I'm in my twenties and I'm in the process of taking the ARE's. I'm very proud of putting in the extra effort and excited to be able to have my license and open up possibilities at my current firm or possibly on my own. They are difficult but actually kind of easy when you put in a little bit of studying maybe 5 hrs/wk for 6 weeks per test. Its frustrating but not impossible and honestly the people I know not doing them complain they take too much time but constantly talk about the 15 shows they are watching on netflix. It scares me though that these complainers are gaining traction and getting louder and louder that the process should be easier to allow more designers call themselves architects. Some look for more practical requirements to not shut out those who have children and really don't have the time and others like the "architecture lobby" look like they want some socialist system to bring artists back in power of the process of building. My worries are as follows but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
One it seems like lowering the standards will make the license less valuable and while allowing more designers to call themselves architects will also allow the vultures to as well (shady contractors, developers and drafters.) Is that really what we need to create more value and take back the process? I mean honestly if IDP was completely wiped out and there were only a few tests, I'd have been working for a contractor or real estate broker years ago with no loyalty for this profession because the license would have the same value as a resume padding LEED credential at that point.
Two, many clients have this feeling that architects are artists that hijack their projects for their own selfish means. While I understand architecture is grounded in creativity, it serves a practical purpose and is built and spearheaded by those with capital. You can either convince those people to part with their money by either being literally the very best designer or by showing them how you can streamline the building process and therefore save them some $$$. Lowering the standards, going on strike by creating a union I don't see how this will help. We have a license because we have convinced the legislatures that we protect the public from badly built dangerous buildings, not because we protect the public from badly designed buildings. If we lower the standards to the point where we are just designers, what legislature would truly value the law requiring our use?
SneakyPete
Jan 2, 17 4:29 pm
What is required of an architect according to the law?
BulgarBlogger
Jan 2, 17 4:46 pm
OP-
Agree with your points 100%. There will always be people who want the glory without putting in the work or as much work. Look at athletes who use doping. Making the requirements less stringent is a form of cheating. Read the book by Robert Greene titled, "Mastery", especially the chapter where he talks about the internship period.
Many people go to architecture school not knowing anything about architecture other than the peripheral and superficial. A good school will teach you the basics, but its up to you to learn the test. Those that just rely on school are doing themselves a great disservice to truly "mastering" architecture. That's why I also believe an M.Arch is just as good as a B.Arch. But my view on that has been covered in other posts.
Bottom line is that if you want to truly master something, tackle the most difficult task.
curtkram
Jan 2, 17 6:51 pm
i agree with you too archi-dude. i would support any change to the idp process or are that made it more accessible to talented people, but there should still be limits to give licensure to only the most qualified candidates. what i've seen with trying to reduce the required number of idp hours or allowing licensure automatically on graduating college, the focus is on making the process more accessible to some, easier for most, but certainly not on limiting licensure to the most qualified candidates.
SneakyPete
Jan 2, 17 6:53 pm
Suggesting that the current legislative requirements somehow elevate the profession is a simple ignoring of evidence to the contrary. Until we align our gatekeeping structure with our values instead of HSW (not to say that isn't important, it's simply a poor basis for qualifications to practice), this is a conversation that won't be very productive.
archi_dude
Jan 2, 17 8:57 pm
Sneaky can you explain a bit more?
BulgarBlogger
Jan 2, 17 9:20 pm
Sneaky is trying to create a case for experience > than passing an exam since the exam (ARE) supposedly tests ones ability to be minimally qualified to protect the Health, Safety, and Welfare (HSW) of the public. Yet, to many, experience trumps that.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this assertion because any sculptor can then call him/herself an architect. Any carptener, mason, ironworker can design details from their own experience and say they are architectural designers. But those tradesmen/artisans may not know everything that is involved in protecting the HSW of the public. The whole purpose of a license is to give authority to do something, in this case, to perform architectural services. Because architectural services are so broad, anyone can claim that something is not a risk to HSW. There needs to be a system in place to make sure that one can be minimally qualified in a broad range of situations that may affect the HSW of the public, not just in interiors, core and shells, gas stations, master planning, etc. Whether or not you practice in one of those specific areas, the term architect is consistent throughout, so the qualification process must therefore also be thorough and encompassing of all different types of work.
archi_dude
Jan 2, 17 9:23 pm
I agree because I have failed some of the ARE's and honestly the questions I didn't know I would expect some one who is minimally qualified to know the answer.
