December 12, 2010 at 9:32 pm #166425Tanya OlsonParticipant
What you are saying is in contradiction to CLARB standards, which are the basis for most state laws. Look at CLARB council record requirements – there are tons of options to choose from, INCLUDING non-accredited education, apprenticeships, working under an engineer, etc. So if you believe in “standards” why do you exclude so many options that CLARB recognizes? If someone was studying “the rules” and looked at CLARB’s standards they would rightly believe that they would qualify for licensure in Theodore’s shoes.December 12, 2010 at 9:52 pm #166424Jason T. RadiceParticipant
It is NOT what CLARB states that are the standards. It is the individual States that make their own regulations. Remember, title or practice acts are laws. There usually is a route for those who do not have an accredited degree, and it usually takes 10 years before you can get licensed, and very often there are intern rules with that, too. This was meant to grandfather those who’s state did not have an accredited program but had tons of experience under a licensed LA. That is pretty much unheard of now except for states where licensure is relatively new. The accreidted degree and intern status is the standardized method, and the experience only route should sunset after a decade or two.
I’m surprised he could have even sat for the exam, as in my state (MD) he could not have unless he had met the criteria to apply for licensure afterward. I’d like to see the rules evebn stricter. Accredited degree and at least 5 years experience afterward, this would help lower the failure rates with people not ready to take the test taking it and failing two or three times.December 12, 2010 at 10:33 pm #166423Tanya OlsonParticipant
Right, but most practice acts rely on CLARB records and a CLARB administered exam. CLARB standards are not the law, but they are the (ideally) research-based basis for the law.December 13, 2010 at 4:05 am #166422Andrew Garulay, RLAParticipant
I don’t see the criteria of a non accredited school and five years in an engineering office meeting either Minnesota or CLARB standards. I attached the links, if you want to help me out on this. Not to beat a dead horse, but it does not even look close.
MinnesotaDecember 13, 2010 at 2:20 pm #166421allandParticipant
In NJ, all these rules have to be met before you even sit for the LARE?…?December 13, 2010 at 2:31 pm #166420Theodore TegenParticipant
MN uses CLARB to both qualify LARE candidates and administer the exam. CLARB saw it fit to allow me to sit for the exam.
As to my program being non-LAAB accredited, who is to speak to the quality of the program at the University of Minnesota? A part of me thinks their undergrad program being non-LAAB accredited is purely a money-making strategy, because their graduate program IS LAAB accredited, and is taught by the same professors. It is like they are intentionally omitting one or two requirements for LAAB accreditation so that they can run more people and tuition through the MLA. Anyway, beside the point.
One thing that really irks me, and this is a fact, is that I know of someone who interned under an LA in a design/build firm that did 99% residential design and qualified for licensure. This flies directly in the face of the “varied, non-repetitive” clause relating to the quality of the experience. So basically I can go work under an LA designing backyards for the Jones’ and in the eyes of the board, I am a more qualified LA? I think not. *Side note – I respect the work done at design/build firms, and very much enjoy the work myself – not knocking anyone*December 13, 2010 at 4:45 pm #166419Steve MercerParticipant
I agree with you legislators are always dreaming up stuff that may fix one issue and break 3 others. There are laws on the books that conflict with other laws. It is just crazy. Maybe if we forced our legislators to put a 15 year time limit on all laws it would force legislators to revisit some of the crap they threw up on the wall and actually evaluate its relevancy today. If we saddled them with this responsibility they wouldn’t have time and dream up some of the crap they routinely come up with… Example in the national health care reform act, there is a provision that requires all business that make a purchase over $600.00 to issue a 1099. Sub-contractor or no! Can you imagine the amount of paperwork headaches that is going to cause business? What about the additional workload on the IRS? Typical of Democratic legislators…They spend more time on trying to find new ways to hose business and less time on the ramification of their actions. And these are the folks that are leading our country. No wonder we are not emerging from this recession quickly!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.