AIArchitect

I’m not actually too familiar with this topic. I a bit more so just like to stop by blogs for layout tips and points like that. But you in fact developed a subest that i often care absolutely nothing about exceptionally intriguing. This can be a very good blog to design mine immediately after. I hope you do not mind if i bookmark your websites, in order that i can effortlessly get it once more within the future. Cheers.

Granting the title of Architect prior to gaining experience is a mistake. The medical and law professions have choosen this path, we (architects) should remain on the more difficult path.

Comparing the education/profession track of other professions is informative. Most professions have a more seemless, consistent, clear, rational and relavant track from education through practice. The architecture academy/profession is disjointed. There is a lack of convergence among the expectations and aspirations of the public, educators and practitioners. But we should not be too concerned. Society like nature has a way of finding equilibrium regardless of what any individual intends.

I'm learning the longer I've been in this profession that Architects are too eager to give things away for the sake of gaining work. We give away advice, scope, fee, etc. and do not get paid for it in the end. And now after years of doing business this way we complain when clients try to cut our fees. A quick analogy: You ask a doctor you see on the street for his professional advice, he tells you to stop by his office. Then he hits you with a bill for the office visit (at the least). You ask an architect for advice and he just gives it away. Yet one can argue that an architect saves more lives each and every day that most doctors do in their entire careers simply by virtue that the buildings we design don't fall down on the users. We've watered down our social value by just passing out our expertise on the chance it could lead to future work and future work is important; let's face it, we all need it, but we have no one to blame but ourselves for cutting the throats of our competition just to win a project we hope to break even on.
Now we want to hand out licenses more easily as well. I went into the military as a means to pay my way through college because frankly, I had no other means. Then I spent 4-1/2 years in college and another 5 as an intern (it took me 5 years because unbeknownst to me at the time I enrolled at my university, the architecture program was not accredited; an important fact my college advisor failed to mention). Then it took me another 9 months to complete the exam before I could call myself an architect. So it total, my plan to become an architect took about 14 years to complete. My point is, if you want to be an architect, you've got to be persistent and dedicated to the profession. I'm not against speeding up the registration timeline just because it took me as long as it did but I strongly believe our profession, in the long run, in my opinion, will only benefit from those who don't have the term Architect handed to them on a silver platter, but rather distinguish themselves with that dedication and persistence. Those are the people we want to be able to depend on for ensuring the safety of the public. It's an awesome responsibility!

I am currently pursuing my IDP hours after receiving a Masters of Arch. degree in 2004. I am willing to work hard to join the fraternity of professional architects and paying my due diligence to the profession as expected. My only issue is not the reconciliation of formal academic education and practice, making the ARE easier or more accessible from graduation but the poor wages made by "intern" architects in the profession.

I feel the profession discredits itself with low fees, low wages and a disregard and disrespect for interns in the profession. Therefore, we discredit and undervalue our profession with low fees, then other professions will follow suit and disrespect the profession of architecture also with low budgets. Most intenships have been reduced to redlines, 3D modeling and construction details while begging for more exposure to fulfill our IDP obligations in most architecture offices. I have discussed with people the number of years of schooling to receive my degree and they assume my profession is law or medicine and are envious of my 'perceived' high earning potential. Once acknowledged that it is architecture, they are left with the impression of a good wage but I am left with the reality of the intern pay scale that is commensurate to a grade school teacher with a large Sallie Mae school loan debt.

The biggest factor that discourage many of my classmates and fellow IDP interns in pursuing architectural registration is not the IDP process towards the ARE, it is the ratio of required schooling to poor wages as compared to other professionals in engineering, medicine, finance, legal.

We are willing to work but the drudgery and obstacles towards licensure with the reward of poor wages does not make it worth the hassle to most.

But I am still optimistically pursuing licensure in architecture because I feel the better I become in the field, the wage will follow.

My architectural mantra: Wage follows Expertise

I want to be a part of the solution to higher fees for architects in the near future and not inactively complain about the problem.

The only thing that can change the world is what we do everyday. The world of built environment takes form from our physical application of force on substance.

Information and knowledge are certainly prerequisites to practicing architecture. But learning is an academic as well as an experience based phenomena. Only both will prepare us for doing the work of our profession.

