Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: andyro
Age: 37

This approach is burdensome. Everyone should be run through the same filter, experienced or not. The proposal is bound to be too subjective.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: Charlie
Age: 48

My gut reaction is no, there must be some form of examination of knowledge and skills. 4 to 5 years of university is an expensive and hard slog compared to 20 years of practice. On the other hand I suppose there may be a means of doing it for vary rare individuals who demonstrate a high level of architecural merit.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: shope
Age: 40

This would not apply to very many people and there should be a method for dealing with exceptional cases. If a person with 3 years of experience can currently be licenced, and the OAA is considering licencing a person with only 1 year of experience, then someone working with 20 years of experience should with all of the supporting documentation and references listed here should definitely be able to be licenced.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: yenny
Age: 31

Too subjective.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: ONarch
Age: 50

This discredits the very purpose of regulating the profession. How can the experience possibly be evaluated for quality? This is suicide for the profession & for the quality of the practioners. What is happening to us architects? Can we imagine the College of Surgeons & Physicians resorting to this method of licensure? Or the Law Society of Upper Canada doing something as profane as this? If this were to happen, I wouldn't know if I was being treated for some serious ailment by a para-medical professional who'd done the same thing over & over for 20 years as a doctor's aide or by a qualified medical graduate. Architects are as responsible for the life safety of the public & simlpy MUST have the necessary educational background for the same. This a absolutly necessary as it establishes the basic level of intelligence required to enter the profession. Take a lesson from the medical & legal professional associations where they are consistently making the licensure procedure more & more stringent. It doesn't end here. Has anyone even attempted contemplating what would happen to the professional liabilty insurance if the life safety of the public is made to rest with persons who become entilted to pracitce as architects by MERELY passing a few exams required by the OAA?

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: david
Age: 50

it's rarely done and regrettably will remain so. If an individual meets the first four criteria and is happy to take the ARE or ExAC, they should get a medal as well as the OAA destinction.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: Chod
Age: 38

sometimes, there are unusual circumstances that might otherwise be overlooked.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: daniel
Age: 57

Why take a University degree ( B.Arch + M.Arch ) at all when after 20 years you can become an architect !

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: patrick trottie
Age: 43

My senior boss and principal graduated in 1957, payed his $150.00 to the OAA and received a practice licence. He is one of the best Architects I know. The profession must acknowledge the hundreds of graduate architects whom for many reasons, were not able to persue licensure. Many of them currently perform the same duties as Architects and deserve to be Architects. They've apprenteshiped long enough.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: viktrix
Age: 34

This one is somewhat personally painful as I feel the benefit of formal education in this discipline is extremely important. However, some of the greatest architects of all time have no formal education. I would like to think that I am flexible enough that if someone has dedicated their life to this profession and has met the requirements above, they should be allowed to be a contributing member of the profession. Afterall, there are all sorts of architects and the variety of graduates produced from one university to another never stops amazing me...

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: evanrutten
Age: 33

There should also be a way for those that do have architectural degrees but did not follow the intern process to become registered.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: mazen
Age: 47

I do not see any solution in this proposal, some one who passed the exams and is working within an architectural firm in ON ro 20 years " means had done 10s of 1000s of experience hours" and for sure had taken the admission course. Does NOT need a solution. May be you think of a solution for those that have completed every thing and for some reason stuck at one point ???????

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: gigi
Age: 28

May great architect are not train in the traditional way. I think 20 years of experience exceeds a 1-2 year Internship. Why not, if they show the ability they should have the chance to work in Canada. We should be open to talented people all around the world.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: tesark
Age: 34

This process could be handy if it also accepted all those interns whose 5 years expired! But seriously - working is a huge part of our education. However, this proposal is awkward in a world where many who graduate architecture school do not get licensed. Assuming the goal of this internship overhaul is that fewer people will be working for 20 years without becoming licensed, there could be room for this idea. Assuming that qualified architects are available, yet one or many architects have employed an individual without a degree for 20 years, and that individual completes the work of an architect, they must be pretty special, no?

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Daniele KSantos
Age: 32

I find 20 years of experience too much. Obviously a professional with 10 years of serious and good experience (able to prove) is already a better professional (know much more) than a recently graduated with 3 years experience that is eligible to get a license. Why would you make an experienced professional wait 20 years, while you give the license to people who know much less than this person?

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Manoj Atri
Age: 46

No liability issues are too grave, it shouldn't be done.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Helen Desjardin
Age: 49

Is this a grandfathering type option?

