It's a good question. I studied as a an engineer in undergrad, and took the FE (fundamentals of engineering) and that was 8 hours as well. So the FE and the PE combined only adds to 16 hours plus in order to register for the PE, you are required to have 5 years of work under a PE, which, when compared to IDP is a little more of an experience requirement.

You are right in saying that an engineer has a lot of legal responsibility, but the reality is engineers often become a lot more specialized than architects. So, my guess would be that the difference relates to an architects' responsibility to be able to choose a broad range of different building systems, and can't call on specialized professionals to review every single one of these systems like they do for engineers with structural drawings. I can't really come up with another logical reason.

if you analyze the scope of work and services traditionally provided by each profession, you probably see the difference, in relation to total exam hours.
as far as liability goes, if the building fails, i don't think we are outside the loop of litigation as architects, even it is a structural failure. and, buildings can fail many more ways than the structural design.
i hope this helps the discussion a little.

the likelihood that an engineer will so poorly engineer a structure that it fails is much less than the likelihood that an architect will be responsible for some issue - primarily because of the myriad of issues that fall under an architect's purview.

first, yes, the architect will be held partially responsible for the engineer's design, if there is an issue. the architect is the umbrella organization over the consultants and is therefore held to account for all of the work of those consultants. thus we are tested on a minor amoung of structural, civil, mep, acoustical...

also:

if someone trips, the architect can be held responsible;
if the mechanical systems fail,
if construction is significantly over budget,
if the windows leak,
if the roof leaks,
if the brick spalls,
if the foundation settles,
if the floor tile delaminates from the slab,
if there is a design decision that renders a space non-ada-compliant,
if a product is specified other than one specified by the owner,
if the site doesn't drain properly,
etc
etc

How then, would you explain the greater hourly compensation a licensed engineer receives versus a licensed architect?

Also, I think an architect's liability is a function of the project size. Think of the reason we have MEP engineers, or facade engineers, or construction managers, stair fabricators, elevator installers, etc. They are specialty consultants that take responsibility (and liability) for the process/design/materials which they work on. If a project were smaller, say less than 10,000 sf, then I would agree that as the architect, you are more liable, but again, there are exceptions.

1. bad public relations
2. in engineering, there are right answers.

re: your second paragraph.
look at a standard contract, or look into almost any legal case involving any of those consultants you listed. i bet the architect is named. we're professionally responsible for the work of our consutants.

contractors license... took me 45 minutes for the 3hour test
insurance for 2 mill.... 800 a year

you might be limited in what you can do but at least you can do something.

Having worked on some litigation cases (reviewing other architects' and engineers' work), I can tell you that the architect will definitely be involved in the liability. Every occurence will basically be treated individually, so in the end the architect may not end up taking the liability but will be thoroughly involved in the process. And yes, the architect is much more vulnerable than engineers.

And for the training to take the PE, from what I know, there is no ridiculous IDP system so basically they just need to have that many years of experience without all the paperwork & etc.

As for the greater hourly compensation, I have no answer to that. Steve W is probably right, but I think there are more factors. And it should be noted that the greater compensation is definitely true right after graduation with no experience, but its hard to say once a PE or RA. My observation has been that RA's generally own their own business more often than PE's.

I definitely agree with what Steven says, but would be curious to hear an actual engineer weigh in on the comment that in engineering - specifically structural but MEP too - there are clearly right answers.

Synergy?

SW has provided good answers to the original questiion(s). Architects are typically the leader of a team of consultants retained by the architect and are, therefore, liable for those consultants. There are ways to shift some of this liability to the various consultants, but not all. Architects are, in fact, allowed to peform civil, structural, mechanical, plumbing and electrical design (among others), and some architects do so.

The exam to become a licensed architect is longer and, arguably, more arduous than just about any licensing exam for any other profession. SW correctly points out the broad nature of services that a license allows an architect to be resposible for. Structural engineering (or any other type of engineering) can be critical to the life/safety of a structure, but it is a single focused discipline. Architects are expected to be at least minimally competent in multiple disciplines - hence, the longer exam.

Should this liability translate into higher compensation for architects? Well, I am convinced it should. But there are a huge number of factors in play that determine compensation levels within a profession and within a geographical area. SW identifies two of them.

SW has provided good answers to the original questiion(s). Architects are typically the leader of a team of consultants retained by the architect and are, therefore, liable for those consultants. There are ways to shift some of this liability to the various consultants, but not all. Architects are, in fact, allowed to peform civil, structural, mechanical, plumbing and electrical design (among others), and some architects do so.

The exam to become a licensed architect is longer and, arguably, more arduous than just about any licensing exam for any other profession. SW correctly points out the broad nature of services that a license allows an architect to be resposible for. Structural engineering (or any other type of engineering) can be critical to the life/safety of a structure, but it is a single focused discipline. Architects are expected to be at least minimally competent in multiple disciplines - hence, the longer exam.

Should this liability translate into higher compensation for architects? Well, I am convinced it should. But there are a huge number of factors in play that determine compensation levels within a profession and within a geographical area. SW identifies two of them.

Thanks for all the responses. This was surprisingly helpful.

I have a Ba. in Civil Engineering, passed my FE exam before graduation, but have worked for an architect the passed three years, and am 225 credits into IDP.

Have been exploring both PE and RA licenses and was a bit shocked at the RA requirements. Felt excessive considering what is required for a PE. Public perception says that engineering is more professional than architecture, and therefore was expecting same.

dont you need an arch degree to even take the ARE?

Depends on the State.

:b: I think that is now a completely new discussion

No, there are approximately 20 states in which it is possible to take the ARE without a professional architecture degree (B.Arch or M.Arch.) In most of these a person testing without the NAAB degree must do a longer internship - ranges from 4 to 13 years depending on the state and the person's education background. In about 15 states it's possible to become an architect with no degree at all beyond high school. Not very many people do that - but it's possible.
There are also a few states in which any licensed engineer is automatically eligible to take the ARE, without any architecture education.


As for the length of the exam: I think it's important to realize that a lot of the issue with the length of the exam is that the ARE contains design problems in graphic vignette form. That alone adds greatly to the time required, as some of those vignettes can take a few hours each.

I agree with others above that the architect is tested on basic structural engineering because structural design is within the architect's expected scope of practice in most states. Even though many architects choose not to take on that responsibility on their own, some do. But as has been stated, the architect's responsibilities encompass far more, and the ARE attempts to establish minimal competence in a long list of subject areas.