Regarding the 55 year old long hair hipster suit wearing architects, are these the high school only educated 55 year old long hair hipster suit wearing architects or are they the bohemian hoosier 55 year old long hair hipster suit wearing architects? Because there is a difference between these types of 55 year old long hair hipster suit wearing architects.
Don't know. But it was enough for my librarian friend to find them ridiculous, based on the sarcasm with which she wrote the message. And for me to agree with her.
Need these traits be mutually exclusive? They could be bohemian HS graduates living in Indiana, thus "Hoosiers," and doing the architect thang while wearing tight fitting hipster suits and sporting shoulder length white hair.
yeah? well my accountant friend once saw a librarian not wearing her professionally mandated cardigan! Outrageous!
No wonder the books don’t respect her, she obviously got her library card in a state that doesn’t even require you to read to work in a library. Dam bohemians.
I have not read this thread, but your use of the above word, i think, sums up what most people think about you, and this thread.
Sure, architects, deep down, are conformists. They accept a certain design vocabulary, modes of dress, and manner of thinking ... which changes every 10 years, as an extension of pop culture. In school, one professor did not like the use of the word "styles" because it made architecture less serious, almost like fashion design. Well, it is. How well would Michael Graves on yellow flimsy or the Morphosis stuff of the 90s be received today, not to mention be dated within a 10 year increment?
I'm not a conformist. That's why I'm willing to point out the ridiculous. Keep on swinging, though..
so, you're a non-conformist defending a stance which says everyone must conform? dude, self-awareness is not your strong point.
this thread hints at groups of people getting smashed drunk, or stoned, at hipster bar with crazy ass suits spilling onto the floor like nobody's business.
by chance your question about lawyers is answered in the NYtimes recently. check it out. so there you go. you're mildly anti-social in two professions now. well done.
"And a handful of states, including New York, allow individuals to take the bar after working for a law office for a number of years, in lieu of going to law school, though this approach is seldom used." --From NYT article Will posted above.
Oh Snap! Law practice is going down the crapper.
"And a handful of states, including (insert appropriate state here), allow individuals to take the ARE after working for an architecture office for a number of years, in lieu of going to architecture school, though this approach is seldom used. And most people don't worry about it."
FIFY Observant. Write the above on a post-it and stick it to your bathroom mirror. Every morning recite it three times to help with your anxiety. (This medical advice comes from someone who never went to medical school)
"However, earlier on, when I got the defensive "I didn't go to college" when being interviewed, I did NOT take the job."
Now we know where the butt hurt is coming from.
"I didn't go to college" politely implies "you're not knowledgeable enough to work here." aka "you don't know how to draw structural systems with all your education yet I learned it without even going to college." I was also told to get my money back from my school because the school didn't teach me anything, the person who hired me had no college education yet I wasn't offended by that comment and I learned a great deal at that job. I personally hate the ones who require masters degrees and fancy design portfolios. I don't, however want to eliminate all grad programs. If one wants to accrue debt it is his/her problem. Such places your described are more construction oriented, manly men work there. Once you stepped inside the door you can smell the testosterone in the air. The only woman working there is the secretary. In bigger companies though you see more women. These bohemians you're talking about wouldn't get near those places. As far as I observed the bohemian kinds like the academia and have the ivory tower attitude. Of course these are rough generalizations and don't apply to everyone. I've also seen bohemian kinds working in huge corporate firms making the environment more colorful. I've known such an architect, he served us wine at his office while talking about building construction.
Talking about bohemians, this one goes to you: http://youtu.be/fJ9rUzIMcZQ
Nonconformist in the sense that I am willing to defend an unpopular opinion, at least relative to the other posts made. Spare me the antisocial diagnosis, Will, you're, at best, an "armchair" psychologist. There is plenty on nonconformity in architecture school alone - from those who should have been engineers or builders to those who should have been graphic designers and to those who should have been in sales. I think there are a lot of architects who agree and are too spineless to weigh in on this. They might be too "sensitive." My assumption is that the more alternative types are getting either torqued and/or getting a rise out of this, so that's who you are seeing. The frivolity is also shown by the cartoons and other stupidities being posted here. If this was a thread for REAL professionals, they would respond with well-articulated arguments.
