mleitner: No, I don't need different cards for different states. I have one card, that says "George Bloopox, Architect", and has my office's address. I can use that card in my home state, and in the 2 neighboring states in which I'm also licensed (neither requires that I reincorporate in their state), and in any of the states that allow an NCARB-certified architect to solicit work without first obtaining registration there (because I'm NCARB certified).
But: some states do require that an architect's business card include the name of the state and the number of his license there - so if I were licensed in one of those then I'd need new cards...
As for the other states: I can't solicit work in them without obtaining a license in them. So I shouldn't be handing out any cards in any of those until/unless I get a license there - though if I handed out a card for another purpose (i.e. I want a social contact to have my address, phone & email) then the state board is not going to go after me for unlicensed practice on that basis alone!
As for "Ar." - it's not bad. Good luck getting 50 state boards to agree on any title though.
and I've seen the slightly different "AR" used to mean any of "Account Representative", "Anal Retentive", "Airborne Reconnaissance", and "Arrest Report" - so not sure I love those associations...
Bloopox: where does one find specific information about "states that allow an NCARB-certified architect to solicit work without first obtaining registration"?
This is a new concept for me and it sure would make multi-state practice simpler if this concept is widespread.
One finds that info on NCARB's site. I posted the link in one of my posts above. There are about 20 states that allow this, though some have certain additional conditions attached.
What I hate about the AIA designation is the national connotation. I'm a Canadian citizen studying in an American school and will probably end up working in the states. But I would prefer that any letters after my name represent the fact that I'm an architect, not a member of a national club.
I understand that accreditation is different in each country, but to qualify as and use the designation "architect," one must have achieved accreditation somewhere. (The accreditation standards of different countries , of course, is another discussion entirely.)
In summation:
Druvius, architect
or
Druvius
is what I'll use if we're talking about business cards. And if we're talking about CVs and resumes then listing AIA, LEED AP, etc. is obviously acceptable under the appropriate sections ie. professional accreditions/associations.
what i love about the business cards my firm is currently using is that there is absolutely no way to tell what the company does unless you know the designations that follow people's names...
no where on the card does it say 'architecture' 'architects' 'planning' 'design' 'engineering' etc etc...
since i currently have no designations, except LEED which i refuse to put after my name, my cards seem extremely ambiguous... i could be a lawyer, information specialist, a secret agent...just about anything i want to tell the person i'm giving the card to...
this by the way is extremely helpful when meeting people you never expect to see again in your life...haha
ar. would be cool, but after a while you will be at the grocery store and someone you know will say "hey, I haven't seen you in a while architect smith." that's kind of silly. even if they said mr. smith architect, it sounds weird.
I'd argue that using any title in casual conversation is a little uptight and unnecessary. Several of my family members are doctors and none of them use dr. in their name outside of their medical practice.
I think the real issue here is how we, as architects, can consistantly identify orselves to the general public.
The use of a professional title as a prefix is common in some cultures, such as in hispanic countries and in Germany, but I think it would take a lot of work to get it done here. And like someone mentioned before, the titles Dr., Prof., Rev. etc. do not carry with them any kind of formal credential. I'm sure you could put Ar. in front of your name without state sanction, but I wouldn't
Personally, I don't care for any letters after the name. I think Name,Architect is the best or if you are worried about complexities of multi-state registration, put "Registered Architect - State" on the line below your name on the business card.
Hi! First time I post. I was waiting to see someone mention de option of "Arch. xxx xxx". As in Spanish we refer to arquitects like this "Arq. xxx xxx"
The suffix, "RA", or "AIA" or "Architect" works just fine and is clear to most people that read it. I see no reason to change this standard that has been with us for a long while.
Despite the fact that it is illegal in most (if not all) States to call oneself an “Architect” without a State license or registration, the Information Technology (IT) world has pretty much adopted the title of “Systems Architect” as its own, paying these software professionals from $140K to $200K yearly to use OUR title!!!
Nothing is sacred anymore!
I don’t know if I’m the only one who has an issue with this, but it seems to me that the AIA should be fighting this in every State!
Regarding the use of “RA” vs. “AR”... the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles issues professional license plates to “Registered Architects” using the letters “AR” on the actual license plates.
NYS/DMV would have used “RA”, similar to their “RN” (Registered Nurse) plates, but claimed that “RA” was already in use for commercial license plates. I don’t know how other States handle this.
Personally, I use the name suffix of “RA, CID” since I am licensed in NYS as a “Registered Architect” AND as a “Certified Interior Designer”... opting NOT to use AIA, NCARB, NCIDQ, LEED, etc., after my name.
As an unlicensed designer with a fair amount of experience and expertise, I try to never represent myself as an architect. (Sometimes it's easier to just tell my barber I'm an architect, instead of explaining the whole situation, but even then it's 50/50.) It drives me crazy that other industries can use the term with impunity but architects and the AIA will come after me with pitchforks if I use the term. To be clear, I'm ok with not being allowed to say I'm an architect, though FL Wright and many other architects have the same training I do. But if it's a protected term, then protect it, dammit.
system's architect (or whatever) is a label that borrows architecture to sound trendy (hello interior arch folks), It's not a professional title and its reach does not extend beyond the walls of whatever company the wanker (or wankerette) works for. It's also a well beaten horse and no one with such job description is advertising architecture services. I do not want my annual dues spent on torches and pitch forks.
I have an equal amount of real architects and tech folks in my circle of friends. Very few of the tech folks use that term when they describe their jobs.
Wood, you were the last guy I would've thought would buy into this.
I find that even 20 plus years into this profession, that this is still a thing we spend time discussing.
I've evolved, even to the point of thinking that licensure should even be a thing anymore. Knowing the history, I'm of the mind to get rid of the process.
Having said that, I am bored of the "systems architect" thing. Who cares.
B3, I probably overstated my case a bit. This morning when I wrote that I was also going back and forth with a magazine ad salesperson. They wanted me to join their online resource directory, under their "Architects" category. I suggested they change it to "architects and designers," explained why and said I'd be happy to sign up if they did so. They responded that they would change it to "architectural firms" and include me. I had to respond again saying that I'm legally not allowed to use any form of the word "architect" or derivatives in any form.
Not that anyone would come after me, or them, but I really do take licensure seriously and wish I had made different choices in my past so I'd have a pathway to licensure now. That's what was in my mind when I responded above.
There are jurisdictions that provide a pathway to licensure based on 10 or more years of experience, in lieu of an architectural degree.
Check with your State’s requirements
NY, I live in Maine and there are a few alternative paths to licensure. (Apologies to the regulars who have heard me tell this story before.)
I'm 47, have a BS in structural engineering and a minor in art and architectural history, ten years as a builder and over 15 years as a designer. But I have never worked under a licensed architect, though I've had a few as colleagues. Maine is strict about direct supervision and I'm not interested in being dishonest.
Although my college was highly ranked and many of my classmates went on to get a master's in architecture in two years, it was not an accredited program. So although I know more about engineering than most architects and I know at least as much about designing houses as most architects, as far as my state board is concerned I am exactly equivalent to a fresh grad with an English degree. I would need to work under a licensed architect for 13 years to qualify for AXP. I'd be 60.
If I did not need to work I might do it for fun, but I'm just getting to my prime earning years and can't take a major pay cut for that long just to get a license. I already charge about the same as my architect competitors.
I didn't have mentors to help me when choosing a career path and my parents were no help either, so I made my decisions and have done ok. If there is ever an option to take the exams based on knowledge and experience alone, I'll jump at it and I'm confident I would pass. But I won't hold my breath for that to happen.
The restriction of the word "architect" as a title only applies inside the scope of the AEC industry. Once you are outside the scope of closely related fields, the states lose their ability to restrict or control use of a title like "Systems Architect". On that metric, there are U.S. Constitution based limitations and ruling in courts that restricts states imposing a overly heavy hand enforcement of such titles to non-related occupation.
Example: Engineer. That's a title so widely used that is isn't even funny and we can't even enumerate all the uses of titles consisting of "engineer". There is a second metric to jurisdiction authority and that has to do with public health, safety, and welfare. In order to require licensure on somethings, there in fact does have to be an actual danger to health, safety, and welfare of the public because if they were to be challenged under U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Courts, the danger can't just be some hypothetical hyperbole. It really has to be real. People's life and limb needs to be endangered in a significant way more there is no licensure compared to licensing. Today, the architecture profession may be in danger of possibly losing its "licensed profession" status the more architects divorce themselves from the engineering and construction oversight role and becoming nothing more than some kid at a computer making pretty pictures because the profession is neutering itself (because of some concern over liability and insurance). There is a point where the profession is no longer a profession where licensing is necessary.
In fact, its very premise can be found right in the original act, and in many states, right in the beginning of the chapter(s) of the state statutes covering the architectural licensing.... the justification for the statutes. Aside from some political reasoning for justification of licensing laws but when you are talking about the restriction of a title requiring a license, it becomes a Constitutional matter as well (1st Amendment, 14th Amendment, etc.). The question about whether the restriction on a title is justified. Courts had ruled that if the justification is supported by facts and not mere hyperbole, then yes, the restriction on title can be justified within the scope of the profession. If there is a real threat to public health, safety, and welfare if they do not regulate the title (aside from regulating the "practice") then yes.
There are limits to the application of a title. That is, will a reasonable person think a Systems Architect is the same as a licensed architect who designs buildings? Would you hire a Systems Architect to design your house? Would any reasonable person do so? No.
This is a different issue for say.... a building designer who designs houses. If a building designer designs a house... sure. A non-issue there. There are exemptions in Architect licensing laws for that. However, the issue might be an issue if that building designer was calling themselves an Architect. They might be reasonably deemed to be qualified to design, say an office building. The client might also be a business owner (of say... a billion dollar a year business) and might be happy with the services of that designer and hearing the designer calling himself or herself an architect might come to the conclusion that he or she is qualified to design the new headquarters of the business that the client owns and get roped into doing that project for a nice chunk of money.
