why would you search for an architect if you want a bathroom remodel? i would think you would want a plumber. then maybe get a designer to pick the paint color.
jla's comments about architects and souls and crap is not really accurate. our credential as 'architect' is suppose to suggest we understand the various disciplines involved in making buildings safe and accessible for the public. when walking into the circle k down the street, you should feel confident that the building isn't going to burn down or collapse on you or otherwise hurt you because an architect was involved. redesigning a toilet in a private residence typically doesn't involve many life-safety issues because you're not really changing the floors/walls/roof of the building, but rather rearranging some of the fixtures within the building. also, a private residence typically doesn't effect 'public' safety, but rather only the safety of the person who owns the property.
'public health and safety' is the part that entitles the government to regulate the title of 'architect.' of course a lot of our education is focused on design that helps to create comfortable environments for people to live in. this might mean we should know ice will freeze in front of a north facing entrance more than a south entrance due to the sun angle. it might mean we wouldn't want to put a skyscraper in the middle of a residential area. often times those design decisions are actually governed by zoning boards, thus limiting the architect's discretion. again, most of those kinds of design decisions aren't going to be relevant to a bathroom remodel.
jla's spiritual journey, which has apparently been damaged due to the design of a circle k down the street, is something else. perhaps we should create a title of 'spiritual buildingologist' for that sort of practice? i don't think there would be any licensing requirements for them. we're all free to practice whatever religion we want, but we should remember the title of architect is not a religious title.
donna - i'm not 100% sure i'm there on "architect" and "registered architect" as i'm very convinced, in a commercial sense, it would be harder for most people to distinguish the difference. also, would anyone (regardless of schooling/training/etc.) get to apply that term to themselves? would it just be someone who graduates from an accredited degree (MArch and BArch but not a BA/BS)? would it be someone enrolled in IDP, even though that's not required in all states? it's a mess to be sure but i could make a very strong argument we don't want to change the commercial title.
now, what do we call "interns" besides "intern"? i'm all for finding an alternative. and, again, it's just fine to call yourself an 'architect' in social conversation - just don't hold yourself out as a registered architect if you're selling services.
Curkram, the circle k is a building not a work of architecture. It is the work of a builder not a master builder. There is nothing masterful about it. It serves its purpose as does peanut butter and jelly, but it's not architecture any more than the pbj is culinary art. We have a hell of a lot of fry cooks claiming to be chefs. It's always the same bunch that try's to remove any form of informality from title because while they may be comfortable with rigid structure, they are not willing to weigh their title against the worth of their work and would rather weigh it against the completion of a series of small tasks leaving their work free to suck. If the title was deregulated tomorrow I myself would not use it because I have not yet achieved what I deem to be architecture. I would feel like a phony. I know that I have the capability to create architecture, but so far I have not had the opportunity to build anything masterful.
That said, the title architect existed before the state was a state. The title is not theirs to dictate. There is zero danger in a grad calling themself an architect if they feel they are. They are still limited by law in what they can do because an RA would be needed to stamp. Makes no difference to society. The only thing this serves is the ego and pocket of the architect. Exclusion has always been a way that the lazy and mediocre elevate prestige.
Which does not explain the fervent worship of starchitects and various philosophies and styles.
In my experience health and safety is defined by code, not taught in school. Which goes full circle back to the educational system producing interns instead of architects.
Gregory, the public does not need to know the difference. The law dictates when a stamp is required. If it is, they will need to hire an RA. If its not, then there is no reason the state should need to inform them on who is better. That should be the job of the profession to promote their value not the state. The state is not there to elevate your status above your legal competition. With regard to exempt structures, this is up to the profession itself to promote themselves as better.
Gregory, I'd say I'm moving in this direction but not convinced - just taking this position to make sure the conversation can happen.
(Aside: Yay, right click in the comments is fixed! Just used it.)
Someone on the AIA Emerging Professionals Summit website responded to my proposal by saying that the public is already confused enough about what we do, that changing the meaning of the word "architect" would just add more confusion. I feel like the opposite is true, or just as likely to be true. If anyone with an accredited degree can be an architect, then everyone will associate architect/architecture with design, which is good. A young T-shirt or web designer can say "I'm an architect, and I do web design" or filmmaking or whatever diaspora of fields architecture grads tend to land in these days.
If someone wants to get a building built, they will have to understand that they need a Registered Architect. IMO, that would actually elevate the importance of the majority of what we do: larger projects, complex projects, projects involving public safety, urban responsiveness, cultural value, etc.
jla-x, a quibble in your terminology: the word architect existed long before the state was a state. But the word architect is now, by the states' power, not just a word but a title. No one owns the word "architect", but the states do control the use of the word as a title.
I'm proposing that as a title it can only be used by graduates of NAAB-accredited programs, but it's a less-regulated title than the title Registered Architect, which can only be used by those who are licensed. Intern would be reserved for those who are working in the field but don't yet have a degree, ideally at summer jobs, which is how almost every other profession seems to use the word intern.
"If someone wants to get a building built, they will have to understand that they need a Registered Architect. IMO, that would actually elevate the importance of the majority of what we do: larger projects, complex projects, projects involving public safety, urban responsiveness, cultural value, etc."
If "importance" is defined as legally necessary, state-dictated plan stampers, yes.
And, in most states, and as long as they don't call themselves architects, engineers can do.
Sounds like you're hoping to further distinguish yourself through name games and petitioning the State to make you more relevant. Both are dead ends.
