I have been searching the web for any materials published highlighting the benefits of professional registration and have thus far only come up empty handed. There are a number of young designers within my firm who have expressed to me that they have no desire of ever becoming a licensed architect. Is there any published material, web or otherwise, or personal stories or opinions that I can present to these designers in an effort to let them at least reconsider their career path?
so much of the logic surrounding this issue depends on your firm, how you operate, and what you aspire to become.
our firm -- which makes a strenuous effort to balance great design with solid project management and strong technical expertise -- feels it's important that a high percentage of our mid-career (and higher) personnel be licensed. this feeling comes mostly from our clients, who expect the person across the table to be licensed if that person is making decisions about how they spend millions of their dollars. it's also an important factor in how we market our firm's services.
for these reason, we have candid conversations with emerging professionals to let them know that their career progress -- at least while they're in our firm -- depends, at least in part, on obtaining their license as quickly as possible. individuals who don't pursue licensure aggressively don't make the same progress here as those who do. we also pay our licensed architects somewhat more (given comparable experience and ability) than those without the credential.
we recognize this approach is not universal and perhaps less meaningful in firms which put less emphasis on project management and technical expertise - but, it works well for us.
hope this gives you some useful perspective. Good luck.
Quizzical's post raises the important issue of client perception. How some developers and other clients perceive design and other professional services, and what they specifically require in the way of qualifications, is a big part of this discussion --independent of what we as insiders may think.
It seems to me if you are a direct contact with a client you should be licensed. I guess it varies with what types of projects you are dealing with. Its a way of showing a level of competency that should be there. If you aren't licensed the client is going to want to know why. What don't you know? How does that affect how well you deal with problems that arise? Will problems happen that wouldn't have otherwise come up? Basically, they are paying you money to help them make them money or at least save money and get a quality product.
Perhaps you are not licensed and can perform just as well as someone who is. However being licensed is for the client, a certain standard to ease their minds. The license provides a reason you should be able to sit on the other side of the table. It is something clients bring up that i have heard.
On the freebie/handout sides. You get discounts on building supplies.
A small firm (under 20 staff) that employs many friends has as its two principals unlicensed architects.
They did have a licensed director, though noone else with license of similar calibre. The licensed director left the firm. The firm had to keep paying him as staff or breach the conditions of their insurance.
Licensing thus earnt the director six months of pay for doing nothing, and being unlicensed cost the principals similarly.
There is a new Architects Act coming our soon in my jurisdiction which will make it mandatory for an architect to be the coordinating professional / designer for everything greater than a single family home or a duplex. Its great because it really allows for a professional to be involved with four-plexes and small scale commercial / Multi-family projects which developers have done on the cheap for years. A designer I know is quite upset that the local Act is changing and feels like their "cutting his lawn"... I just laughed.
it depends on whether you want to be an architect, or a designer who has to pay an architect to stamp their drawings.
Your designer friends are wannabes.
you can talk about the fountainhead through the dressing room door to the cute salesgirl at nordstrom while trying on pants. well you don't really need a license for this...
Calling yourself an architect without looking over your shoulder, or reading your name on the naughty list as an "unlicensed individual holding onesself out as an architect" in the back pages of the (CA) state architect's newsletter.
I would strongly advise any "emerging professional" to get his/her license as early as possible. There are countless benefits - short and long-term: credibility, addn'l. knowledge (speak w/ struct. engineer on a more level playing field in design issues - structures + lateral forces portions), more $, opportunity to self-employ / start an architecture firm...
I had a few profs. in school who didn't get licensed. They "designed" a few projects, but the the architect who stamped the drawings got credit for the project. When the work got published, it said this is XYZ's project, and underneath in small letters they mention that he worked on it.
There might be some intelectual property rights that a registered arch has, that a designer doesn't. Im not sure about this though.
One of the downsides is that with the license comes liability. I know a bunch of people who are content with never "owning" their work and passing it off to be stamped by someone else.
"They "designed" a few projects, but the the architect who stamped the drawings got credit for the project"
Wouldn't that make the so-called "designer" little more than a "stylist"? Not sure why anybody would endure the rigors of an architectural education to practice in such a superficial manner.
