Do yourself a HUGE favor...bite the bullet, deal with your impatience, enroll in U of Guelph, and earn your MLA. I'm new around here, thus the late response...but I feel I'm qualified to give you some career advice. I'm a managing partner/owner (and RLA) in a Landscape Architecture and Civil Engineering firm. I'll be very frank with my response...my hope is that you'll take it seriously and not be offended. If I were to get a resume from you with the MLD from Conway as your highest level of education (along with your BA History of course), I wouldn't give you a second thought. With a promising cover letter, I MIGHT peruse your info to find out more about the Conway education but you would not be a candidate for any job openings. With the current massive layoffs in the industry, you will be up against some of the top talent in the field...believe me - I've already laid them off or seen their recently brushed off resumes. To sit for the LARE, in MOST states/provinces you'll have to ALREADY have completed 2+ years of apprenticeship under a licensed landscape architect. On top of that you'll be required to have a BLA or MLA from a CLARB accredited school (schools have to renew their accredidation with CLARB every few years and that in itself is no cakewalk for the institution). There are sometimes (depending on state/province) ways around the education part, and you could very well qualify with your work experience...BUT... And then of course is the test...I worked with a person who sat for it numerous times during a 15+ year career before passing (wasn't good with the grading and construction sections but was a great conceptual designer). And that's just the licensing part. Reading your posts, I believe you're ready to go into a MLA program...and I recommend and encourage you to do so if you're serious about this: "primary interest is along the lines of large scale design, subdivisions, parks, resorts etc." You will never do that type work without being a LICENSED/REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. The profession is so much broader and truly design-based than plants, patios, and pergolas. I think you've realized that whether you know it or not. When I was in school, we students had an inside joke...we thought it was easier to get a degree in landscape archtecture than it was to quadruple-major in art, horticulture, engineering, and ecology. And for some perspective, you mention "2 of the 3 projects are on a scale that far exceeds garden design or even residential layouts..." In my BLA program (and I'm sure is the same across the board), we would do 4-6 projects on a scale that far exceeds garden design or even residential layouts in one class (each semester)...and that was only our studio course, which was on top of a couple of lecture classes and/or core-related electives. I could go on and on with reasons why you should get your MLA over the Conway certificate, but I don't want to wear my fingers out typing (I've got a little sketching to do tomorrow)...just do yourself, your significant other, and future family a favor and complete your education to prepare you for what (I think) you truly want to do. A few final and perhaps random thoughts: - You mention putting a time constraint on what you want to achieve...with the time constraint you'll never achieve your goal of designing subdivisions, resorts, parks, etc. - Listen to DD when he talks about the rules...they are in place and you have to play by them. - The Univ. of Guelph will prepare you for a great career in Landscape Architecture...my best employee (who I've unfortunately had to lay off) is a graduate and is an extremely talented designer who understands the design process and is effective at commuunicating his design intent, which is always very well thought out. Of all my employees, I think his education prepared him better than most. - You've got to quit equating "landscaping" and "landscape design" with "landscape architecture"...they are two totally different things and are on very different levels. You must embrace that fact. - And on plantings, planting design, and the horticulture end of our profession... There's currently great debate regarding how plants and planting design fit into our profession and if it is or isn't being given it's proper attention. I'm of the opinion that unfortunately it's on its way to being a lost art. IMO, it's our greatest medium, but too many don't appreciate and understand plants as well as they should; and many RLAs deal very minimally with plants and focus instead on other aspects and scales of the profession where individual plants don't come into play . Plantings are VERY IMPORTANT to my designs, but only about 10% of the work I do actually involves plantings...the rest is planning (at varying scales and phases), rezoning, grading/drainage design, hardscape design, construction administration/observation, coordination of plans and designs with other consultants, water quality strategy with my PEs, etc, etc. - Pick up a few books to see if they peak your interest...if so, enroll in Guelph...try these: Landscape Architecture: A Manual of Site Planning and Design by John O. Simonds Site Analysis: Linking Program and Concept in Land Planning and Design by James A. LaGro Jr Design with Nature by Ian L. McHarg The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces by William H. Whyte Those are a few...there are many more. Good Luck!

