He got taken on a technicality. He isn't licensed, but no license was required for the project. However, he did sign the standard AIA B151 as the "architect" and included the name of his firm "Cutler Anderson Architects" on his construction docs. Thus he held himself out as an architect without a license. $2000 fine. I am uploading a scan to flickr now, since the California Architects Board is a year behind on posting newsletters. Notice on the Scan that Cutler gets a bigger fine than Newmeyer gets for Negligence ($1500) and High for Willful Misconduct ($1500)! the scan
I'm aware that an unlicensed architects (ummm, designer) can't put the word 'architect' anywhere on any documents, etc.
But some of those fines listed on that brief were for unlicensed architects who'd simply put "architectural design" or "architectural plans" on their business cards.
WTF? What the hell are people supposed to do? I can imagine an advertisement in a paper or magazine saying something like "Smith and Smith, Two People Who Can Design Your New Building But In No Way Are They Architects"...... That's asinine.
/6,
Your ad would still be illegal, the term architect and its derivatives (including designer as related to buildings) are protected by the state professional practice act. You would have to call yourself a home planner, draftsman, ... just don't allude or infer that you have anything to do with architecture if you want to be safe.
j
Man i was talking to a designer yesterday. Not an architect. He was noting that it sucks because architecture boards don't do enough to "protect" their profession and professionals..
Though this is in Florida..
So, mad props to Cali. Somethign to keep in mind if I ever go back to school and get licensed.
Seems like the traffic cop. "Were here to protect and serve...here's your ticket for speeding"
I think the big goal is to kill the profession altogether, which they are making a big contribution to. What is it, 70% of grads don't get licensed? Probably higher these days. Good job.
Am I ok if I say I am a 'web design architect' but not 'architectural designer'? WTF!
Yup. But you would still get in trouble if you signed a contract to provide architectural services and you weren't an architect. The California Architect's Board is part of the Department of Consumer Affairs - one of the strongest consumer protection agencies in the country. And to Mdlers point, they ARE on the side of Architects. By keeping unlicensed and unqualified people from passing themselves off as architects, they are doing the profession a great favor. Architects already have a reputation for being out of touch with reality, we don't need to have the profession flooded with people who don't know the laws of the state that they are practicing in.
P.S. If anyone doesn't like it, they can always get licensed. CA is one of the few states left that allow individuals to become an architect without a professional degree.
The problem I have with this is that he IS qualified. He was doing an exempt project that does not require an architect to do it. California will allow a shoe salesman to design the same house with much less skill and quality, so long as he doesn't claim to be an architect. How is that protecting public health and safety?! Why should an architect licensed in another state and working on an exempt project have to 1. Change their firm name or 2. Create a custom contract for services?
This creates more potential for harm to the public as out of state architects are being encouraged to use a non-standard contract form and/or create puppet firms for the one time execution of a project and then folding up the tent.
I can see doing this for a non-exempt project, but my blind grandma is allowed to do this project in California, why not encourage qualified individuals to do this kind of job in a responsible way, as Cutler was obviously trying to do?
It doesn't help that I know he executed another similar job in Napa a few years ago and evidently none of this came up then. The Board is inconsistent and only acts reactively, the one architect in Bodega probably reported Cutler because he was pissed he didn't get the commission.
j
Agreed, but I suspect that it may not have been an exempt project. Cutler does lots of work in unusual materials (the house in Napa is rammed earth). The exemption for residential buildings only pertains to 2 story or less wood frame construction.
Although the CAB sometimes misses (see the Eric Corey Freed story somewhere on this site), mostly they are on target.
I am about 30 minutes from the project, it is exempt, in the posting they almost go out of their way to make sure you can tell he isn't being cited for designing the project, just for using the term architect in reference to himself.
j
Architects licensed in one state obtain licenses in other states all the time, for precisely this reason. Many state boards have reciprocity agreements so that the process is streamlined rather than forcing a start from scratch.
