Why do architects use the AIA after thier names? It appears as a title or endorsement. In other professions, my husband's, for instance, it is unethical to use membership to a professional club as an endorsement as the general public is usually not aware of what this means.
Do you propose we just use RA - registered architect?
Neither one is that identifiable with the general populace. Never thought of it as a big deal since we mostly just use those titles in our own circle. When talking to a client I just call myself an architect.
I don't even call myself an architect most the time. I go to this chiropractor who cracks my back - and he is always calling himself Dr. So-n-so. I mean who does he think he's kidding?
i've done print and digital work for architects. this includes identity systems >> business cards, letterhead, etc. i believe they use AIA and FAIA as a validatation of their status. it is an ego thing. one client had several employees/partners. they all wanted AIA or FAIA on their card with the exception of one. he decided against it. he said, i don't need some organization to prop me up. i can stand on my own. i think he said it well. i've been told that most of my clients clients know who the AIA is. they just don't know how worthless the org is. what does the AIA really do for you? what ever you do, don't put NCARB on your business card. and yes, i've seen that too.
most people don't even know what "AIA" stands for. i just say i'm an architect and leave it at that. most people don't even know about the qualification process to become a registered architect (accred. school, internship, exam). most people think you can be an architect by doing a technical school certificate program.
The AIA encourages this. The AIA has radio and television commercials that imply to the general public that they can be better assured of a quality/qualified architect if they pick one with "AIA" after their name.
The AIA does have a code of ethics that covers a few more areas of practice than most state laws cover, and they do require a small amount of continuing education, which many states do not. Beyond this there's nothing to substantiate any difference in "quality." The AIA's commercials are misleading.
The last numbers I saw on AIA membership showed about 30% of all registered architects are not AIA members.
Many do use "RA" or "Registered Architect" on their cards.
Others use nothing but their names. My office allows no titles or credentials on cards.
It's simply a commercial for the AIA.
If you actually performed the work for the required NCARB TU's than certainly the reality is that having NCARB after your name should hold more weight than AIA letters. Anyone can an buy AIA once they are licensed. And to maintian your status of AIA is by self testing
what a joke. I don't know what the fees are per year for the AIA but for some of us it is tough to justify.
e, how is a qualified 'validation of status' an 'ego thing'? granted, the aia is just a back-scratching old boys club, but after 7 years of schooling costing over $200k, 3 years of interning, and a rigorous examination, i think some sort of title is in order. maybe if we all start consistently using "RA" people will begin to understand the significance of registration, similar to how "MD" has come to carry a significant amount of weight.
then again, when people are sick they know what a doctor can do for them. when people get tired of their crappy houses they usually buy a bigger crappy house. maybe if more architects played the role of developer and more "building" became "architecture," we wouldn't need to worry about being under-appreciated.
i think that mentality is, generally, pretty endemic of architects. which is to say that when most of us get out of school we get employed at a big firm and do what they tell us to do for a (frequently high) number of years. i suppose these people come to think of themselves as "masters" of their trade.
however, the best of us are out there doing everything they can to make a name for themselves and get their designs into the world, through competition entries, publications, teaching, lecturing, pro bono, commissioned design-build, and, yes, even architect-as-devleoper situations. my opinion is that those who take on more tasks and wear more hats (architect, graphic designer, developer, politician...) do more, learn more and thus become better at everything they do.
so the way i see it is more: architect as developer - master of understanding (and controlling, to some extent) all the necessary "trades" involved in shaping the built environment. after all, wouldn't you prefer a home designed by a proactive architect than some house a non-architecturally-trained developer threw together using a stock floor plan magazine?
More than once, I have had prospective clients ask me, "are you AIA?". It is as simple as this, I use AIA (on business cards, proposals and such) because the general public (read: Clients) think that it means "registered architect". They don't know that it is basically a club, they think that it is akin to a doctor having the "MD" moniker.
And no, it is not an ego thing (for me), there are plenty of reasons that architects have giant egos, and I doubt that "AIA" is high on the list.
So if I am balking at joining the AIA, I should just buck up, sell out and do it? Seems reasonable...
I do find it alarming that other professions find this very thing unethical and the AIA has found a way to make it seem highly credulous. Another reason AIA is actually against my morals and ethics...
