"spending years working in the field is beneficial to you when studying for the ARE because you can bring the in the field experience to your exams".
Yes, We are told this as if studying and passing the ARE WOULDN'T be beneficial as a precurser to being in the field, where one is making decisions that have serious consequences. As it is, the system encourages delaying exposure to various aspects of the profession. How is that helpful?
Sooooo, is it is unlawful to work in an architect's office to gain IDP? Doesn't fulfilling the requirements of IDP involve practicing architecture without a license?
Or does "practicing architecture" simply mean stamping drawings? Like it makes sense that it be unlawful to make up a stamp and use it without obtaining the license.
I am not a licensed architect, so I am not privy to this kind of knowledge! Please share!
Strawbeary, the architects practice act defines the practice of architecture on the first page:
The practice of architecture within the meaning and intent of this chapter is defined as offering or performing, or being in responsible control of, professional services which require the skills of an architect in the planning of sites, and the design, in whole or in part, of buildings, or groups of buildings and structures.
of course you can work in an architect's office and while you may be designing and being more of an 'architect' than the person who stamps the drawings you are still not legally 'practicing architecture' because you are not legally responsible for the plans and specifications.
page 5 of the architects practice act states: This section shall not apply to employees of persons licensed under this chapter while acting within the course of their employment.
To take this discussion in a somewhat different direction - First I agree we could come up with a better title than intern, and I think the IDP process, ARE, and schooling could be improved significantly, maybe even integrated, -
But for the sake of the argument I think our attention might be a bit misplaced, we may be treating the symptoms.
I think the issue may lie more with who is responsible for what. In Germany (I believe... maybe some other EU country) where you graduate with a license to practice architecture, the contractor takes responsibility for anything he agrees to build. Meaning he's going to make damn sure it aint gonna break, so I imagine this translates to contractors being involved much earlier in the process and providing much more extensive pre-construction as a general rule, which results in a kind of design-build approach. The building industry is entirely different.
I think it also largely a cultural issue. In Germany for example when you trip and fall down stairs understand it's because you are clumsy and take response ability for it, in America you sue the company that designed the stairs, the owner of the building, the contractor who installed them, and the company that supplied the materials.
The need for architects to have such extensive knowledge and training is a result of responsibilities being placed upon architects. And a great deal of this responsibility is being placed upon us by contractors - they have ENORMOUS lobbying power... we don't... I think this is where the AIA should be spending it's time.
I also think the ARE would be more useful if taken early. I think the ARE would be a great thing to be studying for and taking concurrently with school could it be done in a manner that school didn't become a giant prep-course for the ARE's.
Or if there were a way to incentivize licencesure for firms, but by placing the responsibility upon the firm instead of the "intern" (IDP places the responsibility upon the intern for how their time is spent... something over which they have no control.)
I was thinking about how LEED gives you a LEED point for having a LEED accredited professional on your team. Brilliant of LEED to think of this as it makes firms force all their employees to take the test which means LEED makes big bucks without even having to certify any buildings, cheeky bastards. I'll save my LEED rants for another thread. Unfortunately most firms don't help thier employees become LEED certified they just require it, but they have done an amazing job of getting people to get certified compared to getting architects, excuse me, interns... to take the ARE.
Actually, the more I think about it, maybe it would be actually BETTER for the ARE to come prior to IDP... It might actually make the IDP experience more fruitful if interns were required to meet the minimum knowledge exams prior to gaining their internship hours... Would actually help them in work, and it might make them more informed about the tasks they are engaged in... It might also motivate people to get their exams out of the way as soon as possible...
It wouldn't affect those who didn't plan to get licensed since they wouldn't need to start IDP anyway...
I think what happens with IDP, it's sort of an excuse for procrastination on exams... If you know you will have to work for 3 or 4+ years anyway, what's the motivation to finish up the exams?
great points psycho-mullet. it's always frustrated me that we bear the brunt of a lot of regulation in terms of liability but get nothing in return: i.e. regulation that an architect needs to stamp residential. in europe an architect is required for residential. it's a raw deal IMO.
jonathan segal is famous for noting that it was easier for him to get a construction loan to design and develop precisely b/c he wasn't a RA. It's increased liability to have that after your name.
Was this before he was licensed? Because he is licensed now (isn't he?). I do remember at his lecture he said if he could do it over again he would not get licensed, he declined to elaborate as the event was sponsored by the AIA...
I'm trying to get a loan for a development right now (I'm unlicensed), and the hold up at the moment is they ain't loaning to anybody... crazy times...
^definitely the way it should be, do the tests while completing IDP.
and psych-mullet, regarding LEED, you only get 1 point for having 1 LEED AP working on the project. having everyone get accredited doesn't help you, though i do agree that the usgbc are cheeky bastards ..
No I know you only get one point, but firms are still making or at least placing great pressure upon everyone get certified, if only a few people in the office can do the LEED projects it makes staffing difficult. Perkins + Will requires LEED certification before you can be an associate, and most firms are using LEED for marketing in general so there tends to be pressure on everyone to get LEED certified even if you don't work on a LEED project.
Unlicensed, but practicing architecture
"spending years working in the field is beneficial to you when studying for the ARE because you can bring the in the field experience to your exams".