Saint, what do you feel would make me - and other registered architects - "more relevant"? You've offered plenty of critique, have I missed a post wherein you describe what relevance means and how it could be improved?
jla-x - i'm going to tweak what you said - see if you'd trust this person with your health...
"the public does not need to know the difference. The law dictates when a license is required. If it is, they will need to hire an MD (vs. a 'doctor'). If its not, then there is no reason the state should need to inform them on who is better. That should be the job of the profession to promote their value not the state. The state is not there to elevate your status above your legal competition. With regard to exempt structures, this is up to the profession itself to promote themselves as better."
yes, the law will tell people when they need to have 'a stamp' (as though that's all it is) or not. and i'm not your competition. you can go out, design homes, commercial structures up to 3,000sf or whatever the law will allow. and do it to your heart's artistic content. but if you think 'architect' is solely reserved to those who fulfill some artistic ideal, you're being both naive and too narrow minded. no one is constraining your artistic vision. NO ONE. that's completely irrelevant to the protection of the title.
otherwise, let's just let everyone who wants to call themselves a 'doctor' do so tomorrow and, you know, people will figure it out somehow...
I think using the terms "architects" and "registered architects" would be of help to the public who would engage architectural services. Saying firm XYZ has eight architects, three of which are registered, is a lot more informative than saying firm XYZ has three architects.
GW, your analogy with MDs falls flat. You cannot hire an MD who has not completed his internship or residency, even though he is considered a physician and is called a doctor. They are considered an MD after they have completed formal schooling even before undertaking the internship. Something similar is all some of us are asking for the graduates of accredited architectural schools.
GW, I see where you are coming from but I would agree with volunteer about the md distinction. I would not want a medical school grad who works primarily as a researcher examining my son, but I have no confusion what so ever whom to take him to when he is sick despite the semantics. Also, I understand that a med school grad knows more about medicine than my plumber. His/Her education has value even if he/she knows little about medical practice. The med school grad has options if she decides to practice in a non conventional area of medicine because the title upon graduation carries weight and is empowering. The intern status carries no weight, and if someone does not want to go into traditional practice, they have no way of representing their accomplishments in a clear and straightforward way.
And i agree 100% that architecture is not just a stamp. It has much greater value than that. This value is what should be "sold". by reducing architect to nothing more than a legal title we are devaluing the profession. Also, why not allow arch grads to design exempt structures under a title that shows they are an arch grad? Why should it be all or nothing. Clearly this would allow people with at least more design experience and knowledge than the contractor to serve the public. They can design some things anyway as you said. Why deny them the right to honestly represent their qualifications even if less than an RA?
Even architectural designer is protected. That's ridiculous. That would be the equivilant of prohibiting non licensed md's from representing themselves as medical researchers.
Also need to consider the limit of not being able to compete across state lines. Seems like a big hassle for licensed archs too. I think the general architect title being unprotected would allow RAs the ability to solicit work nationally for at least up to dd phase or for at least exempt structure like sf homes. This would be good for everyone. All I'm saying is that the best competitors should win because they are the best not because they have the luxury of state protection from competition. Better for society and for the profession overall. A rising sea lifts all boats IMO.
And if you dislike the celebrity culture in architecture then you should support that idea because since architects can not solicit work out of state, often the known ones are getting commissions through being sought out through media, magazines etc. overall makes no sense. Work can find you but you can't find it. That gives a huge advantage to the ones on the cover of arch record. No?
The problem - in medicine as well as in architecture - is that the license to practice is essentially irrelevant in regards to the quality of work. It is simply a designation of what one could describe as the minimum competence necessary to achieve a license.
As a corollary, there are a lot of really, really bad drivers who are licensed, and gross negligence is necessary in order to have it revoked.
From the builder's point of view an architect's competence is readily apparent. From the client's point of view competence is often determined by an entirely different set of factors.
Even architectural designer is protected. That's ridiculous. That would be the equivalant of prohibiting non licensed md's from representing themselves as medical researchers.
Exactly.
Where the public needs protection from poorly-engineered buildings or death-trap Circle Ks, let the law restrict what people with different licenses or certifications are allowed to DO, not how they describe their services.
I tend to agree that licensing (and the educational system with internship) does more to protect the status quo within the industry than it does to protect the public.
In many places no license is required for residential work, or for work under a certain size/budget, or for additions and renovations, etc. despite the fact that such work often requires the very same responsibilities necessary for "licensed" work.
An architect's license does not protect the public. Building departments are tasked with that specific responsibility, yet they are often grossly deficient in that task, going so far as to stamp approved drawings "not liable" for oversight, omission or error. Do code violations approved by the building department and granted a c/o make the municipality liable?
All this is symptomatic of a bureaucratic and litigious society.
I can remember passing a couple of the exams in the process and thinking "really? this is what all the hubbub is about?".
John Lautner had some great thoughts relative to codes and licensing. As in favoring actual ability over bureaucratic credentialism -- and actual proof of quality over assumed quality through certification.
Ensuring the public safety is the battle cry of the current system, but it's hardly the only way that safe buildings could occur. Just for fun, think about this: If the law did not require an architect's stamp for buildings -- how much demand would there be for architects? Of course, demand would plummet.
The profession rests in the comfortable hammock of legal protection.
Saint, I'm going to just quote Gregory in my reply to you: no one is constraining your artistic vision. NO ONE. that's completely irrelevant to the protection of the title. In other words, and to quote you now, expecting "the quality of your work" to increase the respect and thus relevance of architects in our society is horribly naive. I know many, many brilliant designers who can't secure the kinds of commissions that will allow them to bring their skills to an adoring world.