By having depth of bed I don't mean to imply that one must plant and maintain it with a "jungly" appearance. It's just that any shrubs one might plant along the foundation are bound to easily eat up 4' of depth, even when maintained to modest proportions. Then, one would probably have something low -- perennial or groundcover -- growing in front of the shrub and it, too, could easily take up an equivalent amount of depth. start adding up the numbers and it becomes apparent that 4' seems stingy. Of course, if one plans only on a single row of shrubs, then 4' is workable. (But this seems like a less pretty solution than shrubs plus groundcover, perennial or some such thing.) It is not depth of bed that makes a difference between a "clean" look and a disheveled one. If you want a raised bed merely because you want it, then no more need be said. I get the impression you will, at least, do its construction justice. "... it would probably be better to let nature cover like it's going to try to do no matter what I put there." I'm certainly not suggesting that you allow weeds to take over. That is the death knell to any landscape. There are attractive groundcovers and perennials that can be maintained in a weed-free state for a clean, attractive and interesting appearance. Keeping the design simple leads toward a "cleaner" look. If there were weeds in the area previously, it requires diligence in maintenance until the ground-covering plants become fully established (then they become the "mulch.") In most cases, one mulches fairly heavily at the beginning, which helps keep weeds down. Pre-emergent herbicide can be very useful, too, but follow directions carefully, as you wouldn't want to also kill plants you bought and installed. One must put out the most anti-weed effort during the first year. (The main objective is NEVER let a weed flower and produce seed within the bed area -- which some will try to do within twenty-something days after sprouting by seed --as it will prolong the weeding process by another year, at least.) If one keeps up with it right along, weeding is less trouble the second year and after that, minor to nearly non-existent. What plants you use to cover the ground of the planting bed would depend on where you live and what grows well there, and what the design requirements are calling for in terms of height, interest and personality.

Im sorry I got back to everyone so late. I was sick through the weekend. Thank you all for the responses. So hereÂs how the meeting went. I thought it was just going to be me meeting with the teacher, more of a planning session. But then she took me over to talk with the principal right away. I wasnÂt really prepared for it and neither was the teacher, so when the principal asked for specific points, we both were much too vague. The bottom line was that the principal said that unless there is a specific diagnosis, we canÂt actually have a 504 in place, as merrygardener said. She did also offer that at their elementary school, it might not be necessary to have one anyway. It is a math/science magnet and so many kids are so bright, but have wildly different strengths and weaknesses and they seem to accommodate them as a normal course of events. Also, if he tests as gifted, he will be eligible for alternative classes, work, etc. The principal then offered that a number of students in the school go forward with pursuing 504 plans for middle school because the environment there is much different. Sweeby, DH and I did have a really long meeting with the psychologist after all the testing was done. And we have all the detailed test results, but I really got the feeling that she was trying to only build a case for ADHD, and really ignored, or only casually mentioned other possibilities. For example, one of the minor suggestions at the end was that DS be examined for possibly needing vision therapy. He was not reading well and had lots of dyslexic tendencies. Well, he had really bad focusing/teeming/tracking problems, and after 6 months of work, he went from being below grade level in reading to now testing highest in the class, well over 6th grade level. So now, IÂm taking more time with each section in the report and trying to gleam any more clues. The "write it or learn it but not both" is really spot on with him. Repetitive work is worse than useless. Once he "gets it" if he has to drill over and over, he makes more and more mistakes. Also, as was consistent with the testing, his response time is slow (both visual and auditory), but heÂs highly accurate. He just doesnÂt seem to need to go fast on anything. And the more you tell him hurry, the more flustered he gets and the less that he can do, but yet, put a timer on sometimes, and play beat the clock and he can fly through any task for short bursts of time. Holly, I will request next yearÂs teacher based on the current teacherÂs recommendation. I really respect her judgment. But I wonÂt have any final say in the matter, or will she. Good idea on the "notes to the new teacher." This year, his teacher specifically requested them and I really appreciated it. Somehow I think that and regular contact with the teacher is more important than a diagnosis at this time. So after this really long response, I guess my next really long series of questions are Should I have him retested by a psychologist? After the first testing, the therapist was almost trying scare tactics, telling us that if we donÂt pursue ADHD treatment, heÂs going to end up with awful self-esteem and will be a drug addict. I definitely wonÂt go back to her as there were other issues (i.e., she calculated all the results on his age when he took the last test (age 6-1/2), but he took most of the tests just before age 6.) Is it reasonable for me to take these results to another specialist to help interpret and perhaps retake portions that seem inconsistent with other observations? I strongly put him in the Gifted/Visual-Spatial/with Learning Disabilities category so what? What do I do with this information? Everything I read says this category doesnÂt typically do well in regular school Ok, I know that, and he's now in about the best environment I could find for him. Is that enough? The point is, thereÂs a lot we know about DS intuitively. Is it enough to keep things informal and undiagnosed as long as heÂs a well-adjusted child and doing reasonably well in school, or is it a problem waiting to happen down the road in junior high? I appreciate everyoneÂs insights as you travel your own paths and I continue to learn from all the responses on the other threads as well. TIA.

The pictures are from a bit far. Move to the city sidewalk, keeping in line with front door and take a set of slightly overlapping pictures that aim to the left and pan toward the right (all from the same point of view) capturing the entire front yard scene. If you could do this when your yard is in better lighting, it would help. For landscaping, it is a mistake to fall in love with and purchase the plants you like before knowing where they go. First, find the sensible place to plant and then determine what plant best solves the function that that particular place needs. In other words, create a landscape planting plan. You may have purchased plants that don't fit well. No one could tell yet. What is the tree/shrub at the right corner of house? We don't see enough of far left or far right side of yard.