I've seen other postings on here about the liability around calling yourself an "architect" before you are licensed. Has anybody either been fined or know someone that has been fined? I have a document from the California Business and Professions Code that states -
"It is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less
than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than five thousand dollars
($5,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year,
or by both that fine and imprisonment, for any person who is not
licensed to practice architecture under this chapter to practice
architecture in this state, to use any term confusingly similar to
the word architect, to use the stamp of a licensed architect, as
provided in Section 5536.1, or to advertise or put out any sign,
card, or other device that might indicate to the public that he or
she is an architect, that he or she is qualified to engage in the
practice of architecture, or that he or she is an architectural designer."
I have been careful to avoid calling myself, or any of my services anything related to architecture. However, my business card says "Design Services" which may even be crossing the line. I'm soon to get licensed, and would like to invest in some signs that say "Architectural Services", so that I might use them later down the road -- after all, we do live in an economy of limited resources. I don't want to have to print new signs just for a somewhat silly protection of ignorant consumers. Don't get me wrong, I DO think it makes sense to regulate who can call themselves an architect. It takes a shit-ton of work to get registered. However, according to the California Business and Professions Code, you can design --
"(1) Single-family dwellings of woodframe construction not more
than two stories and basement in height.
(2) Multiple dwellings containing no more than four dwelling units
of woodframe construction not more than two stories and basement in
height."
This makes me want to punch someone's face in, because essentially they are stating that one can design buildings (i.e., practice architecture) without a license, yet cannot call that architecture they've created "architecture". We might as well ban calling cats "cats", just to really fuck things up. Kafka would eat it up.
My point is, it's fair to protect the name and hard work of those who are licensed, but it is not fair to deny someone the right to label their services what they are. Is it wrong to call the work I do on single-family dwellings "architectural services"? I am not saying I'm an architect, but I'm saying I provide architectural services up to the limit of the law as an unlicensed person. Doesn't this slightly wreak of special-interest protection for that most wonderful old-boy's club, the AIA?
Anyway, enough with the rant.... does anyone have any thoughts, advice, anecdotes?
m - the notion that one can design their own house is so deeply rooted in this country's history, i doubt that will ever change. it's tied intimately to the notion that 'a man's house is his castle'...
as for multifamily, most states have those exemptions. in georgia, we have exemptions for small strip malls (an engineer can do them without an architect's stamp), most farm buildings, etc. butler, etc. can sell whole buildings without an architect's stamp.
all of that is separate, to me, from calling oneself an architect or selling what you do as 'architecture' without a stamp. that is fraud. why would it be any different from a registered nurse calling themselves a doctor? it's completely fair to try and protect the label, even if that label doesn't cover everything that's built.
the aia does have an interest in protecting the title, but so should anyone who's earned the right.
all that said, i'm curious as to why you don't want to promote yourself as just a 'designer'? that term has far more cachet right now that being an architect does...
Acorn Building Design Associates of Mansfield have been ordered to pay a record £7,340 for breaching the Architects Act by using the title "architect" when not on the Arb register.
It's total bullshit. Basically, that is what they can control and prosecute you on. They can't control who builds or what, but the title they can.
It should be one way or the other - either you can only build with a stamp (build any building) or you can call yourself an architect with a professional degree.
Here's the other part of the Practice Act, that explicitly forbids the use of the term "architectural". Stick with "Designer":
§ 134 Use of the Term Architect; Responsible Control within Business
Entity
(a) Use of the Term Architect: It shall be unlawful for any person to use a business name that includes as part of its title or description of services the term “architect,” “architecture,” or “architectural,” or any abbreviations or confusingly similar variations thereof, unless that person is a business entity wherein an architect is: 1) in management control of the professional services that are offered and provided by the business entity; and, 2) either the owner,a part-owner, an officer or an employee of the business entity.
Furthermore, if you are an unlicensed person providing "architectural services", even if it is an exempt project, you are breaking the law and could be prosecuted.
§ 5500.1 Practice of Architecture Defined
(a) The practice of architecture within the meaning and intent of this chapter is defined as offering or performing, or being in responsible control of, professional services which require the skills of an architect in the planning of sites, and the design, in whole or in part, of buildings, or groups of buildings and structures.
(b) Architects' professional services may include any or all of the following:
(1) Investigation, evaluation, consultation, and advice.
(2) Planning, schematic and preliminary studies, designs, working drawings,
and specifications.
(3) Coordination of the work of technical and special consultants.
(4) Compliance with generally applicable codes and regulations, and
assistance in the governmental review process.
(5) Technical assistance in the preparation of bid documents and agreements
between clients and contractors.
(6) Contract administration.
(7) Construction observation.
(c) As a condition for licensure, architects shall demonstrate a basic level of competence in the professional services listed in subdivision (b) in examinations administered under this chapter.
Not very helpful, right? You basically will need the services of an attorney to know when you are just "designing" and when you have crossed the line over to unlicensed practice.
Here's some stories of prosecution:
-James Cutler was fined in California because he executed a contract for architectural services on an exempt project and wasn't licensed here.
-So was Eric Corey Freed - he fell through a bureaucratic hole and broke the law unintentionally while moving between NM and CA (if I remember correctly).
-A well known design firm in LA is currently being investigated by the CAB since they have no licensed architects as partners in the LA office. This follows similar action against them in Nevada.
The reality is that because California is the only state with anything close to the rigor of the supplemental exam, CA is the only jurisdiction where the credentialing process actually does require that someone is reasonably competent before they can call themselves an Architect. Enforcement of title is totally meaningless unless the title conveys competence. I think that the CAB is actually doing something good for the profession - I wouldn't support this attitude anywhere that you can simply be licensed based on IDP and 7-9 multiple choice tests.
Thanks for all of the very valid and thoughtful responses. In all actuality, I am content with calling myself a "designer". Unfortunately, in order to get more work, one must market themselves, and there is no catchy term for "designer-of-single-family-residential-homes-that-is-not-currently-licensed". I run a very legitimate business under the terms of the law, and have just been frustrated by the reality of having no way to set myself apart from those that actually are incompetent. (In other words, I'm somewhere in between incompetent and licensed). Which, I suppose, is the stick that will get me to study more diligently for the ARE.
But that might get me started on a rant about how long it takes to get an authorization to test from the CAB...
Didn't some guy in Colorado get fined for calling himself an Architect so he sued and won? Hand to that guy.
I'm all for keeping network admins and such from using the title Architect, but if you have a professional degree and are doing the work of architecture what's the big hairy deal? Interns are literally scared to even tell people what the fuck they do.
Here's a typical casual non-work related conversation...
"What do you do?"
"I'm a designer"
"What do you design?"
"....buildings...."
"Isn't that an Architect?"
"Well, yes, but technically I'm, uhh...."
This bullshit protectionism is part of the reason engineers, contractors, etc. have no respect for us. Once someone gets their medical degree we call them a doctor. Yes, if they are practicing while not licensed they can get into big trouble, but there is no title police running around to make sure only licensed doctors use that word. It's insanity our profession does that.
I'll bet 2/3 of my posts on this site are related to this topic, but for new readers I'll say my opinion again:
if you have a professional degree and are doing the work of architecture what's the big hairy deal?
It's only, IMO, a deal at all if you are representing yourself professionally to get business. If you are at a party and answering the question "What do you do?" say you're an architect. If the questioner then says "Great, I need an architect for my new car dealership building, give me your card" you need to identify that you are actually not licensed to do such work. Once the prospect of purchasing your professional services arises, the legal issues of registration are present. In cocktail chatter, they are not.
To answer M:space's query about experiences: I have a friend who interviewed for a house project and was first choice until the owner found out he was not registered. At that point the owner sent a letter saying my friend was misrepresenting himself. Note my friend had only interviewed, not signed a contract, and had never stated he was an architect, just a designer. And, of course, his design ability was no different than it had been a few days before! But this owner had the attitude that he only wanted a "real" architect for his house, and took personal offense for some reason.
