National Associates Committee

Internship is indeed currently at a crisis because it is largely one-sided; whereby the intern has to pick and peck for hours of experience (often stretching) in order to fulfill seat-time requirements. There is often little competency gained in such exercise. I think that NCARB almost has to come out with a curriculum/detailed guide that firms/mentors can use in corporation with interns to ensure that IDP is comprehensive and that someone is indeed learning something rather than filling out forms. I honestly wish that the CIDP was adopted nationally, or that EPC could be used for more than supplemental credit.

In my view IDP is a good idea that does not work in reality. Interns are finding it very difficult to have any opportunity to do anything other than the bulk CAD drafting in the office. I have worked in the small firms and the large ones and there is no IDP there. It is a fiction. Very few interns ever get any CA experience, design experience or experience writing specifications.

That is what is actually true. Foreign labor is half the cost of an intern so if we are not actually going to train them or examine them what is the point.

IDP is reported on the honor system and there is no NCARB oversite. There are other very significant problems.

Litte or no education in professional ethics is in the university curriculum and in my experience there is very little of it to be found among the interns in our offices today. Trust is the cornerstone of IDP and it is misplaced. Oversight of IDP is a mandate of success.

The AIA's current posture of advocating concurrent examination without pre-qualification experience is a serious error in judgement. Bluntly speaking only a few interns currently taking examinations are remotely qualified to be architects. The work effort to qualify for the exam has been reduced substantially. The exam has been simplified, striped of significant technical demonstration requirements and in the whole, substantially dumbed down. Why?

I am predicting that with the increased number of so called "Architects" being given licenses as if they were scout troop badges that the profession will continue to loose it's status as a profession.

Having the new swolen number of architects competing for lowest price with reduced competance will lead to a profession where no one will be able to support a practice or want to. Why will practices pay more than they have to just to have interns in the office. I predict that even larger segments of the market will be lost to other professions as customers migrate to replace the lost technical competance once the domain of architects. That is already a significant trend in the US.

The AIA has betrayed the future of the profession. What have you accomlished for the profession of Architecture?

Obviousl Mr. Walker did not spell check his post.

The points made by Mr. Walkers commentary on the current IDP program substaintiate the position of non-licensed design professionals around the U.S.

It would seem that the efforts of the AIA to raise the bar of qualification, if not even the barrier of who can qualify to sit for the ARE, leaves the large majority of those who have practical and successful design experience such as myself out and, allows those who don't get much of that true experience to simply fill in the time and be qualified as an outcome.

I think Mr. Walker is remembering a time when an architect served a true and effective apprenticeship and came away from it, qualified and capable. Many of those despised unlicensed building designers have more of the experience, knowledge, and background for practicing architecture than most licensed architects would either want to believe or admit.

In summary, those that should be allowed to become qualified cannot and as an outcome, the architect profession and its organization, the AIA, has cut off a source of competent and qualified professionals. Instead of working with this group of design professionals to being them into a level mof licensure, they have purposed to keep them out and as a result, been left with those who mostly fill their time drafting for architectural firms under the presumption that it will make them good architects.

How odd it is that I also advocate the legislated obliteration of all unlicensed architectural practice in the United States.

The statement of Mr. Jon Simpson is a pale echo of my intent replete with self serving distortion.

The AIBD is primarily composed of a group of self examined persons who have no license to do anything in the nature of architecture and no right under the prevailing l;icensing laws to suggest even in this post that they do.

This is an organization that circumvents the intent and spirit of my profession by the very nature of their operation every day. My statement is clear without false interpretation by Mr. Simpson.

The premise that the unlicensed and unexamined are superior candidates because they somehow have the greater practical experience is not demonstrated as a fact and certainly not the point I was making. I do value practical experience. i worked hard to get mine. I am not saying that current licensing process "leaves the large majority of those who have practical and successful design experience" such as Mr. Simpson "out and, allows those who don't get much of that true experience to simply fill in the time and be qualified as an outcome."

Clearly Mr. Simpson has mastered the art of inserting his statements into the domain and posture of others without much in the way of credibility or concern to protect the public welfare.

The most alarming and revealing statement I think ever made to my knowledge from any person who is unexamined and unlicensed to the architectural profession in an AIA forum is made in his own words; "Many of those despised unlicensed building designers have more of the experience, knowledge, and background for practicing architecture than most licensed architects would either want to believe or admit." Mr. Simpson simply overlooks the fact that it is illegal for those individuals to be practicing architecture at all, and fails to demonstrate how he supports the premise that unlicensed and never examined designers, practicing illegally are somehow better qualified.

Mr. Simpson's distorted argument is aimed at waiving many of the qualification requirements to sit for the ARE examination and give considerable weight to a portfolio of work experience self documented by the subject candidate, while my argument is that the AIA must raise the bar of qualification and accept the responsibility to actually train our interns and document their experience. We are not on the same page or even in the same book.

We need to do a better job of producing qualified architects and eliminating unlicensed unqualified architectural practice in this nation.

Despite years of education, internship, exams, and more, most architects continue to produce design solutions that cannot be built; or create asemblies that are extremely exposed to litigation via water-intrusion.

Further, Architects are the most-despised and least effective team member of almost any construction project. And why? Because the educational system, AIA and NCARB continue to put building technology and construction systems at the bottom of the priority list.

OH HOW I WISHED I'D GONE TO ENGINEERING SCHOOL!!! I'd be licensed by now and on with my career. Instead, I am mired down in a profession of self-important prima-donnas; jumping through the flaming hoops, wasting my time and ashamed of my peers.

It is not my intent to turn the topic from the IDP to a debate on whether or not there is a place for both architects and building designers in the marketplace. The reality of that being very much possible is evidenced in the building industry today. Cost effective and constructable designs are what defines a true design professional. If you cannot develop designs that suitable for safe and effecient habitation and make them affordable to construct, then you lack the "experience, knowledge, and background for practicing architecture" or building design or, whatever term you want to use. And this is fact, whether that useful expereince, knowledge, background, comes from formal education and internship or, practical experience.

Mr. Geoffrey speaks to the ineffective designs that come from some architects and how that profession is perceived by most in the building industry who try to build off poorly thought out plans, Again, this clearly defines lack of experience, knowledge, background, and understanding of the practical application side of design that isn't being taught in schools of architecture or gained from the many hours of internship and IDP by some of the architects today.

Securing the architects path to success by creating a monoplization of the market place instead of competing for a larger portion of that market by doing good work is a weak excuse for a professional. The laws in the State where I practice are clearly written to provide the exemption from licensure for single family residence design, including all aspects of it. The AIBD has sought to raise the bar on qualification, certification, continuing education, etc. and this is a voluntary path for any design professional who desires to benfit from it. The nationally recognized certification program provided by the The National Council of Building Designer Certification is, in fact, a third party agency, has its competency assurance components monitored by the same agency as NCARB. It's roots are similar to that of NCARB as well.

I think Mr. Walker should do his homework before making rash and bias statements. This is the type of attitude and demeanor that has continued to maintain bad will between the professions and overlooks the possible benefits of working towards better understanding and relationships between professionals like Mr. Walker and myself.

We are serious about training interns and preparing them to be licensed professionals.

Mr. Jon Simpson is obviously confused. He is not a design professional in the same manner as the subject discussion. He is a member of the AIBD where there is some appearance of qualification and some manner of examination. However there exists no actual substance to either so far as the law is concerned. Such claims of being a building design professional are outside the law and it's intent.

The AIBD credentials have no significance under law in most states. Such persons, having no professional license are not design professionals as the term is used in the law or in the international building codes.

Mr. Simpson is claiming to be a design professional when he does not have a professional license in the State of Washington or anywhere else. I certainly do not support his statements regarding IDP.

