so for as long as i worked at my current office, i have been a project architect. recently, however, (without notice i might add) i was demoted to project architect.
i suspect it is b/c i am not licensed and that legally i am not allowed to be called an architect - i dont know this for a fact - i am guessing.
does this seem ridiculous to anybody else besides me?
is anybody aware of any specific laws that allow my office to do this?
CORRECTION:
so for as long as i worked at my current office, i have been a project architect. recently, however, (without notice i might add) i was demoted to project director.
i suspect it is b/c i am not licensed and that legally i am not allowed to be called an architect - i dont know this for a fact - i am guessing.
does this seem ridiculous to anybody else besides me?
is anybody aware of any specific laws that allow my office to do this?
Local state/provincial associations actually prevent you from calling yourself an architect unless you have completed your registration. This only applies to the field of architecture and our own governing bodies though. You can get a computer science degree and call yourself a software architect, data architect, information architect blah blah blah and they let it slide. Try entering architect into Monster and see how many replies you get
Although architect is a specific term referring to a licensed professional, the word is frequently used in a broader sense to define someone who brings order to the built or unbuilt environment through rational and irrational constructs using the tools of design. For example, naval architects, software architects etc., and graduates of schools of architecture not doing regulated project/construction documents are often called architects. However, non-licensed architects and designers working in the construction industry are prohibited from referring to themselves as architects in most countries.
Although architect is a specific term referring to a licensed professional, the word is frequently used in a broader sense to define someone who brings order to the built or unbuilt environment through rational and irrational constructs using the tools of design. For example, naval architects, software architects etc., and graduates of schools of architecture not doing regulated project/construction documents are often called architects. However, non-licensed architects and designers working in the construction industry are prohibited from referring to themselves as architects in most countries.
i am reminded of some qc training i received earlier in my career ... at the end of the day, we all concluded that "quality" is whatever our clients say it is ... a subset of the "golden rule"
depending on where you live, an "architect" is whatever your state says it is ... which, i believe, means that a "big A" architect is someone who has fulfilled the requirements for a license in that jurisdiction ...
the "little a" architect is found in more venues, but most state licensing boards will still want to have something to say about the use of that term when it is connected to buildings and life-safety issues.
We live in a world where anyone can sue anyone for anything unless it is a multinational drug company you want to sue because that would be like trying to sue God - yes that's a capital G - - - but I digress.
Your employer is trying to keep his ass out of the fire before the flames get going. The smaller the target, the better. Don't take it personally. If a client gets into a pissing fight with your firm, your former title might just be the loop hole that sinks the boat. It is all about "semantic wars" when the lawyers get involved. Suck it up and get your licensee if you want to label yourself - Architect. The indignation exhibited in the semantics of your question is what seems ridiculous.
i am in the middle of taking my exams, and it certainly makes sense that not having my license does expose the firm to some liability - but - just imagine how much more painless the process would be if our employers actually helped with the process. even 1/2 day once a week would be helpful. rarely do they help pay - often times they dont even have study materials.
All about that personality crisis
You got it while it was hot
But now frustration and heartache is what you've got
You know I'm talkin' 'bout her personality
Well, now you're tryin' to be someone, now you gotta do something
Wanna be someone who cou-ou-ounts
But you're thinkin' 'bout the times you did, they took every ounce
Well, it sure gotta be a shame when you start to scream and shout
You gotta contradict all those times you butterflied about
You was butterflyin
eddieP ... that's certainly an interesting perspective ... here's another one ... your license is something you will keep with you for the rest of your life ... just like your education ...
while i think it's nice for firms to help out with the licensure process (and, our firm does help our own interns) i have to say i don't understand this "expectation" and "sense of entitlement" that i hear so often about the firm's responsibility to help and pay for the the licensure process ...
did you expect your employer to pay for your degree ?
your education and your license are fundamentally individual responsibilities
oh, come on digger. we are talking about a profession that is one of the worst paid relative to the amount of work that we do, so that coupled with the extraordinary amount of time that we are expected to work doesnt leave much time and money for the exam and study materials.
i am actually looking forward to the process of getting the 'RA' at the end of my name...dont get me wrong - it is just sooo frustrating that even after the overtime that i work (for free) and the salary that i dont get, that i am still expected to get registered on my own time with my own money.
i certainly am not expecting or feel like i have a "sense of entitlement", that is ridiculous - all i am looking for is a few hours a week where i can go study and not worry about chewing up all my vacation time. ...and yes it would be nice for them to kick in a few extra bucks to help me with the fees.
