mleitner, now I understand where you are coming from. If you're planning to not stay in the US for more than a few years, I can certainly understand not wanting to bother getting licensed (especially in the more onerous testing state of California).
But in the meantime you can't call yourself an architect in Cal. and you can only provide a narrow range of services in the field. If that's OK with you, no problem - especially since you'll have the German license, so you'll have that sense of "closure" to your education that a license brings.
It's certainly true that architectural practice is going more and more international. However, buildings exist in one place. The laws of that place will require that a locally registered professional provide services there. If you want to be one of those professionals, then get the license. If you only want to design the project and have someone else implement it, then do so - but if you do this in the states, you won't be able to call yourself an architect (which may not matter to you).
California is actually an excellent example of why local registration is important: with their earthquake history, a specialized knowledge is required.
liberty,
I fully agree that requiring people to team up with a locally licensed architect is a good thing as I generally think teaming up is a good thing - projects just get better.
The reason I asked the question in the first place was that there still seems to be a stigma associated with people not getting licensed. But, I think there definitely are roles in the profession for unlicensed designers and consultants. We just don't seem to hear these stories very often, there are few well-known role models.
About California and earthquakes: I wouldn't touch an outhouse without talking to an engineer - and I enjoy our engineers, they are funny guys.
Lots of good analysis here... nods to Bloopox and Liberty Bell, in particular.
As with any major accomplishment or credential, the best reason to earn it is that it provides you with more CHOICES as you advance in your career.
You don't know what potential opportunities are out there, now and in the future. The best ones may never call for a license, but some will. And, as Bloopox mentioned, yes, you can always do it later, but it takes time, and you may miss out on something big while you're trying to finish.
Yes, it's a lot of work to get licensed. If it wasn't, everyone would be an architect. Do it anyway. You won't regret it.
Or don't. That's fine, and there's not a shred of dishonor in that. Just, please, oh bloody please, don't mount a campaign on "why licensing does not matter." Just make your decision and let everyone else make theirs.
My reason for not getting licensed, or not planning to, is simple. Time and priorities.
You can call it laziness if you want, but I would rather run my company (soon to be companies) and design.
It is simply a choice and depends on an individuals priorities in this profession, in business, etc. I don't think there is one 'right' answer, just as there is rarely one right answer in anything.
unless it seems that my career path doesnt need me to be licensed, i plan to get it.
just seems to make sense, gives me options i wouldnt otherwise have. i feel if i dont get it, i would be limited in where i could go, not what i could do so much
but when you have your license, you tend to have a big bargaining chip either at your firm or if you are looking for a new job
but again, its all a personal decision really. taking the time to study and prepare really has to be worth it in the end for you, otherwise why bother. if after you get your license, and you are still doing what you were doing before, really whats the point?
i feel it will give me more opportunities in my career, but that isnt the case for everyone
I meant to finish that by saying that you can get licensed without a professional degree in some states (and gain reciprocity through the states that do) - however - in some places (ahem, Boston) it means more to have that degree than it does to have years of experience and a license.
that is not true like i said not having a education in AZ you can get licensed but you cant practice outside Arizona unless you got NCARB at 10 years for the Board Experience route and a fee, still cheaper than paying for a masters.
I work about 12 hours a day, probably 10 hours a day on weekends, so it is not like I am sitting around watching sitcoms.
For me, there is just not the financial incentive to pursue it. I am more interested in pursuing designing/building/marketing my own projects and learning the development process more thoroughly. Just what I enjoy more.
I do agree, however, that the 'closure' idea is at least a little motivating, for down the road. I am sure there will be a point where I reevaluate things, but right now it is not on the table.
Actually, the CSE exam in california has very little in the way of earthquake stuff covered in the test. Most of it was on the 10+ regulatory agencies that regulate building construction. I took the CSE last year and I had 1 or 2 questions regarding earthquakes.
Actually, the CSE exam in california has very little in the way of earthquake stuff covered in the test. Most of it was on the 10+ regulatory agencies that regulate building construction. I took the CSE last year and I had 1 or 2 questions regarding earthquakes.
trace, I don't mean to really be calling anyone lazy - and specifically not you, I know you're not. My partner isn't either - he just doesn't need it, and he has a personal dislike of paperwork and taking tests. So that's fine for him, because we *are* an architecture firm. if I leave, it will be a different story - he's considering getting the license, but who knows if he'll do it or not - as with you, it's low priority.