Also, aqua: don't doubt for a second that other professions do this. Have you had your hair cut by a licensed professional? Know the difference between an LPN and and RN, or think that every nurse alive doesn't? Had a fantastic therapeutic massage vs. a skeezy rubdown?
To anyone who doesn't have their license yet: get one. See if your attitude changes.
aqua: "This bullshit protectionism is part of the reason engineers, contractors, etc. have no respect for us. ... It's insanity our profession does that."
Methinks this "protectionism" is mostly a state board issue ... not a decision of the profession per se.
If the other members of the building team "have no respect for us" I'm pretty sure that doesn't have much to do with the titles we can, or cannot, use to describe who we are.
In my world, respect and credibility come from what I know and what I can do ... not what word I use to describe my activities.
I'm with LB ... if you have the qualifications to take the exam, take the damn exam and make this discussion moot. Stop wasting energy debating a meaningless issue.
"I...have just been frustrated by the reality of having no way to set myself apart from those that actually are incompetent."
This is the whole point of licensure in the first place, setting a minimum standard of competency for consumers of our services. Listen to LB and Stone here; just do the work and get your danged license.
Well, some of us have worked damm hard for the title. I certainly don't feel like sharing it with anybody who does not qualify, and let me say that passing 9 exams to show minimal qualifications shouldn't put people off. They aren't that hard. The hard part is waiting around getting the experiance someone else decided was adequate, unlike other professions where after graduation they can just take their exam. But lets face it, everyone on this board can attest to the fact that upon graduation from architecture school, they were not qualified to be an architect. WHy? Cuz they teach desing in school, not how to build a structure, home, hospital, starbucks, so on and so forth. Until they fix school, we're fucked in this. Deal with it.
By this logic, people should be pushing to eliminate any building being designed by anyone that is not licensed.
That's just bullshit, imho. Until that happens, I can't see any logic in this.
LB - your comparison is almost appropriate, the difference is that in other professions people can't do the work without licensure. People can build buildings without being an architect, but you can obviously not practice law or medicine without passing the tests.
As someone that will continue to design buildings and never will take the exam, I will never see the logic in letting some design buildings, and that's ok, but those that have a decade of education can't use the term that other professions throw around casually, without repercussions.
It is easy for people that pursued a traditional career path to say 'just take the exams', but for those that chose a more entrepreneurial path, that is just not possible.
I'll stop debating this, though, as I've gone on countless times on here. But there will have to be a change at some point, as there are more and more seeking different career paths (they obviously won't make it so no one without a license can design a building).
but you can obviously not practice law or medicine without passing the tests.
People practice medicine and law without licenses all the time. I hear news stories about quack doctors less often than I hear about quack architects, but that's because I follow our profession not others. So I don't understand your point?
And trace: you have an architecture degree, right? If that's the case, nothing is stopping you from getting registered except you. You can obviously do it if you want to, and you're obviously smart enough to do it no problem, and you are definitely one I would like to see get registered. What's stopping you? and I mean that in the most supportive way possible!
Note my partner is in your boat: he has a BArch, but since I'm here he has no incentive to get licensed himself. Which is fine, because the bulk of our work doesn't require a license anyway. I tease him about it, and he admits it's nothing more than laziness (he hates bureaucracy) on his part. But he also does not call himself an architect, we call our firm an "architecture firm", which we legally allowed to do.
LB, I agree that licensure is important and I am hoping to get there in a few years, but I think it's dumb when we let our professional associations and the boards that regulate us bog us down with semantics and nomenclature as opposed to something more meaningful. While I understand how easy it would be for someone to misrepresent themselves and their work if we did not have a legal definition for "architect", and while I know that as a recent recipient of a professional degree, I am not yet competent enough to practice architecture fully, I feel that I have earned the title of architect to some degree. Other professions that require a professional degree do not list their affiliation after their name, but their degree. While doctors and lawyers must be licensed, it is the degree that they earned that defines their profession, not a regulatory board. Similarly your example:
Know the difference between an LPN and and RN
indicates that another example of how it is defined is through the acronym denominating the level of licensure, education, etc attained. This is getting back into semantics, but in the case of an LPN and an RN, both are able to call themselves nurses. People are able to accurately determine the level of accredidation they have received, but the nurses themselves are not denied their identity as a professional within this framework. Why can't we have something like LA (Licensed Architect) and IA (Intern Architect) as an example, letting both call themselves architects but clearly distinguishing between the degrees of accredidation?
Since we insist on comparing this profession to doctors, lawyers, etc.
Would you not say that a nurse and a doctor both provide health care services? The public understands that there is a different level of education and liability in the services that are provided by the two groups and that the Doctor is the "smart, rich guy, who has sacrificed years of his life for the betterment of society".
I am 100% convinced the public understands the relationship between doctors and nurses because of TV, even if incorrect and misrepresented. (Not to mention the fact that most people visit the doctor annually or more) There are at least 5-10 prime time shows about Doctors, healthcare and nurses. This gives the public a glimmer of the structure of the profession and how Doctors, even though they save the world one episode at a time, are human and still tormented with temptation.
So now all the unemployed architects can begin to write dramas about the cruel and exciting relationships that exist between Architects and Designers while providing life changing Architectural Services. The public will now be educated on what Hollywood wants the public to think an Architect does. Architects will become the revered hero above the lowly designer and everyone can stop whinning on public message boards. The show could become really exciting by adding an evil contractor or developer as antagonist. Or maybe it would be the do gooder, boutique firm, struggling for high art ,versus the old boys club, corporate firm, beating them down with political connections. Wow. The options really are endless.
I was using the nurse example to point out to aquapura that other professions also engage in what could be seen as petty squabbling about one's level of professional attainment: the cliche is that RN's feel superior to LPNs. But you are right: they are both "nurses". I think it would be great to allow people to be IAs and LAs.
But, another can of worms, do keep in mind we've heard plenty of interns on this very site bemoaning how belittling it is to be called an "intern" at age 35...maybe we need to use Graduate Architect (GA) instead. And some people already do use RA (Registered) professionally (which I am doing right now as my AIA dues for the year are not yet paid (oops)).
This is why we have "designers" and "architects". One is not the other while the other is or can be both. It's what differentiates us and lets the public know.
A lot of states will allow someone with experiance to take the exams and become licensed without a degree. I think all states should have this. As I said earlier, school teaches you design while the firm teaches you how to build or how a building actually gets built. This is what the exams are testing, not your sense of design.
If you want to be a designer, that is fine by me, but then go hire an architect or engineer to get you a permit for the work you want to do, unless your state allows you some leeway.
Someone mentioned residential work. Yes, most states allow you to design residential, but after a certain level the prescriptive code IRC ends. Usually about when a home requires any amount of steel beams, columns and footings and ceases to be prescriptive. Pretty much anything wider than about 22'. Then you need a licensed professional to sign and stamp your drawings.
FrankLloydMike wrote: "I am not yet competent enough to practice architecture fully, I feel that I have earned the title of architect to some degree. Other professions that require a professional degree do not list their affiliation after their name, but their degree. While doctors and lawyers must be licensed, it is the degree that they earned that defines their profession, not a regulatory board."
You make little sense here. How can you personally KNOW you are not competent enough to practice architecture and still feel you "earned" the right to call yourself an architect. It is exactly the/a board who decides whether or not you have earned the title, not you or your boss or mommy or John down the street. Once you have completed the requirements as set forth by those in charge then you can call yourself an architect, not before. If you don't like those rules then you need to find a way to change them but until that change comes, these are the requirements.
Sorry if that sounds like I am mean or mad, I am just trying to explain thw "what is" from the "what you want it to be".