And you're right about law. There are six states that do allow it, and CA and NY are among them. Good luck getting hired, especially in that community. Here's the link:
The whole tone is "that law school thang." He uses the term "expensive and boring law school." Typical reverse snobbery, like we're seeing here. The very best law schools in California are state schools and, for in-state applicants, they are a bargain compared to the money some will make. He also mentions famous people who became an attorney without legal training - nobody in the last 50 years, so Abraham Lincoln doesn't count.
"However, earlier on, when I got the defensive "I didn't go to college" when being interviewed, I did NOT take the job."
"I didn't go to college" politely implies "you're not knowledgeable enough to work here." aka "you don't know how to draw structural systems with all your education yet I learned it without even going to college."
That's YOUR visual and interpretation of it. First, I went to a more technically oriented program, so we traced loads mathematically as homework. So that argument is moot. Second, it was conveyed in a defensive manner and with a condescending attitude,while looking at a resume with a M.Arch., another degree prior to that, some real life work experience in another field, and scanning you up in down while you're sitting across from them in a coat and tie, appropriate garb for an interview.
They should make up a bumper sticker: "So many flakes, so little time"
Well, I don't know Rodney's shtick, so I'm not getting it. Actually, I like the comedy of incisive stand-ups like Eddie Murphy and Lisa Lampanelli who "call a spade a spade" and don't have to apologize for being honest about the human condition, despite being crassly delivered.
So you couldn't handle "condescending" attitudes from a couple of people that's why you want to restrict access to the profession making everybody go through years of formal education so that everyone can sympathize with your situation and handle you with kids gloves. Got it.
They called you for an interview knowing you had a masters degree. They didn't automatically send your resume to the trash can. Employers interview people they intend to hire but something went terribly wrong with that interview. Every office has its own culture. Perhaps they didn't think you could fit into that culture, it happens to all of us. You try different places and find the one that suits you. I just wish you had a video of that interview.
The frivolity is also shown by the cartoons and other stupidities being posted here. If this was a thread for REAL professionals, they would respond with well-articulated arguments.
I can compartmentalize well. There is a place to be serious and a place to cut up. Sometimes one can do so at the same place, and sometimes they can't. Uptight? Hardly. It's just that this thread morphed from talking about education and licensure to cartoons, and that wasn't ME doing the steering. If we were making fun of a political candidate from the very get-go, depending on one's allegiances, then the cartoons would come in handy.
Again, it's me. It has to be. After all, I started this unpopular thread. I'd say it was them, actually. I knew it had "gone south" from the minute they walked in the conference room in those few cases ... cup of coffee in hand, peering over their glasses at you as they walked in, looking kind of smug ... it's well documented that people know within 15 seconds to 15 minutes whether they want to hire you, or whether you want to work for someone. And this isn't about an ax to grind over an interview or two, it's sort of all pervasive from what I've seen.
But, I agree with you 110% on the FIT quotient. And that applies to every line of work, be it white collar or blue collar, and everything in between.
i don't think archinect should require a comment to go along with images. sometimes images are more useful without words taking away from the real meaning. anyway, this is a cat who got it's license taken away because it created a bad car wreck.
Maybe they can take licenses away from architects who spill coffee on a thick set of CDs, and especially so if they don't have an architectural degree.
How would we word that in the Architecture Practice Act?
I'm assuming you were professional and did not do your Michael Jackson " Moon Dance" and flip him the finger upon exiting the room.
Years ago I worked in a Progressive Firm, I ended up leaving because there were other fish to fry. Leaving the cold belt for the desert. I recall one of my interviews with a firm where the Senior Partner said, "We could never pay you enough to draw all those details." What he didn't know is we were cutting up babies and burning drawings on the flat bed Printer. So Iooked at him and said, " I think I can find someone who will." Never even got around to discussing wages.
Nope. Kept a poker face through the whole interview, asked few questions indicating a lack of interest, was looking to fill the sort of understood 20 to 30 minute interview slot, shook hands with him, and was on my way. They never called. I never called back to check. Ho-hum would be the best descriptor.
For the record, this is why I'd rather see licenses given out to people with no degree but having gone through IDP, than licenses given to degree holders after "... a minimum of 3 years worth of chronological (not task-based) work experience ..." assuming both pass the ARE. As messed up as IDP is, it at the very least assures someone exposure to the profession. 3 years in an office doesn't mean you learn anything about the profession.
Also for the record, I don't think anyone ever said you made up the "education, experience, examination" thing. I just didn't necessarily agree with your interpretation of what education is.
I am not on board. As far as the most recent program used in office is concerned, one can take it as an elective, or they can take it during the summers at some community college at night. I learned the current and relevant AutoCAD program at a community college for a couple of hundred bucks.
IDP is the ultimate "sword of Damocles" to hang over the lowest paid person with a professional degree, and to prolong their agony in non-professional status. I suppose if one goes to work for a 300 person firm, does not assert themselves, and sits in a corner, they will be drawing stair details and keeping the detail library. That was not my experience. I got exposed to a lot in 3 years, but I worked for small to medium sized offices. Like I said, the only thing I didn't get exposed to were about 3 categories of IDP, and it was a "cold day in hell" before those categories filled up. Thank you, 3 year system.
Again, I don't see why there is more objection to education than IDP. Education is an absolutely finite process, as far as earning a degree goes. The courses and credit hours are enumerated for you. If a person is charged up about architecture, they will set aside the time to go to architecture school, given that it is the New Millennium. And my interpretation of "what education is" is that it's comprehensive. That is, it's a framework to go into an office, be productive, employ professional judgment, and be a step ahead in being prepared to pass the ARE.
I just learned from another thread that yet another jurisdiction (state) just shut down the 4 year degree option to licensure, which I supported. I look at this issue as a longer term commitment to "playing" architect, meaning affixing one's seal and signing drawings. I look at this 8 to 10 years down the road. Any kind of arch degree + timed internship + ARE is just a baseline. No one should pull that stamp out for 8 to 10 years. By that time, you will have seen what you needed to check off for IDP, without the hassle, bureaucracy and testing delay it brings about. Get in there, pass the test, be able to call yourself an architect, and go out and live life with what free time you have - skiing, working out, photography, gardening, playing a musical instrument - rather than having IDP possibly postpone the time at which you can test, and have you sitting around a coffeehouse with your study materials.
Degree + timed internship is actually less cumbersome than education/no education + IDP. The issue that will vary by person is when he or she is ready to stamp and sign drawings. Now THAT is something for which you can't educate / train / examine an architect, and where the biggest problem realistically lies.
Clarification: "which I supported" means that I believe in letting 4 yr BA/BS folks license with a slightly longer internship period, and I'm sorry to see this option no longer available in IL.
I have the NCARB link displayed earlier on - the Southeast (from TX to FL and up to the Carolinas) has to have an accredited degree, as a block. It used to be displayed as a map, and the entire Southeastern quadrant of the country was shaded in that way.
Some of the ones who will let one do it without a degree are CA, WA, AZ, CO, HI, NY, and a few others.
I have actually done some in-depth research on which states do not require a professional degree and I'd be happy to share with anyone interested. Right now I have it all in excel so if you directly message me I can send that out. Below are the states that do not require a professional degree as a preview. They all have different requirements for experience, residency, IDP, etc...
I have another spreadsheet on which states allow reciprocal licensure without the professional degree.
States:
Arizona
California
Colorado
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Maine
Maryland
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New York
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
Guam
Very strange in that no patterns or clusters exist.
Well, sort of: the West and Pacific islands, some Midwest states (scattered), and New England (a swath across ME, NH, VT ... and NY, which is not New England). New England is surprising because the Northeast is known for America's thickest concentration of good institutions of higher learning. One can see that the ENTIRE Southeast requires a degree (except for Tennessee).
I still wonder what the logic is of this hodgepodge variation in requirements.
Apr 15, 13 2:52 pm ·
·
eeayeeayo
This list can be misleading, in that the alternative routes are still on the books, but good luck finding anybody who has gotten through that way in decades in a few of these states. Pennsylvania for instance - there have been a number of disgruntled applicants who have come to this forum over the years to complain about that: they get their hopes up because the rules still let them submit an application without a professional degree, but the board always says no after "considering" those applications.
As an aside, you can take the bar exam in California if you have worked for an attorney for four years. Law school is not required.
Jul 31, 18 3:51 pm ·
·
eeayeeayo
There are a few states where that's still possible. Also a few that allow psychotherapists to intern with a licensed therapist for some years, and become licensed with no higher ed.
How about best 2 out of 3: education and experience, education and exams, or experience and exams. Seems like the US is one of few places that requires all 3 and though I think education is important, architecture is more of a trade than a profession and the current NCARB system is overkill. Architects want to be equal with MDs, PhDs, attorneys, and engineers but that's not gonna happen and no amount of hoops to jump through is going to change that. The traditional architect is already obsolete yet architects still hold on to this century-old ideal of the architect like they are all Vitruvius or something. The fact that somebody mentioned FLW in a previous comment is a joke. It architects don't change, markets, economies, and people will just continue to find ways to get what they need without architects.
I thought you where done with this site Janette? For someone who thinks we're all a bunch of useless wankers you sure do spend a lot of time here talking to yourself.
Sep 30, 20 6:06 pm ·
·
proto
someone sounds a little bitter at not becoming an architect
Sep 30, 20 6:26 pm ·
·
Wilma Buttfit
Some of us actually work on difficult projects that require a lot of thought and skill. It's a lot of responsibility. I think you should just be happy that you make a ton of money recycling mcmansion plans.
“ [If] architects don't change, markets, economies, and people will just continue to find ways to get what they need without architects.” Come on, they don’t really know what they need until the architect shows them...you know that, right?
Oct 1, 20 5:15 am ·
·
Volunteer
"Architects want to be equal with MDs, PhDs, attorneys, and engineers" Of that group only MDs have any kind of job security. PhDs cannot buy themselves a tenure-track position at a university. When a professor retires he is very often replaced by non-tenure track instructors with no job security at all and who are paid a pittance for teaching one or two courses. Attorneys are a dime a dozen. The job security of engineers is dependant on how easy it is to ship the job overseas. And if you are into computer hardware or software and over 40 looking for a job you are out of luck.
Oct 1, 20 6:58 am ·
·
square.
on point, janette. looks like more defensive/nervous architects than anything else. i get it- they need to protect their increasingly precarious position (myself being one of them). but just because janette isn't licensed doesn't mean she has some relevant points- this is the sort of elitism that is making people blind to valid criticism.
architects refuse to acknowledge that if they maintain the current course, they will seed their own irrelevance. just wait until developers and clients get a hold of ai that can produce drawing sets and analyze code and zoning. the only remaining architects will be those that are a brand, aka a commodity.
attorneys are a dime a dozen? absolutely; that's because they make a shit ton of money and have inserted themselves in every part of public and private life.
If I recall Janette started a thread lamenting about how the licensing exams are too hard. Then she expounded upon how the profession, it's education, and it's licensed practitioners are worthless. Obviously I'm paraphrasing here but I do distinctly recall she posted saying that we where all looser and she was leaving the site, never to return.
What do you think of SOME states allowing licensure as architects with a High School education?
Regarding the 55 year old long hair hipster suit wearing architects, are these the high school only educated 55 year old long hair hipster suit wearing architects or are they the bohemian hoosier 55 year old long hair hipster suit wearing architects? Because there is a difference between these types of 55 year old long hair hipster suit wearing architects.
-
@ vado retro:
Don't know. But it was enough for my librarian friend to find them ridiculous, based on the sarcasm with which she wrote the message. And for me to agree with her.
Need these traits be mutually exclusive? They could be bohemian HS graduates living in Indiana, thus "Hoosiers," and doing the architect thang while wearing tight fitting hipster suits and sporting shoulder length white hair.
yeah? well my accountant friend once saw a librarian not wearing her professionally mandated cardigan! Outrageous!
No wonder the books don’t respect her, she obviously got her library card in a state that doesn’t even require you to read to work in a library. Dam bohemians.
Now get off my lawn.
@ a mouse:
I think the guy or lady who preceded you in your attempt at humor was a little more successful. No stand-up career for you ... or get a better writer.
I have not read this thread, but your use of the above word, i think, sums up what most people think about you, and this thread.
Sure, architects, deep down, are conformists. They accept a certain design vocabulary, modes of dress, and manner of thinking ... which changes every 10 years, as an extension of pop culture. In school, one professor did not like the use of the word "styles" because it made architecture less serious, almost like fashion design. Well, it is. How well would Michael Graves on yellow flimsy or the Morphosis stuff of the 90s be received today, not to mention be dated within a 10 year increment?
I'm not a conformist. That's why I'm willing to point out the ridiculous. Keep on swinging, though..
per? is that you?
so, you're a non-conformist defending a stance which says everyone must conform? dude, self-awareness is not your strong point.
this thread hints at groups of people getting smashed drunk, or stoned, at hipster bar with crazy ass suits spilling onto the floor like nobody's business.
by chance your question about lawyers is answered in the NYtimes recently. check it out. so there you go. you're mildly anti-social in two professions now. well done.
"And a handful of states, including New York, allow individuals to take the bar after working for a law office for a number of years, in lieu of going to law school, though this approach is seldom used." --From NYT article Will posted above.
Oh Snap! Law practice is going down the crapper.
"And a handful of states, including (insert appropriate state here), allow individuals to take the ARE after working for an architecture office for a number of years, in lieu of going to architecture school, though this approach is seldom used. And most people don't worry about it."
FIFY Observant. Write the above on a post-it and stick it to your bathroom mirror. Every morning recite it three times to help with your anxiety. (This medical advice comes from someone who never went to medical school)
"However, earlier on, when I got the defensive "I didn't go to college" when being interviewed, I did NOT take the job."
Now we know where the butt hurt is coming from.
"I didn't go to college" politely implies "you're not knowledgeable enough to work here." aka "you don't know how to draw structural systems with all your education yet I learned it without even going to college." I was also told to get my money back from my school because the school didn't teach me anything, the person who hired me had no college education yet I wasn't offended by that comment and I learned a great deal at that job. I personally hate the ones who require masters degrees and fancy design portfolios. I don't, however want to eliminate all grad programs. If one wants to accrue debt it is his/her problem. Such places your described are more construction oriented, manly men work there. Once you stepped inside the door you can smell the testosterone in the air. The only woman working there is the secretary. In bigger companies though you see more women. These bohemians you're talking about wouldn't get near those places. As far as I observed the bohemian kinds like the academia and have the ivory tower attitude. Of course these are rough generalizations and don't apply to everyone. I've also seen bohemian kinds working in huge corporate firms making the environment more colorful. I've known such an architect, he served us wine at his office while talking about building construction.
Talking about bohemians, this one goes to you:
http://youtu.be/fJ9rUzIMcZQ
Nonconformist in the sense that I am willing to defend an unpopular opinion, at least relative to the other posts made. Spare me the antisocial diagnosis, Will, you're, at best, an "armchair" psychologist. There is plenty on nonconformity in architecture school alone - from those who should have been engineers or builders to those who should have been graphic designers and to those who should have been in sales. I think there are a lot of architects who agree and are too spineless to weigh in on this. They might be too "sensitive." My assumption is that the more alternative types are getting either torqued and/or getting a rise out of this, so that's who you are seeing. The frivolity is also shown by the cartoons and other stupidities being posted here. If this was a thread for REAL professionals, they would respond with well-articulated arguments.
And you're right about law. There are six states that do allow it, and CA and NY are among them. Good luck getting hired, especially in that community. Here's the link:
http://www.ehlinelaw.com/how-to-become-a-lawyer.htm
The whole tone is "that law school thang." He uses the term "expensive and boring law school." Typical reverse snobbery, like we're seeing here. The very best law schools in California are state schools and, for in-state applicants, they are a bargain compared to the money some will make. He also mentions famous people who became an attorney without legal training - nobody in the last 50 years, so Abraham Lincoln doesn't count.
