Architect in training seems to wordy, and I know a handful of firms that use associate as an identifier for higher positions. As much as we all hate the term intern, I don't think it is going anywhere.
Don't want to be called an intern? Get your license.
Jdparnell1218 The point is what to call somebody in process of becoming licensed. Architect in Training is LITERALLY only THREE words. Intern doesn't seem an appropriate name for the responsibilities that one takes on. Architect In Training better describes what their career direction (working towards being licensed).
Felixcarlos, I am fully aware. I don't like the term intern either. I tell people I'm an intern architect and they ask if I get paid. I'm working to earn my license and shed the stigma myself as opposed to waiting on NCARB to make something happen.
you might want to look into what NCARB allows. I asked this question directly to NCARB prior to getting out of school and was told you could not use the architect term in any way (architectural designer, intern architect, ect) Its been 6 years so rules may have changed but when your dealing with something you're sending to other professionals you have to be careful one might be an A$$ and turn you in, unlikely but some architects take this very seriously.
That would be nice, but getting that license still requires a separation in title. Getting the your degree and getting your license are two separate entities and should be treated as such.
@robbmc
I can't say for sure, but I think calling yourself an intern architect will fly. Everything else is prohibited though.
The architecture biz seems to have followed the legal profession rather than the medical profession in this regard. The medicos are quite OK with the M.D. being used at the completion of medical school and before any residency. Since newbie lawyers are living in cardboard boxes under the Interstate overpasses if they can't score their parent's basement the brains at NCARB might want to rethink their position.
Aug 4, 14 4:12 pm ·
·
Building Designer works. Just to clarify, the word "architect" and any title containing the letters: a,r,c,h,i,t,e,c,t in this sequence such as architecture or architectural has been a protected title since before NCARB was formed (at least in a few states). AIA and a subset of all architects at the time was responsible for architectural licensing and the title & practice acts that were established and part of the vehicle to make the movement was NCARB.
It doesn't matter what NCARB says. It is what the state where you practice and the laws they have. NCARB in and of itself is not government.
NCARB is the council of the licensing boards and runs automous to a point. It has its own administrative, technical and customer/public relation support staff. But the member licensing boards (those that joined and became part of NCARB) is in charge of NCARB but each state has their own authority to establish law and rule for what is allowed or not allowed in the state.
Thank you, Donna. That was the article I had read when I posted the question. Maybe it would be more appropriate to establish different titles according to career stages, like the AIA survey presents. People actively seeking and fulfilling the IDP hours could be called "Architect in Training", as opposed to people who have decided to remain unlicensed in their career who could name themselves Building Designer or Architectural Designer.
I started calling myself 'intern architect' after my first internship ;P
Aug 4, 14 9:31 pm ·
·
I'm a building designer but also enrolled in IDP but such is life. Long story but it took forever in a day to get IDP record started..... (ie. IDP policy changes)
building designer can be a title used in an office with architects where the role and responsibility is more than just entry level design staff that is distinctive from other designers such as interior designer, graphic designer, landscape designer because technically "architectural designer" is a violation of most state's licensing laws unless the person is in fact licensed.
Building designer isn't exclusively a stand alone designer. Sure some people can make a career under that title. Since it isn't a 'protected title', it is fair to refer to people as building designer especially in a multidisciplinary design firm.
Completion of IDP should not matter because people often have experience that isn't credited into the IDP training hours for a variety of reasons.
We can tier the title like Assistant Building Designer or Junior Building Designer or a variety of ways to indicate someone at entry level design staff. If your role is CADD monkey then CADD Technician... especially if your role isn't design oriented but essentially drafting oriented as drafting and designing should not be confused. Some of these very technical positions might be BIM modeler, Revit modeler or Archicad modeler or technician, etc.
A five-year accredited university architecture course should account for something, else why TF bother - just start your guild apprenticeship like they did in the 1200s. That seems to be the era where the profession is stuck anyhow. At least you wouldn't have to sell your soul to the government loan sharks for five years of university THEN do your years and years of apprenticeship.
My opinion is an accredited degree holder should be "architect" upon graduation, someone who has passed the exam and requisite experience should be Registered Architect.
But it will take buy-in from all 50 (+?) state registration boards to make this change - which NCARB/AIA are considering, as far as I understand - so in the meantime I think Associate Architect is probably the best title for the unlicensed degree holder.