And I know many excellent designers who could not tell you why it's important to have the joists run in the short direction or how the joist direction impacts the HVAC layout or why a steel joist is a better choice than wood. The knowledge of an architect - a registered one - is FAR more broad-ranging than just being able to make things the public wants to buy.
In my opinion, the title Registered Architect represents a higher level of knowledge than someone not registered. But given the rigorous - for the most part - educational requirements of accredited degrees, I also believe that an architecture school graduate has a much higher level of knowledge regarding the built environment than does the average person. So I think allowing the use of architect as a sign of having graduated from a set system of educational requirements is actually *good* for the profession, as it makes the term more accessible to more people who *have* achieved a certain level of knowledge.
Also, to whoever was talking about national licensure, I can say that this was also a topic raised at the AIA Emerging Professionals Summit that had pretty broad support. The notion that one could be licensed across the country, with maybe only a few specific states having additional testing (California being fairly obvious, although there are earthquakes in other parts of the world too), seems to have some traction.
I'll say again, as I've said many times here: slam on the AIA and call it an old boys' club if you like. The fact is its membership *is* open to you, and if the AIA wants to see changes like we're discussing made then they have considerable influence to make them come to pass, certainly more influence than anyone else has (our Coloradoan pal and his lawsuit against the governor notwithstanding). If you want to change things, join.
I have good news. If you leave the profession, you can call yourself a former architect. Works for me. All the glory, none of the b.s. And I can still make money on the side doing sketches for bathroom remodels.
Volunteer, I like your example of how this might play out in a firm. It does sound better, doesn't it, than to say "My firm has three architects and eight interns."
Again, there is one main issue here the AIA is discussing:
End the current usage of the term "intern" and replace it with something else. The discussion is what should that new term be?
I propose architect, with the stipulation that the person has completed an accredited degree.
To supplement my previous post, no licensed architect in his right mind would engineer a major building, or even a minor one for that matter, that's what PEs are for. A license does not magically confer structural and especially practical experiencial knowledge.
As to what to replace the term 'architectural intern' with I propose 'idiot' or 'slave labor'.
Donna,
I would avoid the use of "intern". Absent the medical field it has connotations of "unpaid" in front of it and is usually thought of as something undergraduates have to go through during the summers between their undergraduate years if they even hope to become employed after graduation. And even in the medical field it is being replaced by the term "resident", which might be a term to evaluate. I too think the term "architect" would be better, with "registered architect" reserved for those who are fully licensed.
Donna, are you sure you're responding to what I actually wrote? You wrote "you've offered plenty of critique" at a point where I had written 3 sentences. Not sure.
Anyway, what I have since written seems to align at least generally with Miles' posts. Hopefully you're going to let him have it a bit as well. ;-)
That said, I make my living in the same industry you do. The difference seems to be that you're maybe a bit more wrapped up in the publica persona of architects than I am. I used to care more about that, not much anymore.
In your second post @ me -- when did I express that I'm being denied anything from anyone? I hold a position that most here would find enviable, and am not complaining. What I have criticized is a situation where names, titles, and credentials become prized over the quality of the work.
Where you said "expecting "the quality of your work" to increase the respect and thus relevance of architects in our society is horribly naive" is interesting. I think that the way you seem to view the profession enables you to make such a statement and presume my supposed naivete. It sounds like for you, relevance and respect is more tied into public view. For me, quality always counts more -- even if it occurs anonymously --than tiers of hierarchy, titles, organizations, etc.
No offense intended, and it sounds like I offended since you grouped me in with NewRoark. In fact, I have no dog in this fight. Sounds like you're hopeing/pushing for a renaming of interns -- fine by me. For me, like all titles and names, it doesn't mean much.
^^^^ Miles, some very good posts. Maybe I need to stop arguing with you so much and listen more. We'll see....
"no licensed architect in his right mind would engineer a major building, or even a minor one for that matter, that's what PEs are for. A license does not magically confer structural and especially practical experiencial knowledge."
This is a great point. Personally, I've been blessed to have somehow always landed ass-backwards into pretty great design-oriented positions. But more toward the general case, if we are talking about the vast majority of projects out there, it's safe to say that aesthetics -- long the preferred territory of many architects -- is not the primary concern. So, sometimes I watch certain projects getting built in my city and I can't help wondering about the necessity of architects. As Miles has noted, much of the process is the product and/or oversight of a variety of forces and players. It's not much of a stretch to envision large-scale projects occurring with little -- or no -- architectural input on a regular basis.
This is why i asked the question earlier :
" Just for fun, think about this: If the law did not require an architect's stamp for buildings -- how much demand would there be for architects? Anyone think more? Or the same?
Indeed, current law does in fact create a market for architects. Demonstration of competency could very well occur in other ways than licensure -- but this would change the market considerably. Pretty sure Donna would vote against this.
Jla-x,
I think a degree holder could put "Master of Architecture, University of Wherever" on his business card, even if he was unemployed. Might drive the "stamp only" crowd up the wall but it would be truthful and factual.
Saint, I'm not totally disagreeing with a lot of what you're saying and in any case I'm enjoying the conversation. I do find it odd that several of my architect friends in real life have accused me of watering down licensure with this idea, but you seem to be saying I'm trying to strengthen it? In my mind using architect and Registered Architect does both: bolsters the legitimacy of those who have committed to getting licensed but also opens the coveted term up to those who don't have much interest in or need for the license.
