NS, I am not in disagreement with you, but I think most all architecture graduates can LEARN to draw a REAL wall section if they are given some instruction. Archi shool grads aren't nearly as dumb as our employers make us out to be. It is hard when our employers whine and cry about how they don't have a perfect life and that graduates aren't able to make up the difference in all the gaps they have in their firm!
(Just to remind all that I am not a whiny intern, I am a former intern, now an employer and partner in an interdisciplinary field that I am creating (architecting???) with a business partner. I learned everything on the job by the way of a lot of hard work and some very helpful and conscientious mentors, a contrast to what I had in IDP.)
Tint, I agree. I have a colleague who is second in command in an office with just the type of principle you describe and it's really starting to drain him.
It's one thing to demand perfection, it's another to demand basic levels. I struggle to find the latter.
"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?"
That sounds like complaining to me. At least complaining about your boss. Also, if you would've started your own firm, I wonder where you would have gotten the start-up capitol, client list, projects et cetera. How confident are you in your abilities to deal with clients and contractors on your own? Just curious.
Non sequitur, the market will self regulate to an extent. No one is going to hand a million dollar condo project to a fresh bright eyed grad. Not gonna happen. Likely that grad will work for a few years before attempting to go out on their own as most law grads do. If they do try to start a firm right away they will be doing bathroom remodels and designing small (already exempt) projects for years...then maybe a few (already exempt) houses...then maybe a few TI projects....it will take a long long time before they will be able to get a project that even requires an architect. While you may be correct that many grads know very little it is not your job to baby sit. Let them get to a point where they know a lot in the way that they as adults see fit. They hsw argument is completely bogus in this regard. I am all for hsw standards for buildings, but regulating the person is the most ineffective way to ensure public safety. We should be tryjng to regulate the buildings to preform at a higher standard rather than regulating who gets to stamp. Shit, make the codes stricter to require a certain embodied energy max. and passive heating/cooling min. That will make the architect indispensable. A contractor will be completely clueless as how to meet these standards. Screw this idea that the stamp and title make architects relevant...make the knowledge necessary and indispensable. Sell knowledge. The exclusiveness of title is not a marketable thing. No one in the public really cares.
I didn't quite have all the skills at that point, no. And I even already said that. You quoted it, but it appears you didn't read it, you just wanted to complain. I still don't have all the skills to run an architecture firm, although I help run a firm of another kind. That is kind of the point too, that not everyone needs to know everything about everything in order to work in a field. But I did actually have an opportunity to start a firm, I had a former boss that I interned for, a civil engineer that wanted me to drop out of architecture and take over his firm (he architected as well as engineered, he wanted me to get my PE license but I am not good at math, ha ha). He still can't find anyone to take it over, and he told me many times he would mentor anyone into it, if they wanted it.
jdparnell, also keep in mind I was in a rural area, so if my story sounds unbelievable think about the fact that getting clients is way easier than in the big city. I was approached right out of school by the county fair board to architect them a tornado shed and ADA bathrooms. I told them I wasn't qualified to do that. They laughed at me and asked "why not?" They had waited until I was out of school to offer me this job because they didn't know how it worked, that I wasn't a real architect yet. I suppose that is where my defensiveness started?
And not to dominate the thread, but buying the business assets of a retiring professional whom you mentored under is a great way to start a business and become a competent professional. This notion that you start a business from scratch because everyone loves you is silly.
just like to point out, no it won't. this is right-wing-ayn-rand speak for let's screw people. recent history has clearly shown that the market does not self-regulate
No one is going to hand a million dollar condo project to a fresh bright eyed grad.
why not? what with having experience and all, i don't think it's uncommon for a developer or a contractor to try to find someone they can bully and intimidate into circumventing regulations, even to the extent of outright lying to building officials, so they can cut corners and save money. don't you think a desperate bright-eyed grad that doesn't know what they're doing would make and easier target for that sort of developer? we need to start thinking of the role of architect as something greater than making up ugly forms and pretending they're 'cool.'
Aug 5, 14 1:48 pm ·
·
Menona,
WHat you are talking about is basically covered in architecture/engineering books all the way back to the 1910s. If not, all the way back to the 19th century. However, despite that, you must remember that only a small fraction of what you learned in school will be retained by the time you are in your 60s or 70s. You learn new things. You will likely forget or not easily recall old things you haven't done in decades. The only way you keep that knowledge actively retained is to actively use that knowledge.