I think the expense of licensure (and keeping up with the licensure) is what keeps many away from it, especially in a market like this.
Personally, I like the fact that there is a goal out there for me to attain, and there are several stepping stones of smaller goals to reach first. I like the fact that it ISN'T so deeply rooted in the educational field unlike doctors for instance. No it isn't perfect, but I like what I have to do to get there. It keeps me on track and focused.
As for the fact that you can design without being licensed...that's GREAT! But it is limiting, and is done so to be purposely limiting. One cannot design those types of structures forever without branching out I would think. I think the idea is that you will be useful to society while your spending time preparing for your exams.
I've earned the right to call myself an architect. Certainly that's my opinion, but that's how I see it. I also consider anyone that has a professional degree to have earned this right.
I am also a designer - graphics, web, etc. They are two very different things. No one would ever assume a 'designer' did anything in the built world, that is just ridiculous to assume it makes sense to call yourself a 'designer' just because you are not licensed, even if you are 'designing architecture'.
LB - yes, I have two degrees in architecture. The reason I will never be licensed is because of two things. #1 I am a business owner, I will never go through IDP unless it is 'creatively' done, which I'll consider as time goes on. #2 time, obviously all drawings done will be stamped, but I can get that done for next to nothing.
The point about Dr was that no one can LEGALLY practice. With buildings, people can design and construct buildings without an architect. You can't prescribe any drugs without a Doc.
Damn, this topic get's me going! This, and far too much coffee far too early.
I like to think I was a cat and earned the title because I can meow, but that don't make it so. Sorry trace, but when you have earned it, you will have gone through what is required, as outlined by other professionals within the system that regulates it.
Short story. I joined the Marine Corps long ago. It wasn't until my senior DI told me after 3 months of boot camp that I had earned the title of Marine. Even though I had been paid to be in the Marine Corps for 3 months, I was not a Marine until that moment of graduating boot camp. Nor did I even think to call myself a Marine until that day I graduated boot camp. I had earned the title as set forth by those in charge of making that determination.
It is exactly the/a board who decides whether or not you have earned the title, not you or your boss or mommy or John down the street.
Exactly, like the/a board that accredited the school that I went to. I quite understand the "what is" from the "what you want it to be", which is what I explained above. I earned a professional degree in Architecture, yet as a professional I am not an Architect. This makes little sense. I'm merely asking that we adopt a system more like what other professions use, which is to allow someone who has earned a professional degree to identify themselves as a professional in that field, while clearly distinguishing the difference between someone who is licensed and someone who is yet to be licensed; that we better define the current structure of what makes someone an Architect and an Intern Architect, and implement it universally rather than haphazardly, with perhaps a more accurate nomenclature. I am not advocating that an unlicensed Intern Architect be able to widely practice Architecture without the guidance of a licensed Architect, just that we improve and update what we call ourselves and how we treat ourselves. I did not go to school for five years to basically have to call myself a draftsman, and the work I do is more than that while obviously being less than that of a licensed Architect, and I am not doing an internship, so what I am as a professional seems to be ambiguous at the moment.
I think you're making much too broad a statement with this, but there is some truth in it:
school teaches you design while the firm teaches you how to build or how a building actually gets built. This is what the exams are testing, not your sense of design.
Still, NAAB accredits schools, and the graduates of those schools receive a legally professional degree that is the first step in enabling them to practice Architecture. Though it may be in name, it is not in actually the test alone that makes you an Architect.
"Still, NAAB accredits schools, and the graduates of those schools receive a legally professional degree that is the first step in enabling them to practice Architecture. Though it may be in name, it is not in actually the test alone that makes you an Architect."
You could not have said it any better FLM. The degree is the first step in a series of steps. There are other routes as well, but the one you took was the first step. I think the other problem is that you don't want to be called that which you were, day one out of the box(school) which was a drafter. That first day you certainly were just a drafter and moved upwards from there. But we can split hairs all day long. You need to move foreward, get involved and make the changes to the profession from the inside, not the outside. I didn't ever call myself an intern either. Drafter was far better. But usually I just said I worked in an architecture firm.
Mysty: I largely agree: I like the fact that it ISN'T so deeply rooted in the educational field unlike doctors for instance. No it isn't perfect, but I like what I have to do to get there. It keeps me on track and focused. The whole yin and yang thing, I guess.
On the Fence: the world is not the Marines, and just because in the military the definition of what you are comes from on high and is not to be questioned does that mean that should be so in the rest of the world. Similarly: I was not a Marine until that moment of graduating boot camp. So not upon completing a mission, upon deployment, etc, but on graduating, huh? Sound familiar? Boot camp as with a professional degree is the first step in a longer process, but in one you earn a title, in the other you don't.
Not a problem. I still stick to what I said which is that you have placed your feet upon a path, whether you had full knowledge of the length of that path or not. That path leads to an end objective. Not until you reach the end do you obtain the objective which is licensed architect. Now, that path has changed over decades and centuries. Today the path is what the path is. By 1800 standards you are currently an architect but not by todays. And again, if you and other do not like it, you can change it. I don't fully agree with it but abided by its rules and have achieved the end objective. I have no problem with you trying to change that system, yet.
FLM - some very well thought comments, which I for the most part agree with.
Sorry for my rant earlier today but as I am currently waiting for the results from my final ARE exam just recently a co-worker derided me for not being a "real" architect. Sorry, but the elitism inside our profession gets me a little angry at times.
The only distinction I see between all of us providing architectural services is that of the Architect of Record. That's the person taking the liability for the drawings and that's IMO the only title distinction there should be.
Otherwise, I don't see any real distinction from someone who has passed an exam and someone who hasn't. Mind you, this is a comment from someone who has taken all 9 exams and doesn't consider them a very good test of architectural skills at all.
I've met with plenty of AHJ's and am always careful to explain that I will not be the Architect of Record. At least 75% of the time they make a comment about knowing, regardless of title, that I'm the "architect" for the project. Since most of the work I do is outside my home state none of this changes once I am registered.
This is just an example of how we aren't fooling anybody by guarding the title so much. Now if I sign drawings as a non-registered architect the state board should fine/punish me. But for what someone puts on their business cards, c'mon.
Forum to M:Space, "Obviously, you're not a golfer". I don't do forums that often, but maybe I should pick up that bowling ball.
Trace, maybe the fact that "designers" like us have to work creatively, and stay entrepreneurial to do the things that we do, in the face of semantics and boards and licenses, is what got us to where we are, and ultimately what makes us better architects than those that follow the formula graduate+internship+test=Architect. Instead of sitting in someone else's office, being told to draft their thoughts and designs, we've pushed the outer boundaries of what we're allowed to do, and forced ourselves to think for ourselves. It seems that we are both fully capable of designing good buildings and could easily pass the ARE, and in that regard, I believe we have earned the right to be called something more than a "Designer", which is a blanket term that confuses the crap out of people ("oh, do you do logos?"). I would not hesitate to fight in court that I have a legal right to call myself something with the word architect in it, though I would also concede that I am specifically NOT an Architect, and have no right to call myself that until the powers that be tell me it's so.
I went to school with a lot of incompetent people, and it frustrated me that they were getting the same degree I was. At that time, I wasn't looking ahead to what should ultimately set me apart from them, which is my willingness and capability to sit for the ARE. That said, I'd be happy to let the incompetent graduates from my school do what I do right now without a license. They got the degree I did and sat in the same structural and environmental classes I did (and probably did more homework). They are not threatening anybody's life, safety, or well-being by redesigning a few interior walls in a 2000 s.f. ranch house. My local building departments are so quick to tell me I need stamped structural drawings when I need them it's not funny. If someone with an architecture degree is happy with the level of knowledge they've reached, and want to work within the law, let them call themselves something other than a "designer". What we're really talking about here is protectionism of the precious status of the "Architect". We hold ourselves so high as Architects, when the rest of the world just shrugs, and tells us where they want their toilet paper holder.