I'm curious what other ways one could demonstrate competence besides licensure? I imagine if one had a record of building good buildings that are fully accessible and don't harm anyone one could argue that is proof of competence. But do you disagree that there needs to be SOME agreed-upon quantifiable metric? How would we define it? And would the term architect be available to anyone at all, regardless of competence or experience?
Donna, I agree that we need something better than "intern". But "architect" and "registered architect" are too close. The public wont be able to differentiate. Lawyers vs paralegal.
Doctor vs nurse vs med tech?
The current system is actually good. The downfall is that for most people, there really is no incentive to get licensed. Could you imagine the same in law or medicine?
If the law was even more strict - for example requiring 51% registered architects working on every building, then the cost would rise, and pay to architects as well. Could you imagine a hospital w only 1 doctor overseeing the whole thing?
Donna, I would say that the term should be open to anyone who feels that they can live up to it. Just because the term is open does not mean that everyone will call themselves architects. That's silly. The term scientist is unregulated but we don't hear everyone calling themselves scientists. I would object to making the term architect only available to grads. I think we should just let the individual decide.
Jla-x, I only hear this kind of BS from people who wish they were architects. Seriously, how would you manage a standard of care in your lossy-goosey world?
Well, there are teaching hospitals that train large numbers of interns/residents. They are usually owned by large universities and almost all have excellent reputations. Maybe an idea would be for the architectural schools to open up their own architectural firms and hire graduates through their residency. In a highly structured environment the time to full license could be reduced (no more CAD-monkey exclusive jobs).
For what it is worth the California Architects Board seems to be very tolerant of unlicensed people calling themselves architects. Off the top of my head I can think of at least a dozen people, several of whom I went to school with, who call themselves architects on their websites and in publications who definitely aren't licensed in California. Long story short, those of you who are opposed to rules saying you can't call yourself an architect until you are licensed come to California and nobody will care!
Well gruen that's very simple. An RA would be required to design or at least act as the AOR for non exempt structures. Basically no different than what we have now. Only difference is that the general term architect would be unregulated. The public will be ok Only ones it may hurt are certain architects egos. In a perfect world I would opt for a system like in Northern European countries where the title and practice is unregulated but ill settle for something along the lines of Donna's idea. It's fair and balanced. My only objection to Donna's point is that I think we should not limit the term to arch school grads exclusively. I would love to see more people from diverse backgrounds getting involved. I have an M-Arch which i worked very hard to get, so please don't suggest that my position has some self serving motive. I personally don't care if someone else earns the title without getting an march as long as they have something to offer the dicipline. As for your rude patronizing comment...I have zero desire to have an RA license. I don't want one and don't need one. If I did I would just buck up and finish Idp. Used to want one but found a better more fulfilling path. If people like me are shunned from any title that identifies us with the arch industry despite our knowledge and involvement then its your loss. There are a lot of bright people out there working on the fringe. If your club was smart they would want them associated with them and not splintering off into something else. That's team work IMO. We don't want to eat all your pizza we just want to come to the party. The attitude comming from your camp is as if we are suggesting a
Volunteer, part of the discussion at the AIA EP Summit was to implement a *real* system for firms to offer a valuable, broad, skills-based internship experience. Not just IDP, but more of a certification for firms to be "teaching firms" like some hospitals are teaching hospitals (that was exactly the example offered). Part of that would be formalizing how much of the education of an architect the school is responsible and how much the firm is responsible for.
Gruen: "But, as a mid career arch, this stuff is only starting to make sense. Do you think it's possible to teach that type of experience?"
Just for reference, I procrastinated getting licensed, but am now partway into the process. It's been sort of enjoyable taking the thing, and not so difficult. I've got quite a bit of professional experience which has made it less of a challenge.
Anyway, to gruen's question. "Do you think it's possible to teach that type of experience?"
Of course, experience is un-teachable, but I know what you're asking. You're right, a license handed to you upon graduation holds different merit than the license that an experienced 60-year old firm partner holds.
However, under the current system, I had many college friends become licensed by age 25 -- so, technically licensed, but more or less functionally insufficient to the task.
So the point is, the current system doesn't necessarily ensure that a licensed architect is adequately experienced, either. Different side of same coin: I also know licensed architects that have worked for 20 years, and I know that they cannot run a project.
Licensure is not a guaranteed of knowledge, skill or ability. Of the exams I've taken, I'll say this -- it's not like only architects could pass them. The content is not very exclusive. Plus you get all done and engineers can legally do everything you can do. Except call themselves architects. Back to the name game.
I have no agenda where NCARB is concerned, but I also have no illusions as to what certification / licensure means.
Donna -- you are trying to strengthen the word, I'm assuming: registration "bolsters the legitimacy of those who have committed to getting licensed". I may be wrong, but you seem to be trying to help find a more palatable word than 'intern' partly s a means to heighten up the hieararchy a bit.
Only architects can legally stamp drawings, and i have no problem not referring to myself as an architect -- yet. But I think you're hoping to further distinguish yourself via some new naming strata. Which, might provide even more enjoyment at cocktail hour -- but will mean little in a world of real clients spending real money. The respective actual abilities of registered architects across the board ranges so widely that there is little power in the current title, or in a new one.