I'm pretty sure that architect had to do this. Hell man, they used to test you on engineering in the test.... paper and pencil... no calculator or computer or slide rule.
Since professionally, most architects don't do engineering calculations much at all, because of liabilty insurance policy mandates they delegate the responsibility to engineers or the premium goes through the roof as well as to limit liability exposure, he probably wasn't going to retain this kind of knowledge over the years. For you, it is/was fresh in your memory.
In addition, if you are only verbally explaining it, it might be hard to visualize without visual aid. He probably hasn't seen those visual aid that you had during class in decades. You need to remember that he probably seen them in his own self-directed learning over the course of his preparing to get licensed but haven't had to in a long time. Lets remember, the drawings on the old books weren't always as colorful as today.
A lot of the drawings are black & white in the old books. Not always so memorable.
Yes. I agree. It's a basic engineering principle. This guy wasn't 70 though, he's maybe in his mid to late 40's.
My point was he had no education, yet he could legally stamp and seal drawings just because he had gotten in under the IDP wire, so to speak. He can roll around legally saying "Architect" all he wants, yet he has no understanding - because he has no education (and I'm saying associate's degree in Arch Drafting is No Education). His engineering background consists of farming out engineering duties to engineers for 20 years. That's not a good thing. Yes, let the engineers run the numbers, but the basic principles and structural strategy should be comprehensible by and (ideally) generated from the Architect. This guy had no ability to comprehend engineering issues because he had no education in the subject. Yet he is a "Master Builder."
Yes he understands which AIA contracts to use for what, and how to edit Masterspec, and he knows how to read and setup a drawing set - but will that ever be enough to create Architecture? Go to the window and look around at the world outside - I'm saying "No".
Yet in the current state of the profession, Opie Cunningham with an Associate's Degree from Mayberry University is an architect, while Hot Johnny 4.0, fresh from Harvard has a decade more of financial burden and struggle? And he has to work FOR Opie? That's a problem.
This thread has gotten a bit off topic. The discussion topic here really is what should someone's title be throughout their career based upon their experience, IDP/ARE status, and registration status? No matter what industry issues people have brought up about the education system, the registration standards, or professional practice, this is an issue with enough significance that it deserves real discussion - not a bunch of generalizations about a large and meaningful group of people in the industry.
Saying things like "just get licensed - it's not hard" is pretty dismissive, and unnecessarily so. If you have this view and are currently licensed, and especially if you have been for some time, you might not be taking into account any of the context and issues this generation of architects has been born into. It takes 5600 hours in IDP and seven tests to become registered - about 3 years if you are able to complete it efficiently, though it often takes longer because of typical issues in the profession of scheduling and project availability and, you know, your private life not always working like a Swiss watch.
I am currently on my path to getting licensed - completing IDP hours and taking divisions of the ARE. Being called an architect is really not realistic, since there are insinuations of experience, training, registration, binding ethics, and a duty to protect the public. Until I've taken the tests and become registered, I don't see why I should be called an architect.
However - I think intern holds its own connotations that simply aren't fitting for most people it's assigned to. While you are in school, working during the summers or part time during the semester, and whether you are paid or not, intern seems reasonable because it is implied that you are still a student and inexperienced. Once you've completed school, have gained some professional experience, and are on the licensure path, is it still an appropriate term?
When I tell people I'm an intern, since it's still the term I've been told to use, people assume I am: 1) unpaid; 2) inexperienced and don't have much training; 3) don't do much real work, but rather that I go out and get coffee, run errands, print sets, etc. And that's the problem here, and actually with a lot of the comments in this thread: public perception. I do a lot of work a registered architect would do but I just have a registered architect review my work. I interact with clients and contractors all the time and they don't see what I do as the work of an intern.
"Architect in training" is a much better term for this group of people, in my opinion. It assumes that I'm actively working towards becoming an architect, that I've already had experience, and that I'm not yet an architect but am doing architect-like things to become one. If you're not trying to get licensed but are beyond the entry-level experience of an intern, you should be called what you primarily do - "Designer," "Project Manager," CAD Technician," etc. The word architect never appears, nor do you need to be registered to do any of those job titles.
Although I think "Architect in training" still carries with it connotations similar to "Intern". Most people (the public) will encounter the "in training" designation on signs like "Cashier in Training" or "Service Dog in Training".