M:space wrote: "They got the degree I did and sat in the same structural and environmental classes I did (and probably did more homework). They are not threatening anybody's life, safety, or well-being by redesigning a few interior walls in a 2000 s.f. ranch house. My local building departments are so quick to tell me I need stamped structural drawings when I need them it's not funny."
Okay, so it's funny. Let me tell you the funny story I had several weeks ago.
The designer comes in. I don't know his educational background. Sounds fairly intelligent and says he has been doing this type of work for 20 years. On his residential remodel plans he submitted to me for review he wanted to take out a wall. One wall about 5 feet long. I tell him it is a load bearing wall and the floor above needs to be supported. He doesn't like what I wrote and on the re-submittal writes that it is not a load bearing wall. Hmmmm. This is a designer who thnks he knows something and is not endangering the lives of people around him. I then re-write my review outlining exactly what is wrong and why. From the TJI spans, to the triple 2x12 header underneath the existing wall he wants to remove. About a paragraph later I submit the review. He gets the review and asks to come in to talk with me. Fine. We talk and finally the light goes on over his head. I haven't seen the new plans yet as I do not think he is capable of the simple calculations he needs to figure out the structure for removing one wall to be able to turn a powder room into a full bathroom. He needs either an architect or engineer at this point for one simple wall.
Interesting discussion, as someone who just recently graduated last year with a four yr degree in Architecture, I am always so confused as to what my job title is/should be. I mean I have a degree in architecture, but its not a professonal one (and I want to work awhile and start getting IDP credit before I go back to school to get a pro degree). At my previous firm I was and an "intern architect" but someone else I graduated with and had the same degree was considered a "graduate architect" by the firm because they had internships before they graduated (and were technically in a different "program" because they interned when I went overseas, though we both had the exact same degree). Though realistically I did more work, I got paid less then that person, because of their "previous experience." And, there was another person there who had graduated from our school several years before us, when the program was still a 5 yr BArch and they were called a "graduate architect" too, but they were basically a project manager and had all the same responsiblities and a bigger workload then any of the other project managers (since they had to do all their own design and CAD work, as opposed to the older arch who all had CAD techs).
And since I got laid off a few months ago, after about a year of working there, and am looking for a new job, I am so confused as to what job I actually qualify for. I see ads for "intern architects" with 3-5 yrs experince, which I dont have, or "graduate architects" with 0-1 yrs experience, which I do have, but I am not technically a "graduate architect" since I only have a 4 yr degree. And, some firms have the blanket "intern" position, but really only want people still in school (prolly to get away with paying them way less). Its a mess.
Interesting discussion, as someone who just recently graduated last year with a four yr degree in Architecture, I am always so confused as to what my job title is/should be. I mean I have a degree in architecture, but its not a professonal one (and I want to work awhile and start getting IDP credit before I go back to school to get a pro degree). At my previous firm I was and an "intern architect" but someone else I graduated with and had the same degree was considered a "graduate architect" by the firm because they had internships before they graduated (and were technically in a different "program" because they interned when I went overseas, though we both had the exact same degree). Though realistically I did more work, I got paid less then that person, because of their "previous experience." And, there was another person there who had graduated from our school several years before us, when the program was still a 5 yr BArch and they were called a "graduate architect" too, but they were basically a project manager and had all the same responsiblities and a bigger workload then any of the other project managers (since they had to do all their own design and CAD work, as opposed to the older arch who all had CAD techs).
And since I got laid off a few months ago, after about a year of working there, and am looking for a new job, I am so confused as to what job I actually qualify for. I see ads for "intern architects" with 3-5 yrs experince, which I dont have, or "graduate architects" with 0-1 yrs experience, which I do have, but I am not technically a "graduate architect" since I only have a 4 yr degree. And, some firms have the blanket "intern" position, but really only want people still in school (prolly to get away with paying them way less). Its a mess.
i find it amazing that lb's very simple and clear distinction has been lost in all the hubris:
it's one thing to call yourself an 'architect' in the existential, cocktail, or artistic sense. it's a kind of professional identity we're all a part of to some greater or lesser degree. and that's great. call yourself an architect, in that capacity, anytime, anywhere.
it's a whole other matter to represent yourself as an 'architect' in a legal sense (which covers all business transactions). the minimum (and they are truly minimum) standards put in place to safeguard that term are an extension of the entire notion of what constitutes a 'profession' in our society. it may strike those on the outside as elitist, but as someone (like many here) who put in the time, hours, etc. to get the license.... yeah, i'm pretty defensive about holding that turf. and with good reason.
none of this may deeply affect the way we each conduct our businesses - i mean, office d/a got along just fine for many, many years without either principal being licensed directly. i'm not saying i agree with the route they took, but am realistic enough to understand why no one really cared.
Why is it so hard in this forum to understand legalities? As lb pointed out, there are legal aspects in every profession as to when you can call yourself X or not. For instance:
"In general, a prospective lawyer will need to pass a state-administered bar exam after earning a Juris Doctor degree from a law school approved by the state in which he/she wants to practice. Typically, there is also a character and fitness evaluation, along with a background check. Because each state has its own bar, a lawyer who is admitted to practice in one state is not automatically allowed to practice in another."
Seems very simple to me: you got a law degree, but you can't legally call yourself a lawyer until you pass the bar. Similarly, in medicine, you are not legally a doctor until you do your intership/residency under the supervision of fully licensed physicians.
In architecture, you can't legally call yourself an architect and stamp drawings until you pass the proper exams and, just like stated above for the bar, you can practice in the state you live in but have to get another stamp or seal for another state. Why is there so much moaning and gnashing of teeth over this?
So, m-space, you can punch all the faces you want, but all the State of California is distinguishing is when you need to have a friggin' stamp on the drawings, which is their estimate of when the building gets complicated, structurally or code wise, and yes, it is probably an arbitrary line, but legally they have to draw it somewhere.
Why can't you people understand the laws in your state!
With the economy in the crapper I would not be suprised if out of work architects start getting pissy about those who are misrepresenting themselves to potential clients as licensed individuals.
M:Space, just be aware that this issue has been discussed here endlessly over the last four years...so some posters are tired of the conversation. I imagine that's where marlowe's frustration is based.
Apologies for what may have been deemed 'a shallow comment' but seriously folks this 'what does the title architect really mean' and 'why can't I call myself an architect because......" sort of discussion is just not productive.
What is productive is sending these types of questions to your state's board or contact a qualified attorney in your state.
This sort of question is essentially a plea for free legal advice which, I'm assuming, none of us in this forum are qualified to dispense.
oh, i'm qualified to dispense just about any sort of advice that i want, you see i just can't LEGALLY represent myself as an Advisor until i pass my online Advisorship Analysis Assessment.
then i just need to inform the Nat'l Consortium of Advisor Bureaucrats (NCARB) of my desire to Advise people in other states.
i also did keep track of my Interpersonal Directing Protocol over the past handful of years, meticulous though it may have been.
Now i get to brandish this when my Adivsement has been challenged:
Unlicensed, but practicing architecture
I've seen other postings on here about the liability around calling yourself an "architect" before you are licensed. Has anybody either been fined or know someone that has been fined? I have a document from the California Business and Professions Code that states -
"It is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less
than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than five thousand dollars
($5,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year,
or by both that fine and imprisonment, for any person who is not
licensed to practice architecture under this chapter to practice
architecture in this state, to use any term confusingly similar to
the word architect, to use the stamp of a licensed architect, as
provided in Section 5536.1, or to advertise or put out any sign,
card, or other device that might indicate to the public that he or
she is an architect, that he or she is qualified to engage in the
practice of architecture, or that he or she is an architectural designer."
