ASGCA

[John_Conley]

Not threatened at all.  I couldn't care less.  Not sure why anyone would be this concerned about a group.  Are you?

I'm confused at how I'm disingenous.  I've pointed out the folly of objecting to a group's reason for existence and right to choose its membership.  Disingenuous?  I don't have a dog in this fight.  I've played golf with Jeff and I'll play with Mike if we ever get that set up.  Their association with ASGCA means as much to me as their religious affiliation or choice of grocery store.

[Lou_Duran]

Ian,

With all due respect, the GCSAA hardly has minimal standards.  Could I write a check and put the initials behind my name?  I think not.  How many years of verifiable employment as a head superintendent are required?  How many courses (education) must be completed?  And if the code of ethics are taken seriously, the universe of applicants is automatically reduced by probably half.  The GCSAA might have fewer barriers to entry than the ASGCA, but I bet the gca profession would argue that theirs is a very different occupation (a thread that I don't wish to pursue).

And BTW, I have HUGE respect for the qualified people in your profession.  They have the ability to make a fairly unexciting golf course from a design standpoint into something very enjoyable.  I think their impact on the game for most golfers is crucial, more so than that of the architect (let the shots begin!).  

[Michael Blake]

 I think their impact on the game for most golfers is crucial, more so than that of the architect (let the shots begin!).  

I was thinking the same thing a couple of weeks ago when I played in a golf outing with my father-in-law.  It was a resort course on mountainous terrain and IMO not a very good one and in some instances very dangerous.

At the dinner afterwards, everyone thought it was a 'great course.'  Why?  It was in great condition.  It's as simple as that.  Does the lipstick on a pig analogy work here?

Not sure if that was what you were implying Lou, but that's how I interpreted it.  Sorry to threadjack.  Probably deserves a thread of its own.

[Ian Larson]

Lou,

The GCSAA is pretty much the antithesis of the ASGCA for the most part. It has numerous class levels at which one can become a member.

- Super Class A
- Super Class B
- Super Class C
- Associate Member
- Affiliate Member

             Affiliate Individual - $320.00 -- To qualify for Affiliate Individual membership, an applicant must be interested in golf course management and/or in the growing or production of fine turfgrass and who does not qualify for membership in any other classification. Affiliate Individual members shall have all the privileges of the Association, except that of voting and holding office.


- Educator
- Student

All you really need to do is have an interest and hand the check over (ie Affiliate). The other classes there is obviously some criteria to meet but all that means is that you have to be working for a Class A or B Super to sign off on you, with the check of course.

Getting the Certified Golf Course Superintendent status.....

 Certification Process

The certification process begins with meeting the eligibility requirements, grandfathered or non-grandfathered to apply, which are based on your level of post secondary education. This defines the number of years of experience and continuing education required of you before becoming an applicant in the program.

When you meet the requirements to apply to the program, you will request the educational requirement worksheet and if you haven’t already done so, have an official copy of your college transcript sent to us. Upon verification of eligibility, GCSAA will send you the certification application form to complete and submit with the $200 member application fee and your portfolio. Upon approval of your application, you will have one year to successfully complete the examination and the attesting of your golf facility.

Becoming certified means validating your competencies. This is accomplished through three different assessment methods.

    * A portfolio, which must be turned in with your initial application to the program. This can and should be started at any time in your career.
    * A closed-book multiple choice examination. The exam is given to you after you become an applicant in the program. You will have one year to successfully complete the exam.
    * The attesting of your golf course facility. The attesting is also conducted after you become an applicant in the program.



I want to go on record by saying I dont disagree with what or how the ASGCA does its thing. I understand it and Jeff Brauer has done an excellent job explaining things. I really do understand and agree with 99% of it.

But my whole point was that I cant say enough about the education and networking I have gained because the GCSAA motive is to open its doors to everyone and be a resource of education and career guidance. To be the entity that can bring together the membership and MENTOR them in a way.

