We are a profession which tends to eat its young. Many smaller firms, and small-town firms, are loathe to train and develop employees' talents past the point of making money for the firm. And, heaven forbid that the recipes for the secret sauce of how to have a profitable practice should be shared - those whippersnappers will just leave, take a client or two with them, and become instant competition. How sad.
A former co-worker had a great first architectural employer. Employer said "Tom, my job is to make you the best future competitor for me that you can be". Tom ended up moving from Kansas, so he wasn't a direct competitor, but he really had a great foundation in all that we do.
I've worked with: good designer guy who was also a wiz at site planning. Guess what he got assigned to do on every job? Draw parking lots. After he left the firm, he used his time in the field, plus time in school, together, qualified for the "quiz", took it and passed. Started his own one-man firm. Another, 4-year BA in Arch Studies, great designer and wonderful with clients, short on "how you gonna build that?" skills (of which he was often reminded by a few of the 5-year B.Arch grads slightly above him in the pecking order) -- left the firm because he didn't get assigned to production drafting, even on jobs that he designed -- he was eager to learn how to put a building together but was "too valuable" in the role he had. A little bit of time in the trenches/grinding out roof flashing details/ would have kept his with us.
My undergraduate experience (A.B. in Architecture and Urban Planning) was definitely not a how-you-gonna-build-it one (though, for one project we did have to draw a wall section and label the parts). During another project, a classmate was beset by a ton of family emergencies and barely got a pencil-drafted plan together (the standard was ink). One visiting critic bemoaned the level of presentation - "I would have thought students here were beyond this". Our senior class departmental advisor defended the work -- "We are not a trade school for drafters" (indeed, if you didn't know how, you had to learn as you went) -- and then dropped his bombshell "... but the ideas put forth here in this design are even worse than the quality of presentation". [ Side note - the guy who cobbled together those drawings later invented a product that is very widely used in homes today - I sure hope he gets a bit of the royalties. ]
I was naturally curious during school and in my first jobs / roles. I took an interest in how we were going to get from a client's vague (or precise) ideas of what they wanted or needed, and figured out that it was up to us to get them there. So, read the local zoning code. Read the building code. Suggest or draw simple, local improvements to the design as it was developing (and thus get the higher-ups to recognize some potential in me). Then, actually get to the drawing part. Probably the biggest leap was getting involved in the specification editing and writing for a major school renovation. The written word component is little taught in school, shunned by many, but definitely elevated me in the firm.
So, back to: trained to do a task, or prepared for a profession? Architecture is such a broad range of endeavor that we can absorb both. It seems to me that most states (California, with its oral examination by a board of inquisitors, is an exception) have abdicated local involvement in verifying would-be architect's qualifications. It's been a long time since I sat for the equivalency exam, the dreaded design exam, and then the professional exam, and the process has morphed several times since then, but it did seem to me like the questions they asked were relevant. For a while, I helped out (well, I think I was helpful) with a local AIA chapter's ARE Prep series. When I reviewed the online review questions, they all seemed like topics an architect ought to be aware of.
Back to "we eat our young": the cost of all that examining is high. It's a huge burden on recent graduates with college loans to pay off. Getting ready to take an exam takes away from their family and personal time. Not every firm "needs" their staff to be licensed. But, eventually, except for sole practitioners whose end of career transition plan is just to close up shop, every firm is going to need people to take over.
Perhaps the AIA could incentivize at least some firms to participate in intern development by rebating some of the firm's dues by monitoring how many ARE sections were passed by its employees every year. If a price or credit is attached, people do consider an activity more valuable.
------------------------------
Joel Niemi AIA
Joel Niemi Architect
Snohomish, WA
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 06-02-2022 05:35 PM
From: Robert Carlson
Subject: Apprenticing to qualify for the ARE
I disagree with idea that you can learn what you need to know just by working in an architects office.
I was on the professional advisory committee for ISU architecture department for several years when it first formed. What I learned was that school taught how how to research, explore and apply that to problems plus basic skills which you develop while working. A lot of firms wanted university to train good CAD drafters because they wanted drafters not thinkers. They were upset that had to take time to let them learn high speed CAD drafting, the community college people came ready to draft but most needed direction on what to do.
Problem with just working is getting the full range of training. Is the firm going to take their time and your time to train you? When I was a project architect in the 300+ office at HLM, I was given a college graduate who had worked there for 7 years to do my reflected ceiling plans which I thought was strange. Turned out that was all he had done for the last 6 years. We did mostly health care so the ceilings had to be just right. I had him work on the whole building and was chewed out for because I was wasting a precious resource by teaching him other aspects.
