Is there anyone planning not to get licensed as an architect? Anyone who went to architecture school, who maybe even works in the field but is not getting licensed?
Are you putting it off or if you think you don't need a license, why not? Alternative career path, niche work, teaching?
Teaching really isn't, IMO, sufficient excuse to not get licensed. If anything it's a major reason TO BE licensed. But what do I know about academia these days?
My partner has a BArch and no license. He does almost solely residential work and feels no need to get it, except a slight emotional nag that he never really completed his schooling by not getting registered. He did, several years ago, have to turn down some multi-unit housing work because he is not licensed. Shortly after I came on the scene and since I'm licensed our firm can now do anything.
I've said it so many times: just get the license. The sense of accomplishment and closure is worth every bit of the pain in the ass of getting the thing.
my prof felt that the process was ridiculous somehow...i don't recall what the reason was...but he felt it wasn't worth it. and because a professor doesn't have to have a licence well that was fine.
wouldn't work here of course. can't teach here without licence i believe. a phd is also pretty much standard operating procedure. could you imagine if universities required that level of accomplishment back in the north of america? bet that bad studio experience thread would be totally different.
I know of several classmates from college that have "given up" not because they don't want to get registered, but because the IDP hassle with NCARB. How long would you put up with rejected credits? Lost credits? Always increasing fees? Non-exsistent customer service?
My guess is that this isn't an uncommon occurance, and since non-registed people can do just fine in large firms where someone else stamps the drawings the motivation is nill.
It's gotten much more difficult to become a professor - or even get an adjunct teaching gig - in accredited architecture programs without a license. Not impossible, but much less common than it was even 10 years ago.
But less than half of all people graduating from architecture schools these days are going on to get licensed. Many go into other fields, or peripherally related fields. Some choose to specialize in residential work or are in states with liberal rules as to what types of buildings can be designed without a stamp. The low number of grads eventually getting licensed is worrying to NCARB, the AIA, the state boards - which is the main reason they've done things like made it possible to start testing in many states before completion of IDP, because they think it will speed up the process and keep more young professionals "on track" toward licensing.
The fees, paperwork, NCARB run-arounds and snafus can all be very discouraging and are a reason that a lot of us took a long time to eventually get licensed (the average from graduation to licensure is 7.5 years according to NCARB) - but lots of us who spent a few years saying we weren't going to get licensed because of these road blocks do eventually get through them and get the license.
When I was saying I was never going to get licensed I said: it's not worth the fees and hassle, I'm doing fine teaching and working in firms where I don't have to stamp anything, and designing houses on the side. But once I got the license I found it was useful - for getting teaching jobs, for getting clients, for general professional credibility - and it was very satisfying to get that piece of paper after so many years of school and working toward it.
i would argue the opposite. if you have no intention of becoming a project architect, i.e. someone who coordinates architectural drawing production and construction administration which is an increasingly small percentage of the building industries, i see no point in getting licensed. if anything, it may be a hinderence to your career path if you get registered simply to have the credential. when i see RA next to someone's name, i assume that person is a project architect and fits the description i gave above, but if that person desires to be an urban designer, a developer, an imaging specialist, etc. i am confused by the architect designation on the resume. the days of the architect generalist are fast coming to an end.
Speaking as Illinois' most recently minted Licensed architect I can say get it - but dont think that means your going places in your firm. Theres a lot more than licensure to make someone a project architect or designer or rainmaker. Sometimes I see licensed architects who are half retarded and cant do anythinjg right and try to fall back on their license as some justification for keeping them employed. You not only need the license to get ahead in your firm, or start your own, but you also have to eat a lot of shit. Suck a lot of cock. Take it in the ass for ten years. Its great.
Oh my god, evilp, really?! Congratulations!!!! I'm so proud that despite you thinking the bulk of us are "retards on a field trip to the zoo" you went ahead and did it. Bravo!
