i was recently advised against using the term in associate in anything.

it just smacks too much of wal-mart and/or starbucks.

which is too bad really, because it would fit my position nicely. not intern, not partner, not principal, not monkey.

but you know, barrista.

the more i think about it, the less i like titles, me thinks.

why not just: RAArch, Architect

i hear you...then what to do on the resume, do you just leave it off?

but that's the whole rub right, im not an 'architect'

you mean on the firm-name/job-title/responsibilities/etc spot on the resume??

were you not given titles for your different positions??

i'm in a similar spot with getting new business cards made. i work with a sole proprietor. tiny firm means i do some of everything, right? so what's my title supposed to be?

plain-jane designer?

design associate? nah, too starbucky.

i'm thinking director of design development, because that's what i do. i direct design development.

but that's probably, no, definitely no help to you.

i think designer/junior designer works alright, but i'm not the one who hires.

When we can't even decide what to call ourselves...?? No wonder our profession is in the pooper.

If you were ever in a management role for a project - meaning you were the main point of contact for client and contractor as well as overseeing drawing development - call yourself a Project Manager. Even if it was a tiny project.

The Architect I and II titles to me are more about salary ranking in a large firm, or government work.

mightylittle, who is this that told you to leave off 'associate'

from my understanding, within the arch. profession the title 'associate' is one of substance. you cannot just call yourself an associate, but the firm needs to name you as an associate. (one step below partner)

while in other professions, the title 'associate' may not be appealing if you sent out your resume' a principle in another firm would hold the term in regard.

as in

mightylittle, project manager_associate


i could be wrong, this is what i have been told by my principle - about 2 yrs ago when giving me a raise / bonus he also said that he was making me an 'associate' in the firm, then went into a long story about back in his day a young arch would rather get that title than a raise.

architectista has a good ring to it.

spatial specialist

cin1 - it was a suggestion from another, non-arch/design forum which rang true at the time, though what you said about 'associate' is what i had been thinking prior.

does wal-mart hold nothing sacred??

i'm an associate, dammit'!

i think i agree with you though, that in the design world, associate is still abig deal. at least i hope so, since it might end up on my business cards.

i'll echo what cln1 said...

my understanding is that in architecture, as well as law, Associate is really kinda shorthand for Associate Partner... oftentimes associates receive profit sharing in the form of partnership shares... eventually earning enough so that they can buy into the partnership without a huge out of pocket expense...

that being said, to address the original question...

not to be too snarky, but if you're having to ask, you are not an Associate...

i'd go with what the all knowing LB said... if you've been in a management role on projects call yourself Project Manager... if not call yourself either Project Designer or Intern Architect... the person looking at your resume (assuming they're an architect) will be able to tell what position you're really in by looking at the resume...

if the resume is for something non-architectural, then this all goes out the window...

i'm going to go out on a limb and retract my earlier comment about NOT using associate.

the enlightened folks at archinect have enlightened me too.

when i had recently run through a list of titles i would prefer given the option, Associate was near the top, and it will now return.

but i think at heart i'm still a barrista, which is significantly less financially rewarding than a barrister. funny how that works.

but back to the associate thing...is one an 'Associate Something?'

is it only Associate Partner, or does 'Associate Designer' work in these small circles of ours? and what does the term Associate imply by way of first impressions?

another commonly used option other than Project Manager, Project Designer, or Intern Architect is Job Captain...

but it really depends on your experience... sure you've had 6 years, but is that 6 years sitting in front of a computer as a CAD monkey? or have you had significant contact with clients and consultants?

The associate tag varies from firm to firm. At my first office, being an associate meant that you were two steps from being a principal, and were usually licensed, serving as a PM and/or Project Architect.

At my current office, as associate is more of a Job Captain (although we hate that title) role.

I have friends at other firms that hang the associate tag on you from the moment you're hired as an intern...

mightylittle,

i would say that unless one is a real "Associate" as in almost a partner, then the word associate is out...

rather than Associate Designer, i'd go with Project Designer or Job Captain or Intern Architect...

in the end, within the profession, i don't really think that it matters as everyone is well aware of the name games that we have to play since we can't be call "architects"...

_brOKe_

I recognize that this may be somewhat akin to waving a red piece of cloth in front of an angry bull, but the aia's salary survey uses the following descriptions of various jobs to promote consistency in understanding:

Department head/senior manager: Senior management architect or nonregistered graduate; responsible for major department(s) or functions; reports to a principal or partner.

Project manager: Licensed architect or nonregistered graduate with more than 10 years of experience; has overall project management responsibility for a variety of projects or project teams, including client contact, scheduling, and budgeting.

Senior architect/designer: Licensed architect or nonregistered graduate with more than 10 years of experience; has a design or technical focus and is responsible for significant project activities.

Architect/designer III: Licensed architect or nonregistered graduate with 8–10 years of experience; responsible for significant aspects of projects.

Architect/designer II: Licensed architect or nonregistered graduate with 6–8 years of experience; responsible for daily design or technical development of project.

Architect/designer I: Recently licensed architect or nonregistered graduate with 3–5 years of experience; responsible for particular parts of a project within parameters set by others.