You know its funny, I go to the national conference every year. And one of the things I always see is the guy in jeans and a flannel shirt with his bag of goodies and badge around his neck. I met a guy like this one year who was a superintendent in Montana out in the middle of nowhere. He didnt have a dozen other courses with supers around him nor did he have regional chapter meetings that were close enough to ever go to. GCSAA and their outreach was the biggest thing in this supers career to keep him up to speed and with the times, as well as continuing education and networking once a year at the conference. And I appreciate that.

So lets relate that to any young guys taking the golf course architecture route. Where do they go? Who do they have? Just the architect that they are working for? What if that architect has no time and is a shitty mentor? Its possible and probably pretty common.

I appreciate the ASGCA and agree with pretty much everything theyre about. But its just my personal opinion that I would like to see them open their doors just a little bit and embrace that mentoring mentality for the young guys coming up instead of the "holding the carrot stick out in front of the donkey" mentality. If they never change and keep the doors closed to a large number of individuals who share the same passion and work just as hard as they do, I think a genuine ARCHITECTURE ASSOCIATION (not a society) should be formed that embraces the same spirit of the GCSAA......and MIke Young or Mike Nuzzo should be the first Presidents......

[Lou_Duran]

Michael Blake,

Precisely my gist.  Give golfers good greens, fairly flat tees, and some mown grass on semi--dry fairways and many will be very satisfied.  A tastefully appointed, well-coiffed pig is often more attractive than a superior, but sloven beast.

Ian Larson,

The "antithesis" is a bit strong don't you think?  I can see the networking aspects and the ease of continuing education resulting from associating at the lower levels, but isn't the main benefit the privilige to put the initials behind your name and the employment and renumeration advantages that this provides?  Aren't there college level curriculums available outside the Association?

As to the ASGCA, do they restrict who gets trained?  Are Society members prevented or discouraged from hiring, training, and developing non-members?  Do they limit their educational services and seminars to only their members?  Does Mike Nuzzo have a bigger bullseye on his back by virtue of being a non-member than Jeff Brauer's when competing with other Society members for a project?

We agree completely on the notion that if the ASGCA keeps its door closed to qualified architects it could invite a competing professional organization.  If belonging to a widely recognized, reputable professional group is as important as I think it might be, and if the ASGCA is as unfairly exclusive as some here seem to think it is, then this is likely to happen.  I doubt that one will sprout any time soon, but I am hardly an industry expert.

 

[Ian Larson]

Lou,

Is it your opinion that a super having CGCS after his name is different than an archie having ASGCS after his name, in their respective fields?

To answer myself, I dont think so. Its four letters after a name that demand a little more respect and credibility towards the respective profession, to set oneself apart from the bigger field. There are going to be owners who prefer an ASGCA archie, and there will be a club who prefers a CGCS super. Theres no denying that this happens and gives a leg up on competition in the job market. Not always though, actually not alot to be realistic. But when put in that situation when it would matter, its nice to have it.

My point with that is the GCSAA has that "fraternal" type of society to it with the CGCS, which in my mind is very similar in purpose to ASGCA. The big difference between the two organizations is that GCSAA has its doors open so that it can educate, guide and network EVERYONE in the industry in hopes of progressing the industry. ASGCA, to me, is what the GCSAA is except it is only the CGCS guys. And the thousands of people in the industry below them are closed out from all of the benefits available. Follow me?

Could it be said that it would be better for the game or industry if doors could be opened just a little so that the up and comers have a professional organization to benefit from? And Im not saying it should be opened up to the extent of the GCSAA is. IMHO I dont see the harm in allowing Design Associates and Architects in the organization to some extent without giving the right and priviledge of putting ASGCA behind their name. I would never put CGCS behind mine, and I dont think others would put ASGCA behind theirs if they havent filled the requirements. (and by the way I think a five course requirement is right on the money). And I dont think that by doing this it would dilute and lessen the importance of striving to become an ASGCA.



"The "antithesis" is a bit strong don't you think?"

Yeah it is, but I think the GCSAA does an outstanding job with education, career guidance and networking by embracing everyone. Spreading knowledge through research and experience to the industry is priceless, it can only make todays supers and tomorrows better. And that is better for the game of golf.

"I can see the networking aspects and the ease of continuing education resulting from associating at the lower levels, but isn't the main benefit the privilige to put the initials behind your name and the employment and renumeration advantages that this provides?"