I only point this out because in the public's perception would be to regard the, say "apprenticeship" phase of architect, as something that would take a month or two (to learn the register for example). I think it would be better if there were perhaps "Grades" of Architect.
Maybe it tops out at "Registered Architect"
but below that is "Architect: Grade 3" where you have the accredited degree and have passed the ARE, but are finishing the IDP nonsense.
Architect: Grade 2 - where you have the degree and are taking the tests and in the apprenticeship program (which calling it "Apprentice phase" would differentiate it from the "Go git coffee Intern" that it's presently perceived as. Maybe "Apprentice Professional" could be an official designation and it's then presented as "Architect AP" )
Architect: Grade 1 - Accredited Degree at graduation, or X number of years working with/under a licensed architect.
A doctor who completes medical school but does not start or complete residency will be called Dr. Joe Smith M.D. until his dying day. It is a remark of respect society gives to his accomplishment of completing medical school. By not adopting a similar practice the architectural profession is really demeaning the graduates of its own certified and approved schools as well as the schools themselves. As well as the profession. Enjoy.
Volunteer, Medical school actually is hard and a real accomplishment. Architecture is, relatively speaking, not. Any chump can pass architecture school and treating the term "architect" in the same way "doctor" is would be demeaning to doctors.
The word apprentice is completely wrong, not becasue they don't support you but becasue there's no craft involved in the trade. If architects can't agree on what makes a building good, how can the craft be taught. But all this is besides the point, you have to work hard and then you'll become an architect, whatever anyone wants to call you, it's just branding at this point.
NS, If architecture school is essentially worthless why is the industry charging up to $50,000 a year to attend? An aspiring architect would be better off moving to one of the fifteen states that do not require university credits and just do the apprenticeship. In a few years he would have his license and no student debt.
Volunteer, saying that medical school =\= architecture does not make architecture school useless, but both disciplines are nowhere near each other in terms of required competence, and academic merit.
Again, architecture school is not hard and all those hours spent in studio do not equal one medical course. I don't know why this is so hard for people here to understand... I am dumbfounded that so many demand so much simply because they succeeded in not dropping out of a university program.
GraduatedLicensure the problem with your post is that as of right now the OP would be breaking the law by using the term architect. It's not overthinking.
GraduatedLicensure, as I've posted many times on this thread: the current situation is in the process of being changed (I'm happy about that, personally). But for the moment it *is* a law. Whether it's right or wrong is up for discussion, and *is* being discussed, but if the OP is concerned about not breaking the law s/he should not currently use the term architect.
My attitude towards the current state of things is to call yourself an architect in situations in which you aren't soliciting work. At parties etc. use the word architect with no further explanation. If someone then asks you to design a house for them, then you're under a legal responsibility to tell them you're not registered YET.
But don't put architect on business cards or letterhead or a website because there are stories every month of state boards sanctioning people for misrepresenting their architectural credentials.
NS,
The point I was trying to make is that the schools should be turning out students who can be productive and contributory with a minimum of in-house training. If that is not the case the schools should be de-certified until they can turn out accomplished graduates. Said accomplished graduates should be welcomed into the fraternity, not shunned. All my engineer friends were calling each other engineers even as they worked toward their PE. Pilots in the Navy and USAF are given their wings after an intense 18 month period even though they are, at that point, not qualified to fly anything other than a training airplane. Why some people insist on crapping
Since I've been apprenticing in an applied cognitive science field, I should start using the title Brain Architect. Why design buildings when you can design BRAINS?
Volunteer, knowing which buttons do what in sketch-up does not make one an architect. This is my issue with a sweeping change to the term. Some schools, probably most, produce decent graduates who will eventually complete the path to license but, given the high rate of enrolment, non-existent rate of failure and relative ease of the program, far too many sub-par students would also qualify for the same "architect" status. So what happens then, you attach your GPA score to your business cards too?
Schools teach students how to be functioning office workers. Those workers with better than average skills find their way to a license and out of those, a small group run their own practices. The rest complain loudly that they should get all the glory by default.
Donna, has it correct, this is about what to call yourself at parties. It's an ego thing, nothing more.