Also, as to all those metaphoric sexual acts one has to perform as an intern: that's true in EVERY profession. We architects just take it mroe personally because we're so "sensitive and soulful" hahahah!
Does anyone agree with Jafidler?
Is there any merit to working on your design skills instead of studying for the AREs? What if you want to work in urban design, conceptual design? Is the profession so varied or are roles so specialized that you don't really need the licensed professional anymore?
I have a lot more tolerance for debate with those that make the effort to get registered than those that choose not to. Mostly on the grounds of the effort and commitment to the professional and ability to speak from a greater knowledge base on what it takes to get stuff designed, financed and built. Residential work is very limited in its complexity compared to the other kinds of project types we typically might be involved in.
Antisthenes, you would be correct that by the time of licensure you will be the person going to city hall, dealing with the contractors and managers, doing budget reviews, doing CA, etc. You will essentially move further and further away from the design side. however, if you ever want to be a design partner, or principle it is imperative you get licensed. Does this make sense?
How about architects that operate internationally, of which there seem to be more and more firms and also smaller firms. Most of the time you will not be licensed in the country you are building in. Why bother getting a license at all?
Yes - even if you practice internationally I dont believe you can incorporate or start a partnership in any sate legally engaged in the practice of architecture anywhere in America - even if your clients and work are overseas.
A couple posters have suggested that getting licensed will somehow pigeon-hole you into a project manager role and take you away from creative aspects of the profession. That has not been the case for me. There are reasons why this could happen - for example many firms and their insurance companies do not allow unlicensed staff to do Construction Administration and/or require that Project Managers be licensed. So in some firms getting a license will suddenly make you eligible for those roles when you weren't before. If a firm is shorthanded in management and you are now eligible to be a PM then maybe they will push you in that direction. On the other hand I've worked in firms where the broad-brush design decisions were limited exclusively to licensed, senior staff. So it depends on the firm.
In personal experience my creative opportunities didn't dry up when I got licensed, nor did I stop doing renderings, 3D, etc. The most important thing that the license let me do was take on some bigger projects on my own time when the opportunities presented themselves, and from that I was able to go out on my own when I got the chance.
One thing that I've noticed in those who put off getting licensed (and I thought this way too at one point) is the thinking that if they ever need a license they'll get it then, when they need it. The problem with that is that even if you take all the tests in record time there's still so much waiting around time while NCARB and the state processes things that your project opportunity might pass you by while you're waiting.
having a sense of many of the respondents to this topic, most replying here tend to be architects' architects which doesn't surprise me that most are saying to get the license, but as evilp was saying, i know many registered architects who really have no business being licensed. they either no longer use their license because they are not doing work directly related to drawing production and construction administration, or they are so technically incompetent as to be completely ineffective in their jobs. in order to avoid these situations, i believe that it makes sense for these people not to have gotten the license in the first place. you don't need a license to be a damn good administrator or run a productive development firm or make valuable maps of city demographics. i'll say it again, architecture is a specialized field and not everyone needs to be a registered architect to have a place within the larger discipline of architecture.
I have done allot of that work already but as they realize my talents in wrangling software and 3d design i am currently a valuable asset in my current position. So until i could train somebody else in what i know i am happy to stay where i am even when i have a license and occasionally have to stamp a few drawings and go to a few more meetings(bringing to TabletPC of course or a pillow). I have always resisted the 'managerial' positions.
I do want to practice internationally and have a EU citizenship, any advise for me on that avenue?
For now study, test, wait 5 more years, apply for broad experience with NCARB then i think i will be ready for some reciprocity is my thinking, because i am taking the alternative path like FLW or Bruder.
one thing i fear that once i finish the tests i will not be able to be the producer of great 3d because of my promotion.
So you'd rather make fancy computer graphics (I assume that's what you mean by "3d") than do the stuff it takes to get real buildings built?
i love to create
So do most people in this profession.
by the time of licensure you will be the person going to city hall, dealing with the contractors and managers, doing budget reviews, doing CA, etc. You will essentially move further and further away from the design side.