For those not interested in this procedure, there's another: hire an in-state licensed architect as consultant.
"Getting licensed is not as easy for those of us that are running our own company and not following a traditional path."
Getting licensed is not easy for anybody.
It's hard; that's why there are fewer folks licensed in this (or any) field than people who would like to be. It's another choice-- and lots of hard work-- like deciding to finish college or graduate school and finally get the degree. (Should someone who did a year or two in a 3-year MArch program be able to claim a master's degree when they didn't finish? No? Why not?)
None of it is easy. And none of the accomplishments (licenses, degrees) matter if anybody can claim them.
If you are qualified, I don't know why it would be so hard. Like I said, even people without professional degrees can get licensed in CA. But the point is that there is a lot more to being a good architect than being able to design.
The issue with Cutler isn't qualification OR being a good architect. Like I stated above a monkey with a pen can legally design this residence. The fact that the owners hired someone who was "qualified" to design it is great, regardless of which state they received their license in. To punish someone for using a title they EARNED in another state to do work which this state doesn't require any title for is baloney! Getting a LICENSE so that you can do a handful of projects per decade that DON'T REQUIRE a license is STUPID, which is why I am sure Cutler paid his $2000 and left it at that.
j
I have to say, I think that one of the reasons architecture is so weak as a profession is the general attitude to licensing.
Doctors, Attorneys don't practice with out the approvals of their governing boards.
Why should Architects be different?
We already live and work in a world where nearly everyone thinks we are unnecessary and that anyone can design. Those of us in the profession should not be doing anything to support that.
Architecture is a great profession. Damn hard and worth doing.
The license just is not that hard to get. Lawyers and Doctors have a more systematic way of doing it that makes it much easier for them. We have to structure everything for ourselves. But, IDP is three years of work experience. The exams are a pain but more for the scheduling than anything else. The money is also way more than it should be given how we all get paid.
But do it. Don't worry about what to put on your cards. Get licensed and put Architect.
but doctors tend to be very local in practice. most lawyers are too. (the fed doesn't have a bar or does it?)
mr. estyle- if IDP was only a three year experience, we'd have more folks taking the AREs, but IDP is out of control and too rigid for many folks to finish in the supposed time. An architecture license has become much harder to get then 20 years ago before IDP and NCARB.
many architects have national or international practices like mr. cutler. my FAIA boss tried to pass the CAB oral exam few months back and just learn that he failed- ouch! Architecture isn't always about knowing the minutia of a local zoning code, but at least being able to ask the right questions and figuring out where to ask them to get the right answers.
1. CA Board seems to have the monopoly on the word "architect" although I have never heard of any of the many who call themselves computer-related architects being prosecuted.
2. Lot of work done by licensed architect does not necessarily qualify as "architecture". Yet you cant call something architecture if you don't have a license.
3. TEN exams... really, ten? Three years as intern (can't say architect here) after you have just spent $100.000 on an accredited degree?
The only people who get clobbered about the use of "architecture" it are our own, the young and promising - those struggling to get somewhere. I don't think that is the way to treat each other. Great board: just keep awarding each other those "F's" (FAIA).
I disagree on IDP being too rigid. I think if it were more rigid or formal like a physician's residency it would be much easier for us to get through. A required 3 years in which your education is formally continued by your employer. I totally agree that as currently constructed it is broken. Too much of the work is put on the intern to get what he needs and not enough on the employers.
That being said, coming out of school you should know what you are going into. Make it clear to your employers that you are planning to finish IDP in three years. Obviously the work environment isn't always going to support this and it will take more work for some people. But just saying "IDP is hard I don't wanna be a licensed architect make it easy for me" is much worse.
Also, some people have been working to make the system better. The change to allow exams before finishing IDP should also help to get people through. In Boston there are organized study groups that help people get organized and through the exams. There are probably other ways we can work as a profession to get more people licensed. Or maybe, to have fewer people graduating from Architecture school.
I have to say that maybe the biggest problem with licensing is that Architects are trained to think that things are never finished. This is directly opposed to the skills you need to schedule 9 (for the vast majority of us) exams and get through them. The number of times I personally shelled out my $35 to postpone is sad.
But finally, I don't hear anyone in the other professions announcing that licensing is too hard so they aren't going to do it. That is a fundamental problem in our profession that we need to seriously address if we want to continue to exist in a meaningful way.
if it was just hard, that would be one thing. i have nothing against a strict and well-managed gatekeeping role played by ncarb.
my memory of the whole process of getting licensed, though, is that it's an inconsistently-enforced, haphazardly and SLLLLOOWWWLLLY managed, unclear/confusing, and altogether broken system. it's not just hard, it's maddeningly arbitrary. the length of your period of purgatory between gradution and registration has more to do with luck than work.
IDP is broken and too rigid for a wide variety of contemporary modes of practice. we need all sorts of architects, not just shallow generalists molded by IDP.
If all you want to do is design spec office buildings, maybe you can fit IDP into 3 years. But if you have a focus and interest to nurture, then IDP does not allow for that. if you are older then 29 and starting IDP with management experience, then IDP does not allow for that, and so on...
I've been working in planning and design firms for the past 3 years, where I've been hard pressed to find projects in CD/CA phases to get my 250 units needed. does this make me any less of an architect then somebody that only does cds? No. But IDP won't give me the greenlight to move on until I do remedial work detailing something.
TK - say for arguments sake you graduate arch school and start doing work that doesn't require a license. Never work "under" someone at all. After a few years you've made a name for yourself locally and starting to getting more work and bigger $$$. You add a drafsman or two on board. Another year passes and you suddenly have a small firm of 5-10 people, yet you are still unlicensed. Some repeat clients request you take on work that would require a registered arch signature. So, you hire a part time, half retired architect to do QA work and stamp drawings.
Since you now have a registered architect on staff you start logging IDP hours. After all, this guy is retirement age and you want to personally have the credentials that will keep growing the firm. Send in your first IDP workbook and get a call from NCARB. News flash, your hours don't count because you aren't working "under" a registered architect.
What do you do? Sell you successful firm and go work for someone else at 1/2 the pay just to get licensed, or tell NCARB to f-off and reserve yourself to doing work that doesn't require an arch's stamp.
That's a real scenario and example of how screwed up IDP is. At least if you work "under" a registered architect you can lie about your hours and complete your units. Probably 9 of 10 interns I talk to are fudging the hours here and there.
that's another reason to hate NCARB. that person is trying to do right, but the system is loaded against them. There is the 'broadly experienced architect' path to registration available in some states, but that is mostly for folks w/o degrees, not firm owners or other professionals.
aqua - that's almost the boat I am in (scaled back a tad, but similar). I have my own company (mostly graphic/3D, but we are starting to do more developments).
I find it nauseating and infuriating that I can never call myself an 'architect', even though I've got 7 years of ed from top schools, won AIA award, worked on designing projects as large as 750k to as small as a duplex.
In all honesty, I will probably not care about any fine, either. I will and never would misrepresent myself, but I ain't gonna explain to a prospective client that "well, yeah, my education is architecture and I design buildings, but I am just a 'designer', not an architect or architectural designer".
Total bullshit. As Steven points out, difficulty has nothing to do with it. I don't want a license and would expect to take an exam if I did, but I do want the title I've earned.
i felt that i didn't have any right to complain before i was licensed, so i kept my mouth shut. didn't want it to be written off as sour grapes.
now that i am licensed, i still think it's a broken process.
as i said before, if it were about a well-managed set of criteria that allowed you to 'earn' it, i would have been fine. the cost, the slowness of the turnaround of docs and comments and guidance, the stupidity of the computer drawing software used for the are, and the fact that the test is more about following directions than doing what you think is right - all these things add up to hurdles well beyond what it should take to become a professional in a well-run system.