I'm fine with someone who has no formal education not being able to use the term. I don't consider that overly-protectionist. The exceptionally talented, like Tadao Ando, will come to be called architect regardless, but I don't have a problem with my local residential design-build-remodeler not being allowed to use the term.
Aug 4, 14 10:01 pm ·
·
I have well over 5 years of full-time formal education as well as a considerable bit of self-directed learning. Just no NAAB accredited degree.
Sadly, the licensing path in my state doesn't provide any credit. Such is life... oh well.
However, I see where Donna is coming from.
I do believe some system of accrediting the knowledge of those who have done a great deal of self-directed learning. Perhaps we can have exams and projects that can be accredited and recognized in some form that can be used to test the proficiency of the knowedge and skills of those as a sort of third party peer review system for those who go through an experience based path. Something kind of like EPC but more intense and comprehensive with many more exercises to peer review which would be done on a person's own time in addition to the work experience/employment and IDP.
The point of licensing laws is suppose to provide some measure of assurance to the public that those licensed as architects has the knowledge and skills to competently practice.
Too bad, politics in the architecture profession oftens gets in the way.
I know this may have already been discussed, but if 'architect' is a "protected legal designation", then why is it ok for the IT world to throw the word around in describing "Solutions Architect, Systems Architect, or IT Architect." Where's the AIA in combating this?
The UK has similar designation requirements. All non registered architects are either called 'Architectural Assistant' or simply by their last qualified degree 'Part I', 'Part II', etc. My advice is to be consistent. If you're talking to architects, they know the deal and should know how to read a resume. They should be more interested in what you did and who you worked for than what you were called!
If interns would focus their energy on acquiring a license instead of pointlessly re-branding themselves, perhaps this topic would disappear. Completion of a B.arch or M.arch is not sufficient experience to claim the title of architect; everyone passes school anyways... it's not hard work, and I've seen too many "graduate architects" pass who I would not trust filling paperwork let alone represent themselves to the public with the same title as I do.
A.I. I was at a dinner a few months ago where the man who sat next to me claimed, with a smug attitude, that he was a software architect. I replied that I was a real architect and that stopped that topic of conversation.
Words change meaning all the time. "Architect" no longer refers to buildings alone as much as you may wish it to be so. Your dinner companion probably thought you were a jerk. or worse
if you say you're a 'software architect' you're not misleading people into thinking you can do what architects do. the scope of work is significantly different enough that it's assumed a reasonable person would not confuse the work of a software architect with that of an architect.
we should think outside the box more. there seems to be a desire to call an emergent architect 'architect' even though they aren't there yet, which could blur that line of saying a reasonable person would know the difference between what an 'architect' does compared to what a 'registered architect' does, since it's in a similar field and all.
let's call recent graduates "baron." so, you would have "baron felixcarlosj" while (s)he's going through IDP, and then when (s)he becomes an architect, (s)he can drop the 'baron' title.
instead of expecting your respect to come from your title, do a good enough job that your respect comes from the work you do.
Donna, my wife tried to give my a little guilt trip afterwards, but that was it. I went home that evening with another architect scout merit badge. If it helps Volunteer, I shared a few drinks with that engineer afterwards.
I see the term "architect" as a pop-culture thing. It's trendy to use the term to describe more than just buildings.
Webster just redefined 'literally', saying that it is so over used that is can mean 'figuratively'.... so, Non Sequitur, I'd say you're a literal douche... and you're married?, I'm guessing you're a figurative liar too.
All of these conversations always inevitably come down to those of us *with* the license saying "Just stop complaining and get yours too!" because it's the easiest, most straightforward and common thing to do. As NS said, it's not that hard.
There really are serious discussions going on among AIA National and the collateral organizations about titles, the IDP process, licensing upon graduation, etc. The profession and its education are in flux, and leadership is trying to respond to the inevitable changes in ways that will benefit the profession and by extension our users/the public.
The leadership (AIA, NCARB, NAAB, ACSA, et al including state boards) is eager for a real discussion of these issues to happen, and they *do* read this website and others to get a sense of the general attitude and issues facing our discipline, among both emerging and established architects. You (meaning everyone here) can be a helpful contributing voice to that discussion, or you can keep stewing in frustration and call everyone who has a license a privileged douche.
No Donna, I don't think he is anymore privileged b/c non sequitur might be licensed, I just think he is a literal douche in general. Carry on archinectors.
*might be* licensed? Please, it only took me 3 years to complete IDP and become licensed and I referred to myself proudly as intern architect during that time.
Sorry if I take offence when others try and cut corners only to fix their egos.