Using term architect
why would you search for an architect if you want a bathroom remodel? i would think you would want a plumber. then maybe get a designer to pick the paint color.
jla's comments about architects and souls and crap is not really accurate. our credential as 'architect' is suppose to suggest we understand the various disciplines involved in making buildings safe and accessible for the public. when walking into the circle k down the street, you should feel confident that the building isn't going to burn down or collapse on you or otherwise hurt you because an architect was involved. redesigning a toilet in a private residence typically doesn't involve many life-safety issues because you're not really changing the floors/walls/roof of the building, but rather rearranging some of the fixtures within the building. also, a private residence typically doesn't effect 'public' safety, but rather only the safety of the person who owns the property.
'public health and safety' is the part that entitles the government to regulate the title of 'architect.' of course a lot of our education is focused on design that helps to create comfortable environments for people to live in. this might mean we should know ice will freeze in front of a north facing entrance more than a south entrance due to the sun angle. it might mean we wouldn't want to put a skyscraper in the middle of a residential area. often times those design decisions are actually governed by zoning boards, thus limiting the architect's discretion. again, most of those kinds of design decisions aren't going to be relevant to a bathroom remodel.
jla's spiritual journey, which has apparently been damaged due to the design of a circle k down the street, is something else. perhaps we should create a title of 'spiritual buildingologist' for that sort of practice? i don't think there would be any licensing requirements for them. we're all free to practice whatever religion we want, but we should remember the title of architect is not a religious title.
donna - i'm not 100% sure i'm there on "architect" and "registered architect" as i'm very convinced, in a commercial sense, it would be harder for most people to distinguish the difference. also, would anyone (regardless of schooling/training/etc.) get to apply that term to themselves? would it just be someone who graduates from an accredited degree (MArch and BArch but not a BA/BS)? would it be someone enrolled in IDP, even though that's not required in all states? it's a mess to be sure but i could make a very strong argument we don't want to change the commercial title.
now, what do we call "interns" besides "intern"? i'm all for finding an alternative. and, again, it's just fine to call yourself an 'architect' in social conversation - just don't hold yourself out as a registered architect if you're selling services.
Curkram, the circle k is a building not a work of architecture. It is the work of a builder not a master builder. There is nothing masterful about it. It serves its purpose as does peanut butter and jelly, but it's not architecture any more than the pbj is culinary art. We have a hell of a lot of fry cooks claiming to be chefs. It's always the same bunch that try's to remove any form of informality from title because while they may be comfortable with rigid structure, they are not willing to weigh their title against the worth of their work and would rather weigh it against the completion of a series of small tasks leaving their work free to suck. If the title was deregulated tomorrow I myself would not use it because I have not yet achieved what I deem to be architecture. I would feel like a phony. I know that I have the capability to create architecture, but so far I have not had the opportunity to build anything masterful.
That said, the title architect existed before the state was a state. The title is not theirs to dictate. There is zero danger in a grad calling themself an architect if they feel they are. They are still limited by law in what they can do because an RA would be needed to stamp. Makes no difference to society. The only thing this serves is the ego and pocket of the architect. Exclusion has always been a way that the lazy and mediocre elevate prestige.
the title of architect is not a religious title
Which does not explain the fervent worship of starchitects and various philosophies and styles.
In my experience health and safety is defined by code, not taught in school. Which goes full circle back to the educational system producing interns instead of architects.
Gregory, the public does not need to know the difference. The law dictates when a stamp is required. If it is, they will need to hire an RA. If its not, then there is no reason the state should need to inform them on who is better. That should be the job of the profession to promote their value not the state. The state is not there to elevate your status above your legal competition. With regard to exempt structures, this is up to the profession itself to promote themselves as better.
Gregory, I'd say I'm moving in this direction but not convinced - just taking this position to make sure the conversation can happen.
(Aside: Yay, right click in the comments is fixed! Just used it.)
Someone on the AIA Emerging Professionals Summit website responded to my proposal by saying that the public is already confused enough about what we do, that changing the meaning of the word "architect" would just add more confusion. I feel like the opposite is true, or just as likely to be true. If anyone with an accredited degree can be an architect, then everyone will associate architect/architecture with design, which is good. A young T-shirt or web designer can say "I'm an architect, and I do web design" or filmmaking or whatever diaspora of fields architecture grads tend to land in these days.
If someone wants to get a building built, they will have to understand that they need a Registered Architect. IMO, that would actually elevate the importance of the majority of what we do: larger projects, complex projects, projects involving public safety, urban responsiveness, cultural value, etc.
jla-x, a quibble in your terminology: the word architect existed long before the state was a state. But the word architect is now, by the states' power, not just a word but a title. No one owns the word "architect", but the states do control the use of the word as a title.
I'm proposing that as a title it can only be used by graduates of NAAB-accredited programs, but it's a less-regulated title than the title Registered Architect, which can only be used by those who are licensed. Intern would be reserved for those who are working in the field but don't yet have a degree, ideally at summer jobs, which is how almost every other profession seems to use the word intern.
"If someone wants to get a building built, they will have to understand that they need a Registered Architect. IMO, that would actually elevate the importance of the majority of what we do: larger projects, complex projects, projects involving public safety, urban responsiveness, cultural value, etc."
If "importance" is defined as legally necessary, state-dictated plan stampers, yes.
And, in most states, and as long as they don't call themselves architects, engineers can do.
Sounds like you're hoping to further distinguish yourself through name games and petitioning the State to make you more relevant. Both are dead ends.
Saint, what do you feel would make me - and other registered architects - "more relevant"? You've offered plenty of critique, have I missed a post wherein you describe what relevance means and how it could be improved?
jla-x - i'm going to tweak what you said - see if you'd trust this person with your health...
