Most states will give a license through reciprocity to someone who has met the NCARB certification requirements. NCARB is the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards. They provide a national standard for internship, the Intern Development Program (IDP), and a national standard for licensure examinations, the Architect Registration Exams (ARE's). NCARB certification is a national standard that certifies an architect's education (accredited program), experience (IDP), knowledge (ARE's), and that the architect is licensed.
In California, the process for earning your license as an architect, even if you are NCARB certified, includes an oral exam called the California Supplemental Exam (CSE). As is true of any state, California has their own rules relating to licensure, as well as their own bureaucratic processes that affect building projects. However, in California, the state does not trust a licensed architect from another state will learn the bureacratic processes on their. It must be tested. I can understand requiring an architect to prove their understanding of the specific requirements of licensure, but learning the bureacratic processes should be self-evident. Either you learn them and get all the necessary approvals to get a project built, or you don't get the project built.
I see California's Supplemental Exam as a gatekeeping device that limits the number of licensed architects in the state, thereby minimizing the competition and making architectural services more exclusive and therefore more valuable. I don't think this is necessarily a bad premise, but there are other consequences. How does this affect minorities? Does a small population of architects end up ceding some of the design work to non-architects? Do we eventually render ourselves useless by making our profession so rare?
Also, why must the Supplemental Exam be an oral exam? The ARE's are all digital now. You can schedule them for any time at testing centers across the country. Even IDP can be tracked entirely online. But the CSE's happen 6 times a year, 3 times in Northern California and 3 times in Southern California. I sent in my application in March 2009 and my exam is scheduled for July 2010. I have to wait 16 months! I don't think this is just a generational thing where I'm used to having everything I want right away because I grew up with computers. 16 months is ridiculous. I could be taking a horse and carriage, and that would still be a long time to wait.
Anyway, that's my vent about the licensing process in California. Hopefully, it'll all be over in July and I can look back and be proud of everything I had to go through to get that piece of paper.
1 comment:
Carl,
I would like to expound on your blog and ask "Why isn't there a National license for Architecture. Some time back I posed that question to the NCARB. Their response was that each state under the federal constitution has state's rights issues, and that legally that it is just too hard to restructure each state to rewrite the legislation to make that happen.
My opinion is that if 300,000 architects pushed for that to happen it could be made to happen.
Architecture is no longer a localized profession. With the advent of both transportation and electronic communications, today you find that an architect might be in one state, the project in another, the owner in a third and the engineers scattered across the country. And these projects work just as smoothly as if your engineers were in the building next door.
My belief is that the architects, engineers and land surveyors need to pull together and push for a national license.
Best regards to you.
William R. Ritter AIA, NCARB, LEED (bd+c)
Post a Comment