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Carole
Age: 36

I guess this is the way things are in Ireland, where I worked for a year. The distinction is whether the individual has joined the Architect association, and admittance is similar to ARE or ExAC. Realistically, a university education is only one part of the development, and doesn't in itself create success in the world. However maybe it leads to some sort of slippery slope of unravelling? I have worked with some techs whom I considered more competant designers than some architects I have worked with.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Daniel Gaito
Age: 58

There are all sorts of reasons for someone to not have all the requirements for licence together near the start of a career. There needs to be ways to welcome all who are committed and experienced into the profession.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: nomada
Age: 37

Aside from sentimental reasons, formal training must be a requirement for all architects. It doesn't mean these valuable individuals won't play a very important role in an architectural firm.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Jacqueline
Age: 49

We all know people who deserve this oportunity! 20 years of experience is worth much more than those 5 years of university we did when we were young (and a lot more ignorant than we thought at the time).

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Martin M. Poizn
Age: 73

I think the 20 years is a bit much. 10 would suffice in my view.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: dgignac
Age: 20

The in-province experience is important, as the individual should have good knowledge of the areas work. Many great people don't have the means to complete school, or perhaps find that the general knowledge obtained is inferior to personal pursuit of knowledge in the field. Such individuals would likely have a very unique view of things and could contribute greatly to the field. Experience is a much greater teacher than people. True understanding can only come about through it. However, the rarity of this licensing is also important. This should be a very subjective process to ensure that the individual actually has something special to add to the architectural field rather than just skipping out of school but being able to pass the requirements. Personal judgement is an important factor.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: jaro
Age: 80

OAAAS licensure is 12years of comprehensive experience and 9 years with a 3year diploma from a Community College. For admission to the Profession without an Architectural Diploma, I suggest one must have at least a 3 year College Diploma and 15years of comprehensive experience, and 12 years comprehensive experience for a person with a PEng designation in Civil / Structural areas of building design. They would also be required provide letters of reference, a portfolio of work, references and complete the ExAC or ARE exam as shown above

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Lucy
Age: 38

1), I think 20-years of working experience would be too much, just think about that--it will take you 20-year canadian experience to be an Architect, on the other hand, a person who study 4-5 years Architecture in university plus 2-3-year working experience can be an Architect? fair? 2), Many famous architects in history didn't acquire a professional degree at the first place, they became experienced and well-known through their works, we should gave those talented person a chance. Especially those people who came from other countries and their qualifications and education background are not be accepted and recognized by the current standards. 3), for the "portfolio of architectural work"--the person's previous projects that previously worked in other countries should be accepted as a part of it. 4), I agree with the rest of the possible solutions. Thank you

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Tracey Winton
Age: 42

Are we confusing draughtsmen and technicians with architects? In my opinion, the rigorous education of an architect, which involves a deep understanding of (amongst other things) cultural heritage and the ethical responsibilities of an architect, is not the same as technical competency or even technical virtuosity. This is not to say that Broadly Experienced Professionals necessarily lack this understanding, simply that this critical dimension is absent from your proposed schema of evaluation. It's not just about licensing more architects - one has to ask how these architects are sensitive to preserving local cultural heritage, being ecologically responsible, and improving the quality of the built environment in which generations to come will be raised. These issues have been relevant to the discipline since the time of Vitruvius' treatise on architecture, and are still relevant today. The profession needs to ask the one crucial question of what makes it a profession, rather than a trade. The message, moreover, that is conveyed by this licensure, is that architectural education is merely a sped-up version of the experience of practice. In reality, both are crucial and complementary; this is why you have a requirement for recorded or unrecorded work experience.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Archie
Age: 29

I subscribe to Dwell magazine. Can I get a license? I signed a contract once for my cell phone - does that grant me licensure as a lawyer? Its called a profession. Grow a spine and stand up for all of us who have gone to school and shelled out time and cash for an accredited degree. Let's call this idea the "Brad Pitt" idea. Stupid!

