Interior Designer Licenses

I think it's possible that Tim Lee's post hailing my post suggesting that licensing requirements for interior designers are too onerous may have overstated the extent to which this stance really is "at odds with lefty orthodoxy." After all, I got an approving link from Atrios. That said, he reminds me that it's instructive to actually look at the requirements. Here's New York State, where "To be licensed as a certified interior designer in New York State you must" do the following:

• be at least 21 years of age
• meet education and examination requirements
• meet experience requirements
• be of good moral character

And what are the education and experience requirements?

You must accrue at least seven years of acceptable education and experience credits, including the following:

• At least two but no more than five years of postsecondary education in an approved program of interior design, including an associate degree or its equivalent; and
• At least two years of interior design work experience satisfactory to the State Board for Interior Design. To be acceptable for licensure your practical experience must:
  • be under the direct supervision of an interior designer, architect, or professional engineer;
  • within the bounds of interior design practice as set forth in section 8303 of the Education Law, demonstrate diverse experience in all aspects of project planning and execution;
  • and reflect increased levels of professional growth.

On top of that, "You are required to pass all three sections of the National Council for Interior Design Qualification (NCIDQ) Examination which is administered twice yearly in April and October." These are fairly onerous requirements and I think it's pretty clear that their main purpose, like that of the Guild policies of yore or a lot of what the American Medical Association does today, is to erect barriers to entry into the profession, which is good for existing interior designers.

Comments

boo hoo.

if you don't want to hire a license interior designer, hire your cousin Linda and hope she's grown out of her zerba-stripe phase.

Posted by cleek | September 5, 2007 9:37 PM

It seems like this barrier to entry is a "truth in labeling" thing. Texas has a provision stating that only people who can hold the title "Engineer" at their jobs is someone with a P.E. certification (which involves a set period of professional experience plus passing some exams). This seems onerous to the rest of us (in Massachusetts, it seems that everyone who touches a computer in any way holds the job title "Engineer"), but in the abstract, I understand the state's interest in having business people's job descriptions convey specific information.

Posted by Tyro | September 5, 2007 9:39 PM

>>licensing requirements for interior designers

Just wondering: do you blog every thought that enters your head?

Why are licensing requirements for interior designers entering your head anyway?

What is your opinion on the Africanized bees? Yoo-hoo? Visa requirements for visiting Hong Kong in 1962?

Posted by jim | September 5, 2007 9:41 PM

well, i think it should be as easy as possible for senator craig to enter a new profession, after he finally decides to resign. i bet he has a lot of fabulous ideas for decorating restrooms
and making stalls more user friendly.

Posted by pretzel | September 5, 2007 9:48 PM

Matt, I read the NY regs and as far as can tell there is no licensure requirement for interior designers. If you want to call yourself a "certified interior designer" you can get the credits and take the tests, but you don't have to be a certified interior designor to do interior design work. So it appears that there are no barriers to entry at all.

Of course, I could be wrong. But I have a job that doesn't allow to spend all day pontificating about stuff. You, on the other hand, are a well-paid journalist at a big-name publication. Why don't you make a call to the National Association of Interior Designers and do some reporting before you confidently tell us what to think?

Posted by Bloix | September 5, 2007 9:48 PM

Does this prevent someone who isn't licensed from engaging in Interior Design work, or does it merely prevent that person from using the credentials without meeting the requirements?

Whether you think credentialing is a good thing or not, credentials do have economic value. The state is simply protecting the value of the credentials from those who would unfairly appropriate them. To put it crudely, it's like grading meat. You wouldn't want just anyone stamping Grade A/Prime on any slab of meat they want to sell unless it actually meets the appropriate standards.

The concept of credentialing itself is the real problem. It's credentials, not licenses, that restrict supply. An argument could also be made that credentials are used to institutionalize incompetence.

Posted by FS | September 5, 2007 9:57 PM

What part of the requirements for a medical license are unnecessary barriers to entry to the medical profession?

Posted by Christopher M | September 5, 2007 10:01 PM

I have no idea how old this law actually is, but I love the idea that, at one time, a requirement of "good moral character" might have been supposed to keep gays out of the interior design business.