I have been careful to avoid calling myself, or any of my services anything related to architecture. However, my business card says "Design Services" which may even be crossing the line. I'm soon to get licensed, and would like to invest in some signs that say "Architectural Services", so that I might use them later down the road -- after all, we do live in an economy of limited resources. I don't want to have to print new signs just for a somewhat silly protection of ignorant consumers. Don't get me wrong, I DO think it makes sense to regulate who can call themselves an architect. It takes a shit-ton of work to get registered. However, according to the California Business and Professions Code, you can design --
"(1) Single-family dwellings of woodframe construction not more
than two stories and basement in height.
(2) Multiple dwellings containing no more than four dwelling units
of woodframe construction not more than two stories and basement in
height."
This makes me want to punch someone's face in, because essentially they are stating that one can design buildings (i.e., practice architecture) without a license, yet cannot call that architecture they've created "architecture". We might as well ban calling cats "cats", just to really fuck things up. Kafka would eat it up.
My point is, it's fair to protect the name and hard work of those who are licensed, but it is not fair to deny someone the right to label their services what they are. Is it wrong to call the work I do on single-family dwellings "architectural services"? I am not saying I'm an architect, but I'm saying I provide architectural services up to the limit of the law as an unlicensed person. Doesn't this slightly wreak of special-interest protection for that most wonderful old-boy's club, the AIA?
Anyway, enough with the rant.... does anyone have any thoughts, advice, anecdotes?
m - the notion that one can design their own house is so deeply rooted in this country's history, i doubt that will ever change. it's tied intimately to the notion that 'a man's house is his castle'...
as for multifamily, most states have those exemptions. in georgia, we have exemptions for small strip malls (an engineer can do them without an architect's stamp), most farm buildings, etc. butler, etc. can sell whole buildings without an architect's stamp.
all of that is separate, to me, from calling oneself an architect or selling what you do as 'architecture' without a stamp. that is fraud. why would it be any different from a registered nurse calling themselves a doctor? it's completely fair to try and protect the label, even if that label doesn't cover everything that's built.
the aia does have an interest in protecting the title, but so should anyone who's earned the right.
all that said, i'm curious as to why you don't want to promote yourself as just a 'designer'? that term has far more cachet right now that being an architect does...
Acorn Building Design Associates of Mansfield have been ordered to pay a record £7,340 for breaching the Architects Act by using the title "architect" when not on the Arb register.
fyi: in NZ you can call yourself an 'architectural designer' without being registered, but not an 'architect'
yeah, just go with 'architectural designer'.
It's total bullshit. Basically, that is what they can control and prosecute you on. They can't control who builds or what, but the title they can.
It should be one way or the other - either you can only build with a stamp (build any building) or you can call yourself an architect with a professional degree.
But that would make sense.
All specific to California:
Here's the other part of the Practice Act, that explicitly forbids the use of the term "architectural". Stick with "Designer":
§ 134 Use of the Term Architect; Responsible Control within Business
Entity
(a) Use of the Term Architect: It shall be unlawful for any person to use a business name that includes as part of its title or description of services the term “architect,” “architecture,” or “architectural,” or any abbreviations or confusingly similar variations thereof, unless that person is a business entity wherein an architect is: 1) in management control of the professional services that are offered and provided by the business entity; and, 2) either the owner,a part-owner, an officer or an employee of the business entity.
Furthermore, if you are an unlicensed person providing "architectural services", even if it is an exempt project, you are breaking the law and could be prosecuted.
§ 5500.1 Practice of Architecture Defined
(a) The practice of architecture within the meaning and intent of this chapter is defined as offering or performing, or being in responsible control of, professional services which require the skills of an architect in the planning of sites, and the design, in whole or in part, of buildings, or groups of buildings and structures.
(b) Architects' professional services may include any or all of the following:
(1) Investigation, evaluation, consultation, and advice.
(2) Planning, schematic and preliminary studies, designs, working drawings,
and specifications.
(3) Coordination of the work of technical and special consultants.
(4) Compliance with generally applicable codes and regulations, and
assistance in the governmental review process.
(5) Technical assistance in the preparation of bid documents and agreements
between clients and contractors.
(6) Contract administration.
(7) Construction observation.
(c) As a condition for licensure, architects shall demonstrate a basic level of competence in the professional services listed in subdivision (b) in examinations administered under this chapter.
Not very helpful, right? You basically will need the services of an attorney to know when you are just "designing" and when you have crossed the line over to unlicensed practice.
Here's some stories of prosecution:
-James Cutler was fined in California because he executed a contract for architectural services on an exempt project and wasn't licensed here.
-So was Eric Corey Freed - he fell through a bureaucratic hole and broke the law unintentionally while moving between NM and CA (if I remember correctly).
-A well known design firm in LA is currently being investigated by the CAB since they have no licensed architects as partners in the LA office. This follows similar action against them in Nevada.
The reality is that because California is the only state with anything close to the rigor of the supplemental exam, CA is the only jurisdiction where the credentialing process actually does require that someone is reasonably competent before they can call themselves an Architect. Enforcement of title is totally meaningless unless the title conveys competence. I think that the CAB is actually doing something good for the profession - I wouldn't support this attitude anywhere that you can simply be licensed based on IDP and 7-9 multiple choice tests.
Thanks for all of the very valid and thoughtful responses. In all actuality, I am content with calling myself a "designer". Unfortunately, in order to get more work, one must market themselves, and there is no catchy term for "designer-of-single-family-residential-homes-that-is-not-currently-licensed". I run a very legitimate business under the terms of the law, and have just been frustrated by the reality of having no way to set myself apart from those that actually are incompetent. (In other words, I'm somewhere in between incompetent and licensed). Which, I suppose, is the stick that will get me to study more diligently for the ARE.
But that might get me started on a rant about how long it takes to get an authorization to test from the CAB...
spatial designer
I don't think Eric fell through the cracks, he is smarter than that.
Didn't some guy in Colorado get fined for calling himself an Architect so he sued and won? Hand to that guy.
I'm all for keeping network admins and such from using the title Architect, but if you have a professional degree and are doing the work of architecture what's the big hairy deal? Interns are literally scared to even tell people what the fuck they do.
Here's a typical casual non-work related conversation...
"What do you do?"
"I'm a designer"
"What do you design?"
"....buildings...."
"Isn't that an Architect?"
"Well, yes, but technically I'm, uhh...."
This bullshit protectionism is part of the reason engineers, contractors, etc. have no respect for us. Once someone gets their medical degree we call them a doctor. Yes, if they are practicing while not licensed they can get into big trouble, but there is no title police running around to make sure only licensed doctors use that word. It's insanity our profession does that.
Intern....Architectural Intern.....
I'll bet 2/3 of my posts on this site are related to this topic, but for new readers I'll say my opinion again:
if you have a professional degree and are doing the work of architecture what's the big hairy deal?
It's only, IMO, a deal at all if you are representing yourself professionally to get business. If you are at a party and answering the question "What do you do?" say you're an architect. If the questioner then says "Great, I need an architect for my new car dealership building, give me your card" you need to identify that you are actually not licensed to do such work. Once the prospect of purchasing your professional services arises, the legal issues of registration are present. In cocktail chatter, they are not.
To answer M:space's query about experiences: I have a friend who interviewed for a house project and was first choice until the owner found out he was not registered. At that point the owner sent a letter saying my friend was misrepresenting himself. Note my friend had only interviewed, not signed a contract, and had never stated he was an architect, just a designer. And, of course, his design ability was no different than it had been a few days before! But this owner had the attitude that he only wanted a "real" architect for his house, and took personal offense for some reason.