The designer most likely isn't going to say 'no' to a big pay check. However, it is entirely unlikely some, say, "Software architect" is going to be hired to design even a dog house, let alone a house and even less likely.... a new headquarters for that billion dollar a year business. One can nitpick the idea of a "building designer" designing the home of such business owner but it's actually possible within the legal framework of many state laws.
States licensing authorities aren't going after people like "Systems Architects" or "Software Architects" *unless* they are in fact using such title in association with services involving the designing of buildings.
Feb 24, 21 3:50 pm ·
·
rcz1001
The other part of the bitching, moaning and groaning has to do with people looking for JOB POSITIONS. Job positions listed are not by "professional titles". They are listed by job position titles. Granted, a lot of times, job position titles are often using the same words/terms as professional titles. Then again, a professional title is the title of your occupation. In other words, a synonym for the occupational title.
Now, of course, you're looking for a "conferred professional title" (one that is conferred by a certification or a license by an authority). This is pretty much how this occupation refers to "professional title" (being the conferred title). You get that by the licensing board not by the job search sites.
Question is - why are you looking at Monster Jobs and similar sites for job posting for this profession instead of the AIA or even this site.
Over the past 20 years or so, employers in this profession are posting their job positions via AIA, Archinect, and other such sites and venues DIRECTLY related to the profession. Why on earth would you search on a site like Monster Jobs and other such venues that are not related to the AEC industry where a job listing for Architects would be for an architectural position?
I'm not citing specific court cases because I don't have the specific links to them in front of me but I remember reading a number of cases awhile ago. The status quo in the realm of legality of regulating titles and practices of an occupation does have some limitations.
They can't require licensure for a title on an occupation that is completely unrelated. Okay, some may impose fines and all and get away with it but they had been sued and shot down in the past for such practices and from time to time.... need to be reminded. It is one thing to say..... unlicensed building design professionals can't use the architect title and issue a fine against them if they do. They are so much more related to the profession and the nature of public health, safety, and welfare risks is more real than hyperbole.
However, to say a software architect can't be called a software architect for performing work called "software architecture" which is a distinct discipline in the IT field. Maybe it is worth understanding what is software architecture. On an abstract level, you might be able to conclude that there are some shared aspects to architecture and probably rightfully to say so. However, no one is going to confuse the role of a software architect with that of a building architect. You're designing buildings and places. Software architecture is perhaps a metaphor regarding the software structure, analogous to that of architecture to that of the building. A software architect deals with the high-level design of the software system much as an architect is dealing with the high-level design of the architectural system, form, layout, etc. of a building and the building system.
How a reasonable person of the public is going to confuse the services of a software architect has to do with the services of a traditional 'building' architect? Software architect pertains to the design of the software. 'Building' Architects pertains to the design of buildings.
How are Joe Q. Public going to confuse the services of the two?
If there is any shred of needing to actually use the brain and actually read and discern, just maybe it isn't an issue. I have NEVER heard of a single case where a "software architect" by virtue of the "software architect" title was ever hired to design a building requiring a architect license or any building for that matter.
randomised, if you don't bother to read any of something that you write 'tldr' as a response... it would be best that you don't bother writing a response. In other words, because you didn't read what I wrote, you are disqualified from responding with any credibility to it because you don't know what I wrote since you didn't read what I wrote.
Pro-Tip: If you would skip the “in other words” bit and basically repeat everything you already mentioned before, following with a “because” bit that repeats everything...once again, you would have magically reduced the length of your posts by 66.6%, and yes that’s the number of the beast... \m/@_@\m/
Feb 25, 21 6:02 pm ·
·
rcz1001
In grad school reports and thesis papers, you are going to see a lot of repetition. You have the abstract. You have the thesis paragraph(s). Then the points restated in the main points to ad nauseum and then you may find the points reiterated again in the process of the conclusions in summing up their findings that is substantiated. I reiterate the points because sometimes the points aren't always understood by everyone but the points are reiterated above in going in-depth with my point. Sure, I could make the above post in response to NY-RA/CID and in part to Atelier Nobody. I don't know the person going by the name NY-RA/CID. There is no indicator that the person knows anything about software architecture other than a limited perspective of observing software architecture from far more than an arm's length. I wasn't quite going to the entire depth of what is "software architecture" to the point of literally teaching someone an entire academic curriculum in it. This would not be a good medium for that type of instruction. I was going over points or arguments made through the discussion line in this thread. I was also preemptively fending off certain common rebuttals some may make and have made in other threads here on the particular matter.
Feb 25, 21 10:44 pm ·
·
rcz1001
In a reply specifically to you, randomised, I may sometimes be more terse. It really does depend on the subject matter. I may even reason that you have previously read points I made before on this topic matter in other threads. I don't assume any new person have read the past posts and threads.
Feb 25, 21 10:48 pm ·
·
randomised
"In grad school reports and thesis papers, you are going to see a lot of repetition."
No need to compare your posts to what's going on in grad school or university, I almost spilled my coffee all over my 27" computer screen...
Feb 26, 21 4:21 am ·
·
rcz1001
If you spilled your coffee all over your 27" computer screen, you might be out a monitor and not have to read my gloriously long posts of infamy until you replace the monitor.
Back when I was in grad school, I was walking though part of the campus and there was a job fair for computer sciences.
I managed to get a shirt from one of the companies that said "Real Architects Code, I don't know what those people who design buildings are called".... I need do see if I still have it in storage and post a picture one of these days.
Since then I've never imagined this term could be recovered, and I at least try to appreciate that it's generally used outside of the actual profession as an elevation to whatever it is modifying.
I have read, I appreciate and I respect all the comments which my original post of February 24 has generated.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and there is no right or wrong answer!
For some reason I am not given the option to “Reply” individually to each comment in this blog, so I will offer this general response instead.
Wikipedia defines “Architect” and it also defines “Systems Architect” in perfect detail.
There is no doubt that each title refers to a different discipline. Most people know this, but for me it doesn’t end there.
When I was in architecture school there were no computers, there was no AutoCad and the word “Architect” had only ONE meaning.
From the time of Imhotep in ancient Egypt, to the end of the 20th century, everyone knew what an architect was and everyone knew what an architect did.
Nowadays you see the term “systems architect” being used in IT to describe a “professional” who designs computer programs. Thus my “nothing is sacred anymore” comment.
Why don’t they use “Systems Designer”... or “Systems Developer”... or “Systems Engineer”?!!
...because “SYSTEMS ARCHITECT” is more sexy... it hits it right on the nail... it gives the title holder more status, more legitimacy, more money... and it just sounds better!!
I may be somewhat nostalgic in defense of the undiluted use of the word “architect” (which survived without competition or a name prefix for millennia, until Bill Gates came along) but personally I prefer NOT to share my hard earned title (even if indirectly) with an IT “professional” after surviving 5 grueling years of architecture school, 3 very intense years of internship, an inhumane 4-day licensing exam (the last day section being a full 12 hours long for the hand-drawn Design part), given only once every 6 months... and most especially now with my 40+ years in the field!!
Yes, those were the good old days, my friend, when your presentation drawings were drawn with INK and each sheet of your contract drawings was a hand-drawn work of art worthy of framing!
AutoCad managed to ruin THAT too!!
Our profession is rapidly changing with the times and I suspect that one day in the not too distant future the word “architect” will be increasingly adulterated, just as the word “engineer” has been.
...and just to prove to you all that “nothing is sacred anymore” I offer you my very own enhancement to Mies’ famous quote below:
“Less is more... more or less!”
NY-RA/CID
Feb 28, 21 4:33 am ·
·
randomised
If you’re so in love with the title “architect” you should’ve studied IT ;-)
NY-RA/CID, you can read my lengthier post at your leisure. No rush but even a little bit of a skim over to get the points made more or less. However, there were computers when you went to college but they weren't microcomputers/personal computers and they didn't really have them in the Architecture department in most colleges/universities but there were computers like the minicomputers (example: PDP-8 or the TI-990) and mainframes (like the IBM System/360 and others). First personal computers emerged around 1977 like the Commodore PET, Apple II, and a few others emerged in the next few years. Assuming you went to college in the timeframe of 1968 to 1978 and internship either being in addition to or part of the 40+ years you mentioned about yourself. Even then, there were computers but they were a bit bigger machines. Well, the first "microcomputer" actually goes back a handful of years earlier than 1977 but that's the MITS Altair 8800 in 1974, a Micral-N in 1973, a Sac State 8008 in 1972, Kenbak-1 and Datapoint 2200 in 1971. You probably wouldn't recognize them as computers with CRT displays and so forth. Microcomputers with the ability to have a CRT display emerged in the mid-1970s and after. Just correcting you about the facts even if you personally didn't see them where you went to college.
rcz1001... I read every single word of your various posts and I appreciate the time you took to share your knowledge. Fascinating indeed!! I am pleased to inform you that I am officially “over it”... more or less!
"Why don’t they use “Systems Designer”... or “Systems Developer”... or “Systems Engineer”?!!
...because “SYSTEMS ARCHITECT” is more sexy... it hits it right on the nail... it gives the title holder more status, more legitimacy, more money... and it just sounds better!!"
NY-RA/CID,
These are job position titles and there are in fact titles in corporate environments (which is where these titles are most frequently used) of numerous software companies. The title is about the role and function. In fact, there is titles such as "Systems Engineer". In large complex (and modular) software projects, involving a complex software system (which by the way, you need to know the difference between terminology of a software system and software.
For a more quick and easy reference that you can look up without necessarily digging up a book on this.... look here:
Mohan Babu K wrote on Quora, that succinctly describes the role in a fair way. In practice of labeling job position titles, things can be a bit more muddier but what Mohan wrote is fairly complies with occupational standard use in this field:
"A software architect designs and draws up plans for digitizing processes with the right systems, automation, data and integrations. The key difference between a software architect and a a software engineer is that the former focuses more on the design of the systems and processes, while the software engineer focuses more on the technical implementation." - (source address: https://www.quora.com/What-is-... )
You see this within the AEC industry regarding architects and engineers when it comes to buildings. Yes, there is overlap so this parallels.
