I've blogged in the past about NCARB's decision to punt the intern title debate and it looks like the AIA, of all organizations, decided to pick up the ball and run with it. A recent post on AIA's website outlined the position of the AIA with regard to the use of the title 'intern.' AIA now strongly supports two titles for licensure candidates: 'architectural associate' and 'design professional.'
First, allow me to pick my jaw up off the floor and congratulate the AIA. Of course, I have to quickly shrug my shoulders as apparently this change happened in December last year when the AIA Board of Directors updated the AIA's position statements to clarify the terminology, yet this is the first that anyone is even talking about it. I'll admit I missed it and I'm pretty hyper aware of this topic, but it never crossed my radar. Up until this post on the AIA's website, the only instance I can find that even notes the AIA's change in position is an article published on AIA Philadelphia's website from February 8, 2017.
Second, as happy as it makes me to see the AIA supporting and lobbying for a couple of titles, I'm pretty disappointed in the titles. 'Design professional' could describe just about anyone involved in any type of design. Nothing in the title directly points to architecture. Even then, as noted in the AIA's article, Vanesa Alicea, AIA states, "you need to be registered to be considered a 'professional.'" I thought my professional degree and full-time job qualified me as a 'professional.' At any rate, don't expect the title to catch on anytime soon with other professionals. Sorry, I meant to say architects.
The other title option the AIA supports, 'architectural associate,' is only slightly better. It at least acknowledges the titled individual works in architecture, but it steps on some already established norms in many firms where 'associate' is a reserved title signifying leadership in the firm. At the same time it follows AIA norms for membership levels, so there is at least that going for it. However, it does seem redundant when it all comes together on a business card: Everyday Intern, Assoc. AIA, Architectural Associate. Furthermore, it still doesn't pass the legal test as some jurisdictions legislate against the use of any derivation of 'architect' in a title without being registered.
As an editorial note at the end of the article, the AIA seems poised to advance this discussion. "If a new, dignified title for architectural graduates arises, AIA will evaluate updating this position statement. Going forward, there will continue to be opportunities to discuss and evaluate the validity of the new titles." They follow this with a link to fill out a form if you are a licensure candidate interested in participating in the discussion. I suppose the best part of all this is that the AIA acknowledges that the titles they've come up with are not quite dignified. I suppose that is worth applauding.
You know what would be a dignified title for an architectural graduate ... 'architect.' Start lobbying for that and then I'll be impressed. The AIA, as part of the Five Presidents' Council, was presented with the Final Report of the Collateral Internship Task Force back in the early 2000s and it outlines as a recommendation that the title 'architect' be given to architectural graduates. Of course it is "based on the full and successful implementation of the concepts espoused in [the] report." Some of the recommendations the report makes were initially rejected, but are now more widely accepted. Is it time to reevaluate the report's recommendations including the title of 'architect' being granted to degree holders?
An ellipsis [...] is used to signal an omission, an unfinished thought, aposiopesis, or brief awkward silence. Architectural ellipses are those aspects of the profession we (perhaps intentionally) omit, gloss over, or let dwindle in silence. Generally applied this blog should encompass many aspects of the profession. Yet, as an intern architect (now architect) I'll focus primarily on the architectural ellipses that occur in the internship process (and beyond).
30 Comments
Just wrote those exams if the label is so important people. Stop rebranding draftsman to sooth your hurt feelings.
You know there is a three year minimum waiting period to earn experience. In reality it is more like 7 years on average the last time I checked so if you want to be accurate with your statement you might say, "After 3-7 years, just take (write, in kanadian) your exams (you wimps)."
Back to this again? And here I thought this was a kinder, gentler, RWCB.
I'm not advocating for a rebranding of draftsman. I've never considered myself a draftsman, nor do I think a B.Arch or M.Arch degree holder should as well.
And I have taken the exams. I'll find out if I passed the last one tomorrow and I expect to send in my application the the state shortly after that.
This isn't about hurt feelings for me. I've always accepted the title of intern. I don't like it but it doesn't hurt my feelings. Even though I've accepted it, that doesn't mean there isn't a better way.
sadly, i hold an m.arch and am working through idp, not just doing renderings, and i think i'm treated as a drafter. not sure how i can re-brand or take control of what my job is and turn it into anything but that.