Also, aqua: don't doubt for a second that other professions do this. Have you had your hair cut by a licensed professional? Know the difference between an LPN and and RN, or think that every nurse alive doesn't? Had a fantastic therapeutic massage vs. a skeezy rubdown?
To anyone who doesn't have their license yet: get one. See if your attitude changes.
aqua: "This bullshit protectionism is part of the reason engineers, contractors, etc. have no respect for us. ... It's insanity our profession does that."
Methinks this "protectionism" is mostly a state board issue ... not a decision of the profession per se.
If the other members of the building team "have no respect for us" I'm pretty sure that doesn't have much to do with the titles we can, or cannot, use to describe who we are.
In my world, respect and credibility come from what I know and what I can do ... not what word I use to describe my activities.
I'm with LB ... if you have the qualifications to take the exam, take the damn exam and make this discussion moot. Stop wasting energy debating a meaningless issue.
This is the whole point of licensure in the first place, setting a minimum standard of competency for consumers of our services. Listen to LB and Stone here; just do the work and get your danged license.
Well, some of us have worked damm hard for the title. I certainly don't feel like sharing it with anybody who does not qualify, and let me say that passing 9 exams to show minimal qualifications shouldn't put people off. They aren't that hard. The hard part is waiting around getting the experiance someone else decided was adequate, unlike other professions where after graduation they can just take their exam. But lets face it, everyone on this board can attest to the fact that upon graduation from architecture school, they were not qualified to be an architect. WHy? Cuz they teach desing in school, not how to build a structure, home, hospital, starbucks, so on and so forth. Until they fix school, we're fucked in this. Deal with it.
By this logic, people should be pushing to eliminate any building being designed by anyone that is not licensed.
That's just bullshit, imho. Until that happens, I can't see any logic in this.
LB - your comparison is almost appropriate, the difference is that in other professions people can't do the work without licensure. People can build buildings without being an architect, but you can obviously not practice law or medicine without passing the tests.
As someone that will continue to design buildings and never will take the exam, I will never see the logic in letting some design buildings, and that's ok, but those that have a decade of education can't use the term that other professions throw around casually, without repercussions.
It is easy for people that pursued a traditional career path to say 'just take the exams', but for those that chose a more entrepreneurial path, that is just not possible.
I'll stop debating this, though, as I've gone on countless times on here. But there will have to be a change at some point, as there are more and more seeking different career paths (they obviously won't make it so no one without a license can design a building).
People practice medicine and law without licenses all the time. I hear news stories about quack doctors less often than I hear about quack architects, but that's because I follow our profession not others. So I don't understand your point?
And trace: you have an architecture degree, right? If that's the case, nothing is stopping you from getting registered except you. You can obviously do it if you want to, and you're obviously smart enough to do it no problem, and you are definitely one I would like to see get registered. What's stopping you? and I mean that in the most supportive way possible!
Note my partner is in your boat: he has a BArch, but since I'm here he has no incentive to get licensed himself. Which is fine, because the bulk of our work doesn't require a license anyway. I tease him about it, and he admits it's nothing more than laziness (he hates bureaucracy) on his part. But he also does not call himself an architect, we call our firm an "architecture firm", which we legally allowed to do.
LB, I agree that licensure is important and I am hoping to get there in a few years, but I think it's dumb when we let our professional associations and the boards that regulate us bog us down with semantics and nomenclature as opposed to something more meaningful. While I understand how easy it would be for someone to misrepresent themselves and their work if we did not have a legal definition for "architect", and while I know that as a recent recipient of a professional degree, I am not yet competent enough to practice architecture fully, I feel that I have earned the title of architect to some degree. Other professions that require a professional degree do not list their affiliation after their name, but their degree. While doctors and lawyers must be licensed, it is the degree that they earned that defines their profession, not a regulatory board. Similarly your example:
Know the difference between an LPN and and RN
indicates that another example of how it is defined is through the acronym denominating the level of licensure, education, etc attained. This is getting back into semantics, but in the case of an LPN and an RN, both are able to call themselves nurses. People are able to accurately determine the level of accredidation they have received, but the nurses themselves are not denied their identity as a professional within this framework. Why can't we have something like LA (Licensed Architect) and IA (Intern Architect) as an example, letting both call themselves architects but clearly distinguishing between the degrees of accredidation?
Since we insist on comparing this profession to doctors, lawyers, etc.
Would you not say that a nurse and a doctor both provide health care services? The public understands that there is a different level of education and liability in the services that are provided by the two groups and that the Doctor is the "smart, rich guy, who has sacrificed years of his life for the betterment of society".
I am 100% convinced the public understands the relationship between doctors and nurses because of TV, even if incorrect and misrepresented. (Not to mention the fact that most people visit the doctor annually or more) There are at least 5-10 prime time shows about Doctors, healthcare and nurses. This gives the public a glimmer of the structure of the profession and how Doctors, even though they save the world one episode at a time, are human and still tormented with temptation.
So now all the unemployed architects can begin to write dramas about the cruel and exciting relationships that exist between Architects and Designers while providing life changing Architectural Services. The public will now be educated on what Hollywood wants the public to think an Architect does. Architects will become the revered hero above the lowly designer and everyone can stop whinning on public message boards. The show could become really exciting by adding an evil contractor or developer as antagonist. Or maybe it would be the do gooder, boutique firm, struggling for high art ,versus the old boys club, corporate firm, beating them down with political connections. Wow. The options really are endless.
Very good point, FLM, and I agree with you.
I was using the nurse example to point out to aquapura that other professions also engage in what could be seen as petty squabbling about one's level of professional attainment: the cliche is that RN's feel superior to LPNs. But you are right: they are both "nurses". I think it would be great to allow people to be IAs and LAs.
But, another can of worms, do keep in mind we've heard plenty of interns on this very site bemoaning how belittling it is to be called an "intern" at age 35...maybe we need to use Graduate Architect (GA) instead. And some people already do use RA (Registered) professionally (which I am doing right now as my AIA dues for the year are not yet paid (oops)).
This is why we have "designers" and "architects". One is not the other while the other is or can be both. It's what differentiates us and lets the public know.
A lot of states will allow someone with experiance to take the exams and become licensed without a degree. I think all states should have this. As I said earlier, school teaches you design while the firm teaches you how to build or how a building actually gets built. This is what the exams are testing, not your sense of design.
If you want to be a designer, that is fine by me, but then go hire an architect or engineer to get you a permit for the work you want to do, unless your state allows you some leeway.
Someone mentioned residential work. Yes, most states allow you to design residential, but after a certain level the prescriptive code IRC ends. Usually about when a home requires any amount of steel beams, columns and footings and ceases to be prescriptive. Pretty much anything wider than about 22'. Then you need a licensed professional to sign and stamp your drawings.
FrankLloydMike wrote: "I am not yet competent enough to practice architecture fully, I feel that I have earned the title of architect to some degree. Other professions that require a professional degree do not list their affiliation after their name, but their degree. While doctors and lawyers must be licensed, it is the degree that they earned that defines their profession, not a regulatory board."
You make little sense here. How can you personally KNOW you are not competent enough to practice architecture and still feel you "earned" the right to call yourself an architect. It is exactly the/a board who decides whether or not you have earned the title, not you or your boss or mommy or John down the street. Once you have completed the requirements as set forth by those in charge then you can call yourself an architect, not before. If you don't like those rules then you need to find a way to change them but until that change comes, these are the requirements.
Sorry if that sounds like I am mean or mad, I am just trying to explain thw "what is" from the "what you want it to be".
I think the expense of licensure (and keeping up with the licensure) is what keeps many away from it, especially in a market like this.
Personally, I like the fact that there is a goal out there for me to attain, and there are several stepping stones of smaller goals to reach first. I like the fact that it ISN'T so deeply rooted in the educational field unlike doctors for instance. No it isn't perfect, but I like what I have to do to get there. It keeps me on track and focused.
