I think that the required combination of education/degree AND work experience AND a test is an example of Architects holding ourselves and our profession to a higher standard than "bare minimum." They've updated the ARE to "version 4.0" since I took it, but I don't think it was a particularly good test (on several levels). I'm pretty confident that with 6 to 12 months any reasonably bright person could be trained to pass it - but they clearly wouldn't be qualified to function as a professional architect. Similarly, there are things that are best taught in school, and things best learned in a work environment, so a degree (in the American system) by itself without real-world work experience is a poor qualifier for professional architects. (European professional degrees tend to have a lot of additional requirements beyond what is involved with US programs, such as the hands-on construction work requirements in Germany.) Similarly, nothing but work experience is going to have gaping holes compared with the breadth and depth of a good professional degree program, so that really can't stand on its own.
It's the combination of these factors that together do a reasonable job of assuring the protection of "the life, welfare and safety of the general public" by ensuring that licensed architects have met several different standards. Is that a somewhat high and somewhat difficult standard to meet? Yes, and it should be. Home and business owners entrust us with responsibility for huge amounts of their money and the lives and health of the occupants of the buildings.
Do these combined requirements form a type of "restraint of trade"? Yes, and it's a good trade-off for the overall economy. Even lower standards for licensing would exacerbate the "race to the bottom", weakening the profession of architecture, which would in turn erode the trust the public should have for us as professionals and the quality of the built environment. Every profession has some kooks, scammers and incompetents who make it through the licensing process, but lowering the bar and allowing more through does us and the public a disservice.
In contrast, look at other "professions" with low bars to entry. Consider low-end IT "professionals" with standards like the MSCE (a well meaning bunch of people, but without a real computer science education, like typewriter repair techs, they're going to have a hard time adapting when the Microsoft ecosystem inevitably dies off.), or the wild west of real estate agents with their negligible licensing requirements. (I am consistently amazed by agents saying things that are either obvious lies or reflect a total lack of understanding or knowledge of building codes, construction or zoning codes. Should I bring up their "profession's" role in the gutting of America's cities after WWII or their active participation in the scam housing market of the last few years?) I'd gladly take out huge loans to go back to school and get a Masters to become a structural engineer (or even a JD and become a lawyer!) if the profession of architecture let itself erode to those levels.
Let's hold ourselves and our profession to even higher standards, not lower ones.
-------------------------------------------
Thomas H. Donalek AIA
Chicago IL
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-12-2011 15:04
From: Bruce Monighan
Subject: What is a Masters in Architecture worth in the State of CA when you can become a license Architect without it?
Here is a slightly different question to ask. Why is their an artificial barrier (a degree of any kind) if passing the test is the determinate factor. Everybody in the country takes exactly the same test. If you can pass the test you have demonstrated the minimum level of competancy required in the protection of the life, welfare and safety of the general public, the reason and justification for each States Practice Act.
All other threasholds, i.e. degrees, are artificial barriers to practice. In Europe graduates are defined as licensed professionals. Here it is just another step to taking the test. So either go with a test with no prequalifers or go with a degree. Having both smacks of class arrogance (you cannot possibly be qualified without a masters!)
and restraint of trade.
-------------------------------------------
Bruce Monighan AIA
monighanandesign
Sacramento CA
-------------------------------------------