Don -You thought architect licensing was bad

[Animal05]

[Pierre Levesque]

Leave it to George Will to be an expert spokesman on the subject...

[3D Peruna]

Why not address the substance of what he said, instead of disparaging him?

[Pierre Levesque]

>

Sure. The article is on a subject that is continously debated.

A) Some find it a valid arguement that licensing is required to protect the public from abuse and un-professional conduct and behaviour among other issues related to the industry itself .

B) Others disagree and feel that the reason for licensing and certification exists to "protect" those who work in the industry.

This article opines that the reason is much more B) than A)

That reasoning is a purely political point of view given that it is published on a web site called relclearpolitics.com by a mostly political commentator named George Will.

My opinion is that those more qualified to have the debate and dialogue should be from the industry in question.

There... you happy?

[3D Peruna]

Fair enough...but the reasoning comes from a philosophy that less government is better...and by extension, less licensing, regulation, etc. is better. So, yes, it's a political discussion.

And, in this case, I think he has a point. And he used an example that's easy to see the potential absurdity of licensing law.

But before you have the debate and dialog about that particular industry, you need to have the debate and dialog that the concept of licensing/registration is required. This is the position he's taking...that less is better. He was using the specific example to make a general point.

You can't make me happy (only I can do that)...

[Bob Morrison]

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?

[3D Peruna]

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?

[Señor Popcorn]

Maybe it can be looked up online ,or its licensing-body, itself, asked. Maybe, it's like any other well-intentioned system that irresponsibility then has a go at, or, contrarily, a system built with ill intent that resposibility then has a stab at.

[Animal05]

You have to admit the part about licensing / furniture moving has gone far beyond absurd.

[RicodJour]

I know a hooker who works the old Navy yards that would make you change your tune.

That's just because another door had been _slammed_ in your face!

I dreamed of moving furniture as a kid. That's all I wanted to do. I wanted to move bureaus, and credenzas, secretaries, capstan tables, Morris chairs, chaise lounges, loveseats - I wanted to move them _all_!

Now what's left? I have nothing to look forward to. I think I'm going to go pull an overloaded bookcase over on top of me. Let's see what those _unlicensed_ rescue people do without the ability to legally move the bookcase! I'll teach those bastards...

R

[Animal05]

yeah......right.

So you like the nanny guvmint?

[RicodJour]

Not particularly. I also don't like people expecting me to agree with _any_ of their political, sexual or religious views. I'm funny that way. I also have favorite foods, comic books, and pairs of shoes - I don't expect them to be _your_ favorites.

Maybe I should have put a smiley face in there somewhere...

R

[Michael Bulatovich]

Anyone old enough to remember the Tulip Crash of 1637?

(

)

Humans do stupid things, individually and in groups.

We've currently got an "Interior Designer's Act" in committee, and the original draft of it included such a broad definition of "interior design" that no one could 'advise' anyone for a fee on the purchasing of furniture or on the selection of paint color. Someone eventually shouted WTF, and they pulled it back a bit.

[Michael Bulatovich]

Sorry, I should have said "for a fee or not".

[gruhn]

Saw a guy on the web recently bitching about the need for licensing graphic designers. Seems he's concerned about the quality of logos available for less than he wants to charge.

[gruhn]

But one of the points of that debate is that members of the industry have an interest in a given outcome. Two four year olds debating whether they should have more cookies.

[Kris Krieger]

"Pierre Levesque" wrote in news:sRUMh.11$l96.8@trndny06:

I think that the *principle* is open to debate by anyone. The way your worded A and B INMO expressed the general issue without being industry specific, and as such, it's IMO completely valid for anyone to join the discussion.

To me, both A and B are valid, especially when it comes to areas which involve health. The main isues would be: Who will establish and oversee the requirements and process of licensing; and, How much power will the licensing board have? The latter should not include the power to keep someone from hiring an unlicensed person, but it should include the authority to restrict people from advertising as being licensed when they are not.

Licensing *should* be an indication of a certain level of expertise and/or specialization, so that a consumer can hire someone with the sort of expertise he or she needs. Licensing should *not* be used as a way of forcing consumers to pay for a specialist when they don't need that level of service/expertise.

Now, what Will calls a "censoring of truthful commercial speech" is not always merely that - if I, as a consumer, *need* the expertise of a Medical Specialist as opposed to a General Pratitioner, or a Master Gardener as opposed to a kid to just mow the lawn, or and INterior Deisgner as opposed to someone to help me pick out drapes, then I also should be able to discern between those professionals who have a high level of training and expertise, and those whose expertise/training might not be up to the level I need or want. Similarly, if I *don't* need to hire an (expensive) professional with a lot fo training and expertise, I should be able to easily find the people whose skills (and fees) are more in keeping with what I want to have done.

THe main thing is to have a way of being sure that the licensing does not turn into a way of forcing people to be over-educated for the work they want to do (or are capable of doing), and also, tht it doesn't turn into a way of wasting the time of people who *are* specialists by forcing consumers to *only* hire highly-trained specialists.

To use a medical analogy, if you need to have a couple stitches put in to close a minor cut on your finger, an RN or a Nurse Practitioner is a sensible choice. If you need your appendix out, a surgeon is a good choice. If you have a brain anomoly or tumor, you go to a neurologist or neurosurgeon. But you do NOT go to a neurosurgeon to have 2 stitches put into that minor cut on the finger - it's a waste of the neurosurgeon's time/training, and a waste of your money.

Licensing, in principle, is just a way to differentiate various levels of knowledge, training, and expertise. Sort of like the difference between architectual technicians, draftsmen, architectural designers who do house-sized structures, and architects licensed (specialized/trained) to build large skyscrapers. It doesn;t mean a person should not be proud of being good at what he or she does - it's simply that there *are* spcializations, and ther e*are* different levels of training and expertise. So to claim that all licensing is nothing more than "censoring of truthful commercial speech" is IMO irresponsible, and specious.

[Kris Krieger]

3D Peruna wrote in news:7pYMh.280$ [e-mail]:

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 ;)