Software developer is a more complicated matter. Software developer usually refers to the business enterprise itself when the business itself does the complete software development process. However, as you may know, some of these individuals (software architect or software engineer) does services that is more focused in particular scope such as "software architecture" or "software engineering".
Systems Architect and Systems Engineer is substantively similar to Software Architect and Software Engineer in the abstract concept but note the difference in usage of term "Systems" instead of "Software" because the "System" might not be "software".
The above link kind of describes what systems architects and systems designer. While all of these IT professionals are involved in computer but the difference is that a systems architect / systems engineer maybe looking at things from not just the perspective of software but also the hardware. It's the more encompassaing IT System architectural & engineering infrastructure that they are looking at.
Software systems architect or engineer vs software architect or engineer: This is more of a nuance analysis. They both overlap and its more a matter of a particular position and scope of work. A software architect or engineer would be more focused on software application scope while a software systems architect or engineer are looking at thins from a software systems scope. Refer back to for "software system" and understanding the difference between software system and software: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Whoever says it is simply a matter of how "sexy" it sounds, frankly doesn't know what the f--- he or she is talking about. While it *MIGHT* have played a role in the original coining of the titles but it doesn't really explain why the titles are used in the IT field. There's a bit more maturity and mature reasoning regarding the titles used. They don't make important decisions in how they organize their human resources, job position titles, roles/function of particular positions, merely on how "sexy" the title sounds. That's a kind of juvenile way of thinking being proposed by some of you here.
Guess what, titles like software architect and software engineering has been around for quite some time. Your professional license and exclusivity to the architect title ONLY pertains to the scope of occupational field in which the state defined definition of "architecture" for the purpose of the licensing laws for which there is real justification for the licensing laws on basis of protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
As for your 5 years of college education, 3 years of "internship", and exams.... that's all on you and your peers (especially your predecessors) that wrote the bills and got the legislature to pass these licensing laws and their requirements. Then again, the designing and engineering of buildings, in general, do have REAL risks of health, safety, and welfare of the public if they aren't designed & engineered properly. It is not always the case with software or software systems or some other types of systems engineering but there are few areas where it matters.
This is where I do support Professional Engineering license for.... such as in "Life Safety/Critical Systems Engineering" and a licensed title of "Licensed (or Registered) Life-Safety & Critical Systems Engineer" (under the Engineering licensing boards) which may have sub-disciplines/branches such as in "software systems engineering" or "hardware systems engineering" as they pertain to life & critical systems engineering. The definition of "life-safety / critical systems engineering" can be defined in statutes using terms as widely accepted in the profession. However, not all software systems engineering or software engineering would fall into the scope requiring a license because they don't necessarily have an effect on HSW.
In Oregon, I addressed OSBEELS about the matter. They would have to define a branch, an educational curriculum, initial grandfathering provisions, and exam process that makes sense but the title would need to be more focused and the practice more focused on what would be a legitimate basis for establishing such a branch and licensure. Merely using a non-restricted title like "software engineer" would not stop said person from violating a "practice of life-safety/critical systems engineering" provision if they adopted such a law.
Customarily, it would require education of a bachelors or higher level of education (or equivalent experience in lieu of a degree or in combination with a degree less than a bachelor's level degree), then they can do their EIT and take an exam in the specific discipline. Of course, qualifying experience initially during grandfathering provisions would likely not have any kind of ABET accredited education or experience under a PE but provisions can be made for a higher continuing education requirement for a period of 5 or 10 years post-licensure. However, those not grandfathered in would have to then meet defined pathways for licensure not covered under the grandfathering provision that would sunset admissions of people under grandfathering after a period of... say 5 years with provision remaining for continuing education for these individuals that can eventually go off the books... say 5 to 10 years after that.
To be competent to lead the engineering of life-safety / critical systems (be it hardware or software systems in those life-safety or critical systems), they will require not only a bachelors degree or higher level degree as they are customarily provided at educational institutions, but they also would require a number of years of experience. A professional licensure would set some baseline and then there will need to be exam(s) on the matter.
I would argue that a title of "life-safety/critical systems architect" would be subject to that licensing scheme and be protected title along with the variant with the "engineer" title and be subject under the scope of "practice of life-safety/critical systems architecture & engineering" provision under the engineering laws and be like the "naval architect" title which naval architect is licensed under the engineer's board not the architect board.
Even the title Naval Architect is a use of the "architect" title not licensed under the architect board but actually is covered under the engineering board. Interesting. Naval architecture being a special discipline within a broader "naval engineering" field. You could think of these IT "architects" as something akin to naval architect. Software architecture being a special branch (or sub-discipline) within a broader "software engineering" discipline. You could argue something along that line and I can support it but to require licensure and hold up to various legal precedents, there needs to be actual risk/danger to public health, safety, and welfare if licensure isn't made. It can't be purely hypothetical hysterical nonsense. If the software or computer systems fails, is the public at risk. In most such systems, no. In some types of systems... yes. I proposed this idea to OSBEELS. I don't think they done anything on this front.
If you are looking for a job and been using a computer for the past 10 years, then you should already know how to use a search engine and how to use quotes and other little operators in the search to filter your search. There's probably even community college courses, online courses, and youtube videos on how to do this.
If you been practicing for like 40+ years, you're over the age of 65. Maybe, you're closer to retiring or retired so it really doesn't matter if you make a bunch of blowhard noise on something that you and your peers didn't deal with 30+ years ago.
Get over it. In 1976, the term "information architecture" was coined and a field of "Information Systems Architects" came to being. Of course, before that, there was Edsger Dijkstra's research and the emergence of the concept of "software architecture" in 1968 and work of David Parnas as it was a discipline within the software engineering discipline. Software engineering was emerging in the 1950s and 1960s and of course as the microcomputer (personal computer) age came to being, the field really began to grow with critical mass as the critical mass of professionals in the computer field came into being with hundreds of thousands to over a million computer professionals in the U.S. by 1985.
In effect, all this had origins right to the beginning with some identifying themselves as "engineers", some as "architects", some who identified themselves as "computer scientists" because their interest is more science/academia and research oriented versus the applied aspect of computer science... like the difference between engineers and scientists. Then some emerged to take a more "architectural" role of software and systems (hardware and software systems). It would be until the 80s when there would be a critical mass professionals in each discipline to defined distinct professions within a broader professional field relating to computers. The more 'computers for the masses and not the classes' emerged and with the the 90s and the emergence of the internet and further expanding the world of computing, they became defined professions of themselves and guess what.... traditional architecture and engineering profession and their licensing bodies punted around the matters of an emerging profession using titles like "architect" and "engineer" in the computer field. Occassional attempts to regulate has happened but they have ran into legal barriers like the Constitution and now there are legal cases that encumber the licensing boards trying to expand scope to cover professions that are not part within the domain of their original licensing domain and the built environment.
Even the very concept of licensing laws have been questioned on whether it is unconstitutional or not. Architect licensing laws are on thinner ice than it was 50 years ago.
Feb 28, 21 3:40 pm ·
·
RJ87
I get what you're saying, but it was really distracting watching you justify things with phrases like "Get over it. In 1976, the term "information architecture" was coined". Architecture as a profession literally predates paper.
Prostitution is the oldest profession but probably not by a wide margin.
Mar 1, 21 10:55 am ·
·
rcz1001
Also.... architecture was UNREGULATED without licensing laws and they BUILT buildings and structures not merely designed them. Most of you are not real architects by that definition. You're just an artist that draws buildings not someone who actually knows the crafts and trades, coordinates construction trades and crafts, and actually was in charge not only of the design intent but ALSO the means and methods. Unless you are also a construction contractor, you're not a real architect according to the definition of the profession since its inception up to about ~125-150 years ago (or less). You need BOTH an architect and a construction contractor license to be a real architect.
What you do now, under the license is only "half" (not literally but figuratively) the job because you aren't taking real control of the outcomes of the trades. That's part of the job of being an architect up until the divide in the late 19th/early-20th century (A.D.).
Guess what you say.... "get over it." Why? The ship has sailed.
The profession isn't going back to being in control of not just design intent but means & methods of arriving at the design intent which can only be achieved by being not just a designer but a builder. Guess what, the ship has sailed already... the profession isn't going to have exclusive control over the word "architect" and isn't going to be able to stop other professions that are more important for the economy and businesses of the world on a wider spectrum than some egotistical bozo with a bowtie and a 24" to 36" roll of paper designing a building.
You're needed only when the economy and businesses need a building designed but once a building is built, an architect is often side-stepped by someone hiring engineers. These IT "architects" are here to stay and there is not a flipping thing you, the AIA, or all the licensed architects combined can even hope to do anything about.
If you can't do squat against the builder associations in the world, what hope do you have against the IT industry in the U.S. alone, although young in terms of years is a field that is magnitudes of an order larger than the number of architects in the world?
The licensing boards tried and the federal and I think even Supreme Court rulings have basically reined in the sprawling unchecked powers of licensing boards which is in itself on very questionable legal grounds in the first place.
Why waste your time trying to fight a battle you already lost before you have even begun?
Architects already lost exclusivity of the "architect" title before there was licensing laws. What about Naval Architects? Are they being consulted? Do you think they are going to spend their time bitching and moaning about some IT architect when they can type in (in quotes) "naval architecture". Maybe, you might want to call yourselves "Building Architects" (BA).
FYI: Architect comes from the roman word for Architect.... called architectus... which the romans derived from the Greek word 'arkhitekton' (which means.... chief or master builder) "arkhi-" is basically Greek for the Latin 'Arch' like that used in the Catholic title 'Archbishop' which means chief or master or similar wordage of a higher or highest tier.
In Greek, "tekton" means builder. When you look to history as to what these "arkhitektons" did... they built. They had crafts and trades skills. Often in multiple crafts/trades but they also knew others that specialized. They are usually experienced builders who by time and experienced had learned multiple trades and crafts and gained competency to know what good work and crap work is and who does good work and who does shit work. They also can coordinate the trades and direct the means and methods because they knew enough of the crafts of how it is done, the scheduling nature like how long it takes to do this or that work like how to make a fluted Corinthian column, how long it takes to make the columns from stone blocks into disks or half-disks that they can stack and carve in place.