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: intern007
Age: 51

there are individuals who have basically done the apprenticeship route or even have architectural degrees but didn't register for one reason or not who are more qualified than some architects and those should be acknowledged - however, this would need to be carefully addressed, it should not be a back door

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: Kori
Age: 38

An architectural degree must be mandatory

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: Ted DuArte
Age: 36

I may fall under this category,as I have a Ryerson 4 year pre-professional degree in Architectural Science.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: TinWolf
Age: 35

Experience outweighs Education. The AREs, not the ExAC.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: erin
Age: 26

apprenticeship has a long tradition in this field, and so long as they are just as qualified as university grads, there should be no reason to exclude them.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: feedmyego
Age: 26

although 20 years experience in an Ontario firm is ridiculous. i think 5 in an ontario firm is adequate and 10 years abroad is perfectly acceptable. architecture is global.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: mnsa
Age: 39

There are a number of Professional Engineers in our area that were "grandfathered" into the OAA in the past. The quality of work completed by these firms is questionable from both a design and building technology perspective. Given that many major cities are now looking to implement design guidelines as a measure to improve the quality of architecture in their communities, it only makes sense to ensure that those becoming licensed have gone through the necessary steps as those before them.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: RyanK
Age: 28

In the end, it is work experience and practical ability that makes a good architect. A thesis is not the best indicator of potential, and is certainly not the best indication of what you need in an architect.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: sgroh
Age: 29

The OAA Council should not waive any requirements for licensure based upon experience. An architectural degree should remain mandatory.

Date:  Mar 20, 2008
User: Nathalie
Age: 41

Skilled people who have achieved this level of expertise in architecture and want to become architects should be welcomed into our profession with open arms. It will make for a stronger profession.

Date:  Mar 20, 2008
User: Acer
Age: 45

I strongly disagree. However, I think it's an excellent way to admit those interns who have NOT written the ARE or ExAC exams: Consider for licensure those interns who: have a recognized/certified degree in architecture, have 20+ years of experience employed by an architect in Ontario, can submit 2 letters of reference, have a good porfolio of architectural work, and are satisfactorally assessed in an interview.

Date:  Mar 21, 2008
User: int_traind
Age: 57

No mention in this survay whatsoever regarding internationaly trained architects with vast experiance who owned and were runnung architectural practices for many years and deserv to be licenced without being treated like a reacent graduate or intern

Date:  Mar 24, 2008
User: filippo
Age: 43

Isn't this already covered in the Syllabus Program. Let's first deal with the Interns who have Graduated and are unable to become Licensed, and then reflect on the Profession and this next move.

Date:  Mar 25, 2008
User: D. Cardinal
Age: 34

I already have issue with the OAA granting licenses to Technologists. Why is the OAA enabling Technologists to compete (and most likely undercut) Architects, who are better qualified to do the work? The OAA should be using my professional fees to enhance my profession, not create more outside competition for architectural work. Licencing people with 20 yrs experience doesn't make sense for the same reason above. If you want to be licenced, get licenced. Don't invent loopholes.

Date:  Mar 25, 2008
User: gilbert
Age: 28

The system is there for a reason.

Date:  Mar 26, 2008
User: intern
Age: 35

Experience is valuable, but it can only go so far. The current system of experience + education should continue. Education and experience are complementary to each other, but they can't replace each other. I have worked with people with many years of experience but limited schooling. Their perspective and ability to see a big picture are often limited. I think it is good for the profession to have members who are both well educated and well experienced, and is particularly so given the changing nature of the profession as a result of technology and alike. Architects need to have the necessary foundation for continuing education, and the school training provides that kind of foundation. Experience should build on education, rather than replacing it all together. Different provinces have different circumstances. In BC, for example, they only have one school, and with the increased demand and current state of the economy in the west, having an alternative admittance process may well be what they need at this point.

Date:  Mar 28, 2008
User: Name with held
Age: 30

Sure enact this ! That way if my internship drags out much longer I can apply for licensure under this faint hope clause rather than than the traditional process I nievely embarked on oh so many years ago.

Date:  Mar 28, 2008
User: jmcginn24
Age: 28

Schooling is their for a reason, the education process is a very important part of the learning experience.

Date:  Mar 29, 2008
User: Cory Stechyshyn
Age: 44

This would be an insult to the architectural education system.

Date:  Mar 29, 2008
User: mustafa
Age: 35

some places you dont want to certify the qualified person and in one place you want to certify with fifteen years or 20 years experience

Date:  Mar 31, 2008
User: holmwood
Age: 39

I know many very competent people who do not have architectural degrees and are more qualified to practice than those with degrees. We should allow his option.

Date:  Apr 01, 2008
User: Meshah
Age: 39

Any technologist may apply after 20 years!?? not a good idea. Why put the Architects through the grueling graduation routine?? In my opinion it is pertinent that Practicing Architects are trained as architects with a valid degree.