BulgarBlogger
Jan 2, 17 9:53 pm
To all who say that experience trumps license- that would only be partially true if there is a seperate type of license for different project types. If your experience is in corporate interiors, and you can call yourself an architect, how can that architect potentially be involved in building ground-up schools if he finds such a client? Praticality aside (most clients would choose architects with the relevant experience) we all know of those lucky few who get comissions with zero experience in a different project type. Therefore, the state must ensure that the title architect is conferred upon people who have exhibited competence in different areas practice, and not just in those in which they have experience.
SneakyPete
Jan 2, 17 9:56 pm
If the only important subjects are HSW, why are there history questions? If we care about design, why is this not required to be a proven ability?
I'm not advocating the removal of the exam, I'm not advocating the removal of licensure. I'm not advocating anything. I'm simply pointing out that I believe, and have for a while, that we as a profession have used HSW as an exclusionary tactic, one that is easily defeated by anyone who can study for an exam. The education requirement would be quite valid if there aren't hundreds of examples of professionals who, having graduated from architecture school, practice architecture of the lowest possible form. We as a profession are all over the map regarding our priorities, so discussions of loosening or strengthening barriers to entry are premature and somewhat pointless.
natematt
Jan 3, 17 1:14 am
I think you are right about priorities.
The thing that gets me is just how many generally incompetent licensed architects I've met. It's fine for exams to assure a particular knowledge base, but if people who hardly seem to function in this environment can get licensed then maybe licensure isn't doing what it should.
randomised
Jan 3, 17 4:45 am
It's funny how those calls for changing the requirements are always made by the people who didn't meet/pass the requirements in the first place. If you for instance don't pass your history class, it's not your fault for not studying properly, no obviously the problem is the class itself that should change, retroactively, to benefit you or they should make an exception for you because you are so special. The same is with official licensing for architects. If you can't meet the requirements to get licensed, don't whine like a little bitch, just study harder or go work where it's not necessary for you to be licensed or for someone who is licensed and can sign off on your masterpieces. Should they simplify driving tests too because too many people flunk or should those flunkers be kept of the road for obvious safety reasons?
BulgarBlogger
Jan 3, 17 7:52 am
The thing that gets me is just how many generally incompetent licensed architects I've met
I think the issue is that many architects that get licensed don't take ownership of the work they do, especially at larger firms. Why should a licensed architect take extra care to check his work when an unlicensed project manager will find his/her mistakes?
BulgarBlogger
Jan 3, 17 8:04 am
Architecture is the only profession I know where younger licensed professionals are treated to a lower standard than older non-licensed professionals. You don't see lawyers who passed thd bar being supervised by 40-year-old paralegals; in Medicine, you don't see 30-year-old board-certified doctors being supervised by older RN's. There is no respect for the younger professionals who put in the effort, only then to be treated as if that effort didn't matter by putting them in positions of servitude to those who did not.
BulgarBlogger
Jan 3, 17 8:13 am
I just believe that we should, as a profession, empower younger licensed professionals by putting them in a position of management upon licensure and let them either sink or swim in that role. Otherwise what happens is that those people feel unappreciated and will look to move on as soon as they get licensed.
Non Sequitur
Jan 3, 17 8:21 am
^ good idea, in theory, but who has clients willing to pay for the time to train young staff? Hardly any fresh grads have the chops for management roles... even most freshly licensed archs don't.
BulgarBlogger
Jan 3, 17 8:27 am
Has abyone really tried to do this without helicoptering and blaming the younger staff when they make mistakes? Mistakes are part of the learning process; even in management. How is it that young people are able to be hired at senior roles adter graduating from Harvard Business, but are scut when involved with architectural firms? As long as the mistake does not get built or affect client relations or budget, its not that big of a deal. Let younger licensed architects learn to manage earlier!
Non Sequitur
Jan 3, 17 8:46 am
^I've been managing projects, of all sizes, since I left grad school with minimal overhead & supervision... But I knew how to put a building together when I stepped out of school so it was a reasonable task for me to perform. This is not typical from many of the grads I've met...specially if all they know is how to make pretty renderings.