They know the means and methods not just how to draw a pretty picture. They know it well enough to communicate effectively (more or less). You don't have that. They don't teach enough of the crafts and trades in the means and methods of construction of buildings for architects to really be architects. You know how to use a particular software but do you know how something is built? Do you? Many of you, probably not. That's architecture and the meaning of ARCHITECT ( ARKHITEKTON or ἀρχιτέκτων for those who actually want to see GREEK lettering).
I don't know exactly when "naval architect" first came into use but given English... possibly sometime during the middle-ages and sense then but before licensing laws existed where we begun this non-sense of "turf wars" over titles which historically would have been laughed and scoffed at by your predecessors before this licensing crud and the fighting over a word.
Licensing laws are basically violating Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
Here's the text:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
-------------------------------------------
You'll notice the first sentence which is a grammatically okay sentence form but the second sentence is somewhat of a run-on sentence that is stringing multiple independent clauses into a single sentence (notice the use of semicolons) largely to save on words and ink. This was back in the time of hand-written writing.
If you unpack the section into their independent clauses, it should look something like this:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. No State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That is what the compacted version means when you depack it. Due process pertains to the clause regarding that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property. In order to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property requires due process. This clause does not apply to the prior clause regarding that no State shall make or enforce any laws that abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Due process is part of the clause regarding the deprivation of life, liberty, and property nothing else. The last clause says that no State shall deny a person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. That means, no state shall deny someone on basis of race, ethnicity, or otherwise for any reason, the equal protection of the law. For example, if a white person gets the protection of a law... a black person should not be denied that same very protection of that law just because they are black.
Where do licensing laws violate Section 1 of the 14th Amendment? I am referring to the 14th Amendment provision that says that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
How? First, abridge means: "To lessen. To reduce." (Look it up in a dictionary). Second, privileges that are referred to are not only inalienable rights but also the Bill of Rights. These are always privileges because they must be defended if we are to keep them.
The title law is an abridging of a person's ability to use the word architect. Communication including usage of a title is protected under the First Amendment of the United States. Architect as a word, was already in the dictionary defined as a person who designs buildings. Before licensing laws, the title Architect was used by anyone. Sure, you can't use words to deceive someone. That is true. If you don't design buildings or in the occupation of designing buildings then perhaps, you are not an architect. Historically, Architect meant a master builder who designs and leads the construction of buildings. Before licensing law, anyone who designs buildings can use the word 'architect' in any way or form including to describe their profession/occupation. Now, you can't do that unless you get a degree. Before that, there wasn't any kind of pre-requisite. It is like the title "building designer". Anyone can call themselves that but they can't legally do it to deceive someone because you run into a situation of fraud. If you don't design buildings, you're not a building designer. If you are not in the occupation of designing buildings or even portions of buildings, you're not a building designer so that would be fraud which is probably not an issue. However, there is this restriction on a word we can't use and by using it, we are fined for using it. It's a denial of rights that would be my right and privilege because the States totally disregarded that portion of the 14th Amendment altogether as if it doesn't even exist at all. They simply look at it as, who cares.
They appended the idea that Due Process applies where it is not pertaining to. This can run into a form of illegal takings. Given that there had been decades of states requiring licensure to practice architecture and so forth, the title was permitted to be restricted ONLY in the context of the built environment as to what the legislative purpose to safeguard the public health, safety, and welfare in connection to the built environment. This does not mean the title restriction is permitted to be enforced on those persons whose work has nothing to do with the built environment which is what the legislative purpose of the law is for.
Should someone called a "sandwich architect" be fined $5,000 every single day they use that title because that is what their employers (eg. Subway or some other similar company) calls them? I would reason that any competent court judge would shoot down such heavy-handed enforcement of such laws. Think about it.
I say, get over it guys. Architects haven't had the exclusivity of the word "architect" long before there were licensing laws. Get over it.
Rick, serious question--do you have, or have you considered starting a blog? Your long posts are often informative but just don't fit the forum mold very well, where single (snarky) sentences are preferred and three short paragraphs is the limit of most readers' attention spans. With a blog you could reach potential clients, architects and designers who are interested in what you have to share. My architect friend Emily says, "those who educate the market, own the market" and I've found that to be a successful formula.
Reading the Section 1 of 14th Amendment needs to be at least read and understood in their respective clauses and not have parts of independent clauses jumbled and applied to preceding and clauses. People on this forum have failed to grasp that.
The remaining part is getting to where licensing laws violates the 1st amendment of the Bill of Rights which is a privilege that is not be abridged by State laws as it says outright in Section 1, 14th Amendment which was adopted before architectural licensing laws. This puts licensing laws and such title laws on unstable grounds of legal legitimacy.
Regardless of all that, even before George Washington was even born, architects have already lost the exclusivity over "architect". Remember guys, English isn't a regulated language. It isn't French. We know that it's not going to end well for the licensing boards to go around fining every sandwich architect, "IT" architect, and every butt-wiping architect out there.
Rick, serious question--do you have, or have you considered starting a blog? Your long posts are often informative but just don't fit the forum mold very well, where single (snarky) sentences are preferred and three short paragraphs is the limit of most readers' attention spans. With a blog you could reach potential clients, architects and designers who are interested in what you have to share. My architect friend Emily says, "those who educate the market, own the market" and I've found that to be a successful formula.
I have considered blogs. The biggest question that an aspiring blogging guru must ask themselves: Who gives a sh-t what I have to say? Basically, it goes with the principles of a credibility statement at the beginning of speeches when commanding the attention of an audience. You kind of have to have a following, to begin with. That following can build upon but an initial following meeting a critical mass.
you're basically blogging already but it is sandwiched in between regular posts by others that try to have (meaningful) discussions ;-)
Mar 2, 21 11:01 am ·
·
Wood Guy
Sorry to the OP for the hijack... it can take some time to build an audience but if your blog has a focused scope, with a bit of marketing it shouldn't be hard. You have a unique perspective and written voice that generates mostly negative comments here, but you could be reaching a targeted audience of people who want to hear what you have to say.
I'm not good with technology but I am confident that in two hours I could have a Squarespace site set up and 10-20 blogs pulled from your comments here, all fitting within a defined range of topics. I'm serious--we are in the information age, you have a ton of information and it's falling on deaf ears in here.
Many of us are rooting for you to find your calling. I really think this could be it. Just take the topics that catch your interest here and write about them for the larger world. I think you have my email address, or you know where to find it--let me know if you'd like any direct tips. I hate to see a wasted opportunity.
Also, this still applies to posting in the forums ...
"The biggest question that an aspiring blogging guru must ask themselves: Who gives a sh-t what I have to say?"
Mar 2, 21 11:31 am ·
·
rcz1001
Already have a ringed in audience that doesn't have to leave the site to go to some other site. Getting people on here to go to another site even to read a blog post needs something better than a rant blog. People come here to rant and willing to respond to rants but don't necessarily have the drive to go to another site to read and respond to a rant blog. Your prior post regarding applying for a blog n Archinect makes sense, though. Again, I think people look for something to learn from and substantive quality not just rant posts if they are going to read a blog. That's another matter altogether.
Rick, I think the point is that your rants (as you call them) are too lengthy for the forum. They disrupt the flow. If you want to write them, there is another format (i.e. blog) that would be better suited for it. I do this sometimes when a forum comment sparks me to respond in something that fits better in a blog format.
Alternatively, you could just not rant for so long in the forums. Your question about who cares what you have to say still applies. I guarantee anyone willing to read your rants here will still be willing to read them on a blog. The benefit is that we all don't feel "ringed in" if we'd rather not. It would be a courtesy thing.
EA, you hit it on the head. Rick, I actually first found Archinect thanks to your posts about the AIBD and I do appreciate your knowledge, research and unique perspective. But even though I tend to be wordy, I tend to skip over your posts--they are just too meaty. (I think I used to be more patient.)
If you were to post a quick, 1- or 2-sentance teaser, and say, "I wrote more about it here___" then the interested parties would seek out what you have to say. It would not be everyone, but who cares--it would be the people who want to engage with you.
As examples, these are two blogs I follow on Facebook, where they post teasers: https://sugarmtnfarm.com/home/blog/; https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/. They write long, involved posts and it's only certain times when I'm interested in digging in to what they have to say. But then I'll spend a couple of hours catching up. It's a good way for me (and others) to engage with thinkers.
The current blog that I am currently running at this time is non-architecture related. It is a blog for a small video game project. (Link: https://sporkgamedev.wordpress.com/ ). It's used for progress reports that are being posted on weekends for work done mostly during the week. The blog started last weekend. I might be a little apprehensive about running another blog at the moment even if it is related to building design / architecture. My posts here, lately is on an erratic schedule.
Title for Architects, Ar.
i think the idea of "Ar." is somehow in connection to the use of "Ir." for engineers
the first time that i see "Ar." is on a letter from a Indian student writing to my boss appreciating his architecture
I'd second the idea of "Ar." since it's straight forward to tell who you are and is respectful to your profession.
And if you're also a pirate it works out swimmingly. I am the famous builder Francis Drake, AR!
whereas the confusion of situations like Ar. John Smith, RA, AIA doesn't necessarily exist.
1. letter addressing a PhD holder:
Dear Dr. Smith,
(i think it's uncommon to say Dear Dr. Smith PhD.,)
2. letter addressed by a PhD holder:
Best regards,
John Smith, PhD.
do you agree that it works well for "Dear Ar. Smith," for writing a formal letter / email?
mleitner: No, I don't need different cards for different states. I have one card, that says "George Bloopox, Architect", and has my office's address. I can use that card in my home state, and in the 2 neighboring states in which I'm also licensed (neither requires that I reincorporate in their state), and in any of the states that allow an NCARB-certified architect to solicit work without first obtaining registration there (because I'm NCARB certified).
But: some states do require that an architect's business card include the name of the state and the number of his license there - so if I were licensed in one of those then I'd need new cards...
As for the other states: I can't solicit work in them without obtaining a license in them. So I shouldn't be handing out any cards in any of those until/unless I get a license there - though if I handed out a card for another purpose (i.e. I want a social contact to have my address, phone & email) then the state board is not going to go after me for unlicensed practice on that basis alone!
As for "Ar." - it's not bad. Good luck getting 50 state boards to agree on any title though.
and I've seen the slightly different "AR" used to mean any of "Account Representative", "Anal Retentive", "Airborne Reconnaissance", and "Arrest Report" - so not sure I love those associations...
Bloopox: where does one find specific information about "states that allow an NCARB-certified architect to solicit work without first obtaining registration"?
This is a new concept for me and it sure would make multi-state practice simpler if this concept is widespread.
One finds that info on NCARB's site. I posted the link in one of my posts above. There are about 20 states that allow this, though some have certain additional conditions attached.
(See question 37)
thanks Bloopox ... very helpful.
dick cheney's an architect
What I hate about the AIA designation is the national connotation. I'm a Canadian citizen studying in an American school and will probably end up working in the states. But I would prefer that any letters after my name represent the fact that I'm an architect, not a member of a national club.
I understand that accreditation is different in each country, but to qualify as and use the designation "architect," one must have achieved accreditation somewhere. (The accreditation standards of different countries , of course, is another discussion entirely.)
In summation:
Druvius, architect
or
Druvius
is what I'll use if we're talking about business cards. And if we're talking about CVs and resumes then listing AIA, LEED AP, etc. is obviously acceptable under the appropriate sections ie. professional accreditions/associations.
what i love about the business cards my firm is currently using is that there is absolutely no way to tell what the company does unless you know the designations that follow people's names...
no where on the card does it say 'architecture' 'architects' 'planning' 'design' 'engineering' etc etc...
since i currently have no designations, except LEED which i refuse to put after my name, my cards seem extremely ambiguous... i could be a lawyer, information specialist, a secret agent...just about anything i want to tell the person i'm giving the card to...
this by the way is extremely helpful when meeting people you never expect to see again in your life...haha
"yes i'm an arms dealer...heres my card"
ar. would be cool, but after a while you will be at the grocery store and someone you know will say "hey, I haven't seen you in a while architect smith." that's kind of silly. even if they said mr. smith architect, it sounds weird.
I'd argue that using any title in casual conversation is a little uptight and unnecessary. Several of my family members are doctors and none of them use dr. in their name outside of their medical practice.
I think the real issue here is how we, as architects, can consistantly identify orselves to the general public.
what about the 15 year old bagger who doesn't know any better?
The use of a professional title as a prefix is common in some cultures, such as in hispanic countries and in Germany, but I think it would take a lot of work to get it done here. And like someone mentioned before, the titles Dr., Prof., Rev. etc. do not carry with them any kind of formal credential. I'm sure you could put Ar. in front of your name without state sanction, but I wouldn't
Personally, I don't care for any letters after the name. I think Name,Architect is the best or if you are worried about complexities of multi-state registration, put "Registered Architect - State" on the line below your name on the business card.
Hi! First time I post. I was waiting to see someone mention de option of "Arch. xxx xxx". As in Spanish we refer to arquitects like this "Arq. xxx xxx"
Is it true they call Architects “licensiado” also, in Latin American countries?!
its "Arch" End of discussions
I prefer the NY Times style guide (name-dropping manner) of referring to professionals:
"The architect, Proto"
as if you should have heard of me...
go on, touch me
I've used "renaissance man" before, quite well actually.
Ar. Duane Renaud, RA
borrow, or rob?
how about Arch. FirstName LastName? I like the idea of it being pronounced as in archdiocese or, come to think of it, as in architect!
Maybe it will get us the societal respect we deserve!
do you really deserve it tho?
The suffix, "RA", or "AIA" or "Architect" works just fine and is clear to most people that read it. I see no reason to change this standard that has been with us for a long while.
Despite the fact that it is illegal in most (if not all) States to call oneself an “Architect” without a State license or registration, the Information Technology (IT) world has pretty much adopted the title of “Systems Architect” as its own, paying these software professionals from $140K to $200K yearly to use OUR title!!!
Nothing is sacred anymore!
I don’t know if I’m the only one who has an issue with this, but it seems to me that the AIA should be fighting this in every State!
Regarding the use of “RA” vs. “AR”... the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles issues professional license plates to “Registered Architects” using the letters “AR” on the actual license plates.
NYS/DMV would have used “RA”, similar to their “RN” (Registered Nurse) plates, but claimed that “RA” was already in use for commercial license plates. I don’t know how other States handle this.
Personally, I use the name suffix of “RA, CID” since I am licensed in NYS as a “Registered Architect” AND as a “Certified Interior Designer”... opting NOT to use AIA, NCARB, NCIDQ, LEED, etc., after my name.
As an unlicensed designer with a fair amount of experience and expertise, I try to never represent myself as an architect. (Sometimes it's easier to just tell my barber I'm an architect, instead of explaining the whole situation, but even then it's 50/50.) It drives me crazy that other industries can use the term with impunity but architects and the AIA will come after me with pitchforks if I use the term. To be clear, I'm ok with not being allowed to say I'm an architect, though FL Wright and many other architects have the same training I do. But if it's a protected term, then protect it, dammit.
system's architect (or whatever) is a label that borrows architecture to sound trendy (hello interior arch folks), It's not a professional title and its reach does not extend beyond the walls of whatever company the wanker (or wankerette) works for. It's also a well beaten horse and no one with such job description is advertising architecture services. I do not want my annual dues spent on torches and pitch forks.
I have an equal amount of real architects and tech folks in my circle of friends. Very few of the tech folks use that term when they describe their jobs.
"System's architect...[is] not a professional title and its reach does not extend beyond the walls of whatever company..."
Unless one is searching for a job online using the search term "architect".
^ I figured most architects are smart enough to filter out the tech-sector jobs when using those search engines.
Wood, you were the last guy I would've thought would buy into this.
I find that even 20 plus years into this profession, that this is still a thing we spend time discussing.
I've evolved, even to the point of thinking that licensure should even be a thing anymore. Knowing the history, I'm of the mind to get rid of the process.
Having said that, I am bored of the "systems architect" thing. Who cares.
Get rid of licensure.
B3, I probably overstated my case a bit. This morning when I wrote that I was also going back and forth with a magazine ad salesperson. They wanted me to join their online resource directory, under their "Architects" category. I suggested they change it to "architects and designers," explained why and said I'd be happy to sign up if they did so. They responded that they would change it to "architectural firms" and include me. I had to respond again saying that I'm legally not allowed to use any form of the word "architect" or derivatives in any form.
Not that anyone would come after me, or them, but I really do take licensure seriously and wish I had made different choices in my past so I'd have a pathway to licensure now. That's what was in my mind when I responded above.
There are jurisdictions that provide a pathway to licensure based on 10 or more years of experience, in lieu of an architectural degree.
Check with your State’s requirements
NY - there are only 12 or 13 states in the US that allow this and the number is getting smaller each year.
NY, I live in Maine and there are a few alternative paths to licensure. (Apologies to the regulars who have heard me tell this story before.)
I'm 47, have a BS in structural engineering and a minor in art and architectural history, ten years as a builder and over 15 years as a designer. But I have never worked under a licensed architect, though I've had a few as colleagues. Maine is strict about direct supervision and I'm not interested in being dishonest.
Although my college was highly ranked and many of my classmates went on to get a master's in architecture in two years, it was not an accredited program. So although I know more about engineering than most architects and I know at least as much about designing houses as most architects, as far as my state board is concerned I am exactly equivalent to a fresh grad with an English degree. I would need to work under a licensed architect for 13 years to qualify for AXP. I'd be 60.
If I did not need to work I might do it for fun, but I'm just getting to my prime earning years and can't take a major pay cut for that long just to get a license. I already charge about the same as my architect competitors.
I didn't have mentors to help me when choosing a career path and my parents were no help either, so I made my decisions and have done ok. If there is ever an option to take the exams based on knowledge and experience alone, I'll jump at it and I'm confident I would pass. But I won't hold my breath for that to happen.
The restriction of the word "architect" as a title only applies inside the scope of the AEC industry. Once you are outside the scope of closely related fields, the states lose their ability to restrict or control use of a title like "Systems Architect". On that metric, there are U.S. Constitution based limitations and ruling in courts that restricts states imposing a overly heavy hand enforcement of such titles to non-related occupation.
Example: Engineer. That's a title so widely used that is isn't even funny and we can't even enumerate all the uses of titles consisting of "engineer". There is a second metric to jurisdiction authority and that has to do with public health, safety, and welfare. In order to require licensure on somethings, there in fact does have to be an actual danger to health, safety, and welfare of the public because if they were to be challenged under U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Courts, the danger can't just be some hypothetical hyperbole. It really has to be real. People's life and limb needs to be endangered in a significant way more there is no licensure compared to licensing. Today, the architecture profession may be in danger of possibly losing its "licensed profession" status the more architects divorce themselves from the engineering and construction oversight role and becoming nothing more than some kid at a computer making pretty pictures because the profession is neutering itself (because of some concern over liability and insurance). There is a point where the profession is no longer a profession where licensing is necessary.
In fact, its very premise can be found right in the original act, and in many states, right in the beginning of the chapter(s) of the state statutes covering the architectural licensing.... the justification for the statutes. Aside from some political reasoning for justification of licensing laws but when you are talking about the restriction of a title requiring a license, it becomes a Constitutional matter as well (1st Amendment, 14th Amendment, etc.). The question about whether the restriction on a title is justified. Courts had ruled that if the justification is supported by facts and not mere hyperbole, then yes, the restriction on title can be justified within the scope of the profession. If there is a real threat to public health, safety, and welfare if they do not regulate the title (aside from regulating the "practice") then yes.
There are limits to the application of a title. That is, will a reasonable person think a Systems Architect is the same as a licensed architect who designs buildings? Would you hire a Systems Architect to design your house? Would any reasonable person do so? No.