Volunteer, its very easy to understand..I can think of 3 main reasons
1. .title has become the main selling point for many (non-design/artistic) oriented firms. the profession has become obsolete in so many ways that its main value has become the fulfillment of state mandated stamping regulations which act to defer liability away from the state and other parties involved in construction process. This elevates the economic value of the stamping power over the "real" value of the art and science of architecture. Since architects have been striped of much influence over design by developers, there is little left to cling onto for the majority of architects. Of course the longer architects continue to reduce architecture to some red tape the more and more obsolete it will become.
2. Protectionism
3. The speed of technological advancement would make it nearly impossible for older architects to limit wages if not for the Idp carrot. Without that control over the youth, it would create a situation where the ball for salary negotiation would fall into the court of the young more often than not. Technology is not all that important with regards to architectural competence (art and science stuff) but it is very desirable with regards to productivity and the perception of the firm. Cheap labor is the main reason IMO...it always comes down to money. Sure newbies lack experience, but they also have certain skills that are being sold cheap-for Idp credit...a sort of Monopoly money that supplements real money.
Only 15% of the applicants to my school got in. It was known as the hardest undergrad major along with pre-vet med.
CD.Arch - you go for it. There are lots of interesting parallels between buildings and brains you can play off of. Actually, brains have an architecture, except instead of form follows function, function follows form. Cool, huh?
Non Sequitur, to your point about recent grads not knowing enough to use the term: NCARB's announcement about licensure-upon-graduation very specifically says that experience in firms would be integrated into the education. It wouldn't be a sudden change; curricula would need to be reconfigured and each state would need to accept the change.
This is a long slow process but the more we discuss it the closer to being a successful reality it becomes.
EVERYONE who designs buildings are building designers. It isn't a protected title. Therefore if you are in a project design position in a firm where you have larger overall responsibility of designing the building as a whole vs. drafting door and window details. Some entry level positions of interns is really a draftman / draughtsman position. Look at your typical responsibility and say that.
Architects, your official title is that found on your license certificate and your stamp seal.
It maybe called Licensed Architect or Registered Architect. For the rest of us who are not licensed involved in a larger overall building design role can call themself building designers (to differentiate oneself from interior designer or landscape designer, or graphic designer). If your role is essentially making redline correction, assisting in setting up presentations which may include working on powerpoint presentation by putting the CAD drawings into the powerpoint and so forth then maybe your role is basically draftsman or draughtsman.
That role today is now involving more computer skills than it was 100 years ago. 100 years ago, that draughtsman used to involve rendering and model making. Especially those with a keen artistic side. Sometime you can say you are a draftsman and artist if you do work with renderings.
Licensed architects trying to appropriate the term "architect" for their exclusive use is a lost cause. The cat is out of the bag. Deal with it. It is not so much that amateurs, unlicensed designers, or degreed university graduates working on their licenses are calling themselves architects - the public is calling them that. And doing so in accordance with most dictionary definitions. They don't give two s---- about Pennsylvania's arcane legalese.
What's wrong with 'Designer'? It's broader and gives license to tackle more things. I'd argue that it's less limiting then Architect.
When I was a Designer only, I felt more free to make things, draw things, imagine things. And I did! The period between graduation and licensure was one of the most creative of my life.
Once I became an Architect, I felt a greater sense of responsibility. Today, in a group creative exercise, for example, with the goal of developing strategies for how to make the city more vital/nimble, I find my Architect self being the naysayer. I know that if I am complicit in physical improvements to the built environment, then I am potentially responsible for these things. Any crazy idea that gets shared is not necessarily OK with me any more!
O, to be a Designer again!
Embrace it. If you're trained to design but aren't yet fully qualified to be held responsible for big, complicated things, how cool is that?!
Associate Architect or Architect in Training?
NS, I am not in disagreement with you, but I think most all architecture graduates can LEARN to draw a REAL wall section if they are given some instruction. Archi shool grads aren't nearly as dumb as our employers make us out to be. It is hard when our employers whine and cry about how they don't have a perfect life and that graduates aren't able to make up the difference in all the gaps they have in their firm!
(Just to remind all that I am not a whiny intern, I am a former intern, now an employer and partner in an interdisciplinary field that I am creating (architecting???) with a business partner. I learned everything on the job by the way of a lot of hard work and some very helpful and conscientious mentors, a contrast to what I had in IDP.)
Tint, I agree. I have a colleague who is second in command in an office with just the type of principle you describe and it's really starting to drain him.