Plenty of opportunities out there but only If you have the drive and knowledge but don't expect anyone to just hand something off to you... and trust me, the clients do notice.
Peter Normand
Jan 3, 17 9:05 am
BulgarBlogger, if a firm did what you are advocating for they would very quickly be sued out of existence, be way over their fees or behind schedule. Like any profession you work under the supervision and guidance of those more experienced. Sometimes the very specific niche markets we have, corporate interiors, acoustical engineering, facade design, historical preservation to name a few will require skills and knowledge where a licensed generalist will have to work under an experienced technician who is not licensed but knows their specific market or project type. Also you have to consider the project fees and the billable rate each team member will have. There is a reason firms have all sorts of titles and descriptions for basically the same position. A beginner can not be billed to a client at an expert's rate, your firm would never win any commissions. The best place to have a well rounded universal exposure to the practice is in small firms 3-5 people, otherwise you are going to be stuck in your assigned billable task for the most part.
As for the hot shot law or business grads landing in leadership roles, I think that is rare but highly publicized, practically unheard of in publicly traded companies and is not a good example to compare to a profession where there are huge consequences for failure. If a start up with an app to order pizza doesn't get off the ground the only ones hurt are those who invested in it.
As for the example of Doctors, it is not true that they operate independently, they have a chief and a rigid hierarchy of decision making within each unit within each clinic, hospital or practice top down. Sometimes nurses manage the practice but making decisions on medical care are more limited in who can have a say than ordering supplies and scheduling doctors and staff.
We do need to have a better system to help stand up the profession's future leaders but it is going to be hard to eliminate the hard work and time needed to prepare our professional leaders.
Over and OUT
Peter N
natematt
Jan 3, 17 9:15 am
BulgarBlogger
The issue with your examples is that in those fields the title reflects the knowledge, in architecture this is often not the case.
Wilma Buttfit
Jan 3, 17 9:18 am
I believe the programs that are offering licensure concurrent with a diploma still require IDP to be completed and the exams passed so are the requirements really being reduced? Just streamlined. I don't know how this works, it would be nice if someone could chime in with how all of that gets accomplished at once. Sounds like a train wreck to me.
But as one firm used to tell me, they had enough chiefs and just needed Indians... that isn't right. Nothing you can do in that situation.
randomised
Jan 3, 17 9:20 am
"Architecture is the only profession I know where younger licensed professionals are treated to a lower standard than older non-licensed professionals. "
What do you mean by lower standard? Experience goes a long way when trying to get things built. Whenever I worked on projects that had unlicensed but experienced staffers on board we would get better results when looking at the final built project, with least technical hiccups, delays or budgetary issues.
3tk
Jan 4, 17 1:07 pm
The license is a state law issue: it protects those in the profession from competition and the assures the public that the profession monitors its members to maintain minimal competency for HSW.
The side of easing the license requirements may be looking at the allied professions: landscape architects and engineers don't have IDP, rather they rely on the integrity of their licensed members to vouch for the experience of a candidate (LAs have length requirements and 'varied experience' in verbiage but no formal system to record them; engineers are similar - letters of recommendation covers them). In some ways it makes sense to reduce the number of exams and consolidate them - to prevent individuals from studying to an exam (cramming). Back in the day it was all held together. The PE is similar - you take one subject area and do it all at once (and are ethically obligated to practice in the field of their specialty as any PE can stamp any engineering drawing).
The side of enforcing tougher standards is to maintain a semblance of competency to the public but also to the state legislatures. Many politicians will respect a more difficult path than an easier one: why maintain/expand licensure laws if anyone can get it? As those who lobby their legislatures will tell you, it's often the first test when AIA asks for architects to be named in bills to expand practice: "why are you qualified?"
The question is whether the process is a barrier to practice: does it prevent qualified individuals from getting the license? and how effective it is at weeding out the incompetent or yet-to-be-competent applicants. In engineering we were told to wait to be licensed until we were ready to be sued and be confident that the work was done correctly, as many an employer pointed out, license isn't about expertise, it's just minimum competency.
x-jla
Jan 4, 17 5:03 pm
If bulgar expects everyone to kiss his ass because he got his license, especially people who are possibly old enough to have designed the hospital he was born in, he is fucktarded.
BulgarBlogger
Jan 4, 17 8:57 pm
I dont expect anyone to kiss my ass, but dont expect me to kiss anyone else's.