Then is the converse of the statement applicable? I'm not sure why I endured the rigors of an architectural education to practice without getting to show some style. From what I have seen, you can climb the ladder all the way to intermediate designer without a license. What the hell - I might as well finish getting the damn stamp anyway. Then I could run my own Bozo show. Anyway - without a stamp you can still run the dog and pony show doing residential.
There seems to be some bias and some incorrect information in this thread. You do not need a license to practice architecture. Having a license doesn’t necessarily make you a better architect. It all depends on what you want to do and how much responsibility you want. A registered architect has the responsibility and liability of reviewing and stamping drawings. An architect who isn’t registered has to enter into a contract with a registered architect to take on that responsibility and liability. And there are numerous ways of practicing and negotiating responsibility within these contracts. While a registered architect is able to have these services in-house instead of contracting them out, but he/she is also the person liable as well. Even licensed architects, have to enter into similar contracts with local architects when working in a state where their license is not recognized or doing work internationally. And as for not getting credit for your work as a non-registered architect, you get full credit for your work. There would just be a listing in the publication of the “architect” and the “architect of record”; the same exact way when a registered architect works with a local architect. So the real question is what do you want to be responsible for and what you don’t through out your career. I am personally getting licensed so I can have control over the entire process of my projects. But there is not just one correct way to practice architecture.
1. a person who engages in the practice of architecture.
its all semantics. the argument is still the same. practicing architecture (being an architect) or being a state reconized/licensed architect. its about how much responsibility and liability you are willing to under take within your practice of architecture.
Under existing law, only a person who is licensed by the Board as an architect is permitted to use the title architect or any terms confusingly similar to the word “architect.”
Having a license doesn’t necessarily make you a better architect.
<sigh>
For the thousandth time, this is not a point. There are crappy architects who are registered just like there are crappy doctors, lawyers, accountants, and cosmetologists who are registered.
No one is saying that a registered architect is "better" than an unregistered one. We're saying that according to most states' professional practice laws, one cannot call themselves an architect unless they are in fact an architect - meaning they are registered.
Which is what citizen and I are both trying to argue: why spend your life worried that you're going to get in trouble for calling yourself one when you can just take a damn test and be one?
Increased liability comes from increased control, but! increased control means having the ability to limit liability from becoming an issue. Why would anyone NOT want to be registered?
"there is not just one correct way to practice architecture
- that is absolutely a true statement. and, in my view, it's entirely irrelevant to the essence of this discussion.
I've had my license for a long time ... I work hard to do the things the state requires of me to retain that license. But, I haven't personally designed or drawn a building in quite some time.
However, every single day I come into contact with people in the industry - clients, consultants, contractors, employees - who need to know, or take comfort in knowing, that I'm an Architect. At some superficial level, my credibility and competence are reinforced by the fact that I have the license and am allowed by the state to call myself an Architect. I would be the same person with, or without, the license. But, human nature being what it is, it's been awfully helpful to my career to have that credential, along with several others.
A license will not give credibility or competence to someone who doesn't otherwise have credibility or competence. But, it is symbolic of a certain achievement, of a certain level of broad-based knowledge. I think licensure is a fundamental, foundational element of being a true professional.
Like the others above have asked: why would anybody who has the capacity to become licensed not want to pursue licensure at the earliest possible opportunity?
I think one reason people don't want to get licensed is that they equate this with becoming paper-pushing managers - and they are scared that they'll have to give up some things they really love about their work. I think if the office has great professional support and training, and that career advancement isn't rigid or completely linear, then I think younger staff are more likely to want to become licensed.
Also - a big salary bump is always a nice incentive.
my father is a lawyer and a registered architect (he hated a architecture, so he went to law school)
In a recent case where the contractors that he bonded went bankrupt, the contractors brought in a "professional" witness that had a PHD in architecture. After phd guy gave his "professional" opinion in court, then two questions were asked...