But I know it irks you not to be able to call yourself an architect. Personally, i think it would be worth it for YOU to be able to do so, legally, without that little tickle of a possibility that someone might call you on it. My partner had a scare several years ago, when a lawyer he turned down as a client (too demanding, ha!) sent him a letter that he was going to report him to the board for misrepresenting himself as an architect. Never followed through, but it scared my partner sufficiently to decide to either take the exam or bring in a partner - and here I am.
1. Got a reasonable sized commision just a I gradutated which allowed me to work for myself for 2 years.
2. Worked for a practice for a time - didnt like the style/direction/offereings so I left
3. Worked as a design consultant for a developer - again a solitary role
4. Now work in development where I commissioning architects not designing and very happy
In the future:
I will continue to design - my own work/projects - no clients
I feel no need to get licensed
I dont call myself an architect
It has never been a hindrance beacuse I have always worked outside of the system.
I am moving towards a hybridised career which better suits my termperament.
I always strive for the most independence I can get which entails some sacrifice.
If I was to get back to a more traditional architecture role, I would work with people who have the relevant skills and qualifications - but generally I will call the shots [as I usually do] and yes, I would probably go down the licensing track as well
For those of you committed to working in a 'traditional' practice environment, you should get licensed.
I am from NZ, where both the term 'architect' and 'registered architect' are protected.
Not sure if anyone's mentioned this yet but I can say that as a non-licensed owner of a design firm, you will have a hard time finding motivated underlings to hire. I spent some time at a firm like this and despite loving the work ultimately had to leave because I simply could not fulfill my own goals without the mere fact of a license-holding boss.
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.
okay, here's the thing kiddos........
it's okay to be an architect who doesn't like to be a businessman and get things shipped out! I actually really dread working in a real firm (more than just internships) and moving up the ladder because I don't want to be on my blackberry all day, coordinating construction approvals and emergency fire services meetings.. I've seen my bosses do that and I really don't know why that would actually appeal to anyone at all...
I totally get that it's part of the process and that it needs to be done to get your real idea put through but I'm not going to challk it up to being extra "design!!"
why is it some kind of sin to like working in graphics and creating something that way? to like what you did in school - it's a sin if you want to be a 'real architect'...........
why is that again.. ?
if thats all you want to do thats fine
but that is not the only aspect of design, doing the graphics
you create things throughout the project
you design throughout the project
its on a different scale maybe, and a different type, but it is still design
and that helps you become a better designer in the beginning also, because you see the little things that come about from your overall design. if you only worked on the graphics part at the beginning of a project, you would never fully understand the impact your design decisions create.
there is nothing wrong preferring the graphics part, but that isnt the only design done on a project
"it's okay to be an architect who doesn't like to be a businessman and get things shipped out! .... it's a sin if you want to be a 'real architect'...........to like what you did in school
-- what a crock!
"real architects" get stuff built -- not just dreamily go through their day shoving lines around on paper or a screen while other people do the real work.
can you spell "dilettante" ? ... what a f-ing waste of an education!
Im a Licensed Architect. I have very little if any design input on 90% of my projects. 2 old principles do all the design work except some of the interiors. Sometimes the kids doing the modeling get to make some decisions simply because theyre involved in the schematics process. Now I do all the cordination, keep them from being sued, keep their clients happy when they do their best to aggrevate them. Its not the best set up in the world but when you realize that the 2 principles spent the better part of 30 years being the workhorse for someone else it startsa to make sense- its the natural cycle. I get some design input now and then, and I do my own small jobs on the side to keep happy. But thats not why they pay me the highest salary on staff either.
If all you want to do is graphics you still have a responsibility to understand how buildings are constructed - and by the time you do this you're at least 3/4 of the way to knowing all you need to pass the ARE.
Jack,
thank you for your candid comment. But I cannot agree with your sentiment. You are only stuck in the cycle if you satisfy yourself with believing to be stuck - it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you want to do design work, look for ways to do it.
If you think you have to wait 30 years to take life into your own hands, be my guest. I certainly do not and cannot share this point of view.
you need to at least have a decent understanding of how building systems work, so when you design something, it actually means something
that way, when its actually built, it has a better chance of what your original concept looked like.
but if you just do stuff that looks nice to you and play with renderings all day, you will be leaving a lot of details still to be designed
of course there will always be things to be detailed later on, and probably some adjustments, but if you have a basic knowledge of this to begin with, it will be that much of a better design
just saying, i want a glass wall here is great for a render. but if you know generally what sizes you can work with realistically in the field and in budget, you can design with that in mind at the beginning
it makes you a much better designer in my opinion, and you really cant just start working as a designer and do only schematic stuff forever without first having a base knowledge of building that you get through work experience, not what little you learn in school
actually that's not what i meant at all
i really enjoy even doing like sd dd cd documents, getting everything figured out, doing details, figuring out construction that's what i really like
what i don't like :
incessant phone calls
unending coordination emails
blackberries
meetings with arb review boards
budget negotiations
presentations
bidding
kissing ass
that's what i mean by moving up in the offices i've worked in, and it pretty much looks like doing a bunch of tasks which have nothing to do with architectural formulation and design. argue if you must but i just don't get it.
Why do you think Im stuck in a cycle mleitner? I work on High rise projects no one could posibly design without 20-30 years experiance. The underground issues alone require years of experiance. I sit in meetings with 60 year old contractors who some of the most brilliant folks Ive ever met, because they possess a lifetime of knoweledge about shoring, retension, loads on caissons etc. Im amazed everyday at how complicated the reality really is. I say I am taking my life into my own hands by becomming the best architect I know. I happen to think Architects who make flashy renderings and glossy magazine flavor of the month buildings are actualy pretty bad architects with little understanding of buildings beyond their own sketches and it shows in the final product, and I may add thats irresponsible profesionals as well. But what do I know.
There seems to be an aweful lot of ignorance of what architects do on this site. How many of you are still students? Your understanding will develop as you practice. Patience.
This discussion seems so strange. Taking the ARE is not an impossible task...The whole process of licensure is not easy but then again, what is in life? Spending an easy 5 hours per week studying over weekends and evenings for a month is easially enough to prepare.
I think people greatly over estimate how difficult the ARE is.
Having been out of school for 2 years I passed 5 sections in 3 months. Then, I took it real easy and finished the remaining sections over 8 months. For 2 sections I did not study at all.
I simply read the study guides for each section, took the test and repeated. Traning for a marathon or triathlon takes more mental strength and committment than the ARE.
Rather than spend time debating the philosophical reasons and justifying why one does not need a stamp, why not just take the damn test and call yourself an architect?
Jack gets my vote for "man of the year" ... for the most part, this profession ain't about some theoretical bs that follows along from school ... this profession's about rolling up your sleeves and working through what you have to work through to get something built ... if you want a good building standing there, you won't get it just by drawing a bunch of pretty, but otherwise meaningless, lines on paper.
if you get stuck just stamping other peoples designs once you get your license you are either an idiot, or know nothing about whats going on
doing that list you made, keopi, is part of the job
if you dont want to do those things, its up to you to make sure you dont get stuck doing it
but dont claim that its not part of the design
every design decision is not always up to you, and you dont get the final say on everything
dealing with those other things help complete the design
just because you move up the ladder doesnt mean you have to stop working on projects day to day
you make your own career path
if you want to get paid like a principal, you have to do principal work
could have wrote diabase's comments myself. also agree with mleitner that the system simply isn't in sync with how many people live life these days.
i've been working overseas in asia for the past five years after stints in the US and Canada. i have about a year of IDP documented, but my supervising registered architect left the second company that i was with a month after i started, so that work no longer qualified. i took all the mandatory local training courses for the association (seven in all) and then was told they wouldn't count if i didn't finish IDP within a certain time frame. so i'll probably need to do them again at $300-500 per course. nice.
working overseas, i wasn't able to work directly for someone who was a registered architect due to the office structure they use there. so i have become a design consultant instead, and use the local registered architecture firms as architects of record when necessary.
in time, i may get registered, but it's not any rush as it is more hindrance than benefit at this point in my life. taking exams is easy, it's satisfying all the bureaucratic hurdles that is a problem. when my wanderlust is gone and i settle down in one place, then i might stand a chance of getting registered, but for someone with a mobile life, it is simply not possible.
well, i think the philosophical musings come in when you understand that there are many, many registered architects out there that are not using 90% of what they learned to get registered in the first place. for example, many principles and project managers have absolutely nothing to do with the production of architecture outside of client meetings and administrative duties. i understand these people climbed the ladder, but if that is where they were always headed was it really necessary for them to get registered in the first place? perhaps they would have been better off getting an mba (may explain why so many architecture practices are so poorly run from a business perspective; those structures exams don't really pay off when you become a principal.) because the profession is becoming more and more specialized, the generalist training for licensure is a bit anachronistic.