He seeks to interpret my statements and to lecture me. This is offensive to me. I hope it is offensive to other licensed architects as well. Some of the statements posted may confuse interns beginning their careers.

There is no validity to the claim of professional status that has significance or substance under the law in the state where Mr. Simpson runs his business. He may be good at what he does or he may not be good at it, I do not know which or care.

The laws are clear & in the State of Washington there are limited tasks that a person without a professional license is allowed under the law to do. My mother if she were alive, would be as qualified under the law to do those things as Mr. Simpson.

There are also things unlicensed persons cannot do under the licensing law. I sincerely think it is improper to exaggerate the intent of professional status created by the licensing laws, with the claim that you are a design professional. It appears to me to be somewhat willfully deceptive.

In the context of our discussion of IDP the AIBD is simply not a viable path to professional architectural licensing. I am a critic of IDP but participate as a mentor from time to time. Work performed in the office of an unlicensed persons practice may not be counted towards the IDP requirements. Check with the board in your state.

Such an affiliation with AIBD or other group does not hurt, but it also is not helping in the intern development process. IDP, although less than perfect, is the only viable path to architectural licensing.

IDP is in need of improvement. Architecture as a profession is being damaged by pretenders. We need to raise the bar not lower it. I advocate the legislated obliteration of all unlicensed architectural practice in the United States.

Typically the pretenders do not reveal to clients that they have no status as professionals under law. There are too many of them and the market for architectural services is unhealthy because of it.

The distortion or obfuscation of the fundamental truth, regarding the creation of design professionals with legislation for the purpose of protecting the public welfare, by Mr. Simpson exemplifies the problem; "I think Mr. Walker should do his homework before making rash and bias statements", as if I am in error or speaking falsely. The AIBD is not a substitute path for acquiring professional credentials.

Let me shed some light on the material facts. The reality is that Mr. Simpson distorts the truth regarding the idea of professional status for himself and the AIBD organization in a forum sponsored by the AIA. Mr. Simpson is not a professional anything so far as the law is concerned. In that context he is a fake. In that context most members of the AIBD are fakes.

Although some members of the AIBD are licensed architects, Mr. Simpson is not an architect and certainly not some brand of substitute for an architect that lawfully provides architectural services.

That is a fact which he must acknowledge under law. He is an example of one of our professions biggest problems; unlicensed competitors claiming to be design professionals.

In my view the fact that a person is running a business does not make them a professional in the same context that architects, engineers or doctors are professionals. Such persons as Mr. Simpson are not held accountable under licensing law in the State of Washington where licensed professionals, such as myself, are held accountable under licensing law. There is something simply wrong about that inequity among competitors for the same jobs.

There is something wrong about a non-professional under law in the State of Washington passing themselves off as a qualified professional using credentials, and stamps designed to create the illusion of professional licensing. There are too many unlicensed persons doing that and it is not healthy for the public welfare. Personally I think the fact that they present themselves as an alternative to architects is quite dishonest.

terrylwalker@comcast.net
TLW

I am a building designer but not an architect.

I'll ask you this question:

At what point will it stop in regards to trying to raise the bar level in education and experience.

When you have to go through a 10 year degree program and 30 year IDP? 40 years. Geez, by the time I'm licensed - it is time to retire. That is the big problem. Is this intent about keeping people from becoming architects so you can have a monopoly?

Ok, don't get me wrong, I question only your intent not architects in general.

So - is it so you can have no competition and charge 10 times as much as you currently charge? Then we'll have the problem like with lawyers and doctors being paid SO much. Then doctors and architects become a bunch of pre-modonnas which only those who have the financial 'luxury' and benefit from being a child of a tycoon or movie star or some rich d*ck.

I don't think any building designers in general are trying to pass themselves off as "architects". Some do and they get fined.

Think of it like this. Counselors and Physchologists? IIRC: Counselors aren't necassarily licensed and aren't "Physchologist" but their education does involve physchology. They have different levels of what they are allowed to do. If a counselor is doing his/her work for a fee for years, I would consider him/her a professional.