Tell ya what, I'll start a new club, Architects Extraordinaire. To join, send me $25 (way cheaper than AIA). Uh, send it before Christmas, I need cash.
it's not like you throw down an "AIA" when you introduce yourself. i do agree that it is sad that so many people equate it with "registered architect" but that can just be added to the pile of misconceptions the general public has about being an architect. maybe i don't have enough experience to understand the benefits/detriments of the AIA, but really, i don't understand why it is thought of as this evil corporation.
why would it be unethical to publicly claim association with a group of people in your professional sphere?
and with the "self testing"...aren't continuing education units required in most states in order to maintain licensure?
why is the AIA so bad?
maybe Strawberry, the questions should not be"What has the AIA done for you lately" but instead be "What has the AIA not done and what do you expect them to do for the money you spend in joining their club?"
Mission Statement: The American Institute of Architects is the voice of the architecture profession dedicated to:
Serving its members
Advancing their value
Improving the quality of the built environment
Vision Statement: Through a culture of innovation, The American Institute of Architects empowers its members and inspires creation of a better built environment.
My old FAIA boss once told me, "Gussy, you jackass, architecture is a business not an art. The AIA is all about developing business, public safety, and making money. I don't want to hear about any artsy fartsy, experiential, existential, meaning b]ll sh!t how someone ejaculates at the blinding insight of a design. Get with the AIA or get out the door". Exact quote! Shortly after that pleasant little vein popping speach, he went out of business.
He received FAIA because he was on so many committees (everyone knew he was bucking for FAIA) they finally gave him the "F".
The AIA hasn't done anything for me, I'm not a member, and in our firm we don't use any titles, initials or other credentials on our cards and letterheads - just names.
But Strawbeary: I'm curious about in which professions it's unethical to use professional organizations as credentials. I see so a lot of other professionals that use them - i.e. my dentist has "Member ADA since 19XX" on his cards, our consultants have the initials of their respective engineer's societies and the various interior design organizations on their cards, and even the person who occasionally cleans my house has the initials of a local domestic workers' club/advocacy group on her card.
Who is not allowed to use these organizations? Doctors? Attorneys?
My hubby is in the psychology field.
He says is unethical to use it after your name like MD or PHd - like a degree or a credential. He uses BS (his degree) I think it's ok to say "member of yada yada" on your business card cause then you are saying it is a membership to a club. But now that you point it out, Aluminate, it seems likes lots of professions might use it in this "unethical" manner in which I speak.
I think I see PE behind consulting engineers names. I like this.
The architects in my firm use AIA after thier name EVERYWHERE! They don't sign thier name without it. E-mail, informal notes to people that aren't clients etc. I think it's wierd. Maybe they are not the norm, that's what I'm trying to figure out here.
I can get the degree, do the IDP, take the exam, get a license and then I am an architect. (I am intern now) Then I can pay the AIA some moneys and then I am a better architect? The problem I have with using the title is all you do to get it is pay for it.
I guess the AIA advertises for architects. This is good.
Aluminate, why are you not a member?
What kind of undesirable situations do non-AIA architects find themselves in? Do they lose jobs because of this? Where do they get thier contracts from? Do they not stand up in court as well or something?
Repeat clients, that develope and build on a regular basis,seem to understand the difference. All their concerned about is that you are registered within the state you are doing business. However, it concerns me, when a potential client who may only have need for an architect once or periodicly calls to schedule an appointment, then asks based on their internet research, if I'm AIA. I then go into explaining that its just a fraturnal organization and has nothing to do with if an architect is registered or not.
Ok, I stand corrected. My state is the party that requires PDU's (professional developement units.) The AIA does create opportunities to earn these. Also as a member you have access to AIA documents for whatever it worth
I think this thread is meandering a bit. There are two separate veins of thought at work here that need to be addressed individually.
1. Are architects entitled to a lettered credential(e.g. MD PE SE) based on the level of education, rigorous internship and gauntlet of exams they must take? (I say yes).
2. Is it proper for “AIA†to be that lettered credential? (I say no – but that’s currently the way it is).
I see it more as an interesting cultural quirk, rather than something grossly unethical, or as some evil contrivance by AIA bureaucrats. Die-hard AIA supporters are rare. Most people just want some way to communicate their level of professional development quickly and professionally.
Mr. Nixon is the model you people should follow. He communicates a certain level of "professional development".
I hear the AIA will bring out a level above the FAIA and Mr. Nixon will be the first recipient. It will be called the FFAIA. Don't ask what the first "F" stands for.
