LOL, yeah.... not a professional title to me. I know some "professional titles" that are used as job position title but when used as such does not mean it is used as a professional title but just that the chosen words are the same. Architect is a professional title when issued with a license (or when licensing law doesn't exist... is the occupational "professional" title). CPBD (Certified Professional Building Designer) is a professional title. Building designer is a professional or occupational title. "Architectural associates" are job titles or job position title (longer form). Job titles are titles issued by the employer like Senior Janitor III. (Humor point is intended) Too bad Bam Bam Donny doesn't know the difference.

I am one. #ama

Can you elaborate more on what you mean by "I am one" and to whom you were responding to?

It’s kind of like a sales associates, but architectural...

rcz1001 - sorry, I was responding to proto, saying I am architectural associate.

ok. That clarifies your previous post sufficiently.

.

*Droves lol

Can that dude call himself a pilot, or just a flying dude?

You forgot to mention the wild fires x-jla...

Architectural designer is not the same a “architect.” Just like medical assistant is not the same as MD. If the job is legal, suppression of its most appropriate and accurate description can not be made illegal. Can’t have your cake and eat it too. Or, only hire licensed people to design and pay the fuck up...

x-jla, they may regulate law as written. Does "architectural designer" contain the letters "architect".... in the first 9 letters? We need to do legislative changes regarding the title "architectural designer". Another thing is that architects and firms (where there is a firm registration program) should be listing their license in phone book and directories like licensed contractors. This would indicate something to the public that they are licensed. I support a similar thing with certified designers. I use the term "certified designers" more broadly. Therefore a typical "architectural designer" without such license or certification would not have a license or certification "number". Okay (it might not be just number but alpha-numeric). In addition, the state or certifying entity should be so duly identified for the public sake and I think permits forms can be updated to allow or note certification and certifying body or licensing state. There are certain changes I think can and should be supported while also safeguarding the public but these changes are a separate topic which I think the architecture and building design profession can come together and talk about. Until such changes are actually made legislatively as needed, I think we should be mindful to follow the rules as they currently are.

Side Topic:

I can even support a state registration program for "registered architectural designers" where CPBD certification can be recognized as one of the paths to that designation. Just take a state/jurispudence/law review exam and pay a fee and continuing education. Other paths could be having an architecture degree and maybe completion of half the required AXP hours for licensure. 

The CPBD certification would be one of the paths if you don't have a NAAB accredited architecture degree. Completion of remaining requirements for an architectural license would need to be completed for the Architect license. In any case, I support concurrent completion of ARE along with AXP and degree. 

What would a "registered architectural designer" be able to do? Can it be more than the current exemptions? Maybe but that could be discussed as a profession. Right now, this is just an idea. 

A separate thread would be appropriate probably.

please, no separate threads. let's keep this all right here.

Fair enough. I just didn't want to derail the main thread for a side topic. People have complained in the past but if it is better, we can keep it here as long as needed. 

I have a meeting to attend so I'll give some time for others to chime in and thoughts. I think changes do need to be made but we also have to follow the laws and rules as they are until those changes are made. 

Bills can be brought forth over time in each respective state. A "model bill" of a sort can be drafted up to get a layout but this isn't something that I see will happen in weeks and I doubt any legislation will happen in only a few months but it is something that can possibly gain traction through grassroot efforts as a starting point. I think we need to have some good way for the public to know the difference.

CBDP is a made-up term. You'll learn that when you start studying for your exams.

So... someone asks you what you do...

You: Well, i'm a designer.
Them: cool, what do you design? 
You: Buildings
Them: Like an architect? 
You: no ....
Them: ... oh... ok... Where do you work? 
You: John smith architects
Them: .... so you work in architecture? 
You: No...
Them: *confused* 

It's stupid.

How about: I'm a designer at an architectural firm.

it's stupid that that is so difficult to say.  And yes, you could say you design buildings 'like an architect'.  cocktail party talk is not going to get you sued.  it's when you use the magic word on your website, business card, etc. that you get busted.

