I think that taking a "realistic view of what architects do" is what leads to these sorts of questions in the first place.

Any building designed by a drafter, engineer or contractor directly is generally pretty damn awful. That being said, it is clearly part of the problems of the architectural role itself that nobody can pinpoint very well its usefulness. As Feynman said: "what I cannot create, I do not understand."

I agree, it takes a designer to design, and that is exactly "why we need architects"  To Design well.  why is this such a naughty word.  design is an amazing thing, without it life would pretty much suck.  Everything would look like Gilbert Arizona.   

so im all for that middle ground between science and art...that area "to gay for engineers and contractors to venture and too straight for fashion designers..."  This is the area no one else can/will touch.   ID's got this down.  take notes from them. 

by ID I mean Industrial Designers. 

The license isn't what makes architects useful - it's the combination of their design skills (which actually do matter to most client) and their experience and knowledge of getting things built. Ideally an architect is knows both, but realistically most lean towards one side or the other. Except for the occasional fool, clients know which they're looking for.

The clients who hire architects only because they need something stamped aren't looking for the skills good architects provide and tend to be a bad basis for an architect's business. I don't know why anyone would focus on them.