Oh and one thing- its bad form and low class to use words like that. Try to insult (if you must) as a statesment, not as scum. Didn't your parents teach you that?
MysteryMan
Mar 16, 17 12:33 am
Getting an Architecture License used to be about the right to use the word "Architect" or "Architecture". I've had friends get called onto the carpet for this who are in the REAL Architecture profession.
Meanwhile, how many creepy-axx'd IT Twerps ut there get away with calling themselves 'architects' without any State Licensing Board coming down on them? Until the Boards do something about this, I think that anyone who has actually gained competence in the field of (REAL) Architecture should get to call themselves an "Architect."
Hi all,
I'm in my twenties and I'm in the process of taking the ARE's. I'm very proud of putting in the extra effort and excited to be able to have my license and open up possibilities at my current firm or possibly on my own. They are difficult but actually kind of easy when you put in a little bit of studying maybe 5 hrs/wk for 6 weeks per test. Its frustrating but not impossible and honestly the people I know not doing them complain they take too much time but constantly talk about the 15 shows they are watching on netflix. It scares me though that these complainers are gaining traction and getting louder and louder that the process should be easier to allow more designers call themselves architects. Some look for more practical requirements to not shut out those who have children and really don't have the time and others like the "architecture lobby" look like they want some socialist system to bring artists back in power of the process of building. My worries are as follows but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
One it seems like lowering the standards will make the license less valuable and while allowing more designers to call themselves architects will also allow the vultures to as well (shady contractors, developers and drafters.) Is that really what we need to create more value and take back the process? I mean honestly if IDP was completely wiped out and there were only a few tests, I'd have been working for a contractor or real estate broker years ago with no loyalty for this profession because the license would have the same value as a resume padding LEED credential at that point.
Two, many clients have this feeling that architects are artists that hijack their projects for their own selfish means. While I understand architecture is grounded in creativity, it serves a practical purpose and is built and spearheaded by those with capital. You can either convince those people to part with their money by either being literally the very best designer or by showing them how you can streamline the building process and therefore save them some $$$. Lowering the standards, going on strike by creating a union I don't see how this will help. We have a license because we have convinced the legislatures that we protect the public from badly built dangerous buildings, not because we protect the public from badly designed buildings. If we lower the standards to the point where we are just designers, what legislature would truly value the law requiring our use?
What is required of an architect according to the law?
OP-
Agree with your points 100%. There will always be people who want the glory without putting in the work or as much work. Look at athletes who use doping. Making the requirements less stringent is a form of cheating. Read the book by Robert Greene titled, "Mastery", especially the chapter where he talks about the internship period.
Many people go to architecture school not knowing anything about architecture other than the peripheral and superficial. A good school will teach you the basics, but its up to you to learn the test. Those that just rely on school are doing themselves a great disservice to truly "mastering" architecture. That's why I also believe an M.Arch is just as good as a B.Arch. But my view on that has been covered in other posts.
Bottom line is that if you want to truly master something, tackle the most difficult task.
i agree with you too archi-dude. i would support any change to the idp process or are that made it more accessible to talented people, but there should still be limits to give licensure to only the most qualified candidates. what i've seen with trying to reduce the required number of idp hours or allowing licensure automatically on graduating college, the focus is on making the process more accessible to some, easier for most, but certainly not on limiting licensure to the most qualified candidates.
Suggesting that the current legislative requirements somehow elevate the profession is a simple ignoring of evidence to the contrary. Until we align our gatekeeping structure with our values instead of HSW (not to say that isn't important, it's simply a poor basis for qualifications to practice), this is a conversation that won't be very productive.
Sneaky can you explain a bit more?
Sneaky is trying to create a case for experience > than passing an exam since the exam (ARE) supposedly tests ones ability to be minimally qualified to protect the Health, Safety, and Welfare (HSW) of the public. Yet, to many, experience trumps that.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this assertion because any sculptor can then call him/herself an architect. Any carptener, mason, ironworker can design details from their own experience and say they are architectural designers. But those tradesmen/artisans may not know everything that is involved in protecting the HSW of the public. The whole purpose of a license is to give authority to do something, in this case, to perform architectural services. Because architectural services are so broad, anyone can claim that something is not a risk to HSW. There needs to be a system in place to make sure that one can be minimally qualified in a broad range of situations that may affect the HSW of the public, not just in interiors, core and shells, gas stations, master planning, etc. Whether or not you practice in one of those specific areas, the term architect is consistent throughout, so the qualification process must therefore also be thorough and encompassing of all different types of work.