Absolutely a benefit is putting the letters after your name for all the reasons I and others have mentioned. But to go back to my last response I think the ASGCA could take something from the GCSAA and embrace the spirit of educating their contemporary architects even more while also educating the architects of tomorrow. This can only make for a better architect and better for the game of golf.

"Aren't there college level curriculums available outside the Association?"

Yes, but lets use myself as an example. Im finishing an Auto Cad course now as we speak. Part of the course is doing Cad for HVAC designs. I have zero interest in doing HVAC designs but I realize its not what Im designing its the techniques Im learning. I keep thinking how cool it would be if there were courses out there that were taught by real golf guys that utilize this in real situations. To compare to GCSAA, imagine if ASGCA offered Auto Cad podcasts online to guys who want to learn Auto Cad for golf course design.

Then there is the classes I will be taking at UCLA. Im enrolled in the Landscape Architecture certificate program. Im going to be doing alot of gardens and residential landscape stuff. Again, its not what Im actually designing or calculating for its all about the techniques. But imagine if I could be paying the same money for golf specific courses that were sanctioned by the ASGCA.

Ive been in the industry for 14 years now, my biggest asset has been my experince in golf course management and more importantly golf course construction and grow-in. But I dont think I can rely only on my experience to set me apart from the competition, especially in this economy.

"As to the ASGCA, do they restrict who gets trained?  Are Society members prevented or discouraged from hiring, training, and developing non-members?"

No, absolutely not. But they certainly are not going facilitate somebody doing it who is not in their society. To put it another way....they dont give 2 shits about me. The young guy busting my ass to get into the industry. And no theyre not prevented from hiring, training or developing non members. But its only up to luck whether or not myself or others get brought on by a ASGCA member to do so.

"Do they limit their educational services and seminars to only their members?"

The only thing I can say to this is that there are only ever a sprinkling of seminars presented by ASGCA members at the national GCSAA conference. They fill up quick, usually the more expensive ones, only available to those who can take a week off to attend the conference etc etc etc. I would say no but there are many limiting factors to what they do offer.

"Does Mike Nuzzo have a bigger bullseye on his back by virtue of being a non-member than Jeff Brauer's when competing with other Society members for a project?"

I dont know. I seriously dont know. I think it is very specific to the what the owner wants in a certain situation. Sometimes I think Nuzzo does have a bullseye on his back and sometimes he wouldnt. Im not really in position to say.

[Mike_Young]

Lou,
Hope you are well.
Your logic is understandable at first glance and therein lies the problem for me.  As I have stated over and over and really did not mean to comment again.....I have no problem with individual ASGCA members.  It is not my place to judge their abilities as golf architects....the ASGCA has written requirements that they supposedly have submitted and met the minimum number of courses.  No problem there with me....but make it the same for any architect that has shown such. To keep it simple..you have to have a vote of 9 peole on the board...that's it.  
If the public perceives the ASGCA as some type of organization that you could use to aid in selecting an architect, yet the membership is determined by a vote of a board of governors after meeting the objective requirements of the organization......then IMHO it is flawed.... And it is because of your chain of logic above that I always argue this point....
Come to GA sometime soon.
Mike

Mike,

First of all, I am generally aware of your troubles with the Society.  Though not entirely analogous, I know an individual who was black-balled at a Top Five golf club by a member who was a business competitor and apparently did it (opposed my acquaintance's nomination) to protect his financial interests.  The spurned candidate was asked some years later to resubmit his application, but his pride or sense of having been slighted wouldn't allow it.  I think it is his loss, and hope that you will not make the same mistake (he would say that it is not).

Second, I think you and all other architects have every right to question the Society and its policies.  To the extent their requirements are arbitrary and capriciously or politically applied, the Society would be "acting stupidly" if it refused to change.  Being that it is an organization made of imperfect humans, mistakes will be made.  I don't sense that the problems are institutional or systemic, but I can see how personality and other non-performance/qualification issues might crop up from time to time.

Any organization that precludes qualified members from joining for competitive reasons risks losing its stature and encourages those unfairly rejected qualified candidates to form their own competitive professional organization.  However, an organization that has very minimal standards and offers membership to anyone willing to write a check probably is of very little benefit to its members.

Lastly, my "chain of logic" is really not how I think about architects and other professionals, but how the world generally works.  The interests of those buying architectural services are often not the same as of those wanting to do the work.  A developer may wish name recognition to sell memberships and/or lots.  A city manager may want a "credentialed" individual he can sell to his political superiors with minimal opposition.  A consultant advising a lender and a developer has little to gain going with a lesser known architect, particularly when the professional design fees are not a major component of the overall project costs.  To the extent that the list contains qulified providers, the main concern- the success of the project- is satisfied.  That some deserving candidates failed to make the list is at most an opportunity cost to the client.  

I suspect that a primary objective of those seeking membership is that it helps them to differentiate themselves from the competition.  It is an additional credential, maybe a tie-breaker in a few rare instances.  Perhaps being a member leads to referrals.  Maybe some business is simply generated by a potential client perusing the ASGCA website and finding a local member which he then proceeds to contact and develop personal rapport.

There are excellent architects who are not Society members.  Wyatt mentioned three that I know.  Some people are simply not joiners.  Others like you have had an unfortunate experience.  A number have not had the opportunity to develop their resume.  There is also reason to believe that like with every other profession, some do not have the "necessities" to qualify.  Though the market for the foreseeable future appears unfavorable, the one upside is that the ASGCA stamp of approval is not a requirement to be hired.  Hopefully the barriers to entry will be kept to a minimum, though I have to believe that the current yearning for government regulation in most aspects of our lives may seep into this as well.  Hopefully the Society will not lobby for licensing under its auspices as a condition of employment.  If it does, get the pitchforks out.

See you at the Dixie Cup?

P.S.- why doesn't your partner do Jim Thorpe impressions on the Golf Channel?  You'd think he'd throw you a bone once in awhile.  BTW, I think you're much funnier.

P.S.2- did I tell you that my member friend at Reynolds brought his large group out to LS and they were all blown away?  I think he said that with a maintenance budget approaching one of theirs, LS would be far better than anything at the Plantation.  And that ain't benign, feigned praise!      

Lou,
Thx for the kind remarks re Longshadow...glad your Reynolds buddies liked it....I hope the owners will try a little harder to keep up the maintenance....it could be really good....

Yep Charlie is humming with the Golf channel...and just one Jim Thorpe story and he could be out of there...

As for all this ASGCA stuff.....I think I have read everything on here....and really have not many issues other than the "jury of your peers" part.  As Ian mentions the CGCS requirements...I think that is the way it should be.  They pass the written requirements and they are CGCS....there is just to much room for supposition when a small competitive group let's it enter the picture....other than that and I don't see much problem....

I think the issue that is being overlooked here as to letting in associates and students etc is the size of the business ....THE BUSINESS IS SO SMALL and THERE WOULD BE NO JOBS FOR ALL OF THOSE THAT TRAINED..we are seeing that now....or look a the PGA a few years ago.....guys were working for $15000.  I am all for training guys but there is just not that much room.....so can't blame anyone for that.....I just don't think the peer review works.....the owners and evaluators give a much better picture and a value you can measure....

I think Abe Lincoln was once asked by a group about some suppositions etc regarding someone...Lincoln asked the group..."See that sheep over there...suppose we decided to call his tail a leg.....how many legs would he have?"  the group said "five"..Lincoln said "no..he would have 4..just because we say it is a leg doesn't make it a leg".....so once you have owners that accept the work, evalautors that have seen the work and you have the required number...then peer review is subject to just such issues.....That's my only gripe.  Unless they begin to ask vendors that I support and spec to subsidize their group as sponsors etc....then .....that's a different story....I don't think Titleist expects Tiger to play their ball..do you? 

see you soon.
Mike
 

[David Druzisky]

Ian,

Let me see if I can help you with some thoughts on some of your points concerning you efforts to get "edumacated" as Jeff says in the wonderful craft of golf course design.

1.  first, congratulations on puting forth the commitment you mention thus far with autocad clases and landscape architecture at UCLA. (UCLA sucks..Go Wildcats!)