Being only half prepared is the same as not being prepared at all even if it feels different. Architect in Training AIT is the best term I have ever heard to describe architect candidates preparing for examination.

The profession of architecture is rooted in physical experience by the nature of building and an academic preparation to qualify for the exam is simply not enough.

I beleive that if we give new graduates a license to practice without the requisite experience in practice, we are failing the public that trusts us to serve their needs. A new graduate may be able to design beautiful buildings, aesthetically speaking, or even pass some of the technical aspects of the exam, but until they have completed a building project from start to finish with the all the unglamourous aspects of spec writing and construction adminstration they have no business calling themselves "architect." And neither do we.

I have lots of thoughts about what I read above.

On the topic of name, I agree that there needs to be a distinction between licensed and non-licensed people in architecture. However, I don't agree that non-licensed folks should be reduced to 'interns', which to the greater population indicates someone not knowledgeable (even though many people are 'interns' for 5-10+ years since there aren't many incentives to get licensed) and usually unpaid, still in school, etc. In Arizona, my understanding is that there is an interim term for post-graduates who have passed some, but not all exams and are still in IDP. They are called Architects In Training (or AIT) That gives a bit more meaning than 'intern' to me. I live in Oregon where I can't even say I'm an "Architectural Intern", because a form of the word architect is in there. I believe this is extreme. I think we as professionals can come up with something that works for both and doesn't downplay those that have worked hard to earn the title "Architect" or "Registered Architect".

On the issue of the value of IDP, I think much is learned through working in firms and I encourage emerging professionals to try on different hats - different size firms, types of architecture, etc. - to see what fits best for them. I also disagree with James as to the value being only in large firms. I have mostly worked in small to medium sized firms except a small stint at a large firm and I have many friends within large firms. My experience has been that you tend broaden your experience in the smaller firms since everyone does everything in most cases. My understanding is that there are very few large firms that give interms opportunities in contract negotiations and discussions, or even attending meetings and construction visits. Again, there are small firms that may pigeon-hole you as well and there is value in getting a taste of different options out there.

I am very excited about the new resolution since it gives people the opportunity to move at a pace and order that works for them rather than being controlled by something that has no basis. One argument for the IDP first, then ARE is that the ARE is practice-based and can't be passed without practice knowledge. If it is, then great, people can learn the hard way if they take an exam they're not ready to take. Since all our practices are different experiences, some may be ready for different exams during different stages of practice, and I think we should allow for that. My experience so far with the ARE (I'm about half way through) was that there was very little that came directly from practice despite my variety of experience and that much of it is learned/studied through the study materials. So to put a restriction on taking the exam because it's supposed to be practice based even though much of it isn't, I think is absurd and doesn't challenge those writing the exam to make it so.

Finally, the state of the profession in sad in many respects from my perspective. There is very little 'good, responsible' architecture going on that I am aware of. The green strategies are now getting some attention, but usually because it can now be marketed and make a buck rather than focusing on how we're effecting the environment and how our designs effect the cities, towns and physical nature of where we live. The great innovative work of the early 1900's whether you agree it was positive or not, was at least trying to push the envelope and make this world a better place to live in. Now it seems too many architects and developers are just interested in making a profit and not interested in informing, teaching and bettering the masses. The views of the masses are skewed and often based on what's 'popular', not what is needed and best for us. We as professionals need to take a stand and work to better our environment both in a 'green way' and in a socially responsible way.

To John Mixon, Assoc. AIA:
Here I am. I exist. I am not the only one.

Great debate rages about the process of licensing which is not really the problem that needs to be solved. Market forces are at the core of this problem. Architectural careers require a reasonably early start but it takes too long to get licensed. The business imperative drives a system of constraints and limits access of graduates into the ranks of licensed professionals and of licensed professionals into private practice. It is not the focus or business of architectural practices to educate or train and facilitate the licensing ambition of staff, nor to empower the licensed staff to share ownership of the practice or to start practices of their own. The licensing law, examination and IDP program are not the problem, rather, it is a problem of intentions and business imperatives. That is simply what is so.