"are you a registered architect?"
phd guy - "no"
"so technically you are not an architect, how can you give a "professional" opinion?
phd guy - "uhhhh"
This account obviously plays to a very small role of being a registered architect, but it still begs the question
why all of the schooling, and not sit for the exam?
everyone with phd that i know gets licenced before starting phd. its part of the deal my prof has that he doesn't want any more overeducated underexperienced people out there. moreover, all the profs at my school are required more or less to have phd AND licence and an office of their own.
just sayin. you know, before yall get this weird idea that education is bad for you (such an american perspective, btw)...
nothing to add to the actual question. the answers above are pretty much representative of the state of the state of architecture right now, far as i can tell. ;-)
working for myself there are a couple of larger residential jobs, including a really cool one i'm just starting, that i'm sure i got in part because of the license.
i look young, so part of it is that it lends me credibility, but it helps people feel secure. for the most recent job the clients also wanted me to have professional liability insurance (and we negotiated for them to pay 1/2 the cost), and i would not have been able to get it without a license.
also in the last few weeks i have had 2 people ask me specifically, are you an architect? (mening licensed), and they were visibly happy & relieved when I said yes and obviously thought they were going to get more informed answers from me (one is a sales rep helping on a high end residential job, the other a client who needed some help getting a permit).
so very worth it so far, and it seems to be more helpful the more experience i get. my husband who has his contractor license and went to sci-arc also and is now working for a large construction firm has just signed up as well. he was always skeptical but now sees that it will help him position himself as an expert within the construction company, and also allow him to participate in AIA committees etc that will be helpful for contacts.
i'd be licensed by now if I wasn't chasing after both being a RLA and a RA. I'm straddling that interdisciplinary fence at 90% towards being both with no short term prospect of getting that last 10% of 'experience' required. *sigh*
Being a professional is an attitude thing that being licensed validates. Since I spend much of my time in front of clients, I just represent myself as a project manager and don't get into the details of registration/architect/landscape architect
Jul 31, 08 4:50 pm ·
·
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.
Benefit of Professional Registration
Greetings,
I have been searching the web for any materials published highlighting the benefits of professional registration and have thus far only come up empty handed. There are a number of young designers within my firm who have expressed to me that they have no desire of ever becoming a licensed architect. Is there any published material, web or otherwise, or personal stories or opinions that I can present to these designers in an effort to let them at least reconsider their career path?
Thank you!
so much of the logic surrounding this issue depends on your firm, how you operate, and what you aspire to become.
our firm -- which makes a strenuous effort to balance great design with solid project management and strong technical expertise -- feels it's important that a high percentage of our mid-career (and higher) personnel be licensed. this feeling comes mostly from our clients, who expect the person across the table to be licensed if that person is making decisions about how they spend millions of their dollars. it's also an important factor in how we market our firm's services.
for these reason, we have candid conversations with emerging professionals to let them know that their career progress -- at least while they're in our firm -- depends, at least in part, on obtaining their license as quickly as possible. individuals who don't pursue licensure aggressively don't make the same progress here as those who do. we also pay our licensed architects somewhat more (given comparable experience and ability) than those without the credential.
we recognize this approach is not universal and perhaps less meaningful in firms which put less emphasis on project management and technical expertise - but, it works well for us.
hope this gives you some useful perspective. Good luck.
Designers that are licensed get more work and recognition?
Quizzical's post raises the important issue of client perception. How some developers and other clients perceive design and other professional services, and what they specifically require in the way of qualifications, is a big part of this discussion --independent of what we as insiders may think.
i'm doing it to get out of this hell hole and change the profession in so many ways...look out for me... i am really doin it.
hmmmm ... Arzo ... tell us more, please !
It seems to me if you are a direct contact with a client you should be licensed. I guess it varies with what types of projects you are dealing with. Its a way of showing a level of competency that should be there. If you aren't licensed the client is going to want to know why. What don't you know? How does that affect how well you deal with problems that arise? Will problems happen that wouldn't have otherwise come up? Basically, they are paying you money to help them make them money or at least save money and get a quality product.
Perhaps you are not licensed and can perform just as well as someone who is. However being licensed is for the client, a certain standard to ease their minds. The license provides a reason you should be able to sit on the other side of the table. It is something clients bring up that i have heard.
On the freebie/handout sides. You get discounts on building supplies.
A small firm (under 20 staff) that employs many friends has as its two principals unlicensed architects.
They did have a licensed director, though noone else with license of similar calibre. The licensed director left the firm. The firm had to keep paying him as staff or breach the conditions of their insurance.
Licensing thus earnt the director six months of pay for doing nothing, and being unlicensed cost the principals similarly.