"the public does not need to know the difference. The law dictates when a license is required. If it is, they will need to hire an MD (vs. a 'doctor'). If its not, then there is no reason the state should need to inform them on who is better. That should be the job of the profession to promote their value not the state. The state is not there to elevate your status above your legal competition. With regard to exempt structures, this is up to the profession itself to promote themselves as better."
yes, the law will tell people when they need to have 'a stamp' (as though that's all it is) or not. and i'm not your competition. you can go out, design homes, commercial structures up to 3,000sf or whatever the law will allow. and do it to your heart's artistic content. but if you think 'architect' is solely reserved to those who fulfill some artistic ideal, you're being both naive and too narrow minded. no one is constraining your artistic vision. NO ONE. that's completely irrelevant to the protection of the title.
otherwise, let's just let everyone who wants to call themselves a 'doctor' do so tomorrow and, you know, people will figure it out somehow...
I think using the terms "architects" and "registered architects" would be of help to the public who would engage architectural services. Saying firm XYZ has eight architects, three of which are registered, is a lot more informative than saying firm XYZ has three architects.
GW, your analogy with MDs falls flat. You cannot hire an MD who has not completed his internship or residency, even though he is considered a physician and is called a doctor. They are considered an MD after they have completed formal schooling even before undertaking the internship. Something similar is all some of us are asking for the graduates of accredited architectural schools.
"Saint, what do you feel would make me - and other registered architects - "more relevant"?"
The quality of your work.
"You've offered plenty of critique, have I missed a post wherein you describe what relevance means and how it could be improved?"
See above.
GW, I see where you are coming from but I would agree with volunteer about the md distinction. I would not want a medical school grad who works primarily as a researcher examining my son, but I have no confusion what so ever whom to take him to when he is sick despite the semantics. Also, I understand that a med school grad knows more about medicine than my plumber. His/Her education has value even if he/she knows little about medical practice. The med school grad has options if she decides to practice in a non conventional area of medicine because the title upon graduation carries weight and is empowering. The intern status carries no weight, and if someone does not want to go into traditional practice, they have no way of representing their accomplishments in a clear and straightforward way.
And i agree 100% that architecture is not just a stamp. It has much greater value than that. This value is what should be "sold". by reducing architect to nothing more than a legal title we are devaluing the profession. Also, why not allow arch grads to design exempt structures under a title that shows they are an arch grad? Why should it be all or nothing. Clearly this would allow people with at least more design experience and knowledge than the contractor to serve the public. They can design some things anyway as you said. Why deny them the right to honestly represent their qualifications even if less than an RA?
Even architectural designer is protected. That's ridiculous. That would be the equivilant of prohibiting non licensed md's from representing themselves as medical researchers.
Also need to consider the limit of not being able to compete across state lines. Seems like a big hassle for licensed archs too. I think the general architect title being unprotected would allow RAs the ability to solicit work nationally for at least up to dd phase or for at least exempt structure like sf homes. This would be good for everyone. All I'm saying is that the best competitors should win because they are the best not because they have the luxury of state protection from competition. Better for society and for the profession overall. A rising sea lifts all boats IMO.
And if you dislike the celebrity culture in architecture then you should support that idea because since architects can not solicit work out of state, often the known ones are getting commissions through being sought out through media, magazines etc. overall makes no sense. Work can find you but you can't find it. That gives a huge advantage to the ones on the cover of arch record. No?
The problem - in medicine as well as in architecture - is that the license to practice is essentially irrelevant in regards to the quality of work. It is simply a designation of what one could describe as the minimum competence necessary to achieve a license.
As a corollary, there are a lot of really, really bad drivers who are licensed, and gross negligence is necessary in order to have it revoked.
From the builder's point of view an architect's competence is readily apparent. From the client's point of view competence is often determined by an entirely different set of factors.
How can one get to even sit for a test when your employers see IDP as selfish self actualization that interferes with the day to day at the office?
Even architectural designer is protected. That's ridiculous. That would be the equivalant of prohibiting non licensed md's from representing themselves as medical researchers.
Exactly.
Where the public needs protection from poorly-engineered buildings or death-trap Circle Ks, let the law restrict what people with different licenses or certifications are allowed to DO, not how they describe their services.
jla-x I've been on this site since it's near inception, how close are you to completing IDP?
I tend to agree that licensing (and the educational system with internship) does more to protect the status quo within the industry than it does to protect the public.
In many places no license is required for residential work, or for work under a certain size/budget, or for additions and renovations, etc. despite the fact that such work often requires the very same responsibilities necessary for "licensed" work.
An architect's license does not protect the public. Building departments are tasked with that specific responsibility, yet they are often grossly deficient in that task, going so far as to stamp approved drawings "not liable" for oversight, omission or error. Do code violations approved by the building department and granted a c/o make the municipality liable?
All this is symptomatic of a bureaucratic and litigious society.
^ Nice post, Miles. I could not agree more.
I can remember passing a couple of the exams in the process and thinking "really? this is what all the hubbub is about?".
John Lautner had some great thoughts relative to codes and licensing. As in favoring actual ability over bureaucratic credentialism -- and actual proof of quality over assumed quality through certification.
Ensuring the public safety is the battle cry of the current system, but it's hardly the only way that safe buildings could occur. Just for fun, think about this: If the law did not require an architect's stamp for buildings -- how much demand would there be for architects? Of course, demand would plummet.
The profession rests in the comfortable hammock of legal protection.