jafidler: I've seem many careers progress over the years. while some of what you say may be true at some firms about the role of principals and project managers, I think you misread, or trivialize, the importance of a solid grounding in architectural design and detailing in those roles.
in my world at least, our clients look to our principals and project managers as the key architectural talent on the project -- they're looking there for design and technical leadership of both the process and the team. you can't be successful at a senior level here at our firm unless you're first and foremost a strong Architect -- in the fullest sense of that word.
perhaps other firms practice differently -- but, if they do, I don't get it.
quizzical, i go back and forth on this. on the one hand, principals and project managers, particularly in smaller offices, are as you say the "key architectural talent" on the project and because of that, are vital to keeping a client's confidence. then again, i see others, more often than not at larger firms, that are so completely removed from design and production as to only tangentially be using the skills and experience required for licensure. that's not a knock on these people. in many ways, they are doing the work that is critical to bringing the project to completion, but i wonder a bit if the license was really necessary. as architecture does become more and more specialized and diversified is it really necessary for everyone associated with the project to be a registered architect. i would argue that there are many licensed architects in any given office, but only a handful of true project architects.
Hell I knew a guy licensed at 24/25 back in the 80's - He actualy did really well doing Lincoln Park Townhouse renovations until about '91 - got into trouble with a real eastate deal that flopped. Last I heard he was selling bulk refridgeration chemicals for some Industrial concern making 300K a year - go figure
You want to hear depressing - my brother is an investment banker. His Holiday bonus was more than my yearly salary. His summer bonus ( yes - they get summer bonuses to) was my salary.
To Those Not Getting Licensed
mleitner, now I understand where you are coming from. If you're planning to not stay in the US for more than a few years, I can certainly understand not wanting to bother getting licensed (especially in the more onerous testing state of California).
But in the meantime you can't call yourself an architect in Cal. and you can only provide a narrow range of services in the field. If that's OK with you, no problem - especially since you'll have the German license, so you'll have that sense of "closure" to your education that a license brings.
It's certainly true that architectural practice is going more and more international. However, buildings exist in one place. The laws of that place will require that a locally registered professional provide services there. If you want to be one of those professionals, then get the license. If you only want to design the project and have someone else implement it, then do so - but if you do this in the states, you won't be able to call yourself an architect (which may not matter to you).
California is actually an excellent example of why local registration is important: with their earthquake history, a specialized knowledge is required.
liberty,
I fully agree that requiring people to team up with a locally licensed architect is a good thing as I generally think teaming up is a good thing - projects just get better.
The reason I asked the question in the first place was that there still seems to be a stigma associated with people not getting licensed. But, I think there definitely are roles in the profession for unlicensed designers and consultants. We just don't seem to hear these stories very often, there are few well-known role models.
About California and earthquakes: I wouldn't touch an outhouse without talking to an engineer - and I enjoy our engineers, they are funny guys.
Lots of good analysis here... nods to Bloopox and Liberty Bell, in particular.
As with any major accomplishment or credential, the best reason to earn it is that it provides you with more CHOICES as you advance in your career.
You don't know what potential opportunities are out there, now and in the future. The best ones may never call for a license, but some will. And, as Bloopox mentioned, yes, you can always do it later, but it takes time, and you may miss out on something big while you're trying to finish.
Yes, it's a lot of work to get licensed. If it wasn't, everyone would be an architect. Do it anyway. You won't regret it.
Or don't. That's fine, and there's not a shred of dishonor in that. Just, please, oh bloody please, don't mount a campaign on "why licensing does not matter." Just make your decision and let everyone else make theirs.
My reason for not getting licensed, or not planning to, is simple. Time and priorities.
You can call it laziness if you want, but I would rather run my company (soon to be companies) and design.
It is simply a choice and depends on an individuals priorities in this profession, in business, etc. I don't think there is one 'right' answer, just as there is rarely one right answer in anything.
unless it seems that my career path doesnt need me to be licensed, i plan to get it.
just seems to make sense, gives me options i wouldnt otherwise have. i feel if i dont get it, i would be limited in where i could go, not what i could do so much
but when you have your license, you tend to have a big bargaining chip either at your firm or if you are looking for a new job
but again, its all a personal decision really. taking the time to study and prepare really has to be worth it in the end for you, otherwise why bother. if after you get your license, and you are still doing what you were doing before, really whats the point?
i feel it will give me more opportunities in my career, but that isnt the case for everyone
there's also a stigma attached to not having a professional degree.