There is a new Architects Act coming our soon in my jurisdiction which will make it mandatory for an architect to be the coordinating professional / designer for everything greater than a single family home or a duplex. Its great because it really allows for a professional to be involved with four-plexes and small scale commercial / Multi-family projects which developers have done on the cheap for years. A designer I know is quite upset that the local Act is changing and feels like their "cutting his lawn"... I just laughed.
The Laughing part was why you get registered!
The main benefit is that you don't have to spend your life wondering if you should/could have done it.
it depends on whether you want to be an architect, or a designer who has to pay an architect to stamp their drawings.
Your designer friends are wannabes.
You may never have the chance to hear from an owner in front of a planning and zoning commission: "The Architect Tried."
You can have a show on HGTV and make more money than all of us.
you can talk about the fountainhead through the dressing room door to the cute salesgirl at nordstrom while trying on pants. well you don't really need a license for this...
I like Liberty's reason the best. Same scenario - I'm going for it...now!
Benefit?
Calling yourself an architect without looking over your shoulder, or reading your name on the naughty list as an "unlicensed individual holding onesself out as an architect" in the back pages of the (CA) state architect's newsletter.
*shiver*
I'm finding out that being registered is nearly irrelevant at my firm.
If you're looking for published materials, the AIA website might have something useful.
I would strongly advise any "emerging professional" to get his/her license as early as possible. There are countless benefits - short and long-term: credibility, addn'l. knowledge (speak w/ struct. engineer on a more level playing field in design issues - structures + lateral forces portions), more $, opportunity to self-employ / start an architecture firm...
I had a few profs. in school who didn't get licensed. They "designed" a few projects, but the the architect who stamped the drawings got credit for the project. When the work got published, it said this is XYZ's project, and underneath in small letters they mention that he worked on it.
There might be some intelectual property rights that a registered arch has, that a designer doesn't. Im not sure about this though.
One of the downsides is that with the license comes liability. I know a bunch of people who are content with never "owning" their work and passing it off to be stamped by someone else.
Wouldn't that make the so-called "designer" little more than a "stylist"? Not sure why anybody would endure the rigors of an architectural education to practice in such a superficial manner.
^^^^
exactly what I though!
thought
Then is the converse of the statement applicable? I'm not sure why I endured the rigors of an architectural education to practice without getting to show some style. From what I have seen, you can climb the ladder all the way to intermediate designer without a license. What the hell - I might as well finish getting the damn stamp anyway. Then I could run my own Bozo show. Anyway - without a stamp you can still run the dog and pony show doing residential.
There seems to be some bias and some incorrect information in this thread. You do not need a license to practice architecture. Having a license doesn’t necessarily make you a better architect. It all depends on what you want to do and how much responsibility you want. A registered architect has the responsibility and liability of reviewing and stamping drawings. An architect who isn’t registered has to enter into a contract with a registered architect to take on that responsibility and liability. And there are numerous ways of practicing and negotiating responsibility within these contracts. While a registered architect is able to have these services in-house instead of contracting them out, but he/she is also the person liable as well. Even licensed architects, have to enter into similar contracts with local architects when working in a state where their license is not recognized or doing work internationally. And as for not getting credit for your work as a non-registered architect, you get full credit for your work. There would just be a listing in the publication of the “architect” and the “architect of record”; the same exact way when a registered architect works with a local architect. So the real question is what do you want to be responsible for and what you don’t through out your career. I am personally getting licensed so I can have control over the entire process of my projects. But there is not just one correct way to practice architecture.
In California, you are not an architect without a license. You may practice architecture, but are not an architect.
architect: -noun
1. a person who engages in the practice of architecture.
its all semantics. the argument is still the same. practicing architecture (being an architect) or being a state reconized/licensed architect. its about how much responsibility and liability you are willing to under take within your practice of architecture.
*recognized
TITLE 16. CALIFORNIA ARCHITECTS BOARD
1. Section 134 – Architectural Business Names
Under existing law, only a person who is licensed by the Board as an architect is permitted to use the title architect or any terms confusingly similar to the word “architect.”
And, you're right, Brokenfinch, it is about semantics, I agree.
But the point above needs to be made in any thread titled "Benefit of Professional Registration."
<sigh>
For the thousandth time, this is not a point. There are crappy architects who are registered just like there are crappy doctors, lawyers, accountants, and cosmetologists who are registered.