The most successful architects realize that all of the above are part of the "design side" just as much, if not more, than sexy renderings.
Make no mistake that without a license you cannot legally,nor should you out of principal, use the title of Architect or represent yourself as one.
That's right.
Sorry to get snippy about this topic yet again but I think it's a pretty simple issue. Honestly, people get so histrionic about their reasons not to get a license. I can't think of a single legitimate reason not to be licensed beyond laziness. If that's your reason, cop to it and enjoy. But don't call yourself an architect.
There are plenty of principles that are not licensed...I believe Carlos Jimenez has done well sans license...he has partners that are but as I recall he is not licensed.
Make no mistake that without a license you cannot legally,nor should you out of principal, use the title of Architect ore represent yourself as one.
If you are licensed in California you can only legally refer to yourself as "architect" in the State of California. That is one of 50 States. That is a very small area when you consider working internationally. Imagine you get licensed in a smaller state.
The privilege of calling yourself "architect" in such a limited way is overrated.
I'll give you yung folks a good reason to get licensed. The baby boom generation is not going to retire. I bet you already work for them, and I bet your starting to see your career paths as narrower and more limited than when they were your age. As they retire from larger corporate firms they are starting their own smaller firms based on years of connections. An architect can practice until a very old age and unless you want to be some baby boomers staffer your whole life I suggest you get licensed, learn the business and take the fight to them.
ya i can put a mean set of construction documents together and have a long history in Design Build on all scales, but yes i like to do the DR Entitlements part the most.
What i hear is there are more people becoming deceased and retiring than there are people to fill those shoes.
I am surprised there are not more people even in my circles not taking advantage of the AZ way. Then again i am very unique in both my experience, education and perseverance.
not to mention i believe i have the most revolutionary dwelling in prototype phase in my yard currently, the most solar passive there can be as well as it only costs 2000$ and is an amalgam of many great thinkers before me. One of them being Buckminster Fuller, whom i am going to see a video and lecture on tonight after me and some radical friends take the streets for May Day
I am German and will be licensed in Germany next January, but currently I live and work in LA. I am thinking about getting licensed here (I have completed IDP) but who knows where I will be five years from now. Getting licensed as architect by state or country, and the restrictions about being an architect somewhere else, assumes that architecture is a very localized profession. I think today's architecture is not at all localized - it is a service that can be provided in many places.
In this sense, the process of getting licensed is out of sync with how I practice and intend to live, and I think I speak for a lot of people of my/our generation.
Jack Klompus: laws vary widely from state to state. In some an architecture firm need not have any licensed owners/partners at all (Massachusetts is an example - and it's one of the reasons that there are several international firms based in Boston). In others anywhere from 33% to 100% of ownership must be by licensed architects. An example: I knew an architect who owned a firm with a staff of about 12, and his wife was his long-term "second in command". The architect had a terminal disease and wanted to transition the firm to his wife before he passed away, but because she wasn't licensed she was ineligible to own the firm, so the only choices were to disband or sell to others. In the end the firm was sold to licensed employees.
The NCARB certification is supposed to be the way to eventually make registration more of a national thing, rather than so state-specific - but it's up to each state to accept the certification - or not and grant reciprocity.
It's not entirely true that an architect licensed in one state cannot call himself an architect in another. About a third of states allow architects from other states to offer services in their state without first being registered there - provided that they get registered there at some point before or during the actual project (and that point varies by state...) About half of the states allow an out of state incorporated firm to practice in their state without reincorporating (provided that someone meets licensing requirements.)
All of this could be simpler - and probably should be in today's world - but choosing not to get any license because a license won't necessarily be accepted across state or international lines seems an impractical solution, at least for me...
Hey congrats evilp! Now I don't feel so bad as potentially the last person in my graduating class to get his license.
And to those of you who aren't planning on it - start hanging out or working with people who are - their motivation helps out a lot more than you realize.