Ask for other responsibilities. Use AXP as a way to leverage other responsibilities. Keep in mind that drafting is part of the profession, but it should not be all you do. Failing all of this, find a different job.
Rick, you really don't understand the point of all this do you?
Consider this your enlightenment:
How about architect and registered architect.
Though, they haven't solved the larger problem, which is the corrupt system of never ending education (credits after real education) that wouldn't be tolerated in any other profession.
Architect (after accredited degree) and Registered Architect are my preference. But even though the continuing ed can be a PITA I don't think it's useless. We DO operate in a quickly-evolving and complex discipline. Realtors have to do continuing ed, too.
Rick, your inline replies are predictably drifting off the topic of the comment you're replying to.
The thing that differentiates you from the vast majority of the people discussing this topic is a professional degree in architecture. If you'd take the time to read through my most recent posts you'd see that I'm not trying to advocate for any sort of professional title for you, unless you want to go through the process to earn one. As you've explained ad nauseam, you can earn your CPBD and use that title if you want. You could also go back to school, earn a professional degree and then I'd start to advocate for you.
The point you don't seem to understand is there is a group of professionals that have put forth a lot of effort and achieved a certain status in this profession, yet the title they are given does not respect their effort or achievement with a dignified title. The change here has nothing to do with simply allowing anyone that wants to get involved in the architectural profession being able to call themselves an architect. In other words, people without the conviction to complete certain requirements, but who want to dabble in architecture, would not be architects.
All the change I would advocate for is to allow NAAB-accredited professional degree holders (B.Arch & M.Arch) the ability to call themselves architect. The title would still be regulated, it would just have a different group it is attached to. When an architect puts forth the effort to complete the other 2/3 of the requirements (experience and examination) and becomes licensed, they would then be allowed to use the regulated title 'registered architect.'
Distinguishing between an architect and a registered architect would be simple. Registered architects would be allowed to use the postnominals RA.
The response to all three of your replies is in the second paragraph of my comment you're replying to; "The thing that differentiates you ..."
As for other pathways to be come a registered architect; my proposal wouldn't affect any of them. It wouldn't necessarily allow someone following those pathways to use the title of 'architect' ... but I also wouldn't really care if NCARB, AIA, AIAS, ACSA, and NAAB agreed to allow someone following those pathways to use the title either. My point is that it is outside the focus of my post as well as outside the focus of the position statement made by the AIA.
Agree. The problem with the term architect being regulated is that it discourages grads from pursuing roads less traveled thus stifling innovation "working outside the box" and narrowing the scope of the profession. Its a generic term with a history that is greater than its current legal status. It may sound silly to some, but the all or nothing attitude really creates more than just bruised egos, it actually lessens ones perceived and actual value within the profession and in sister professions that the grad may dare to venture into which has consequences on salary. It would be empowering for grads, and wise for the profession to allow that title to infiltrate other arenas. Best PR imo. It was also allow more seasoned unregistered architects to pursue residential work without all of the confusion, while allowing the client to distinguish from an academically trained designer/architect from a non-academically trained designer. I like the Architect and RA distinction. I cant imaging a situation where this would cause any real world problem. Its nonsense.
I didn't touch on this in the post but the Final Report from the CITF talks about how this would be a paradigm shift from an exclusionary environment in the profession to one of inclusion of emerging professionals and it would expand the values and aspirations of the profession.
"This recommendation presumes that through the collaborative process outlined herein, there is an elevation of the quality of the education, experience, and examination process. The recommendation further presumes a fundamental paradigm shift from the current exclusionary and qualifying environment, to one of inclusion of emerging professionals. By including these graduates, they will have the potential to become more engaged in the profession as a whole, and contribute to the profession and society because of their elevation and status that recognizes their skills and knowledge."
"Through the celebration and inclusion of these architects within the larger context of society, these individuals have the potential to expand the influence of the highest values and aspirations of the architectural profession and the quality of the built environment in service to society."