We can not throw the babies out with the bath water. Allowing a person who has graduated but served no internship, a person who has not been examined nor participated in the construction of any building, to call themselves an architect simply undermines the purpose of the license. The idea that a graduate from any university, prior to work experience and examination should be called an architect is simply stupid.

Can anyone name even one university that actually produces graduates fully qualified to be architects? There are none.

The debate to speed up the exam process and circumvent working experience is rooted in the same ignorance that the process is designed to protect the public from. Work experience is the essential qualification to the examination process. The degree is the component that is of limited actual value.

Allowing the exam prior to hands on experience, like all other shortcuts to professional status, simply shortchanges the public welfare, the profession and built environment of quality. It is a serious error.

The license law requires work experience and simultaneously regulates the use of the term "architect". The purpose of licensing law is to protect the welfare of the public and to protect the profession and our market place. If the unqualified and unexamined can advertise themselves as architects, without the license, the value and symbolic significance of the license is undermined, the quality of built environment, the public welfare and the profession are shortchanged and at risk. The damage to the marketplace created by poor licensing law enforcement that permits unlicensed persons to make technical submittals is seriously restricting the architectural professions market place and career opportunity with-in the profession.

One consequence of unlicensed competition and a smaller marketplace is more limited career opportunity for graduates. In the State of Washington the AIBD claims that 80 percent of the total permit submittals are filed by their members. Getting through the license exam process would obviously be streamlined by foreclosing on the unintended entitlement of the bulk of the professions marketplace to the unqualified, unexamined and unlicensed.

That said the problem still needs a solution. The problem symptom is the career delay embodied with-in the real life working processes. It is the lack of opportunity to actually do projects and acquire the robust related knowledge.

There is an economic imperative driving the movement by graduates and interns seeking licensing to try to shortcut the existing license process.

The problem they face is there is no realistic way to work your way into shared ownership of an architectural firm, no matter how good you are or how long you work for any one firm or to ever build your own professional practice. It takes too long to get the license and resource.

The interns in our offices can not make any money. Price competition precludes paying staff anymore than the business needs to pay, so it is not possible to escape the system of constraints with compensation or training time. Although some firms seriously engage IDP and train interns to be architects, the business imperative prevails, because time is money.

Licensed persons on the staff are typically shed by the practice as they approach 50 years of age. It is deliberate and it is wrong. The number of licensed professionals in most firms is small compared to the number of interns being trained.

Graduates entering the profession are suffering from a restrictive system that precludes access to reasonable compensation with expanding responsibilities that are actually scaled at the rate of their abilities. They graduate and their education slows to a snails pace. Our graduates face limited upward mobility and a very limited capacity to build a reputation with the necessary body of credited published professional work. Because of the lack of opportunity, resource capacity and credibility they have no reasonable opportunity to enter into private practice. This is a problem of intention and business imperatives it is not driven by licensing law and changing the law will not fix the problem. As a profession we are suffocating human potential and it appears to be a deliberate choice driven by economy. That is self defeating and stupid, there is no furure in it.

I would have to strongly disagree with James' statement that training for an intern should only be done in a large firm. I work in what is considered a mid size firm (12 - 15) and believe our interns gain priceless experience that may not always be true in a larger firm. They have one on one contact with licensed professionals on a daily basis, are exposed to projects in different phases of design as well as witness to the construction phase for numerous projects. While I admit every office does things differently it is up to the Intern to get the most out of their experience. If they do not like the experience they are getting or the lack of, then look for something different.
One of the challenges of being an Intern in IDP is to try and expose yourself to as many aspects of the profession as you can in turn fulfilling the different categories.

I am a strong believer that graduates from Architecture School should be required to fulfill the IDP requirements prior to taking a test and pass the test prior to being called an Architect. The training session and the schooling go hand in hand, which is why it is an apprenticeship. It is the responsibility of not only the intern, but the licensed professionals working with them, to train and be trained prior to taking an exam. I am proud of all the work I have done to become a licensed architect, I would really hate to see that pride go by the wayside. As one post previously stated, if they are not licensed it is their choice.

Within architecture, academic education and professional education are two different beasts both of which are entirely necessary for exploring and producing creative, safe and healthy solutions to the wants and needs of our built environment. Passing the ARE's has been the official representation of one's competence to produce these solutions. There should always be a defined line for the label "Architect" in order to maintain professional liability for the publics safety.