So what do architects do? Not design? Guess you  must not do any of the same stuff they do.... 

stop being a dense fuck.

I'm not sure why that is dense. What makes sense about not giving people a title reflective of what they do?

Bench, so is "Professional Engineer" made up, technically. While engineer isn't a made-up term nor is building designer since those terms existed as words with a defined occupational meaning before architectural licensing even existed. We can debate this all day long but I'm going to avoid going into that. 

What you are kind of missing in my point is CPBD and the title Architect in the modern-day sense of "professional title" is a title conferred by a certifying organization with qualification a criterion. An occupational license is a government-issued certification. However, not all certifying organizations is a government agency. They can be professional associations such as AIBD, AIA, Microsoft, or any other organization. The title Professional Engineer with that capital P and capital E is a state-issued title. Your title on the certificate and your stamp or seal will often be 'Registered Architect' or 'Licensed Architect'. That's the official professional title. 

Certified Professional Building Designer is a regulated title that is regulated by the AIBD who owns the trademark to that certification mark. It is protected under federal trademarks and potentially under international trademark laws. However, the mere title building designer is not regulated or controlled. When you are certified, you receive a trademark license to use the trademark (CPBD in short and long-form) according to the terms of the agreement and you must renew the agreement with meeting the continuing education requirements and paying the renewal fee. It is revocable. 

When you are filling out the licensing paperwork and paying for the licensure fee (and renewal), you are agreeing to terms of the agreement to comply with the state laws and rules by state licensing board issuing the license. AIBD has to use the powers of trademark laws to regulate the title. The states are using their own laws to regulate the title in the way they are because they can not adopt or enforce their own state-level trademark registration because some powers are reserved by the federal government and trademark laws are regulated by the federal government. 

They serve similar end results to certify that the person certified (licensed) met certain qualifications by terms of education, experience, and exam. AIBD's NCBDC is a certifying organization and does have an established qualification requirement for certification. State licensing boards does like-wise albeit through legislating laws such as the Architect title and practice Act to regulate the title and practice. Some licensing laws are just title laws but doesn't regulate the practice of architecture. Example, the UK.

In the UK, I think, I could use the title architectural designer but not Architect. So what's the damn problem?

Most of the public doesn't even know what an architect actually does, so the distinctions between "architect" and "licensed architect" and "registered architect" and "architectural designer" are all for those of us in the industry, not for our clients, at least in the residential world.

I am a residential designer and always make sure that clients know I am not an architect, but I have the same insurance and equivalent training to an architect who does residential work. They are 99% of the time annoyed that I even bring it up. 1% of the time it has likely cost me the job, because they want an Architect.

If it was an option I would call myself an architectural designer, mainly because "residential designer" can imply interior design, which I do a bit of but it's not my focus. Architects have jumped through the right hoops at the right time; I did not, so I don't have the right to say I'm an architect. I do charge about the same as architects I compete with. 

I don't have a problem with that residential designer title and where you live, it is a very appropriate title especially with the focus in residential that is exempt. Where I am, there are non-residential buildings that are also non-agricultural that are exempt. As for the "architectural designer" title it is something solvable. 

We basically would replace "building designer" with "architectural designer" in regular use and that "architectural designer" would basically means an unlicensed person who designs buildings in the legal sense because a licensed architect would use the title Architect. (Note: houses are buildings but they often have a separate provision in the exemption from other "buildings") 

We already have to explain to the public what distinguishes us so clients don't keep calling us "architects". In fact, we get investigated by licensing boards or possibly fined when the client or a third-party (like newspapers) refers to us as an architect. What does an architect do? What does it say in a dictionary? 

In legal compliance, I don't respond to prospective clients seeking "architectural services" (in Oregon and Washington) and if they use it in their contact, I'm legally obligated to not engage the prospective client or enter into contract with them. Some prospective clients have thought I am a construction contractor (builder) because they confuse building designer with design builder. What is wrong with basic reading comprehension of the public? 

