I understand the views but I have to agree with Burt.
It is probably more time consuming and expensive to complete the process and gain entry to the profession than ever (not to mention the economy) and has it really made the profession overall any better?
IDP is time consuming, report intensive, and expensive. Other than making money for NCARB (another debate entirely) what has that really done to increase the qualification to practice? I really have to wonder whether Architects licensed after that became a requirement are better qualified to practice than those who were licensed before. The exam itself may be no more difficult, but it costs more today to take one part than it did to take the entire 9 parts 25 years ago. As an undergraduate student in 1979, I paid tuition for 17 credit hours - not for one quarter, but for an entire year - and got significant change back from $1,000.00. Today that doesn't buy one two credit elective.
Graduates are minted with debt that equals some mortgages. In addition they are required to pay hundreds in NCARB fees, complete the IDP, and then pay hundreds if not thousands more to take the exam - all the while struggling to secure employment in the worst economy for the profession since the great depression.
The process took time, effort and investment when we all went through it - that hasn't changed. However, when an emerging professional asks for guidance as to how he might find a creative way to fit into the profession - not in a manner so as to violate any laws - but in a manner so as to comply with them, I believe the profession owes a competent response. Indeed, the attitude I faced when I was a young intern from established professionals was very much "figure it out on your own - as I did". In my view that isn't a formula for a healthy profession.
If you really want to make the difference we all seek, start with the education process and build up the self worth of the graduates themselves. I have a question I ask my students in every class I teach (all second year master's students) which goes with about a half an hour long bit - in short form something like this;
When started as an undergrad I sat in the auditorium with the rest of the incoming freshmen and listened to the Dean tell us "look to your left and to your right - 2 of the 3 of you won't be here at graduation". That proved to be optimistic as my undergrad class was on the order of 80 whereas it started with something over 300. Only about 32 of us got the graduate degree necessary for licensure. An accurate statement from the Dean perhaps, but to what purpose?
From then on the professors had a negative view. "You won't do well in my class" "If you do well in this class it won't matter because most of you won't do well in this program" "You probably will never get the degree" "If you get the degree you probably won't find meaningful employment" "You probably will never get licensed - its too hard" "You wont' get good commissions" . . . . and the kicker "You will never make any money". Coming through that, graduates in my class accepted $5.00 jobs with no benefits thinking they had showed all of those who said they couldn't succeed, only to be told by the profession "Want to establish yourself? Figure it out like I did". Trouble is McDonalds paid that much in 1984. With 2 degrees, that is an insult, but the perception of our value had been set so low everyone accepted it.
I ask my students if that happened to them. After 12 years and well over 900 students, I have yet to hear even one tell me that is an inaccurate assessment of their experience.
Fast forward to law school. Same drill, but with a different spin. I sit in a large lecture hall with 62 other students. In comes the Dean. The speech starts with "You are better than your peers - you are smarter than your peers - you work harder and you achieve more - you are here because you earned the right to be here by outperforming your peers at every level throughout your life - now . . . . lets set about making you good attorneys". From then on every professor had a positive view. "When ( . . . not "if" . . . . ) you get into practice you will do this and this and this and this . . . . all from a positive point of view of the student and the profession. After 3 years of positive reinforcement the graduate emerges - thinks he or she is worth $100,000.00 per year to start, and won't listen to anyone who tries to tell them otherwise.
Are lawyers better or smarter than architects? Of course not. Are they intrinsically more valuable? Obviously not. But we have conditioned them to think they are, they demand to be treated as if they are, and as society we have responded. We don't allow those who aren't attorneys to practice law - but that has never been much of an issue because the public perception of that profession is such that the client generally knows better than to accept an unlicensed person as his or her advocate. The Michigan Bar Association hasn't prosecuted anyone for that offense in several years - not because they won't - but because it isn't a problem - there isn't anyone to prosecute. I therefore submit that the lack of unlicensed practice as a problem in most professions isn't due to anything other than a market force - the public will not accept an unlicensed professional in those contexts such that there is no real market aside from any enforcement laws.
What are we conditioning architects to believe of themselves and of the profession? If my students are any indication, the same thing we conditioned them to believe 25 years ago when a graduate with 2 degrees happily accepted $5.00 per hour and toiled for years in obscurity because that was what they were taught to expect.
I am not making light of the contrary view, nor am I suggesting that anyone could or should violate or skirt the licensing laws. To the contrary, I am suggesting that as a profession we need to elevate our own expectations, we need to look seriously at what we are teaching and how we are treating future architects, and we need to polish our own image. Respect isn't given - it is earned, or more often, it is simply taken. When we begin to do some of these things, we will take the respect that as a profession we believe we deserve, and do in fact deserve. Until we do, we will repeat what I believe are the mistakes of the past. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.
In this instance, this young man approached us and sought advice as to how to comply with the law. We owe him a comprehensive response. If we don't believe that the laws should allow what they currently allow, that is another question with a different answer.
Can we even imagine what the state of the profession might happen if we conditioned a generation of architects to think of themselves the way we routinely condition attorneys to think of themselves?
I agree with Burt also in that I admire the passion so many of my colleagues exhibit, but we do need to look inward at ourselves as a profession and direct that passion in a constructive way. Until we do that, we will indeed repeat history. Others may of course disagree, but in my opinion, until we work as a profession to elevate the perception of the profession, we will remain fragmented, disjointed, and stuck with the status quo.
-------------------------------------------
Frederick Butters FAIA
Attorney
Southfield MI
-------------------------------------------