Posted by DonBoy | September 5, 2007 10:09 PM

The big thing the "moral character" requirment does is keep people with felony convictions out of various professions. It's an unbelievably stupid and punitive polciy -- someone has served their sentence, paid theier debt to society, but they can't ever be an interior designer or barber or whatever?

There was a heartbreaking story here in New York a few years ago about a guy who'd earned a barber's certification while in prison for robbery and wanted to go to work when he finished his sentence, but the state wouldn't give him the license because of the "moral character" requirement.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | September 5, 2007 10:22 PM

Oh, laugh it up, kids. Laugh it up. If you'd seen what I've seen--people's homes, ruined--ruined, I tell you, totally ruined, literally rendered unlivable--by unlicensed interior decorators, like I've seen--you wouldn't be so flip about the whole thing.

Posted by James Gary | September 5, 2007 10:37 PM

It seems like Matt has confused interior design with interior decoration. An interior designer is pretty much an architect who designs the inside of buildings. This included complicated stuff like laying out the inside of hospitals, etc. These titles are interchanged by the masses and it drivers the designers crazy.

Posted by guy | September 5, 2007 10:39 PM

"At least two but no more than five years of postsecondary education in an approved program of interior design"

Can anyone speculate as to why more than five years of education would be disqualifying for this certification?

Posted by JSE | September 5, 2007 10:43 PM

There's this running theory that somehow the number of slots open for medical students is somehow far below the number of qualified applicants. This is a myth put forth by all the morons who think they should have been admitted to medical school, and weren't. Given how many morons ARE admitted to medical school, I don't there's a good case to be made that the next wave of idiots should be allowed to become doctors too.

Posted by Pup, MD | September 5, 2007 10:48 PM

Wait.... You need to act as a nonlicensed interior decorator for at least two years? Doesn't that undervalue the licensing procedure?

Posted by Anthony Damiani | September 5, 2007 11:14 PM

Another good example of this are the requirements to sit for the CPA exam. Among other things, you have to take a certain number of credit hours of accounting courses, and to have worked as an accountant for a certain number of years (yes, you can do this without being a CPA). On the face of it, this sounds reasonable.

Its practically almost impossible to meet the accounting credit hours requirement without majoring in the subject as an undergrad. Not every school has an accounting major. I knew one Cornell grad who had to all but reenroll in another undergraduate program to get the requisite hours. Essentially anyone who graduated from a liberal arts program is excluded off the bat.

The work hours requirement means that you can't sit for the exam without already been hired by an accounting firm. So now we have accounting firms, and this really means the big four, acting as gatekeepers for the profession. Among other things, this is one of the reasons why the big four is the big four, and there aren't lots of mid-sized accounting firms.

Note that these tough professional requirements did nothing to prevent the accounting profession from diving into the ethical deep end with Enron and similar scandals.

Posted by Ed | September 5, 2007 11:49 PM

whoa, the comments link is inside the blockquote, dude you are trippin me out!

eppure, si muove

Posted by live | September 6, 2007 12:13 AM

I'd like to know what constitutes "good moral character" and if it's seriously a consideration to the point where it's actually investigated. I bet DonBoy's right - simply an anti-gay bulwark.

As per the supply-side post, here's a question; isn't the notion of "increased tax revenue" anathema to conservative purists? Oh wait, that's right, tax revenue is the gravy train of modern Repubs (competition, ingenuity, hard work is sooo Goldwater era)

Posted by tokorode | September 6, 2007 12:26 AM

This sort of post would be right at home over at volokh.com, where people constantly prattle on about how unfair it is that you have to go to an accredited law school to become a lawyer and so on and so forth and it's all a big racket.

There are certainly barriers to entry into the legal profession, mind you, but are they actually onerous and unreasonable? Show of hands, please, how many people think the problem with our society is that we don't have enough lawyers.

Posted by Steve | September 6, 2007 2:06 AM

Well, it's clear from your blockquoting problems, that you should not be a credentialed HTML user.

That said, you can state the requirements are onerous, but that's not proof that it is.

Proof might be comparable statistics of interior designers in states that have requirements and states that don't, and perhaps salary/contract information.

