I think it is ironic that one can create a self image as an architect, which is merely an ideological template, and at the same time feign to resist the institutions that reproduce that ideology in society. The desire to define oneself as an architect exists only because the institutions exist, and participation is voluntary. If one aspires to the societal distinction that comes with the label, then it seems to me that that person would support those institutions that reproduce the ideology in society.
In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
The ideology existed before the the institution, and the institution keeps changing. IDP is quite new. When I graduated in california it was not required and I'm not even 30.
Our argument is not so much with professional licensure, simply the current state of it.
Just because there are rules and laws that currently exist, it does not mean those laws and rules are perfect or free from reproach. I believe they are massively flawed and stand to benefit greatly from re-examination. So that is what we are attempting to do here.
The more I learn about how laws are enacted in our country the less respect I have for Congress and the laws they enact. I don't think we should accept the status-quo simply because we already had to trudge through all the bull-shit so everyone else should as well.
Some of us see some problems with the state of the profession and I believe the licensure process is a contributing factor. While there have been 4 threads on this already there are a number of us who feel it's a discussion we can still benefit from.
There are many developed western countries in the world which have professional requirements for licensure as an architect from whom I think we could learn. In some licensure is obtained upon graduation, others simply don't require licensure to practice architecture, I believe the big difference in these countries is what the architects responsibilities are. It carries some fundamental differences in the way the profession is practiced and from my limited exposure to architecture in these countries, I believe it's for the better. It's something I've been interested in but have not yet managed to thoroughly research. The bigger difference may actually be in these countries legal systems, or maybe just their legal culture (our country is disturbingly litigation happy) and how disputes are resolved.
hey i'd be fine with being a 'licensed architect' upon graduation if the degree was as thorough as what's required to be a doctor.
doesn't it take 8+ years of education before your medical residency? isn't that similar to a 5 year professional degree and 3 years of IDP?
sure, you then have to take all those tests .. but if you look at it like the good ol' days when the architecture exams were once a year, taken over a 1 week period. so just sign up for all the exams over a 1 week period at the end of your 3 year IDP and you're done! hello architect!
Actually you don't even "need" an undergraduate degree to get into many medical schools nor is it required for licensure. Medical school takes 3 years typically, but then there is the residencey which they all complian about but I'm sorry it's no wosre then the arch firms I've worked for and they still got paid better than any first year architects.
Also in some states (california included) law school is not required, you have to pass the bar.
“Two years of college work” means a minimum of sixty semester or ninety quarter units of college credit
Or
“Demonstrated equivalent intellectual achievement” means achieving acceptable scores on Committee-specified examinations prior to beginning the study of law."
You also must have:
"studied law diligently and in good faith for at least four years in a law school registered with the Committee; in a law office; in a judge’s chambers; or by some combination of these methods"
Shit my dad's a judge.... I could take the BAR in california but not the ARE and I've gone to architecture school and worked as an architect for 5 years. That's fucked up.
Correction - I worked as an "Intern Architect".
I wouldn't want the CAB think I was holding myself out as being qualified to provide services that fall under the practices of architecture.
My very point in mentioning countries which issue licensure upon graduation is that they don't seem to have a more thorough education than we do. I do however think responsibilities as an architect are somewhat different than in the US. So in that sense they may be better prepared.
"otf...your original remark was way off point and your last even farther off point."
I don't buy it. My post(s) wwere crystal clear and on point. Both/all.
Either you have the qaulifications that make you something or you do not. I don't know how you can miss the point, but there it is. I will spell it out for you one more time though. If whatever the qualifications are that make a person an architect (or Marine or Navy Seal) are not met then you can not call yourself an architect (or Marine or Navy Seal) no matter how you feel about the system or requirements. I hope I have been able to get you back on track here.
Sorry for the confusion with the comparison that went over your head. I'll try to keep those at a more lowbrow level in the future.
Rather than broaden the definition of who is an architect, perhaps we should just change the name of professional degree programs to reflect that graduates aren't ready to pracice. A CV might look like this:
Bachelor of Continuous Surfaces (B.CS), Columbia, 1999.
Master of Rhino Scripting (M.RhS), Extended Research in Mile Long Green Hovering Planes, UCLA, 2003
A graduate of such programs could legally call themselves a Continuous Surfacer. Or a CAD operator. Or someone who could readily design a project for clients with no regard for materiality. Or an intern.
liberty bell.....ya I be working on the sketchup certificate myself....but I have been told you must be able to down a
complete bottle of catsup before they will hand you a certificate.
i love this thread. what's so great about it, is the fact that the complainers will get no where by their complaining. they'll waste time instead of working towards licensure, and when they finally get it done, they'll come back here and lambaste everyone that will complain about having to get a license. do the time, finish the exam, join the AIA, NCARB and work the system from the inside.
it's a simple fact and it won't ever change, ever.