There is?
I meant to finish that by saying that you can get licensed without a professional degree in some states (and gain reciprocity through the states that do) - however - in some places (ahem, Boston) it means more to have that degree than it does to have years of experience and a license.
really?
do you mean a degree from a certain school? or any professional degree?
Well Im glad I live in a place that values experiance! I barely could afford the 4 years.
that is not true like i said not having a education in AZ you can get licensed but you cant practice outside Arizona unless you got NCARB at 10 years for the Board Experience route and a fee, still cheaper than paying for a masters.
got = go to
only in AZ and with 6-8 years experience (dependent on having a non-accredited degree or not i believe)
if i start my own firm straight out of school, what will i be missing out on?
Daniel Libeskind, B.Arch. M.A. BDA AIA
yup, 2 degrees in arch, 7 years (4+3)
I work about 12 hours a day, probably 10 hours a day on weekends, so it is not like I am sitting around watching sitcoms.
For me, there is just not the financial incentive to pursue it. I am more interested in pursuing designing/building/marketing my own projects and learning the development process more thoroughly. Just what I enjoy more.
I do agree, however, that the 'closure' idea is at least a little motivating, for down the road. I am sure there will be a point where I reevaluate things, but right now it is not on the table.
Actually, the CSE exam in california has very little in the way of earthquake stuff covered in the test. Most of it was on the 10+ regulatory agencies that regulate building construction. I took the CSE last year and I had 1 or 2 questions regarding earthquakes.
Actually, the CSE exam in california has very little in the way of earthquake stuff covered in the test. Most of it was on the 10+ regulatory agencies that regulate building construction. I took the CSE last year and I had 1 or 2 questions regarding earthquakes.
trace, I don't mean to really be calling anyone lazy - and specifically not you, I know you're not. My partner isn't either - he just doesn't need it, and he has a personal dislike of paperwork and taking tests. So that's fine for him, because we *are* an architecture firm. if I leave, it will be a different story - he's considering getting the license, but who knows if he'll do it or not - as with you, it's low priority.
But I know it irks you not to be able to call yourself an architect. Personally, i think it would be worth it for YOU to be able to do so, legally, without that little tickle of a possibility that someone might call you on it. My partner had a scare several years ago, when a lawyer he turned down as a client (too demanding, ha!) sent him a letter that he was going to report him to the board for misrepresenting himself as an architect. Never followed through, but it scared my partner sufficiently to decide to either take the exam or bring in a partner - and here I am.
I am not licensed. Reasons:
1. Got a reasonable sized commision just a I gradutated which allowed me to work for myself for 2 years.
2. Worked for a practice for a time - didnt like the style/direction/offereings so I left
3. Worked as a design consultant for a developer - again a solitary role
4. Now work in development where I commissioning architects not designing and very happy
In the future:
I will continue to design - my own work/projects - no clients
I feel no need to get licensed
I dont call myself an architect
It has never been a hindrance beacuse I have always worked outside of the system.
I am moving towards a hybridised career which better suits my termperament.
I always strive for the most independence I can get which entails some sacrifice.
If I was to get back to a more traditional architecture role, I would work with people who have the relevant skills and qualifications - but generally I will call the shots [as I usually do] and yes, I would probably go down the licensing track as well
For those of you committed to working in a 'traditional' practice environment, you should get licensed.
I am from NZ, where both the term 'architect' and 'registered architect' are protected.
i want to get a license for this
and keep moving down the list...
I'm hungry
Not sure if anyone's mentioned this yet but I can say that as a non-licensed owner of a design firm, you will have a hard time finding motivated underlings to hire. I spent some time at a firm like this and despite loving the work ultimately had to leave because I simply could not fulfill my own goals without the mere fact of a license-holding boss.
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.
okay, here's the thing kiddos........
it's okay to be an architect who doesn't like to be a businessman and get things shipped out! I actually really dread working in a real firm (more than just internships) and moving up the ladder because I don't want to be on my blackberry all day, coordinating construction approvals and emergency fire services meetings.. I've seen my bosses do that and I really don't know why that would actually appeal to anyone at all...
I totally get that it's part of the process and that it needs to be done to get your real idea put through but I'm not going to challk it up to being extra "design!!"
why is it some kind of sin to like working in graphics and creating something that way? to like what you did in school - it's a sin if you want to be a 'real architect'...........
why is that again.. ?
if thats all you want to do thats fine
but that is not the only aspect of design, doing the graphics
you create things throughout the project
you design throughout the project
its on a different scale maybe, and a different type, but it is still design
and that helps you become a better designer in the beginning also, because you see the little things that come about from your overall design. if you only worked on the graphics part at the beginning of a project, you would never fully understand the impact your design decisions create.
there is nothing wrong preferring the graphics part, but that isnt the only design done on a project
-- what a crock!
"real architects" get stuff built -- not just dreamily go through their day shoving lines around on paper or a screen while other people do the real work.
can you spell "dilettante" ? ... what a f-ing waste of an education!
Im a Licensed Architect. I have very little if any design input on 90% of my projects. 2 old principles do all the design work except some of the interiors. Sometimes the kids doing the modeling get to make some decisions simply because theyre involved in the schematics process. Now I do all the cordination, keep them from being sued, keep their clients happy when they do their best to aggrevate them. Its not the best set up in the world but when you realize that the 2 principles spent the better part of 30 years being the workhorse for someone else it startsa to make sense- its the natural cycle. I get some design input now and then, and I do my own small jobs on the side to keep happy. But thats not why they pay me the highest salary on staff either.
Well-stated, Jack.
This profession (ALL professions) looks a lot different at one, five, ten, and twenty years into it.
If all you want to do is graphics you still have a responsibility to understand how buildings are constructed - and by the time you do this you're at least 3/4 of the way to knowing all you need to pass the ARE.
Jack,
thank you for your candid comment. But I cannot agree with your sentiment. You are only stuck in the cycle if you satisfy yourself with believing to be stuck - it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you want to do design work, look for ways to do it.
If you think you have to wait 30 years to take life into your own hands, be my guest. I certainly do not and cannot share this point of view.
you need to at least have a decent understanding of how building systems work, so when you design something, it actually means something
that way, when its actually built, it has a better chance of what your original concept looked like.
but if you just do stuff that looks nice to you and play with renderings all day, you will be leaving a lot of details still to be designed
of course there will always be things to be detailed later on, and probably some adjustments, but if you have a basic knowledge of this to begin with, it will be that much of a better design
just saying, i want a glass wall here is great for a render. but if you know generally what sizes you can work with realistically in the field and in budget, you can design with that in mind at the beginning
it makes you a much better designer in my opinion, and you really cant just start working as a designer and do only schematic stuff forever without first having a base knowledge of building that you get through work experience, not what little you learn in school
actually that's not what i meant at all
i really enjoy even doing like sd dd cd documents, getting everything figured out, doing details, figuring out construction that's what i really like
what i don't like :
incessant phone calls
unending coordination emails
blackberries
meetings with arb review boards
budget negotiations
presentations
bidding
kissing ass
that's what i mean by moving up in the offices i've worked in, and it pretty much looks like doing a bunch of tasks which have nothing to do with architectural formulation and design. argue if you must but i just don't get it.
Why do you think Im stuck in a cycle mleitner? I work on High rise projects no one could posibly design without 20-30 years experiance. The underground issues alone require years of experiance. I sit in meetings with 60 year old contractors who some of the most brilliant folks Ive ever met, because they possess a lifetime of knoweledge about shoring, retension, loads on caissons etc. Im amazed everyday at how complicated the reality really is. I say I am taking my life into my own hands by becomming the best architect I know. I happen to think Architects who make flashy renderings and glossy magazine flavor of the month buildings are actualy pretty bad architects with little understanding of buildings beyond their own sketches and it shows in the final product, and I may add thats irresponsible profesionals as well. But what do I know.
nothing your just a stamp.
There seems to be an aweful lot of ignorance of what architects do on this site. How many of you are still students? Your understanding will develop as you practice. Patience.
This discussion seems so strange. Taking the ARE is not an impossible task...The whole process of licensure is not easy but then again, what is in life? Spending an easy 5 hours per week studying over weekends and evenings for a month is easially enough to prepare.
I think people greatly over estimate how difficult the ARE is.
Having been out of school for 2 years I passed 5 sections in 3 months. Then, I took it real easy and finished the remaining sections over 8 months. For 2 sections I did not study at all.
