|
Posted by Kris Krieger on April 4, 2007, 6:10 pm
> Bob Morrison wrote:
>
>> That may be true for the particular example the Mr. Will cites.
>>
>> Let me ask you this, "Do you want your multi-story regional trauma
>> center hospital designed by someone calling himself a structural
>> engineer?"
>>
>> It seems to me that where there is life-safety involved we want to
>> make darn sure that the people involved have a demonstrated ability
>> to perform the work.
>>
>> Does that mean a licensed person cannot perform bad work? Of course
>> not. But, I think we cut down on the chances of shoddy (or life
>> threatening) work being performed if we have that person be able to
>> pass a test showing a minimum level of knowledge.
>>
>> Would you want your appendix removed by an unlicensed surgeon?
>
> I'm a licensed professional...I have licenses in several states and
> have jumped through the hoops to get there. Having been through it, I
> have often wondered what was the point...in other words, it wasn't
> that difficult. The test was less challenging than I had expected (I
> did spend time preparing). I've also met less competent members of
> the profession. So, in the first place, licensing does not mean
> competency in the profession.
>
> I also compare it to other countries. Finland, for instance, has no
> official architecture license. Your ability to call yourself an
> architect means you've been to school and graduated. That's it (at
> least it was the last time I looked, as I'd considered possibly taking
> on a project or two there). And it's the same there, having been
> through school doesn't grant competency.
>
> What's different there? What's different here? It appears that
> they've decided that education and experience are enough to use the
> term "architect." In the US, we've added a licensing requirement.
> Having been to Finland, I think that, in general, they have better
> buildings/architecture. How can this be? They don't have a licensing
> requirement?
>
> Finland is a good example to use, too... They're a western,
> first-world country. They have a higher literacy rate than the US.
> More things are similar than different between the countries.
>
> Their buildings aren't death traps... so, what's the purpose of a
> license?
>
>
>
You make good points, and I'd say that licensing *can* be very beneficial
in many cases, but it also can be detrimental when it becomes, as you
expressed it, just another hoop to jump through. OTOH, it *can* be seen
as a mark of your dedication, that you were willing to do all that hoop-
jumping ;) !
IMO, what';s improtant to to just just do away with any and all
licensing, but rather, take a balanced look at specific cases and
determine which licenses are superfluous.
IMO, licenses might be more important in cases where experience and
talent can be substituted for formal education. If one has received
one's degree in architecture, or structural engineering, and similar,
then one oughtto be able to simply call oneself an architect, or a
structural engineer, or so on. Now, if you've then gone on and gotten
additional specialized training, for example, as one post mentioned,
designing health care facilities, then you can use your degree to prove
that you're a Health-Care Facilities Design Specialist. But if you have
not had that training, and have not apprenticed (or whatever) with
someone who specialized in htat,then you should not be ableot advertise
yourself as being a specialist.
That's what I think, anyway ;)
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap