ecofem said:
I've taken the both a State Bar Exam and now the AICP exam.
I think the AICP will mean more once the exam is less subjective and more closely related to the planning practice.
The problem is,
whose planning practice?
I just took the AICP exam Saturday, and it was all over the map. I feel I did well, but the test writers seemed to want to put something on the test for everyone that can call themselves a planner. And who are they?
Architects, landscape architects, engineers, environmentalists, developers, economic development officials, community development officials, zoning specialists, land use lawyers, development policy advisors, etc., etc., etc. -- anyone in a field that can lay claim to doing something with the built environment.
Too many other professions can claim part of what planners do, and that dilutes "planning" -- however defined -- altogether.
I took the AICP because passing it is a professional accomplishment -- nothing more, nothing less. If it means I stand out (in a good way) among other planners because of it, good. And it's a good move for those who have chosen the field. But it was never critical for what I do.
I chose planning as a field of study and a career because I grew up in a distressed city, and I felt 1) better policies and 2) better designs made for better cities. I wonder now if an undergraduate design degree and a graduate public policy degree or MBA would've served me better.