It's one thing to demand perfection, it's another to demand basic levels. I struggle to find the latter.
@ Tint,
"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?"
That sounds like complaining to me. At least complaining about your boss. Also, if you would've started your own firm, I wonder where you would have gotten the start-up capitol, client list, projects et cetera. How confident are you in your abilities to deal with clients and contractors on your own? Just curious.
Non sequitur, the market will self regulate to an extent. No one is going to hand a million dollar condo project to a fresh bright eyed grad. Not gonna happen. Likely that grad will work for a few years before attempting to go out on their own as most law grads do. If they do try to start a firm right away they will be doing bathroom remodels and designing small (already exempt) projects for years...then maybe a few (already exempt) houses...then maybe a few TI projects....it will take a long long time before they will be able to get a project that even requires an architect. While you may be correct that many grads know very little it is not your job to baby sit. Let them get to a point where they know a lot in the way that they as adults see fit. They hsw argument is completely bogus in this regard. I am all for hsw standards for buildings, but regulating the person is the most ineffective way to ensure public safety. We should be tryjng to regulate the buildings to preform at a higher standard rather than regulating who gets to stamp. Shit, make the codes stricter to require a certain embodied energy max. and passive heating/cooling min. That will make the architect indispensable. A contractor will be completely clueless as how to meet these standards. Screw this idea that the stamp and title make architects relevant...make the knowledge necessary and indispensable. Sell knowledge. The exclusiveness of title is not a marketable thing. No one in the public really cares.
I didn't quite have all the skills at that point, no. And I even already said that. You quoted it, but it appears you didn't read it, you just wanted to complain. I still don't have all the skills to run an architecture firm, although I help run a firm of another kind. That is kind of the point too, that not everyone needs to know everything about everything in order to work in a field. But I did actually have an opportunity to start a firm, I had a former boss that I interned for, a civil engineer that wanted me to drop out of architecture and take over his firm (he architected as well as engineered, he wanted me to get my PE license but I am not good at math, ha ha). He still can't find anyone to take it over, and he told me many times he would mentor anyone into it, if they wanted it.
jdparnell, also keep in mind I was in a rural area, so if my story sounds unbelievable think about the fact that getting clients is way easier than in the big city. I was approached right out of school by the county fair board to architect them a tornado shed and ADA bathrooms. I told them I wasn't qualified to do that. They laughed at me and asked "why not?" They had waited until I was out of school to offer me this job because they didn't know how it worked, that I wasn't a real architect yet. I suppose that is where my defensiveness started?
Gotya Tint. Wan't trying to offend.
And not to dominate the thread, but buying the business assets of a retiring professional whom you mentored under is a great way to start a business and become a competent professional. This notion that you start a business from scratch because everyone loves you is silly.
the market will self regulate
just like to point out, no it won't. this is right-wing-ayn-rand speak for let's screw people. recent history has clearly shown that the market does not self-regulate
No one is going to hand a million dollar condo project to a fresh bright eyed grad.
why not? what with having experience and all, i don't think it's uncommon for a developer or a contractor to try to find someone they can bully and intimidate into circumventing regulations, even to the extent of outright lying to building officials, so they can cut corners and save money. don't you think a desperate bright-eyed grad that doesn't know what they're doing would make and easier target for that sort of developer? we need to start thinking of the role of architect as something greater than making up ugly forms and pretending they're 'cool.'
Menona,
WHat you are talking about is basically covered in architecture/engineering books all the way back to the 1910s. If not, all the way back to the 19th century. However, despite that, you must remember that only a small fraction of what you learned in school will be retained by the time you are in your 60s or 70s. You learn new things. You will likely forget or not easily recall old things you haven't done in decades. The only way you keep that knowledge actively retained is to actively use that knowledge.
I'm pretty sure that architect had to do this. Hell man, they used to test you on engineering in the test.... paper and pencil... no calculator or computer or slide rule.
Since professionally, most architects don't do engineering calculations much at all, because of liabilty insurance policy mandates they delegate the responsibility to engineers or the premium goes through the roof as well as to limit liability exposure, he probably wasn't going to retain this kind of knowledge over the years. For you, it is/was fresh in your memory.
In addition, if you are only verbally explaining it, it might be hard to visualize without visual aid. He probably hasn't seen those visual aid that you had during class in decades. You need to remember that he probably seen them in his own self-directed learning over the course of his preparing to get licensed but haven't had to in a long time. Lets remember, the drawings on the old books weren't always as colorful as today.