You all are looking to the wolves to protect the sheep. The aia and ncarb are lobbies. They have an interest in maintaining title protectionism. What needs happen is a deregulation effort at the state level.
also, if you have an m-arch you may legally call yourself a "master of architecture". The degree IS your property (paid and earned), and you cannot be denied property without due process of law. Prohibiting one from using the term conveyed on ones diploma, would infact be an illegal seizure of property. The Constitution is the law regardless of state laws. For instance, a state cannot enforce a law that is unconstitutional even if its on the books. That comes from the mouth of a very good attorney.
No one has to give permission if you own it. Point is "master of architecture" would be corny to use as a title, but legally one could
Just saying...Just to be a dick, everyone with a degree should use that title. Then the public will really be confused. "Hey bob is an architect, but this guy is a master of architecture...He must be bob's overlord"
Ok Rick, I'll bite. Looking at the various pathways to licensure and their respective titles under a proposal that NAAB-accredited degree holders would be titled 'architect' and licensed architects would be titled 'registered architect' ... I'd offer the following ...
First, understand that NCARB certification would be distinct from this discussion. You linked above to the NCARB website for alternative pathways to certification. These all require that you become a 'registered architect' so following one of those pathways would first stipulate you become licensed. That isn't the point of this as a licensed architect already has the title.
So we are only really discussing alternative pathways to initial licensure. For NCARB there are two possible alternatives to the standard NAAB degree/AXP/ARE pathway:
Of course, you know that each jurisdiction has their own requirements and some may not allow these alternative pathways to initial licensure. Some jurisdictions may allow alternatives for experience in lieu of education that NCARB doesn't. For example, your neighbor to the north, Washington, allows initial licensure for candidates without a NAAB-accredited degree as long as they document enough additional experience in addition to completing AXP/IDP. I believe that is fairly standard among those jurisdictions that allow this alternative.
As to the question of when those candidates might be allowed to call themselves 'architects,' if they would be allowed to use the title at all? That would be something I would defer to the individual jurisdiction. Personally, I think there should be some point where they would be allowed to use the title as a recognition of their achievement. Perhaps it is after successful completion of AXP and a certain number of years of additional experience. Maybe it is simply after completion of AXP; the point is that the individual state would determine that point. This might result in a candidate in Washington (for example) being able to use the title of 'architect' but the same candidate would not be able to use the same title in Oregon. I'm ok with that.
I also understand that any of this discussion is moot without the individual jurisdictions allowing the use of the title that is different that what is probably already in their laws and regulations. This is why I think it is essentially NCARB's problem to solve. NCARB codified the intern titles in their Model Law which the jurisdictions look to when updating their own practice laws. If NCARB isn't willing to take the titles out, offer an alternative, and lobby for it, the jurisdictions (actual members of NCARB) are not going to do anything about it.
Ncarb will not change anything. Their existence is rooted in the title protectionism racket. This is why a design union/lobby is needed. Propose bills that deregulate the title architect and reserve RA for registered architects as many have suggested. In this political climate title deregulation efforts may have more bite. Im not a lawyer, but it seems that the the argument should be that state boards, as well as Ncarb, are causing a financial harm to unlicensed designers as they cannot accurately convey their job role. (since many are working in jobs with a role equivilent to that of an architect, or as an unlicensed designer doing exempt work in the same capacity as an architect.)
I only agree with you in part, jla-x but I'm just posting to say that your use of the phrase "I'm not a lawyer" in that comment made me guffaw.
Why?
The irony is that all these sjw's who talk about the demographic imbalances that exist within the profession have not proposed any action around this issue of title or the mandates (idp) which give power to predjudice . Women and minorities are not being stifled by urinals or penis shaped building, or wandering eyes. Title regulation and idp is causing this rift. Its no coincidence that schools are 50% female while female architects are much much more of a minority. Empower the disenfranchised. Thats the most effective and powerful catalyst.
I'm in concurrence with jla. We are supposed to be placated with lobbyists arguing semantics of what equality looks like on a piece of paper in a profession that is currently exploring more ways to give it's education away to anyone interested for free; like it's some open source coding project that can reduce fresh water shortages in evolving nations? Do we really need to stir the socio-economic pot more amongst the technical level hires, some of which actually have inferior educations all while the billing index just tips over 50, month after month, if you aggregate all the US's regions? The cheap hires are the winners, nothing new; this is why this topic is even on the table. People with money, architects and young architectural prodigies, people that can afford to go the extra mile, are running into actual obstructions even when the deck is purported to be stacked in favor of those with economic privilege.
Every region favors their technical school grads- the less fortunate population; offices assert their positions as meaningful benefactors to the region. What we are not doing is providing any special opportunity or program for people that undoubtedly dedicated more time and energy to a singular lifetime decision at the tender age 17~18; the extra education receives no additional merit and I don’t know if this title business matters to citizens or architect ultimately, since plebeians rarely page through a phone book or any device so haphazard to hire an architect.
As far as I can tell, the US is still the center of the universe when it comes to ideologies and education. The US is also where the most motivated citizens of the world come to incubate and grow their small practices granted the opportunities that capitalism and democracy have provided ( which obviously is not the case anywhere else ). We can’t be promising opportunity and preaching hypocrisy.
We have to be able to use our own best interests as valid reference points to work from- not legislating from the periphery; making the path to licensure or “equality” (or whatever…. I don’t know what’s on the SJW agenda lately and whether architects are supposed to be sympathetic to the prior and the perpetual eddies in the political abyss*) more tenuous and narrow with every years passing.
Looking at it from a simple regulatory perspective will reveal all that is asinine; we are simply licensed by the state, so we need to be responsible actors and stewards of the state and what it stands for and all rules underlined on this piece of paper? Then we need to be cognizant of what that means on a federal level? Then on the global level too? So…. you don’t even know how to start dealing with all of this until you’ve submitted all your experience and tests to the state to approve, so here’s what’s left and be glad you can’t make those mistakes and jeopardize all those people’s safety?
Engineers cover the most critical structural safety issues…. Have we not all seen architecture created without the inclusion of architects before? Seriously? I am supposed to believe there is currently some actual overwhelming strife inside offices amongst associates, interns, and underlings about their titles? This just seems like a cunning way of approaching an actual issue of how the offices fail to embrace or celebrate the profession.
I had the privilege of working for Robert A.M Stern- now that’s how you run an architecture office- now that’s how you save a dying profession. Celebrate the process by making iterations, models, and experimenting, value the process highly, and bill for the process accordingly. That’s somewhere to start. Those legend came from esteemed programs- if you diminish those programs and their effects there are no legends, there is no more profession.
Offices want to function on the premise of the lowest bid and there’s no good reason to operate any other way, unless mandated. That’s where we are.
It’s up to us as independent small practices to set the tone and offer environments that provide something different than the corporate EEOC compliant- we survive off public work- and some other non-for-profit coalition crap- wink wink and dirty handshake behind the back fingers crossed- or languish in the throws of unilateral regulation. We are the architects that do the work, we can present ourselves anyway we want, we can take on more risk, and our business will not waiver because the business is dependent on the culture, commerce, and real issues of the physical place that cannot be refuted and will not change whether the ethnic and gender composition of the firm is equal throughout the hierarchy or not.
All I can say is that I have 3-4 year interdisciplinary experience post graduation and a NCARB approved B.Arch, but without accumulated hours in an architectural setting - without the verified record of experience that is mandated by the state in order to pursue my professional track further- I appear no more useful or respected than a draftsman from a two year school.
Partly of my own accord, but absolutely in part because of the regulatory bodies that eclipse their own members and deal in the fates and futures of others within the field.
As for me, the two-year architects, and the H-1B visa hardened special weapons, the departure point is identical, but I suppose in the end the reciprocity I receive is an adequate piecemeal consolation. Furthermore compensation and your role in the professional setting is completely contingent upon hopes and dreams. Candidates that “outperform” others during employment commonly outpace others in their own professional track as well, regardless of the size of the initial investment or educational track you chose. I guess it was just my donation to the betterment of society; a small offering to the alter of higher enlightenment that we seem to have become the exclusive stewards, clergy, and champions of.
Good post EverydayIntern.
I'd like to see some of the blog authors hired by archinect- all of the writing/ content that I see from staff is complete trash. Bunch a spoiled overgrown dependents "currently based" in LA or NY taking orders from -blank- . Give me a break. There's plenty of capable people in between that accept paypal payments and can work "from home". I'm sure Donna would appreciate some participation dollars too.