... like i said, that's certainly one point of view
... speaking as an employer who's been doing this for a while, i can't tell you how many times i've seen young architectural interns take the support of our firm as they pursue licensure, successfully navigate the exam, and then haul their portable ass off to some other firm at the first opportunity ... this doesn't just happen to us, but also to many of my peers in other firms ...
after a while, you start to wonder why we bother to try to help ... but, just so you don't misjudge me here, we still provide substantial assitance, both before and after licensure (we pay license fees for all of our licensed professionals) ...
having said all of that, i stand by my view that licensure is fundamentally the responsibility of the individual ...
oh, and by the way, that "poor pay" your talking about extends all the way up to the principals in this industry ... licensed architects who own firms are compensated quite poorly, compared to their counterparts in law, medicine, etc.
eddie - If you want to be a REGISTERED architect, you need to pass your tests and pay some money to the state board. If you want to be a REAL architect you are going to have to grow some balls and stop bitching about everything. And join the AIA while you're at it, you cheap ass.
time to chill out my friend. archinect is one of the best places to talk about the profession and some of the things that we may be able to make better.
in case you werent reading closely enough, i said that i was looking forward to getting registered and that all i was asking for was a few hours a week to study.
if you want to be a total jerk - go do it somewhere else.
thanks for helping your employees out. in the end, i think that you are doing the right thing even despite the fact that your firm would probably be more profitable if you weren't giving out those benefits.
I think as a profession we are too protective of who uses a title within our own ranks while some computer moron uses the title architect without regard.
Chances are it's a legal thing. My employer uses the PA title with people that aren't licensed, but nobody gets titles on their business cards, so it really isn't an issue. I don't care if someone who's got an architecture degree but not license calls himself an architect. I just don't want the guy fixing my computer to call himself an architect.
a little trick of the trade, try putting an 'un' in front of your title____architect becomes un-architect, which is possibly a much more useful way of working and definitely a sexier title, as endorsed by Mr. Viñoly who on a recent trip to china was overheard saying "Everything else around is the un-architecture. It's a cartoon; it's a horror show. But it is something that is interesting to see. It's an education." get with the unprogram yaall.
Identity Crisis - project architect?
so for as long as i worked at my current office, i have been a project architect. recently, however, (without notice i might add) i was demoted to project architect.
i suspect it is b/c i am not licensed and that legally i am not allowed to be called an architect - i dont know this for a fact - i am guessing.
does this seem ridiculous to anybody else besides me?
is anybody aware of any specific laws that allow my office to do this?
CORRECTION:
so for as long as i worked at my current office, i have been a project architect. recently, however, (without notice i might add) i was demoted to project director.
i suspect it is b/c i am not licensed and that legally i am not allowed to be called an architect - i dont know this for a fact - i am guessing.
does this seem ridiculous to anybody else besides me?
is anybody aware of any specific laws that allow my office to do this?
Local state/provincial associations actually prevent you from calling yourself an architect unless you have completed your registration. This only applies to the field of architecture and our own governing bodies though. You can get a computer science degree and call yourself a software architect, data architect, information architect blah blah blah and they let it slide. Try entering architect into Monster and see how many replies you get
Although architect is a specific term referring to a licensed professional, the word is frequently used in a broader sense to define someone who brings order to the built or unbuilt environment through rational and irrational constructs using the tools of design. For example, naval architects, software architects etc., and graduates of schools of architecture not doing regulated project/construction documents are often called architects. However, non-licensed architects and designers working in the construction industry are prohibited from referring to themselves as architects in most countries.
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
ah ... the semantic wars continue
i am reminded of some qc training i received earlier in my career ... at the end of the day, we all concluded that "quality" is whatever our clients say it is ... a subset of the "golden rule"
depending on where you live, an "architect" is whatever your state says it is ... which, i believe, means that a "big A" architect is someone who has fulfilled the requirements for a license in that jurisdiction ...
the "little a" architect is found in more venues, but most state licensing boards will still want to have something to say about the use of that term when it is connected to buildings and life-safety issues.
We live in a world where anyone can sue anyone for anything unless it is a multinational drug company you want to sue because that would be like trying to sue God - yes that's a capital G - - - but I digress.