A lot of the drawings are black & white in the old books. Not always so memorable.
....
Yes. I agree. It's a basic engineering principle. This guy wasn't 70 though, he's maybe in his mid to late 40's.
My point was he had no education, yet he could legally stamp and seal drawings just because he had gotten in under the IDP wire, so to speak. He can roll around legally saying "Architect" all he wants, yet he has no understanding - because he has no education (and I'm saying associate's degree in Arch Drafting is No Education). His engineering background consists of farming out engineering duties to engineers for 20 years. That's not a good thing. Yes, let the engineers run the numbers, but the basic principles and structural strategy should be comprehensible by and (ideally) generated from the Architect. This guy had no ability to comprehend engineering issues because he had no education in the subject. Yet he is a "Master Builder."
Yes he understands which AIA contracts to use for what, and how to edit Masterspec, and he knows how to read and setup a drawing set - but will that ever be enough to create Architecture? Go to the window and look around at the world outside - I'm saying "No".
Yet in the current state of the profession, Opie Cunningham with an Associate's Degree from Mayberry University is an architect, while Hot Johnny 4.0, fresh from Harvard has a decade more of financial burden and struggle? And he has to work FOR Opie? That's a problem.
This thread has gotten a bit off topic. The discussion topic here really is what should someone's title be throughout their career based upon their experience, IDP/ARE status, and registration status? No matter what industry issues people have brought up about the education system, the registration standards, or professional practice, this is an issue with enough significance that it deserves real discussion - not a bunch of generalizations about a large and meaningful group of people in the industry.
Saying things like "just get licensed - it's not hard" is pretty dismissive, and unnecessarily so. If you have this view and are currently licensed, and especially if you have been for some time, you might not be taking into account any of the context and issues this generation of architects has been born into. It takes 5600 hours in IDP and seven tests to become registered - about 3 years if you are able to complete it efficiently, though it often takes longer because of typical issues in the profession of scheduling and project availability and, you know, your private life not always working like a Swiss watch.
I am currently on my path to getting licensed - completing IDP hours and taking divisions of the ARE. Being called an architect is really not realistic, since there are insinuations of experience, training, registration, binding ethics, and a duty to protect the public. Until I've taken the tests and become registered, I don't see why I should be called an architect.
However - I think intern holds its own connotations that simply aren't fitting for most people it's assigned to. While you are in school, working during the summers or part time during the semester, and whether you are paid or not, intern seems reasonable because it is implied that you are still a student and inexperienced. Once you've completed school, have gained some professional experience, and are on the licensure path, is it still an appropriate term?
When I tell people I'm an intern, since it's still the term I've been told to use, people assume I am: 1) unpaid; 2) inexperienced and don't have much training; 3) don't do much real work, but rather that I go out and get coffee, run errands, print sets, etc. And that's the problem here, and actually with a lot of the comments in this thread: public perception. I do a lot of work a registered architect would do but I just have a registered architect review my work. I interact with clients and contractors all the time and they don't see what I do as the work of an intern.
"Architect in training" is a much better term for this group of people, in my opinion. It assumes that I'm actively working towards becoming an architect, that I've already had experience, and that I'm not yet an architect but am doing architect-like things to become one. If you're not trying to get licensed but are beyond the entry-level experience of an intern, you should be called what you primarily do - "Designer," "Project Manager," CAD Technician," etc. The word architect never appears, nor do you need to be registered to do any of those job titles.
Very good points shawnswisher.
Although I think "Architect in training" still carries with it connotations similar to "Intern". Most people (the public) will encounter the "in training" designation on signs like "Cashier in Training" or "Service Dog in Training".
I only point this out because in the public's perception would be to regard the, say "apprenticeship" phase of architect, as something that would take a month or two (to learn the register for example). I think it would be better if there were perhaps "Grades" of Architect.
Maybe it tops out at "Registered Architect"
but below that is "Architect: Grade 3" where you have the accredited degree and have passed the ARE, but are finishing the IDP nonsense.
Architect: Grade 2 - where you have the degree and are taking the tests and in the apprenticeship program (which calling it "Apprentice phase" would differentiate it from the "Go git coffee Intern" that it's presently perceived as. Maybe "Apprentice Professional" could be an official designation and it's then presented as "Architect AP" )
Architect: Grade 1 - Accredited Degree at graduation, or X number of years working with/under a licensed architect.
