 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Spellcaster
Architect
| Joined: | Thu Apr 15th, 2004 |
| Location: | ARCHITECT, LEED AP, USA |
| Posts: | 959 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Mon Oct 20th, 2008 10:25 pm |
|
pgharchintern wrote:
OK how about...what if the Architect we hire agrees to "buy" into the "Collective" at 51%? The salary of that person is contingient upon meeting goals of the organization with commissions being a percentage over and above base pay.
If the firm is in PA and has more than 2 owners then 67% of ownership must be in the hands of PA-licensed architects AND at least two thirds of the owners must be PA-licensed (meaning you can't have a firm owned by 2 architects who own 67%, and 50 interns who collectively hold the other 33%).
I think it'd take a lot of convincing to get 2 architects on board with this anyway. It's difficult enough to turn a profit when you have an experienced staff and can consistently manage things so that people are doing tasks that best suit their skills and aptitudes.
How pray tell do you plan to make money while constantly rotating interns such that an inexperienced person is always in every role (as would have to be the situation in order to fulfill everyones' minimum IDP units as expediently as possible.)Last edited on Mon Oct 20th, 2008 10:27 pm by Spellcaster
|
pgharchintern
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 224 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Oct 21st, 2008 04:07 am |
|
So one registered architect can't hold 67% and 4, 5, or 7 experienced IA's can't own 33% of the firm, is that correct? Ok, hmm, 4,5 or 7 IA's can't hire an RA to help them not only get thru IDP, that architect can't do any work. How are college professors permitted to have outside projects yet involve interns to work on the project? I guess the interns volunteer their time, that blows.
Ok so how does the concept of "Architect of Record" work when 2 architects are in different states? I have seen this done more times can I can remember. I guess that's a moot point because both are already RA's.
I guess I'm amazed that recently licensed architects seem to just propagate the insidious practice of not helping those coming behind them thru such a screwed up process. But, I guess, for everyone they help, that's one more competitor that might take work from them. I forget that in college it's every man/woman for themselves.
|
Spellcaster
Architect
| Joined: | Thu Apr 15th, 2004 |
| Location: | ARCHITECT, LEED AP, USA |
| Posts: | 959 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Oct 21st, 2008 02:26 pm |
|
I think you're confusing a few issues.
A college professor who is a licensed architect can act as a sole practitioner (100% owner) and employ interns to help. But of course in that situation the interns don't have ownership in the firm. A sole practitioner (and any other size and type of firm) can EMPLOY as many people as it likes. But two thirds of the OWNERS must be architects, and those two thirds must own at least two thirds of the firm. (In other words, if you have 7 unlicensed interns who each have OWNERSHIP in the firm then you'd need 14 architects sharing ownership of at least 67% of the firm. See?)
In some states that college professor would have to legally register that firm (not just himself) but in others there's no mechanism for registering firms - they just register architects...
In PA an architecture firm owned by one person must be owned 100% by a licensed architect.
In an architecture firm with 2 owners at least one must be an architect, and if only one is an architect he must own at least 50% of the firm.
In an architecture firm with 3 owners at least two thirds of the owners must be registered, and those two thirds of the owners must hold at least 67% of the firm.
Other states have different laws. For example in MA a firm may be owned in whole by non-architects, no matter the size of the firm. You might look into starting your collaborative there.
My point was just that your proposition of a herd of interns owning a certain percentage of the firm, while the rest is owned by one or two architects, is not a legal model for a firm in your state.
As to your question about the role of an Architect of Record: the person stamping the drawings (which in most states also means they are supposed to be the person who personally oversaw the creation of the contract documents) is a licensed architect in the state where the project is located. The other architect(s) and/or designer(s) involved in the project may or may not be licensed in that state (and in the case of designers may not be licensed at all anywhere). In some cases they may be licensed in that state but only involved in the project through the design phases, as in the case of some well-known firms whose operating model is to contract projects to other firms for the CD and CA phases.