Third-year intern: Unlicensed architecture school graduate in third year of internship; develops design or technical solutions under supervision of an architect.

Second-year intern: Intern in second year of internship.

Entry-level intern: Intern in first year of internship.

Student: Currently enrolled in an academic architecture program.

Senior principal/partner: Typically an owner or majority shareholder of the firm; may be the founder; titles may include President, CEO, or Managing Principal/Partner.

Midlevel principal/partner: Principal or partner; titles may include Executive or Senior Vice President.

Junior principal/partner: Recently made a partner or principal of the firm; titles may include Vice President or Associate Principal.

Not every firm (or practitioner) subscribes to these definitions. but, if there's anything approaching a standard set of descriptions, this is likely to be it.

Note: most (if not all) jurisdictions say that an unlicensed individual may not use the term "architect" to describe him(her)self. the aia uses the term "designer" to describe unlicensed professionals with 3 or more more years of experience.

my suggestion... find out what the firm to which you are applying calls the position that you desire, and go with that.

the title bestowed me by my firm is "architect in training" which is nice, because it sounds like i have a goal, but sucky because it sounds like i'm a student who needs to be minded after.

i personally prefer "architectural designer"

as someone mentioned, if you are having to ask what your title means, then probably you are not ready to be associate yourself, or the title is just a name and wont imply anything more than that

point well taken sameold, but i don't think i completely agree with that assessment.

the situation in my case is that i have never worked at a firm where titles of this sort were applied to anyone. there have only been principals/owners, and then everybody else. i have only worked at small, 1-5 person firms where everyone did some of everything on every project.

i don't think it's a matter of not being ready or qualified for "associate" status as much as it is confusion over what this title might mean outside of the little bubble wherein i spend most of my days. and for me, i'm not applying for a new job, more evolving in my existing one.

as a result of some longer term planning discussions and more specifically the printing of new business cards for the owner and myself, this topic has been in the air recently.

and of course there is a certain degree of 'who cares?' to it all, considering it will still at the end of each day be just the two of us, but there is also the notion that the title is important, whether we choose to subscribe to its importance or not.

'nuff said.

lively discussion though. i for one, thank you all...though i wonder if RAArch got what he was looking for.

Barchitect?

my sollution to that problem was to leave off title, but describe my responsibilities -

for example:

big house, 2001, $8million, 5000 sf. Responsibilities included schematic Design, DD, CD,coordination with mech engineers, interior detailing,

small house, 2002, $ 1million, 100sf. Responsibilities included, SD, DD, CD, Liasing with clients, coordination with structureal , me consultants, CA, site supervision ....

Everyone is aware that bet 3 and 10 or so years, most people are in that title-less grey area. More important is to communicate your experience and knowlege

Also - if you don't have a professional degree you shouldn't be cautious about calling your self an architect. right now you are an March Student with some experience.

wow, lively debate.

to address the associate issues here is a def from dictionary.com:

a person who shares actively in anything as a business, enterprise, or undertaking;

that could mean anything really. good, bad or indifferent
and as i think someone mentioned above i too have worked in firms of less than 5, my last, it was the partner and myself, so i think i have a good knowledge and handle, it isn't about me not realizing my place.

but i think my questioned certainly got people thinking and talking, which makes me believe there is a disconnect. now that may not be important. i suppose i could have asked the question a little more directly and gotten the answer i was probably looking for [thank you quizzical]

If I understood the original question properly, RAArch is asking about how to categorize current and past experience on a resume. If that is the case, you should absolutely use the formal title that the employer gave to you - whether you like it or not. A resume expert once said, "Do not lie on your resume when it comes to job titles. Job titles are one of the easiest things for prospective employers to verify with your previous employers." You can, and should, always qualify your title with the specific responsibilities you had.


the title bestowed me by my firm is "architect in training" which is nice, because it sounds like i have a goal, but sucky because it sounds like i'm a student who needs to be minded after.

The engineering profession has E.I.T. (Engineer in Training). From what I understand, an E.I.T. is someone who has recently graduated and passed one (maybe more) parts of the discipline-specific exams and has also demonstrated internship experience. Perhaps the architectural profession needs a formal title for those who are currently enrolled in IDP. "Intern" is just so broad.

Associate doesn't bother me. If you want to get Starbucky/Wal-Marty, go for "Team Member." And start calling the customers "guests." If I'm a guest at Starbucks, gimme some free coffee!

Project Designer


"associate" and "senior associate" are honors that come with contractual obligations at the firm that I'm currently employed with.


(quizzical, i tried sending you an email via the archinect form, but it didn't go through...)

you know - this really is indicative of the types of people in this profesion - we got about 10 names and levels to describe a reletively simple process of learning to make buildings. Your an architect or your not. It used to be simply Jr. Architect/ Architect.


leave it to a bunch of F**kn architects to overcomplicate this.

to answer your question - meat on a hook.

thats what it is until you get the authority to be a real architect

LOL evilp.

my daily rant - helps relief the stress and keeps me from unloading on the person leaving 15/64" fractions all over my drawings.

even after you "get the authority to be a real architect" you're just a different kind of meat on a different kind of hook

Speaking of Meat on a hook, I do think that is an Architecture Studio in the background.