How many firms are going to spend the time to train someone codes, basic structure, spatial concepts, energy requirements, and everything else that goes into a building. To many want fast and smart CAD drafters. Once they reach that point they are making the firm money. Are they going waste that valuable asset by having them do non-productive work? Yes some will but not the majority.
What we need is the pre-CAD jobs with drafters and job captains who knew how to put a building together but will never be licensed. I ran two small firms for more than 25 years after leaving HLM. I pushed everyone to complete IDP, gave them time to take classes and paid for their exams. Most got registered but had no desire to run an office or seal drawings. I also hired CAD drafters but without much success because most just wanted to draft markups so they left for large firms setup to use their skills.
I was one of those caught in the 70s with a four year degree. I slipped through a small hole by passing IDP because I was not in an architects office but a small design build firm which gave me all the experience I needed. I could not have done what I did without what I learned in college.
------------------------------
Robert Carlson
Retired
Iowa City IA
Original Message:
Sent: 05-30-2022 11:30 PM
From: Scott Knudson
Subject: Apprenticing to qualify for the ARE
I am glad Maryland is among the states with a work-to-license path (2 years work=1year education) but it is rarely used; most frequent application is those who made mistake of getting a 4-year b.s.arch then a job and belatedly discover this option. It is a rare bird indeed who comes out of high school knowing they can and want to do this and are also able to get a job in a firm and start tracking hours etc before they get too old.
I believe we as AIA should:
1. Push all states to adopt this path.
2. promote this option to high schoolers and the general public. One means could be feeding speaking points to members who attend school career days and the like.
3. Work with NCARB to remove education requirement.
4. Work with NAAB to have architecture programs spell out the truths to prospective and to incoming students - that they have a work option in lieu of school and they will have to work and take exams after graduating (our local chapter hosts senior dinners and we've been shocked how few understand the path to licensure - unless they started in a community college).
------------------------------
Scott Knudson AIA
Knu Design, LLC
Boyds MD
Original Message:
Sent: 05-27-2022 10:14 AM
From: Lawrence Paschall
Subject: Apprenticing to qualify for the ARE
I was just having this discussion. I graduated with a 4-year degree from A&M and was able to go straight to work. Because of when I started, I was grandfathered in, and I wasn't required to have a professional degree. I was required to work longer before I could take my exams, but I was willing to do that versus incurring the additional cost of graduate school. After almost 25 years, I still think that was the smartest decision. I'm not sure I would have learned anything at graduate school that I didn't get from the first firm I worked for, including the bigger picture thinking. The only downside would be where I might be able to obtain reciprocal licensing as I do not have an NCARB certificate.
The profession is probably missing out on potentially great architects because we make the process to obtain a license so onerous. Not everyone can afford 6 or 7 years worth of college to get their professional degree, and they shouldn't have to go deep into debt to make that happen.
------------------------------
Lawrence Paschall AIA
Spotted Dog Architecture
Dallas TX
Original Message:
Sent: 05-25-2022 03:52 PM
From: Nea Poole
Subject: Apprenticing to qualify for the ARE
I have been having discussions with some peers on apprenticing and thought I would throw this out to see what others thought. My understanding is about 18 states/territories allow some sort of apprenticing to be eligible to sit for the ARE rather than the more traditional route of going to university then interning. From the research I have done it seems the length of apprenticeship required varies from about 9 years to 12 years and again varies if one has any higher education (community college for example).
A clear benefit would be opening the profession to some who might not be able to afford university; earning money for 4 or 5 years instead of going into debt is a very positive start to any young career. Additionally, my personal professional experience leads me to strongly believe that an intern would learn more about architecture/building science/codes/computers/construction etc by working for 5 years in an office rather than 5 years at school. If I was given a choice of someone who had been working since HS for a firm for 5 years versus a person graduating with a 5 year degree, all other things being equal, I would, without hesitation, hire the person who had on the job training.
I am a bit old fashioned in my belief in the importance of a well rounded education so, in my eyes, the downside would be the lack of exposure to other fields, to architectural history, theory etc.
Thoughts?
------------------------------
Nea May Poole, AIA, NCARB
Principal
Poole & Poole Architecture, LLC
Glen Allen, Virginia
------------------------------