Date:  Apr 01, 2008
User: hector
Age: 36

One coleague, 17 years experienced in BC. has finished his 6 one-day courses to get his BC license...good for him

Date:  Apr 01, 2008
User: jayleb
Age: 27

I believe there are alot of things that students are exposed to in the school system that those in the syllabus program and otherwise would not be. Although their practical knowledge would be far superior, there are elements of a multi-disiplinary approach that I feel are critical to our practice, beyond the bounds of working in the construction industry.

Date:  Apr 02, 2008
User: Denise Lepage
Age: 49

All for it. I like diversity and embracing many ways to allow people to achieve their goals. Let's see more flexibility, not less.

Date:  Apr 02, 2008
User: Jason
Age: 34

NO. Go to school, or get out. I do not like people who like to 'play architect'.

Date:  Apr 04, 2008
User: Tracy
Age: 28

Under NO circumstance should a licence be granted to anyone who has not completed a full education from an accredited university. Architectural education is far more than a combination of time and experience, and connection to architects. If In my mind, this is a very critical issue.

Date:  Apr 05, 2008
User: 1hk1
Age: 37

anyone who completes all of these requirements shows a real commitment to the profession.

Date:  Apr 07, 2008
User: __ap
Age: 28

Syllabus?

Date:  Apr 08, 2008
User: Chintan Virani
Age: 46

This will discourage to people with formal education. We may think this for internationally trained professionals.

Date:  Apr 08, 2008
User: R Hip
Age: 31

I know a few people working in architecture (in their 60s) who know more than most architects. Probably wouldnt hurt to offer them something like this.

Date:  Apr 10, 2008
User: marc
Age: 36

Yes, and we should do the same with surgeons. And also with dentists.

Date:  Apr 10, 2008
User: deanna
Age: 28

Persons who are technically project architects should have the designation. Many have worked for such a long time, that there is not comparison to the body of knowledge they possess and could be great architects, mentors and practitioners. Their experience would need to be reviewed in great detail but should be acknowledged.

Date:  Apr 11, 2008
User: jcirka
Age: 52

Fits my situation perfectly. I would like to apply as the first candidate in this approach (which is at odds with points 7 and 8)

Date:  Apr 11, 2008
User: jsbaker
Age: 35

The current system seems adequate; why would the OAA want to encourage more architects w/o degrees?

Date:  Apr 13, 2008
User: Koutsoulias
Age: 29

This proposal downplays the profession in terms of education, accreditation, examinations and all the other hoops we have to jump through to become licensed architects. If they really want to take another route they can do the syllabus program.

Date:  Apr 13, 2008
User: parallax_ca
Age: 42

HOWEVER, there is ANOTHER category, those who DO have an architectural degree and have the experience but not necessarily under an architect. what about self employed!!, again, so hard to find an architect to mentor under (most are too busy or do not want the hassle (most do not care about the professional association except as a necessary evil, just my experience)

Date:  Apr 14, 2008
User: Michelle
Age: 26

I think this would negate the Architecture education that everyone else has to get in order to become a licensed architect. This is simply unfair, especially since the design background of architecture schools is a fundamental aspect of our education that would be lacking with these 'fortunate few'.

Date:  Apr 15, 2008
User: darchitect
Age: 37

there are other ways to become an architect than the ways we know and believe to be best. demonstrated knowledge and experience can, in some cases, be equal in value.

Date:  Apr 15, 2008
User: evelyn
Age: 33

As long as this process ensures the same standards as becoming an Architect here, then I see no issue with this. 20 years experience here is a lot of experience and should warrant a license.

Date:  Apr 17, 2008
User: cos/tan
Age: 50

I am not sure if "evidence of employment" can be a measure for "quality/complexity of work". Also, 5 years in school is not just 5 years out of 20, but an accelerated educational process that changes, forms and structures the way an architect thinks. However, I believe that there should be some way to honour those who prove to be excellent professionals, without having the formal professional education. Again, it may be another door to enter the room of the main question: What is an Architect?

Date:  Apr 17, 2008
User: Paul
Age: 43

I am an intern with 20 years of incredible experience in the work place. I have done it, many times over. I own a significant portion of my firm as well and I manage 35 staff. I was an award winning architecture student. I understand that the OAA Council may waive requirements and grant a licence for Broadly-Experienced Professionals allowing people who do not have a degree in architecture and have not completed the syllabus program to become registered architects. If this is the case, I would suggest that people like myself who have a recognized architecture degree and this amount of field experience also be allowed to become registered without having to write exams. As another person has already said on this site "There should also be a way for those that do have architectural degrees but did not follow the intern process to become registered".