Donna, my board sent out a memo many years ago making it official that those in the IDP call themselves intern-architect.
Wasn't there something recently that showed that it takes an average of 11 years to complete?
I worked with a registered architect who had gained his experience/license prior to the whole IDP stranglehold on entry into the profession. He has an associates degree in architectural drafting. But he is an architect. I am not. I once tried to explain to him how a pin joint can cancel out moment (because I've taken engineering classes). He had not the least of ideas what I was talking about. I guess they didn't cover that in "Plan v. Section 101". But sign and stamp-away he can.
The problem of IDP is that it's not an even playing field. As an intern you have to work FOR someone. And they have to be decent and not a self-interested kneecapper. Good luck finding a decent architect. It's an indentured servitude situation. Although instead of being specifically indentured to a single individual with a contract where they are REQUIRED to give you the skills you need, you are generally indentured to a "profession" where there is no one overseeing whether or not you are being given the additional training you need in an apprenticeship phase. Moreover, there's NO penalty for an architect who doesn't give their employees the required experience.
The truth is, no registered architect today has any good reason for there to be any MORE registered architects. They have enough competition as it is. The fewer people that can sign and seal drawings, the better for "they the anointed stamp bearers".
As for the ease of getting a degree... on my first day of Arch school there were 12 people there in the group. Only 3 of that 12 graduated.
"The changes in other cultural realms were slower to arrive and are still ongoing, but you could trace them in the increasing visibility of the unpaid internship. This was a practice that began in government and finance, was taken up by colleges, and finally was adopted wholesale by a grateful culture industry; by the mid-aughts, interns had become the butt of jokes in popular culture. “Don’t point that gun at him,” Bill Murray’s eccentric oceanographer says to an angry pirate in Wes Anderson’s The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004), “he’s an unpaid intern.” Anderson’s film was among the first to portray interns as so stupid they didn’t deserve to be paid. These interns wore T-shirts that said intern, prepared cocktails, fell down stairs. The slacker temp had become the eager serf, and with good reason. In film, publishing, and other creative industries, volunteering for a profitable corporation had become a necessary step to getting paid. But only HR departments and colleges handing out credits thought it was anything but demeaning. When Kanye rapped “Maybe you could be my intern” to rival MCs on Late Registration (2005), no one mistook it for a compliment."
NS, I am glad you redeemed yourself at the dinner party. As to your point that a new architecture school graduate knows nothing, if true, that would seem to reflect very poorly on the architecture's schools accreditation agency, not on the graduates themselves so much. That is unconscionable with the tuition rates as high as they are. If you had more students with prior building and engineering experience they would be more like to blow the whistle on the BS - to the professors first and then to the dean. Way overdue.
In my state "architect in training" is what the state designates for those with an open record
you do not have too and should not call yourself an intern unless you are applying specifically for an internship. If you are looking for a full time job just use AIT if your state allows it or use designer.
Volunteer, from what I see coming out of the universities (today and even when I was in grad school), very few of the graduating students I've seen could transfer into the working world flawlessly. Perhaps it is due to a lack of professional practice or technical courses but in my experience teaching undergrad studios (7 years ago now... shess, way to make me feel old on a Tuesday morning), it's accepted for students to take a hit in the technical courses to prop up their design studio portfolios. Sorry, but knowing how to press the render button does not make one an architect and expecting to be treated as one is just as ridiculous. All this was unfortunately reinforced when I was invited to review final 3/4th year projects this past spring... I left rather depressed.
I'm sure that software engineer trembled, a REAL architect was in his presence! Pfbt.
Whether or not IDP is easy depends on your situation. I had to move to finish it. Well I guess I didn't HAVE to, but I already worked for the best firm (there were only 3 firms total) in my small city and they turned out to be misogynist chauvinistic limbaugh listening bible thumpers and eventually we just didn't get along so well and I didn't want to finish my IDP with either of the 2 other firms so I moved 700 miles to a big city to finish IDP. Would've started my own firm if I would have had the skills to do so. But I still had 1,200 hours of servitude left or something like that. How about architectural servant? Is that allowed?
Non sequitur, that attitude reminds me of these kids that used to live around my block. They had this little club and wouldn't let anyone on the tire fort unless in the club. At first everyone wanted in, but eventually no one gave a shit anymore and began to play elsewhere mostly because of the way they treated non members and the way they wouldnt shut up about it. Soon after, the club that was once cool became the joke of the block.