Interesting that no one so far has cited the ARE as the reason for not getting licensed...says a lot about NCARB/IDP.
I'll bite on this one as someone who's just wrapping up the ARE ~ one to go. From what I've seen, the ARE is ridiculously easy for anyone that has several years of real office experience.
The graphic portions are the biggest joke as they seem more like an exercise in their software than a test of knowledge/skills.
Not sure if NCARB & the AIA dumbed it down for ver. 3.1 because they were concerened of the declining numbers or what. I'll be finished before 4.0 so who's to know if it'll get tougher, but currently, anyone that truthfully completes IDP should have no issues with the ARE. Quite frankly I'm a bit dissapointed as I always thought becoming an 'architect' would be a bit more of an elitist thing. Certinaly not.
I would argue that people not getting licensed is not a bad thing for the profession. Also would encourage making the ARE a tougher exam, or possibly beefing up IDP, i.e. lower the number of registered architects. State laws protect our jobs as architects (mostly), but our willingness to flood the market with registed professionals contributes to everything else we gripe about -> pay, benefits, bad design, questionable ethics, etc.
To Those Not Getting Licensed
Is there anyone planning not to get licensed as an architect? Anyone who went to architecture school, who maybe even works in the field but is not getting licensed?
Are you putting it off or if you think you don't need a license, why not? Alternative career path, niche work, teaching?
Please share your thoughts.
one of my professors decided he would not get a licence.
on principle.
he does ok with houses and teaching. seems content.
Teaching really isn't, IMO, sufficient excuse to not get licensed. If anything it's a major reason TO BE licensed. But what do I know about academia these days?
My partner has a BArch and no license. He does almost solely residential work and feels no need to get it, except a slight emotional nag that he never really completed his schooling by not getting registered. He did, several years ago, have to turn down some multi-unit housing work because he is not licensed. Shortly after I came on the scene and since I'm licensed our firm can now do anything.
I've said it so many times: just get the license. The sense of accomplishment and closure is worth every bit of the pain in the ass of getting the thing.
my prof felt that the process was ridiculous somehow...i don't recall what the reason was...but he felt it wasn't worth it. and because a professor doesn't have to have a licence well that was fine.
wouldn't work here of course. can't teach here without licence i believe. a phd is also pretty much standard operating procedure. could you imagine if universities required that level of accomplishment back in the north of america? bet that bad studio experience thread would be totally different.
i agree though. just get the licence.
unless you don't want to.
I know of several classmates from college that have "given up" not because they don't want to get registered, but because the IDP hassle with NCARB. How long would you put up with rejected credits? Lost credits? Always increasing fees? Non-exsistent customer service?
My guess is that this isn't an uncommon occurance, and since non-registed people can do just fine in large firms where someone else stamps the drawings the motivation is nill.
no license = perpetual intern
It's gotten much more difficult to become a professor - or even get an adjunct teaching gig - in accredited architecture programs without a license. Not impossible, but much less common than it was even 10 years ago.
But less than half of all people graduating from architecture schools these days are going on to get licensed. Many go into other fields, or peripherally related fields. Some choose to specialize in residential work or are in states with liberal rules as to what types of buildings can be designed without a stamp. The low number of grads eventually getting licensed is worrying to NCARB, the AIA, the state boards - which is the main reason they've done things like made it possible to start testing in many states before completion of IDP, because they think it will speed up the process and keep more young professionals "on track" toward licensing.
The fees, paperwork, NCARB run-arounds and snafus can all be very discouraging and are a reason that a lot of us took a long time to eventually get licensed (the average from graduation to licensure is 7.5 years according to NCARB) - but lots of us who spent a few years saying we weren't going to get licensed because of these road blocks do eventually get through them and get the license.
When I was saying I was never going to get licensed I said: it's not worth the fees and hassle, I'm doing fine teaching and working in firms where I don't have to stamp anything, and designing houses on the side. But once I got the license I found it was useful - for getting teaching jobs, for getting clients, for general professional credibility - and it was very satisfying to get that piece of paper after so many years of school and working toward it.
digger's right. when you have a license, you own your life.