Your employer is trying to keep his ass out of the fire before the flames get going. The smaller the target, the better. Don't take it personally. If a client gets into a pissing fight with your firm, your former title might just be the loop hole that sinks the boat. It is all about "semantic wars" when the lawyers get involved. Suck it up and get your licensee if you want to label yourself - Architect. The indignation exhibited in the semantics of your question is what seems ridiculous.
i am in the middle of taking my exams, and it certainly makes sense that not having my license does expose the firm to some liability - but - just imagine how much more painless the process would be if our employers actually helped with the process. even 1/2 day once a week would be helpful. rarely do they help pay - often times they dont even have study materials.
All about that personality crisis
You got it while it was hot
But now frustration and heartache is what you've got
You know I'm talkin' 'bout her personality
Well, now you're tryin' to be someone, now you gotta do something
Wanna be someone who cou-ou-ounts
But you're thinkin' 'bout the times you did, they took every ounce
Well, it sure gotta be a shame when you start to scream and shout
You gotta contradict all those times you butterflied about
You was butterflyin
eddieP ... that's certainly an interesting perspective ... here's another one ... your license is something you will keep with you for the rest of your life ... just like your education ...
while i think it's nice for firms to help out with the licensure process (and, our firm does help our own interns) i have to say i don't understand this "expectation" and "sense of entitlement" that i hear so often about the firm's responsibility to help and pay for the the licensure process ...
did you expect your employer to pay for your degree ?
your education and your license are fundamentally individual responsibilities
oh, come on digger. we are talking about a profession that is one of the worst paid relative to the amount of work that we do, so that coupled with the extraordinary amount of time that we are expected to work doesnt leave much time and money for the exam and study materials.
i am actually looking forward to the process of getting the 'RA' at the end of my name...dont get me wrong - it is just sooo frustrating that even after the overtime that i work (for free) and the salary that i dont get, that i am still expected to get registered on my own time with my own money.
i certainly am not expecting or feel like i have a "sense of entitlement", that is ridiculous - all i am looking for is a few hours a week where i can go study and not worry about chewing up all my vacation time. ...and yes it would be nice for them to kick in a few extra bucks to help me with the fees.
... like i said, that's certainly one point of view
... speaking as an employer who's been doing this for a while, i can't tell you how many times i've seen young architectural interns take the support of our firm as they pursue licensure, successfully navigate the exam, and then haul their portable ass off to some other firm at the first opportunity ... this doesn't just happen to us, but also to many of my peers in other firms ...
after a while, you start to wonder why we bother to try to help ... but, just so you don't misjudge me here, we still provide substantial assitance, both before and after licensure (we pay license fees for all of our licensed professionals) ...
having said all of that, i stand by my view that licensure is fundamentally the responsibility of the individual ...
oh, and by the way, that "poor pay" your talking about extends all the way up to the principals in this industry ... licensed architects who own firms are compensated quite poorly, compared to their counterparts in law, medicine, etc.
eddie - If you want to be a REGISTERED architect, you need to pass your tests and pay some money to the state board. If you want to be a REAL architect you are going to have to grow some balls and stop bitching about everything. And join the AIA while you're at it, you cheap ass.
dazed and confused -
time to chill out my friend. archinect is one of the best places to talk about the profession and some of the things that we may be able to make better.
in case you werent reading closely enough, i said that i was looking forward to getting registered and that all i was asking for was a few hours a week to study.
if you want to be a total jerk - go do it somewhere else.
quizzical
thanks for helping your employees out. in the end, i think that you are doing the right thing even despite the fact that your firm would probably be more profitable if you weren't giving out those benefits.
I think as a profession we are too protective of who uses a title within our own ranks while some computer moron uses the title architect without regard.
Chances are it's a legal thing. My employer uses the PA title with people that aren't licensed, but nobody gets titles on their business cards, so it really isn't an issue. I don't care if someone who's got an architecture degree but not license calls himself an architect. I just don't want the guy fixing my computer to call himself an architect.
a little trick of the trade, try putting an 'un' in front of your title____architect becomes un-architect, which is possibly a much more useful way of working and definitely a sexier title, as endorsed by Mr. Viñoly who on a recent trip to china was overheard saying "Everything else around is the un-architecture. It's a cartoon; it's a horror show. But it is something that is interesting to see. It's an education." get with the unprogram yaall.
did he get that from 7-up?
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.