I think that if you are a "legacy" LEED AP from the old system, there is no requirement to keep up with any continuing ed or even to pay a yearly fee

this is true... you just become an 'inactive' legacy LEED AP in June of 2011 (or some date two years from the switch) and you are no longer listed in the database on the website.

don't fall for it--just some more meaningless letters after your name

If you feel like taking another long and boring exam, why not?

People seem to be losing their shit over this LEED AP thing. That's why I took it.

If you feel like you can do sustainable projects without it (which you should be able to do BTW) then don't do it. I know that by reading the material I do think differently about certain things now.

FLM has a good point, but there's also another side.

Meaningless to whom? To many, yes. But not necessarily to people who may want to hire someone with that credential rather than someone without it.

citizen, best credential is to have actually completed a LEED certified building.

last time I checked there were 77,434 LEED AP's and around 3,326 certified buildings. that's about one building for every 20 AP's.

http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1942

Ah, but my point is not about actual qualification, it's about the perception of qualification when potential clients see "LEED AP," "AIA," or the like.

That's one of the functions of professional organizations. Don't misunderstand me: there's no good substitute for qualifications and experience. But there is a bad substitute, when clients or employers are looking through many, many applicants: professional designation. Like it or not, hiring decisions are sometimes made this way.

Good point. At this point, do you think LEED AP's are overtaking AIA's in terms of name-brand recognition?

Not in my experience....

USGBC Update just came out:

131,655 LEED AP's
5,977 Certified Projects

September 2009

AIA membership: 83,000 approx
NCARB: 108,000 approx.

...go figure.

I would say 'no' after they changed the system.
'Might be' if you had AIA already and totally have nothing to do.

so...

figuring I have no job so I have plenty of time to read study guides and do practice exams got me thinking that, despite my reservations with the LEED system, taking the exam and getting certified could only help my resume.

So I go to the LEED site to get all the details...only to find out that the only way I can take the exam is if I have already worked on a LEED project and have documentation?! How does this makes sense? Argh. Stupid LEED. Guess it's back to reworking the portfolio instead.

Legacy APs still need to retake the exam in 2011 and pay fees and do CM credits thereafter. Being a legacy is not a permanent solution.

LEED is a scam! If you want something that looks good after your name, just write Esq. It costs nothing, and like LEED, really means nothing.

FrankLloydMike is probably correct. But unfortunately most of us have little choice about becoming APs... our firms make us...

not all those LEED AP's are architects though
So those numbers are a bit skewed

pretty much every product rep i talk to these days is a LEED AP

I wonder if there is a breakdown between architect and non-architect LEED APs



And i disagree about LEED being a scam
If it helps you get or keep your job, it's an easy thing to do and worth it
It's like passing the ARE's
you arent any more capable of designing a building, you just passed an exam

If it doesnt give you any sort of benefit for your career, then dont bother


Urbanist
Do i really need to retake the exam in 2011?
Ugh
I was hoping to cruise along at whatever the base level was and just do continuing ed credits
I have to say, I will hopefully have just finished my exams in 2011, and already have one very large LEED building under my belt.
I dont know how much motivation i will have to take the test again

I feel bad for the people on the AREFORUM who post ARE exam failing scores but I do find amusing the posts that say things like, "It says I failed the exam because of deficiencies in Environmental Issues....Unbeleavable! Since I'm LEED AP!...."

Each time I read one of those I put one more check in the "LEED is a load of crap" box.

The day that I find out I've lost a potential job because I wasn't LEED certified is the day I'll put my first check in the "Should have become LEED certified but I didn't because it's a load of crap" box.

I should specify becoming LEED AP....I don't think there's anything wrong designing a building to LEED standards...you just don't need the initials to do it....and now you have to do it before they let you pay them money for the letters.

i would say it is really something that is for those younger architects as a resume builder

It is an easy way to show you have interest in sustainable design to potential employers, rather than showing up at an interview and saying, oh yes, i believe in sustainable design


but really, if you are already established, and are either a principal or someone else higher up, i really dont see the point
Unless you are specifically trying to do all "sustainable" projects and it is basically just a check mark for anyone working at your firm

Or you want to specifically do LEED consulting

marm,

Actually.. I might be wrong about that. I just checked and I can't find a clear explanation anymore. That was what they planned to require at one point, but reference to mandatory retesting seems to have been removed from the USGBC website.. so maybe you can now requalify just by doing CM credits + the project work requirement.

yeah that is what i have heard also

honestly, mandatory retesting i cant imagine actually working, unless the retest was a lot less expensive


I know i certainly wont be paying to retake the test even once, as that would be twice in 2-3 years
It's not that worth it to pay that much


Now taking a test to get a higher LEED title or whatever it is?
That i can see making a little sense
Though i wont ever be doing it, there is at least something to be gained rather than keeping the same title you already have passed a test for

Copied and pasted from the GBCI website:

Q: How do I fit into the new tiered system as a LEED AP without specialty credentialed under New Construction, Commercial Interiors, or Existing Buildings?
A: LEED APs without specialty credentialed under NC, CI, or EB have three options:

1. Become a LEED AP with specialty by passing one of the new specialty examinations...
2. Become a LEED AP with specialty by enrolling in the new tiered system...
3. Do nothing; you will be designated a LEED AP without specialty in the LEED Professional Directory.

Q: What if I choose not to enroll in the new tiered system?
A: You will be designated a LEED AP without specialty in the LEED Professional Directory.

sweet, hello LEED AP without specialty for me!

I think I heard that the powers that be at my firm have decided that people should choose and take a professionally relevant specialist exam. I think I'm going to get the ND track when that becomes available later in 2010.

It really does seem like it will be a case by case or firm by firm basis on whether or not they think it is something valuable to have

By the way, I think this new requirement that you have to had worked with USGBC documentation before to take the darn exam is counterproductive. The "exam" shouldn't be primarily about one's ability to do USGBC form data entry.. it should be about expanding the scope and influence of sustainable buildnig and site design practices, and then accrediting people who have mastered the core concepts of such design - not one's ability to use the template.

Well, I had wanted to weigh in on this... but letters after your name generally are B.S.

This is the only defense I have of LEED is that you can't just buy your way in... you actually have to take a test.

Case in point... If I had like 2000 dollars, I could easily become -- Unicorn Slaughter, AIA, APA, ULI Associate et cetera. I mean it sounds impressive... but the only thing I actually did was buy those letters. At least with LEED, you kind of have to take a test.

A good example of this is the APA's AICP certification. The test is a joke. The continuing education is a joke. (Let's not forget that the APA is a toothless fox.)

But to be AICP, all you have to do is be a member for a few years in a development related capacity and sit for a somewhat long test. And, BAM!, you're AICP as long as you keep paying dues and buying books.

While I think licensing for planning and development might be a good thing, these things really dilute the industry. I don't think it is right to have such long time requirements on licensure and certification.

Case in point, say Architect A and Architect B want to become licensed.

Architect A works on a single stadium for a period of two years. Architect B works on 12-18 different but small project for a single year.

Tell me which one has wider (and or better) knowledge and which one should be able to sit for an exam?

Likewise, a proactive planner who does a ton of work is seen in the same frame as someone who works at a permitting office stamping documents.

(I don't mean to start a license fight.)

I'm just point out that at least LEED has a fairly simplistic and accessible way to sit for the exam. A little retarded that you can't do LEED projects without a LEED AP title and you can't get that title without working on at least one LEED project.

But either way, it's not using some factually flimsy concept like "time" to determine who is worthy and who isn't worth of sitting for a test. It defeats the purpose of the test. That is... a test is a challenge of someone's intellectual constitution.

You either know it or you don't!

One should point out that the AICP exam actually has a rather low national pass rate. They also do enforce the darned CEU requirements... I lost my institute membership quite a few years ago by failing to properly maintain it. I don't understand your attempt at drawing a distinction between the two...

They're non-legally-binding "licensure" exams.

Outside of theory, neither really mean squat. And, because of the book-learning, they don't necessarily mean you practice what you preach or have be "licensed" to preach.

There's no qualitative review there either. For instance, if you're a transportation designer and all you've done in your planning career is design large single-use surface lots... you're as capable to sit for the AICP exam as someone who is a hardcore town planner.

Where LEED fairs better over AICP is that the exam requirements are far less stringent-- that makes it more accessible.

Even if your LEED AP or AICP, there are so many loopholes to not actually do anything with the learned knowledge.

LEED lets somone buy a building into LEED certification (if you strap enough bicycle racks, solar panels and rainwater barrels to a building.

AICP's code of ethics has a legal loophole that lets you do whatever you want as long as that is what the people you represent want.

Both require cumbersome and expensive "maintenance" that's not usually given by a representative or faculty member of an accredited educational institution-- i.e., no real legal standing.

I would say the big distinction between the two is that AICP has a lengthy wait and employment timeframe. However, again, since most people do not practice what they learn in school... time between school and exam can erode at what one knows.

Therefore, it is not a constant clear continuation of education. And because you don't have a formal educational background to pull from, you cannot academically challange all the bullshit in CM classes.

In addition, working seems to be the major requirement here for both. The biggest problem I see with AICP is that anyone who actually attends planning workshops and courses does not benefit in any way because active participation does not gain you an early entry to the exam.

It's a bigger scam than LEED in my opinion.

We'll have to disagree there. I have both academic backgrounds (planning and architectural design), and my concerns with the planning proefsson have to do less with practitioners who lack the basic skills (particularly in land-use) their jobs actually require. You won't believe how many architects and self-proclaimed urban designers pretend they understand land-use.. and then cause irreparable damage because they don't know the first thing about it.

These skills are very uniform and very teachable and enforceable. Right now, the only real policing mechanism is the AICP (except in New Jersey, which has its own licensing exam and engineer-type project certification process, using in concert with the AICP process). Y

My belief is that states with centrally controlled impact assessment and land-use regulation regimes (Florida, California, New York, and frankly, most others) should move gradually to full licensing on the NJ model. APA and AICP should be pushing for this.

I'm sick of incompetent urban designers.

LEED may be the largest wool over the eyes I have ever seen! Definitely biggest bunch of bullshit! Don't fall for the hype. It is almost the eqivalent of how many charms can I ad to my bracelet building.

USGBC biggest money making scam on earth! Almost like NCARB.

a bit of an exaggeration

though architects do have a tendancy to make things out to be a lot worse than they actually are

LEED is not a perfect system but it has improved. In order to get a building certified it has to meet a baseline energy performance, not just slap on bike racks. Sure some points can literally be bought from green power providers favoring projects with money. But the goal is really to build better performing buildings and use less energy and water - this is not a bad thing. And yes we do not need the USGBC to tell us we are doing good...building codes are mandating minimum energy performance on buildings.

Regardless of what I think government and schools are requiring things like LEED Certification on new projects so I'd rather have the credential so I can open up to those markets.

Anyway now that I just lost my job I am thinking about starting my on certification system for architecture. Just give me $5000 and I will review your project and based on my biased opinion will approve or deny your claim that you have architecture. I'll send you a nice sign to put on your building, you will have 'certified architecture' and it will only cost you $5000.

i believe at this point you have to work on a LEED project in order to be eligible to take the exam, is this correct?

i hear that is the case
I dont know the specifics though
It would seem as long as the firm you work at has done a LEED project, you would qualify?
I wonder how they verify something like that

marmkid,

I believe that is correct. I think there are specific documentation requirements though.. so get friendly with people at your firm who are working on LEED projects ;)

thankfully i passed the old test and have already worked on a LEED project, so i am in the clear

i have seen a major dropoff in the amount of architects concerned with taking the LEED test these days though since they started the new version

I imagine it will pick up again, maybe when the economy isnt everyone's worst problem