[Bryan Milne]

The main take away I get from this thread is that secondary education in landscape architecture (though required to enter the field) isn’t valued by the actual registered licensed landscape architects in practice. It seems that the cost (time and money) is so great and the bar set so high, that those who struggled and continue to struggle to get and maintain their license and registration as a “Landscape Architect” are extremely defensive and angry that anyone should ever even be so bold as to suggest that those who earned a degree in landscape architecture are worthy enough to be granted the right to refer to themselves as landscape architects! It might be the current “law” but I think this is just ludicrous! We all worked very hard for our degrees (which for many of us meant going into great debt) so we could be worthy of the professional title and becoming a practicing member of the profession of landscape architecture. So not only do you have to go through 4-5 years of university education, but you also have to go through another 4-5 years of employment “under” someone who already is a RLA (regardless of their skill level or talent), pass some very expensive and very difficult exams and then continue to shell out more money for continuing education and registration fees for the rest of your life in order to attain the right to use the taboo word “architect” in your title! All while the computer software industry uses the word “architect” for just about every positition and title in their field without even batting an eyelash! I think that if there is such a thing as a “Registered Licensed Landscape Architect” or RLA, then what is wrong with changing the laws such that degree earners reasonably be afforded the right to use the title “Landscape Architect” or LA?” If RLA’s beleive there is so much more training and experience required from work in the “real world” then there must be something seriously lacking and wrong with the secondary education accredited degree landscape architcture programs. Maybe these programs are flat out a waste of time? With good teachers and the right books this stuff (LARE) could be taught and learned in a matter of months and that’s all it should take, no? Multiple years of expertise, mastery and proficiency in the profession can be demonstrated through portfolios of built work, books, articles, research, faculty positions and business success. All of these can differentiate the natural talent and skill of seasoned Landscape Architects. Why can’t the base title (as well as more accessible means for attainment of licensure) be the entry point for degree earners to launch and begin their practice?

[Author]

Posts