I agree because I have failed some of the ARE's and honestly the questions I didn't know I would expect some one who is minimally qualified to know the answer.
To all who say that experience trumps license- that would only be partially true if there is a seperate type of license for different project types. If your experience is in corporate interiors, and you can call yourself an architect, how can that architect potentially be involved in building ground-up schools if he finds such a client? Praticality aside (most clients would choose architects with the relevant experience) we all know of those lucky few who get comissions with zero experience in a different project type. Therefore, the state must ensure that the title architect is conferred upon people who have exhibited competence in different areas practice, and not just in those in which they have experience.
If the only important subjects are HSW, why are there history questions? If we care about design, why is this not required to be a proven ability?
I'm not advocating the removal of the exam, I'm not advocating the removal of licensure. I'm not advocating anything. I'm simply pointing out that I believe, and have for a while, that we as a profession have used HSW as an exclusionary tactic, one that is easily defeated by anyone who can study for an exam. The education requirement would be quite valid if there aren't hundreds of examples of professionals who, having graduated from architecture school, practice architecture of the lowest possible form. We as a profession are all over the map regarding our priorities, so discussions of loosening or strengthening barriers to entry are premature and somewhat pointless.
I think you are right about priorities.
The thing that gets me is just how many generally incompetent licensed architects I've met. It's fine for exams to assure a particular knowledge base, but if people who hardly seem to function in this environment can get licensed then maybe licensure isn't doing what it should.
It's funny how those calls for changing the requirements are always made by the people who didn't meet/pass the requirements in the first place. If you for instance don't pass your history class, it's not your fault for not studying properly, no obviously the problem is the class itself that should change, retroactively, to benefit you or they should make an exception for you because you are so special. The same is with official licensing for architects. If you can't meet the requirements to get licensed, don't whine like a little bitch, just study harder or go work where it's not necessary for you to be licensed or for someone who is licensed and can sign off on your masterpieces. Should they simplify driving tests too because too many people flunk or should those flunkers be kept of the road for obvious safety reasons?
The thing that gets me is just how many generally incompetent licensed architects I've met
I think the issue is that many architects that get licensed don't take ownership of the work they do, especially at larger firms. Why should a licensed architect take extra care to check his work when an unlicensed project manager will find his/her mistakes?
Architecture is the only profession I know where younger licensed professionals are treated to a lower standard than older non-licensed professionals. You don't see lawyers who passed thd bar being supervised by 40-year-old paralegals; in Medicine, you don't see 30-year-old board-certified doctors being supervised by older RN's. There is no respect for the younger professionals who put in the effort, only then to be treated as if that effort didn't matter by putting them in positions of servitude to those who did not.
I just believe that we should, as a profession, empower younger licensed professionals by putting them in a position of management upon licensure and let them either sink or swim in that role. Otherwise what happens is that those people feel unappreciated and will look to move on as soon as they get licensed.
^ good idea, in theory, but who has clients willing to pay for the time to train young staff? Hardly any fresh grads have the chops for management roles... even most freshly licensed archs don't.
Has abyone really tried to do this without helicoptering and blaming the younger staff when they make mistakes? Mistakes are part of the learning process; even in management. How is it that young people are able to be hired at senior roles adter graduating from Harvard Business, but are scut when involved with architectural firms? As long as the mistake does not get built or affect client relations or budget, its not that big of a deal. Let younger licensed architects learn to manage earlier!
^I've been managing projects, of all sizes, since I left grad school with minimal overhead & supervision... But I knew how to put a building together when I stepped out of school so it was a reasonable task for me to perform. This is not typical from many of the grads I've met...specially if all they know is how to make pretty renderings.
Plenty of opportunities out there but only If you have the drive and knowledge but don't expect anyone to just hand something off to you... and trust me, the clients do notice.
