Search Results for 'sections'

[BZ Girl]

The thought of going out on my own is absolutely tantalizing at this point. Truth be told, i’ve been dreaming about it for well over a year now. I took a small business management course at a local college to learn about writing a business plan, how much start up capital i would need (not a terribly whole lot, compared to other types of businesses), how to do balance sheets, etc. I do not get health insurance through my job; i get it through my husband’s, so no loss there. We have a ton of savings right now, since we’ve been feverishly stockpiling cash in case one of us got laid off. I’m in the process of getting licensed….3 sections of the LARE down, 2 to go. My absolute fantasy is that THE DAY i find out i’ve passed the last section and am licensed I quit this hellhole and run joyfully into the self-employed world. I know it’s tough, i know it takes 5 years to make a profit, i know nothing’s guaranteed…but i just can’t imagine anything more rewarding. You’ll never work harder for anyone else than you do working for yourself. And i’m not afraid of hard work; i know i would do whatever it takes to be successful.

 

Bill, i’m curious about the expense for E&O insurance. That’s one thing i haven’t looked up yet. How much does that run you? I’m sure it’s not cheap.

[Matthew Stubbs]

My biggest arguement against the lare is not the test itself but the way clarb administers it. First off the time given to take the graphic sections is too little, it gives u only enough time to figure out one solution and if u get to far down the road with that idea and it doesn’t work u are hosed. That is because u don’t have time to rework it and if u do u won’t have time to finish the other problems. A new rule they put in on the one administered in December is that u can no longer wear a watch while taking the exam. How ridiculous is that? Apparently they think we are James bond and we have spy cameras in our watches. Now that is a great example of clarb worrying more about the security of their exam and not the ones taking the exam. Clarb needs to take a long look at their exam procedures and come up with something better.

[Mark Miller]

well, I was getting ready to post something, but it appears the Chat has covered all of my points…

 

But as far as a Website Critique goes:

    I’d like to see all the sections flow together better. It it’s possible, you shuld set it up so you can click through all the sections without having to return to the home screen. Otherwise it looks pretty good.

 

 

[Thomas J. Johnson]

I see people as being more interested in reclaiming valuable sections of T5, rather than new construction. Most of our major cities have under utilized neighborhoods immediately adjacent to T6. If I understand the Transects model, that is exactly what we should be doing. We should be concentrating on refining what’s already there instead of trying to instantly create a new T6 in close proximity to a well established T6. Chicago is a perfect example; the near west side and near south side have so much potential. It’s cheap, has character and is all less than 5 miles from the loop. Instead of trying to create some new model of urban urban design in a cornfield 45 minutes outside of the city, why don’t we concentrate our efforts where you can get the most bang for your buck…? There’s no need to recreate the wheel, we only need to true it up a bit, tension the spokes and re-grease the bearings,  if you will…

[Noah Mabry]

Amy,

 

Thanks for the link. HuffPo’s non news sections are so often polluted with celebrity gossip and psuedoscience new agey fake health news crap that it makes me happy when something awesome like this gets in.

 

I totally agree with the premis here that LA needs some sort of strong publically visible crit in order to really establish itself as a leading design field in the public psyche.

 

I also noticed the first comment was by Beth Meyer who is extremely articulate and knowledgable on this subject.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Anonymous]

Anyone know of a study group or prep class in Silicon Valley for the March 2011 sections A, B, and D exams?

[Nicole Stern]

I’m beginning to study for sections A, B, and D for March and looking for others to study with.  Anyone in the Baltimore/MD region interested?

[Christine Piwonka-Bernstein]

It doesn’t really seem like NY has a provision for an experience waiver, either.   O_o   I wouldn’t mind taking the sections C & E, if they would let me, and then just sit on my hands and wait for the actual license – I think it would make my resume a little stronger when I am applying for jobs, because the potential future employer would see that they wouldn’t need to subsidize my exam, either as an outright expense or as a time sink (that is assuming I would pass… even if I didn’t pass, I think it would be a great experience to have had a shot at it while I am unemployed, sort of to keep my mind sharp and to know what I was getting into for a second time around).

 

One of the biggest frustrations is that when I showed my work to the LA who I had worked for briefly, he said (and I paraphrase) “Wow! This is great experience – you’d never have gotten to work on these kinds of things if you’d stayed with me. Landscape architects really need to know how to do this stuff…”

 

Oh well.