To the extent these people are putting things on walls, ceilings, floors that could fall on you, I think the requirement that they work with an engineer, contractor or architect is reasonable.

To the extent that the "guy" above is correct and you have confused the job title and the jobs then I think it makes clear why you are mere blogger while Duncan Black is publisher/editor of an Online Magazine.

Posted by jerry | September 6, 2007 2:52 AM

Why are licensing requirements for interior designers entering your head anyway?

Because if he doesn't throw us libertarians some red meat every now and then, Sully's threatened to rename the award.

Posted by Senescent | September 6, 2007 3:43 AM

Matt, I read the NY regs and as far as can tell there is no licensure requirement for interior designers. If you want to call yourself a "certified interior designer" you can get the credits and take the tests, but you don't have to be a certified interior designor to do interior design work. So it appears that there are no barriers to entry at all.

While I'm sympathetic to Matthew's argument, this is right. The regulation only provides requirements for the title of "certified" interior designer. You can practice interior design as an uncertified interior designer all you want. Contrast this to most of the other practices regulated by the Education Department - e.g., landscape architects and engineers and dentists and massage therapists. The law for them states that you cannot practice at all if you don't meet the applicable requirements. (E.g., Section 7322 of the Education Law: "Only a person licensed or otherwise authorized to practice under this article shall practice landscape architecture or use the title "landscape architect"." Itals added.) For interior design, the only restriction is on using the title (Section 8301: "Only a person certified pursuant to this article may use the title "certified interior designer".").

Posted by Al | September 6, 2007 7:46 AM

This is a real barrier to entry, and for fairly minor work. Annoyingly, it's four or five years ago, so I've forgotten most of the details, but I've actually represented an unlicensed interior designer at a hearing to determine whether he was going to be fined for doing interior design work without a license (he had a client who didn't pay him, he pressed her for payment, she complained about his lack of license to the relevant agency). And we were talking about work like hanging curtains, and buying furniture. (We lost -- it was a fair cop, he was unlicensed, and the work he'd been doing was within the definition.)

You want nutty licensing requirements, look at beauticians.

Posted by LizardBreath | September 6, 2007 7:49 AM

Here's the definition of interior design work:

§8303 Definition of practice of interior design. For the purposes of this article, the practice of interior design is defined as rendering or offering to render services for a fee or other valuable consideration, in the preparation and administration of interior design documents (including drawings, schedules and specifications) which pertain to the planning and design of interior spaces including furnishings, layouts, fixtures, cabinetry, lighting, finishes, materials, and interior construction not materially related to or materially affecting the building systems, all of which shall comply with applicable laws, codes, regulations, and standards.

Posted by LizardBreath | September 6, 2007 7:53 AM

Huh. I just read the comment above my first. I think it's wrong, based on the experience I described, but I'd have to read the law again to figure out how so.

Posted by LizardBreath | September 6, 2007 7:54 AM

Umm, establishing elitist barriers for entry into ANY profession is most definitely against left wing thought. YOU may not have a problem with it, but it's clear that denying opportunities to some, and restricting them to others, is a right wing idea and not a left wing one.

Guilds =/= unions. As for people arguing that it isn't a serious advantage to have a license in something, I'd suggest you study human psychology and the concept of trust a little harder, because speaking from alleged authority is too strong an advantage to be ignored.

Plus, add in the sort of corruption that you find in most areas of the country, and you have a strong liklihood that judges and leo's will simply violate the law and ignore that people are allowed to do unlicensed work.

Posted by soullite | September 6, 2007 7:55 AM

Unless somebody with more training than Leo Szilard is helping me choose between carpeting and an area rug I feel like I'm open to decorative malfeasance.

Posted by joejoejoe | September 6, 2007 8:12 AM

It's also a means of protecting consumers. It's not that folks can't practice interior design, rather they can't call themselves interior designers without a license. The requirements for licensing seem like a pretty good baseline for someone tracking a professional career in interior design.

These certifications and licenses exist as a form of peer review. There are plenty of professions that require structured ongoing education. Certification and licensing fosters professional networking of information.