Interesting that no one so far has cited the ARE as the reason for not getting licensed...says a lot about NCARB/IDP.
i would argue the opposite. if you have no intention of becoming a project architect, i.e. someone who coordinates architectural drawing production and construction administration which is an increasingly small percentage of the building industries, i see no point in getting licensed. if anything, it may be a hinderence to your career path if you get registered simply to have the credential. when i see RA next to someone's name, i assume that person is a project architect and fits the description i gave above, but if that person desires to be an urban designer, a developer, an imaging specialist, etc. i am confused by the architect designation on the resume. the days of the architect generalist are fast coming to an end.
4arch, I guess it would be that you get to save some $$ and a few hours out of your life. Hmmm seems a little outweighed eh?
I'm not registered, but not because I don't want to be - I'm just practicing somewhere that doesn't recognise professional affliation
If you get LEED Accredited (which has no education prerequisites) then you may likely be able to make more money than a licensed architect.....
Speaking as Illinois' most recently minted Licensed architect I can say get it - but dont think that means your going places in your firm. Theres a lot more than licensure to make someone a project architect or designer or rainmaker. Sometimes I see licensed architects who are half retarded and cant do anythinjg right and try to fall back on their license as some justification for keeping them employed. You not only need the license to get ahead in your firm, or start your own, but you also have to eat a lot of shit. Suck a lot of cock. Take it in the ass for ten years. Its great.
Oh my god, evilp, really?! Congratulations!!!! I'm so proud that despite you thinking the bulk of us are "retards on a field trip to the zoo" you went ahead and did it. Bravo!
Also, as to all those metaphoric sexual acts one has to perform as an intern: that's true in EVERY profession. We architects just take it mroe personally because we're so "sensitive and soulful" hahahah!
Congrats, really. One more in the club!!
waiting for 4.0 to kick in to take more tests..
LEEDS study guides sit on my table here too.
I want to get licensed but just not yet. I dread taking exams though.
Im thinking an Archinect trip to the Zoo meet up is order
Hahahahahaha!
congratulations evilp! now you can whip your underlings instead of us here.;.))
Congrats Evil...welcome to the top of a thankless plateau.
Does anyone agree with Jafidler?
Is there any merit to working on your design skills instead of studying for the AREs? What if you want to work in urban design, conceptual design? Is the profession so varied or are roles so specialized that you don't really need the licensed professional anymore?
Thank You all. Now I have to go find something to do to justify this time and sacrifice investment.
I have a lot more tolerance for debate with those that make the effort to get registered than those that choose not to. Mostly on the grounds of the effort and commitment to the professional and ability to speak from a greater knowledge base on what it takes to get stuff designed, financed and built. Residential work is very limited in its complexity compared to the other kinds of project types we typically might be involved in.
one thing i fear that once i finish the tests i will not be able to be the producer of great 3d because of my promotion.
i love to create
Antisthenes, you would be correct that by the time of licensure you will be the person going to city hall, dealing with the contractors and managers, doing budget reviews, doing CA, etc. You will essentially move further and further away from the design side. however, if you ever want to be a design partner, or principle it is imperative you get licensed. Does this make sense?
How about architects that operate internationally, of which there seem to be more and more firms and also smaller firms. Most of the time you will not be licensed in the country you are building in. Why bother getting a license at all?
(Especially in the US where you are licensed by state - at lest the EU has it down.)
I can't understand why one would not seek to obtain a license and work within the profession.
Make no mistake that without a license you cannot legally,nor should you out of principal, use the title of Architect ore represent yourself as one.
Yes - even if you practice internationally I dont believe you can incorporate or start a partnership in any sate legally engaged in the practice of architecture anywhere in America - even if your clients and work are overseas.