Date:  Apr 26, 2008
User: Chris
Age: 38

I would need to know more about this issue to assess it. I have no problem, in principle, with granting license to individuals with long-demonstrated experience. What drives this in BC? Why is it not a wider concern?

Date:  Apr 26, 2008
User: senior
Age: 53

Strongly agree if an individual has some professional degree & completed ARE exams & is actively involved with bulding projects & or is a 10+ years going through Bureacracy of Licensing & is holding Intern status from period of time. I mean grandfathered as broadly experienced graduate Professional

Date:  Apr 28, 2008
User: rima
Age: 41

This is at a time when the profession is moving towards a masters degree as an entry level to the profession. It is contradictory. However, a door can be maintained for highly unique cases of truly unusual individuals, as long as it is rarely allowed, and definitely not a way to allow technologists or designers another means of eating away at what should be the domain of architecture. Experience that is not built on solid knowledge can be a deceiving quality. Two letters are too easy a requirement. Portfolios mostly, reflect design work. How about other aspects of the profession. A more vigorous method need to established to demonstrate competency. Perhaps it could be used as another mean for architectural graduates to achieve registration.

Date:  Apr 28, 2008
User: Jayant
Age: 32

If all of those listed requirements are met, the person seems very qualified to provide professional architectural service.

Date:  May 02, 2008
User: cvriend
Age: 39

This would seem to further devalue a quality architectural education.

Date:  May 03, 2008
User: Dacad
Age: 58

I will urge international association of architects to look at this. And will urge them also to expell canadian associations as soon as posible RAIC? Where is a Royal in this?

Date:  May 07, 2008
User: joey
Age: 43

let the games begin!

Date:  May 30, 2008
User: F Ng
Age: 43

Regulations are regulations.

Date:  May 30, 2008
User: H.H.
Age: 33

This should only be done in exceptional cases. Relatedly, consideration should also be given to perhaps differentiating between "Architects" and "Professional Architects", which could potentially open up the profession to a broader membership - i.e. those practicing traditional architecture vs licensed architects working in a related field, but not stamping projects. The name "Architect" has value.

Date:  Jul 20, 2008
User: edcuhaci
Age: 78

There are many talented designers out there who should be given a chance to become members of the OAA (Eifel is a good example)

Date:  Jul 30, 2008
User: Licutus of Borg
Age: 45

Nothing wrong with being "Grandfathered" You have done this in the past for engineers, Quite the smack in the face to your own profession. You just make it more difficult for those of us that have actually studied Architecture. Its easier for an engineer to become an Architect these days....Thanks

Date:  Aug 13, 2008
User: DAN VOICU
Age: 52

TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF 20 YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT IN ONTARIO IS NOT EASY. WORKING AS A PROJECT LEADER FOR LARGE PROJECTS, FOR AT LEAST 10 YEARS, WITH EXPOSURE IN PRACTCE AT DIFFERENT PROJECT PHASES, IS DEFINETELY ENOUGH TO GAIN THE RIGHT TO BECOME AN EXPERIENCED ARCHITECT. WAITING FOR 20 YEARS TO BECOME ARCHITECT BY ACCEPTANCE BY OTHERS IS NOT THE APPROPIATE SOLUTION. EXAMINATION CAN BE THE RIGHT SOLUTION BUT DOSN'T MEAN THAT THE LICENSED ARCHITECT ALWAYS CAN PROOVE HIS CAPACITY OR EXPERIENCE TO HANDLE DIFFERENT KIND OF PROJECTS.

Date:  Aug 22, 2008
User: elizabeth
Age: 57

NO PROBLEM BUT first, what about those who have Architectural degrees and could not register because they specialized? They have often brought much to the profession and are not recognized at all. We are no longer in a world of the "generalist". If the first is done, we must also recognize our graduates who are experts in heritage conservation, sustainability, bldg science, housing and all the other architectural areas which are now specialties on to themselves.

Date:  Sep 28, 2008
User: Poet of Bithyni
Age: 33

The Braodly- Experienced Profesional should be Graduate Architect, holding a degree from any recognized institution. It seems like the OAA Council is trying to simply things for NON ARCHITECTS while making it impossible for ARCHITECTS.

Date:  Mar 22, 2009
User: jimes
Age: 32

You're sending mixed messages here. On one hand you want to expel interns from the process who are not serious about the profession - they must complete exams and internship within a certain number of years. I agree, it's nice to have a group of interns who are passionate about the profession. But this solution lets anyone with 20 years experience, but had no interest in the profession to have entered and completed the internship process, and a single exam become a licensed individual.