Yes, the current system is a mess. But if you are motivated and dedicated, you can get through it somehow.
trace, no disrespect, as you are truly in a difficult situation - but as janosh said, in the US, you get the title when you get certified by the state - and sadly it has more to do with jumping through hoops than having complete knowledge or certainly talent.
But when I hear people complain about it, I always think of my professor in schoo, already registered and practicing professional - who went ahead and did a some extra classes and took an exam to be certified as a planner - because he wanted to be able to put "Planning" on his card. He figured it was easier to get the certification and thereafter have his abilities only be judged on his actual abilities - not on whether or not he had letters after his name. It's a lot easier to just have them.
James Cutler got fined
$2000 by the California Architecture Board
http://www.cutler-anderson.com/about/jamescutler/index.html
???????????????? ahhhh where's the rest of the info?
it was in the California Architects Board letter...I will find out more. Apparently he isnt lisceneced in CA and got in trouble.
He got taken on a technicality. He isn't licensed, but no license was required for the project. However, he did sign the standard AIA B151 as the "architect" and included the name of his firm "Cutler Anderson Architects" on his construction docs. Thus he held himself out as an architect without a license. $2000 fine. I am uploading a scan to flickr now, since the California Architects Board is a year behind on posting newsletters. Notice on the Scan that Cutler gets a bigger fine than Newmeyer gets for Negligence ($1500) and High for Willful Misconduct ($1500)!
the scan
thanks joshcookie
I wish that the assholes at the architects board would actually be on the side of the architects...
I have a question:
I'm aware that an unlicensed architects (ummm, designer) can't put the word 'architect' anywhere on any documents, etc.
But some of those fines listed on that brief were for unlicensed architects who'd simply put "architectural design" or "architectural plans" on their business cards.
WTF? What the hell are people supposed to do? I can imagine an advertisement in a paper or magazine saying something like "Smith and Smith, Two People Who Can Design Your New Building But In No Way Are They Architects"...... That's asinine.
/6,
Your ad would still be illegal, the term architect and its derivatives (including designer as related to buildings) are protected by the state professional practice act. You would have to call yourself a home planner, draftsman, ... just don't allude or infer that you have anything to do with architecture if you want to be safe.
j
joshcookie
if you work for the architecture board, you are exempt from my above coment
I don't work for them, I just recently passed the oral exam and this question plays prominently in the interview.
j
For some reason I thought that it was acceptable to use derivatives of the word architect, but not the word itself if one wasn't licensed.
I'm many many years away, haven't had a professional practice course yet, and apparently heard the wrong info.
Depends on the locale... California enforces their Practice Act vigorously.
And I happen to love them for it.
call yourself design build and avoid the mess.
My business card explicitly reads 'Master Creator'.
Problem avoided.
well, he was dumb enough to sign above the word "architect", and they got him in the loop-hole as his firm name has the term 'architect'
mad props for california though, the law is the law
he fought the law, and the law won... he fought the law, and the law won...
FAIA means nothing?
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xbek46GB-zU&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xbek46GB-zU&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
or it that didn't work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbek46GB-zU
It's pretty funny.
Oops! Wrong place, oh well, the leavity is needed anyway. Enjoy!
Man i was talking to a designer yesterday. Not an architect. He was noting that it sucks because architecture boards don't do enough to "protect" their profession and professionals..
Though this is in Florida..
So, mad props to Cali. Somethign to keep in mind if I ever go back to school and get licensed.
Wow, I hate the them even more now.
Seems like the traffic cop. "Were here to protect and serve...here's your ticket for speeding"
I think the big goal is to kill the profession altogether, which they are making a big contribution to. What is it, 70% of grads don't get licensed? Probably higher these days. Good job.
Am I ok if I say I am a 'web design architect' but not 'architectural designer'? WTF!