Posted by Jazzercise4life | September 6, 2007 8:29 AM

Actually, certifying interior decorators sounds like a good idea to me. Decorators generally act as contractors-- they don't personally do the painting, plumbing and electrical work you're paying for. They have access to your home, they relay bills for many thousands of dollars for services rendered-- parts, labor, fees, etc.

So, jokes aside, interior decorating seems to me to be a good candidate for certification. The only problem I can see is that having taste doesn't seem to be a requirement.

Posted by MattF | September 6, 2007 8:29 AM

I've actually represented an unlicensed interior designer at a hearing to determine whether he was going to be fined for doing interior design work without a license (he had a client who didn't pay him, he pressed her for payment, she complained about his lack of license to the relevant agency).

Seriously diluting the quality of the evidence, I've heard about fifth-hand of a case where the client flat refused to pay the designer because she was unlicensed, and she couldn't do anything about it. And I think the problem was that what she did required a license in one county but not in another. But I'm not sure about that.

Beautician licensing strikes me as possibly justifiable, since they're putting chemicals on their customers' heads, but in all these cases there's reason to worry about whether we're just erecting barriers to entry.

Posted by Matt Weiner | September 6, 2007 8:51 AM

It seems that people (like Matt and libertarians) want to use the interior designer (ID) as an example of some sort of pnerous barrier to entry, but I don't actually see anyone offering up many comparable examples in which a profession that doesn't seem to need certification has it. The requirements fro becoming an ID are closely parallel to those for becoming an architect; surely no one here thinks that architects shouldn't be licensed by the state? Same deal with various flavors of engineers. It also seems trivially true to me that a Certified Public Accountant should, in fact, be certified by some sort of public body, but what do I know (I would note that there's thousands of accounting firms outside the Big Four where one could spend 2 years learning the ropes).

The main guild-like barriers to entry to medicine seem to be less the licensure requirements and more the immigration limits (and, to an extent, the absurd residence period, with the hazing-like 36 hour shifts that are never repeated by actual practicing doctors). As Steve above said, there certainly don't seem to be high-enough barriers to entry to the legal profession.

Point being, not everything is a synecdoche. If the ID certification is dubious (my argument would be that IDs work with life/safety and accessibility issues, and should be licensed; interior decorators should certainly be able to choose curtains w/o a license), it may not actually shine much light on other cases; it may simply be a license too far.

Posted by JRoth | September 6, 2007 9:08 AM

I second Guy above. And thanks for the statutory cite, LB. I've been reading these comments and the ones on the earlier thread thinking that the discussion is confusing interior decorators (pillows and curtains) and interior design (which can include both residential and commercial interior spaces). These folks specify fixtures and materials for the interiors of hospitals and schools, for example. Interior designers need to know building codes, textile requirements (including durability and flamability), ADA requirements, basics of electrical planning, ergonomics, and a host of other technical details to do their jobs.

My mom has been an interior designer for 40 years now working primarily with a commercial architectural firm -- designing hospitals, schools and shopping malls. She is fully licensed, takes continuing education, and is a member of the American Society of Interior Designers (ASID). It drives her crazy when people assume she does the same job as the people who help you pick a fabric for your couch at the Pottery Barn.

Posted by Kitten Anderson | September 6, 2007 9:09 AM

You want nutty licensing requirements, look at beauticians.

Really? Anyone who's going to be putting hot wax on my girlbits, applying steam to my face, any of it, I'd much rather they were over-regulated than under-regulated. The kind of stuff beauticians do, it's DISASTROUS when it goes wrong. Believe me, I have seen the shlock-horror documentaries and I wish hadn't.

Of course, I know nothing about the licensing requirements you speak of at all... just saying, in the abstract, tight regulations on beauticians seem like a good idea.

Posted by kali | September 6, 2007 9:16 AM

The thing is, Kitten, that the statutory definition covers the guy picking out your fabrics at Pottery Barn:

pertain to the planning and design of interior spaces including furnishings, layouts, fixtures, cabinetry, lighting, finishes, materials,

There's a good argument that what your mom does should be licensed, but also one that the definition is overinclusive.