"Like I said otf a Navy Seal has no need to call himself a U.S. Marine. No reason to impersonate a Marine. I agree with you on all
other matters."
In as much as any designer has no need to call themselves an architect. I agree. If they did, they'd follow the route to licensure just as any Seal who wanted to be a Marine would follow that route instead of the route they chose. The two, or four in these cases, have different paths, plans, and skills in which to achieve the end goal set before them. The targets may differ based on that but their certainly is a goal for each. And although an architect can do what a designer can do, legally, whereas the opposite is not true, it could be said the same of the Seal in regards to being a Marine. That is of course my opinion and fortunately I know a bit of what I am talking about.
LOL,...Janosh.....maybe the MArch1 is just an obsolete Academic convention anymore? )I mean a shitload schools teach surface modelin,kl scripting, and the like now.)
I made the mistake once of starting a harmless and sincere inquiry-thread about my pre-licensure endeavors. If I remember correctly, it ended about the same as this one ....full-blown Aristotelian windbagging versus philosophically loose notions of relative semantics.
...love the comparison to the military, how appropriate. ARRG!
otf... I would think it would be regarded the opposite: and although an architect can do what a designer can do, legally, whereas the opposite is not true, it could be the same for a Marine in regards to being a Navy Seal. I believe all Marines operate under the command of Department of the United States Navy. May be I'm missing something. It is infact true the navy and marines serve together on many important missions. A Navy Seal would have a counterpart in the Marines along the lines of the MOCS.
Well, the Marine Corps is a military branch. Technically a department of the Navy. Which is funny because the Marines were initially put together to keep the navy seamen from mutaneering. We work together though. Just as designers and architects do at times although, and the same is true of the military, one can and sometimes does work without the aid of the other. Some architects do not require an outside designer. Some military ops do not require the Marines to use the Navy or Seals. I think you just have some soft spot in your heart for Navy personel. If that is the case, fine but I am not going to try and degrade or belittle the Seals or the Corps in my attempt to prove this point. There are no stats I can think of that you can use to promote your position or in other words your opinon is based on unsubstantiated personal feelings that no Navy Seal would have wanted to or ever wanted to be a Marine. It's really a ridiculous argument and I hope that I have not been led down that flamebait trap in my past posts. I personally have nothing but respect for the Corps and Navy Seals as I have served/trained with both.
otf....enough said I'm not looking for a pissing match. It is a great thing about this site and this country we can differ in our opinions. Just keep your sniper rifle ready if things head south.
The state testing requirement is not new. If the rules are easier elsewhere, then why not get a license there, and then ask for reciprocity like some of the famous architects mentioned above. The California Architects Board recognizes degrees from other countries, so perhaps it is easy to use your USA Diploma/Masters to get a license in another country. Figuring that out is probably too much work, right?
A quick search on the CAB site reveals that none of the partners at Graft are licensed in CA. They may have licenses in germany, iceland or wherever but that's not relevant if they are running a firm in LA.
Spoke with the CAB yesterday and they have had several compaints file and are investigating.
hello,
I think the real issue for those of us who aren't licensed but have worked for our degrees and may or may not spent years working in the real world to finish our IDP is that the term "intern" has a different connotation for those in the architectural profession than everyone else. We understand that it means someone who is academically trained but not professionally licensed. For the rest of the world it means a college student who has not finished their education but is working for the experience.
People often compare our licensing and nomenclature issues to Doctors and Lawyers. Yet, doctors and lawyers cannot work as such until they pass their exams, but we on the other hand cannot take our exams until at least 3 years of office work. There is no word for an unlicensed doctor or lawyer, except maybe "fraud." Even "residents" are licensed doctors.
I'm very close to licensure (two more exams). However, I've spent the last eight years having to call myself "architectural intern," which everyone not in architecture understands as coffee gopher and copy maker rather than "architect-in-training." I think this does a great disservice to our profession, for all of the reasons stated above.
My wife, a doctor, was able to call herself "doctor" and MD upon graduation from medical school. Sure, she wasn't licensed to practice on her own until she finished residency and passed her exams--that's when she obtained a license number. But she had the title, which conferred respect and professionalism.
I think our profession would be much better served by relaxing about whether architectural interns call themselves "architect" and only going after those cases where someone practices without a license. In fact, I'm of the opinion that obtaining an architecture degree (M.Arch or B.Arch) should confer the title of "architect." To my mind, this would increase rather than decrease professional respect. This is how they do it in Europe. Passing your exams and IDP would then confer your license to practice on your own.