A couple posters have suggested that getting licensed will somehow pigeon-hole you into a project manager role and take you away from creative aspects of the profession. That has not been the case for me. There are reasons why this could happen - for example many firms and their insurance companies do not allow unlicensed staff to do Construction Administration and/or require that Project Managers be licensed. So in some firms getting a license will suddenly make you eligible for those roles when you weren't before. If a firm is shorthanded in management and you are now eligible to be a PM then maybe they will push you in that direction. On the other hand I've worked in firms where the broad-brush design decisions were limited exclusively to licensed, senior staff. So it depends on the firm.
In personal experience my creative opportunities didn't dry up when I got licensed, nor did I stop doing renderings, 3D, etc. The most important thing that the license let me do was take on some bigger projects on my own time when the opportunities presented themselves, and from that I was able to go out on my own when I got the chance.
One thing that I've noticed in those who put off getting licensed (and I thought this way too at one point) is the thinking that if they ever need a license they'll get it then, when they need it. The problem with that is that even if you take all the tests in record time there's still so much waiting around time while NCARB and the state processes things that your project opportunity might pass you by while you're waiting.
having a sense of many of the respondents to this topic, most replying here tend to be architects' architects which doesn't surprise me that most are saying to get the license, but as evilp was saying, i know many registered architects who really have no business being licensed. they either no longer use their license because they are not doing work directly related to drawing production and construction administration, or they are so technically incompetent as to be completely ineffective in their jobs. in order to avoid these situations, i believe that it makes sense for these people not to have gotten the license in the first place. you don't need a license to be a damn good administrator or run a productive development firm or make valuable maps of city demographics. i'll say it again, architecture is a specialized field and not everyone needs to be a registered architect to have a place within the larger discipline of architecture.
yes perfect sense Jack Klompus
I have done allot of that work already but as they realize my talents in wrangling software and 3d design i am currently a valuable asset in my current position. So until i could train somebody else in what i know i am happy to stay where i am even when i have a license and occasionally have to stamp a few drawings and go to a few more meetings(bringing to TabletPC of course or a pillow). I have always resisted the 'managerial' positions.
I do want to practice internationally and have a EU citizenship, any advise for me on that avenue?
For now study, test, wait 5 more years, apply for broad experience with NCARB then i think i will be ready for some reciprocity is my thinking, because i am taking the alternative path like FLW or Bruder.
So you'd rather make fancy computer graphics (I assume that's what you mean by "3d") than do the stuff it takes to get real buildings built?
i love to create
So do most people in this profession.
by the time of licensure you will be the person going to city hall, dealing with the contractors and managers, doing budget reviews, doing CA, etc. You will essentially move further and further away from the design side.
The most successful architects realize that all of the above are part of the "design side" just as much, if not more, than sexy renderings.
That's right.
Sorry to get snippy about this topic yet again but I think it's a pretty simple issue. Honestly, people get so histrionic about their reasons not to get a license. I can't think of a single legitimate reason not to be licensed beyond laziness. If that's your reason, cop to it and enjoy. But don't call yourself an architect.
or Project Architect.....
There are plenty of principles that are not licensed...I believe Carlos Jimenez has done well sans license...he has partners that are but as I recall he is not licensed.
If you are licensed in California you can only legally refer to yourself as "architect" in the State of California. That is one of 50 States. That is a very small area when you consider working internationally. Imagine you get licensed in a smaller state.
The privilege of calling yourself "architect" in such a limited way is overrated.
OSNAP!
(that was at lb's comment above, btw)
...and the way licensing works is out of sync with the way most people live their lives today.
I'll give you yung folks a good reason to get licensed. The baby boom generation is not going to retire. I bet you already work for them, and I bet your starting to see your career paths as narrower and more limited than when they were your age. As they retire from larger corporate firms they are starting their own smaller firms based on years of connections. An architect can practice until a very old age and unless you want to be some baby boomers staffer your whole life I suggest you get licensed, learn the business and take the fight to them.
some of you are getting your principles confused with your principals...
ya i can put a mean set of construction documents together and have a long history in Design Build on all scales, but yes i like to do the DR Entitlements part the most.