This is a different issue for say.... a building designer who designs houses. If a building designer designs a house... sure. A non-issue there. There are exemptions in Architect licensing laws for that. However, the issue might be an issue if that building designer was calling themselves an Architect. They might be reasonably deemed to be qualified to design, say an office building. The client might also be a business owner (of say... a billion dollar a year business) and might be happy with the services of that designer and hearing the designer calling himself or herself an architect might come to the conclusion that he or she is qualified to design the new headquarters of the business that the client owns and get roped into doing that project for a nice chunk of money.
The designer most likely isn't going to say 'no' to a big pay check. However, it is entirely unlikely some, say, "Software architect" is going to be hired to design even a dog house, let alone a house and even less likely.... a new headquarters for that billion dollar a year business. One can nitpick the idea of a "building designer" designing the home of such business owner but it's actually possible within the legal framework of many state laws.
States licensing authorities aren't going after people like "Systems Architects" or "Software Architects" *unless* they are in fact using such title in association with services involving the designing of buildings.
The other part of the bitching, moaning and groaning has to do with people looking for JOB POSITIONS. Job positions listed are not by "professional titles". They are listed by job position titles. Granted, a lot of times, job position titles are often using the same words/terms as professional titles. Then again, a professional title is the title of your occupation. In other words, a synonym for the occupational title.
Now, of course, you're looking for a "conferred professional title" (one that is conferred by a certification or a license by an authority). This is pretty much how this occupation refers to "professional title" (being the conferred title). You get that by the licensing board not by the job search sites.
Question is - why are you looking at Monster Jobs and similar sites for job posting for this profession instead of the AIA or even this site.
Over the past 20 years or so, employers in this profession are posting their job positions via AIA, Archinect, and other such sites and venues DIRECTLY related to the profession. Why on earth would you search on a site like Monster Jobs and other such venues that are not related to the AEC industry where a job listing for Architects would be for an architectural position?
tl;dr
I'm not citing specific court cases because I don't have the specific links to them in front of me but I remember reading a number of cases awhile ago. The status quo in the realm of legality of regulating titles and practices of an occupation does have some limitations.
They can't require licensure for a title on an occupation that is completely unrelated. Okay, some may impose fines and all and get away with it but they had been sued and shot down in the past for such practices and from time to time.... need to be reminded. It is one thing to say..... unlicensed building design professionals can't use the architect title and issue a fine against them if they do. They are so much more related to the profession and the nature of public health, safety, and welfare risks is more real than hyperbole.
However, to say a software architect can't be called a software architect for performing work called "software architecture" which is a distinct discipline in the IT field. Maybe it is worth understanding what is software architecture. On an abstract level, you might be able to conclude that there are some shared aspects to architecture and probably rightfully to say so. However, no one is going to confuse the role of a software architect with that of a building architect. You're designing buildings and places. Software architecture is perhaps a metaphor regarding the software structure, analogous to that of architecture to that of the building. A software architect deals with the high-level design of the software system much as an architect is dealing with the high-level design of the architectural system, form, layout, etc. of a building and the building system.
How a reasonable person of the public is going to confuse the services of a software architect has to do with the services of a traditional 'building' architect? Software architect pertains to the design of the software. 'Building' Architects pertains to the design of buildings.
How are Joe Q. Public going to confuse the services of the two?
If there is any shred of needing to actually use the brain and actually read and discern, just maybe it isn't an issue. I have NEVER heard of a single case where a "software architect" by virtue of the "software architect" title was ever hired to design a building requiring a architect license or any building for that matter.
tl;dr
randomised, if you don't bother to read any of something that you write 'tldr' as a response... it would be best that you don't bother writing a response. In other words, because you didn't read what I wrote, you are disqualified from responding with any credibility to it because you don't know what I wrote since you didn't read what I wrote.
Pro-Tip: If you would skip the “in other words” bit and basically repeat everything you already mentioned before, following with a “because” bit that repeats everything...once again, you would have magically reduced the length of your posts by 66.6%, and yes that’s the number of the beast... \m/@_@\m/
In grad school reports and thesis papers, you are going to see a lot of repetition. You have the abstract. You have the thesis paragraph(s). Then the points restated in the main points to ad nauseum and then you may find the points reiterated again in the process of the conclusions in summing up their findings that is substantiated. I reiterate the points because sometimes the points aren't always understood by everyone but the points are reiterated above in going in-depth with my point. Sure, I could make the above post in response to NY-RA/CID and in part to Atelier Nobody. I don't know the person going by the name NY-RA/CID. There is no indicator that the person knows anything about software architecture other than a limited perspective of observing software architecture from far more than an arm's length. I wasn't quite going to the entire depth of what is "software architecture" to the point of literally teaching someone an entire academic curriculum in it. This would not be a good medium for that type of instruction. I was going over points or arguments made through the discussion line in this thread. I was also preemptively fending off certain common rebuttals some may make and have made in other threads here on the particular matter.
In a reply specifically to you, randomised, I may sometimes be more terse. It really does depend on the subject matter. I may even reason that you have previously read points I made before on this topic matter in other threads. I don't assume any new person have read the past posts and threads.
"In grad school reports and thesis papers, you are going to see a lot of repetition."
No need to compare your posts to what's going on in grad school or university, I almost spilled my coffee all over my 27" computer screen...
If you spilled your coffee all over your 27" computer screen, you might be out a monitor and not have to read my gloriously long posts of infamy until you replace the monitor.
Gents, coffee is sacred. We do not joke about spilled coffee.
Architect, Benevolent Overlord
At least that's what my card says.
I've sat on juries with a malevolent underlord or two.
Back when I was in grad school, I was walking though part of the campus and there was a job fair for computer sciences.
I managed to get a shirt from one of the companies that said "Real Architects Code, I don't know what those people who design buildings are called".... I need do see if I still have it in storage and post a picture one of these days.
Since then I've never imagined this term could be recovered, and I at least try to appreciate that it's generally used outside of the actual profession as an elevation to whatever it is modifying.
Greetings, everyone!
I have read, I appreciate and I respect all the comments which my original post of February 24 has generated.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and there is no right or wrong answer!
For some reason I am not given the option to “Reply” individually to each comment in this blog, so I will offer this general response instead.
Wikipedia defines “Architect” and it also defines “Systems Architect” in perfect detail.
There is no doubt that each title refers to a different discipline. Most people know this, but for me it doesn’t end there.
When I was in architecture school there were no computers, there was no AutoCad and the word “Architect” had only ONE meaning.
From the time of Imhotep in ancient Egypt, to the end of the 20th century, everyone knew what an architect was and everyone knew what an architect did.
Nowadays you see the term “systems architect” being used in IT to describe a “professional” who designs computer programs. Thus my “nothing is sacred anymore” comment.
Why don’t they use “Systems Designer”... or “Systems Developer”... or “Systems Engineer”?!!
...because “SYSTEMS ARCHITECT” is more sexy... it hits it right on the nail... it gives the title holder more status, more legitimacy, more money... and it just sounds better!!
I may be somewhat nostalgic in defense of the undiluted use of the word “architect” (which survived without competition or a name prefix for millennia, until Bill Gates came along) but personally I prefer NOT to share my hard earned title (even if indirectly) with an IT “professional” after surviving 5 grueling years of architecture school, 3 very intense years of internship, an inhumane 4-day licensing exam (the last day section being a full 12 hours long for the hand-drawn Design part), given only once every 6 months... and most especially now with my 40+ years in the field!!
Yes, those were the good old days, my friend, when your presentation drawings were drawn with INK and each sheet of your contract drawings was a hand-drawn work of art worthy of framing!
AutoCad managed to ruin THAT too!!
Our profession is rapidly changing with the times and I suspect that one day in the not too distant future the word “architect” will be increasingly adulterated, just as the word “engineer” has been.
...and just to prove to you all that “nothing is sacred anymore” I offer you my very own enhancement to Mies’ famous quote below:
“Less is more... more or less!”
NY-RA/CID
If you’re so in love with the title “architect” you should’ve studied IT ;-)
The job of architect is actually quite a
If you’re so in love with the title “architect” you should’ve studied IT ;-)
The job of architect is actually quite a
NY-RA/CID, you can read my lengthier post at your leisure. No rush but even a little bit of a skim over to get the points made more or less. However, there were computers when you went to college but they weren't microcomputers/personal computers and they didn't really have them in the Architecture department in most colleges/universities but there were computers like the minicomputers (example: PDP-8 or the TI-990) and mainframes (like the IBM System/360 and others). First personal computers emerged around 1977 like the Commodore PET, Apple II, and a few others emerged in the next few years. Assuming you went to college in the timeframe of 1968 to 1978 and internship either being in addition to or part of the 40+ years you mentioned about yourself. Even then, there were computers but they were a bit bigger machines. Well, the first "microcomputer" actually goes back a handful of years earlier than 1977 but that's the MITS Altair 8800 in 1974, a Micral-N in 1973, a Sac State 8008 in 1972, Kenbak-1 and Datapoint 2200 in 1971. You probably wouldn't recognize them as computers with CRT displays and so forth. Microcomputers with the ability to have a CRT display emerged in the mid-1970s and after. Just correcting you about the facts even if you personally didn't see them where you went to college.
rcz1001,
rcz1001... I read every single word of your various posts and I appreciate the time you took to share your knowledge. Fascinating indeed!! I am pleased to inform you that I am officially “over it”... more or less!
"Why don’t they use “Systems Designer”... or “Systems Developer”... or “Systems Engineer”?!!
...because “SYSTEMS ARCHITECT” is more sexy... it hits it right on the nail... it gives the title holder more status, more legitimacy, more money... and it just sounds better!!"
NY-RA/CID,
These are job position titles and there are in fact titles in corporate environments (which is where these titles are most frequently used) of numerous software companies. The title is about the role and function. In fact, there is titles such as "Systems Engineer". In large complex (and modular) software projects, involving a complex software system (which by the way, you need to know the difference between terminology of a software system and software.