As it stands, architectural interns spend years in limbo without feeling entirely respected by the profession. I know hardly anyone who obtained their license within three years of graduation--most people take much longer.
"Jack can refer to himself as an architect in a noncommercial context because that's what he is," said Johnson's attorney, Christopher Beall.
If you knock "because that's what he is" off that lawyer's sentence, than I totally agree.
It's just a shame that it has taken a year and a great deal of money to prove what I said that night ... that I am an architect," he (Johnson) said.
Except, that, you know, legally, he's actually not.
But again: in a non-commercial context I think everyone who graduated from architecture school should be allowed to call ourselves architects.
Though here's a question to all you unlicensed architecture degree holders: would you be angry if someone who never went to architecture school went around calling themselves an architect? Would you feel there was a bar that had not passed that you have?
Well....yes. Someone without even an architecture degree calling themselves architect would be bad. Because the implication is that anyone can call themselves architect.
But that's different from an architectural intern who went to an MArch or BArch program and has made a commitment to the profession by working for a number of years (and who is probably slogging through our 7 tests) calling themselves "architect."
My point above is that the medical profession honors those who go to medical school and intend to practice: by giving them a title. Whereas the architecture profession kind of dishonors young architects...oops, I mean, architectural interns.
So what will we call the person who is going the no-degree but worked for a licensed architect for a decade (or however many years req.) before they sit for the test?
I don't hear them complaining.
I guess there's no Internet in Colorado.
before i was licensed i just called myself a 'designer' or said i was a designer in an architectural office. i understood the rules of what it meant to be called an architect and it never really bothered me except that it did finally motivate me to pass all those exams and pass the california supplemental exam.
as far as med school it seems to me that they go to school longer (8 years?) and know a lot more about their field once they graduate.
some architecture programs do teach about how buildings actually go together and all that legal professional practice stuff but seriously when you think back to getting your degree and what you actually know i can understand why you shouldn't legally be called an 'architect' with just a degree.
I went to school for 7 years (and 1.5 in other arch schools that didn't count towards my degrees), is that close enough?
When I say I am a "designer", that means I design websites, motion graphics, graphic design, etc. And that's what I say.
That is different from designing buildings and should not be lumped into the same category.
Eventually this will be resolved, esp. now that there are so many unemployed "architects" that won't want to diminish their marketability or future. That, and their just won't be finances to go around threatening and suing people.
Hopefully the AIA can spend resources on actually helping the profession and not eroding it from the inside out (I'd be curious to see if the 'let's sue ourselves over silly semantics' dept. got cut back in this recession or not).
as someone who is studying for the California Supplemental Exam i am
struggling with this question myself...
per the California Architects' Practice Act:
§ 5500 Architect Defined
As used in this chapter, architect means a person who is licensed to practice
architecture in this state under the authority of this chapter.
§ 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.
i guess one way to look at it would be: there is another set of terms that are called "architect" and "architecture". it just depends on whom you are speak with as to which meaning you use. i would have laughed my ass off if someone in school used the CAB's definition of "architect" when asked what it means to be an architect.
ultimately, these terms are being used in a legal context which is a different world entirely. so, while we might consider ourselves architects who make architecture...the reality is, not in California, unless you meet the State's criteria.
as for your dilemma...i recommend that you don't get yourself in trouble. leave "architectural" or any permutation of that out of your title or business card or company name.
The AIA has nothing to do with this. Someone - possibly a registered architect, maybe an AIA member, maybe not, and possibly not an architect at all, perhaps, given the circumstances, a political opponent who knows something about registration laws - reported Johnson to the state licensing board. The state licensing board - a body not always made up of architects, and definitely not in any way affiliated with the AIA - decided the use of the word "architect" was improper in this circumstance. A judge decided they were wrong.
This entire lawsuit took place in the realm of lawyers. As it says in the article, the reimbursement of Johnson's defense fees are going to the lawyers. Honestly, lawyers have an edge that we architects just haven't managed to figure out.
It's so tiresome to keep repeating all this, but for those who don't know:
State boards issue licenses and regulate the practice of architecture, just like they issue licenses and regulate the practice of law, medicine, accounting, engineering, and cosmetology.
The national body that administers the registration exams is NCARB. It's a governmental body. If you want to get licensed, you will have no choice but to go through them for the process. After you're licensed, you can choose to keep your NCARB file active or not - if you decide to seek reciprocity (get licensed) in additional states, you'll have to keep your NCARB file active.