Saint, I'm going to just quote Gregory in my reply to you: no one is constraining your artistic vision. NO ONE. that's completely irrelevant to the protection of the title. In other words, and to quote you now, expecting "the quality of your work" to increase the respect and thus relevance of architects in our society is horribly naive. I know many, many brilliant designers who can't secure the kinds of commissions that will allow them to bring their skills to an adoring world.
And I know many excellent designers who could not tell you why it's important to have the joists run in the short direction or how the joist direction impacts the HVAC layout or why a steel joist is a better choice than wood. The knowledge of an architect - a registered one - is FAR more broad-ranging than just being able to make things the public wants to buy.
In my opinion, the title Registered Architect represents a higher level of knowledge than someone not registered. But given the rigorous - for the most part - educational requirements of accredited degrees, I also believe that an architecture school graduate has a much higher level of knowledge regarding the built environment than does the average person. So I think allowing the use of architect as a sign of having graduated from a set system of educational requirements is actually *good* for the profession, as it makes the term more accessible to more people who *have* achieved a certain level of knowledge.
Also, to whoever was talking about national licensure, I can say that this was also a topic raised at the AIA Emerging Professionals Summit that had pretty broad support. The notion that one could be licensed across the country, with maybe only a few specific states having additional testing (California being fairly obvious, although there are earthquakes in other parts of the world too), seems to have some traction.
I'll say again, as I've said many times here: slam on the AIA and call it an old boys' club if you like. The fact is its membership *is* open to you, and if the AIA wants to see changes like we're discussing made then they have considerable influence to make them come to pass, certainly more influence than anyone else has (our Coloradoan pal and his lawsuit against the governor notwithstanding). If you want to change things, join.
I have good news. If you leave the profession, you can call yourself a former architect. Works for me. All the glory, none of the b.s. And I can still make money on the side doing sketches for bathroom remodels.
Volunteer, I like your example of how this might play out in a firm. It does sound better, doesn't it, than to say "My firm has three architects and eight interns."
Again, there is one main issue here the AIA is discussing:
End the current usage of the term "intern" and replace it with something else. The discussion is what should that new term be?
I propose architect, with the stipulation that the person has completed an accredited degree.
To supplement my previous post, no licensed architect in his right mind would engineer a major building, or even a minor one for that matter, that's what PEs are for. A license does not magically confer structural and especially practical experiencial knowledge.
As to what to replace the term 'architectural intern' with I propose 'idiot' or 'slave labor'.
Donna, I would avoid the use of "intern". Absent the medical field it has connotations of "unpaid" in front of it and is usually thought of as something undergraduates have to go through during the summers between their undergraduate years if they even hope to become employed after graduation. And even in the medical field it is being replaced by the term "resident", which might be a term to evaluate. I too think the term "architect" would be better, with "registered architect" reserved for those who are fully licensed.
Donna, are you sure you're responding to what I actually wrote? You wrote "you've offered plenty of critique" at a point where I had written 3 sentences. Not sure.
Anyway, what I have since written seems to align at least generally with Miles' posts. Hopefully you're going to let him have it a bit as well. ;-)
That said, I make my living in the same industry you do. The difference seems to be that you're maybe a bit more wrapped up in the publica persona of architects than I am. I used to care more about that, not much anymore.
In your second post @ me -- when did I express that I'm being denied anything from anyone? I hold a position that most here would find enviable, and am not complaining. What I have criticized is a situation where names, titles, and credentials become prized over the quality of the work.
Where you said "expecting "the quality of your work" to increase the respect and thus relevance of architects in our society is horribly naive" is interesting. I think that the way you seem to view the profession enables you to make such a statement and presume my supposed naivete. It sounds like for you, relevance and respect is more tied into public view. For me, quality always counts more -- even if it occurs anonymously --than tiers of hierarchy, titles, organizations, etc.
No offense intended, and it sounds like I offended since you grouped me in with NewRoark. In fact, I have no dog in this fight. Sounds like you're hopeing/pushing for a renaming of interns -- fine by me. For me, like all titles and names, it doesn't mean much.
I get worried when people start agreeing with me, I start to wonder if I might be wrong.
^^^^ Miles, some very good posts. Maybe I need to stop arguing with you so much and listen more. We'll see....
"no licensed architect in his right mind would engineer a major building, or even a minor one for that matter, that's what PEs are for. A license does not magically confer structural and especially practical experiencial knowledge."
This is a great point. Personally, I've been blessed to have somehow always landed ass-backwards into pretty great design-oriented positions. But more toward the general case, if we are talking about the vast majority of projects out there, it's safe to say that aesthetics -- long the preferred territory of many architects -- is not the primary concern. So, sometimes I watch certain projects getting built in my city and I can't help wondering about the necessity of architects. As Miles has noted, much of the process is the product and/or oversight of a variety of forces and players. It's not much of a stretch to envision large-scale projects occurring with little -- or no -- architectural input on a regular basis.
This is why i asked the question earlier :
" Just for fun, think about this: If the law did not require an architect's stamp for buildings -- how much demand would there be for architects? Anyone think more? Or the same?
Indeed, current law does in fact create a market for architects. Demonstration of competency could very well occur in other ways than licensure -- but this would change the market considerably. Pretty sure Donna would vote against this.
Hypothetically, if your degree is m arch, can you call yourself a master of architecture? Its what the diploma says.
Miles: "I get worried when people start agreeing with me, I start to wonder if I might be wrong."
I wouldn't get overly concerned just yet. So far I think it's just me.
I wouldn't get overly concerned just yet. So far I think it's just me.
