|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:35 pm Post subject: |
    |
|
im sorry but if you can't stamp your own drawings you can never fully take responsibility for your designs...
its nothing to be proud of that you never 'had' to get licensed because you may have been elevated by the talents, knowledge, or professional responsibilities of others...
the registration exam is not so difficult that one needs to be a 'nerd' in order to pass it- someone simply needs to be a reasonably intelligent and thoughtful designer who has general knowledge of design principles...
yes there is certainly some dubious matter on the exam- such as knowing who designed the statue of liberty or what materials are representative of art deco... hardly items that effect one's ability to design responsibly... but they do test someone's willingness to take the time to know these things... the ability to study, sit for and pass the exam is in and of itself as important as most of the information in the exam...
if one is such an accomplished designer then getting registered should be absolutely no problem at all- and there should be no excuse for not being registered... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nanrehvasconez
Joined: 25 Feb 2008
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
AIA lobbied Washington and all the states for the protection and use of the title and word "Architect".
AIA was extremely successful in obtaining legislation limiting the use of architect as a title, and architectural as services rendered only by licensed individuals.
AIA legislation is so tight that prohibits the use of "architect and architectural" by any one rendering services for a fee, to anyone in need of an architectural designer, or an architectural drafter, or an architectural wood detailer, etc. etc.
Lawyers will advice any one rendering these services to avoid the words architect and architectural in any documents given to the client, because it will cause the loss of your fees in case of a dispute with the client.
The funny thing is, one could use the title of Joe Blow, Draftsman, AIAA, Mark Tweet, Designer, AIAA,
G. W. Bush, Consultant, AIAA, which means American Institute of Architects Associate, for a FEE.
In conclusion, title and licenses do not make a professional better, mediocre or bad, just makes he/she legal.
Oh, by the way Archiwhat, have you ever work as part of a team? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i'm well aware of the dealings of the aia and the modern history of the word "architect" and ultimately the modern conception of the profession of "architect"
the thing you need to remember in all of this is that the profession of architecture effects more than mere aesthetics- there literally are lives at risk and therefore there needs to be some means by which the safety of the general public can be protected... in social/political structures such as ours this is usually established by the government powers that be...
so just as other professions that affect the lives and wellbeing of citizens must submit to some form of certification so must architects...
would you ever claim that one should be allowed to call themselves a structural engineer or surgeon without having passed the appropriate tests and certifications? this isn't to say that because this person has passed those tests that they are a great surgeon or engineer but it at least shows they have the baseline competence that has been agreed upon by established practices and laws.
i have not taken the position that licensed architects are necessarily any more skilled or better than a non-licensed architect- that simply is not a defensible position.
my position is that if one claims to be as good or better than some licensed architect there should be absolutely no excuse for not sitting for and passing the AREs... anyone with decent design sense and the ability to retain some book knowledge can easily pass the AREs...
so the question is why not take the ARE? the 2 most common reasons seem to be 1- the person cannot pass the exam 2- the person does not want to be legally responsible for their own designs
this person very well can still be a great designer and make very beautiful, functional and safe buildings- but since they can't or don't want to submit to the accepted process by which one is allowed by our society to call themselves an 'architect' then they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves an 'architect' in the legal sense- that would be decieving and unethical to the public
so my question to you is why didn't you take the AREs? have you tried, failed and given up? scared of the prospect of being sued? too 'busy'?
as for working on a team- yes i work on a team every single day. and many different individuals contribute to the development and execution of a design while not all of those individuals are registered architects- and yet their opinion still counts for something
and yet at the end of the day those who are eligible to be registered are always encouraged to do so even though in my firm the only people who are even legally allowed to stamp drawings are principals... and even with all of this the company pays for the testing of non-principals... because everyone realizes that passing the exam and keeping up with continuing education is important and helpful for the firm in general...
also in case you missed this earlier in the thread- i myself am not a registered architect- i am a mere intern patiently awaiting the end of my 3 year idp purgatory...
when that time does come to pass this fall i expect to begin taking exams immediately and be registered by end of 2008. i think that if someone really loves what they do and they are good at it then there is no reason they shouldn't try to attain the necessary legal status generally accepted by the law and their peers...
deriding the exam as being merely 'legal' while not submitting to the exam yourself simply does not make sense without the presense of a reasonable excuse- of which there are very few... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nanrehvasconez
Joined: 25 Feb 2008
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
I just heard in the radio: What is the difference between a Dr. MD and a witch Dr.? The MD has a license, Ha Ha Ha.
I agree with you, all your endeavors should be performed at the best of your ability, with dignity and honesty.
Why I didn't I take my IADs? well at the time, the average salary for a licensed architect was around $40,000., I was being paid twice as much, company car, expense account; I had a crew of 20 licensed architects working under my direction, (they hated a supervisor without a license, also they loved me because I thought them every thing I new; I always have been a researcher).
I was a company representative in London, Paris, Frankfort, Mexico City and Tokyo. We were designing hotels all over the world.
In those days I could design and obtain building permits for commercial projects up to three stories, any size of residential homes, no Mac Mansions ever, I prefer modern minimalist architecture, no architect's license was required.
I was a very happy man
NAN |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kmapro
Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Posts: 116
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why oh why do we keep kicking this stone around???
Hasn't there been enough bickering and feather ruffling about this topic??
Phansford is well aware of my stance...as is mx2 and lekizz has seen my rants and raves as well.
I refuse to take part in another bashing but will offer my comments.
As those mentioned above know, I am not an architect, I have never attended architecture classes and I do not plan on persuing an architect license.
I have also stated, many times, that I do not and have not EVER represented or referred myself as an architect or any sense of the word.
I do declare that I am a Residential Designer that works after hours of his regular job (residential structural framing - engineered flooring) moonlighting to make a few extra bucks here and there. I make it very clear who I am and what I do...SOME of you may refer to me as a CAD Monkey or a CAD Operator or a simple draftsman.
I really don't care.......nor do my clients. My clients enjoy working with me because I listen and I know what I am doing. I know the codes and I know what works. I know how something will be framed because I have been on that side of the equation as well.
I don't have a problem with architects nor do I have a problem with Residential Designers. I do have a problem with someone calling themselves, or referring to their selves, as an "architect" of any means IF they have not met the requirements.
Normally, I would come in here and debate phansford and get his feathers ruffled - mainly because it is fun - but, I think this time, I will side, somewhat, with the architects....pick your jaw up off the floor phans...I won't always be this nice.
If we are strictly dealing with those who consider themselves or call theirselves or portray themselves as anything "architect" and they have never completed the requirements - then I have a major problem with that.
I think I will end it there because anything else I would say would spark controversy and that is not why I am here....
To the original poster who asked what all kinds/types of architects there are...I say 2...
1) Good Ones
2) Bad Ones
Thank you |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