For a more quick and easy reference that you can look up without necessarily digging up a book on this.... look here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Mohan Babu K wrote on Quora, that succinctly describes the role in a fair way. In practice of labeling job position titles, things can be a bit more muddier but what Mohan wrote is fairly complies with occupational standard use in this field:
"A software architect designs and draws up plans for digitizing processes with the right systems, automation, data and integrations. The key difference between a software architect and a a software engineer is that the former focuses more on the design of the systems and processes, while the software engineer focuses more on the technical implementation." - (source address: https://www.quora.com/What-is-... )
You see this within the AEC industry regarding architects and engineers when it comes to buildings. Yes, there is overlap so this parallels.
Software developer is a more complicated matter. Software developer usually refers to the business enterprise itself when the business itself does the complete software development process. However, as you may know, some of these individuals (software architect or software engineer) does services that is more focused in particular scope such as "software architecture" or "software engineering".
Systems Architect and Systems Engineer is substantively similar to Software Architect and Software Engineer in the abstract concept but note the difference in usage of term "Systems" instead of "Software" because the "System" might not be "software".
https://study.com/articles/sys...
The above link kind of describes what systems architects and systems designer. While all of these IT professionals are involved in computer but the difference is that a systems architect / systems engineer maybe looking at things from not just the perspective of software but also the hardware. It's the more encompassaing IT System architectural & engineering infrastructure that they are looking at.
Software systems architect or engineer vs software architect or engineer: This is more of a nuance analysis. They both overlap and its more a matter of a particular position and scope of work. A software architect or engineer would be more focused on software application scope while a software systems architect or engineer are looking at thins from a software systems scope. Refer back to for "software system" and understanding the difference between software system and software: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Whoever says it is simply a matter of how "sexy" it sounds, frankly doesn't know what the f--- he or she is talking about. While it *MIGHT* have played a role in the original coining of the titles but it doesn't really explain why the titles are used in the IT field. There's a bit more maturity and mature reasoning regarding the titles used. They don't make important decisions in how they organize their human resources, job position titles, roles/function of particular positions, merely on how "sexy" the title sounds. That's a kind of juvenile way of thinking being proposed by some of you here.
Guess what, titles like software architect and software engineering has been around for quite some time. Your professional license and exclusivity to the architect title ONLY pertains to the scope of occupational field in which the state defined definition of "architecture" for the purpose of the licensing laws for which there is real justification for the licensing laws on basis of protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
As for your 5 years of college education, 3 years of "internship", and exams.... that's all on you and your peers (especially your predecessors) that wrote the bills and got the legislature to pass these licensing laws and their requirements. Then again, the designing and engineering of buildings, in general, do have REAL risks of health, safety, and welfare of the public if they aren't designed & engineered properly. It is not always the case with software or software systems or some other types of systems engineering but there are few areas where it matters.
This is where I do support Professional Engineering license for.... such as in "Life Safety/Critical Systems Engineering" and a licensed title of "Licensed (or Registered) Life-Safety & Critical Systems Engineer" (under the Engineering licensing boards) which may have sub-disciplines/branches such as in "software systems engineering" or "hardware systems engineering" as they pertain to life & critical systems engineering. The definition of "life-safety / critical systems engineering" can be defined in statutes using terms as widely accepted in the profession. However, not all software systems engineering or software engineering would fall into the scope requiring a license because they don't necessarily have an effect on HSW.
In Oregon, I addressed OSBEELS about the matter. They would have to define a branch, an educational curriculum, initial grandfathering provisions, and exam process that makes sense but the title would need to be more focused and the practice more focused on what would be a legitimate basis for establishing such a branch and licensure. Merely using a non-restricted title like "software engineer" would not stop said person from violating a "practice of life-safety/critical systems engineering" provision if they adopted such a law.
Customarily, it would require education of a bachelors or higher level of education (or equivalent experience in lieu of a degree or in combination with a degree less than a bachelor's level degree), then they can do their EIT and take an exam in the specific discipline. Of course, qualifying experience initially during grandfathering provisions would likely not have any kind of ABET accredited education or experience under a PE but provisions can be made for a higher continuing education requirement for a period of 5 or 10 years post-licensure. However, those not grandfathered in would have to then meet defined pathways for licensure not covered under the grandfathering provision that would sunset admissions of people under grandfathering after a period of... say 5 years with provision remaining for continuing education for these individuals that can eventually go off the books... say 5 to 10 years after that.
To be competent to lead the engineering of life-safety / critical systems (be it hardware or software systems in those life-safety or critical systems), they will require not only a bachelors degree or higher level degree as they are customarily provided at educational institutions, but they also would require a number of years of experience. A professional licensure would set some baseline and then there will need to be exam(s) on the matter.
I would argue that a title of "life-safety/critical systems architect" would be subject to that licensing scheme and be protected title along with the variant with the "engineer" title and be subject under the scope of "practice of life-safety/critical systems architecture & engineering" provision under the engineering laws and be like the "naval architect" title which naval architect is licensed under the engineer's board not the architect board.
Even the title Naval Architect is a use of the "architect" title not licensed under the architect board but actually is covered under the engineering board. Interesting. Naval architecture being a special discipline within a broader "naval engineering" field. You could think of these IT "architects" as something akin to naval architect. Software architecture being a special branch (or sub-discipline) within a broader "software engineering" discipline. You could argue something along that line and I can support it but to require licensure and hold up to various legal precedents, there needs to be actual risk/danger to public health, safety, and welfare if licensure isn't made. It can't be purely hypothetical hysterical nonsense. If the software or computer systems fails, is the public at risk. In most such systems, no. In some types of systems... yes. I proposed this idea to OSBEELS. I don't think they done anything on this front.
If you are looking for a job and been using a computer for the past 10 years, then you should already know how to use a search engine and how to use quotes and other little operators in the search to filter your search. There's probably even community college courses, online courses, and youtube videos on how to do this.
If you been practicing for like 40+ years, you're over the age of 65. Maybe, you're closer to retiring or retired so it really doesn't matter if you make a bunch of blowhard noise on something that you and your peers didn't deal with 30+ years ago.
Get over it. In 1976, the term "information architecture" was coined and a field of "Information Systems Architects" came to being. Of course, before that, there was Edsger Dijkstra's research and the emergence of the concept of "software architecture" in 1968 and work of David Parnas as it was a discipline within the software engineering discipline. Software engineering was emerging in the 1950s and 1960s and of course as the microcomputer (personal computer) age came to being, the field really began to grow with critical mass as the critical mass of professionals in the computer field came into being with hundreds of thousands to over a million computer professionals in the U.S. by 1985.
In effect, all this had origins right to the beginning with some identifying themselves as "engineers", some as "architects", some who identified themselves as "computer scientists" because their interest is more science/academia and research oriented versus the applied aspect of computer science... like the difference between engineers and scientists. Then some emerged to take a more "architectural" role of software and systems (hardware and software systems). It would be until the 80s when there would be a critical mass professionals in each discipline to defined distinct professions within a broader professional field relating to computers. The more 'computers for the masses and not the classes' emerged and with the the 90s and the emergence of the internet and further expanding the world of computing, they became defined professions of themselves and guess what.... traditional architecture and engineering profession and their licensing bodies punted around the matters of an emerging profession using titles like "architect" and "engineer" in the computer field. Occassional attempts to regulate has happened but they have ran into legal barriers like the Constitution and now there are legal cases that encumber the licensing boards trying to expand scope to cover professions that are not part within the domain of their original licensing domain and the built environment.
Even the very concept of licensing laws have been questioned on whether it is unconstitutional or not. Architect licensing laws are on thinner ice than it was 50 years ago.
I get what you're saying, but it was really distracting watching you justify things with phrases like "Get over it. In 1976, the term "information architecture" was coined". Architecture as a profession literally predates paper.
Prostitution is the oldest profession but probably not by a wide margin.
Also.... architecture was UNREGULATED without licensing laws and they BUILT buildings and structures not merely designed them. Most of you are not real architects by that definition. You're just an artist that draws buildings not someone who actually knows the crafts and trades, coordinates construction trades and crafts, and actually was in charge not only of the design intent but ALSO the means and methods. Unless you are also a construction contractor, you're not a real architect according to the definition of the profession since its inception up to about ~125-150 years ago (or less). You need BOTH an architect and a construction contractor license to be a real architect.
What you do now, under the license is only "half" (not literally but figuratively) the job because you aren't taking real control of the outcomes of the trades. That's part of the job of being an architect up until the divide in the late 19th/early-20th century (A.D.).
Guess what you say.... "get over it." Why? The ship has sailed.
The profession isn't going back to being in control of not just design intent but means & methods of arriving at the design intent which can only be achieved by being not just a designer but a builder. Guess what, the ship has sailed already... the profession isn't going to have exclusive control over the word "architect" and isn't going to be able to stop other professions that are more important for the economy and businesses of the world on a wider spectrum than some egotistical bozo with a bowtie and a 24" to 36" roll of paper designing a building.
You're needed only when the economy and businesses need a building designed but once a building is built, an architect is often side-stepped by someone hiring engineers. These IT "architects" are here to stay and there is not a flipping thing you, the AIA, or all the licensed architects combined can even hope to do anything about.
If you can't do squat against the builder associations in the world, what hope do you have against the IT industry in the U.S. alone, although young in terms of years is a field that is magnitudes of an order larger than the number of architects in the world?
The licensing boards tried and the federal and I think even Supreme Court rulings have basically reined in the sprawling unchecked powers of licensing boards which is in itself on very questionable legal grounds in the first place.
Why waste your time trying to fight a battle you already lost before you have even begun?
Architects already lost exclusivity of the "architect" title before there was licensing laws. What about Naval Architects? Are they being consulted? Do you think they are going to spend their time bitching and moaning about some IT architect when they can type in (in quotes) "naval architecture". Maybe, you might want to call yourselves "Building Architects" (BA).
FYI: Architect comes from the roman word for Architect.... called architectus... which the romans derived from the Greek word 'arkhitekton' (which means.... chief or master builder) "arkhi-" is basically Greek for the Latin 'Arch' like that used in the Catholic title 'Archbishop' which means chief or master or similar wordage of a higher or highest tier.
