I need some help here! I have been having an ongoing “discussion” with a person in my chapter regarding the value of Certification for someone who has already passed the professional portion of the Architectural Exam. This person does not believe the CDT or Certification exams have value for a registered professional as “the CDT tests on the same material and knowledge as the professional section of the RA Exam.” “Therefore if someone is an architect they do not need the Certification program for themselves or their firms except for the specifier in the firm.”
I’m fighting a losing battle with this person because I am a specifer without a RA or PE. I get the impression that I am a few notches below the status of an intern, therefore below notice, altho’ this person would deny it if called on it.
I know where part of the problem lies, but this person is of authority within the chapter right now, and as Certification Chair I really need to convince this person of the Value of the program for all CSI members and professionals in our industry or any efforts I make toward promoting the program may be poisoned.
Any CSI Certified Architects and Engineers out there that can help me with some convincing words of wisdom?
Please forgive me for posting “anonymous”, as I don’t want to embarrass this person or my chapter.
Thanks
It is too bad that so many people feel that their RA is the end of the line for expertise. Unfortunately, the ARE is very restricted in what it does test, and certainly specification writing, material selection ande evaluation, and the legal aspects of construction ARE NOT included. It is an illusion to think that the ARE is so complete, when in fact it is merely aimed at providing some minimal indication of expertise on the part of three-year interns [and I say that in the BEST light for interns].
We all need to continue to grow and expose ourselves to new levels of interest and achievement. Some pople carry many set of initials after their names, and rightly so-- each represents another achievement which is to their credit.
Also, we all ned to keep current and to date, and that is best done by keeping active in some organization[s] which distribute the newest and best infroamtion.
Lastly, to be a principle in a firm or a chapter you need to make yourself the best you can be! Image and role modeling are the best ways to show newer professionals how to act, achieve and present professional services.
Also a personal note-- you are in no way a second-class citizen becuase you do not carry RA or PE. While that training and expertise is most helpful, one can rise to be a good specifications writer without them, but with the proper personal drive, interest and skill-- this is borne out on this site,and in life daily. You contribution is valued and important! Keep the faith, friend and good luck!
Next time you feel belittled by an non-CSI-certified RA…just ask he RA the difference between:
- Construction Documents & Contract Documents?
- Open Proprietary & Closed Proporietary?
- Source Quality Control & Field Quality Control?
- Legal significance of the words “will” & “shall”?
- What’s the correct language for a substitute, “or equal”, “equivilent”, or “approved substitute”?
Nuff said!
Certification is so integral to the mission of CSI that this sort of conversation shouldn’t come up. CSI leaders should be expected to have a CDT as a minimum. A bylaw to that effect addressing the makeup of the Institute Board did not pass a few years ago - an unfortunate circumstance that may correct itself within a few years.
I cannot imagine making the contributions that I make to my firm and to the industry without having had the benefit of CSI’s CDT, CCS, and CCCA programs of study. That’s also a reason why NCARB cites the MOP as a primary reference to the IDP program.
Yep, Ive got some initials going there. To some extent, it is no big deal. From other perspectives it might be a big deal. I look around at my local professional community and see very few registered architects that have expanded there knowledge base by seeking CCS and CCCA certification. Of those that have, few have passed these exams with their first attempt. Maybe Im not much of a promoter of these accomplishments when I tell them that the CCCA exam was more difficult than any portion of the architectural registration I took. Maybe thats something to tell your fellow CSI member.
“the CDT tests on the same material and knowledge as the professional section of the RA Exam.” Huh?
Maybe it’s changed since I took the ARE, but I don’t remember many questions about the A201, and certainly none about Division 01 or how to write a specifications section.
My years of work in architectural and engineering offices, public and private sector, and offices small and large, leads me to the firm belief that far too many architects know little and care less about text documents of any kind - agreement forms, conditions of the contract, specifications, addenda, you name it. They live in a visual world, and have little knowledge or respect for the written word.
The word “specifications” was probably mentioned once in our architectural practice class, and there was no explanation of the difference between a project manual and specifications. We were not required to read or - heaven forbid! - write any specifications, or to achieve even basic understanding of the conditions of the contract. Small wonder that architects look at specifications the same way they do structure - things of less importance than “DESIGN”, to be done by others.
Tell the architect that if he does not write, read, review or enforce contract writen documents, that he should not bother taking the class/exam. If he sits in his office all day and draws/colors pretty pictures and does not do any written communication with the Owner or Contractor, fine, he probably does not need it.
BTW, our interior designer is taking the class next year along with an administrative assistant. We are encouraging them to take the class to expand their knowledge of the game of construction.
You could also make it “interesting” by challenging him to take the exam without studying for it. Tell him that you will pay for the class and exam if he passes…hell, I’ll pay for his class/exam if he passes!
You’re probably fighting a lost cause, his mind is probably already made up. Better to encourage another architect to better themselves than that idiot who thinks he knows it all.
BTW, that I can remember, there were 3 questions on specifications in the Construction Document part of the ARE.
David, I’ll chip in on that! I think many of us would.
I’ve listened to Contractors bemoan having to read specification sections/project manuals written by an Architect - “it’s an unedited master”, “it doesn’t address installation as it’s shown on the drawings”, “it’s not even pertinent to the project”… And I know that the particular set of documents the Contractor is referencing was written by someone without any knowledge of what specifications are all about.
But it is certainly difficult dealing with someone who thinks they have nothing new to learn.
Thank you to all of you who have responded. All you have said is helpful.
I should note that this person has taken the CDT and passed, but only took it because it is a path to leadership in CSI. Otherwise considers it of no value to anyone other than a specifier.
From a joke that has been circulating the net:
“Architect: A person who knows very little about very much and continues to know less and less about more and more until he knows virtually nothing about everything.”
I remember hearing a fact snippet some years ago that stated that those who understand specifications have less difficulty passing the architect registration exam.
I hate to brag, but I found the ARE written portions of the exam to be not so difficult, just long. The graphic portions on the other hand were a bear and I had to take them several times. (I had my CCS before I took the ARE.)
What has been other peopele’s experience?
J. Gerard Capell, AIA, CSI, CCS
As David said above if this “architect” only draws pretty pictures with or wihtout a full understanding of what he is doing, he may survive. What I know is that due to a lot of hard work and a frim belief in the value of CSI’s Certificaiton program I have been able to get work when there was little to to be had, adn have had a much richer professional life.
I have taught specifications and contracts at a univeristity which led to other classes, while still running my own firm. I have provided specification consulting to other firms when I have been between positions or projects; and others search me out to problems they have knowing that either I know the answer or know someone who does.
The self-imposed limitation and arrogance of the architect in question is a sad, but far too often common thing in the profession.
Having served on the Certificaiton Committee for 4 years and written and graded questions for all four exams I can tell you that in one sense the certification exams are easier than the ARE, but only because the questions come from know sources (the MOP and A201). The detail of the questions both as simple recall type and higher order thinking types requires that the candidate study and study well to obtain a full understanding of the concepts and facts.
He certainly may not comprehend or apprciate the value of what is before him. His arrogance may carry him far, lord knows there are many architects and others who rely on solely that to sell others of their worth; but at some point the facade does wear thin and they are exposed.
To obtain your P.E., in the initial exam, you have to answer questions in all disciplines of engineering. This is not so you can practice in these areas, but is so, as an engineer, you know enough about these subjects that you know your limitations.
Another part of the exam is engineering ethics. The most important ethic is that you do not do what you do not know how to do. I do not know that Architects have a similar ethic.
Richard,
Either you’re being funny (it’s not obvious), or you have a problem with architects.
Questions for you
What is learned if learning is not accomplished in the process of doing?
When did engineers become so sure of what know how to do?
Doug:
I have no problem with Architects. My comment was just in response to the insinuations “above” about certain Architects not appreciating the importance and complexities of specs. The ones I work with do not have that problem.
First Question: I do believe that doing is more important than the ability to meet the requirements of any education program. Professionals develop skills that are a result of their practice. Education serves to set values and provide a base for developing skills.
Second Question: To most Engineers repetitiveness gives them confidence. When you try to change their way of doing things, like conforming to your ideas of what a good spec is, you run into resistance. Their conventions are their trade groups, their own local practices, or in most cases their long years of just doing it.
Richard,
we’ve heard from some of our architect friends regarding the value of Certification to them. Is certification ie CDT, CCS, and CCCA of value to Engineers beyond the PE exam? If so, how is it of value to you
Certification is very important to Architectural work because it indicates knowledge of the conventions that govern architectural specifications. It also indicates you have a good understanding of Contract Conditions. This knowledge is just not that important to engineers, even if it should be. I know a couple engineers that have passed the CCS, but never bothered to change their companies historic specifications to reflect a single CSI principal. When they go in the field it is about hardball not about principals. Based on that I have to say it is just a marketing item to engineers.
I am an independent specification consultant. I can write specifications in all engineering disciplines. I believe CSI principals are applicable to all of them. Understanding principals is important; especially when you decide to violate them. Have I ever gotten a commission because I am certified? I have never been told that by an Architect, but a civil engineer once did.
Even if you understand a principal, you can go to jail for violating one.
Synonyms, homonyms, possessive, plural - who cares? They’re/there/their only words. I have come to expect archietypes to talk bad English and spel reel gud, but I cringe when I read some of these posts, coming from people who supposedly work with the written word every day.