There is a thin line between exclusivity and obscurity. Respecting others and making sure that inclusion is fair and accessible will make all the difference.
I agree with Non Sequitur. School does not fully prepare you to practice professionally. There are a lot of gaps in the education system set up by NAAB and what happens in an office. I've been interning for nearly 3 years now. I learned more about architecture in my first year of professional practice than I did in 4 years earning my degree. Schooling teaches design, time management, and technical skills that are necessary to the profession. But school does not teach, or at least in my experience, the entire gambit of designing a structure. Politics, ethics, budgeting, best practices, work flows, leadership, et cetera are all learned on the job, not in the classroom. That is why I believe that one should earn their license before calling themselves an architect.
I'd also like to note that Donna Sink is probably one of the best people to speak on this subject, considering all of her work with the AIA Emerging Professional Summit.
NonSequitur, I don't think anybody comes in to a job and knows what they are doing the first day. Any job. None. And this profession even actively decided that entry to the profession would be a theoretical based education followed by on-the-job training and an exam. how are the students to blame for that system? How dysfunctional is it to forget that on-the-job training is part of the model????????
But where else would you get your power trips from if there weren't a bunch of low-lifes to kick around? There aren't enough software architect dinner dates to feed your ego off of?
jla-x, re: your club fort analogy: the AIA et. al. leadership is aware that younger architecture grads are doing very cool work that falls under the umbrella of architecture even though it is not part of traditional practice. A LOT of this shift is due to the recession, when suddenly getting a traditional internship became nearly impossible, but creative people found other ways to do interesting work.
Keeping the connection of those graduates to their architecture background, and thus expanding the public definition of how architecture and architectural training impacts the entirety of built culture, is one of the large concerns of leadership right now. The entire point, in other words, is to *not* become the kids everyone laughs at because they're clinging to the dregs of their coolness inside the tire fort while everyone else has moved on.
jdparnell1218, thanks. I'm giving a talk at our local IN/KY AIA convention this fall about exactly this topic. So my participation in these threads helps me clarify my thinking and write my talk!
Volunteer, I'll have new biz cards printed right away, don't sue me! Servant is fine, I don't use a title to get work anyways, my dimples do it all.
I do wonder if the profession adopted the attitude of helping each other out, would we all be better off in the longrun? “He who receives ideas from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine receives light without darkening me” Thomas Jefferson
Of course I know many people don't think that way. They are Rush Limbaugh fans. :D
I don't see the point in all the complaining here.... Interns, take your licks, cut your teeth, earn your stripes, whatever you want to call it, and get your damn license. If you have an accredited degree, then you're a step ahead than many others. I have a BFA in Architecture, but it hasn't stopped me from working professionally, getting a good paying job, and working towards my license. I have more hoops to jump through than those with B Archs or M Archs, but you don't see me complaining. Until NCARB acts on the situation, which most likely will take another year at least, there is nothing you can do about it.
Tint, until I see a consistent stream of graduates who can put together wall sections, work without having their hands held and can put together drawing packages, it will be hard to deter me from this position. Perhaps it is my market, perhaps it is a phase in the schools, I don't know, but I don't think it is unreasonable for someone to expect fresh students to know a little about what the profession is. I find there to be lack of transitioning and thus fresh interns come out with expectations which are simply not there. Then, they get angry and cry about it anonymously on internet forums.
Donna, your talk focus sounds interesting in the way that you could propose separate definitions architecture in the public's eye. Perhaps not in the immediate interest of fresh graduates but I can see this as a hot topic when, for example, a city needs to explain/propose a large project. I've personally participated in open houses demonstrating and answering public questions on a large, multi-billion dollar project and it is sad to see how little the average joe/jane knows the role of architects/designers can have. In their eyes, all I was doing was cutting down (dead) trees.
jdparnell1218, your points above reflect my views rather well.
Donna, that's good to hear and I do see some changing attitudes with the AIA. Once the path is better integrated with school, the title RA is protected rather than architect, I will be a happy camper.
Associate Architect or Architect in Training?
What name do you consider more appropriate to put on a resumé for people going through the IDP and on their way to being licensed?
Designer
Architect in training seems to wordy, and I know a handful of firms that use associate as an identifier for higher positions. As much as we all hate the term intern, I don't think it is going anywhere.
Don't want to be called an intern? Get your license.
designer or some form or project manager, depending on what you're actually doing
Felixcarlos, I am fully aware. I don't like the term intern either. I tell people I'm an intern architect and they ask if I get paid. I'm working to earn my license and shed the stigma myself as opposed to waiting on NCARB to make something happen.
you might want to look into what NCARB allows. I asked this question directly to NCARB prior to getting out of school and was told you could not use the architect term in any way (architectural designer, intern architect, ect) Its been 6 years so rules may have changed but when your dealing with something you're sending to other professionals you have to be careful one might be an A$$ and turn you in, unlikely but some architects take this very seriously.
@graduatedlicensure
That would be nice, but getting that license still requires a separation in title. Getting the your degree and getting your license are two separate entities and should be treated as such.
@robbmc
I can't say for sure, but I think calling yourself an intern architect will fly. Everything else is prohibited though.
"Intern Architect" or simply "Designer" will due. I would not hire someone who skirted the wording of their real title.
The architecture biz seems to have followed the legal profession rather than the medical profession in this regard. The medicos are quite OK with the M.D. being used at the completion of medical school and before any residency. Since newbie lawyers are living in cardboard boxes under the Interstate overpasses if they can't score their parent's basement the brains at NCARB might want to rethink their position.
Building Designer works. Just to clarify, the word "architect" and any title containing the letters: a,r,c,h,i,t,e,c,t in this sequence such as architecture or architectural has been a protected title since before NCARB was formed (at least in a few states). AIA and a subset of all architects at the time was responsible for architectural licensing and the title & practice acts that were established and part of the vehicle to make the movement was NCARB.
It doesn't matter what NCARB says. It is what the state where you practice and the laws they have. NCARB in and of itself is not government.
NCARB is the council of the licensing boards and runs automous to a point. It has its own administrative, technical and customer/public relation support staff. But the member licensing boards (those that joined and became part of NCARB) is in charge of NCARB but each state has their own authority to establish law and rule for what is allowed or not allowed in the state.
http://www.aia.org/careerstages/resources/AIAB104048
Thank you, Donna. That was the article I had read when I posted the question. Maybe it would be more appropriate to establish different titles according to career stages, like the AIA survey presents. People actively seeking and fulfilling the IDP hours could be called "Architect in Training", as opposed to people who have decided to remain unlicensed in their career who could name themselves Building Designer or Architectural Designer.
I started calling myself 'intern architect' after my first internship ;P
I'm a building designer but also enrolled in IDP but such is life. Long story but it took forever in a day to get IDP record started..... (ie. IDP policy changes)
building designer can be a title used in an office with architects where the role and responsibility is more than just entry level design staff that is distinctive from other designers such as interior designer, graphic designer, landscape designer because technically "architectural designer" is a violation of most state's licensing laws unless the person is in fact licensed.
Building designer isn't exclusively a stand alone designer. Sure some people can make a career under that title. Since it isn't a 'protected title', it is fair to refer to people as building designer especially in a multidisciplinary design firm.
Completion of IDP should not matter because people often have experience that isn't credited into the IDP training hours for a variety of reasons.
We can tier the title like Assistant Building Designer or Junior Building Designer or a variety of ways to indicate someone at entry level design staff. If your role is CADD monkey then CADD Technician... especially if your role isn't design oriented but essentially drafting oriented as drafting and designing should not be confused. Some of these very technical positions might be BIM modeler, Revit modeler or Archicad modeler or technician, etc.
Role and responsibility defines the role.
There is aot of titles we can have for positions.
A five-year accredited university architecture course should account for something, else why TF bother - just start your guild apprenticeship like they did in the 1200s. That seems to be the era where the profession is stuck anyhow. At least you wouldn't have to sell your soul to the government loan sharks for five years of university THEN do your years and years of apprenticeship.
My opinion is an accredited degree holder should be "architect" upon graduation, someone who has passed the exam and requisite experience should be Registered Architect.
But it will take buy-in from all 50 (+?) state registration boards to make this change - which NCARB/AIA are considering, as far as I understand - so in the meantime I think Associate Architect is probably the best title for the unlicensed degree holder.
I'm fine with someone who has no formal education not being able to use the term. I don't consider that overly-protectionist. The exceptionally talented, like Tadao Ando, will come to be called architect regardless, but I don't have a problem with my local residential design-build-remodeler not being allowed to use the term.
I have well over 5 years of full-time formal education as well as a considerable bit of self-directed learning. Just no NAAB accredited degree.
Sadly, the licensing path in my state doesn't provide any credit. Such is life... oh well.
However, I see where Donna is coming from.
I do believe some system of accrediting the knowledge of those who have done a great deal of self-directed learning. Perhaps we can have exams and projects that can be accredited and recognized in some form that can be used to test the proficiency of the knowedge and skills of those as a sort of third party peer review system for those who go through an experience based path. Something kind of like EPC but more intense and comprehensive with many more exercises to peer review which would be done on a person's own time in addition to the work experience/employment and IDP.
The point of licensing laws is suppose to provide some measure of assurance to the public that those licensed as architects has the knowledge and skills to competently practice.
Too bad, politics in the architecture profession oftens gets in the way.
I know this may have already been discussed, but if 'architect' is a "protected legal designation", then why is it ok for the IT world to throw the word around in describing "Solutions Architect, Systems Architect, or IT Architect." Where's the AIA in combating this?
The UK has similar designation requirements. All non registered architects are either called 'Architectural Assistant' or simply by their last qualified degree 'Part I', 'Part II', etc. My advice is to be consistent. If you're talking to architects, they know the deal and should know how to read a resume. They should be more interested in what you did and who you worked for than what you were called!
If interns would focus their energy on acquiring a license instead of pointlessly re-branding themselves, perhaps this topic would disappear. Completion of a B.arch or M.arch is not sufficient experience to claim the title of architect; everyone passes school anyways... it's not hard work, and I've seen too many "graduate architects" pass who I would not trust filling paperwork let alone represent themselves to the public with the same title as I do.
A.I. I was at a dinner a few months ago where the man who sat next to me claimed, with a smug attitude, that he was a software architect. I replied that I was a real architect and that stopped that topic of conversation.
I admit in my deepest darkest place that I would be utterly gleeful at having that same conversation with someone, Non Sequitur.
And then I would feel embarrassed for the poor computer person and ashamed of my glee. But I'd still feel it.
Words change meaning all the time. "Architect" no longer refers to buildings alone as much as you may wish it to be so. Your dinner companion probably thought you were a jerk. or worse
if you say you're a 'software architect' you're not misleading people into thinking you can do what architects do. the scope of work is significantly different enough that it's assumed a reasonable person would not confuse the work of a software architect with that of an architect.
we should think outside the box more. there seems to be a desire to call an emergent architect 'architect' even though they aren't there yet, which could blur that line of saying a reasonable person would know the difference between what an 'architect' does compared to what a 'registered architect' does, since it's in a similar field and all.
let's call recent graduates "baron." so, you would have "baron felixcarlosj" while (s)he's going through IDP, and then when (s)he becomes an architect, (s)he can drop the 'baron' title.
instead of expecting your respect to come from your title, do a good enough job that your respect comes from the work you do.
Donna, my wife tried to give my a little guilt trip afterwards, but that was it. I went home that evening with another architect scout merit badge. If it helps Volunteer, I shared a few drinks with that engineer afterwards.
I see the term "architect" as a pop-culture thing. It's trendy to use the term to describe more than just buildings.
Webster just redefined 'literally', saying that it is so over used that is can mean 'figuratively'.... so, Non Sequitur, I'd say you're a literal douche... and you're married?, I'm guessing you're a figurative liar too.
Or did I get those two backwards?
Detwan, now that is not nice to drag my wife into this.
So much hate from non-licensed interns/designers. Just finish IDP already. It's not that hard people.
I'm sure there are many literal architects that find you to be a figurative douche, not just interns/designers.
DeTwan, don't be mean.
All of these conversations always inevitably come down to those of us *with* the license saying "Just stop complaining and get yours too!" because it's the easiest, most straightforward and common thing to do. As NS said, it's not that hard.
There really are serious discussions going on among AIA National and the collateral organizations about titles, the IDP process, licensing upon graduation, etc. The profession and its education are in flux, and leadership is trying to respond to the inevitable changes in ways that will benefit the profession and by extension our users/the public.
The leadership (AIA, NCARB, NAAB, ACSA, et al including state boards) is eager for a real discussion of these issues to happen, and they *do* read this website and others to get a sense of the general attitude and issues facing our discipline, among both emerging and established architects. You (meaning everyone here) can be a helpful contributing voice to that discussion, or you can keep stewing in frustration and call everyone who has a license a privileged douche.
I guess it's always easier to complain than work.
No Donna, I don't think he is anymore privileged b/c non sequitur might be licensed, I just think he is a literal douche in general. Carry on archinectors.
*might be* licensed? Please, it only took me 3 years to complete IDP and become licensed and I referred to myself proudly as intern architect during that time.
Sorry if I take offence when others try and cut corners only to fix their egos.
Donna, my board sent out a memo many years ago making it official that those in the IDP call themselves intern-architect.
Not that hard to finish IDP?
Wasn't there something recently that showed that it takes an average of 11 years to complete?
I worked with a registered architect who had gained his experience/license prior to the whole IDP stranglehold on entry into the profession. He has an associates degree in architectural drafting. But he is an architect. I am not. I once tried to explain to him how a pin joint can cancel out moment (because I've taken engineering classes). He had not the least of ideas what I was talking about. I guess they didn't cover that in "Plan v. Section 101". But sign and stamp-away he can.
The problem of IDP is that it's not an even playing field. As an intern you have to work FOR someone. And they have to be decent and not a self-interested kneecapper. Good luck finding a decent architect. It's an indentured servitude situation. Although instead of being specifically indentured to a single individual with a contract where they are REQUIRED to give you the skills you need, you are generally indentured to a "profession" where there is no one overseeing whether or not you are being given the additional training you need in an apprenticeship phase. Moreover, there's NO penalty for an architect who doesn't give their employees the required experience.
The truth is, no registered architect today has any good reason for there to be any MORE registered architects. They have enough competition as it is. The fewer people that can sign and seal drawings, the better for "they the anointed stamp bearers".
As for the ease of getting a degree... on my first day of Arch school there were 12 people there in the group. Only 3 of that 12 graduated.
The problem with the term "Intern":
A quote from the linked article at n+1
"The changes in other cultural realms were slower to arrive and are still ongoing, but you could trace them in the increasing visibility of the unpaid internship. This was a practice that began in government and finance, was taken up by colleges, and finally was adopted wholesale by a grateful culture industry; by the mid-aughts, interns had become the butt of jokes in popular culture. “Don’t point that gun at him,” Bill Murray’s eccentric oceanographer says to an angry pirate in Wes Anderson’s The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004), “he’s an unpaid intern.” Anderson’s film was among the first to portray interns as so stupid they didn’t deserve to be paid. These interns wore T-shirts that said intern, prepared cocktails, fell down stairs. The slacker temp had become the eager serf, and with good reason. In film, publishing, and other creative industries, volunteering for a profitable corporation had become a necessary step to getting paid. But only HR departments and colleges handing out credits thought it was anything but demeaning. When Kanye rapped “Maybe you could be my intern” to rival MCs on Late Registration (2005), no one mistook it for a compliment."
NS, I am glad you redeemed yourself at the dinner party. As to your point that a new architecture school graduate knows nothing, if true, that would seem to reflect very poorly on the architecture's schools accreditation agency, not on the graduates themselves so much. That is unconscionable with the tuition rates as high as they are. If you had more students with prior building and engineering experience they would be more like to blow the whistle on the BS - to the professors first and then to the dean. Way overdue.
In my state "architect in training" is what the state designates for those with an open record
you do not have too and should not call yourself an intern unless you are applying specifically for an internship. If you are looking for a full time job just use AIT if your state allows it or use designer.
Volunteer, from what I see coming out of the universities (today and even when I was in grad school), very few of the graduating students I've seen could transfer into the working world flawlessly. Perhaps it is due to a lack of professional practice or technical courses but in my experience teaching undergrad studios (7 years ago now... shess, way to make me feel old on a Tuesday morning), it's accepted for students to take a hit in the technical courses to prop up their design studio portfolios. Sorry, but knowing how to press the render button does not make one an architect and expecting to be treated as one is just as ridiculous. All this was unfortunately reinforced when I was invited to review final 3/4th year projects this past spring... I left rather depressed.
I'm sure that software engineer trembled, a REAL architect was in his presence! Pfbt.
Whether or not IDP is easy depends on your situation. I had to move to finish it. Well I guess I didn't HAVE to, but I already worked for the best firm (there were only 3 firms total) in my small city and they turned out to be misogynist chauvinistic limbaugh listening bible thumpers and eventually we just didn't get along so well and I didn't want to finish my IDP with either of the 2 other firms so I moved 700 miles to a big city to finish IDP. Would've started my own firm if I would have had the skills to do so. But I still had 1,200 hours of servitude left or something like that. How about architectural servant? Is that allowed?
