Practice Management Member Conversations

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?

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?

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?

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?

• ensures people are able to escape a building if there is a fire
• has the proper structure coordinated to not collapse
• has systems that work cohesively with the MEP building systems
• utilizes spatial solutions that allow people to work/live/play efficiently

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?

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?

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?

I know I have been around a long time (graduated Texas A&M in 1976 w/4 year degree) when discussions cycle back. It was about that time the threat of ending "apprenticeship" as path to registration was discussed so I completed my MArch to be sure. As evidenced by recurring discussions, I think it indicative there is not a unanimous agreement. After practicing 45 years, I believe there is benefit to a broad college education. Architecture is not just putting buildings together (yes I learned everything of that in practice rather than in college). Architects are trained to think "big picture" and to apply critical thinking skills that literally "think outside the box". We are interdependent on engineers, but engineers are linear thinkers. Architects must solve multiple equations simultaneously. 

So might there be "classifications" of architects? "Design architects" graduate from college and "Technical architects" can be registered via apprenticeship? That would create multiple pathways.

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?

I know I have been around a long time (graduated Texas A&M in 1976 w/4 year degree) when discussions cycle back. It was about that time the threat of ending "apprenticeship" as path to registration was discussed so I completed my MArch to be sure. As evidenced by recurring discussions, I think it indicative there is not a unanimous agreement. After practicing 45 years, I believe there is benefit to a broad college education. Architecture is not just putting buildings together (yes I learned everything of that in practice rather than in college). Architects are trained to think "big picture" and to apply critical thinking skills that literally "think outside the box". We are interdependent on engineers, but engineers are linear thinkers. Architects must solve multiple equations simultaneously. 

So might there be "classifications" of architects? "Design architects" graduate from college and "Technical architects" can be registered via apprenticeship? That would create multiple pathways.

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?

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?

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?

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).

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?

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).

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?

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).

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?

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).

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?

"Owning an architecture firm is essentially like owning a franchise, where the marketing, regulatory influence, general terms of client engagement and compensation structure are all determined by the corporate entity."
You, my friend, have some really hard lessons to learn about ownership and how the industry, clients and public views architects. Also the liability and insurance issues will teach you tons. 

it is miles from a franchise. 

You will prove yourself wrong over time. Good luck  

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).

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?

"Owning an architecture firm is essentially like owning a franchise, where the marketing, regulatory influence, general terms of client engagement and compensation structure are all determined by the corporate entity."
You, my friend, have some really hard lessons to learn about ownership and how the industry, clients and public views architects. Also the liability and insurance issues will teach you tons. 

it is miles from a franchise. 

You will prove yourself wrong over time. Good luck  

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).

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?

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).

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?

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).

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?

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).

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?

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).

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?

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).

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?

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).

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?

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).

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?

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).

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?

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).

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?

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).

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?

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).

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?

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).

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?

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).

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?

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).

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?

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).

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?

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).

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?

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).

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?

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).

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?

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).

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?

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).

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?

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).

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?

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).

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?

Scott, thanks to you and everyone who responded, especially those who reached out to me privately, this has been a very enlightening discussion.

Beyond the topic at hand, one take away that saddens me a bit is the clear message that some firms are not at all supportive or mentoring, so much so that this is the perception of the entire practice by some. Frankly from a few of the comments some firms sound downright awful which is, I guess, to be expected since human nature  varies a good bit person to person.

I have worked at good and bad firms and I could write volumes about this.However,  I will just say for those who feel trapped in a bad firm, there are great ones out there, search out the firm you deserve.

As for the negative comments on firm ownership, it was the best decision I ever made professionally. Obviously there is a lot of work and responsibility involved (and the leap at the beginning was downright scary!!) but the utter freedom to create the environment my employees and I work in is a joy!

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).

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?