In Greek, "tekton" means builder. When you look to history as to what these "arkhitektons" did... they built. They had crafts and trades skills. Often in multiple crafts/trades but they also knew others that specialized. They are usually experienced builders who by time and experienced had learned multiple trades and crafts and gained competency to know what good work and crap work is and who does good work and who does shit work. They also can coordinate the trades and direct the means and methods because they knew enough of the crafts of how it is done, the scheduling nature like how long it takes to do this or that work like how to make a fluted Corinthian column, how long it takes to make the columns from stone blocks into disks or half-disks that they can stack and carve in place.
They know the means and methods not just how to draw a pretty picture. They know it well enough to communicate effectively (more or less). You don't have that. They don't teach enough of the crafts and trades in the means and methods of construction of buildings for architects to really be architects. You know how to use a particular software but do you know how something is built? Do you? Many of you, probably not. That's architecture and the meaning of ARCHITECT ( ARKHITEKTON or ἀρχιτέκτων for those who actually want to see GREEK lettering).
I don't know exactly when "naval architect" first came into use but given English... possibly sometime during the middle-ages and sense then but before licensing laws existed where we begun this non-sense of "turf wars" over titles which historically would have been laughed and scoffed at by your predecessors before this licensing crud and the fighting over a word.
tl;dr
Licensing laws are basically violating Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
Here's the text:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
-------------------------------------------
You'll notice the first sentence which is a grammatically okay sentence form but the second sentence is somewhat of a run-on sentence that is stringing multiple independent clauses into a single sentence (notice the use of semicolons) largely to save on words and ink. This was back in the time of hand-written writing.
If you unpack the section into their independent clauses, it should look something like this:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. No State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That is what the compacted version means when you depack it. Due process pertains to the clause regarding that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property. In order to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property requires due process. This clause does not apply to the prior clause regarding that no State shall make or enforce any laws that abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Due process is part of the clause regarding the deprivation of life, liberty, and property nothing else. The last clause says that no State shall deny a person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. That means, no state shall deny someone on basis of race, ethnicity, or otherwise for any reason, the equal protection of the law. For example, if a white person gets the protection of a law... a black person should not be denied that same very protection of that law just because they are black.
Where do licensing laws violate Section 1 of the 14th Amendment? I am referring to the 14th Amendment provision that says that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
How? First, abridge means: "To lessen. To reduce." (Look it up in a dictionary). Second, privileges that are referred to are not only inalienable rights but also the Bill of Rights. These are always privileges because they must be defended if we are to keep them.
The title law is an abridging of a person's ability to use the word architect. Communication including usage of a title is protected under the First Amendment of the United States. Architect as a word, was already in the dictionary defined as a person who designs buildings. Before licensing laws, the title Architect was used by anyone. Sure, you can't use words to deceive someone. That is true. If you don't design buildings or in the occupation of designing buildings then perhaps, you are not an architect. Historically, Architect meant a master builder who designs and leads the construction of buildings. Before licensing law, anyone who designs buildings can use the word 'architect' in any way or form including to describe their profession/occupation. Now, you can't do that unless you get a degree. Before that, there wasn't any kind of pre-requisite. It is like the title "building designer". Anyone can call themselves that but they can't legally do it to deceive someone because you run into a situation of fraud. If you don't design buildings, you're not a building designer. If you are not in the occupation of designing buildings or even portions of buildings, you're not a building designer so that would be fraud which is probably not an issue. However, there is this restriction on a word we can't use and by using it, we are fined for using it. It's a denial of rights that would be my right and privilege because the States totally disregarded that portion of the 14th Amendment altogether as if it doesn't even exist at all. They simply look at it as, who cares.
They appended the idea that Due Process applies where it is not pertaining to. This can run into a form of illegal takings. Given that there had been decades of states requiring licensure to practice architecture and so forth, the title was permitted to be restricted ONLY in the context of the built environment as to what the legislative purpose to safeguard the public health, safety, and welfare in connection to the built environment. This does not mean the title restriction is permitted to be enforced on those persons whose work has nothing to do with the built environment which is what the legislative purpose of the law is for.
Should someone called a "sandwich architect" be fined $5,000 every single day they use that title because that is what their employers (eg. Subway or some other similar company) calls them? I would reason that any competent court judge would shoot down such heavy-handed enforcement of such laws. Think about it.
I say, get over it guys. Architects haven't had the exclusivity of the word "architect" long before there were licensing laws. Get over it.
tl;dr
hi randomized, this was a post criticizing the 14th amendment for clumsy writing and run on sentences. :D
thanks for the summary!
Rick, serious question--do you have, or have you considered starting a blog? Your long posts are often informative but just don't fit the forum mold very well, where single (snarky) sentences are preferred and three short paragraphs is the limit of most readers' attention spans. With a blog you could reach potential clients, architects and designers who are interested in what you have to share. My architect friend Emily says, "those who educate the market, own the market" and I've found that to be a successful formula.
So that gigantic run on sentence is Rick's current defense for not taking his licensing exams.
Reading the Section 1 of 14th Amendment needs to be at least read and understood in their respective clauses and not have parts of independent clauses jumbled and applied to preceding and clauses. People on this forum have failed to grasp that.
The remaining part is getting to where licensing laws violates the 1st amendment of the Bill of Rights which is a privilege that is not be abridged by State laws as it says outright in Section 1, 14th Amendment which was adopted before architectural licensing laws. This puts licensing laws and such title laws on unstable grounds of legal legitimacy.
Regardless of all that, even before George Washington was even born, architects have already lost the exclusivity over "architect". Remember guys, English isn't a regulated language. It isn't French. We know that it's not going to end well for the licensing boards to go around fining every sandwich architect, "IT" architect, and every butt-wiping architect out there.
Shut up Rick and study for your exams
Wood Guy wrote:
Rick, serious question--do you have, or have you considered starting a blog? Your long posts are often informative but just don't fit the forum mold very well, where single (snarky) sentences are preferred and three short paragraphs is the limit of most readers' attention spans. With a blog you could reach potential clients, architects and designers who are interested in what you have to share. My architect friend Emily says, "those who educate the market, own the market" and I've found that to be a successful formula.
I have considered blogs. The biggest question that an aspiring blogging guru must ask themselves: Who gives a sh-t what I have to say? Basically, it goes with the principles of a credibility statement at the beginning of speeches when commanding the attention of an audience. You kind of have to have a following, to begin with. That following can build upon but an initial following meeting a critical mass.
you're basically blogging already but it is sandwiched in between regular posts by others that try to have (meaningful) discussions ;-)
Sorry to the OP for the hijack... it can take some time to build an audience but if your blog has a focused scope, with a bit of marketing it shouldn't be hard. You have a unique perspective and written voice that generates mostly negative comments here, but you could be reaching a targeted audience of people who want to hear what you have to say.
I'm not good with technology but I am confident that in two hours I could have a Squarespace site set up and 10-20 blogs pulled from your comments here, all fitting within a defined range of topics. I'm serious--we are in the information age, you have a ton of information and it's falling on deaf ears in here.
Many of us are rooting for you to find your calling. I really think this could be it. Just take the topics that catch your interest here and write about them for the larger world. I think you have my email address, or you know where to find it--let me know if you'd like any direct tips. I hate to see a wasted opportunity.
He could simply apply for a blog on Archinect: https://archinect.com/get_blogging
Built-in audience he doesn't even have to try for, at least that's what the catch phrase tells me
Also, this still applies to posting in the forums ...
"The biggest question that an aspiring blogging guru must ask themselves: Who gives a sh-t what I have to say?"
Already have a ringed in audience that doesn't have to leave the site to go to some other site. Getting people on here to go to another site even to read a blog post needs something better than a rant blog. People come here to rant and willing to respond to rants but don't necessarily have the drive to go to another site to read and respond to a rant blog. Your prior post regarding applying for a blog n Archinect makes sense, though. Again, I think people look for something to learn from and substantive quality not just rant posts if they are going to read a blog. That's another matter altogether.
Rick, I think the point is that your rants (as you call them) are too lengthy for the forum. They disrupt the flow. If you want to write them, there is another format (i.e. blog) that would be better suited for it. I do this sometimes when a forum comment sparks me to respond in something that fits better in a blog format.
Alternatively, you could just not rant for so long in the forums. Your question about who cares what you have to say still applies. I guarantee anyone willing to read your rants here will still be willing to read them on a blog. The benefit is that we all don't feel "ringed in" if we'd rather not. It would be a courtesy thing.
EA, you hit it on the head. Rick, I actually first found Archinect thanks to your posts about the AIBD and I do appreciate your knowledge, research and unique perspective. But even though I tend to be wordy, I tend to skip over your posts--they are just too meaty. (I think I used to be more patient.)
If you were to post a quick, 1- or 2-sentance teaser, and say, "I wrote more about it here___" then the interested parties would seek out what you have to say. It would not be everyone, but who cares--it would be the people who want to engage with you.
As examples, these are two blogs I follow on Facebook, where they post teasers: https://sugarmtnfarm.com/home/blog/; https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/. They write long, involved posts and it's only certain times when I'm interested in digging in to what they have to say. But then I'll spend a couple of hours catching up. It's a good way for me (and others) to engage with thinkers.
The current blog that I am currently running at this time is non-architecture related. It is a blog for a small video game project. (Link: https://sporkgamedev.wordpress.com/ ). It's used for progress reports that are being posted on weekends for work done mostly during the week. The blog started last weekend. I might be a little apprehensive about running another blog at the moment even if it is related to building design / architecture. My posts here, lately is on an erratic schedule.
I'll use the AB fourm, from context.
And use the Title AD
Easy as Pi.
AAD
Actually contrary to the first statement Above POSTED
I just changed my mind.
I'd either use the full title
Architecture Designer.
"AD"
Or Full form
ADO. Steming from a serious middle alphabetical stand point.
.AAD.
A
Choices
AIA.
ADO.
MDN.
AAD.
Administrative Architecture DESIGNER
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.