? Perhaps.
I think "apprentice" would be nice, but it reflects more the way I'd like to see the profession taught than how it's actually done.
three piles:
Architects
Interns
Everybody else
People here should concentrate on getting registered rather than crying about semantics.
ThayerD, I like the sound of apprentice but in my mind, apprentice automatically brings up "Sorcerer's Apprentice"... that is too good a title.
The word apprentice isn't quite right because it implies learning and support (in architecture they call it hand holding and spoonfeeding) :)
I like the title 'sorcerer.' How do I get a license to be a sorcerer?
Curt, do you really want to get on the bad side of registered sorcerers? I am sure they can fling more things than an old T-Square at you.
A doctor who completes medical school but does not start or complete residency will be called Dr. Joe Smith M.D. until his dying day. It is a remark of respect society gives to his accomplishment of completing medical school. By not adopting a similar practice the architectural profession is really demeaning the graduates of its own certified and approved schools as well as the schools themselves. As well as the profession. Enjoy.
Volunteer, Medical school actually is hard and a real accomplishment. Architecture is, relatively speaking, not. Any chump can pass architecture school and treating the term "architect" in the same way "doctor" is would be demeaning to doctors.
The word apprentice is completely wrong, not becasue they don't support you but becasue there's no craft involved in the trade. If architects can't agree on what makes a building good, how can the craft be taught. But all this is besides the point, you have to work hard and then you'll become an architect, whatever anyone wants to call you, it's just branding at this point.
NS, If architecture school is essentially worthless why is the industry charging up to $50,000 a year to attend? An aspiring architect would be better off moving to one of the fifteen states that do not require university credits and just do the apprenticeship. In a few years he would have his license and no student debt.
Volunteer, saying that medical school =\= architecture does not make architecture school useless, but both disciplines are nowhere near each other in terms of required competence, and academic merit.
Again, architecture school is not hard and all those hours spent in studio do not equal one medical course. I don't know why this is so hard for people here to understand... I am dumbfounded that so many demand so much simply because they succeeded in not dropping out of a university program.
Non Sequitur right now:
LOL jdparnell.
GraduatedLicensure the problem with your post is that as of right now the OP would be breaking the law by using the term architect. It's not overthinking.
JP,
It'll take a little bit more than an online forum for me to reach Mugatu levels.
So $50,000 year for an extension of first-grade finger painting?
Cost of education is irrelevant to this discussion.
..
I vote to keep the term intern architect.
If you want to shed that title, get licensed.
GraduatedLicensure, as I've posted many times on this thread: the current situation is in the process of being changed (I'm happy about that, personally). But for the moment it *is* a law. Whether it's right or wrong is up for discussion, and *is* being discussed, but if the OP is concerned about not breaking the law s/he should not currently use the term architect.
My attitude towards the current state of things is to call yourself an architect in situations in which you aren't soliciting work. At parties etc. use the word architect with no further explanation. If someone then asks you to design a house for them, then you're under a legal responsibility to tell them you're not registered YET.
But don't put architect on business cards or letterhead or a website because there are stories every month of state boards sanctioning people for misrepresenting their architectural credentials.
NS, The point I was trying to make is that the schools should be turning out students who can be productive and contributory with a minimum of in-house training. If that is not the case the schools should be de-certified until they can turn out accomplished graduates. Said accomplished graduates should be welcomed into the fraternity, not shunned. All my engineer friends were calling each other engineers even as they worked toward their PE. Pilots in the Navy and USAF are given their wings after an intense 18 month period even though they are, at that point, not qualified to fly anything other than a training airplane. Why some people insist on crapping
On the newbies is hard to understand.
Since I've been apprenticing in an applied cognitive science field, I should start using the title Brain Architect. Why design buildings when you can design BRAINS?
Volunteer, knowing which buttons do what in sketch-up does not make one an architect. This is my issue with a sweeping change to the term. Some schools, probably most, produce decent graduates who will eventually complete the path to license but, given the high rate of enrolment, non-existent rate of failure and relative ease of the program, far too many sub-par students would also qualify for the same "architect" status. So what happens then, you attach your GPA score to your business cards too?