Professional service does not mean services requiring license.

FYI: Building Designers are professionally liable for their decisions and any ommissions and errors as are architects. Why? There is something in law called "case study" ruling. Previous court rulings have deemed such practices as professional and are to be treated in the same manner as architect or engineers (depending on the specific scope of work and whether it falls under architectural or engineering).

Yes, when it comes to whether a project requires a license or not is taken into consideration but is a different case and is forwarded to the licensing board to assess ruling and civil penalty.

It had been already established and ruled by judges to hold the same professional standard of care for building designers as architects and engineers. A failure on a building designer would result in the same liability issue as would an architect or an engineer.

My intent is to practice designing of buildings within exempt status to pay for professional 3-year Masters of Architecture degree, NCBDC certification, AIBD membership, continuing education units for maintaining membership status at AIBD and "CPBD" status, 1-2 year historic preservation and technology program on top of the 4 years - full time worth of education already have, the IDP (or whatever it evolves to) and the ARE and state exam and interview before the Oregon Board of Architect Examiners.

This is a process over next 15 years (not including the 4 years - 180+ credits of classes in computer programming, networking, art design, liberal arts, CAD program and the countless hours of self-study).

How many architects would go through this much to become licensed as an architect?

Did you?

I think I have the balls to go through this level of preperation to become an architect and taking one additional examination (the NCBDC exam) then the other folks who have got licensed.

I think I would have more then the right to call myself a building designer with NCBDC certification and by then (after completing all the legal requirements to become licensed as an architect - to call myself an architect.

I don't think anyone I know as a building designer intentionally tries to mislead the public or endangers the public in their design and design their buildings to code or above the minimum of codes.

My concern is what is your intent? Are you not making enough money? It sounds to me that you are just whining.

I think you are complaining because these building designers can make houses just as safe and structurally sound as you and charge less money.

Your using your "AIA" credential as a justification for charging a higher pay level. That is my concern and borders unethical in my mind.

There is also ethical issues of an unlicensed design professional to charge as much as an architect. At the same time, it is like a social counselor charging as much as a licensed psychologists or psychiatrist for their services.

Sure I would love to charge as much but I'm limiting my income by charging as much. It would also be like a fresh new attorney charging as much as a seasoned attorney like Robert Shapiro or F. Lee Bailey.

The same can be said for a building designer to an architect. The prestige. The unlimited range of practice. The skyscrapers, condominiums and large scale projects that you can do. The malls ans schools. You name it. What do I have?

S.F.R.s, and small commercial buildings that are barely suitable for anything more then a small theater, a mom&pop shop or a small office and maybe a small restraunt. Well, here in Oregon and pretty much most places on the west coast.

I have to work on usual 2-4 times as many buildings or project with accumatively 2-4 times as much square footage then would be an architect typical pay. Considering that is about as much as I can justifyably charge a client.

It is just the way it is. I have to compete with low prices in order to have any business. With NCBDC certification, I can narrow the gap, justifybly. It kinda, tough business.

I pretty sure, anyone would want to be paid more for their work. Getting paid 7-10% construction cost which would be roughly $10-12 per sq.ft. on an average building with a construction cost per sq.ft. of $150.

So don't whine so much. You got a good thing going for you. You are an "AIA" architect. So, I don't see how you can't get any good business.

I've read all the comments here and can't help but add something for all you so very humble AIA members.

I am a general contractor / building designer. I produce working drawings for hundreds of projects in our area, and have dominated the residential market for years.
Architects cannot compete with us.
The Contractors license Board in our state is very powerful in both membership and political influence.
They have not allowed the State architect board and its members to hijack the legislative process to their advantage.

Our growing superiority in the residential market is unstoppable, so you holier
than thou 'professional'
architects better start looking for more 'Kwikie Marts and Taco Bells to build. Design / Build firms and our AIBD / NCBDC friends will very soon reduce the need for residential architects to less than 2 percent of the residential market.