[Joe Vickers]

I think the 30% pass rate is more a reflection of how weak many of the University programs are with teaching construction courses, most notably grading and drainage since we all know this is the section that seems to be most struggled with. It also reflects poorly on many firms out there that don’t even provide grading/drainage plans as part of their scope and depend on engineers to provide such plans.

Remember, the LARE is designed to test the minimum skills necessary, not whether or not one is the greatest grader on earth. I think the one element that has the most affect on he results is the time constraints in the testing environment. The exam is designed to not only see how well one can follow directions and problem solve, but to to see how well one makes decisions under pressure. If that has no relation to the real work world, then I want to come work where you do.

What does that say about the industry and/or qualifications to practice if the exam is somehow made “easier” for no other reason than to have more people pass it? I would even argue that the exam has been made easier in recent years with the lowering of the number of vignettes to complete in the same window of time.

Perhaps this is not what anyone is suggesting by saying it is “flawed”, maybe there other aspects of the test that do add to the lower pass rate.

[Joe Vickers]

I’m a bit late on this discussion but have worked on both sides of the tracks so to speak so I thought I would put my 2 cents in. We should be careful when saying Residential Designers because it is an actual title and requires a license to practice just like Landscape Architecture, Architecture, Interior Design, and Engineering. In this case, I assume we are talking about those that do residential design work that are not a contractor or licensed professional of any kind. First of all, I agree with Brandon but more so because obtaining a license is more about proving you have the minimum knowledge and skill to protect the public.

It is actually against the law in NV to even call ones self a landscape designer or anything that refers to design. The type of project does not matter, whether it is commercial, residential, public works, or other…..the law is the same as the issue is about performing duties and providing services that fall within the scope of a licensed professional. This is where the gray area begins. Many people who have been reprimanded for practicing without a license now are trying to call themselves “artists” and say they only provide visual simulations and illustrations instead of drawings or plans. Before this, they called themselves other creative things like exterior architects until those things were added to the list of titles you can not use. I imagine artist will follow suit…

When I worked for a contractor, they wanted to do exactly what Marc said, get paid for their designs regardless if they were awarded the install. The law clearly states that a contractor may prepare plans to be used in-house, for his own construction activities,on a job they have been awarded the install but can not charge for those plans. While most understand the law (that is why you see all their ads with “free design”), there are many who do not and still try and charge potential clients for plans they have prepared. Now we all know that the contractors are covering their overhead on the time put into plans on jobs they are awarded the install by simply adding a few dollars here and there to the unit prices of materials on the install. It is the ones that blatantly do the opposite and cross the line into performing duties of a licensed professional and try to hide behind their contractors license that are the biggest danger to the industry.

[Joe Vickers]

I think we are into a completely different topic of conversation now with the practice and title laws. One that I could go on for days about and still would have barely cracked the surface.

Brandon Reed said:

Here is just a thought…….that ocurred to me……Would enforcement and creation of legislation that does not allow contractors, designers(unqualified, non-licensed landscape architects) to do residential or commercial designs without being licensed by that particular state in which they are practicing…..

That seems like, if we could univeralize and enforce the practice and title act with penalties for practicing outside of the law that that might create, one, more need for everyone to have to use an L.A. to do all design work and landscape architecture across the board…….

I think that that could help to create an added necessity and therefore more awareness and value of our profession in general……because people would have to use a licensed landscape architect for something as simple as a backyard landscape design…..

Anyway……this might be a little off topic but your thoughts…..on this idea…..

[Joe Vickers]

My favorite classes were the ones I enjoyed enough to want to go back and be a TA for. First, the Color Graphics class which I took from Dave Anderson. He was one laid back cat! I loved that class because up to that point I could not count how many times in jury Prof. Toth had told me that my designs couldn’t get by on a pretty picture alone. I was sure to remind him of that statement once that class rolled around. I loved being a TA for that class for the next 2 years, once for Anderson and then for Vern the second time around.
Second, the grading and drainage class with Ellsworth. I’ll never forget those seemingly endless packets of worksheets full of small grading problems. I remember being quite upset that I only got a B+ in that class, but I found some self redemption when I was able to TA for Ellsworth my senior year for that class. I was sure he wasn’t going to want me in there because I didn’t get an A! Nothing is better than watching first timers trying to figure out how their contours are suppose to behave.
Third, the Plant (ID) Science class. I was able to TA that one for two years as well and it was fun exploring little corners of campus you would have otherwise never experienced. We made our own field tests and did all the grading in that class and I used to not like it if someone got 100% so I would always make sure to include one obscure plant just to keep them on their toes….or was it to satisfy my own sadistic need? 😉

Anyway, those were my favorite classes in the program.

[Joe Vickers]

Ahh…the great debate lives on! No better subject to make my first post about.

I have a love-hate relationship with “Landscape Architect”. I have grown to love it because it means something to me, it is a title I worked hard to attain, but sometimes I feel like that work is not recognized by anyone but me. I agree that we cling to the “Architect” part of the title because it is associated with some kind of technical skill and implies that we have a certain education level. There is no denying that “Landscape” is at the root of the problem and the reasons for that have been spelled out by many already. It sounds like there are some who still cling to the idea of “changing the world” and educating everyone will solve the problem. I would suggest that this great push to educate the general public and other professionals alike has been going on for decades and I would argue that it is a lost battle. We cannot change what the word “Landscape” means to most people or the images it brings up in their minds. What we do have control over is choosing a better title and thereby definition of what we do.

I think that if ASLA wanted to, they could help to bring change rather quickly and unanimously. It’s not like states are playing by the same rules now so what would it hurt to implement a national minimum standard by which all states must conform? It is illegal to call oneself a landscape designer, exterior designer, or anything to do with design or architect in many states, yet in others the actual title “Landscape Architect” is used by anyone who sees fit and it is rarely cracked down on. (Side Note: While separate, therein lies another problem that is connected to the title issue and deciding what it defines and means. No matter the title, until we as “licensed individuals” start to get serious about enforcing the laws about using the title/term it will never command attention or respect. It’s not like there is a proactive entity out there policing each state, we are the police and the onus is on us, like it or not)

I can’t count how many times I have said I was something else when asked what I do for living just to avoid the ensuing conversation about how I don’t own a maintenance crew or how I don’t know what’s wrong with their lawn. The perplexed look on people’s faces combined with the words, “but I thought you said you were a landscaper?” got old long ago. I have tried many times to come up with a better title and it’s difficult. I would definitely say anything with designer or consultant is moving in the opposite direction into even more ambiguity. Neither of those words are defining, everyone of my unemployed friends calls themselves a “consultant” of some sort. These words also don’t imply that one possesses technical skills of any kind. I must say I don’t hate “Land Architect” though. It does help to say you may do something more than planting plans for a living.

[Author]

Posts