An example from your neck of the woods: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, which has a large office near you in Pittsburgh and several others including one in Washington state, was design architect on Bill Gates' house in Washington state, but James Cutler was the Architect of Record for the project because his office did most of the CDs, even though BCJ does have Washington-licensed partners and a branch office there.
Another example: there's a current thread on this forum about a licensed architect who is considering serving as the Architect of Record for another architect in the same city - and in this situation it seems one of the 1st architect's motives may be to shift some liability for the project...Last edited on Tue Oct 21st, 2008 04:30 pm by Spellcaster
|
Spellcaster
Architect
| Joined: | Thu Apr 15th, 2004 |
| Location: | ARCHITECT, LEED AP, USA |
| Posts: | 959 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Oct 21st, 2008 02:46 pm |
|
As far as propagating insidious practices: I have tried to pay forward the help and patience that I received as an intern by employing interns and giving them as many opportunities to gain experience as possible.
But of course I can only employ interns if the firm turns a profit, and this depends in part on staff being able to competently perform tasks assigned to them in a reasonable amount of time - which means that some tasks must be assigned to experienced people at least some of the time...
And like it or not, there are laws as to how some phases of the project must be supervised and by whom, and there are also rules imposed by insurance companies (an example: my insurer dictates that I cannot send an unlicensed staff member on a field visit alone, and even accompanied unlicensed staff member is not supposed to give direction or information to contractors, subs, consultants, or owner or "engage in dialog" that could be construed as giving direction or information to any of those people.)
So getting the interns their IDP-required field experience really means taking them along for the ride, as unbillable observers. And that's fine, and we do that, in order to get them their experience, but we can't always afford to do it on every site visit.
But in your proposal it seems that you want to put interns in constantly-rotating positions, and employ the architects mainly for purposes of signatures. I'm just wondering how exactly you are imagining this being a profitable firm - or even one that can break even in order to survive?
Your proposal seems to be the creation of a firm specifically for the purpose of getting everybody their IDP experience as smoothly and expediently as possible, right? But the same reasons that interns don't always get that experience smoothly and quickly in most firms will probably raise their heads in your firm too, unless profit is not necessary, or unless perhaps you charge interns to work in this firm - in which case you'll have problems with the Dept. of Labor unless what you really are is a school, not a firm.Last edited on Tue Oct 21st, 2008 04:24 pm by Spellcaster
|
pgharchintern
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 224 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Oct 21st, 2008 04:52 pm |
|
My only goal is the moral and ethical handling of IA's and getting them thru IDP in a fashion that their education does in fact grow, not just to be cad monkeys.
Reading about the treatment of IA's on so many web forums is clear proof that something is wrong with the moral and ethical behavior of many many firms.
This problem isn't just a few disgruntled spoiled brats who don't get their way. There is evidence of the mistreatment, and violations of the ethics that are supposed to be what separates registered architects from "hacks".
Granted that a firm Must be able to produce, Interns at whatever their level is Must provide a function to the betterment of the firm but, it's gotta start somewhere and schools are not the starting point when it comes to being productive.
The rules and guidelines set up by NCARB just don't work in many cases and there isn't really a body or arm that provides any real oversight of ethics. And state ARB don't enforce any ethical behavior so IA's are left to fend for themselves.
Consistency from state to state is non-existent. Paperwork is mind-numbing. Principals are pulled in so many directions who has time to address the IA's.
That's why I proposed a "collective", somewhat tongue-in-cheek, to get people who were "Pro-IDP" and who had a view that was more geared to the training setting and had an in-house development program set-up. IA's are eager to learn. They want responsibility, they are willing to take on jobs and learn. Opportunities aren't by and of the IA's presence, these must be initiated by the firm's leadership and maintained by all. Too often IA's are utilized for pumping out the work with no consideration of growth. Providing a healthy work/training environment fortifies a firm's position in the market rather than the detriment of a revolving door. Investment in a commodity such as it is for firms can only be achieved if there is a plan. Unfortunately many firm's "forget" their oath of allegiance to the profession and it's members, especially the IA. That is why I suggested the "collective" concept.
|
Phlustered
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 88 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 01:55 am |
|
What the hell is an "IA"??
If you mean "Intern Architect" there are only about two states that allow that title, so it's not widely used.
|
someone080101
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 02:58 am |
|
Phlustered wrote: What the hell is an "IA"??
If you mean "Intern Architect" there are only about two states that allow that title, so it's not widely used.
Yep I'm aware that most states negate the use but franky it's what they/we/us/I am/are. And, many people quietly call themselves that term without a great deal of fanfair. It's interesting to note that on the AIA website, under the career center, the AIA lists Architectural Intern as a heading. So, If the frigging AIA can use the term, shouldn't I be able to use the term THEY identify? AND, ( see next post)
Attached Image (viewed 182 times):
|
someone080101
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 03:08 am |
|
someone080101 wrote: Phlustered wrote: What the hell is an "IA"??
If you mean "Intern Architect" there are only about two states that allow that title, so it's not widely used.
Yep I'm aware that most states negate the use but franky it's what they/we/us/I am/are. And, many people quietly call themselves that term without a great deal of fanfair. It's interesting to note that on the AIA website, under the career center, the AIA lists Architectural Intern as a heading. So, If the frigging AIA can use the term, shouldn't I be able to use the term THEY identify? AND, ( see next post)
Check out the firms who also use the term in their ads. OMG! For shame! Shouldn't those firms be sanctioned for breaking the 11th commandment!? "Thou shalt not use the word "ARCHITECT" in any form when associated with a non-licensed person"!
So hey, it's ok to be hypocritical if you are the AIA, use the term to designate an entire group of people who themselves CAN'T use the term. Maybe...just maybe, someone forgot to tell the AIA and all those firms using the "illegal" title that it's ILLEGAL to use the term Intern "Architect". Feel free to correct me anytime folks!
Attached Image (viewed 184 times):
|
Phlustered
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 88 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 03:20 am |
|
The AIA is aware that the term is not permitted in most states. Their position is that it should be. Nonetheless it isn't. The AIA doesn't have any power to make laws or state regulations.
Most of the ads you circled are for "Architectural Intern". That's different than "Intern Architect". Lots of states do allow "Architectural" in titles for unlicensed people. But just a few allow any title with "Architect" in it for anybody unlicensed, including "Intern Architect". People are always getting fined for this stuff and the AIA doesn't help at all with that.
Anyhow, I was just trying to point out that "IA" isn't in general use. People may not know what you're talking about.
Question: why do you keep switching betwen being pgharchintern and someone01801?
Last edited on Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 03:36 am by Phlustered
|
pgharchintern
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 224 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 03:10 am |
|
| Ops
|
pgharchintern
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 224 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 03:35 pm |
|
Phlustered wrote: The AIA is aware that the term is not permitted in most states. Their position is that it should be. Nonetheless it isn't. The AIA doesn't have any power to make laws or state regulations.
Most of the ads you circled are for "Architectural Intern". That's different than "Intern Architect". Lots of states do allow "Architectural" in titles for unlicensed people. But just a few allow any title with "Architect" in it for anybody unlicensed, including "Intern Architect". People are always getting fined for this stuff and the AIA doesn't help at all with that.
Anyhow, I was just trying to point out that "IA" isn't in general use. People may not know what you're talking about.
Question: why do you keep switching betwen being pgharchintern and someone01801?
Are you saying that the AIA would like to see states use the title of "Intern Architect" but that state ARBoards don't want the title used? My guess is that if the AIA indicated they wanted such a change, it would happen. The ARB's exist greatly in part due to the emmergence Of the AIA.