I believe that as a recent graduate progresses through his/her professional education it makes sense to combine what they may be learning about at that moment with the specific parts of the ARE. It seems that it would enhance their professional education in a more focused way. Perhaps a chronological testing schedule that fits the natural flow of professional education.

As far as labels... Just because you aren't an Architect doesn't mean you can't or won't physically do the same work that an architect does. It simply means an Architect needs to give the "ok." I have a 4 year B.P.S. Arch. and have worked under a licensed architect for three years beyond that. I am fortunate enough to be utilized in an "Architect" capacity in that I do everything from code review to contract administration, with oversight of course. It is up to mentors to help interns bridge the gap between "intern architect" and "architect." I am not concerned about what people think I do as long as I get to do it. It falls in the hands of the individual architecture firms and partners to facilitate this in a productive way.

I plan on pursuing my license, even though I have a longer path than the standard accredited degree plus IDP. New York State requires an additional five years of experience beyond the IDP due to my lack of an accredited degree. This is fine with me as long as I get to do what I enjoy doing, but in the long run not necessarily needing oversight to issue drawings makes me more valuable from a financial standpoint.

Though I eventually want to have that value, I didn't pursue architecture for money or recognition. I enjoy the work from start to finish and I have an affinity for creating spaces that are able to give back to on multiple levels. The multidisciplinary nature of architecture allows for so much exploration and life long learning. Architecture also contains, or should contain, a social responsibility that I believe in, similar to doctors and lawyers. These points are enough motivation to keep me on the path to licensure despite it's length. If others are discouraged, they should share that with their oversight to find a way to become more engaged. As an alternative, there are other design professions that allow for smart, creative thought.

The unfortunate aspect of licensure is that very few indivisuals that aspire to become an architect and then open their own practice have any idea of how to run a business. The IDP is a wonderful guide to what one needs to know in terms of the more clasical areas of architecture, however due to many other reasons, not to mention legal, insurance limitations and the privacy of owners, business issues are not covered in any meaningful way. And that would include the current curriculum of every school of architecture.
Designing buildings may be the basis of each individuals primary goals, however staying in business is what puts food on the table not the design. When is the profession going to recognize that business failure happens far more often then any design failure and has the same or greater impact on architects, clients and especially employees? We need to stop muttering whether a person is qualified to be an "architect" and more if the person understands and has acquired real experience in the total picture of professional requirements. This will only come about when the existing architects that mentor and train the future architects of this country formulate a complete training program. MDs do not become practicing MDs until they do their intership. The importance difference is the the internships are not done within just any practice, but an accredited teaching hospital. Getting ones IDP approved by a small office architect is hardly the same value as the medical profession. And that is a major reason their is little value placed on the process. Larger firms need to be the training ground for licensure not the small office that causes many interns to seldom gain any real training. Its not about just putting a set of drawings together but the quality of the experience. its time for waking up on this issue.

An even more accurate way to determine if one is qualified to call one-self an architect is for that person to design, build and release an office building on the open market, say a 5,000 s.f. one - without any form of assistance from the IDP, NCARB or professional education process.
That, in my book, qualifies a person to be an architect. It is helpful to have the experiences of a profesional degree, IDP & ARE Complete individual doing that - but the test of character comes only from within and there is nothing more satisfying to a real architect than to "do it" independent of manipulation of the outside forces that we are all well accustomed to.

It takes a long time to become the Architect of one's aspirations.

I think everyone can agree that the main issue here is the disconnect between school and licensure. An internship alone doesn't provide you with the tools to complete and pass the ARE tests. During my internship I have gotten out of the practice of the thought process and enthusiasm I once had while in school. By the time you finish and go to sit for your exams, you've almost completey forgotten how to study. Concurrency can help to strengthen this bond. And maybe not all tests should be available immediately, some may only apply after internship period is over... I don't know the legitimacy of this statement b/c I almost completely disregaurd the existance of ARE b/c it can't apply to me yet... I'm still aquiring my IDP hours. I personally am already exploring my options in other areas of design practice, but I think someone throwing me a bone here could encourage me to stay on course. I don't care so much about job titles.. call me what you want, just respect what I'm trying to accomplish.

