I just recently got back from the Architecture Licensing Advisor Summit a few weeks ago as a student licensing advisor, and NCARB announced the termination of the title "Intern Architect" and "Architecture Intern", because some people don't like the term "intern". They are even changing the name of IDP, but they have not decided what. As they rid the term "intern" they did not give out a new name but instead told us that current "interns" and architects should be creative and come up with it ourselves. They suggested future architect and uprising architect, but I don't really care for these titles. I like "architectural designer" however, it could be controversial, although it does not directly use the title, architect. What are some good ideas for a new title for Intern architects and designers who do not have a license yet? The name needs to be able to also address educated designers who do not want a license. Would architectural designer be ok as the new title?
There are other threads on this already. You might want to do a keyword search for other opinions and laments on the subject.
The reason NCARB didn't select a new title to replace intern is because different states have different regulations regarding what unlicensed architecture wannabes can call themselves, and the state NCARB delegates could not come to any consensus.
"Architectural designer", or anything else with any form of the words architect, architectural, or architecture, are not permitted by many states. Some allow "architect in training", but most don't. Balkins will be along soon to advocate for "building designer".
Designer, Drafter, Job Captain, Technician... those are all ok.
If you cannot call yourself "architectural designer" and you design architecture then the law is blatently stupid and serves absolutely zero public good.
Aug 15, 15 1:08 pm ·
·
As far as NCARB use of the term is totally fine. Their particular use is not subject to the licensing law in and of itself. However, each state has their approved titles which has to be determined by the state statutes or administrative rules.
Aug 15, 15 1:33 pm ·
·
As for NCARB using a title not protected or regulated is okay as long as it remains so. I am okay if anyone who is on the path to licensure to use the title building designer. It isn't regulated title. Nor was "IDP Intern". It is okay as long as building designer isn't being coopted and regulated by licensing boards because that infringes on established building designers who will fight against that. Really, they don't need a special 'regulated title'. That is what the title "Architect" is for.
If they want a legally protected title so bad then they can under go NCBDC certification for the title "CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL BUILDING DESIGNER" which by the way is a registered trademark under Federal law and is in fact protected. Enough said there.
In Oregon, you can't use the title "architectural designer" unless licensed. The only title that can be used by someone not licensed is 'architectural intern' but they have to meet the rules precisely:
OAR 806-010-0020:
(4) An individual may use the title “Architectural Intern” only after:
(a) Completing a professional degree in architecture meeting the education standard in OAR 806-010-0010(2); and
(b) Establishing a record with NCARB and enrolling in IDP; and
(c) Receiving written authorization from the Board to begin taking the ARE.
How about "Architecture Graduate"? It is what on the diploma, put there by an accredited school.
Aug 15, 15 2:17 pm ·
·
When NCARB uses terms for a general publication, titles used are not subject to individual state licensing laws.
IDP can simply be called Architectural Structured Experience Program (ASEP).
This bypasses NCARB having to really use a title to refer to people. They simply can call a person in the program a "trainee" or "a person working on their architectural licensing" or "a person aspiring to be an architect" or other verbage appropriate to the sentence and paragraphs.
When it comes to licensing law, historically there wasn't any such titles officially conferred to an unlicensed person on the path to licensure because licensing laws are not about conferring special status and title for someone who is not licensed.
In the days before IDP, you had positional titles based on the what the employer decided to call a person of a given job position. There were no official state sanction/protected occupational titles for those unlicensed because that is not what licensing law is about. Those laws are about protecting titles that are reserved by the state to be conferred to those who obtain licensure for that title by meeting the requirements.
In some ways, we are taking a step back to way things were before IDP when it comes to titles for someone who is on their path to licensure.
There is no title because every person path to licensure varies because no one person has the exact same path. Sometimes, it is long and meandering while others are shorter or more straight.
The difference between a positional title and an occupational title is that a position title is one you use at a specific place of employment. An occupational title is one that is rather universal and used independent of a place of employment. Such as building designer is an occupational title while "Designer I" or "Designer II" is a positional title.
Sometimes position titles are based on occupational titles. The wonders of the real world as convoluted as it is.
So really, should it matter so much because a positional title (sometimes usable as an occupational title when you can use it independently of employment) is often more appropriate to what you do and your particular role and responsibility.
I found Europe, particularly the further North one goes, has a great system addressing this that is fundamentally different from our North American free-for-all. Simply put, if you have a professional degree where you can work towards licensure, you are an Architect. If you have obtained licensure, you are a Registered Architect. Its a subtle difference that all in the industry understand and appreciate, and doesn't devalue the profession with terms like "intern" for someone working full-time (paid) in the field. It also avoids those weird party moments of "Oh-I'm-an-architect-but-I'm-not-an-Architect" scenarios.
If you'd like to see more of what Richard has to say on the subject ... feel free to wade through the comments here; NCARB Punted the Intern Title Debate.
