I became aware of my state's registration law during my school days, when the executive director of the state board for the registration of architects came to my college and lectured about the law, licensure, and the examination. He related an account of an unlicensed individual who did design, and had placed the title of ARCHITECT under his name on the sign, and naturally, the state board cited him and made him remove the sign; this was my first exposure to this issue, and this account helped me to understand the issue very clearly. However, from that point on, whenever people referred to me as an architect, I always winced, and became fearful. I would try to say that I was a student, and of course, later on, I would say I was an intern architect, etc. Many times, I could not address it. I did some community activites/work through the AIA shortly after I began my internship, which got a lot of attention from the media, and - you guessed it - I was known as an 'architect' - in the local news and papers, along with other AIA Associates. This became so troubling for me that I went to the state board and met with the very same executive director - a very gracious and understanding man, who told me to write a letter to the board explaining my situation, how I was seeking to always honor the law, but couldn't help circumstances like these. This I did, and for several years I rested in the peace of mind and the executive director's word which was his bond. Naturally, I was very sad when he passed, but I was hopeful that things would remain the same - which they did for a season of time.
However, one day one of my fellow AIA associates, who was very involved with the AIA, related to me that the state council had discussed the issue concerning interns and the title of 'architect', and that they came to a consensus and felt as though it was OK for interns/associates to become informally known as 'architects' during events, etc., in instances with the public (charrettes, etc.). You could imagine my shock at hearing this, but even so, I still held to the position that I was not an architect. However, I saw this new interpretation being played out on more than one occasion - a well-known Architect in our city saw my family at lunch, and the husband introduced me as an architect. Later, during a charrette, I was introduced as an architect to the neighborhood group we were doing the work for. I still was not persuaded that I should begin referring to myself that way. Confused? You bet.
A few years later, I received a certified letter in the mail from the state board - a large manilla packet. I wondered if it was information about the exam, or other ephemera - to my shock, however, - it was a letter informing me that I was being served a notice of an alleged violation of the registration law! Within were 3 copies of media articles where I was referred to as an architect. Of the 3 articles (which were about preservation, urban design, and residential design), I recalled one article I was interviewed for, but concerning the other 2, I wasn't even interviewed at all - in each instance though, I was always careful to explain who I was (non-registrant). I wrote a letter to the board explaining that I can help how I refer to myself, but I cannot help how others may refer to me. The board did clear me, but in their reply I was warned about how more severe the consequences would be if this happened again. Beyond confused......I was absolutely furious!!! Who wouldn't be?
Can you imagine how I felt when a firm principal told me that he refers to his unlicensed graduates/staff as architects?
Dear Reader, this sort of thing doesn't happen here in America, does it?
I'm starting to doubt all this a bit, based on the recent barrage of similar topics, but: if a third party refers to one as an architect, without one calling oneself that, then one just needs to inform the state board of that. This happens now and then - reporters using the term as a catch-all, and then someone with an agenda or obsession with regulations reporting it. There was a case out west - Colorado or Arizona I think - a few years ago where some candidate for selectboard or mayor somewhere got reported for calling himself "architect" at a public meeting, because he'd studied architecture, but was unlicensed - that went to court and the end result was that the board was told they could not regulate the word in that meaning/setting as it wasn't an example of unlicensed practice or offering services, it was a person describing their training or background.
If you're that concerned about what your employer is calling you, write an email to your employer with your concerns. That way, even if the employer persists in misidentifying you, you've got the email as proof that you weren't complicit, if somebody ever reports you again.
Jun 28, 18 1:24 pm ·
·
Shaw
Good advice, Threesleeves; what I want, though, is to not ever have to deal with it anymore. Might not be possible.....
.
it becomes a problem when you advertise having a credential you don't have to potential clients. i know you're not going to say on the forums here that you were doing that, and it's possible you may even believe you're not doing that, but it seems there is an appearance that you are.
for all your attempts to be clear that you're not a licensed architect, it sure sounds like you're trying really hard to associate yourself with the title.