My guess is that like the age old question of what came first the chicken or the egg, with reference to the AIA and the state ARB's, the AIA came first and then the need to regulate said group, namely architects came after. And viola, in my quest for knowledge I read that in fact that is the timeline:
First there came the AIA,
then the adoption of licensure law ( formulated by architects ),
then NCARB ( made up of architects ),
then Architectural Registration Boards ( whose membership typically has more registered architects than anyone else),
then NAAB ( Whose membership includes architect )
so if the AIA, really wanted the title of "INTERN ARCHITECT" to be created and adopted by state ARB's, it would happen. But as we all know, acknowledging this group by title, whoa, puts a whole new set of rules into place and now there is More regulation, oversight, ad nausem. It's a beast that unfortunatly has gotten too big for it's handeler and it's now becoming a nightmare. Like too many cooks spoil the soup, too many agencies are spoiling the perception of the profession. The general public looks at architects as prima donas as do builders, contractors, vendors & engineers.
|
pgharchintern
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 224 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 03:51 pm |
|
Spellcaster wrote: As far as propagating insidious practices: I have tried to pay forward the help and patience that I received as an intern by employing interns and giving them as many opportunities to gain experience as possible.
But of course I can only employ interns if the firm turns a profit, and this depends in part on staff being able to competently perform tasks assigned to them in a reasonable amount of time - which means that some tasks must be assigned to experienced people at least some of the time...
And like it or not, there are laws as to how some phases of the project must be supervised and by whom, and there are also rules imposed by insurance companies (an example: my insurer dictates that I cannot send an unlicensed staff member on a field visit alone, and even accompanied unlicensed staff member is not supposed to give direction or information to contractors, subs, consultants, or owner or "engage in dialog" that could be construed as giving direction or information to any of those people.)
So getting the interns their IDP-required field experience really means taking them along for the ride, as unbillable observers. And that's fine, and we do that, in order to get them their experience, but we can't always afford to do it on every site visit.
But in your proposal it seems that you want to put interns in constantly-rotating positions, and employ the architects mainly for purposes of signatures. I'm just wondering how exactly you are imagining this being a profitable firm - or even one that can break even in order to survive?
Your proposal seems to be the creation of a firm specifically for the purpose of getting everybody their IDP experience as smoothly and expediently as possible, right? But the same reasons that interns don't always get that experience smoothly and quickly in most firms will probably raise their heads in your firm too, unless profit is not necessary, or unless perhaps you charge interns to work in this firm - in which case you'll have problems with the Dept. of Labor unless what you really are is a school, not a firm.
"able to competently perform tasks assigned to them in a reasonable amount of time - which means that some tasks must be assigned to experienced people at least some of the time..."
What tasks do you deem should go to "interns" and which go to "experienced people".
I realize that insurance comes into play as well as profit, as it should.
But why are so many "interns" having problems? Reading this forum's posts, this isn't an isolated problem, it exists nationally. It's time the addage of "What isn't broke should be left alone" is past. Make firms who want NCARB registration follow strict guidlines with regard to Interns. Make licensure tie into grading of firms, get accountability into the profession and enforce it. IDP is abused and ignored by firms who look at profit and not people and the profession. If you want to be in business as a firm then do your duty, sh*t or get off the pot as my dad would say.
|
Phlustered
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 88 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 04:06 pm |
|
pgharchintern wrote:
Are you saying that the AIA would like to see states use the title of "Intern Architect" but that state ARBoards don't want the title used? My guess is that if the AIA indicated they wanted such a change, it would happen. The ARB's exist greatly in part due to the emmergence Of the AIA.