Maybe architectural designer would be clearer to understand what we do but we will need to still educate the public the difference between an architect and an architectural designer and what an architectural designer with CPBD certification or similar certifications credentials. We already have that, somewhat, with architect vs building designer. 

Over time BD would be supplanted with AD by regular use if we deregulate the title "architectural designer". Right now, we just have to follow the current status quo.

Jesus fucking Christ, nobody's coming to your fucking dinner party to police what you call yourself to your dumb friends.

EXCEPT..... the anal-retentive "title nazi"-type licensed architects. 

I know some that would file a report to the licensing board if they heard anyone not licensed call themselves an architect at the dinner party. They are the ones that often reports a person called an architect in the newspaper. There are those types among the licensed architects. 

I am not saying all architects are that way but some do take it upon themselves to police the title. Some of them are current or former board members and some are just assholes. Just noting a fact.

I do not know anyone like that and would not speak to them if I did, much less invite them to parties.

I agree with you. I just happen to know of some individuals of that type. Like you, I wouldn't invite them but not all dinner parties are something I may be in charge of invitations. There are also other kinds of social occasions that we may inadvertently come across each other. Honestly, if you and I were at the same dinner party, I would rather talk to you than one of those assholes.

false equivalency is not ok. Great job, terrible thinker!

Killing Black people is okay, getting away with it is OK, redlining is okay, incarcerating Black men ok...but we're here talking about dumb fucking titles.

How is talking about "stopping the killing of black people" on an architectural forum going to actually stop the killing of black people? We don't have any influence to create change on that issue through this forum. Directing that to our elected officials would have more effect but also directing the public (not the choir here who already agrees. I do. I don't support killing black people based on racism or race-based discrimination. 

I support the universal principle that all people of all races matter and in this particular instance I support that black lives matter and that discrimination based on race must stop to end the perpetuation of racism and that must come from all people of all races. Sadly, I doubt I'll see that day but I do sure hope we see significant progress.

Like, why is everyone not concerned with law and order when people are bashing people’s heads in, burning down cities, stealing, but then if you use a silly title...not in Cali pal!

You want Anarchy! Then RB gets to be a god damn Architect!

Don't you think the great citizens of Portland, Oregon should be voicing their concerns about the riots in their city? Why should an out of towner like myself be speaking on their behalf? In Astoria, we aren't bashing peoples' heads in on the basis of ethnicity or race, and burning down the city and looting. This is an architecture web forum so talking about this topic isn't going to be productive at actual change on these issues. If you are concerned about it, you take action that counts not babble about it on this architectural web forum about things we can't do or effect change from here. Discussion about systemic racism in the licensing process and architecture school curriculum are things we can talk about here that may be able to effect change because we have more power to influence change in the architectural domain. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of verbal/written diarrhea that we are producing. At least this thread is on topic to what this web forum is about?

I don't mean any ill to legitimate concerns for addressing the issues of racism. Real action takes more than talk and the walk isn't going to be on an architecture forum. It's going to be at the city halls, the state capitol, and on the streets.

IWO? Don't you mean IOW?

Not really the point

Except that, as the OP noted, other CA state agencies use "architectural associate" for unlicensed people, so a strong argument can be made that if they won't enforce it on themselves, it's unenforceable.

It doesn't work that way because governments are effectively exempt from being held to the same standards.

I take issue with not calling my unlicensed self a design professional. My profession is design, therefore I am a design professional. I have professional insurance. I can't stamp drawings because I am not licensed, but I do work I am legally allowed to do, for pay. You can have the stupid terms including "arch" but you can't take "professional designer."

sounds reasonable

I agree. Some jurisdictions do get bent out of shape about the use of "design professional". As it is, "design professional" is not a professional title regulated by licensure and it is dubious in court at best because neither the word "design" and "professional" is legally able to be regulated. The word predates any kind of licensing program. While the term "design professional" is defined in building codes, it is not a title regulation act. It is simply a definition to define an intended meaning within the context of interpreting the building codes when the codes uses the term "design professional". In fact, they been moving to the more explicit use of "registered designed professional" when used in the codes and in the definition area. 