Schools teach students how to be functioning office workers. Those workers with better than average skills find their way to a license and out of those, a small group run their own practices. The rest complain loudly that they should get all the glory by default.
Donna, has it correct, this is about what to call yourself at parties. It's an ego thing, nothing more.
Volunteer, its very easy to understand..I can think of 3 main reasons
1. .title has become the main selling point for many (non-design/artistic) oriented firms. the profession has become obsolete in so many ways that its main value has become the fulfillment of state mandated stamping regulations which act to defer liability away from the state and other parties involved in construction process. This elevates the economic value of the stamping power over the "real" value of the art and science of architecture. Since architects have been striped of much influence over design by developers, there is little left to cling onto for the majority of architects. Of course the longer architects continue to reduce architecture to some red tape the more and more obsolete it will become.
2. Protectionism
3. The speed of technological advancement would make it nearly impossible for older architects to limit wages if not for the Idp carrot. Without that control over the youth, it would create a situation where the ball for salary negotiation would fall into the court of the young more often than not. Technology is not all that important with regards to architectural competence (art and science stuff) but it is very desirable with regards to productivity and the perception of the firm. Cheap labor is the main reason IMO...it always comes down to money. Sure newbies lack experience, but they also have certain skills that are being sold cheap-for Idp credit...a sort of Monopoly money that supplements real money.
Only 15% of the applicants to my school got in. It was known as the hardest undergrad major along with pre-vet med.
CD.Arch - you go for it. There are lots of interesting parallels between buildings and brains you can play off of. Actually, brains have an architecture, except instead of form follows function, function follows form. Cool, huh?
Non Sequitur, to your point about recent grads not knowing enough to use the term: NCARB's announcement about licensure-upon-graduation very specifically says that experience in firms would be integrated into the education. It wouldn't be a sudden change; curricula would need to be reconfigured and each state would need to accept the change.
This is a long slow process but the more we discuss it the closer to being a successful reality it becomes.
Did somebody say CRAZY PILLS ?
Guys,
EVERYONE who designs buildings are building designers. It isn't a protected title. Therefore if you are in a project design position in a firm where you have larger overall responsibility of designing the building as a whole vs. drafting door and window details. Some entry level positions of interns is really a draftman / draughtsman position. Look at your typical responsibility and say that.
Architects, your official title is that found on your license certificate and your stamp seal.
It maybe called Licensed Architect or Registered Architect. For the rest of us who are not licensed involved in a larger overall building design role can call themself building designers (to differentiate oneself from interior designer or landscape designer, or graphic designer). If your role is essentially making redline correction, assisting in setting up presentations which may include working on powerpoint presentation by putting the CAD drawings into the powerpoint and so forth then maybe your role is basically draftsman or draughtsman.
That role today is now involving more computer skills than it was 100 years ago. 100 years ago, that draughtsman used to involve rendering and model making. Especially those with a keen artistic side. Sometime you can say you are a draftsman and artist if you do work with renderings.
draughtsman position
Damn I like the sound of that - where do I apply? Free pints included in the pay?
Pints of orange juice.
Gonna throw this into the mix as one example (of 50) that might explain why this isn't cut and dry (or maybe it is...?)
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/049/chapter9/s9.171.html
What if I legally change my last name to architect? Then what? Huh? Huh? Lol.
Shouldn't post things when I'm this hungry...delirious....
Licensed architects trying to appropriate the term "architect" for their exclusive use is a lost cause. The cat is out of the bag. Deal with it. It is not so much that amateurs, unlicensed designers, or degreed university graduates working on their licenses are calling themselves architects - the public is calling them that. And doing so in accordance with most dictionary definitions. They don't give two s---- about Pennsylvania's arcane legalese.
Anyone who designs a building is an architect, period.
Practically, it's very grey.
When I was a Designer only, I felt more free to make things, draw things, imagine things. And I did! The period between graduation and licensure was one of the most creative of my life.
Once I became an Architect, I felt a greater sense of responsibility. Today, in a group creative exercise, for example, with the goal of developing strategies for how to make the city more vital/nimble, I find my Architect self being the naysayer. I know that if I am complicit in physical improvements to the built environment, then I am potentially responsible for these things. Any crazy idea that gets shared is not necessarily OK with me any more!
O, to be a Designer again!
Embrace it. If you're trained to design but aren't yet fully qualified to be held responsible for big, complicated things, how cool is that?!
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.