1. I'm a sole practitioner, not AIA because I can't afford the dues.
2. I have had more than one client ask me if I am AIA. I feel guilty when I explain why not.
3. The AIA here is very active:
-the monthly program is usually a tour of a new project or a session which is good toward continuing ed.
-they sponsor pro bono design assistance in which teams of members and local students get together for charrettes to help communities or nonprofits (Kentucky Design Assistance Team or KyDAT)
-they sponsor active associate/intern members, offering free membership to one to three interns a year
-they send architects out into elementary and high schools to do introduction to architecture programs, to introduce them to thinking about the built environment, spatial thinking, and critical thinking
-they sponsor an annual tour of houses by architects, very popular, from which all proceeds go to Habitat for Humanity
-they publish a quarterly newsletter with news about recent projects, updates on new legislation and state regs., book reviews, etc.
-they support the local universities (University of Kentucky and University of Louisville) through scholarships and studio sponsorship
If I had the money, I'd rejoin. I used to be a co-editor of the newsletter and I've participated in several KyDAT's. The AIA is only as good as the members willing to get involved with it. It's not just a 'they', at least not at the local level.
AIA is definitely misleading! It is misleading the general public to think AIA equal to RA, so you have to pay the fee to become a member to valid yourself. It's ridiculous that architect with such a low salary has to pay over $200 per year to maintain his status? Not mention all the activities all marked with prices for members and no members. After NCARB fee, exam fees, it seems never ending.
AIA gives me the impression instead of promoting architects, helping them to make more money, or interactions between architects, all they do is trying to squeeze money out of poor architects. Why do we need an organization do these to us? And all the members support them by joining the club. I think they should spend more time promote architects, help them to stick to architecture fee of 10% of construction fee instead of only 5 to 6% a lot of firm charge. Help to provide more mentorship for young architects, organize more free tour of the buildings around, and promote interactions between architects and related trades.
I put RA on my card. I think we should reject AIA concept if they fail to protect our own benefit.
Dec 2, 04 3:23 pm ·
·
I was a member of the AIA for one year (1998), and all I can say they did was sell my fax number, thus I still receive fax calls at odd hours. Annoying to say the least.
And don't you just love the idea of an organization where you have to pay hundreds of dollars just so you can do volunteer work?
Strawbeary: I can't think of any way that not being a member could put one in a bad situation or cause any problems - unless perhaps one is representing him/herself as an AIA member and the AIA gets word of it and feels like pursuing the matter.
What I can say is that some clients start their search for an architect by visiting the AIA or its websites (probably in part because of the advertising that the AIA puts out), and in that case a non-member would probably not get their business. I think though that clients who find architects this way are a small minority. Most private clients find their architect through word of mouth - i.e. a reference from an acquaintance or familiarity with the architect's local work. Larger clients don't generally approach architects one at a time through this type of search...
As for contracts: the AIA sells all of their contracts and other publications to non-members - though they charge a higher fee than for members. In my firm we purchase certain AIA contract forms but there are other contracts for which we have our own standard which differs from the AIA's forms. We have been told by our attorney that in legal disputes involving architects the AIA's standards and contracts are often used as examples of the "professional standard of care" regardless of whether that particular architect or firm used these documents.
ah, the smell of another 'aia sucks' post beaten into the ground...
let's try to answer a few questions raised throughout the verbal assaults:
1. how did it become customary for architects to use 'aia' behind their name, as opposed to something else? from a historical perspective, there was, once upon a time, something like 90% of all architects who were members of aia. it was just the thing that was done, in the same way that doctors just joined the ama or lawyers the bar. that the aia membership ranks have shrunken over the past two decades, especially among younger practitioners, hasn't gone unnoticed by the powers that be. 'aia' is a convention that, whether you agree or not, has successfully penetrated the public conciousness. it will probably maintain that position for quite a while longer. personally, i think using 'ra' is a perfectly reasonable substitute and know many people who use that designation. most people can figure out what it means.
2. 'what has the aia done for me lately?' - well, i can't answer that. what i can say is that the aia is the only (and i mean only) organized group representing architects that has any political clout in washington (limited as it is), is the primary face of the profession to countless lay people, including many in the business world, and is the only advocate for many of the issues that have been outlined above. what they are is a professional trade group - they represent their membership in a variety of ways (maybe some that are more public and/or successful than others - steven's list above is pretty typical of most local groups).
what the aia is not, and has never claimed to be, is a group that can force the marketplace to set fees (they actually did use to informally do this and were sued by good old richard nixon into near bankruptcy), nor can they impose standards by which 'great design' is metered out like starbucks coffee, nor can they possibly hope to represent the ambitions of every individual architect in this wide crazy country. they don't dole out money, better commissions, or better clients to their members. they can't correct the stock market, change your underwear in the morning or brush your teeth. so what? if you'd like them to do something that they don't (tours, better mentorship, etc.), say so. you might be surprised who listens.
the bottom line for me is that, whatever their flaws, we as a profession are far better off with it than without. for that reason alone, i can defend my own membership.
for the record, i will be sitting on the national aia young architects board next year. so, consider this an open offer to give constructive suggestions about how the aia can better serve interns and 'young' architects, either through programs, intitatives, or whatever. bitching and moaning is something we're all great at - i'm looking for input that will, i promise, be made heard at the highest levels of the organization.
g-love: interesting post - I'm curious as to where you're getting your information regarding percentages of architects who are AIA members. I recently read "How Architecture Works" which was published about 15 years ago. It has a brief section on the history of the AIA and if I remember correctly it states that at the time that the book was written something like 60% or 65% of architects were AIA members (and there's also a section about women in the profession that states that 10% or so of AIA members at that time were women.) It also discusses the founding of the AIA and that at the point that the AIA moved to Washington DC (at some point in the early 1900s) that there were only a few hundred members. The AIA these days estimates that about 70% of registered architects are AIA members (they're not really sure on an exact figure because there is no national registry of architects. Since many are registered in multiple states it is difficult to determine a number of inidividual architects.)
So: I was under the impression that the percentage of architects that are AIA members was actually on the rise.
lflh - percentages are mostly mine based off of various data:
aia pegs the total number of licensed architects in the u.s. at roughly 91,000. a univ. of cincy study pegged it closer to 120,000.
the number of aia members who are licensed is app. 57,600. so if you use the aia numbers, approximately 63% of all u.s. architects are members. if you use the cincy baseline, it's less than half. in georgia, right at half of the licensed architects are members. our numbers have declined very slightly over the past couple of years but are higher than 10 years ago. the 70% number that aia uses is closer to their total membership, which includes associates and non-professional members. i didn't see anything in the data i have about the membership percentage rising or falling. i'll take your word about it rising.
the 90% # came from some historical data and, if i remember correctly, was the percentages just shortly after wwii. don't quote me on that one - it's been a while. the reason that there were only a few hundred architects early into the organization is probably due to the fact that there were very few 'licensed' architects at that time, not a whole lot of architects period, and it was still mostly a northeastern dominated group.
what is interesting (and scary for aia) is that the number of architects who are licensed and who qualify as 'young' (10 years or less of licensure) is roughly 40-45% of the current total in the u.s., yet that group makes up only 10-12% of the current aia membership. this number (of young architects joining) is not rising quickly either, certainly not at a pace that would suggest 60-70 percent of the 'young' architects will join anytime soon. it'll be interesting to see what the makeup of the organization is 10 years from now.
Thank you, g-love (and butterballs far above) for adding more "light" to the mostly "heat" generated above.
I confess to initiating one of those "aia sucks" threads a while back, though I wasn't quite so harsh. I've almost joined half a dozen times, but each time halted just when I had to write that (nearly) $500 check for the 3-tier membership in the LA chapter. I will join eventually, for the oft-cited reason of near-universal recognition of "aia" as shorthand for "registered architect." Maybe when that massive inheritance finally comes through....
Dec 4, 04 7:10 pm ·
·
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.
Your Name, AIA
Why do architects use the AIA after thier names? It appears as a title or endorsement. In other professions, my husband's, for instance, it is unethical to use membership to a professional club as an endorsement as the general public is usually not aware of what this means.
Do you propose we just use RA - registered architect?
Neither one is that identifiable with the general populace. Never thought of it as a big deal since we mostly just use those titles in our own circle. When talking to a client I just call myself an architect.
I don't even call myself an architect most the time. I go to this chiropractor who cracks my back - and he is always calling himself Dr. So-n-so. I mean who does he think he's kidding?
Half of the people in arch school think that AIA means RA.
99 of people that aren't architects think this kissy_face. that's my point.
what do non AIA architects use?
99% that is
i've done print and digital work for architects. this includes identity systems >> business cards, letterhead, etc. i believe they use AIA and FAIA as a validatation of their status. it is an ego thing. one client had several employees/partners. they all wanted AIA or FAIA on their card with the exception of one. he decided against it. he said, i don't need some organization to prop me up. i can stand on my own. i think he said it well. i've been told that most of my clients clients know who the AIA is. they just don't know how worthless the org is. what does the AIA really do for you? what ever you do, don't put NCARB on your business card. and yes, i've seen that too.
most people don't even know what "AIA" stands for. i just say i'm an architect and leave it at that. most people don't even know about the qualification process to become a registered architect (accred. school, internship, exam). most people think you can be an architect by doing a technical school certificate program.
Is belonging to the AIA considered a credential?
The AIA encourages this. The AIA has radio and television commercials that imply to the general public that they can be better assured of a quality/qualified architect if they pick one with "AIA" after their name.
The AIA does have a code of ethics that covers a few more areas of practice than most state laws cover, and they do require a small amount of continuing education, which many states do not. Beyond this there's nothing to substantiate any difference in "quality." The AIA's commercials are misleading.
The last numbers I saw on AIA membership showed about 30% of all registered architects are not AIA members.
Many do use "RA" or "Registered Architect" on their cards.
Others use nothing but their names. My office allows no titles or credentials on cards.
It's a branding
It's simply a commercial for the AIA.
If you actually performed the work for the required NCARB TU's than certainly the reality is that having NCARB after your name should hold more weight than AIA letters. Anyone can an buy AIA once they are licensed. And to maintian your status of AIA is by self testing
what a joke. I don't know what the fees are per year for the AIA but for some of us it is tough to justify.
e, how is a qualified 'validation of status' an 'ego thing'? granted, the aia is just a back-scratching old boys club, but after 7 years of schooling costing over $200k, 3 years of interning, and a rigorous examination, i think some sort of title is in order. maybe if we all start consistently using "RA" people will begin to understand the significance of registration, similar to how "MD" has come to carry a significant amount of weight.
then again, when people are sick they know what a doctor can do for them. when people get tired of their crappy houses they usually buy a bigger crappy house. maybe if more architects played the role of developer and more "building" became "architecture," we wouldn't need to worry about being under-appreciated.
i think once i'm licensed, i'll use "joed, architect extraordinaire"
Architect as developer - Jack of all trades, master of none?
i think that mentality is, generally, pretty endemic of architects. which is to say that when most of us get out of school we get employed at a big firm and do what they tell us to do for a (frequently high) number of years. i suppose these people come to think of themselves as "masters" of their trade.
however, the best of us are out there doing everything they can to make a name for themselves and get their designs into the world, through competition entries, publications, teaching, lecturing, pro bono, commissioned design-build, and, yes, even architect-as-devleoper situations. my opinion is that those who take on more tasks and wear more hats (architect, graphic designer, developer, politician...) do more, learn more and thus become better at everything they do.
so the way i see it is more: architect as developer - master of understanding (and controlling, to some extent) all the necessary "trades" involved in shaping the built environment. after all, wouldn't you prefer a home designed by a proactive architect than some house a non-architecturally-trained developer threw together using a stock floor plan magazine?
-joed
many-hat-wearing-architect-in-training extraordinaire
How About:
John Doe, Architect Extraordinaire
Nothing confusing about that!
John Doe, World-Class Designer
You wouldn't even have to pass the ARE!
The tag, AIA, is a bunch of ......
And now that I think of it, maybe the name a person was given at birth is a bunch of ......
John Doe, Kick Ass Architect
More than once, I have had prospective clients ask me, "are you AIA?". It is as simple as this, I use AIA (on business cards, proposals and such) because the general public (read: Clients) think that it means "registered architect". They don't know that it is basically a club, they think that it is akin to a doctor having the "MD" moniker.
And no, it is not an ego thing (for me), there are plenty of reasons that architects have giant egos, and I doubt that "AIA" is high on the list.
So if I am balking at joining the AIA, I should just buck up, sell out and do it? Seems reasonable...
I do find it alarming that other professions find this very thing unethical and the AIA has found a way to make it seem highly credulous. Another reason AIA is actually against my morals and ethics...
Tell ya what, I'll start a new club, Architects Extraordinaire. To join, send me $25 (way cheaper than AIA). Uh, send it before Christmas, I need cash.
it's not like you throw down an "AIA" when you introduce yourself. i do agree that it is sad that so many people equate it with "registered architect" but that can just be added to the pile of misconceptions the general public has about being an architect. maybe i don't have enough experience to understand the benefits/detriments of the AIA, but really, i don't understand why it is thought of as this evil corporation.
why would it be unethical to publicly claim association with a group of people in your professional sphere?
and with the "self testing"...aren't continuing education units required in most states in order to maintain licensure?
why is the AIA so bad?
Strawbeary:
How about changing that name to Fabulous Architects In America.
Then everyone will be FAIA!
$25.00 in the mail.
YES, Gustav, I will give you 25% of the dues I collect and you are now Vice Pres!
I would like to hear some answers to steph's question. What has the AIA done for you lately? How bout some of you older and wiser archinecters?
The only answer I ever get to this question is that we get to use thier contract documents. Good answer, but I want more.
maybe Strawberry, the questions should not be"What has the AIA done for you lately" but instead be "What has the AIA not done and what do you expect them to do for the money you spend in joining their club?"
what are they supposed to do?
Mission Statement: The American Institute of Architects is the voice of the architecture profession dedicated to:
Serving its members
Advancing their value
Improving the quality of the built environment
Vision Statement: Through a culture of innovation, The American Institute of Architects empowers its members and inspires creation of a better built environment.
My old FAIA boss once told me, "Gussy, you jackass, architecture is a business not an art. The AIA is all about developing business, public safety, and making money. I don't want to hear about any artsy fartsy, experiential, existential, meaning b]ll sh!t how someone ejaculates at the blinding insight of a design. Get with the AIA or get out the door". Exact quote! Shortly after that pleasant little vein popping speach, he went out of business.
He received FAIA because he was on so many committees (everyone knew he was bucking for FAIA) they finally gave him the "F".
The AIA hasn't done anything for me, I'm not a member, and in our firm we don't use any titles, initials or other credentials on our cards and letterheads - just names.
But Strawbeary: I'm curious about in which professions it's unethical to use professional organizations as credentials. I see so a lot of other professionals that use them - i.e. my dentist has "Member ADA since 19XX" on his cards, our consultants have the initials of their respective engineer's societies and the various interior design organizations on their cards, and even the person who occasionally cleans my house has the initials of a local domestic workers' club/advocacy group on her card.
Who is not allowed to use these organizations? Doctors? Attorneys?
My hubby is in the psychology field.
He says is unethical to use it after your name like MD or PHd - like a degree or a credential. He uses BS (his degree) I think it's ok to say "member of yada yada" on your business card cause then you are saying it is a membership to a club. But now that you point it out, Aluminate, it seems likes lots of professions might use it in this "unethical" manner in which I speak.
I think I see PE behind consulting engineers names. I like this.
The architects in my firm use AIA after thier name EVERYWHERE! They don't sign thier name without it. E-mail, informal notes to people that aren't clients etc. I think it's wierd. Maybe they are not the norm, that's what I'm trying to figure out here.
I can get the degree, do the IDP, take the exam, get a license and then I am an architect. (I am intern now) Then I can pay the AIA some moneys and then I am a better architect? The problem I have with using the title is all you do to get it is pay for it.
I guess the AIA advertises for architects. This is good.
Aluminate, why are you not a member?
What kind of undesirable situations do non-AIA architects find themselves in? Do they lose jobs because of this? Where do they get thier contracts from? Do they not stand up in court as well or something?
Repeat clients, that develope and build on a regular basis,seem to understand the difference. All their concerned about is that you are registered within the state you are doing business. However, it concerns me, when a potential client who may only have need for an architect once or periodicly calls to schedule an appointment, then asks based on their internet research, if I'm AIA. I then go into explaining that its just a fraturnal organization and has nothing to do with if an architect is registered or not.
Ok, I stand corrected. My state is the party that requires PDU's (professional developement units.) The AIA does create opportunities to earn these. Also as a member you have access to AIA documents for whatever it worth
I think this thread is meandering a bit. There are two separate veins of thought at work here that need to be addressed individually.
1. Are architects entitled to a lettered credential(e.g. MD PE SE) based on the level of education, rigorous internship and gauntlet of exams they must take? (I say yes).
2. Is it proper for “AIA†to be that lettered credential? (I say no – but that’s currently the way it is).
I see it more as an interesting cultural quirk, rather than something grossly unethical, or as some evil contrivance by AIA bureaucrats. Die-hard AIA supporters are rare. Most people just want some way to communicate their level of professional development quickly and professionally.
Need I say More.........?
Sorry! Try This
philip rk nixon!
what a chode.
thanks for bringing that back
I like to think he never left.
The omnipresent Master of the AIA.
Mr. Nixon is the model you people should follow. He communicates a certain level of "professional development".
I hear the AIA will bring out a level above the FAIA and Mr. Nixon will be the first recipient. It will be called the FFAIA. Don't ask what the first "F" stands for.
In answer to some of these questions:
1. I'm a sole practitioner, not AIA because I can't afford the dues.
2. I have had more than one client ask me if I am AIA. I feel guilty when I explain why not.
3. The AIA here is very active:
-the monthly program is usually a tour of a new project or a session which is good toward continuing ed.
-they sponsor pro bono design assistance in which teams of members and local students get together for charrettes to help communities or nonprofits (Kentucky Design Assistance Team or KyDAT)
-they sponsor active associate/intern members, offering free membership to one to three interns a year
-they send architects out into elementary and high schools to do introduction to architecture programs, to introduce them to thinking about the built environment, spatial thinking, and critical thinking
-they sponsor an annual tour of houses by architects, very popular, from which all proceeds go to Habitat for Humanity
-they publish a quarterly newsletter with news about recent projects, updates on new legislation and state regs., book reviews, etc.
-they support the local universities (University of Kentucky and University of Louisville) through scholarships and studio sponsorship
If I had the money, I'd rejoin. I used to be a co-editor of the newsletter and I've participated in several KyDAT's. The AIA is only as good as the members willing to get involved with it. It's not just a 'they', at least not at the local level.
AIA is definitely misleading! It is misleading the general public to think AIA equal to RA, so you have to pay the fee to become a member to valid yourself. It's ridiculous that architect with such a low salary has to pay over $200 per year to maintain his status? Not mention all the activities all marked with prices for members and no members. After NCARB fee, exam fees, it seems never ending.
AIA gives me the impression instead of promoting architects, helping them to make more money, or interactions between architects, all they do is trying to squeeze money out of poor architects. Why do we need an organization do these to us? And all the members support them by joining the club. I think they should spend more time promote architects, help them to stick to architecture fee of 10% of construction fee instead of only 5 to 6% a lot of firm charge. Help to provide more mentorship for young architects, organize more free tour of the buildings around, and promote interactions between architects and related trades.
I put RA on my card. I think we should reject AIA concept if they fail to protect our own benefit.
I was a member of the AIA for one year (1998), and all I can say they did was sell my fax number, thus I still receive fax calls at odd hours. Annoying to say the least.
And don't you just love the idea of an organization where you have to pay hundreds of dollars just so you can do volunteer work?
Strawbeary: I can't think of any way that not being a member could put one in a bad situation or cause any problems - unless perhaps one is representing him/herself as an AIA member and the AIA gets word of it and feels like pursuing the matter.
What I can say is that some clients start their search for an architect by visiting the AIA or its websites (probably in part because of the advertising that the AIA puts out), and in that case a non-member would probably not get their business. I think though that clients who find architects this way are a small minority. Most private clients find their architect through word of mouth - i.e. a reference from an acquaintance or familiarity with the architect's local work. Larger clients don't generally approach architects one at a time through this type of search...
As for contracts: the AIA sells all of their contracts and other publications to non-members - though they charge a higher fee than for members. In my firm we purchase certain AIA contract forms but there are other contracts for which we have our own standard which differs from the AIA's forms. We have been told by our attorney that in legal disputes involving architects the AIA's standards and contracts are often used as examples of the "professional standard of care" regardless of whether that particular architect or firm used these documents.
ah, the smell of another 'aia sucks' post beaten into the ground...
let's try to answer a few questions raised throughout the verbal assaults:
1. how did it become customary for architects to use 'aia' behind their name, as opposed to something else? from a historical perspective, there was, once upon a time, something like 90% of all architects who were members of aia. it was just the thing that was done, in the same way that doctors just joined the ama or lawyers the bar. that the aia membership ranks have shrunken over the past two decades, especially among younger practitioners, hasn't gone unnoticed by the powers that be. 'aia' is a convention that, whether you agree or not, has successfully penetrated the public conciousness. it will probably maintain that position for quite a while longer. personally, i think using 'ra' is a perfectly reasonable substitute and know many people who use that designation. most people can figure out what it means.