Non sequitur, that attitude reminds me of these kids that used to live around my block. They had this little club and wouldn't let anyone on the tire fort unless in the club. At first everyone wanted in, but eventually no one gave a shit anymore and began to play elsewhere mostly because of the way they treated non members and the way they wouldnt shut up about it. Soon after, the club that was once cool became the joke of the block.
There is a thin line between exclusivity and obscurity. Respecting others and making sure that inclusion is fair and accessible will make all the difference.
I agree with Non Sequitur. School does not fully prepare you to practice professionally. There are a lot of gaps in the education system set up by NAAB and what happens in an office. I've been interning for nearly 3 years now. I learned more about architecture in my first year of professional practice than I did in 4 years earning my degree. Schooling teaches design, time management, and technical skills that are necessary to the profession. But school does not teach, or at least in my experience, the entire gambit of designing a structure. Politics, ethics, budgeting, best practices, work flows, leadership, et cetera are all learned on the job, not in the classroom. That is why I believe that one should earn their license before calling themselves an architect.
I'd also like to note that Donna Sink is probably one of the best people to speak on this subject, considering all of her work with the AIA Emerging Professional Summit.
NonSequitur, I don't think anybody comes in to a job and knows what they are doing the first day. Any job. None. And this profession even actively decided that entry to the profession would be a theoretical based education followed by on-the-job training and an exam. how are the students to blame for that system? How dysfunctional is it to forget that on-the-job training is part of the model????????
But where else would you get your power trips from if there weren't a bunch of low-lifes to kick around? There aren't enough software architect dinner dates to feed your ego off of?
Then why doesn't the same criteria hold in the medical field?
Tint, No you can't call your self an "architectural servant"; it has a derivative of the word "architect" in it. Plain "servant" will do fine.
jla-x, re: your club fort analogy: the AIA et. al. leadership is aware that younger architecture grads are doing very cool work that falls under the umbrella of architecture even though it is not part of traditional practice. A LOT of this shift is due to the recession, when suddenly getting a traditional internship became nearly impossible, but creative people found other ways to do interesting work.
Keeping the connection of those graduates to their architecture background, and thus expanding the public definition of how architecture and architectural training impacts the entirety of built culture, is one of the large concerns of leadership right now. The entire point, in other words, is to *not* become the kids everyone laughs at because they're clinging to the dregs of their coolness inside the tire fort while everyone else has moved on.
jdparnell1218, thanks. I'm giving a talk at our local IN/KY AIA convention this fall about exactly this topic. So my participation in these threads helps me clarify my thinking and write my talk!
Volunteer, I'll have new biz cards printed right away, don't sue me! Servant is fine, I don't use a title to get work anyways, my dimples do it all.
I do wonder if the profession adopted the attitude of helping each other out, would we all be better off in the longrun? “He who receives ideas from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine receives light without darkening me” Thomas Jefferson
Of course I know many people don't think that way. They are Rush Limbaugh fans. :D
I don't see the point in all the complaining here.... Interns, take your licks, cut your teeth, earn your stripes, whatever you want to call it, and get your damn license. If you have an accredited degree, then you're a step ahead than many others. I have a BFA in Architecture, but it hasn't stopped me from working professionally, getting a good paying job, and working towards my license. I have more hoops to jump through than those with B Archs or M Archs, but you don't see me complaining. Until NCARB acts on the situation, which most likely will take another year at least, there is nothing you can do about it.
Sarcasm is not complaining, it is explaining something in other terms in order to shock or enlighten. Try to be more positive, jd.
Tint, until I see a consistent stream of graduates who can put together wall sections, work without having their hands held and can put together drawing packages, it will be hard to deter me from this position. Perhaps it is my market, perhaps it is a phase in the schools, I don't know, but I don't think it is unreasonable for someone to expect fresh students to know a little about what the profession is. I find there to be lack of transitioning and thus fresh interns come out with expectations which are simply not there. Then, they get angry and cry about it anonymously on internet forums.
Donna, your talk focus sounds interesting in the way that you could propose separate definitions architecture in the public's eye. Perhaps not in the immediate interest of fresh graduates but I can see this as a hot topic when, for example, a city needs to explain/propose a large project. I've personally participated in open houses demonstrating and answering public questions on a large, multi-billion dollar project and it is sad to see how little the average joe/jane knows the role of architects/designers can have. In their eyes, all I was doing was cutting down (dead) trees.
jdparnell1218, your points above reflect my views rather well.
Donna, that's good to hear and I do see some changing attitudes with the AIA. Once the path is better integrated with school, the title RA is protected rather than architect, I will be a happy camper.
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.