Changes to the ARE, according to NCARB, were meant to make the exam more flexible, and to unify it across jurisdictions, making it easier to get reciprocal licenses. But Tulane’s Kinnard says that those changes have had unintended consequences: “A careful analysis of the system we have in place today suggests that the regulatory bodies, with all the best intentions, have designed a system that could not be more complex.” — Architect Magazine
Elizabeth Dickinson is on the case of the 50 year old intern... Her essay questions the long term effects of more and more "young" architects deciding to not pursue licensing. Should we care about a decline in registered professionals? , What would this mean for the long term prospects of the profession? The piece opens with thoughts regarding the value of licensing and the tension between pursuing licensure and other forms of professional development, from sevensixfive aka Fred Scharmen.
13 Comments
I don't know if it's a lost generation as much as it's an end to the traditional form of the profession that we've known for the last 100 years. Things are changing radically in the design worlds, not only architecture. I'm confident before I'm retired - another 40 years? - architect as building designer will no longer be a licensed profession.
So I guess I won't need to get a license after all. :)
I just finished grad school and am doing some internships at high-profile offices before finding a permanent job. I also have some work experience. I've asked professors and architect friends, all of whom have many years if not decades of experience, about whether or not it's necessary to become licensed. They all tell me that unless I'm a sole-pracitioner, licensing doesn't really matter.
If you're good, there will always be a place for you... If you work in a large corporate office, or just about anywhere big or small, there will be a licensed person who always stamps the drawings. And the extra $1000 or whatever raise you might get for being licensed isn't very much in the long run. As the article said, add up all the time and fees, and it may not be worth it.
I think licensing should be done in conjunction with school. In the UK their schooling is mixed with gap years where they work and by the time they finish school they take one test and are architects. In Europe once you finish school you are an architect. Even though everyone is an architect, there aren't a bunch of 23 year olds building shit that falls down. Everyone understands they need experience. But it's experience for personal and skill development, not experience for a tedious, costly headache that lasts for years and years like here in the US.
I suppose the current system is in place as a legacy of the US being so large and comprised of 50 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, etc., and that traditionally architecture was apprenticeship based, but the system needs to be streamlined, and licensure needs to occur right after school rather than 5, 7, 15 years later. The number of tests for licensing should be greatly reduced, licensure should occur immediately after obtaining an accredited degree, and the procedure and tests should be good for the entire US and not just a single state.
on the other hand a friend who works in a large corporate office has indicated that there is support/pressure for him getting licensed and so he is pursuing that path and will have a license after only 5-8 (depending on how you count) years of post graduation practice...
Plus, some of it is just his personal desire, his goal has always been to be a licensed "architect"
2nd time I've been part of a lost generation of architects... Until NCARB and the Cali Board of Architect give credit for either teaching/research or for being a licensed LA, the prospects are very dim that I will be able to complete IDP, even with over 8000 hours/units logged (most of my time in practice was spent doing stuff that wasn't needed). sigh...
as a recent grad who has decided to not get registered (along with most of my friends) I can say the problem isn't the ARE but the IDP process, it is excruciating (though let's see if the new changes help alleviate some of that). If you've completed your IDP, I don't think the ARE is going to make you re-consider getting registered.
i'd agree with you, dani, except for one thing that i realized back when i was between idp and registration: for the first time in years, once you've finished idp and had your record transferred and before you've taken your tests, you don't owe anyone any money! the non-registered/idp-complete intern is in a sort of sweet spot where nobody requires any fees. in these times, that's as good as gold.
i think ncarb must have realized the problem they had made in not collecting fees during this time: maybe that's why there is now a time limitation for completing the test. they needed some way to pull those idp-completers back into their revenue stream.
you know, donna, i don't agree in the sense that i finally believe we'll stay around as a profession. what i do worry about is that we'll see more intrusion on the exclusivity of our turf and more regulations on what we have to do (ie more standardization which appeals to the lowest common denominator).
to the op - it's tough to say what the effects will be. the trends, as i've outlined in one of my blog posts (shameless plug there), all show a clear reality: we're losing the middle market firms - those 10-50 person firms (which are now less than 17% of the total). for the 10% of the total number of firms - that generate 75% of the profits in the profession (basically all firms 20+ in size) - the question of registration is relative. quite honestly, i talk to many principals who definitely want the younger group they're trying to train for future leadership positions to be licensed. everyone else...meh. if they do, great. if not, not a huge deal either way. they'll still be rewarded if they're very good, but a hard ceiling will exist on their future advancement (but, the real question is whether the license would really matter or not). finally, for the larger firms - you'll definitely see individuals for whom licensure is a big deal (and they'll push it accordingly) and some who actively discourage it.
for firms that are 1-2 people (60% of the total number of firms), this is a more mute question - they'll either get registered out of necessity or figure out how to navigate without it.
Licensure is a big deal in larger firms that serve government agencies because registered architects can be billed at a higher rate than non-registered professionals, regardless of talent, skill, or experience. Anyone who ever hopes to open a firm will need to become licensed, or limit their practice to consulting and design work that does not require a license.
I don't see licensure as going away. Someone will have to sign for the fire, life-safety, habitability, and code-compliance of construction. On the other hand, it is not clear that the role of responsibility for design will remain the mainstay of our profession. Perhaps we will reclaim some responsibility for building performance from engineers. Maybe we'll become 4D construction and fabrication experts, or venture into business planning, programming, and development. Whatever. The seat of responsibility for design will need to be located somewhere, and I would guess it will remain with architects.
Why wouldn't you want to get your license? You might learn a few things here and there studying for it. If nothing else, it is an indicator of your perseverance. To the poster who mentioned a license only matters if you are a sole practitioner: the vast majority of architects are sole practitioners.
I wouldn't call the IDP process "excruciating". I'll give you "a minor bureaucratic paper shuffling process", but not "excruciating".
Even if you go the corporate route you'll still need to get registered if you have any dreams of making partner.
Will there be....?
Certainly the debate isn't still centered on "will there be a lost generation?" Should'nt we focus on how many?
There are a great many talented designers out there not registered and who tend to want to challenge the system and not become registered. They should be the ones designing buildings and that the qualifier of a licensed architect should take the form of good contribution to the built environment. In Europe there are competitions as a matter of course.
Registration of an architect comes down to legal responsibility to the codes they are forced to conform with; which one could argue that anyone could theoretically follow as long as they have experience and a good code consultant. I am a licensed architect and have strong opinions about the profession. No one can tell me I am a better architect because of my license.
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.