2. 'what has the aia done for me lately?' - well, i can't answer that. what i can say is that the aia is the only (and i mean only) organized group representing architects that has any political clout in washington (limited as it is), is the primary face of the profession to countless lay people, including many in the business world, and is the only advocate for many of the issues that have been outlined above. what they are is a professional trade group - they represent their membership in a variety of ways (maybe some that are more public and/or successful than others - steven's list above is pretty typical of most local groups).
what the aia is not, and has never claimed to be, is a group that can force the marketplace to set fees (they actually did use to informally do this and were sued by good old richard nixon into near bankruptcy), nor can they impose standards by which 'great design' is metered out like starbucks coffee, nor can they possibly hope to represent the ambitions of every individual architect in this wide crazy country. they don't dole out money, better commissions, or better clients to their members. they can't correct the stock market, change your underwear in the morning or brush your teeth. so what? if you'd like them to do something that they don't (tours, better mentorship, etc.), say so. you might be surprised who listens.
the bottom line for me is that, whatever their flaws, we as a profession are far better off with it than without. for that reason alone, i can defend my own membership.
for the record, i will be sitting on the national aia young architects board next year. so, consider this an open offer to give constructive suggestions about how the aia can better serve interns and 'young' architects, either through programs, intitatives, or whatever. bitching and moaning is something we're all great at - i'm looking for input that will, i promise, be made heard at the highest levels of the organization.
g-love: interesting post - I'm curious as to where you're getting your information regarding percentages of architects who are AIA members. I recently read "How Architecture Works" which was published about 15 years ago. It has a brief section on the history of the AIA and if I remember correctly it states that at the time that the book was written something like 60% or 65% of architects were AIA members (and there's also a section about women in the profession that states that 10% or so of AIA members at that time were women.) It also discusses the founding of the AIA and that at the point that the AIA moved to Washington DC (at some point in the early 1900s) that there were only a few hundred members. The AIA these days estimates that about 70% of registered architects are AIA members (they're not really sure on an exact figure because there is no national registry of architects. Since many are registered in multiple states it is difficult to determine a number of inidividual architects.)
So: I was under the impression that the percentage of architects that are AIA members was actually on the rise.
I think the better endorsement is the alum e-mail....for instance
Fancy architects inc.
111 mod ave. NY NY
[email protected]
lflh - percentages are mostly mine based off of various data:
aia pegs the total number of licensed architects in the u.s. at roughly 91,000. a univ. of cincy study pegged it closer to 120,000.
the number of aia members who are licensed is app. 57,600. so if you use the aia numbers, approximately 63% of all u.s. architects are members. if you use the cincy baseline, it's less than half. in georgia, right at half of the licensed architects are members. our numbers have declined very slightly over the past couple of years but are higher than 10 years ago. the 70% number that aia uses is closer to their total membership, which includes associates and non-professional members. i didn't see anything in the data i have about the membership percentage rising or falling. i'll take your word about it rising.
the 90% # came from some historical data and, if i remember correctly, was the percentages just shortly after wwii. don't quote me on that one - it's been a while. the reason that there were only a few hundred architects early into the organization is probably due to the fact that there were very few 'licensed' architects at that time, not a whole lot of architects period, and it was still mostly a northeastern dominated group.
what is interesting (and scary for aia) is that the number of architects who are licensed and who qualify as 'young' (10 years or less of licensure) is roughly 40-45% of the current total in the u.s., yet that group makes up only 10-12% of the current aia membership. this number (of young architects joining) is not rising quickly either, certainly not at a pace that would suggest 60-70 percent of the 'young' architects will join anytime soon. it'll be interesting to see what the makeup of the organization is 10 years from now.
Thank you, g-love (and butterballs far above) for adding more "light" to the mostly "heat" generated above.
I confess to initiating one of those "aia sucks" threads a while back, though I wasn't quite so harsh. I've almost joined half a dozen times, but each time halted just when I had to write that (nearly) $500 check for the 3-tier membership in the LA chapter. I will join eventually, for the oft-cited reason of near-universal recognition of "aia" as shorthand for "registered architect." Maybe when that massive inheritance finally comes through....
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.