No one is saying that a registered architect is "better" than an unregistered one. We're saying that according to most states' professional practice laws, one cannot call themselves an architect unless they are in fact an architect - meaning they are registered.
Which is what citizen and I are both trying to argue: why spend your life worried that you're going to get in trouble for calling yourself one when you can just take a damn test and be one?
Increased liability comes from increased control, but! increased control means having the ability to limit liability from becoming an issue. Why would anyone NOT want to be registered?
- that is absolutely a true statement. and, in my view, it's entirely irrelevant to the essence of this discussion.
I've had my license for a long time ... I work hard to do the things the state requires of me to retain that license. But, I haven't personally designed or drawn a building in quite some time.
However, every single day I come into contact with people in the industry - clients, consultants, contractors, employees - who need to know, or take comfort in knowing, that I'm an Architect. At some superficial level, my credibility and competence are reinforced by the fact that I have the license and am allowed by the state to call myself an Architect. I would be the same person with, or without, the license. But, human nature being what it is, it's been awfully helpful to my career to have that credential, along with several others.
A license will not give credibility or competence to someone who doesn't otherwise have credibility or competence. But, it is symbolic of a certain achievement, of a certain level of broad-based knowledge. I think licensure is a fundamental, foundational element of being a true professional.
Like the others above have asked: why would anybody who has the capacity to become licensed not want to pursue licensure at the earliest possible opportunity?
I like that capital A, Quiz... does it come in scarlet?
rchitect
I think one reason people don't want to get licensed is that they equate this with becoming paper-pushing managers - and they are scared that they'll have to give up some things they really love about their work. I think if the office has great professional support and training, and that career advancement isn't rigid or completely linear, then I think younger staff are more likely to want to become licensed.
Also - a big salary bump is always a nice incentive.
ask yourself - are you obtaining your license for your firm or for yourself?
what does a "big salary bump" have to do with it?
another benefit of being a registered arch -
my father is a lawyer and a registered architect (he hated a architecture, so he went to law school)
In a recent case where the contractors that he bonded went bankrupt, the contractors brought in a "professional" witness that had a PHD in architecture. After phd guy gave his "professional" opinion in court, then two questions were asked...
"are you a registered architect?"
phd guy - "no"
"so technically you are not an architect, how can you give a "professional" opinion?
phd guy - "uhhhh"
This account obviously plays to a very small role of being a registered architect, but it still begs the question
why all of the schooling, and not sit for the exam?
everyone with phd that i know gets licenced before starting phd. its part of the deal my prof has that he doesn't want any more overeducated underexperienced people out there. moreover, all the profs at my school are required more or less to have phd AND licence and an office of their own.
just sayin. you know, before yall get this weird idea that education is bad for you (such an american perspective, btw)...
nothing to add to the actual question. the answers above are pretty much representative of the state of the state of architecture right now, far as i can tell. ;-)
wow double to stress to be a professor.
working for myself there are a couple of larger residential jobs, including a really cool one i'm just starting, that i'm sure i got in part because of the license.
i look young, so part of it is that it lends me credibility, but it helps people feel secure. for the most recent job the clients also wanted me to have professional liability insurance (and we negotiated for them to pay 1/2 the cost), and i would not have been able to get it without a license.
also in the last few weeks i have had 2 people ask me specifically, are you an architect? (mening licensed), and they were visibly happy & relieved when I said yes and obviously thought they were going to get more informed answers from me (one is a sales rep helping on a high end residential job, the other a client who needed some help getting a permit).
so very worth it so far, and it seems to be more helpful the more experience i get. my husband who has his contractor license and went to sci-arc also and is now working for a large construction firm has just signed up as well. he was always skeptical but now sees that it will help him position himself as an expert within the construction company, and also allow him to participate in AIA committees etc that will be helpful for contacts.
i'd be licensed by now if I wasn't chasing after both being a RLA and a RA. I'm straddling that interdisciplinary fence at 90% towards being both with no short term prospect of getting that last 10% of 'experience' required. *sigh*
Being a professional is an attitude thing that being licensed validates. Since I spend much of my time in front of clients, I just represent myself as a project manager and don't get into the details of registration/architect/landscape architect
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.