"However, earlier on, when I got the defensive "I didn't go to college" when being interviewed, I did NOT take the job."
"I didn't go to college" politely implies "you're not knowledgeable enough to work here." aka "you don't know how to draw structural systems with all your education yet I learned it without even going to college."
That's YOUR visual and interpretation of it. First, I went to a more technically oriented program, so we traced loads mathematically as homework. So that argument is moot. Second, it was conveyed in a defensive manner and with a condescending attitude,while looking at a resume with a M.Arch., another degree prior to that, some real life work experience in another field, and scanning you up in down while you're sitting across from them in a coat and tie, appropriate garb for an interview.
They should make up a bumper sticker: "So many flakes, so little time"
I feel a Rodney Dangerfield moment coming along shortly.
Well, I don't know Rodney's shtick, so I'm not getting it. Actually, I like the comedy of incisive stand-ups like Eddie Murphy and Lisa Lampanelli who "call a spade a spade" and don't have to apologize for being honest about the human condition, despite being crassly delivered.
I'm a bit surprised you identify with any humor.
So you couldn't handle "condescending" attitudes from a couple of people that's why you want to restrict access to the profession making everybody go through years of formal education so that everyone can sympathize with your situation and handle you with kids gloves. Got it.
They called you for an interview knowing you had a masters degree. They didn't automatically send your resume to the trash can. Employers interview people they intend to hire but something went terribly wrong with that interview. Every office has its own culture. Perhaps they didn't think you could fit into that culture, it happens to all of us. You try different places and find the one that suits you. I just wish you had a video of that interview.
The frivolity is also shown by the cartoons and other stupidities being posted here. If this was a thread for REAL professionals, they would respond with well-articulated arguments.
Are you seriously that up-tight.
I can compartmentalize well. There is a place to be serious and a place to cut up. Sometimes one can do so at the same place, and sometimes they can't. Uptight? Hardly. It's just that this thread morphed from talking about education and licensure to cartoons, and that wasn't ME doing the steering. If we were making fun of a political candidate from the very get-go, depending on one's allegiances, then the cartoons would come in handy.
Now this is turning into a bad car wreck on the interstate...I don't want to look, but I just can't help myself.
I just wish you had a video of that interview.
Again, it's me. It has to be. After all, I started this unpopular thread. I'd say it was them, actually. I knew it had "gone south" from the minute they walked in the conference room in those few cases ... cup of coffee in hand, peering over their glasses at you as they walked in, looking kind of smug ... it's well documented that people know within 15 seconds to 15 minutes whether they want to hire you, or whether you want to work for someone. And this isn't about an ax to grind over an interview or two, it's sort of all pervasive from what I've seen.
But, I agree with you 110% on the FIT quotient. And that applies to every line of work, be it white collar or blue collar, and everything in between.
How's your sandwich, Kevin? Did you switch ingredients from yesterday?
i don't think archinect should require a comment to go along with images. sometimes images are more useful without words taking away from the real meaning. anyway, this is a cat who got it's license taken away because it created a bad car wreck.
Sandwich is delicious, thanks for asking. And no, same as yesterday.
curtkram:
Maybe they can take licenses away from architects who spill coffee on a thick set of CDs, and especially so if they don't have an architectural degree.
How would we word that in the Architecture Practice Act?
commandment #1 thou shall not spill coffee
maybe there needs to be a starbucks exemption, a hipster exemption, or a $4 cup of coffee exemption?
I'm assuming you were professional and did not do your Michael Jackson " Moon Dance" and flip him the finger upon exiting the room.
Years ago I worked in a Progressive Firm, I ended up leaving because there were other fish to fry. Leaving the cold belt for the desert. I recall one of my interviews with a firm where the Senior Partner said, "We could never pay you enough to draw all those details." What he didn't know is we were cutting up babies and burning drawings on the flat bed Printer. So Iooked at him and said, " I think I can find someone who will." Never even got around to discussing wages.
Nope. Kept a poker face through the whole interview, asked few questions indicating a lack of interest, was looking to fill the sort of understood 20 to 30 minute interview slot, shook hands with him, and was on my way. They never called. I never called back to check. Ho-hum would be the best descriptor.
how the hell does any professional have so much time to respond to all of these posts? and is observant and ThayerD the same person?