BulgarBlogger, if a firm did what you are advocating for they would very quickly be sued out of existence, be way over their fees or behind schedule. Like any profession you work under the supervision and guidance of those more experienced. Sometimes the very specific niche markets we have, corporate interiors, acoustical engineering, facade design, historical preservation to name a few will require skills and knowledge where a licensed generalist will have to work under an experienced technician who is not licensed but knows their specific market or project type. Also you have to consider the project fees and the billable rate each team member will have. There is a reason firms have all sorts of titles and descriptions for basically the same position. A beginner can not be billed to a client at an expert's rate, your firm would never win any commissions. The best place to have a well rounded universal exposure to the practice is in small firms 3-5 people, otherwise you are going to be stuck in your assigned billable task for the most part.
As for the hot shot law or business grads landing in leadership roles, I think that is rare but highly publicized, practically unheard of in publicly traded companies and is not a good example to compare to a profession where there are huge consequences for failure. If a start up with an app to order pizza doesn't get off the ground the only ones hurt are those who invested in it.
As for the example of Doctors, it is not true that they operate independently, they have a chief and a rigid hierarchy of decision making within each unit within each clinic, hospital or practice top down. Sometimes nurses manage the practice but making decisions on medical care are more limited in who can have a say than ordering supplies and scheduling doctors and staff.
We do need to have a better system to help stand up the profession's future leaders but it is going to be hard to eliminate the hard work and time needed to prepare our professional leaders.
Over and OUT
Peter N
BulgarBlogger
The issue with your examples is that in those fields the title reflects the knowledge, in architecture this is often not the case.
I believe the programs that are offering licensure concurrent with a diploma still require IDP to be completed and the exams passed so are the requirements really being reduced? Just streamlined. I don't know how this works, it would be nice if someone could chime in with how all of that gets accomplished at once. Sounds like a train wreck to me.
But as one firm used to tell me, they had enough chiefs and just needed Indians... that isn't right. Nothing you can do in that situation.
"Architecture is the only profession I know where younger licensed professionals are treated to a lower standard than older non-licensed professionals. "
What do you mean by lower standard? Experience goes a long way when trying to get things built. Whenever I worked on projects that had unlicensed but experienced staffers on board we would get better results when looking at the final built project, with least technical hiccups, delays or budgetary issues.
The license is a state law issue: it protects those in the profession from competition and the assures the public that the profession monitors its members to maintain minimal competency for HSW.
The side of easing the license requirements may be looking at the allied professions: landscape architects and engineers don't have IDP, rather they rely on the integrity of their licensed members to vouch for the experience of a candidate (LAs have length requirements and 'varied experience' in verbiage but no formal system to record them; engineers are similar - letters of recommendation covers them). In some ways it makes sense to reduce the number of exams and consolidate them - to prevent individuals from studying to an exam (cramming). Back in the day it was all held together. The PE is similar - you take one subject area and do it all at once (and are ethically obligated to practice in the field of their specialty as any PE can stamp any engineering drawing).
The side of enforcing tougher standards is to maintain a semblance of competency to the public but also to the state legislatures. Many politicians will respect a more difficult path than an easier one: why maintain/expand licensure laws if anyone can get it? As those who lobby their legislatures will tell you, it's often the first test when AIA asks for architects to be named in bills to expand practice: "why are you qualified?"
The question is whether the process is a barrier to practice: does it prevent qualified individuals from getting the license? and how effective it is at weeding out the incompetent or yet-to-be-competent applicants. In engineering we were told to wait to be licensed until we were ready to be sued and be confident that the work was done correctly, as many an employer pointed out, license isn't about expertise, it's just minimum competency.
If bulgar expects everyone to kiss his ass because he got his license, especially people who are possibly old enough to have designed the hospital he was born in, he is fucktarded.
I dont expect anyone to kiss my ass, but dont expect me to kiss anyone else's.
Oh and one thing- its bad form and low class to use words like that. Try to insult (if you must) as a statesment, not as scum. Didn't your parents teach you that?
Getting an Architecture License used to be about the right to use the word "Architect" or "Architecture". I've had friends get called onto the carpet for this who are in the REAL Architecture profession.
Meanwhile, how many creepy-axx'd IT Twerps ut there get away with calling themselves 'architects' without any State Licensing Board coming down on them? Until the Boards do something about this, I think that anyone who has actually gained competence in the field of (REAL) Architecture should get to call themselves an "Architect."
Licensing Boards are jokes.