As for the fact that you can design without being licensed...that's GREAT! But it is limiting, and is done so to be purposely limiting. One cannot design those types of structures forever without branching out I would think. I think the idea is that you will be useful to society while your spending time preparing for your exams.
get your contractors license and call it a day...you can don homes and interior furnishings along with small scale design/build
i know people that are licensed architects and have no reason to do anything with it. so be it.... it's just a status word in that respect
to each his/her own.....
I've earned the right to call myself an architect. Certainly that's my opinion, but that's how I see it. I also consider anyone that has a professional degree to have earned this right.
I am also a designer - graphics, web, etc. They are two very different things. No one would ever assume a 'designer' did anything in the built world, that is just ridiculous to assume it makes sense to call yourself a 'designer' just because you are not licensed, even if you are 'designing architecture'.
LB - yes, I have two degrees in architecture. The reason I will never be licensed is because of two things. #1 I am a business owner, I will never go through IDP unless it is 'creatively' done, which I'll consider as time goes on. #2 time, obviously all drawings done will be stamped, but I can get that done for next to nothing.
The point about Dr was that no one can LEGALLY practice. With buildings, people can design and construct buildings without an architect. You can't prescribe any drugs without a Doc.
Damn, this topic get's me going! This, and far too much coffee far too early.
I don't think there is any restriction on the term Master Builder. Why not use that until you are licensed.
I like to think I was a cat and earned the title because I can meow, but that don't make it so. Sorry trace, but when you have earned it, you will have gone through what is required, as outlined by other professionals within the system that regulates it.
Short story. I joined the Marine Corps long ago. It wasn't until my senior DI told me after 3 months of boot camp that I had earned the title of Marine. Even though I had been paid to be in the Marine Corps for 3 months, I was not a Marine until that moment of graduating boot camp. Nor did I even think to call myself a Marine until that day I graduated boot camp. I had earned the title as set forth by those in charge of making that determination.
Exactly, like the/a board that accredited the school that I went to. I quite understand the "what is" from the "what you want it to be", which is what I explained above. I earned a professional degree in Architecture, yet as a professional I am not an Architect. This makes little sense. I'm merely asking that we adopt a system more like what other professions use, which is to allow someone who has earned a professional degree to identify themselves as a professional in that field, while clearly distinguishing the difference between someone who is licensed and someone who is yet to be licensed; that we better define the current structure of what makes someone an Architect and an Intern Architect, and implement it universally rather than haphazardly, with perhaps a more accurate nomenclature. I am not advocating that an unlicensed Intern Architect be able to widely practice Architecture without the guidance of a licensed Architect, just that we improve and update what we call ourselves and how we treat ourselves. I did not go to school for five years to basically have to call myself a draftsman, and the work I do is more than that while obviously being less than that of a licensed Architect, and I am not doing an internship, so what I am as a professional seems to be ambiguous at the moment.
I think you're making much too broad a statement with this, but there is some truth in it:
school teaches you design while the firm teaches you how to build or how a building actually gets built. This is what the exams are testing, not your sense of design.
Still, NAAB accredits schools, and the graduates of those schools receive a legally professional degree that is the first step in enabling them to practice Architecture. Though it may be in name, it is not in actually the test alone that makes you an Architect.
trace, I encourage you to consider that "creatively done" approach...
"Still, NAAB accredits schools, and the graduates of those schools receive a legally professional degree that is the first step in enabling them to practice Architecture. Though it may be in name, it is not in actually the test alone that makes you an Architect."
You could not have said it any better FLM. The degree is the first step in a series of steps. There are other routes as well, but the one you took was the first step. I think the other problem is that you don't want to be called that which you were, day one out of the box(school) which was a drafter. That first day you certainly were just a drafter and moved upwards from there. But we can split hairs all day long. You need to move foreward, get involved and make the changes to the profession from the inside, not the outside. I didn't ever call myself an intern either. Drafter was far better. But usually I just said I worked in an architecture firm.
Mysty: I largely agree: I like the fact that it ISN'T so deeply rooted in the educational field unlike doctors for instance. No it isn't perfect, but I like what I have to do to get there. It keeps me on track and focused. The whole yin and yang thing, I guess.
On the Fence: the world is not the Marines, and just because in the military the definition of what you are comes from on high and is not to be questioned does that mean that should be so in the rest of the world. Similarly: I was not a Marine until that moment of graduating boot camp. So not upon completing a mission, upon deployment, etc, but on graduating, huh? Sound familiar? Boot camp as with a professional degree is the first step in a longer process, but in one you earn a title, in the other you don't.
sorry, just re-read the last part of what I wrote and it sounds a lot meaner, and condescending, which is not what I had intended.
Not a problem. I still stick to what I said which is that you have placed your feet upon a path, whether you had full knowledge of the length of that path or not. That path leads to an end objective. Not until you reach the end do you obtain the objective which is licensed architect. Now, that path has changed over decades and centuries. Today the path is what the path is. By 1800 standards you are currently an architect but not by todays. And again, if you and other do not like it, you can change it. I don't fully agree with it but abided by its rules and have achieved the end objective. I have no problem with you trying to change that system, yet.
FLM - some very well thought comments, which I for the most part agree with.
Sorry for my rant earlier today but as I am currently waiting for the results from my final ARE exam just recently a co-worker derided me for not being a "real" architect. Sorry, but the elitism inside our profession gets me a little angry at times.
The only distinction I see between all of us providing architectural services is that of the Architect of Record. That's the person taking the liability for the drawings and that's IMO the only title distinction there should be.
Otherwise, I don't see any real distinction from someone who has passed an exam and someone who hasn't. Mind you, this is a comment from someone who has taken all 9 exams and doesn't consider them a very good test of architectural skills at all.
I've met with plenty of AHJ's and am always careful to explain that I will not be the Architect of Record. At least 75% of the time they make a comment about knowing, regardless of title, that I'm the "architect" for the project. Since most of the work I do is outside my home state none of this changes once I am registered.
This is just an example of how we aren't fooling anybody by guarding the title so much. Now if I sign drawings as a non-registered architect the state board should fine/punish me. But for what someone puts on their business cards, c'mon.
Forum to M:Space, "Obviously, you're not a golfer". I don't do forums that often, but maybe I should pick up that bowling ball.
Trace, maybe the fact that "designers" like us have to work creatively, and stay entrepreneurial to do the things that we do, in the face of semantics and boards and licenses, is what got us to where we are, and ultimately what makes us better architects than those that follow the formula graduate+internship+test=Architect. Instead of sitting in someone else's office, being told to draft their thoughts and designs, we've pushed the outer boundaries of what we're allowed to do, and forced ourselves to think for ourselves. It seems that we are both fully capable of designing good buildings and could easily pass the ARE, and in that regard, I believe we have earned the right to be called something more than a "Designer", which is a blanket term that confuses the crap out of people ("oh, do you do logos?"). I would not hesitate to fight in court that I have a legal right to call myself something with the word architect in it, though I would also concede that I am specifically NOT an Architect, and have no right to call myself that until the powers that be tell me it's so.
I went to school with a lot of incompetent people, and it frustrated me that they were getting the same degree I was. At that time, I wasn't looking ahead to what should ultimately set me apart from them, which is my willingness and capability to sit for the ARE. That said, I'd be happy to let the incompetent graduates from my school do what I do right now without a license. They got the degree I did and sat in the same structural and environmental classes I did (and probably did more homework). They are not threatening anybody's life, safety, or well-being by redesigning a few interior walls in a 2000 s.f. ranch house. My local building departments are so quick to tell me I need stamped structural drawings when I need them it's not funny. If someone with an architecture degree is happy with the level of knowledge they've reached, and want to work within the law, let them call themselves something other than a "designer". What we're really talking about here is protectionism of the precious status of the "Architect". We hold ourselves so high as Architects, when the rest of the world just shrugs, and tells us where they want their toilet paper holder.