Unemployment, or maybe the flu.
Neither. Plus, I type fast.
@servant oh i mean observant,
do you have any openings (employment opportunities) at this point?
Since you're a jerk about it (servant?) and I don't know where you live, why bother to answer? It wouldn't be bohemian enough for you anyway.
@OBSERVANT
OOOOOOH HARSH!! (BESIDES IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU MEAN BY JERK!) SOME INDIVIDUALS INDULGE IN THE TERM =), & SUM FINF IT XTREMLY OFFENSIVE =(.
P.S.
I WAS TOLD ONCE IN A JOB INTERVIEW, I WUD FIT PERFECTLY IN A BOHEMIAN OFFICE!,
GO FIGURE!!!
On a currently actively thread about summer intros to architecture, look at what I saw!
http://www.archcareers.org/website/article.asp?id=7
Education, Experience, Examination ...
...and I didn't even make this up...someone flog me now.
For the record, this is why I'd rather see licenses given out to people with no degree but having gone through IDP, than licenses given to degree holders after "... a minimum of 3 years worth of chronological (not task-based) work experience ..." assuming both pass the ARE. As messed up as IDP is, it at the very least assures someone exposure to the profession. 3 years in an office doesn't mean you learn anything about the profession.
Also for the record, I don't think anyone ever said you made up the "education, experience, examination" thing. I just didn't necessarily agree with your interpretation of what education is.
Everyday:
I am not on board. As far as the most recent program used in office is concerned, one can take it as an elective, or they can take it during the summers at some community college at night. I learned the current and relevant AutoCAD program at a community college for a couple of hundred bucks.
IDP is the ultimate "sword of Damocles" to hang over the lowest paid person with a professional degree, and to prolong their agony in non-professional status. I suppose if one goes to work for a 300 person firm, does not assert themselves, and sits in a corner, they will be drawing stair details and keeping the detail library. That was not my experience. I got exposed to a lot in 3 years, but I worked for small to medium sized offices. Like I said, the only thing I didn't get exposed to were about 3 categories of IDP, and it was a "cold day in hell" before those categories filled up. Thank you, 3 year system.
Again, I don't see why there is more objection to education than IDP. Education is an absolutely finite process, as far as earning a degree goes. The courses and credit hours are enumerated for you. If a person is charged up about architecture, they will set aside the time to go to architecture school, given that it is the New Millennium. And my interpretation of "what education is" is that it's comprehensive. That is, it's a framework to go into an office, be productive, employ professional judgment, and be a step ahead in being prepared to pass the ARE.
I just learned from another thread that yet another jurisdiction (state) just shut down the 4 year degree option to licensure, which I supported. I look at this issue as a longer term commitment to "playing" architect, meaning affixing one's seal and signing drawings. I look at this 8 to 10 years down the road. Any kind of arch degree + timed internship + ARE is just a baseline. No one should pull that stamp out for 8 to 10 years. By that time, you will have seen what you needed to check off for IDP, without the hassle, bureaucracy and testing delay it brings about. Get in there, pass the test, be able to call yourself an architect, and go out and live life with what free time you have - skiing, working out, photography, gardening, playing a musical instrument - rather than having IDP possibly postpone the time at which you can test, and have you sitting around a coffeehouse with your study materials.
Degree + timed internship is actually less cumbersome than education/no education + IDP. The issue that will vary by person is when he or she is ready to stamp and sign drawings. Now THAT is something for which you can't educate / train / examine an architect, and where the biggest problem realistically lies.
^
Clarification: "which I supported" means that I believe in letting 4 yr BA/BS folks license with a slightly longer internship period, and I'm sorry to see this option no longer available in IL.
Well? What are the 12 states?
Gmatc
I have the NCARB link displayed earlier on - the Southeast (from TX to FL and up to the Carolinas) has to have an accredited degree, as a block. It used to be displayed as a map, and the entire Southeastern quadrant of the country was shaded in that way.
Some of the ones who will let one do it without a degree are CA, WA, AZ, CO, HI, NY, and a few others.