I simply read the study guides for each section, took the test and repeated. Traning for a marathon or triathlon takes more mental strength and committment than the ARE.
Rather than spend time debating the philosophical reasons and justifying why one does not need a stamp, why not just take the damn test and call yourself an architect?
Jack gets my vote for "man of the year" ... for the most part, this profession ain't about some theoretical bs that follows along from school ... this profession's about rolling up your sleeves and working through what you have to work through to get something built ... if you want a good building standing there, you won't get it just by drawing a bunch of pretty, but otherwise meaningless, lines on paper.
if you get stuck just stamping other peoples designs once you get your license you are either an idiot, or know nothing about whats going on
doing that list you made, keopi, is part of the job
if you dont want to do those things, its up to you to make sure you dont get stuck doing it
but dont claim that its not part of the design
every design decision is not always up to you, and you dont get the final say on everything
dealing with those other things help complete the design
just because you move up the ladder doesnt mean you have to stop working on projects day to day
you make your own career path
if you want to get paid like a principal, you have to do principal work
could have wrote diabase's comments myself. also agree with mleitner that the system simply isn't in sync with how many people live life these days.
i've been working overseas in asia for the past five years after stints in the US and Canada. i have about a year of IDP documented, but my supervising registered architect left the second company that i was with a month after i started, so that work no longer qualified. i took all the mandatory local training courses for the association (seven in all) and then was told they wouldn't count if i didn't finish IDP within a certain time frame. so i'll probably need to do them again at $300-500 per course. nice.
working overseas, i wasn't able to work directly for someone who was a registered architect due to the office structure they use there. so i have become a design consultant instead, and use the local registered architecture firms as architects of record when necessary.
in time, i may get registered, but it's not any rush as it is more hindrance than benefit at this point in my life. taking exams is easy, it's satisfying all the bureaucratic hurdles that is a problem. when my wanderlust is gone and i settle down in one place, then i might stand a chance of getting registered, but for someone with a mobile life, it is simply not possible.
well, i think the philosophical musings come in when you understand that there are many, many registered architects out there that are not using 90% of what they learned to get registered in the first place. for example, many principles and project managers have absolutely nothing to do with the production of architecture outside of client meetings and administrative duties. i understand these people climbed the ladder, but if that is where they were always headed was it really necessary for them to get registered in the first place? perhaps they would have been better off getting an mba (may explain why so many architecture practices are so poorly run from a business perspective; those structures exams don't really pay off when you become a principal.) because the profession is becoming more and more specialized, the generalist training for licensure is a bit anachronistic.
bring on the slings and arrows.
jafidler: I've seem many careers progress over the years. while some of what you say may be true at some firms about the role of principals and project managers, I think you misread, or trivialize, the importance of a solid grounding in architectural design and detailing in those roles.
in my world at least, our clients look to our principals and project managers as the key architectural talent on the project -- they're looking there for design and technical leadership of both the process and the team. you can't be successful at a senior level here at our firm unless you're first and foremost a strong Architect -- in the fullest sense of that word.
perhaps other firms practice differently -- but, if they do, I don't get it.
quizzical, i go back and forth on this. on the one hand, principals and project managers, particularly in smaller offices, are as you say the "key architectural talent" on the project and because of that, are vital to keeping a client's confidence. then again, i see others, more often than not at larger firms, that are so completely removed from design and production as to only tangentially be using the skills and experience required for licensure. that's not a knock on these people. in many ways, they are doing the work that is critical to bringing the project to completion, but i wonder a bit if the license was really necessary. as architecture does become more and more specialized and diversified is it really necessary for everyone associated with the project to be a registered architect. i would argue that there are many licensed architects in any given office, but only a handful of true project architects.
Do any of you guys know anyone that has been licensed in their mid 20's?
yes ... I got my license at age 27 (is that "mid" ?)
Finished my last section when I was 27, license at 28.
Hell I knew a guy licensed at 24/25 back in the 80's - He actualy did really well doing Lincoln Park Townhouse renovations until about '91 - got into trouble with a real eastate deal that flopped. Last I heard he was selling bulk refridgeration chemicals for some Industrial concern making 300K a year - go figure
You want to hear depressing - my brother is an investment banker. His Holiday bonus was more than my yearly salary. His summer bonus ( yes - they get summer bonuses to) was my salary.
And my salary aint bad.
Licensed at 29 here.
But do you get summer bonus?
My (adjusted) age at licensure was 26-1/2
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.