Yup. But you would still get in trouble if you signed a contract to provide architectural services and you weren't an architect. The California Architect's Board is part of the Department of Consumer Affairs - one of the strongest consumer protection agencies in the country. And to Mdlers point, they ARE on the side of Architects. By keeping unlicensed and unqualified people from passing themselves off as architects, they are doing the profession a great favor. Architects already have a reputation for being out of touch with reality, we don't need to have the profession flooded with people who don't know the laws of the state that they are practicing in.
P.S. If anyone doesn't like it, they can always get licensed. CA is one of the few states left that allow individuals to become an architect without a professional degree.
The problem I have with this is that he IS qualified. He was doing an exempt project that does not require an architect to do it. California will allow a shoe salesman to design the same house with much less skill and quality, so long as he doesn't claim to be an architect. How is that protecting public health and safety?! Why should an architect licensed in another state and working on an exempt project have to 1. Change their firm name or 2. Create a custom contract for services?
This creates more potential for harm to the public as out of state architects are being encouraged to use a non-standard contract form and/or create puppet firms for the one time execution of a project and then folding up the tent.
I can see doing this for a non-exempt project, but my blind grandma is allowed to do this project in California, why not encourage qualified individuals to do this kind of job in a responsible way, as Cutler was obviously trying to do?
It doesn't help that I know he executed another similar job in Napa a few years ago and evidently none of this came up then. The Board is inconsistent and only acts reactively, the one architect in Bodega probably reported Cutler because he was pissed he didn't get the commission.
j
Agreed, but I suspect that it may not have been an exempt project. Cutler does lots of work in unusual materials (the house in Napa is rammed earth). The exemption for residential buildings only pertains to 2 story or less wood frame construction.
Although the CAB sometimes misses (see the Eric Corey Freed story somewhere on this site), mostly they are on target.
I am about 30 minutes from the project, it is exempt, in the posting they almost go out of their way to make sure you can tell he isn't being cited for designing the project, just for using the term architect in reference to himself.
j
You can see in the citation to the right of his, they specifically ding the guy for doing a 3 story without a license.
j
James Cutler takes a shit and it looks better than anything on the California Architects Board could ever design
Looks like Bruce Anderson is now licensed in California.
"By keeping unlicensed and unqualified people from passing themselves off as architects"
This is the key point. Just because you don't have a license doesn't mean you aren't qualified.
Getting licensed is not as easy for those of us that are running our own company and not following a traditional path.
I'd also point out that just because you have a license doesn't necessarily mean you are qualified either.
It's like saying taking the SAT and getting into college makes you a good student.
Architects licensed in one state obtain licenses in other states all the time, for precisely this reason. Many state boards have reciprocity agreements so that the process is streamlined rather than forcing a start from scratch.
For those not interested in this procedure, there's another: hire an in-state licensed architect as consultant.
It's not such a mysterious or devious thing.
"Getting licensed is not as easy for those of us that are running our own company and not following a traditional path."
Getting licensed is not easy for anybody.
It's hard; that's why there are fewer folks licensed in this (or any) field than people who would like to be. It's another choice-- and lots of hard work-- like deciding to finish college or graduate school and finally get the degree. (Should someone who did a year or two in a 3-year MArch program be able to claim a master's degree when they didn't finish? No? Why not?)
None of it is easy. And none of the accomplishments (licenses, degrees) matter if anybody can claim them.
If you are qualified, I don't know why it would be so hard. Like I said, even people without professional degrees can get licensed in CA. But the point is that there is a lot more to being a good architect than being able to design.
The issue with Cutler isn't qualification OR being a good architect. Like I stated above a monkey with a pen can legally design this residence. The fact that the owners hired someone who was "qualified" to design it is great, regardless of which state they received their license in. To punish someone for using a title they EARNED in another state to do work which this state doesn't require any title for is baloney! Getting a LICENSE so that you can do a handful of projects per decade that DON'T REQUIRE a license is STUPID, which is why I am sure Cutler paid his $2000 and left it at that.
j
Joshcookie - I'm in total agreement with you. I was responding to trace, who seems to be against licensure regulation generally.