New title for "Intern Architects" or "Architecture Intern"
I just recently got back from the Architecture Licensing Advisor Summit a few weeks ago as a student licensing advisor, and NCARB announced the termination of the title "Intern Architect" and "Architecture Intern", because some people don't like the term "intern". They are even changing the name of IDP, but they have not decided what. As they rid the term "intern" they did not give out a new name but instead told us that current "interns" and architects should be creative and come up with it ourselves. They suggested future architect and uprising architect, but I don't really care for these titles. I like "architectural designer" however, it could be controversial, although it does not directly use the title, architect. What are some good ideas for a new title for Intern architects and designers who do not have a license yet? The name needs to be able to also address educated designers who do not want a license. Would architectural designer be ok as the new title?
IDP - I = "DP" Thats quite perverted but also quite accurate.
There are other threads on this already. You might want to do a keyword search for other opinions and laments on the subject.
The reason NCARB didn't select a new title to replace intern is because different states have different regulations regarding what unlicensed architecture wannabes can call themselves, and the state NCARB delegates could not come to any consensus.
"Architectural designer", or anything else with any form of the words architect, architectural, or architecture, are not permitted by many states. Some allow "architect in training", but most don't. Balkins will be along soon to advocate for "building designer".
Designer, Drafter, Job Captain, Technician... those are all ok.
If you cannot call yourself "architectural designer" and you design architecture then the law is blatently stupid and serves absolutely zero public good.
As far as NCARB use of the term is totally fine. Their particular use is not subject to the licensing law in and of itself. However, each state has their approved titles which has to be determined by the state statutes or administrative rules.
As for NCARB using a title not protected or regulated is okay as long as it remains so. I am okay if anyone who is on the path to licensure to use the title building designer. It isn't regulated title. Nor was "IDP Intern". It is okay as long as building designer isn't being coopted and regulated by licensing boards because that infringes on established building designers who will fight against that. Really, they don't need a special 'regulated title'. That is what the title "Architect" is for.
If they want a legally protected title so bad then they can under go NCBDC certification for the title "CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL BUILDING DESIGNER" which by the way is a registered trademark under Federal law and is in fact protected. Enough said there.
In Oregon, you can't use the title "architectural designer" unless licensed. The only title that can be used by someone not licensed is 'architectural intern' but they have to meet the rules precisely:
OAR 806-010-0020:
(4) An individual may use the title “Architectural Intern” only after:
(a) Completing a professional degree in architecture meeting the education standard in OAR 806-010-0010(2); and
(b) Establishing a record with NCARB and enrolling in IDP; and
(c) Receiving written authorization from the Board to begin taking the ARE.
Emerging Architect?
How about "Architecture Graduate"? It is what on the diploma, put there by an accredited school.
When NCARB uses terms for a general publication, titles used are not subject to individual state licensing laws.
IDP can simply be called Architectural Structured Experience Program (ASEP).
This bypasses NCARB having to really use a title to refer to people. They simply can call a person in the program a "trainee" or "a person working on their architectural licensing" or "a person aspiring to be an architect" or other verbage appropriate to the sentence and paragraphs.
When it comes to licensing law, historically there wasn't any such titles officially conferred to an unlicensed person on the path to licensure because licensing laws are not about conferring special status and title for someone who is not licensed.
In the days before IDP, you had positional titles based on the what the employer decided to call a person of a given job position. There were no official state sanction/protected occupational titles for those unlicensed because that is not what licensing law is about. Those laws are about protecting titles that are reserved by the state to be conferred to those who obtain licensure for that title by meeting the requirements.
In some ways, we are taking a step back to way things were before IDP when it comes to titles for someone who is on their path to licensure.
There is no title because every person path to licensure varies because no one person has the exact same path. Sometimes, it is long and meandering while others are shorter or more straight.
The difference between a positional title and an occupational title is that a position title is one you use at a specific place of employment. An occupational title is one that is rather universal and used independent of a place of employment. Such as building designer is an occupational title while "Designer I" or "Designer II" is a positional title.
Sometimes position titles are based on occupational titles. The wonders of the real world as convoluted as it is.
So really, should it matter so much because a positional title (sometimes usable as an occupational title when you can use it independently of employment) is often more appropriate to what you do and your particular role and responsibility.
I found Europe, particularly the further North one goes, has a great system addressing this that is fundamentally different from our North American free-for-all. Simply put, if you have a professional degree where you can work towards licensure, you are an Architect. If you have obtained licensure, you are a Registered Architect. Its a subtle difference that all in the industry understand and appreciate, and doesn't devalue the profession with terms like "intern" for someone working full-time (paid) in the field. It also avoids those weird party moments of "Oh-I'm-an-architect-but-I'm-not-an-Architect" scenarios.
Bench, Too easy and much too sensible.
If you'd like to see more of what Richard has to say on the subject ... feel free to wade through the comments here; NCARB Punted the Intern Title Debate.
I don't care what you call me as long as my pay goes up...
Don't we all?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.