The Europeans seem to do OK with calling their recent graduates "architects". Sometimes I go for days without reading about building collapses in Europe. I think it is all about $ myself. You can treat a 'design professional' like crap while you make him jump through hoops for years. It harder to do if he is referred to by the name which is on his earned, accredited degree.
Well said!
Real world issue of doing architect and registered architect when I'm already regularly getting asked what's the difference / justification of higher fees for a drafter vs. an architect? This is what the issue would be, you'd have developers and home owners say they hired an "architect" (cheap newbie right out of school) and that this half the price drafter knew more than them. Most people can't say what an architect does, you think they'd understand the difference / value between two new titles? It's a profession, you have to complete all of it, I'm sorry this is the first time your trophy hasn't been given to you for effort. Sack up, get it done, don't bring the profession down to your weak level.
You mean those terrible homeowners and developers don't know that you are entitled to that work for the fees that you demand? What is your address? I'll send you a box of handkies, you poor thing.
Not sure I understand your point archi_dude. Is your argument that the AIA should be explaining the value you, as an architect, brings to your clients who would rather hire a draftsperson? That sounds more like an issue between you and your clients. I'm sorry if that trophy isn't just being handed to you. I mean you went through all that effort to get your license, shouldn't they just hand you the money? Why would you need to show the value to your client?
the state has ZERO obligation or authority to protect your fees.
So, The Europeans are wrong for calling their recent architectural school graduates 'architects' and the medical profession is wrong in calling their recent medical school graduates 'medical doctors' and the engineering profession is wrong in calling their new engineering graduates 'engineers'. But you, and the AIA, have it all figured out. Thanks.
Protectionism (monopoly) for profession should not be the objective of a licensing board. If "half priced drafters" are producing a product that meets the needs of developers and homeowners - so be it. Conversation regarding deregulation of the legal profession abounds, e.g. letting less-than-lawyers prepare wills, file deeds, etc.
What do YOU produce that makes you better?
Lawyers can sit for bar right after graduation. They do not have an experiance requirement. The tests are not a major barrier, IDP is.
Generally clients don't argue against using a engineer, most people aren't attempting to do medical work themselves. However using an architect at all or whittling down their contribution to just a basic design for the design build firm is a real issue. You are essentially devaluing the profession to a building artist service of sorts. The reasons to not do this are pretty clear, the example I offered in my previous post is a very real and hell why even get a license in the scenario that you want. I mean you could practice with an LLC and no liability.
Why pay for a service that provides no value?
If you don't have the technical knowledge to pass these tests, I'm sorry you aren't an architect. There's no reason to lower the professions standards because you are too left brained to learn some basic code and construction systems.
The whole left brain vs right brain thing has been debunked; you should google it.
Figure of speech, you should google it.
The tests are not a major barrier. Its the required 3-10 year internship. Stop pretending its a meritocracy.
As an aside, law students who graduate are entitled to put LLB (Legum Baccalaureus) after their name. After passing the bar exam they are referred to as Attorney at Law. The public doesn't seem to be in any great danger by recognizing their accomplishment in graduating from a professional school.
I was talking with a lawyer this past weekend and he told me it was customary to give bar exam candidates 3 months of paid time off to study for and take their exams. I wonder how many architecture school grads could benefit from a similar policy instead of the current policies which require using evenings and weekends to study and vacation time to sit for the exams... Maybe they aren't dumb, but just a little overworked to take the exams?
The difference in law is the reason for using services of lawyers vs someone with no credentials is well known and accepted in general society. The reason for engaging with a more expensive architect vs. a unlicensed designer or drafter is pretty much unknown. There are a few surveys showing in the US and U.K. most people have no idea what architects do or contribute to a project beyond some pretty pictures. Dropping the standards of the title so the profession can be "inclusive to related arts" or "allow young talented designers" have a chance will only cause the profession to be increasingly be associated with pretty pictures being it's only contribution on a project and thus, less incentive for people to use architects and yes, lower cash flows which result in the lack of perks like offering time-off to study. Focus on making the profession more valuable instead of devaluing it further please.
I would argue that it is "known".
