April 29, 2011 at 6:27 pm #163447
RLAs are sooooo sensitive. I love it. This is the stuff that keeps me hooked on Land8.April 29, 2011 at 6:39 pm #163446
I guess Karl Barrett going to be busy for a while deleting all of his responses. Duh!
I say stand behind your words and don’t be afraid to apologize.April 29, 2011 at 9:02 pm #163445
Maybe this will let you know where my heads at. If the father of American Landscape Architecture, Frederick Law Olmsted came back to life today and wanted to do a job in lets say… Miami. I think he should be required to be grandfather-ed in, pass the LARE or be given a supreme title that he and only he would ever hold by the State of Florida. I prefer the last option. He would have to take a 60 day special construction method and material course to get him up to speed (he died in 1903). He would also be responsible for his registration renewals, continuing education requirements and have to pay for CLARB to maintain his records.
Guess what my answer is.
Writing this post reinforces my position even more. It’s a real pain in the arse to be a landscape architect. Passing the exam is just the tip of the iceberg.April 29, 2011 at 9:21 pm #163444Heather SmithParticipant
I would say there was a time when people were able to get their foot into a profession without formal education…and I think in many ways this is a preferable route. Plus, a little easier on the pocket book. :/
We could look at Olmsted…was he licensed? But we consider him the father of landscape architecture. Up and coming lawyers also used to apprentice and simply worked in law offices and a similar downgrade in education can be seen with medical doctors in the past. I don’t think however, that we can compare the educational standards and licensing practices for a man that came into his profession during a time period when this was possible.
Legally, I assume he would have to have a licensed architect stamp his work…I would consider him grandfathered in because he joined the profession before we all took such regimented (and not always better) view of education. Earlier someone mentioned CO grandfathering in many landscape architects…but I am sure that it is no longer as easy to gain the creds.
I tend to think that it would be better in many ways for most professions to follow a path like this…I think experience is more important then multiple design studios…but that is just me.April 29, 2011 at 9:23 pm #163443Matt BoisseauParticipant
All employees of a federal agency hired under the 0807 job series have the job title landscape architect, licensed or not. The federal government doesn’t required a state license or registration for practice or to use the title. So, there is a long history of people working for the fed who have made successful careers as unlicensed / unregistered but legitimately titled landscape architects.April 29, 2011 at 9:33 pm #163442Brett T. LongParticipant
Let’s face it. We have a lot of talented young designers that think it is really cool to call themselves landscape architects. I know the feeling. I am guilty of that. I probably did play it up a few times here or there when I didn’t think it would hurt anybody. However, I know we need to promote and protect our professional license because our profession is under a lot of pressure to separate itself from Architects and Engineers. Let’s all get some solidarity and protect the work and discipline that we have all put in at whatever level. Let’s have some respect for the title and the practice. If we are just one section from passing the LARE… let’s just do what it takes to truthfully call ourselves Landscape Architect. The tests aren’t easy, but let’s help each other learn what we need to get through them. Then…RLAs let’s commit to fighting for our equal place with architects and engineers and apparently the Federal Gov. Let’s continue our educations and learn from the young and edgy hot shots. Finally, we need to complain, scream, kick, scratch, fight and pull hair every time we see misuse of the title Landscape Architect. Step one… Can we all call the yellow pages and let them know that Lawn Care Companies don’t go under the Landscape Architects heading? Word up!April 29, 2011 at 9:38 pm #163441Heather SmithParticipant
Hhmm…well I don’t think I sense a tone of superiority. Like I mentioned…we do design/build and my husband is licensed and enjoys what he does…we aren’t working on anything earth shattering here. I am not licensed and don’t feel like less of a person…I help with designing, we are a good team. Being licensed is simply another way to move his career forward. Building our own designs is not a step down…it simply provides us the opportunity to maintain our design and allows us to make a living in a small market. With the information we were taught regarding construction documents…he is very conscientious about how something is built. He just rebuilt a retaining wall…that was incorrectly built by a previous contractor. I don’t really get the offense you take that a landscape architect possess more knowledge…although I can say, that much of what you are tested on is not taught within LA programs. A lot of the information that is covered relates to regulations/codes, etc. that a landscaper could look up but wouldn’t know what necessarily to ask.
Not all landscape architects are good at what they do. Not all landscapers are good at what they do. I hardly see how a conversation on the legal definition of what a landscape architect is…is demeaning to those that don’t want to take the test or haven’t.
Anyone can call themselves a landscaper…looking around my small town I wish there were more landscape requirements…it can be pretty hideous.
Do you feel there should be a title act for landscapers? What would they have to do to pass muster? How about building contractors? All you need to do here is to purchase a contractor’s license…surely you see the difference?April 29, 2011 at 9:48 pm #163440
I agree 100% with that last part Heather. If you’re that rare individual that has mastered the profession through years and years of preparation and dedication, I think that there should be a special place for you. But on the other hand something deep down inside of me still says, if you’re that much of a bad a$$, the LARE should be a slam-dunk. Like a refresher course. But some lounge lizard, using the title while trying to put on a display for the females? Not even close. Stand at the back of the line.April 29, 2011 at 9:57 pm #163439
Word! This gets my vote for the best post of the thread. That’s what I call “keepin’ it real”.April 29, 2011 at 10:01 pm #163438ChupacabraParticipant
“Then…RLAs let’s commit to fighting for our equal place with architects and engineers and apparently the Federal Gov.”
I’m pretty sure the feds had a job classification titled “Landscape Architect” decades before licensure for landscape architects existed. Maybe they are grandfathered in?April 29, 2011 at 10:03 pm #163437
That’s something we need to stop.April 29, 2011 at 10:05 pm #163436
I’m in.April 29, 2011 at 10:20 pm #163435Matt BoisseauParticipant
I think it’s more that federal law supercedes state law. Licensure is a state requirement. The work being done at the federal level is with federal dollars on federal lands and the work is primarily done in house – there is no competition with the private sector for such work. However, I know of some old school federal LA’s who were also state licensed because they were grandfathered in when the law was passed in the state they resided.April 29, 2011 at 10:22 pm #163434
We still need to stop it!April 29, 2011 at 10:22 pm #163433ChupacabraParticipant
It’s interesting that Fredrick Law Olmsted is usually referred to as a landscape architect, even though he clearly wasn’t.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.