California is considering updating their reciprocity qualifications. there are a number of us who are licensed in another state that had softer qualifications (experience or unrelated degrees) to sit for the LARE. However, even though we have passed the LARE, we can not qualify to sit for the CSE. We are looking to develop a larger list of L.A.'s who would like to be licensed in CA to be included in a presentation at the end of Sept.
You can reply here, and email me directly at firstname.lastname@example.org
I hve talked to the California Board recently. If you pass the LARE you are qualified to apply for a CA license.
that's true if you have a degree....I have only 1 yr. of college
Can you get CLARB certified?
don't know...I'm already licensed in Wash, which allowed work experience to qualify...even though I'm licensed CA still requires a certain amount of college
Your experience may overcome that problem.
I have to ask what state issues licenses without the education element? CA is one with a weaker than most education requirement from what I have read. Most want at least a Bachelor's from LAAB accredited degree program. CA has one or two lesser degrees that they accept if I'm not mistaken.
I have seen some that accept many years of experience directly under a licensed LA full time - I want to say 10 years.
I look at it this way. Experience is what develops you - no doubt it can be 100% effective at making a person fit the profession (that is so diverse that it can't really be defined). The education can have a big impact on how you process that experience.
Because Landscape Architecture as a profession is so vague, it, if we are going to be honest with ourselves, is a made up profession. Because it is a made up profession, it is left for those within it to define how one qualifies to be considered within it. Because the profession is vague, the experience someone gets from being in it is also vague.
I have come to believe that the reason that the education element is viewed as important by some of these licensing boards is that they believe it allows the person to process their experience differently than they would from just doing it. Having received my degree at 35 years old and after being a landscape designer my entire adult life before that, I can honestly say that I processed my experience very differently after that education. Not to say that if you don't have the education that you are unqualified, but only to say that I understand why one state board or another would feel that it is essential to fit THEIR definition of the profession.
A person can have years of experience pigeon holed in a cubicle drafting or years experiencing much more than that (maybe from the same cubicle) with or without the education beforehand. I think the belief is that the one with the education is going to experience more than doing the act of the task. I'm not saying it is right or wrong to believe that. I'm just trying to why I believe that they think it is important to have the education as well.
The next question is whether the state has a real Practice Act or a Title Act disguised as a Practice Act as I think most of them are. Massachusetts, where I am, is a Title Act (If not officially, it certainly is practically). Being a Registered Landscape Architect here is more like claiming an award than putting you in a profession that no one else can practice. (yes, I am a Registered Landscape Architect licensed in MA).
Or, the cynical side of me says that the landscape architecture education system is a big part of the profession and the system is designed to fill those class rooms. Either way - it is a requirement.
This is just study material I stumbled into, that may help with the CSE: