institutionalization of architecture as a "profession" is the reason why there are so many fucking grads. It is also the reason why there are so many crap architects out there. If little timmy's mom knew that there was no standard path to becoming an architect, and it was a tough gig with no structure where most people fail, there would be far less grads out there. Only the most determined would attempt it. IDP masks itself as a structured way in, but what it really does is create a barrier to entry to maintain a monopoly and limit competition. It allows shitty architects maintain their legitimacy, by the title that they hold rather than the quality of work that they do. The whole system supports mediocracy. This is why the profession is in the shit box (besides the economy)not because.. "confusing the general public as to what is or isn't an architect and contributing to the constant devaluation of "ARCHITECT."
jla-x, i think you equate all licensed architects with only having "technical" skills. i agree, there are people who ignore design issues, but there are plenty of licensed architects who went to top design schools AND have licenses. but either way, your logic is specious - yes, architects are people who design buildings, but we EARN the right to do it from a licensing body to protect the public, so NCARB (or a state) has to sat we are architects before we can do it LEGALLY. i concede that the process could be different, but plenty of people find a way through it. your complaints seem a bit like sour grapes. i know it's tough out there, but life is not fair. we've all seen our shares of bumps and bruises.
so i personally am fine with a high barrier to entry. it does not keep competition DOWN, it makes sure the standards are HIGH. frankly, i think NAAB's standards are not high enough. the AMA limits grads for a reason - supply and demand. the supply of doctors is kept low, so the demand stays high.
curt - not as much of an increase in graduates as I thought (still probably too many) - but it looks like the increase coincides with the 6-month rule - before then you could just submit all your years of experience when you opened your record. NCARB tried to encourage people to start IDP early by giving a large discount if you started your record right out of school - but if people weren't ready to take the exams for whatever reason, what was the point of continually paying NCARB to maintain an inactive record? IMO - 6 month rule seems mostly to capture people who would otherwise put-off getting a license if they aren't entirely sure they're going to even stay in the profession.
so - I wonder if the new rules actually encourage people to stick around the profession longer than they would otherwise. If people are truly committed they're going to complete IDP and get licensed right away - but if people are on the fence (or have marginal skills), they're the ones who put things off... I'm not sure if it's a good thing for NCARB to almost coerce these people into sticking around longer than they should. I'd much rather be working with people who are really committed to the profession - instead of a bunch of half-there people continually asking "what the hell did I get myself into?"
NCARB (and IDP) are organized to expose recent grads and those seeking licensure to the truth of architecture: an architect's sole purpose is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Nothing more, nothing less. The universities refuse to explain this other than one semester of "professional practice" and they shouldn't otherwise. Schools should be about fun and design, you'll face enough building officials, tenants, developers, etc. that will reduce your precious designs to the cheapest buildable product available.
You have recent grads thinking they're architects and can go out and design the next Sears Tower without ever once opening a code book, performing a load calculation, meeting a client face-to-face over budget issues, or having to submit CDs to the building department for review. You can "design" but an "Architect" assumes liability that the "design" will not harm the public. If a doctor makes a mistake, one person dies; if an Architect makes a mistake, 100 people die!
If you guys don't want to jump through all of the hoops and certifications, barriers as you call them, that are established to PROTECT the public and PROVE competency, then you're in the wrong profession. Imagine a 21 yr old with zero experience authorized to design a 52 story highrise in downtown Chicago, you've got to be kidding me!! Oh how many people would die because the young lad has never drawn a wall section or life safety plan!! Oh but check out this pretty rendering I did...
"an architect's sole purpose is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare"
Sole is a great exaggeration, you're boiling it down purely to a legal point of view. Public health, safety, and welfare are just part of it, not the sole purpose. Not many clients come to architects saying they want their public health, safety, and welfare protected. That is a standard part of being an architect.
What you're suggesting is equivalent to a non-licensed dentist owning a dental office and providing dental services to the general public...huh?!?
Yes. Many people who are not doctors or dentists own and operate clinics and hospitals. The CEO of Hospital Corporation of America, the largest for-profit hospital chain in the US, is Richard Bracken. He has a Master's of Hospital Administration and as far as I can tell is not a licensed doctor or able to practice medicine.
Business people who want to sell architectural services usually start up real estate development companies where they skirt liability by subcontracting out architects anyways.
That just means you get a smaller piece of the pie and your name more-or-less detached from the original product unless you're high-profile enough that a marketing firm can use it as leverage.
Imagine a 21 yr old with zero experience authorized to design a 52 story highrise in downtown Chicago, you've got to be kidding me!!
That would never happen in a million years. No one is going to trust a 21 year old with no experiance to build a tower haha. Anyone with all that money would hire someone with many years experiance. Most likely the 21 year old would get to remodel a bathroom or design a backyard if they are lucky. We don't need ncarb around. the market will self regulate.
I am tired of arguing this point. I have argued it over and over on other threads and im just beating a dead horse at this point.
A CEO does not necessarily equate to having ownership in a business/company...It's more so a title for manager/boss. Huge difference, especially with liability.
"Architect" is purely a legal term. It means you assume liability for the documents you seal. It means you can get sued, legally. The problem is a lot of people want to use the title "architect" for more than it really is. Shore up on your state architecture board's rules and regulations, they are more articulate than I can ever hope to be. THEY define what is "architect" and can legally enforce its use or misuse.
jla-x - I would hope the market would self regulate but unfortunately we can't risk the public's safety with hopes and aspirations. The key word is "authorized." Imagine if Donald Trump's kid just graduated some school, he'd get his new architect kid to complete construction documents for the next Trump Tower and BOOM...Ever think why non-licensed individuals can only design very small offices or residential homes? Because only the user is at risk, not the general public.
It's all about liability. The governing bodies will always ensure a difficult path to licensure. As they should, for the SOLE purpose to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
saying developers or other construction industries would self-regulate in a manner that protects minimum standards of public health and safety would be like saying the financial derivatives markets would self-regulate in a manner that ensures their minimum survival. a lot of large and old companies went through bankruptcy because it doesn't work that way. people in this day and age are looking for quick profit. people would build buildings that fall down as long as they can stand up just long enough to get sold and get liability transferred to the next person, kind of like the model house in arrested development.
another analogy would be occupational safety. people would not follow those standards if they didn't have government mandates and stiff penalties. they would expect their workers to be smart enough to not fall off ladders and roofs and such, but real life suggests accidents happen even to people who don't want to fall off ladders and roofs.
assuming that a building inspector or plans examiner or whatever other city/county official is going to have any responsibility or accountability or liability in construction suggests that you have not worked with these individuals very often. i have an education and stamp that my local plans examiner does not have, which says i should be more capable than them at understanding relevant code issues and standard building practices to protect public health and welfare. i'm not really sure what the minimum requirements are to be a plans examiner or building inspector, but i think they're well below the standards expected of my position. I'm sure we do more than just take responsibility for the architectural portions of design and construction documents, but that is an important part of what we do.
jla-x - I would hope the market would self regulate but unfortunately we can't risk the public's safety with hopes and aspirations. The key word is "authorized." Imagine if Donald Trump's kid just graduated some school, he'd get his new architect kid to complete construction documents for the next Trump Tower and BOOM...Ever think why non-licensed individuals can only design very small offices or residential homes? Because only the user is at risk, not the general public.
That is a valid point, but remember that there are other countries out there that do fine without idp. Not sayin to get rid of all rules and regulations, but we need to make the path toward licensure fair and based on individual merit. The only thing that is a problem imo is the fact that we must rely on others and in many ways burden others during this process. In this economy the system does not work for newcommers.
@jla-x: "we need to make the path toward licensure fair and based on individual merit"
Aside from a reliance on others for mentoring and supervision, what is it about the IDP process that you find to be unfair and a hindrance to those with "individual merit".
stone, people who are able to move around (rich kids with no family) can hop around from job to job city to city to find work and fulfill idp. I know some real lazy ass gobers that have 2/3rds complete. People who show up to reviews with crap that I could have done in 20 mins. some of these a-holes are borderline retarded. A prof. told one of them to switch to another field because they have no understanding of arcitecture. I know some really smart hard working people who have zero done because they are older, have families, mortgages, etc....basically landlocked in a city with one job posting a month... if people were given autonomy over their own careers they could at least get the license and try to compete in business. It is scary to think that some of these morons would be allowed to design a chair let alone a building. IDP does nothing to weed out the stupid grads, instead it weeds out the poor and older grads.
Make ARE's harder
get rid of experiance mandate
Punish those who are luckier because there are those who are unlucky or waited to do architecture when they were older?
not looking to punish anyone just to make the process more accessible so that hard work gets you ahead rather than luck and family connections.
moving for work maybe takes a certain personality more than a particular social status, no? i've always found it so.
architectural wanting-to-bes here in japan are able to take the exam pretty early on but many find it hard to pass without experience in office. Makes sense. Experience is important for learning the things not teachable by books.
After recent scandal with crooked architect faking structural site checks (and a few buildings needing to be torn down) there is now a couple years of office experience required AFTER getting license before architect is legally allowed to stamp drawings. That is kind of annoying. I imagine the govt saw it as sufficient punishment for having low standards for licensure, which may be a fair assessment, truth be told...
lowering standards may make things easier but not better.
I have about 12 years of professional experience and have done fuck all to seek licensure. I don't think I'll ever need it. Friends and acquaintances that have recently gotten registered have followed a very similar path: lock yourself up for a year and study, study, study. Less if you are a gambling man.
Here is what bugs me about the tests. I took a sample test on a subject that I specialize in and should have aced without studying at all. I deal with this shit on daily basis. I found the sample questions to be poorly worded, intentionally misleading, or downright incorrect. A lot of the questions should have had e) It depends. as the only acceptable answer. I got like 65%. One really needs to study TO the test. I strongly suspect a registered architect would fail most of the tests if they were asked to retake them a few years later without studying. What's the point then?
ncarb needs competition. This is exactly what happened in (most provinces of) Canada. You have an option of two competing paths to licensure. Without going into details, it worked like a charm.
The best, harshest, reality-check advice I received early on in my career. This should only serve as encouragement to the newcomers.
1. "It's easy to distinguish licensed Architects from non-licensed individuals, take heed to what the Architects are saying and doing."
2. "You're not qualified to have that opinion or make that statement." NAAB Degree(s) + 3 yr IDP + 7 AREs + open your own practice, get clients, and survive a few recessions. THEN can you complain about the profession, its process, its faults, and MAKE those improvements yourself. Until then, most people aren't qualified to express disdain of a profession they've only been in for 5 minutes. Yeah the process is tough, it's meant to be difficult. Our profession is VERY unique and beautiful. What other "honored profession" can you obtain a license and start your own practice, create your own destiny by the age of 25 (if you're motivated, talented, with enough ambition and a bit of luck)?
"You're not qualified to have that opinion or make that statement."
I understand where your comming from, but I disagee with the idea that we have no say in a system that is hindering our future. Many of us are 100k in debt from grad school and have little hope of getting out. The problems with the profession are seldom pointed out from those at the top. These policies effect us and we have a right to challenge them. Many 18 year olds have no understanding of politics, but they can still vote. As in politics, it is often the case that the older folks vote to maintain their own position of privilage. It is not much different in this debate.
It is kind of like saying "you're not allowed to change your future when you're young, but can only complain about the past when you're old enough and its too late"
yeah, the comment by leveen1354 was full of dumb.
"create your own destiny by the age of 25"
and full of basic math fail.
this is the reason why we have anti-monopoly laws.
jla-x: "The problems with the profession are seldom pointed out from those at the top."
That statement is 180 degrees off what my own experience would suggest. The problem is that young people deciding to pursue architectural education rarely, if ever, ask the kind of questions that would give them a realistic understanding of their career prospects after graduation. "Those at the top" are - in my experience - wholly prepared to share objective information if they are asked. Heck -- "those at the top" are the one's most vocal about there being too many architects chasing too few projects.
You can't blame others if you don't ask the right questions and verify the facts for yourself. Nobody forced you to take on $100k of student debt.