Yes, We are told this as if studying and passing the ARE WOULDN'T be beneficial as a precurser to being in the field, where one is making decisions that have serious consequences. As it is, the system encourages delaying exposure to various aspects of the profession. How is that helpful?
... we are told that as if the concepts are not something that can be studied, when in fact they are. My mom could study for the ARE and pass it.
Or does "practicing architecture" simply mean stamping drawings? Like it makes sense that it be unlawful to make up a stamp and use it without obtaining the license.
I am not a licensed architect, so I am not privy to this kind of knowledge! Please share!
Strawbeary, the architects practice act defines the practice of architecture on the first page:
The practice of architecture within the meaning and intent of this chapter is defined as offering or performing, or being in responsible control of, professional services which require the skills of an architect in the planning of sites, and the design, in whole or in part, of buildings, or groups of buildings and structures.
of course you can work in an architect's office and while you may be designing and being more of an 'architect' than the person who stamps the drawings you are still not legally 'practicing architecture' because you are not legally responsible for the plans and specifications.
page 5 of the architects practice act states: This section shall not apply to employees of persons licensed under this chapter while acting within the course of their employment.
Agreed strawbeary. The ARE would be more useful taken early IMHO...
OTF... sorry didn't mean to sound so agro.
To take this discussion in a somewhat different direction - First I agree we could come up with a better title than intern, and I think the IDP process, ARE, and schooling could be improved significantly, maybe even integrated, -
But for the sake of the argument I think our attention might be a bit misplaced, we may be treating the symptoms.
I think the issue may lie more with who is responsible for what. In Germany (I believe... maybe some other EU country) where you graduate with a license to practice architecture, the contractor takes responsibility for anything he agrees to build. Meaning he's going to make damn sure it aint gonna break, so I imagine this translates to contractors being involved much earlier in the process and providing much more extensive pre-construction as a general rule, which results in a kind of design-build approach. The building industry is entirely different.
I think it also largely a cultural issue. In Germany for example when you trip and fall down stairs understand it's because you are clumsy and take response ability for it, in America you sue the company that designed the stairs, the owner of the building, the contractor who installed them, and the company that supplied the materials.
The need for architects to have such extensive knowledge and training is a result of responsibilities being placed upon architects. And a great deal of this responsibility is being placed upon us by contractors - they have ENORMOUS lobbying power... we don't... I think this is where the AIA should be spending it's time.
I also think the ARE would be more useful if taken early. I think the ARE would be a great thing to be studying for and taking concurrently with school could it be done in a manner that school didn't become a giant prep-course for the ARE's.
Or if there were a way to incentivize licencesure for firms, but by placing the responsibility upon the firm instead of the "intern" (IDP places the responsibility upon the intern for how their time is spent... something over which they have no control.)
I was thinking about how LEED gives you a LEED point for having a LEED accredited professional on your team. Brilliant of LEED to think of this as it makes firms force all their employees to take the test which means LEED makes big bucks without even having to certify any buildings, cheeky bastards. I'll save my LEED rants for another thread. Unfortunately most firms don't help thier employees become LEED certified they just require it, but they have done an amazing job of getting people to get certified compared to getting architects, excuse me, interns... to take the ARE.
Actually, the more I think about it, maybe it would be actually BETTER for the ARE to come prior to IDP... It might actually make the IDP experience more fruitful if interns were required to meet the minimum knowledge exams prior to gaining their internship hours... Would actually help them in work, and it might make them more informed about the tasks they are engaged in... It might also motivate people to get their exams out of the way as soon as possible...
It wouldn't affect those who didn't plan to get licensed since they wouldn't need to start IDP anyway...
I think what happens with IDP, it's sort of an excuse for procrastination on exams... If you know you will have to work for 3 or 4+ years anyway, what's the motivation to finish up the exams?
great points psycho-mullet. it's always frustrated me that we bear the brunt of a lot of regulation in terms of liability but get nothing in return: i.e. regulation that an architect needs to stamp residential. in europe an architect is required for residential. it's a raw deal IMO.
jonathan segal is famous for noting that it was easier for him to get a construction loan to design and develop precisely b/c he wasn't a RA. It's increased liability to have that after your name.
wrecking ball
I'd like to know more on that.
Was this before he was licensed? Because he is licensed now (isn't he?). I do remember at his lecture he said if he could do it over again he would not get licensed, he declined to elaborate as the event was sponsored by the AIA...
I'm trying to get a loan for a development right now (I'm unlicensed), and the hold up at the moment is they ain't loaning to anybody... crazy times...
http://advocacy.archvoices.org/Faq.htm
^definitely the way it should be, do the tests while completing IDP.
and psych-mullet, regarding LEED, you only get 1 point for having 1 LEED AP working on the project. having everyone get accredited doesn't help you, though i do agree that the usgbc are cheeky bastards ..
No I know you only get one point, but firms are still making or at least placing great pressure upon everyone get certified, if only a few people in the office can do the LEED projects it makes staffing difficult. Perkins + Will requires LEED certification before you can be an associate, and most firms are using LEED for marketing in general so there tends to be pressure on everyone to get LEED certified even if you don't work on a LEED project.
eight states - IL just allowed it starting in 2009.
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.