The Oregon case and other cases throughout the U.S. does set a precedent that elements of enforcing terms that are not professional titles like "design professional" would be considered a huge overreach and would be unlawful. Generic terms like engineer would be overreach especially if it falls into a regulated engineering discipline. As you know, not all engineering is regulated by licensure because the fundamental purpose of licensure is for protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the public. This implies there is a health, safety, and welfare need that requires licensure in order to protect the public. If that need does not exist or warrant licensure, it is excessive over-reach of government bureaucracy to regulate licensing. 

When OSBEELS tried to regulate software engineering, they ran into that kind of issue because the current education and licensing process for P.E. in incompatible with the education and experience of the software engineering profession which is very broad and encompassed a very wide range of software application. Although a very specific title such as Safety-Critical Systems (SCS) Software Engineer and the more narrow domain of safety-critical systems software engineering would be a more appropriate domain of software engineering that can be reasoned to be regulated by the P.E. licensure process. 

In fact, I made that point to OSBEELS that software engineering, in general, is too broad and doesn't involve anything to do with HSW matters. It would do more harm than it would be to protect the public. On the other hand, a more narrow-focused domain and appropriate title can be regulated if they so choose to. Licensing boards sometimes get too carried away with scope creep of their regulatory authority. Sometimes, they need a little push back so they don't get too abusive of their power even if it wasn't a maligned intent but it doesn't take being maligned to be abusive. People can be abusive even if there is good intent. Yes, licensing boards are run by people and therefore we are talking about people. 

I don't mind software engineering in the domain of life/safety-critical systems being licensed and regulated and a more explicit title be the regulated title but software engineer as the generic title would not be regulated. I go as far as suggesting a title. OSBEELS decided to table the idea for now but it is in the records so if they want to revisit the idea, they know "SCS" software engineering is the scope of software engineering domain that they should focus on if they want to regulate it but software engineering that does not involve life and safety is something they should leave well alone. 

If there is no reasonable health, safety, and welfare risk (or danger) of the public, states should not regulate title or practice of an occupation or occupational discipline. For example, should the software engineer(s) that develops or works on Microsoft Office be licensed as a P.E. ? Probably not. Should the software engineer that works on safety-critical systems be? Probably yes.

For a quick and dirty info on safety-critical systems: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety-critical_system

There are multiple sources other than wikipedia but it is sufficient for a reader's digest version. You can see the types of stuff where licensing is sensible and OSBEELS would be within reason to regulate software engineering in the domain of safety-critical systems but the title software engineer should not be regulated but a more narrow title like SCS Software Engineer. (Okay, you use the long form - Safety-Critical Systems Software Engineer as the regulated title) 

I've tried to never complain about this for my own sake, and I went ahead and got my licence. But when I look at people i work with, or know, who have 3x as much experience as me, and are exceptionally capable and knowledgeable about the profession, and realize they are not architects, and cannot use the term in any form, despite working at an architecture firm, doing architecture..... I can't help but think the way this is handled detracts from the profession.

title worship it feels like a petty argument that assumes a strict understanding of terminology which the general public absolutely doesn't recognize. it's part of a culture of legalism i deplore.

Mr. Cole, I agree. Pick your battles. That means to choose what battles to fight not waste your energy on like fighting a licensing board which would likely be far more expensive than to do something you can correct and get them off your ass with much less effort.

There is one thing to discuss changes that can be made then there is having a cockfight with the licensing board.

"general labor and services"

If you are an unlicensed person working for a firm you really should do is indicate that you are design staff or employee or job positions where the title does not contain the word "architect" or "architectural" in the title. Firms should be using job titles that are compliant with the laws regarding professional titles. 

Firms should not be using titles that would require a license if the employee were to go on their own after a layoff. If you give an unlicensed person a job title like design architect then they are going to think they are an architect and qualified to use that title because they worked months or years with such a title. There is this underlying problem that people don't know or clearly understand the difference between job position title and professional title. They just cognitively don't get it no matter how many times you tell them even if you told them 1,000 times. It is because they already represent themselves to firm clients (clients) as such.