All the more reason for concern.
Jla-x, I think a degree holder could put "Master of Architecture, University of Wherever" on his business card, even if he was unemployed. Might drive the "stamp only" crowd up the wall but it would be truthful and factual.
"All the more reason for concern."
Now, Miles, such cleverly implied derision.
If it helps, let's just agree to disagree that we ever agreed.
I think we need more protectionism. Make it actually worth you while to get licensed.
When gangsters ran extortion rackets it was illegal. When insurance companies, banks and institutions do it is mandated by law.
I'm curious what other ways one could demonstrate competence besides licensure? I imagine if one had a record of building good buildings that are fully accessible and don't harm anyone one could argue that is proof of competence. But do you disagree that there needs to be SOME agreed-upon quantifiable metric? How would we define it? And would the term architect be available to anyone at all, regardless of competence or experience?
Doctor vs nurse vs med tech?
The current system is actually good. The downfall is that for most people, there really is no incentive to get licensed. Could you imagine the same in law or medicine?
If the law was even more strict - for example requiring 51% registered architects working on every building, then the cost would rise, and pay to architects as well. Could you imagine a hospital w only 1 doctor overseeing the whole thing?
With a proper educational system a degree would demonstrate competence. A license test would be a requirement for graduation.
But, as a mid career arch, this stuff is only starting to make sense. Do you think it's possible to teach that type of experience?
Donna, I would say that the term should be open to anyone who feels that they can live up to it. Just because the term is open does not mean that everyone will call themselves architects. That's silly. The term scientist is unregulated but we don't hear everyone calling themselves scientists. I would object to making the term architect only available to grads. I think we should just let the individual decide.
Well, there are teaching hospitals that train large numbers of interns/residents. They are usually owned by large universities and almost all have excellent reputations. Maybe an idea would be for the architectural schools to open up their own architectural firms and hire graduates through their residency. In a highly structured environment the time to full license could be reduced (no more CAD-monkey exclusive jobs).
For what it is worth the California Architects Board seems to be very tolerant of unlicensed people calling themselves architects. Off the top of my head I can think of at least a dozen people, several of whom I went to school with, who call themselves architects on their websites and in publications who definitely aren't licensed in California. Long story short, those of you who are opposed to rules saying you can't call yourself an architect until you are licensed come to California and nobody will care!
Well gruen that's very simple. An RA would be required to design or at least act as the AOR for non exempt structures. Basically no different than what we have now. Only difference is that the general term architect would be unregulated. The public will be ok Only ones it may hurt are certain architects egos. In a perfect world I would opt for a system like in Northern European countries where the title and practice is unregulated but ill settle for something along the lines of Donna's idea. It's fair and balanced. My only objection to Donna's point is that I think we should not limit the term to arch school grads exclusively. I would love to see more people from diverse backgrounds getting involved. I have an M-Arch which i worked very hard to get, so please don't suggest that my position has some self serving motive. I personally don't care if someone else earns the title without getting an march as long as they have something to offer the dicipline. As for your rude patronizing comment...I have zero desire to have an RA license. I don't want one and don't need one. If I did I would just buck up and finish Idp. Used to want one but found a better more fulfilling path. If people like me are shunned from any title that identifies us with the arch industry despite our knowledge and involvement then its your loss. There are a lot of bright people out there working on the fringe. If your club was smart they would want them associated with them and not splintering off into something else. That's team work IMO. We don't want to eat all your pizza we just want to come to the party. The attitude comming from your camp is as if we are suggesting a
Takeover. Lol.
Donna, try 'apprentice' or 'apprenticeship'. Of course that title implies a serious ckmmitment to training by the employer.
Interesting discussion, to be sure.
Gruen: "But, as a mid career arch, this stuff is only starting to make sense. Do you think it's possible to teach that type of experience?"
Just for reference, I procrastinated getting licensed, but am now partway into the process. It's been sort of enjoyable taking the thing, and not so difficult. I've got quite a bit of professional experience which has made it less of a challenge.
Anyway, to gruen's question. "Do you think it's possible to teach that type of experience?"
Of course, experience is un-teachable, but I know what you're asking. You're right, a license handed to you upon graduation holds different merit than the license that an experienced 60-year old firm partner holds.
However, under the current system, I had many college friends become licensed by age 25 -- so, technically licensed, but more or less functionally insufficient to the task.
So the point is, the current system doesn't necessarily ensure that a licensed architect is adequately experienced, either. Different side of same coin: I also know licensed architects that have worked for 20 years, and I know that they cannot run a project.
Licensure is not a guaranteed of knowledge, skill or ability. Of the exams I've taken, I'll say this -- it's not like only architects could pass them. The content is not very exclusive. Plus you get all done and engineers can legally do everything you can do. Except call themselves architects. Back to the name game.
I have no agenda where NCARB is concerned, but I also have no illusions as to what certification / licensure means.
Donna -- you are trying to strengthen the word, I'm assuming: registration "bolsters the legitimacy of those who have committed to getting licensed". I may be wrong, but you seem to be trying to help find a more palatable word than 'intern' partly s a means to heighten up the hieararchy a bit.
Only architects can legally stamp drawings, and i have no problem not referring to myself as an architect -- yet. But I think you're hoping to further distinguish yourself via some new naming strata. Which, might provide even more enjoyment at cocktail hour -- but will mean little in a world of real clients spending real money. The respective actual abilities of registered architects across the board ranges so widely that there is little power in the current title, or in a new one.
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.