[Theodore Tegen]

Chris,

 

I am going through the same woes in MN.  Although I have already passed all sections of the LARE, MN won’t grant me licensure for the same reasons you state, not enough time under a licensed LA.  I’ve been working in the same capacity as you in an Arch/Eng firm.

 

I’m jealous of NYS though, because MN does not have any provision for an experience waiver.  They won’t even give me a chance to make my argument, unless it is in front of a judge, with a MN attorney arguing against my case.  Awesome.

[Christine Piwonka-Bernstein]

Hi,

I’d like to know if anyone out there from New York has ever been granted approval to take the LARE without the required minimum work under an LA…

 

Here is my story:  I graduated with an MLA in 1998, and worked part time (anywhere from 15 hours to 50 hours a week) for about a year and a half for a registered landscape architect. There wasn’t really enough work in that office for me to work full time, so I finally found a full-time job working in an engineering office, and I worked there for 9 years until I was laid of in February 2009. Most of the work I did there was typical of work I would have been doing in a landscape architecture firm: site plans, subdivision layout, planting plans, visual impacts analysis, stormwater biofiltration systems, habitat and wetland delineation and restoration, park and trail design, streetscape design, EIS’s etc. I took and passed sections A, B & D the first time I took the exam, and hoped I to take sections C & E.

 

According to NYS regulations, you need 2 years working under direct supervision of a Lansdscape architect to sit for sections C & E, but the Landscape Architecture Board may opt to waive this requirement, upon review of material. Here is the language found on their website:

“You must complete at least two years of your professional experience requirement directly under the supervision of a lawfully practicing landscape architect. You may make a written request for waiver of this requirement to the State Board for Landscape Architecture. You will be required to present, in person and to the satisfaction of the Board, evidence that your work experience is equivalent to that which would be obtained under the direct supervision of a lawfully practicing landscape architect.”

 

I submitted a lot of stuff – they were vague as to what to turn in or what format was preferred, so I gave them hard copies of material, including drawings illustrating my work on projects from conceptual through construction document phases for many projects. I included a narrative about my contribution to each project, and a cover letter explaining my career trajectory to date (this was last year), the approximate percentage of time working on LA-type work, and discussing other projects I worked on. I had my supervisor write a letter explaining my work and how it differed from the work that engineers in the firm performed. I asked if I could appear in person to present my work, but they said that was not necessary.

 

Needless to say, they denied my request for a waiver. When I asked if there was anything else they would need to see (because I really have done a whole lot of different things and couldn’t very well have submitted everything…), the only reply was that I needed to work for at least one more year under a landscape architect. Which would suit me just fine if there were any LA’s doing any hiring 🙂 They said there was no way to appeal the decision, I would just have to wait until I found a job with an LA.

 

Now, more than a year later, I’m no closer to finding a job with an LA, and I’m just wondering if anyone in NYS has ever successfully accomplished this seemingly impossible feat.

 

Thanks!

Chris

 

PS – I know there are already several discussions similar to this, but I am curious specifically about experiences in NYS.

[Ray Freeman]

I do remember you Chad. I was rather taken aback by your statement that my review material did not match up with the questions on the test. Of course the questions won’t be exactly the same. Was that your expectation?

 

I went back and reviewed my records. There were 15 people in your ABD class in 2005. Everyone from your class who took the exam in September 2005, including you, passed section A. You were the only person in the class to fail section B. You and one other person failed section D.

 

I’ll let the readers of this discussion draw their own conclusions from that data.

 

<<You probably don’t remember me, or maybe you do. Anyway, I took a 3 day review course of yours about 4 or 5 years ago, for the multiple choice sections of the LARE. Turned out I was blind sided by what I saw on the exam; what I studied from your review material didn’t come close to matching. That happened again after I took another course held by a registered Landscape Architect in Los Angeles. >>

[Tanya Olson]

I still think he could potentially have a valid ‘restriction of trade’ complaint made unlawful by the Sherman Anti Trust Act, particularly if there is some way he can show that the intent of the 5 year internship is to reduce the number of licenses in the state which is illegal. The law was not made by the board. All laws, while perhaps written by the board, are enacted by the state legislature and are required to meet constitutional and federal challenges.