All during the boom and even before there were plenty of people in this profesion and on this board calling for the return of the 4 year degree, the madness of architectural noneducation, the cultish obsession with certain schools, and these people were mocked or ignored. I feel no sympathy. Revit and a spare room is all I really need to run what used to take 3 people, and if I had to ramp up I might concider hiring an idp candidate or a laid off experianced person. The sooner you learn this is an evil every person for themselve world the sooner you wont get duped into paying 100K for a worthless diploma mill program. Id hire a high school kid even, at least I can make sure they learn architecture. 100K lol!
Oh and screw ncarb too. There times just about up soon enough.
""those at the top" are the one's most vocal about there being too many architects"
it's like rain on your wedding day.
it's like rain on your wedding day.
isn't it ironic?
(btw, i know the answer to that question)
Nobody forced you to take on $100k of student debt.
We are heading off topic here but the whole student loan thing is a RACKET. If you go for a mortgage on a house there are a bunch of qualifications they demand you meet, but an 18 year old kid who had a summer job making $9 will be given a loan that would take 10 years to pay back at $1100/month.
It doesnt matter if the kid never paid a bill in their life and had food, their car, and the roof paid for by mommy. Goto college is drilled into these kids multiple times per day. Very few people bother pointing out that you can commit financial suicide by taken too much college loan debt.
Nobody forces kids to eat all their Halloween candy in one night either, but they will if you dangle it in front of them.
jbushkey:
"...the whole student loan thing is a RACKET" I agree, but so are loan sharks and guys on the street who try to sell you a fake Rolex watch and used car salesmen who swear up and down that Granny only drove the car to church on Sunday. At some point, we all have to take responsibility for our own actions and we can't blame others for our own bad choices.
"Nobody forces kids to eat all their Halloween candy in one night either, but they will if you dangle it in front of them." Yes - that can be true, unless there are parents involved who are doing their job. But, we're not really talking about children here, are we? We're talking about young adults who are beginning to live their lives on their own.
With respect to education and student loans, those young adults have two choices -- a) they can make their own choices about their education and student loans - and then live with the consequences of those choices; or b) they can seek, and heed, advice (from parents or other responsible adults) about these very challenging life choices.
By extension, much of this specific discussion comes right back to NCARB and the whole IDP process. If young graduates don't want to serve an internship or work under reasonable supervison or sit through an exam in order to qualify for a license, they're going to end up in a place where they don't want to be somewhere down the road. Yet, all too often some young adults refuse to acknowledge that someone older might actually have some useful insight regarding how to prepare for a career in architecture.
Its not just the kid's fault. If you're told your whole life by everyone that you have to have a $100,000 bag of marbles in order to have a good life and future, but you cannot pay for it, but you get offered loans every month, while never being fully informed of the consequences. Everyone blames the kid for dong what they have to to achieve what they've been told their whole life, but they seldom question why the bag of marbles cost so much, the intent of those offering loans, or why the kid was never fully informed of the extent of the consequences before.
Also, how many kids do you know that come out of high school with $100,000 or more ready to spend on education?
stone, you're usually a good poster here, but your last few posts have been pedantic and really off the mark. They read like someone who doesn't entirely understand an issue or someone who refuses to acknowledge a problem in order to rationalize a long-held belief, not unlike NCARB itself. You are entitled to your opinions, but I do think it would behoove you to better understand why people disagree rather than dig in your heals.
Life is full of temptations and Madison Avenue induced expectations. Still, at the end of the day, it's your life and your responsibility.
We have one child who didn't want to take our counsel regarding life-style expectations during college and the related expenses. That child ran up uncomfortably large student loan levels (which we refused to co-sign) and today - 7 years after graduation - lives a much more challenging economic life than would have been the case had frugality governed during the college years.
Our other child approached college much more cautiously, kept expenses very low, didn't spend the full amount we made available to support college, worked hard (including having a paying job all four years) and was awarded a 'free ride' to grad school. That child today is debt free.
Each child was raised more-or-less the same loving way and we provided each the same level of economic support for their college experience. Each child approached college in their own unique way; each child had access to our counsel and advice whenever it was wanted and each made their own choices. The contrast between their current situations is stark.
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.