Curtkram - you'll just have to take my word for it that I have not advertised or presented myself as an architect. You are correct that I believe that all of those individuals, including myself, who have completed step one of the journey, should be able to be known as 'architects'. For that matter, members of architecture faculty who have earned 1-3 degrees should be known as 'architects'. They earned which degree(s)? and they teach what major? Yes, this is why I'm posting on the subject here.
Miles, you're participating - it must mean something to you, or you wouldn't have stopped by. Maybe you should look at Archinect as being a welcoming place for posting as many or few threads as one likes, without trying to bully or shame others. You can think what you like, and say what you like, but I don't owe you anything.
Jun 30, 18 12:20 am ·
·
curtkram
for what it's worth, the establishment (me) isn't going to help you change the world because we don't want it to change. it's not that we aren't listening, it's that we don't agree with you.
Jun 30, 18 9:35 am ·
·
joseffischer
For what it's worth, that's the shortest RickB post I've ever seen. Still just as confused as normal about it though, so 5 stars for efficiency
Sir Apple Chrissy, when I read your posts, I see more than one face.
You and all of your cutesies posts, and others like you, are a reason enough for why the profession is in the shape it's in - you're not able to carry on a decent and civil conversation, and it's obvious to me that your concerns are elsewhere - I don't owe you anything either.
Jun 30, 18 1:08 am ·
·
curtkram
the profession is in great shape. you haven't presented any reason why it should change, or evidence that things would somehow improve if they did change. i'm sure at least 4 of chris's six personalities would agree.
I can understand not wanting to be a licensed architect, but apart from the time and effort and a little bit of annual maintenance would you be better off finishing the process to get a license to practice architecture?
Maybe it IS time to sit for the exams then. I have no fears of being called an architect nor calling myself an architect because I am an architect. Give it a shot.
He does feel the need to be an architect. He believes he already is one. He does not feel the need to take the ARE, though he previously did feel that need, so he took it but failed. He is dissatisfied with the state boards and NCARB, because he feels they are standing in the way of his being able to claim to be an architect - which of course they are, because that's their job. The problem is that he's dissatisfied with most of us on this forum because we haven't felt our own needs to rise up in support of his candidacy for architect, and marched on his state board en masse demanding him a waiver from the ARE. Of course we've had some difficulty organizing that, because he won't tell us which state.
Jul 2, 18 2:08 pm ·
·
joseffischer
I'll throw my 2 cents in, not sure we'll get to a buck though at this rate. If he wants support for saying the AREs are bogus, I think they're bogus. I don't think they protect anything or create a higher standard of care.
They represent a minimum standard of care competence and so on. We do want people to be competent to a minimum standard before we license them to take on the responsibilities of an architect?
Really not that bad especially if you’ve been practicing a while. The new ones are supposedly even easier.
Jul 3, 18 7:30 am ·
·
joseffischer
5.0 was very easy... I can't say how previous versions were, but I was always told there'd be a lot of structural stuff, for instance. The structural questions I got from 5.0 were so common sense, or the ones that required calculation were so basic, highschool math, that I'd expect anyone with a year or two of experience framing would pass. Stuff like "point to which part of the retaining wall has the greatest force exerted on it" and "here's a table, size this wood member"
Ok I have a question ( not meant to incite a riot ).
What insurance is required by law to be carried by architects to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public?
I've asked the AIA and NCARB and neither group is able to tell me.
Aug 14, 18 3:56 pm ·
·
senjohnblutarsky
A lot of public entities list their insurance requirements in their Request For Proposal documents. I'd download a few of those in your area, see what they're requiring, and start there.
Aug 14, 18 4:17 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
Why would insurance be required by law?
Aug 14, 18 4:21 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
Insurance does not in any way "protect the health, safety and welfare of the public." Insurance is a way for people with money to make more money through grift. Instead of having a logical system in place where errors, omissions, and the like can be rectified in a rational manner we instead have lawyers and insurers making sure the only professions who are protected are theirs.
I think you need insurance to sell services to the public, insurance like errors and omission insurance. I don't think you need insurance to be a registered architect.
You Are An Architect.NoYou're Not An Architect.Are.AreNot.Are.AreNot.Are.Are Not.....