Posted by LizardBreath | September 6, 2007 9:23 AM

On the other hand, I've been through the statute, and the argument that it only applies to people calling themselves certified interior designers, rather than everyone practicing interior design, seems to be true. I wish I could remember the details of the guy I represented better -- it was dumped on me by a sick coworker at the last minute, so I never got immersed in it, but I'd swear he hadn't misrepresented himself, but that the problem was that he'd been doing interior design work without a license. Maybe the regs have changed in the last five years, in which case they look reasonable now, or I'm misremembering my case.

Posted by Lizardbreath | September 6, 2007 9:27 AM

At least two but no more than five years of postsecondary education

NO MORE THAN 5?

Is there something dangerous about over-educated interior designers?

Posted by r4d20 | September 6, 2007 10:17 AM

Lizardbreath-

Of course, isn't it possible your client just did a really terrible job?

Licensing addresses a particular market failure whereby people don't know anything about the work of the interior designer they hire until after the interior designer has spent a shitload of the client's money and torn up the client's house for a couple months. Obviously there is no accounting for taste but we could still define all sorts of requirements for good interior design work. Presumably certification ensures the designer has some idea what he or she is doing.

The libertarian argument, I imagine, is that interior designers could be privately certified/evaluated (like hotels.com does for hotels). It seems possible that the internet gives people access to information quickly enough that licensing is less important now than it once was.

Posted by Jack | September 6, 2007 10:19 AM

You want nutty licensing requirements, look at beauticians.

Yes, there couldn't possibly be a compelling state interest in regulating a profession that reuses instruments that make contact with intimate parts of the human body.

I think we've forgotten what a huge role that public health officials played in making our cities livable rather than death traps. When was the last time anyone over the age of 11 faced an outbreak of head-lice?

Posted by Tyro | September 6, 2007 10:20 AM

An example of a nutty license requirement for beauticians would be to require someone to take classes on giving manicures and pedicures in order to legally braid hair.

Midwives in the US face barriers to practice that have been put in place by lobbyists for their main competition, doctors, under the guise of protecting women and children.

It is straightforward to assume that the purchaser of a service has the right to know whether the person they are hiring is qualified to perform the service, but it can be less straightforward to determine how to make that assessment fairly.

Posted by Shamhat | September 6, 2007 10:30 AM

Can anyone speculate as to why more than five years of education would be disqualifying for this certification?

Postsecondary. As in, do you really want someone who couldn't earn their associate's degree at the local junior college in five years figuring out where your light fixtures are going to plug into the electrical system? I don't.

Posted by James F. Elliott | September 6, 2007 11:32 AM

Of course, isn't it possible your client just did a really terrible job?

Of course, but that wasn't what the hearing was about -- IIRC, he was literally in trouble for lacking a license. But I have to admit my memory of the facts is hazy.

An example of a nutty license requirement for beauticians would be to require someone to take classes on giving manicures and pedicures in order to legally braid hair.

Exactly this sort of thing. Some kind of licensing is reasonable; licensing requiring extensive education in procedures you have no wish to perform is onerous.

Posted by LizardBreath | September 6, 2007 11:53 AM

Can anyone speculate as to why more than five years of education would be disqualifying for this certification?

No, it's just that only 5 years can count towards the combined 7 of education/experience. So you could do 5 years training and 2 on the job, or 2 years training and 5 on the job, or either 3/4 combination, but you couldn't qualify by training 7 years but never actually working in the field.

Posted by Senescent | September 6, 2007 5:06 PM

I 3rd and 4th the comments above about interior design being completely different than interior decorating. My brother is an interior designer and works in the commericial industry (theaters, museums.) These licensing requirements are there to make sure that the roof doesn't fall on your head next time you go out in public. Get a clue Matt!

Posted by Adrock | September 6, 2007 5:17 PM

I mean, you could train 7 years, but the point is that you'd still have to spend 2 years working.

Posted by Senescent | September 6, 2007 5:20 PM

The reason for licensing and minimum requirements is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Period. It has nothing to do with what looks good. It has everything to do with building codes and accesibility standards in public spaces not residences.

Posted by Rachel B | September 6, 2007 11:45 PM