The idea that one is prepared to be called an "Architect" because they have qualified from education is a dangerous employee. The term Dr. was used as a similar license path -- but they are at theend of their residency, internship, specialized training and 12-16 years in the profession..... not the same as 6 years in school working on hypothetical design problems without regart to the economic factors that are part of eveery project. The newly graduated student is just prepared to learn the profession, the business of architecture, the liability for decisions of design (artistic or techinical), the commitment to real deadlines (not just a "loss of points") and the concept that one needs to understand the entire process and that for the most part they are a part of the process, but a bad decision on their part puts the project, the team and the firm at risk.......

1.Education, 2.Experience (office and field - they should know what a 2 x 4 is and how structural steel connections are viewed in the constrruction site, and the weight of concrete on the form work) and then the 3.Professional Exam to test their assimilation of knowledge and true understanding of the profession. Thank you.

When FTW posted last week "be quiet and enjoy your government cheese," I thought he was being sarcastic. Now I am not so sure. Does the state really need to license architects to keep them from designing buildings that will fall down? I guess big government is fine as long as it is intervening on behalf of a guild of which I am a member.

The above comments make for an interesting point counter point. I agree that "Architecture school prepares you for a different way of thinking and viewing the world emphasizing problem solving and advanced thinking." I also appreciate that school and practice have long been two parts that together make up an architectural education. I don't believe that the solution is to break that relationship placing all the responsibility on architecture schools.
That being said, I challenge Mr. Wawra to define what he calls a "full-fledged" architect. This individual is a MYTH. The profession of architecture is too broad for such an individual to exist. If what he is saying is that a person who uses their architectural way of thinking to affect policy or teach or direct construction, is not a "full-fledged," I believe this is narrow thinking and ultimately not productive to the health of the profession.
This is what I believe must happen. The internship period must be specifically designed not only to accommodate but to encourage a diversity of internship experiences including work in related fields. The current accommodations make it very difficult to stay on track while gathering important real world experience.

If graduates are not pursuing their licensure, then that is their choice. They may have better or more interesting opportunities elsewhere. This doesn’t weaken the profession – this process helps weed out those who really don’t want to be full-fledged architects. That leaves the ones who do follow that path with a stronger and more focused set of professional peers.

Architecture school prepares you for a different way of thinking and viewing the world emphasizing problem solving and advanced thinking. This can be the basis for so many different avenues of professional pursuits. I know a lot of people who have gone to architecture school and have then switched to some lateral offshoot rather than go down the licensure path. I think those people are very happy with the choice they made – as are those who decided to become architects.

Let’s be honest. The ARE has been dumbed-down a fair amount. I took it in 2000 and I was amazed how simplistic the computer based graphical portions were. While I was in my internship, I heard many stories about the older version full-day building design problem. To me, that sounded like a tougher and more comprehensive test that was more in line with what architects really do. In your office, do you want the person fresh out of school with no experience signing and sealing your drawings or are you going to find the person with more experience to do that? What would your insurance company prefer?

Taking portions of the ARE without completing the IDP requirements is akin to candidates cramming for one particular test for months and only taking that test. It removes the real knowledge retention and application that architects must demonstrate and replaces it with cold memorization and disconnection. It is no secret that most of the real knowledge we gain is from our real-world work and the building of our experience in real situations. School doesn’t do that, which is fine since it serves a very different purpose.

Before we start handing out licenses in Cracker Jack boxes to try and please the masses, maybe we should closely evaluate if that really is in the best interests of the profession… not the individual. Remember, doctors usually can only kill one person at a time, architects have the ability to kill many. Be careful.

We need to wake up. Emerging Professionals graduating an accrediated 5 or 6 year architectural program should be able to be called Architect upon graduation. They have earned the title by way of education. This is similar to a medical doctor. Also we need to use the term Archtitect and Architect licensed or registered to practice as two seperate terms. Similar to the medical profession the licensing exaim should be given in two parts, Part 1 upon graduation, and part 2 after a only 1 year internship. If successful the emerging profession can practice after 1 year. If a doctor can work on humans after a year then Architects should be able to perform Architecture after 1 year.