I became aware of my state's registration law during my school days, when the executive director of the state board for the registration of architects came to my college and lectured about the law, licensure, and the examination. He related an account of an unlicensed individual who did design, and had placed the title of ARCHITECT under his name on the sign, and naturally, the state board cited him and made him remove the sign; this was my first exposure to this issue, and this account helped me to understand the issue very clearly. However, from that point on, whenever people referred to me as an architect, I always winced, and became fearful. I would try to say that I was a student, and of course, later on, I would say I was an intern architect, etc. Many times, I could not address it. I did some community activites/work through the AIA shortly after I began my internship, which got a lot of attention from the media, and - you guessed it - I was known as an 'architect' - in the local news and papers, along with other AIA Associates. This became so troubling for me that I went to the state board and met with the very same executive director - a very gracious and understanding man, who told me to write a letter to the board explaining my situation, how I was seeking to always honor the law, but couldn't help circumstances like these. This I did, and for several years I rested in the peace of mind and the executive director's word which was his bond. Naturally, I was very sad when he passed, but I was hopeful that things would remain the same - which they did for a season of time.
However, one day one of my fellow AIA associates, who was very involved with the AIA, related to me that the state council had discussed the issue concerning interns and the title of 'architect', and that they came to a consensus and felt as though it was OK for interns/associates to become informally known as 'architects' during events, etc., in instances with the public (charrettes, etc.). You could imagine my shock at hearing this, but even so, I still held to the position that I was not an architect. However, I saw this new interpretation being played out on more than one occasion - a well-known Architect in our city saw my family at lunch, and the husband introduced me as an architect. Later, during a charrette, I was introduced as an architect to the neighborhood group we were doing the work for. I still was not persuaded that I should begin referring to myself that way. Confused? You bet.
A few years later, I received a certified letter in the mail from the state board - a large manilla packet. I wondered if it was information about the exam, or other ephemera - to my shock, however, - it was a letter informing me that I was being served a notice of an alleged violation of the registration law! Within were 3 copies of media articles where I was referred to as an architect. Of the 3 articles (which were about preservation, urban design, and residential design), I recalled one article I was interviewed for, but concerning the other 2, I wasn't even interviewed at all - in each instance though, I was always careful to explain who I was (non-registrant). I wrote a letter to the board explaining that I can help how I refer to myself, but I cannot help how others may refer to me. The board did clear me, but in their reply I was warned about how more severe the consequences would be if this happened again. Beyond confused......I was absolutely furious!!! Who wouldn't be?
Can you imagine how I felt when a firm principal told me that he refers to his unlicensed graduates/staff as architects?
Dear Reader, this sort of thing doesn't happen here in America, does it?
I'm starting to doubt all this a bit, based on the recent barrage of similar topics, but: if a third party refers to one as an architect, without one calling oneself that, then one just needs to inform the state board of that. This happens now and then - reporters using the term as a catch-all, and then someone with an agenda or obsession with regulations reporting it. There was a case out west - Colorado or Arizona I think - a few years ago where some candidate for selectboard or mayor somewhere got reported for calling himself "architect" at a public meeting, because he'd studied architecture, but was unlicensed - that went to court and the end result was that the board was told they could not regulate the word in that meaning/setting as it wasn't an example of unlicensed practice or offering services, it was a person describing their training or background.
If you're that concerned about what your employer is calling you, write an email to your employer with your concerns. That way, even if the employer persists in misidentifying you, you've got the email as proof that you weren't complicit, if somebody ever reports you again.
Good advice, Threesleeves; what I want, though, is to not ever have to deal with it anymore. Might not be possible..... .
it becomes a problem when you advertise having a credential you don't have to potential clients. i know you're not going to say on the forums here that you were doing that, and it's possible you may even believe you're not doing that, but it seems there is an appearance that you are.
for all your attempts to be clear that you're not a licensed architect, it sure sounds like you're trying really hard to associate yourself with the title.
Not only that, 5 new threads and almost 60 comments - all on the same topic - in just 3 days. OCD?
Curtkram - you'll just have to take my word for it that I have not advertised or presented myself as an architect. You are correct that I believe that all of those individuals, including myself, who have completed step one of the journey, should be able to be known as 'architects'. For that matter, members of architecture faculty who have earned 1-3 degrees should be known as 'architects'. They earned which degree(s)? and they teach what major? Yes, this is why I'm posting on the subject here.
Miles, you're participating - it must mean something to you, or you wouldn't have stopped by. Maybe you should look at Archinect as being a welcoming place for posting as many or few threads as one likes, without trying to bully or shame others. You can think what you like, and say what you like, but I don't owe you anything.
for what it's worth, the establishment (me) isn't going to help you change the world because we don't want it to change. it's not that we aren't listening, it's that we don't agree with you.
For what it's worth, that's the shortest RickB post I've ever seen. Still just as confused as normal about it though, so 5 stars for efficiency
Sir Apple Chrissy, when I read your posts, I see more than one face.
You and all of your cutesies posts, and others like you, are a reason enough for why the profession is in the shape it's in - you're not able to carry on a decent and civil conversation, and it's obvious to me that your concerns are elsewhere - I don't owe you anything either.
the profession is in great shape. you haven't presented any reason why it should change, or evidence that things would somehow improve if they did change. i'm sure at least 4 of chris's six personalities would agree.
Definitely OCD. Plus some narcissistic personality disorder.
But I'm not a licensed doctor. Just wanted to make that clear up front.
I am -- Dr. Dre.
Sounds like you’ve got enough years by now. It’s just a few tests. Get it over with and stop all the worrying over nothing.
Not interested, archinine. Don't want it & don't need it. I've learned a lot from this Forum.
I can understand not wanting to be a licensed architect, but apart from the time and effort and a little bit of annual maintenance would you be better off finishing the process to get a license to practice architecture?
Maybe it IS time to sit for the exams then. I have no fears of being called an architect nor calling myself an architect because I am an architect. Give it a shot.
Thank you, friend.
So, you're not an architect and don't feel the need to become one...and the problem here is?
He does feel the need to be an architect. He believes he already is one. He does not feel the need to take the ARE, though he previously did feel that need, so he took it but failed. He is dissatisfied with the state boards and NCARB, because he feels they are standing in the way of his being able to claim to be an architect - which of course they are, because that's their job. The problem is that he's dissatisfied with most of us on this forum because we haven't felt our own needs to rise up in support of his candidacy for architect, and marched on his state board en masse demanding him a waiver from the ARE. Of course we've had some difficulty organizing that, because he won't tell us which state.
I'll throw my 2 cents in, not sure we'll get to a buck though at this rate. If he wants support for saying the AREs are bogus, I think they're bogus. I don't think they protect anything or create a higher standard of care.
They represent a minimum standard of care competence and so on. We do want people to be competent to a minimum standard before we license them to take on the responsibilities of an architect?
The ARE probably isn't as hard as you think it is. I can tutor if interested.
Really not that bad especially if you’ve been practicing a while. The new ones are supposedly even easier.
5.0 was very easy... I can't say how previous versions were, but I was always told there'd be a lot of structural stuff, for instance. The structural questions I got from 5.0 were so common sense, or the ones that required calculation were so basic, highschool math, that I'd expect anyone with a year or two of experience framing would pass. Stuff like "point to which part of the retaining wall has the greatest force exerted on it" and "here's a table, size this wood member"
Ok I have a question ( not meant to incite a riot ).
What insurance is required by law to be carried by architects to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public?
I've asked the AIA and NCARB and neither group is able to tell me.
A lot of public entities list their insurance requirements in their Request For Proposal documents. I'd download a few of those in your area, see what they're requiring, and start there.
Why would insurance be required by law?
Insurance does not in any way "protect the health, safety and welfare of the public." Insurance is a way for people with money to make more money through grift. Instead of having a logical system in place where errors, omissions, and the like can be rectified in a rational manner we instead have lawyers and insurers making sure the only professions who are protected are theirs.
I think you need insurance to sell services to the public, insurance like errors and omission insurance. I don't think you need insurance to be a registered architect.
+++ Sneaky Pete - institutionalized extortion.
Rule # 1 Get everything in Black & White,
Rule # 2 Get everything in Black & White.
Then work your way towards getting yourself registered.
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.