2. I think you will find that a majority of us in the ASGCA went through pretty much what you are going through early on.  Getting all sorts of training is what you have to do and as you are finding much of it does not directly aply to what we do or how we use it.  It is still frustrasting once you are in the business and want to learn autocad what you have to do to do so.  In fact, at the GCSAA annual GIS show in Anaheim a couple years ago now I remember Jeff Brauer leaving in the evenings to go get autoCAD "educamated" somewhre there in LA - even though he lives in TX.  I too have an LA Bachelor Degree but worked in Golf Construction and Maintenance (my dada is a 40 plus year GCSAA member and superintendent) on my off time and summers to round out my background because it was obvious to me even at that time that it would be a hard profession to break into.

3. My first real exposure to the ASGCA was with a summer internship job with RTJII after my Jr. year.  I learned a lot that summer and all of the guys were great to me.  At that time it was Don Knott, Bruce Charlton, Gary Linn, and Kyle Phillips.  Of course Bobby too.  My dad had worked on a project with Gary at some point so that helped with an introduction but that is all I had as far as any help.  At the time I was young enough not to realize how fortunate it was that iI had that opportunity.

4. To make sure I got even more exposure to the business because I was ssrting to get the impression that just about every firm approached how they did thing differently, I applied and got another internship for the following summer with Bob Cupp.  (Yep, it took me 4.5 years to graduate!)  I again learned a bunch of real world application of what they were only touching on at school.

5. You can see there is nothing formal that I went thorogu that anyone was offering to help me get edumacated other than rolling up my sleves and getting the experience by working.

6. You can also see that several ASGCA members were very helpful to me in those early years and by me being around them an hearing first hand about theor experiences and about other architects it made be set a goal to be member someday.  I also realized that these guys had a whole lot more knowledge than I and that I had a long way to go befoer that would even make any sense.

7. While there may be little to no formal educational offerings for non-members through the Society, I believe you will find that many of our members will be very helpful to you when they can.  I got plenty of great advice when I contacted members early on about things.  Now that I am a member I get similar calls and requests from young guys all the time asking for advice. I can almost guarantee every architect on here would say the same thing and can recall how they were helped too by other members of the time.

8. Other than the fact that there is more competition for the few jobs that might exist inthe profession out there right now I think it is easier now than it was when I was coming up to get edumacated in all things related to the profession.  There are so many sources now available just on the internet that we didn't have access to before.  We had a relatively small collection of books and libraries to tap into for all the historical stuff that is so readily available today.  All the young guys now have the chance of knowing more on historical aspects than my generation ever did and I am only 43!

9. The ASGCA does have a fair amount of free publications available to anyone that wants them and we are continuously working on more it seems.  Remember we don't even have 200 members so the resources are just not there to provide information to the masses.  Also, what we do at so many levels is not black and white and therefore it may be difficult to publish a bunch of stuff without.  Hell we would g broke anyway!  Many of the publications we do provide were put together by individual or groups of members on their own time.

10. Be on the look for our members speaking at regional or state meetings of the various GCSAA chapters, USGA Green Section Meetings and the like.  Forest tried to put together our seminar on restoration "Restoration University" to coincide with a recent Golf Inc conference last year that I was to speak at and we barely got enough attendees to even have it.  Even if we are not speaking many of us do attend GCSAA Chapter meetings and are available at those all the time.

11. I bet if you called an architect that you know has a project under construction in your area to see if you could come out and spend a little time with them on the property for the day they would be all for it as long as they didn't have the "dog and pony" thing to do that day.  I still do it myself with other architects.

12.  I do not think there is a Bullseye on anyones back.  I got into the Society the same way Lester did, with all my own work as examples.  going that route took me longer but I am pleased I had the patience to go that way.  With that in mind, I had to get those projects on my own without being a member just so I could become one.  Does the ASGCA thing give us a little favor at times? Probably, rarely, but remember for every one good non-member out there there are several others that we all would agree that have absolutely no place trying to convince some unknowing owner to use them because they played on the tour for a year and know somebody they know etc..  Of course that owner can go that route but the ASGCA designation is at least a aknowledgement that there is something professional about designing a golf course worth considering.  While this doesn't happen here in the US much any more, it is more common internationaly.