Thanks a ton.
I have actually done some in-depth research on which states do not require a professional degree and I'd be happy to share with anyone interested. Right now I have it all in excel so if you directly message me I can send that out. Below are the states that do not require a professional degree as a preview. They all have different requirements for experience, residency, IDP, etc...
I have another spreadsheet on which states allow reciprocal licensure without the professional degree.
States:
Arizona
California
Colorado
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Maine
Maryland
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New York
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
Guam
^
Very strange in that no patterns or clusters exist.
Well, sort of: the West and Pacific islands, some Midwest states (scattered), and New England (a swath across ME, NH, VT ... and NY, which is not New England). New England is surprising because the Northeast is known for America's thickest concentration of good institutions of higher learning. One can see that the ENTIRE Southeast requires a degree (except for Tennessee).
I still wonder what the logic is of this hodgepodge variation in requirements.
This list can be misleading, in that the alternative routes are still on the books, but good luck finding anybody who has gotten through that way in decades in a few of these states. Pennsylvania for instance - there have been a number of disgruntled applicants who have come to this forum over the years to complain about that: they get their hopes up because the rules still let them submit an application without a professional degree, but the board always says no after "considering" those applications.
As an aside, you can take the bar exam in California if you have worked for an attorney for four years. Law school is not required.
There are a few states where that's still possible. Also a few that allow psychotherapists to intern with a licensed therapist for some years, and become licensed with no higher ed.
How about best 2 out of 3: education and experience, education and exams, or experience and exams. Seems like the US is one of few places that requires all 3 and though I think education is important, architecture is more of a trade than a profession and the current NCARB system is overkill. Architects want to be equal with MDs, PhDs, attorneys, and engineers but that's not gonna happen and no amount of hoops to jump through is going to change that. The traditional architect is already obsolete yet architects still hold on to this century-old ideal of the architect like they are all Vitruvius or something. The fact that somebody mentioned FLW in a previous comment is a joke. It architects don't change, markets, economies, and people will just continue to find ways to get what they need without architects.
I thought you where done with this site Janette? For someone who thinks we're all a bunch of useless wankers you sure do spend a lot of time here talking to yourself.
someone sounds a little bitter at not becoming an architect
Some of us actually work on difficult projects that require a lot of thought and skill. It's a lot of responsibility. I think you should just be happy that you make a ton of money recycling mcmansion plans.
“ [If] architects don't change, markets, economies, and people will just continue to find ways to get what they need without architects.”
Come on, they don’t really know what they need until the architect shows them...you know that, right?
"Architects want to be equal with MDs, PhDs, attorneys, and engineers" Of that group only MDs have any kind of job security. PhDs cannot buy themselves a tenure-track position at a university. When a professor retires he is very often replaced by non-tenure track instructors with no job security at all and who are paid a pittance for teaching one or two courses. Attorneys are a dime a dozen. The job security of engineers is dependant on how easy it is to ship the job overseas. And if you are into computer hardware or software and over 40 looking for a job you are out of luck.
on point, janette. looks like more defensive/nervous architects than anything else. i get it- they need to protect their increasingly precarious position (myself being one of them). but just because janette isn't licensed doesn't mean she has some relevant points- this is the sort of elitism that is making people blind to valid criticism.
architects refuse to acknowledge that if they maintain the current course, they will seed their own irrelevance. just wait until developers and clients get a hold of ai that can produce drawing sets and analyze code and zoning. the only remaining architects will be those that are a brand, aka a commodity.
attorneys are a dime a dozen? absolutely; that's because they make a shit ton of money and have inserted themselves in every part of public and private life.
I don't disagree. I just find it hypocritical that Janette keeps coming back to the site after she 'left'.
interesting.. seems like there is some history/drama here.
If I recall Janette started a thread lamenting about how the licensing exams are too hard. Then she expounded upon how the profession, it's education, and it's licensed practitioners are worthless. Obviously I'm paraphrasing here but I do distinctly recall she posted saying that we where all looser and she was leaving the site, never to return.
They Always Come Back. (TACB)
We are the 2 percent!
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.