I think the difference can be seen as such when it came to a business card.
You can write down either
Doctor or quack
Lawyer or ambulance chaser
CPA or book keeper
Symantics? Maybe but it not only lets the public know, it protects them at some minimum level.
M:space wrote: "They got the degree I did and sat in the same structural and environmental classes I did (and probably did more homework). They are not threatening anybody's life, safety, or well-being by redesigning a few interior walls in a 2000 s.f. ranch house. My local building departments are so quick to tell me I need stamped structural drawings when I need them it's not funny."
Okay, so it's funny. Let me tell you the funny story I had several weeks ago.
The designer comes in. I don't know his educational background. Sounds fairly intelligent and says he has been doing this type of work for 20 years. On his residential remodel plans he submitted to me for review he wanted to take out a wall. One wall about 5 feet long. I tell him it is a load bearing wall and the floor above needs to be supported. He doesn't like what I wrote and on the re-submittal writes that it is not a load bearing wall. Hmmmm. This is a designer who thnks he knows something and is not endangering the lives of people around him. I then re-write my review outlining exactly what is wrong and why. From the TJI spans, to the triple 2x12 header underneath the existing wall he wants to remove. About a paragraph later I submit the review. He gets the review and asks to come in to talk with me. Fine. We talk and finally the light goes on over his head. I haven't seen the new plans yet as I do not think he is capable of the simple calculations he needs to figure out the structure for removing one wall to be able to turn a powder room into a full bathroom. He needs either an architect or engineer at this point for one simple wall.
Interesting discussion, as someone who just recently graduated last year with a four yr degree in Architecture, I am always so confused as to what my job title is/should be. I mean I have a degree in architecture, but its not a professonal one (and I want to work awhile and start getting IDP credit before I go back to school to get a pro degree). At my previous firm I was and an "intern architect" but someone else I graduated with and had the same degree was considered a "graduate architect" by the firm because they had internships before they graduated (and were technically in a different "program" because they interned when I went overseas, though we both had the exact same degree). Though realistically I did more work, I got paid less then that person, because of their "previous experience." And, there was another person there who had graduated from our school several years before us, when the program was still a 5 yr BArch and they were called a "graduate architect" too, but they were basically a project manager and had all the same responsiblities and a bigger workload then any of the other project managers (since they had to do all their own design and CAD work, as opposed to the older arch who all had CAD techs).
And since I got laid off a few months ago, after about a year of working there, and am looking for a new job, I am so confused as to what job I actually qualify for. I see ads for "intern architects" with 3-5 yrs experince, which I dont have, or "graduate architects" with 0-1 yrs experience, which I do have, but I am not technically a "graduate architect" since I only have a 4 yr degree. And, some firms have the blanket "intern" position, but really only want people still in school (prolly to get away with paying them way less). Its a mess.
Interesting discussion, as someone who just recently graduated last year with a four yr degree in Architecture, I am always so confused as to what my job title is/should be. I mean I have a degree in architecture, but its not a professonal one (and I want to work awhile and start getting IDP credit before I go back to school to get a pro degree). At my previous firm I was and an "intern architect" but someone else I graduated with and had the same degree was considered a "graduate architect" by the firm because they had internships before they graduated (and were technically in a different "program" because they interned when I went overseas, though we both had the exact same degree). Though realistically I did more work, I got paid less then that person, because of their "previous experience." And, there was another person there who had graduated from our school several years before us, when the program was still a 5 yr BArch and they were called a "graduate architect" too, but they were basically a project manager and had all the same responsiblities and a bigger workload then any of the other project managers (since they had to do all their own design and CAD work, as opposed to the older arch who all had CAD techs).
And since I got laid off a few months ago, after about a year of working there, and am looking for a new job, I am so confused as to what job I actually qualify for. I see ads for "intern architects" with 3-5 yrs experince, which I dont have, or "graduate architects" with 0-1 yrs experience, which I do have, but I am not technically a "graduate architect" since I only have a 4 yr degree. And, some firms have the blanket "intern" position, but really only want people still in school (prolly to get away with paying them way less). Its a mess.
i find it amazing that lb's very simple and clear distinction has been lost in all the hubris:
it's one thing to call yourself an 'architect' in the existential, cocktail, or artistic sense. it's a kind of professional identity we're all a part of to some greater or lesser degree. and that's great. call yourself an architect, in that capacity, anytime, anywhere.
it's a whole other matter to represent yourself as an 'architect' in a legal sense (which covers all business transactions). the minimum (and they are truly minimum) standards put in place to safeguard that term are an extension of the entire notion of what constitutes a 'profession' in our society. it may strike those on the outside as elitist, but as someone (like many here) who put in the time, hours, etc. to get the license.... yeah, i'm pretty defensive about holding that turf. and with good reason.
none of this may deeply affect the way we each conduct our businesses - i mean, office d/a got along just fine for many, many years without either principal being licensed directly. i'm not saying i agree with the route they took, but am realistic enough to understand why no one really cared.
Why is it so hard in this forum to understand legalities? As lb pointed out, there are legal aspects in every profession as to when you can call yourself X or not. For instance:
"In general, a prospective lawyer will need to pass a state-administered bar exam after earning a Juris Doctor degree from a law school approved by the state in which he/she wants to practice. Typically, there is also a character and fitness evaluation, along with a background check. Because each state has its own bar, a lawyer who is admitted to practice in one state is not automatically allowed to practice in another."
Seems very simple to me: you got a law degree, but you can't legally call yourself a lawyer until you pass the bar. Similarly, in medicine, you are not legally a doctor until you do your intership/residency under the supervision of fully licensed physicians.
In architecture, you can't legally call yourself an architect and stamp drawings until you pass the proper exams and, just like stated above for the bar, you can practice in the state you live in but have to get another stamp or seal for another state. Why is there so much moaning and gnashing of teeth over this?
So, m-space, you can punch all the faces you want, but all the State of California is distinguishing is when you need to have a friggin' stamp on the drawings, which is their estimate of when the building gets complicated, structurally or code wise, and yes, it is probably an arbitrary line, but legally they have to draw it somewhere.
Emilio.....same holds true for Physical Engineer....and what the heck do they call unlicensed Physical Engineers? Engineer In Training.
Emilio and outed: +1
Why can't you people understand the laws in your state!
With the economy in the crapper I would not be suprised if out of work architects start getting pissy about those who are misrepresenting themselves to potential clients as licensed individuals.
Let's not start throwing around shallow phrases like "Why can't you people understand..."
I was enjoying this discussion until that comment showed up.
M:Space, just be aware that this issue has been discussed here endlessly over the last four years...so some posters are tired of the conversation. I imagine that's where marlowe's frustration is based.
M:Space:
Apologies for what may have been deemed 'a shallow comment' but seriously folks this 'what does the title architect really mean' and 'why can't I call myself an architect because......" sort of discussion is just not productive.
What is productive is sending these types of questions to your state's board or contact a qualified attorney in your state.
This sort of question is essentially a plea for free legal advice which, I'm assuming, none of us in this forum are qualified to dispense.
oh, i'm qualified to dispense just about any sort of advice that i want, you see i just can't LEGALLY represent myself as an Advisor until i pass my online Advisorship Analysis Assessment.
then i just need to inform the Nat'l Consortium of Advisor Bureaucrats (NCARB) of my desire to Advise people in other states.
i also did keep track of my Interpersonal Directing Protocol over the past handful of years, meticulous though it may have been.
Now i get to brandish this when my Adivsement has been challenged:
mighty - that was great...
Any of Mighty's advisees should hope that that image is to scale...
that was even better...
actually, mighty, i believe you can stick that thing up your ass without passing any exams...
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.