Ultimately, we have only two real options, we either deregulate "architectural designer" title or licensing boards starts investigating firms that practice architecture in their state and slap those firms with hefty fines if they place unlicensed individuals in job positions where the position title contains the word "architect" or "architectural". There's no incentive to change if firms aren't punished for refusing to comply with such laws. Legal compliance only comes from serious enforcement. An unenforced law is basically not a law and people won't bother abiding by it.

There is the other side such as deregulating titles like architectural designer while regulating the title architect.

Total nonsense. People (patients) interact with medical doctors who are residents and are not fully liscensed all the time. Doctors are called doctors and put MD after their name upon completion of medical school and BEFORE they have started their residency. The architecture profession doesn't do it that way but no one has offered a good reason. I suspect supression of wages would be at the top of the list. And don't give me the 'legal' bullshit reason. I doubt is there is a state senator or representative anywhere in the country that cares in the least what a graduate of an accredited architecture school is called. It was a law lobbied into place by special interests who are too chickenshit to stand up and admit it.

to beat this already dead horse once again, here is the reason: when doctors complete medical school they actually know something. when you get your architectural degree you don't know jack shit (i think that's the legal term).

HURRAY, another dead horse to the beating pile. Yawn. If only we could bottle up just a fraction of the architects=doctors efforts whining and sell it back to the disgruntled wankers, maybe label it "excuses: spending hours in studio rendering shiny models = learning medicine", archinect would make a fortune mining the forum.

Volunteer, the laws (in the U.S.) may need to be amended and how titles are regulated and enforced may need to be changed but we should follow the laws as they are until the changes are made and implemented. By virtue of being a citizen (in the U.S.), you agree to abide by the laws and rules of your state and country. It is mandatory to be law-abiding. That is why if you don't that you are fined or go to jail or other disciplinary actions under law. It's the law. As citizens we do not have the freedom to be above the law. We can have laws changed but only through the legislative process... as far as in the U.S.

i love your theory of law. it's so tautological.

People are often so darn dense that it takes hitting the nail many times to penetrate to the brain because they keep cherry-picking the laws they abide and disregard the laws they don't agree with as if they have the freedom to do whatever they want. 

NO country permits that kind of freedom. There is no such country and United States has never been such a country. We have more freedoms than most countries at the time of our country's founding but we are not the land of the free and home of the ungoverned. People keep thinking if they disagree with the law then they can just ignore it as if they have immunity. 

Unless you are elected as POTUS, you don't got shit for immunity of the law and even then, the POTUS has limits despite how lax the Republican Senate has been about it to protect their party's POTUS. Think this through. 

What if I simply went out and practice under the Architect title for projects in the U.S. without undergoing licensure?

Until the laws are changed, we have to follow the laws as they are. When the laws are changed, then we follow the laws as amended until it is amended again. In every sense, we are to follow the laws as they are at the moment in time.

"People are often so darn dense that it takes hitting the nail many times to penetrate to the brain because they keep cherry-picking the laws they abide and disregard the laws they don't agree with as if they have the freedom to do whatever they want. "

I think a small universe somewhere just imploded on itself from the irony.

Actually, I do follow the laws. If I didn't, I would be offering architectural services for projects in Oregon and Washington.

So now that you're licensed you're not human any more ?

*scratches head* What are you saying? I didn't say I am licensed.

Ricky, see Tduds's og post

TY.... he should have started off with: tduds, (rest of the post)

RB, attorney at law and professional registered kangaroo habitat designer of America.

I'm not an attorney. As a building designer, it is in my best interest to know the laws and rules as it relates to building design. In Oregon and Washington, in addition to the ARE, there is a testing of a licensure candidate's knowledge of the laws and rules governing the use of the Architect title and the practice of architecture in the state and other related laws and rules. I already did that for Washington state as part of the process procedures for authorization to test for ARE.

Ok, if a building has an occupancy of 100, what is the occupancy fir kangaroos?

^Someday I hope this is a questions I have to answer.