What i hear is there are more people becoming deceased and retiring than there are people to fill those shoes.
I am surprised there are not more people even in my circles not taking advantage of the AZ way. Then again i am very unique in both my experience, education and perseverance.
not to mention i believe i have the most revolutionary dwelling in prototype phase in my yard currently, the most solar passive there can be as well as it only costs 2000$ and is an amalgam of many great thinkers before me. One of them being Buckminster Fuller, whom i am going to see a video and lecture on tonight after me and some radical friends take the streets for May Day
Happy May Day Everybody! Solidarity
Oops...mleitner, I quoted you because I meant to ask you to explain what you meant by that comment?
there is more creative control over the end result as a project manager then you get as a designer. Embrace management don't avoid it. Get licensed.
I'm one test (and one year) away from my RLA, then it's on to the AREs.
@Liberty
I am German and will be licensed in Germany next January, but currently I live and work in LA. I am thinking about getting licensed here (I have completed IDP) but who knows where I will be five years from now. Getting licensed as architect by state or country, and the restrictions about being an architect somewhere else, assumes that architecture is a very localized profession. I think today's architecture is not at all localized - it is a service that can be provided in many places.
In this sense, the process of getting licensed is out of sync with how I practice and intend to live, and I think I speak for a lot of people of my/our generation.
mleitner,
How would we fix that though, have a mechanism for international licensing? That sounds like more of a nightmare than the current system.
Jack Klompus: laws vary widely from state to state. In some an architecture firm need not have any licensed owners/partners at all (Massachusetts is an example - and it's one of the reasons that there are several international firms based in Boston). In others anywhere from 33% to 100% of ownership must be by licensed architects. An example: I knew an architect who owned a firm with a staff of about 12, and his wife was his long-term "second in command". The architect had a terminal disease and wanted to transition the firm to his wife before he passed away, but because she wasn't licensed she was ineligible to own the firm, so the only choices were to disband or sell to others. In the end the firm was sold to licensed employees.
The NCARB certification is supposed to be the way to eventually make registration more of a national thing, rather than so state-specific - but it's up to each state to accept the certification - or not and grant reciprocity.
It's not entirely true that an architect licensed in one state cannot call himself an architect in another. About a third of states allow architects from other states to offer services in their state without first being registered there - provided that they get registered there at some point before or during the actual project (and that point varies by state...) About half of the states allow an out of state incorporated firm to practice in their state without reincorporating (provided that someone meets licensing requirements.)
All of this could be simpler - and probably should be in today's world - but choosing not to get any license because a license won't necessarily be accepted across state or international lines seems an impractical solution, at least for me...
Hey congrats evilp! Now I don't feel so bad as potentially the last person in my graduating class to get his license.
And to those of you who aren't planning on it - start hanging out or working with people who are - their motivation helps out a lot more than you realize.
I'll bite on this one as someone who's just wrapping up the ARE ~ one to go. From what I've seen, the ARE is ridiculously easy for anyone that has several years of real office experience.
The graphic portions are the biggest joke as they seem more like an exercise in their software than a test of knowledge/skills.
Not sure if NCARB & the AIA dumbed it down for ver. 3.1 because they were concerened of the declining numbers or what. I'll be finished before 4.0 so who's to know if it'll get tougher, but currently, anyone that truthfully completes IDP should have no issues with the ARE. Quite frankly I'm a bit dissapointed as I always thought becoming an 'architect' would be a bit more of an elitist thing. Certinaly not.
I would argue that people not getting licensed is not a bad thing for the profession. Also would encourage making the ARE a tougher exam, or possibly beefing up IDP, i.e. lower the number of registered architects. State laws protect our jobs as architects (mostly), but our willingness to flood the market with registed professionals contributes to everything else we gripe about -> pay, benefits, bad design, questionable ethics, etc.
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.