I can live in a vinyl covered shit box, with 4 bedrooms/2 1/2 baths and a garage door elevation for $250,000 for which I pay an architect 5% OR- I can live in the same 4 bedroom/2 1/2 bath, garage elevation house for $250,000 for which i pay a developer/draftsman to draw.
The difference is negligible. This is likely the only interaction the homeowner will ever have with an "architect". It is NOT a service that offers value added. Even for a second / vacation home, the budgetary restraints for most people force them to opt for size rather than design. Again, the architect does not bring a recognizable value added service.
If you are working on hospitals or schools you are totally right. If you are trying to break out on your own and starting with residential and smaller commercial, no...no definitely confusion there ha ha.
Engaging the services of a licensed architect is REQUIRED BY LAW on most non-single-family projects. What type of projects are you losing to non-licensed designers?
Simul-post... I see that you are working on residential and small commercial where unlicensed designers are allowed to take on projects. So you are going to have to compete with them because nobody owes you anything, you have to earn it.
So now what? So compete on ability and quality of delivery.
Yes tint I do, so I'm EARNING a credential that through lobbying and name recognition allows me to more easily justify my fees on top following through and competing on quality and delivery. The world does not owe YOU anything you can earn the license just like many others and then enjoy its perks. All your doing is complaining and trying to take that credential without working for it, so as someone who is taking the time to earn it I will call you out on the laziness you are trying to disguise as "inclusiveness." You can go be a designer as much as you want but don't try and steal what I'm working for.
tintt is licensed. And working on a single family addition where it is not required and is getting an 8.25% fee for it.
"Steal" you imply that you own it...lol. Again, the state has ZERO obligation or authority to protect your feeelings, ego, or pocket. The state can only enact regulations in the name of hsw. That is the limit of their power. Hsw is often the guise that lobbies use to create protectionism...but can you really tell me that the hsw of the public would be in danger if we had architects and RAs? If not, im sure title deregulation bills can/will pass if pushed with enough support...
Architects comparing their work to doctors is sooo annoying. The immediacy of life/death decisions that nurses and doctors face is on a whole other level...
You would think that the NAAB and the universities would be advocating for change. Doctors, lawyers, and engineers are all awarded a specific name which honors and celebrates their achievement in completing a professional school even though they are not fully qualified professionals. Every lay person understands that. I think all it would take would be for one state to change the laws and the dam would break.
Furthermore, as technology advances we are going to see less and less need for the more technical roles of architects. Imagine a future BIM program that could run code checks, fire safety, and automatically engineer buildings for instance. Possible "robo" stamp the plans virtually through a program that assumes Responsibility. Thats a technology that may be more reliable than a human in the near future...If/when that is the case, the "designer" is almost certainly going to still have a job. Until AI with a creative thinking ability comes around...that seems like a very distant future tech.
I agree Rick. The software license itself may take the place of the stamp Required. I feel secure as a designer for a least 1000 years.
So what is an "AIA Intern 2", via Job board? Does that come from NCARB "Model Law"?
Nam, it comes from the AIA position titles used in their biannual compensation report. http://info.aia.org/salary/salary.aspx
A new report is due to be released this year, it should be interesting to see if the AIA changes the titles to match the updated policy.
Thanks Everyday!
I'll actually applaud Ennead for using the 'AIA Intern 2' position title in their posting. It is very clear what they are looking for when they use it.
However, the problem with that posting is that they say they want an 'Intern 2' but then list "On-track for, or has current architectural registration." 'Intern 2' employees don't have their license. So what the post is telling me, as a hypothetical applicant, is that they want to pay me like an 'Intern 2' but they really want someone who could handle job responsibilities like an 'Architect 1.' The difference in salary, using the AIA calculator for the Middle Atlantic region, is on average (mean values) $22,300 between those two positions. The difference might be greater or smaller for NYC specific data.
Why is it that every software or programmer is not under similar jurisdiction when referring to themselves as an "architect?"
I cannot seek a job that benefits from my experience in architecture because 6/7 times the position advertised with the term "architect" is soliciting those without qualifications and certifications that have no relevance to this profession!
Being moderately intelligent with your searching should solve this "problem"... and besides, no one would confuse some software engineer/programmer as a architect and ask for building permit docs.
this was annoying for a while, then it just stopped being annoying.
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.