A 5-year internship may be found unreasonable particularly compared to other professions that are tasked with public welfare – a medical residency is only 3 or 4 years depending on the program, with only a 7 year residency for neurosurgery. Could a 4-year resident in emergency medicine get hired as a GP – yes. Same thing here. Theodore can easily illustrate that the LARE is heavily based on engineering and architectural health safety and welfare standards because the things we do that affect health safety and welfare are crossovers between the professions. There is almost nothing on the exams particular to landscape architecture.

 

MN has a long record of making restrictive laws only to repeal them – but NEVER without public pressure. If landscape architects in MN want to reduce the internship time to bring it more in line with the rest of the country, then they have to go talk to their legislators and get them to sponsor an amendment to the practice act. If you read the whole act you will see that there are pages and pages of repealed sections. I’m certainly not suggesting that he sue. What I was saying earlier is that a letter from a lawyer versed in anti trust law would probably indicate to the board that they can expect some heat from within the profession if they don’t take a more careful look at the restrictions they’ve placed on the right to practice which is protected by law.

 

I guess in the end, I disagree with you that the law is the law. The law is almost entirely political and has been written to accomodate whomever lawmakers favored at the time. I’ve been heavily involved for many years at the state level working on licensure laws for other professions also tasked with protecting the public. What the law is depends on the attitude of the governor, the makeup of the commerce committee, department of health, the general acceptance of nationally standardized testing, etc. AND the pressure they recieve from lobbying groups, individual constituants, etc.

I just don’t see this as black and white like you do or that the rules are infallible. Too much evidence to the contrary.

[Theodore Tegen]

I will apologize in advance for the rant.

 

So Minnesota just decided that they will making the rules for licensure in landscape architecture even stricter than they are right now, and from what I have read of licensure laws, Minnesota was already one of the most strict in the country.

 

My story: I passed all sections of the LARE back in 2009, and submitted my application for licensure in early 2010 when I found out the December graphic administration scores.  At the time I had 5 years experience in LA working at an architecture/civil firm as the only LA practitioner, this was all legal of course because my supervisors (and signers of drawings) are licensed PEs and architects.  I also graduated from a non-LAAB LA program (wish I had researched this when I started) in 2004. 

 

Of course my application was denied because my experience was supervised by PEs and architects and not a landscape architect.  So my firm is now jumping through the hoops and I am currently working with a supervisor who is a licensed landscape architect.  So the new rules NOW state, that only ONE year of experience will be counted if completed under PEs/architects.  I fear I will never gain licensure.

 

This profession and it’s high-horsedness is getting pretty **cking out of hand if you ask me.  LARE and licensure boards are set up to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public correct?  Not to license what it deems “good/talented” professionals.  If the latter were the case there would be far fewer PEs/archs/LAs out there.  So how in the world is a PE/architect less suited to supervise someone training to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public than a licensed LA???  Sorry but PEs/archs deal a lot more with safety issues than LAs do, by far.  So how is experience under them less qualified??

 

As for experience, believe me, I have a more diverse and more involved set of experience as a project manager, site planner, urban design practitioner than does an emerging LA who is sitting at a CAD station for 4 years.  Yet the state licensure board somehow feels that this other person is qualified to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public and I am not??  This is absolute bonkers logic if you ask me, and really not logic at all.

 

I of course am biased as I am on the losing end of this deal, so help me see some perspective on this, whether you agree with me or disagree.

[mros]

Thanks for your replies. I think I’ll go for two of the multiple choice sections for now. Good luck on section C Michelle!

[Theodore Tegen]

Where is the “Like” button on this website? Great response Andrew.

However I will join in with most people and say that the fees for some of these things are pretty outrageous. I understand that the graders/reviewers need to be compensated for their time/travel, but can’t the organizations that rely on CLARB/LARE for testing/grading subsidize some of the cost?

I may be wrong, I only needed to take the tests once (thankfully), but I want to say my company spent north of $1000! This is way more than either the AIA tests (which has more sections) or the PE test, by FAR. Throw in review materials, opportunity cost of time off of work, travel, there is no way I could afford to do it ONCE on my own dime, let alone multiple times if need be. Add on redline reviews, verifications, holy $hit the cost spirals out of control quickly.

The test should be rigorous, but shouldn’t put you in the broke house.