My guess is that like the age old question of what came first the chicken or the egg, with reference to the AIA and the state ARB's, the AIA came first and then the need to regulate said group, namely architects came after. And viola, in my quest for knowledge I read that in fact that is the timeline:
First there came the AIA,
then the adoption of licensure law ( formulated by architects ),
then NCARB ( made up of architects ),
then Architectural Registration Boards ( whose membership typically has more registered architects than anyone else),
then NAAB ( Whose membership includes architect )
so if the AIA, really wanted the title of "INTERN ARCHITECT" to be created and adopted by state ARB's, it would happen. But as we all know, acknowledging this group by title, whoa, puts a whole new set of rules into place and now there is More regulation, oversight, ad nausem. It's a beast that unfortunatly has gotten too big for it's handeler and it's now becoming a nightmare. Like too many cooks spoil the soup, too many agencies are spoiling the perception of the profession. The general public looks at architects as prima donas as do builders, contractors, vendors & engineers.
Yes, both the AIA and NCARB have recommended titles for job positions. Their respective lists differ somewhat (NCARB tends to make the license more important and consequently recommends use of "Intern Architect" for unlicensed people regardless of years of experience, while the AIA's titles are less dependent on licensing status and more on years of experience plus role in the firm so they recommend "Intern" for 1-3 years' experience, "Architect" (if licensed) or "Designer" for people with 4 or more years of experience who are in a design role, but "Architectural Drafter", "CAD Manager", etc. for people in those roles) but both have long encouraged that states adopt "Intern Architect", "Architect in Training", etc. for people on a licensing track.
In response to an AIA position paper on this back around 2002 a couple states did change their rules to specifically allow "Architectural Intern" (Wisconsin) or "Intern Architect" (Massachusetts) for people enrolled who are actively enrolled in IDP. But most states did not choose to adopt the AIA's recommendations.
The AIA is a professional club. It has absolutely no authority to make regulations regarding licensing, etc. It has no regulatory powers of any sort outside of its club membership. It has no part in determining state or NCARB policies, except in an advisory role - and in some states there aren't even any AIA liaisons to the architecture boards.
In most states the architecture boards are part of larger departments of professional regulation, or state Attorney Generals' offices, or in some cases even part of the education department (as in NY), most of which long predate the AIA. Your use of "ARB" for example is not an acronym most would recognize as each state is different in its organization. (My state doesn't have an "ARB", it has "BOLAID".)
Rules regarding titles for architects and firms tend to mirror rules for other professions (everything from nurses to liquor stores to auto glass repairers) in each individual state. Something you need to understand about those boards is that in most cases the boards themselves meet only a few times per year, and while those board members are usually all architects, the people who actually draft the rules that are adopted by the boards and do the day to day operation are generally not board members but state workers with no architectural background.
The state boards are in no way dependent on the AIA for their creation or existence.
Professional titles are entirely up to state boards.
You're trying (understandably) to make a direct timeline and line of supervision/oversight out of a collection of entities that are not actually connected all that directly.
NAAB regulates only accredited architecture professional degree programs. They're mainly concerned with minimum requirements for facilities and curriculum. NAAB's members are schools of architecture. They don't have individual members. NAAB makes no regulations of any sort except as apply to schools of architecture.
NCARB is a record-keeping, and credential-verifying entity. They also develop and implement the ARE. State boards contract NCARB's services. NCARB's policies are recommendations. In and of themselves they have no power. It's up to state boards to choose to adopt them or not, which is why there is so much variation from state to state.
There's no such thing as an "NCARB member firm" or "NCARB registered firm", and there is no membership except for the representatives of each state board.
The AIA is a professional club, whose powers don't extend beyond seeing that dues-paying members abide by their code of conduct. You pay your $275 to $900 a year depending on your location, and this binds you to follow the AIA's rules. The AIA has a little internal mini-court that takes action against members caught breaking its rules - but the judgements are nothing but letters of warning, or at worst public "sanctions" (i.e. you land on the list of AIA bad guys that gets sent to all members). Even those decisions tend to take several years (so if you're an intern and you report your AIA-member boss to the AIA for not supporting you with your IDP needs, the AIA will get around to ruling on that matter in about 3 years, and when they do your boss will simply get a warning letter.) That's all the regulatory power it holds.Last edited on Fri Oct 24th, 2008 05:38 pm by Phlustered
|
Coach
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 5819 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Architect |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 06:14 pm |
|
Phlustered wrote: "Intern Architect", "Architect in Training", etc. for people on a licensing track. I doubt that I would have used either title if given the chance, but if I did, I would have stopped doing so within two years. There's nothing appealing about those titles. In fact, to me they sound pretty demeaning. I've always thought that "EIT" sounded ridiculous. Had I stayed on the engineering path, I never would have used it. What does it really matter? Sure, it's a pain in the ass sometimes when filling out certain paperwork or answering "So, what do you do?" ... so what. Get creative. I would be in favor of state laws being amended to allow "architectural" to be used in conjunction with a title for use by those employed by licensed architects. I can't help but imagine that laws creating the title of AIT or AI will require their use and that would really suck.
|
pgharchintern
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 224 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 06:32 pm |
|
Phlustered wrote: pgharchintern wrote:
Are you saying that the AIA would like to see states use the title of "Intern Architect" but that state ARBoards don't want the title used? My guess is that if the AIA indicated they wanted such a change, it would happen. The ARB's exist greatly in part due to the emmergence Of the AIA.
My guess is that like the age old question of what came first the chicken or the egg, with reference to the AIA and the state ARB's, the AIA came first and then the need to regulate said group, namely architects came after. And viola, in my quest for knowledge I read that in fact that is the timeline:
First there came the AIA,
then the adoption of licensure law ( formulated by architects ),
then NCARB ( made up of architects ),
then Architectural Registration Boards ( whose membership typically has more registered architects than anyone else),
then NAAB ( Whose membership includes architect )
so if the AIA, really wanted the title of "INTERN ARCHITECT" to be created and adopted by state ARB's, it would happen. But as we all know, acknowledging this group by title, whoa, puts a whole new set of rules into place and now there is More regulation, oversight, ad nausem. It's a beast that unfortunatly has gotten too big for it's handeler and it's now becoming a nightmare. Like too many cooks spoil the soup, too many agencies are spoiling the perception of the profession. The general public looks at architects as prima donas as do builders, contractors, vendors & engineers.
Yes, both the AIA and NCARB have recommended titles for job positions. Their respective lists differ somewhat (NCARB tends to make the license more important and consequently recommends use of "Intern Architect" for unlicensed people regardless of years of experience, while the AIA's titles are less dependent on licensing status and more on years of experience plus role in the firm so they recommend "Intern" for 1-3 years' experience, "Architect" (if licensed) or "Designer" for people with 4 or more years of experience who are in a design role, but "Architectural Drafter", "CAD Manager", etc. for people in those roles) but both have long encouraged that states adopt "Intern Architect", "Architect in Training", etc. for people on a licensing track.
In response to an AIA position paper on this back around 2002 a couple states did change their rules to specifically allow "Architectural Intern" (Wisconsin) or "Intern Architect" (Massachusetts) for people enrolled who are actively enrolled in IDP. But most states did not choose to adopt the AIA's recommendations.
The AIA is a professional club. It has absolutely no authority to make regulations regarding licensing, etc. It has no regulatory powers of any sort outside of its club membership. It has no part in determining state or NCARB policies, except in an advisory role - and in some states there aren't even any AIA liaisons to the architecture boards.
In most states the architecture boards are part of larger departments of professional regulation, or state Attorney Generals' offices, or in some cases even part of the education department (as in NY), most of which long predate the AIA. Your use of "ARB" for example is not an acronym most would recognize as each state is different in its organization. (My state doesn't have an "ARB", it has "BOLAID".)
Rules regarding titles for architects and firms tend to mirror rules for other professions (everything from nurses to liquor stores to auto glass repairers) in each individual state. Something you need to understand about those boards is that in most cases the boards themselves meet only a few times per year, and while those board members are usually all architects, the people who actually draft the rules that are adopted by the boards and do the day to day operation are generally not board members but state workers with no architectural background.
The state boards are in no way dependent on the AIA for their creation or existence.
Professional titles are entirely up to state boards.
You're trying (understandably) to make a direct timeline and line of supervision/oversight out of a collection of entities that are not actually connected all that directly.
NAAB regulates only accredited architecture professional degree programs. They're mainly concerned with minimum requirements for facilities and curriculum. NAAB's members are schools of architecture. They don't have individual members. NAAB makes no regulations of any sort except as apply to schools of architecture.
NCARB is a record-keeping, and credential-verifying entity. They also develop and implement the ARE. State boards contract NCARB's services. NCARB's policies are recommendations. In and of themselves they have no power. It's up to state boards to choose to adopt them or not, which is why there is so much variation from state to state.
There's no such thing as an "NCARB member firm" or "NCARB registered firm", and there is no membership except for the representatives of each state board.
The AIA is a professional club, whose powers don't extend beyond seeing that dues-paying members abide by their code of conduct. You pay your $275 to $900 a year depending on your location, and this binds you to follow the AIA's rules. The AIA has a little internal mini-court that takes action against members caught breaking its rules - but the judgements are nothing but letters of warning, or at worst public "sanctions" (i.e. you land on the list of AIA bad guys that gets sent to all members). Even those decisions tend to take several years (so if you're an intern and you report your AIA-member boss to the AIA for not supporting you with your IDP needs, the AIA will get around to ruling on that matter in about 3 years, and when they do your boss will simply get a warning letter.) That's all the regulatory power it holds.
It might sound like I'm badgering your comments, I'm not. I respect your thoughts and information with the sincerity you took in writing.
That being said, I take it sadly enough, that the AIA will take my mony as an associate to the tune of $315 and that get's me.....a ticket to watch from the cheap seats.
"(so if you're an intern and you report your AIA-member boss to the AIA for not supporting you with your IDP needs, the AIA will get around to ruling on that matter in about 3 years, and when they do your boss will simply get a warning letter.) That's all the regulatory power it holds."
A STINKING LETTER. Boy now THATS what I'm talking about! Treat people like cannonfodder, like a pencil that the eraser gets worn away and then tossed. No accountability. Doesn't that make you want to puke?! Do you as a thoughtful and caring member of a profession want to just spit?! A letter, wow..."This letter is being sent to you because you were found in violation of the un-ethical execution of the CODE of ethics, shame shame shame on you!" ps, larry, please send us your dues for next year, thank you for your loyalty and patronage to your chosen profession.....yada, yada, yada.
"(i.e. you land on the list of AIA bad guys that gets sent to all members)"
So is this "list" published to the general public? I mean hey, if the general public is the group for which the health, safety and welfare is being protected, aren't they entitled to know which architects are getting "Letters"? Or would that unduly cause pain and suffering to that schmuck of a boss or architect who breaks the "CODE" ( I keep thinking about the Pirate's Code - mere hogwash for all intent and purpose that is little more that lip service ). POST THIS LIST OF EVIL DOERS! When they are held out in the light of day for all to see there wickedness, they'll shrival, whither and die, good riddence! Let ethical, moral and helpful architects fill the void.
And what if the list is sent to "all" members, they all sit around and discuss what to do with person? BANISHMENT cries one, FLOGGING cries another, PASS ME ANOTHER GIN AND TONIC cries another and another day comes and goes.
|
Phlustered
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 88 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 06:54 pm |
|
1. All of this is why I'm not an AIA member.
2. The AIA doesn't regulate the protection of health, safety and welfare, so publishing the "bad guy list" to the general public isn't really going to help with that.
For any history of actions that jeopardize HSW the general public should always verify their architect's license with the state.
When AIA members are sanctioned their names show up in AIA newsletters, but that's about it. If they're just warned then there's no public record of that.
But the AIA's decisions tend to be on issues having to do with things like firms not properly crediting other firms for their designs, shady marketing practices (like using the resumes of people who haven't been hired yet to bolster the firm's credentials in proposals and then hiring them only if the firm gets the project), not allowing departing employees to take representative work samples, etc. In other words mainly procedural issues and "crimes" of one firm against another or of firms against their employees - not generally matters in which the general public would be directly endangered...
|
One Fella
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 279 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Dec 7th, 2008 04:44 pm |
|
I worked alongside 6 different AIA principals over the ten year period I spent completing the IDP.
2 of the 6 actually made a well intentioned effort, not a monumental effort but it was there, to help me progress toward completion of the IDP according to the AIA code of ethics.
The other 4 of 6 were completely the opposite. They hedged, hawed, and generally stonewalled my efforts and were anything but in compliance with the verbage as stated by the AIA code of ethics.
Based on my miserable experience, I don't have much confidence/ trust in the AIA meaning anything special. To me, the AIA is really just another disappointing layer of bureacracy that is unaccountable and far away.
Besides, the profession hasn't exactly "flourished" under the guidesmanship of the AIA. The contemporary profession is plagued by miserable professional experiences all around and has a very low socioeconomic standing (especially considering the risk, time, and effort put in).
I was made aware of the attachment by the forum. I'd say this is on par with my experience for 10 years.
Attachment: CNN arch low pay article.pdf (Downloaded 24 times)
|
King
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | NYC, New York USA |
| Posts: | 711 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | AIA |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Dec 19th, 2008 04:46 am |
|
original article has a salary chart (see below link). Please note these are 2005#.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/15/pf/training_pay/index.htm
Last edited on Fri Dec 19th, 2008 04:49 am by King
|
the prisoner
Member
| Joined: | Sun May 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 213 |
| Exams Taken: | BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Dec 19th, 2008 03:38 pm |
|
thanks for posting the article. i haven't actually seen it before.
all i can do is laugh b/c my wife is a "research scientist" (we're sort of a sisyphean power couple according to the list). many people outside our immediate circle assume that, considering our educational backgrounds, we're rich and have comfortable and professionally exciting lives.
little do they know... w/ her science salary and my student loans, we almost weren't able to get a loan to buy a used car recently (luckily we worked it out).
|
txIDPguy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | Houston, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | State IDP Coordinator, LEED AP |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Dec 19th, 2008 03:40 pm |
|
pgharchintern wrote: "Ok, hmm, 4,5 or 7 IA's can't hire an RA to help them not only get thru IDP"
Just to throw this in, an Intern in my office discovered this little detail last summer. Not only does your supervisor have to be licensed and all, but they have to have been licensed prior to you working in that firm, or at least prior to that reporting period. The Intern I mentioned had one of her Team Leaders sign off as her supervisor after working at the firm for about a year or so. Problem was that this Team Leader got her license a month or two after the Intern had begun working here so in NCARB's eyes, she couldnt have been a qualified supervisor for the entire duration of that reporting period and rejected the report and made her resubmit it. So in the scenario you present, the 7 Interns could hire an RA to help them through IDP, but that RA could not sign off on any of their time from before his employment with the firm. Not sure how the state rules you are discussing address this but that's how NCARB will look at it.
|
BetterMousetrap
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 121 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Dec 19th, 2008 06:29 pm |
|
That's true. For NCARB's purposes the supervisor must have been licensed for the whole duration of the experience that you're reporting.
Also some states have additional requirements about that. In my state the supervisor must have been licensed for at least 3 years before they can serve as a supervisor.
|
ides
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Florida USA |
| Posts: | 81 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | A-R-C-H-I-T-E-C-T |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Dec 19th, 2008 08:10 pm |
|
the prisoner wrote: we're sort of a sisyphean power couple according to the list
I laughed - that's a great phrase.
Would also be a great name for a band: The Sisyphean Power Couples.
|
Current time is 11:39 pm | Page:   1 2 3 |
|
|
|
|
