] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

[dennismc(--nospam--at)mcn.org (Dennis McCroskey)]

>     Denis, I think we have experienced the same things.
>     
>     However, the question is: since the architects take the lead in 
>     design, and (especially) many consultants follow them for the benefit 
>     of their marketing (and continuing relationship), should their 
>     requirement for practice as professional architects be changed to 
>     reflect their abilities to see beyond trivia in structural 
>     engineering, especially in high risk seismic zones.
>     
>     By the way, I have been thinkning about getting my own architect 
>     degree. I have seen more and more postings by dual degreed 
>     professionals such as yourself. Can you tell me a little about it? Has 
>     it helped you in your career? Did it take you a long time to complete? 
>     Did you have to learn all things about architecture? Where you first 
>     an dengineer then an architect? And any other ideas you may want to 
>     share I would really appreciate it [I know these are lots of 
>     questions, may be personnal, but if successful engineers like you 
>     don't help guys like me, where would the engineering society be?:)].
>     
>     Thanks a lot. Ghassem Khosrownia.
>
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
>Subject: Re: Architects and design risks in seismic zones.
>Author:  seaoc(--nospam--at)power.net at Internet
>Date:    8/16/95 1:06 PM
>
>
>
Hello Ghassem,

>From what I have seen of the AIA, don't plan on the architects agreeing to
lessen their qualifications to do structural design any time soon.

I think in general, high risk areas should automatically require a
structural/civil engineer as well as an architect. 1 story buildings meeting
conventional construction requirements of UBC being exempt.  This perhaps
would get the SE into the picture sooner.  

The architects role involves many disciplines which he may only be throughly
versed in a few.  He will have general talking knowledge and some
understanding of the other disciplins.  That is why we have specialist like
mechanical, electrical, civil, landscape, etc.  The architects primary roles
are coordinator, planner, administrator, and designer of function,
aestetics, access and life safety.  It takes a different breed of person to
do these kind of tasks 
than it does for someone to produce pages of calucations.  Few people have
the temperment for both.

As for getting an architects license, only you can decide if that is right
for you.  I always planned to do so, and finally did.  Education and
engineering experience counts 1/2 credit towards requirements for taking
tests.  I worked with other firms that were both A&E and have consulted 26
years with other architects.  After a while it rubs off.

The tests seemed more a test of endurance than depth of knowledge.  Out of
the 9 tests required, 7 are written, mostly true or false or multiple
choice.  These include 2 on structural systems, the others relate to
history, general design pricipls, programming, construction methods,
HVAC/electrical and administration. You need to know a little bit about a
lot of different things to pass these tests.  The site design and buildiing
design involve graphic tests.  Site is divided into 2 parts, 1 written the
other graphic.  The building design is difficult because it is 12 hours
straight, in an uncomfortable chair, no breaks, no lunch, escorts to the
bathroom, it all seemed overly monitered.  Given a program of requirements,
you will need to layout a project site plan, floor plans, and elevations
indicating access, building sections and rough member sizes, materials, and
write preliminary specifications. The worst part was doing the work by hand.
I had been using AutoCad for over 10 years at the time. They wouldn't allow
programmable calculators for the exams, I don't have any that are not so I
used my Post Log/Log slide rule.  The proctors were very curius about it and
most of the people taking the test had never seen one before.  I did
remember how to use it and it did get me thru the test.

After passing all of those and obtaining 8 years of equivilent experience,
you can take the oral exam.  It was about an hour of 4 stone faced
architects and an observer drilling me with questions.  Mostly they are
looking to see how you would approach solving various problems throughout
the entire process of a job from initial programming thru after construction
services.

Professionally it has made a difference.  I do less jobs now. Instead, I do
more work on each project.  I have far less deadlines to deal with and I
always design buildings that I know have a reasonable structural system to
work with.  Often times the architecture and the structure are the same.
Instead of going to job meetings with architects, I now spend more time at
public meetings and dealing with the client first hand.  I also get better
control of the projects when they are under construction.

Recently I read in some AIA publications that they are planning to make
educations a mandatory requirement for becoming an archiect.  They will not
accept work experience.  If you are inerested in becoming an architect, you
should begin the application process as soon as possible.  I don't recall
when this might happen but I recall it being sometime within the next 2 to 5
years.

Question for you,

Where are you emailing from.../nps.usace.army.mil  ?

Hope this is helpful,

Dennis McCroskey
Structural Engineer/Architect