13. I also know several very high end and successful superintendents that have not made themselves go through the certification process that are just as or in many cases more capable than some that are certified so it happens there too.

BTW I believe Gil and Geoff will be in LA quite a bit for LACC so your being at UCLA is a great thing indeed!

DbD

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sorry, but I think that the vetting and/or due diligence for an architect should be based solely on their qualifications.

Isn't it?

Ben,

If an organization has a stated mission of furthering the profession, upholding traditions, etc., (which you can find on the web page) are you saying that ethics is not a valid qualification for membership?  That is your real question here, isn't it? 

Also, do you think a group can uphold traditions of the profession by accepting just everyone?

As to the suggestion of various classes of membership, why would you need to be a member of ASGCA to learn stuff?  As noted, there is a lot of info on our websites.  However, to further our mission of educating our members, in reality, spending our time answering questions of newbies, wannabes, etc., rather than learning ourseleves wouldn't fulfill onr of our missions.

One reason I bristle a little bit at this thread is the apparent presumption by many that ASGCA as a matter of course gets its membership acceptance policies wrong, its missions wrong, etc.  I could turn it around and say that 99% of the guys who should be members are, indicating that we get it right most of the time. 

Is it so hard to believe that maybe, just maybe, we know a little something about what we are doing and how we do it?

Sorry, but I just had to ask the impolite question!

The question of categories has come up numerous times and after long debates, turned down, mostly for the reasons I stated. 

[Ben Sims]

However, to further our mission of educating our members, in reality, spending our time answering questions of newbies, wannabes, etc., rather than learning ourseleves wouldn't fulfill onr of our missions.


Is it so hard to believe that maybe, just maybe, we know a little something about what we are doing and how we do it?

Jeff,

As to the first sentence.  There is a reason that on a dozen or so occasions just in the past two years, I've stood out in the summer sun in a nomex flight suit answering questions like, "how fast does it go?" and, "what does this button do?"  It's because those people pay my salary and maybe, just maybe, one of every 800 kids that I talk to will decide to go through the years of training and ass pain to do what we do.  I would hope that your society would understand the value in doing the same.  It sure seems as though the GCSAA does, as Ian noted above.

As for the second sentence I quoted.  You're 100% right.  And I know when I'm outgunned.  It's been made blatantly clear by John and Lou that this thread is pointless, and now you say the magic words.  It's your society.  You guys are members and architects, I am neither. It is not incumbent upon me to question the motives and processes of a society that I will probably never be involved with.  You won't hear a peep out of me regarding ASGCA ever again. 

I still appreciate your candor and involvement.  You seemed to approach my questions with gentlemanly vigor, which is commendable considering my inflammatory statements.  That you were subdued in regards to something you are so passionate about shows wisdom that I have yet to gain.

Cheers,
Ben

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ben,

Aw Shucks!

I didn't think the thread was pointless.  At the same time, as David and others pointed out, it is quite possible for yungins to get in the biz.

One of the reasons I am so passionate about ASGCA is that as a 15 year old who just played his first round of golf (at Medinah No. 3, no less) and went home to announce I was going to be a gca, my father happened to see a news blip in the Tribune that something called ASGCA had moved HQ to Chicago from Washington DC.  He wrote for and then obtained all the info they had on becoming a gca, including xeroxes of the Wind article, a good one by Joe Finger on how he became a gca, the NGF "Planning and Building the Golf Course" book (which I later re-wrote for them) etc.  I spent many a night getting the basics on being a gca.  I even wrote RTJ and got a very nice letter back (probably from Roger Rulewich as it turns out, but I was impressed nonetheless.

I try to pass on that same courtesy to any aspiring young gca because of my experience.  You will find the same story both inside and outside ASGCA among architects.  So many tried to talk me out of my dream (starting with my mother that night I came home from Medinah....."That's nice dear, but why don't you do something where you use your brain?"....that I tend to believe that the first requirement of being a gca is being too stubborn and stupid to know you might fail at it.  ASGCA is no greater than the quality of its individual members, and if a youngin is going to get help along the way, 90% of it will come from one or more individual members.

Cheers!

[paul cowley]

Thanks Lou, John and David for taking up where Jeff has left off....I'm hoping he off is working someplace making money and doesn't have the time to spend here.

ASGCA is foremost an organization of peers....but it is also an organization of competitors that swim in an extremely small fishbowl, and as such aren't that excited about mentoring a large group of future competitors....but we do that anyways, and this one of the most efficient ways of gaining membership....mentoring under a design firm and then getting qualified with enough course experience and then starting out on ones own.

The ASGCA family tree shows this in spades.

Mentoring is alive and well in the Society.

I followed a different path that was generally off the radar until I showed up wearing a skirt at my first conclave.

Mike will make it if he makes the extra effort....his not being here is becoming an issue for many of us.

Tom D's stubborness in joining is probably denying many of his associates membership.... he is a great mentor and has qualified designers working with/under him that probably have all the prerequisites for membership.


I doubt there are 300 people world wide that make a full time living in this profession.

[Mike Nuzzo]

"1.  first, congratulations on puting forth the commitment you mention thus far with autocad clases"

David & Ian
I think autocad is overkill and too cumbersome with irregular lines for designing a golf course - although it would probably help you get a position with a firm.
I've imagined the ASGCA getting together and discussing technology - at least a little - and from hearing members describe how they use cad - and having seen them use it first hand - they would be much better off with bringing in young talent.

[John_Conley]

I was reading the comments about how Supes have categories of membership and the ASGCA does not.  It hit me that you really don't need to 'grow' the number of architects because there will always be enough to absorb the work.  You definitely need to grow the number of golf pros and supes because every course needs those people on a go forward basis.

Course design is a one-time deal and then you move on to another.

[David Druzisky]

Mike,

Agreed on the AutoCAD thing.  I hate it and do not do any of the actual artistic design work with it.  It took me years to get to the point I was happy with my "irregular line drawing".  It is an art form that is really hard to duplicate in autoCAD.  Eventually my stuff goes into autocad format and there are others far more efficient and effective that do that for me for a much smaller fee than I could do it for internally.  I am sure some will debate me on this but it really in most aspects is a production tool more so than a design tool.  It does well at many levels though too as a communication tool when mixed with a bunch of other slick digital applications - but only by those that really know how to use it.  I do use it to do layouts and make modifications of needed.  It is also slick for measuring stuff which believe it or not is a big part of our work.

What many don't understand is that manipulating and using AutoCad to its fullest is almost a full time job in itself.

With that said, I fully would recommend to any youngling looking to formally edumacate his or herself as a step towards being a designer is to go ahead and from day one use it.  It is much easier that way and at some point you will still be able to ween yourself off of it if you get to the point that you want to strictly focus on the other aspects of the process.  I would imagine most existing architects looking to hire someone is doing so to get that skilled help.  I doubt the schools do it otherwise any way.

Careful though younglings.  Spending days and hours in the basement of the RTJII office in Palo Alto as an intern in the summer of 87 and calculating cut and fill quantities the old fashioned way with a planimeter and red and blue pencils really is what taught me early on to feel the contours and get really good at estimating quantities just by knowing what I now draw or just by looking at it.  You don't get that when you let the computer spit out the numbers.

Paul,

Interesting thought on Tom D's associates.  I too am not sure why he wouldn't want to apply.  The opportunity to enjoy some camaraderie among his peers that have the same passion as he does is what he is missing out on.  Go for it Tom before more time goes by!

This site is so much about the history of the games playing fields and the beauty of the game when it is played over wonderfully crafted courses.  That is pretty much what we all discuss amongst each other when we get together the one or two times a year.  As a younger member it is fantastic to hear all the stories from the past.  Some from distant past with characters that have meant so much to the profession and to the game!  Maybe in some way the ASGCA is where a lot of that history and more importantly background information will be passed down to the future guys.  In my mind that alone puts great value on the society in a way most on this site could appreciate.

  

[Lester George]

David,

Well said on all points!!

Lester