Oh, sorry about that. I am all for licensing and usually can be found arguing that it needs to be more rigorous AND streamlined.
Can I say that I am proficient in CAAD or will I be fined since the second 'A' stands for architecture and that word is off limits?
(Lot of people fined just for having the word 'architecture' on their business card.)
I would advise just spelling CAD with one 'A'.
Bit of a rant to follow, skip it if you want!
I have to say, I think that one of the reasons architecture is so weak as a profession is the general attitude to licensing.
Doctors, Attorneys don't practice with out the approvals of their governing boards.
Why should Architects be different?
We already live and work in a world where nearly everyone thinks we are unnecessary and that anyone can design. Those of us in the profession should not be doing anything to support that.
Architecture is a great profession. Damn hard and worth doing.
The license just is not that hard to get. Lawyers and Doctors have a more systematic way of doing it that makes it much easier for them. We have to structure everything for ourselves. But, IDP is three years of work experience. The exams are a pain but more for the scheduling than anything else. The money is also way more than it should be given how we all get paid.
But do it. Don't worry about what to put on your cards. Get licensed and put Architect.
but doctors tend to be very local in practice. most lawyers are too. (the fed doesn't have a bar or does it?)
mr. estyle- if IDP was only a three year experience, we'd have more folks taking the AREs, but IDP is out of control and too rigid for many folks to finish in the supposed time. An architecture license has become much harder to get then 20 years ago before IDP and NCARB.
many architects have national or international practices like mr. cutler. my FAIA boss tried to pass the CAB oral exam few months back and just learn that he failed- ouch! Architecture isn't always about knowing the minutia of a local zoning code, but at least being able to ask the right questions and figuring out where to ask them to get the right answers.
@estyle
1. CA Board seems to have the monopoly on the word "architect" although I have never heard of any of the many who call themselves computer-related architects being prosecuted.
2. Lot of work done by licensed architect does not necessarily qualify as "architecture". Yet you cant call something architecture if you don't have a license.
3. TEN exams... really, ten? Three years as intern (can't say architect here) after you have just spent $100.000 on an accredited degree?
The only people who get clobbered about the use of "architecture" it are our own, the young and promising - those struggling to get somewhere. I don't think that is the way to treat each other. Great board: just keep awarding each other those "F's" (FAIA).
I disagree on IDP being too rigid. I think if it were more rigid or formal like a physician's residency it would be much easier for us to get through. A required 3 years in which your education is formally continued by your employer. I totally agree that as currently constructed it is broken. Too much of the work is put on the intern to get what he needs and not enough on the employers.
That being said, coming out of school you should know what you are going into. Make it clear to your employers that you are planning to finish IDP in three years. Obviously the work environment isn't always going to support this and it will take more work for some people. But just saying "IDP is hard I don't wanna be a licensed architect make it easy for me" is much worse.
Also, some people have been working to make the system better. The change to allow exams before finishing IDP should also help to get people through. In Boston there are organized study groups that help people get organized and through the exams. There are probably other ways we can work as a profession to get more people licensed. Or maybe, to have fewer people graduating from Architecture school.
I have to say that maybe the biggest problem with licensing is that Architects are trained to think that things are never finished. This is directly opposed to the skills you need to schedule 9 (for the vast majority of us) exams and get through them. The number of times I personally shelled out my $35 to postpone is sad.
But finally, I don't hear anyone in the other professions announcing that licensing is too hard so they aren't going to do it. That is a fundamental problem in our profession that we need to seriously address if we want to continue to exist in a meaningful way.
if it was just hard, that would be one thing. i have nothing against a strict and well-managed gatekeeping role played by ncarb.
my memory of the whole process of getting licensed, though, is that it's an inconsistently-enforced, haphazardly and SLLLLOOWWWLLLY managed, unclear/confusing, and altogether broken system. it's not just hard, it's maddeningly arbitrary. the length of your period of purgatory between gradution and registration has more to do with luck than work.
estyle-
IDP is broken and too rigid for a wide variety of contemporary modes of practice. we need all sorts of architects, not just shallow generalists molded by IDP.
If all you want to do is design spec office buildings, maybe you can fit IDP into 3 years. But if you have a focus and interest to nurture, then IDP does not allow for that. if you are older then 29 and starting IDP with management experience, then IDP does not allow for that, and so on...
I've been working in planning and design firms for the past 3 years, where I've been hard pressed to find projects in CD/CA phases to get my 250 units needed. does this make me any less of an architect then somebody that only does cds? No. But IDP won't give me the greenlight to move on until I do remedial work detailing something.
TK - say for arguments sake you graduate arch school and start doing work that doesn't require a license. Never work "under" someone at all. After a few years you've made a name for yourself locally and starting to getting more work and bigger $$$. You add a drafsman or two on board. Another year passes and you suddenly have a small firm of 5-10 people, yet you are still unlicensed. Some repeat clients request you take on work that would require a registered arch signature. So, you hire a part time, half retired architect to do QA work and stamp drawings.
Since you now have a registered architect on staff you start logging IDP hours. After all, this guy is retirement age and you want to personally have the credentials that will keep growing the firm. Send in your first IDP workbook and get a call from NCARB. News flash, your hours don't count because you aren't working "under" a registered architect.
What do you do? Sell you successful firm and go work for someone else at 1/2 the pay just to get licensed, or tell NCARB to f-off and reserve yourself to doing work that doesn't require an arch's stamp.
That's a real scenario and example of how screwed up IDP is. At least if you work "under" a registered architect you can lie about your hours and complete your units. Probably 9 of 10 interns I talk to are fudging the hours here and there.
If I was billing out @ $300+ an hour, and pulling down 6 figures for design work, I might not care about the piddly fine, either…
i just opened the newsletter and half of the content is freakin' enforcements...
aqua-
that's another reason to hate NCARB. that person is trying to do right, but the system is loaded against them. There is the 'broadly experienced architect' path to registration available in some states, but that is mostly for folks w/o degrees, not firm owners or other professionals.
aqua - that's almost the boat I am in (scaled back a tad, but similar). I have my own company (mostly graphic/3D, but we are starting to do more developments).
I find it nauseating and infuriating that I can never call myself an 'architect', even though I've got 7 years of ed from top schools, won AIA award, worked on designing projects as large as 750k to as small as a duplex.
In all honesty, I will probably not care about any fine, either. I will and never would misrepresent myself, but I ain't gonna explain to a prospective client that "well, yeah, my education is architecture and I design buildings, but I am just a 'designer', not an architect or architectural designer".
Total bullshit. As Steven points out, difficulty has nothing to do with it. I don't want a license and would expect to take an exam if I did, but I do want the title I've earned.
You'll earn the title when you get licensed.
janosh -
i felt that i didn't have any right to complain before i was licensed, so i kept my mouth shut. didn't want it to be written off as sour grapes.
now that i am licensed, i still think it's a broken process.
as i said before, if it were about a well-managed set of criteria that allowed you to 'earn' it, i would have been fine. the cost, the slowness of the turnaround of docs and comments and guidance, the stupidity of the computer drawing software used for the are, and the fact that the test is more about following directions than doing what you think is right - all these things add up to hurdles well beyond what it should take to become a professional in a well-run system.
amen steve.
Yes, the current system is a mess. But if you are motivated and dedicated, you can get through it somehow.
trace, no disrespect, as you are truly in a difficult situation - but as janosh said, in the US, you get the title when you get certified by the state - and sadly it has more to do with jumping through hoops than having complete knowledge or certainly talent.
But when I hear people complain about it, I always think of my professor in schoo, already registered and practicing professional - who went ahead and did a some extra classes and took an exam to be certified as a planner - because he wanted to be able to put "Planning" on his card. He figured it was easier to get the certification and thereafter have his abilities only be judged on his actual abilities - not on whether or not he had letters after his name. It's a lot easier to just have them.
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.