The AIA is a professional organization that you may join at your discretion if you so choose. If you're licensed, you join as a full member; if you're not yet licensed, you join as an AIA Associate member. (If you sell products you want architects to specify, you join as an Allied AIA member.)
If you don't choose to join the AIA, you're still a licensed professional regulated by the state in which you hold your license(s).
As I've said many, many times: i've never had a problem with unregistered graduates calling themselves architect in a social setting, I certainly did before I got licensed. What I think is interesting is that Johnson is using the term in a political setting - which means he *was* using the title to help him try to get a job, just not a job practicing architecture. It's a very fuzzy line to me, which is why I raised the question about non-architecture school grads using the term socially or even politically: if Johnson can call himself an architect because not being allowed to do so violates his free speech rights - which is what it says in the article - then doesn't that same right apply to anyone, no matter their background? Everyone has a right to call themselves an architect, the precedent has been set!
I agree with farwest on this one about architectural interns and the disservice it does to our profession.
I think one of the main problems within the profession and titles is the lack of continuity from one place to another. It seems that there is no set standard either. Some offices you are an architectural intern, some you are an entry level drafter, one firm I was at used the term Junior Designer.
Personally I have no problem be labeled as a designer, and actually like the term designer, until I become licensed but I think it would be a great service to profession to have some consistency from one firm to another.
In my opinion the term intern conveys a lack of skills, education, and intellectual ability to those not in the architectural profession, which isn't always the case.
My parents always introduce me and when asked what I do they say I'm an architect. When around I correct them and say well not legally, or i'm not licensed or something to those effects, but in most other professions when you graduate with a degree you then become a professional in that field, not an intern in that field. If I say i'm an architectural intern they so "oh so do you not get paid" (in a lot of other professions the term intern resembles being unpaid) or other remarks that in my opinion degrade what i've worked for.
My other problem with the term 'intern' is that there is a difference between being an 'intern' and 'architectural intern' but if you aren't in the architectural community you don't see it that way.
Until the professional community creates some sort of standard that shows a little more respect for people graduating with degrees in the field then there will always be this lack of respect from those outside the field.
Agree with mugged. However, I'v always kind of hated the term designer for the following reasons:
1. It's ambiguous. Industrial designers, graphic designers, interior designers, Information designers, and a thousand other legitimate to completely un-legitimate uses can be lumped under the term.
2. It's the name that many unlicensed home-builders use, at least in the California market that I'm used to. Many or most of these people are contractors by training, edging into the architecture market. More often than not, what they "design" isn't very attractive. A legitimate architectural intern working toward his/her license wouldn't want to be lumped into this category.
And I hate the term architectural intern/intern architect for the following reasons:
1. It sounds provisional, like you're trying out architecture as a summer job.
2. It's so widely mistaken as a position where people do menial tasks in a temporary way, almost as bad as "temp."
On my resume, I've used the term designer, but it never feels entirely comfortable. For instance, I was the "designer" of a facade for a skyscraper. I did everything that an "architect" would do in this case, except stamp the thing. I did the curtainwall details, the specs, the coordination. But on my resume, when I say "facade designer" it always feels half-assed, like I did the watercolor and someone else did the hard work of detailing it. Employers never understand it either--I always get questions about my role in situations like that.
My proposal would be to formalize the definition of an architect pre-licensing. I'd argue for Junior Architect, Associate Architect, Journeyman Architect, or any other phrase that didn't contain the ambiguity and misleading meaning of either "architectural intern" or "designer."
Having a definition like this would also clear up a case like Johnson's. For professionals who decide never to sit for the exam and don't get licensed, they could refer to themselves as "Associate Architects" or whatever.
Thanks, LB, for your thoughts on this. Always insightful.
I've always liked the names in closely related job titles because they always sound more authoritative and more well career-oriented.
Planner I [planning technician -> junior planner -> assistant planner], Planner II, Planner III... et cetera.
Urban Designers follow a similar scheme. But the lowest title I've found for an urban designer is Junior Urban Designer or Assistant Urban Designer.
But the Department of Labor categorizes intern architects as (Architect I). Actually I think it is Architect VII. Seven seems the be the lowest on the list for generalized architectural services.
If you are unlicensed but still consider yourself to be a Architect without fulfilling the required qualifications in the area of your practice, then you have zero reason to be mad at or desiring distinction from people who refer to themselves as "Information Architects" or "Web Architects" or any of the other things on the myriad of other treads around here complaining about our cruel fate. Hell, you should encourage people to insert "Architect" into their title because it proves your view that its just a word and has no real meaning.
But if you have ever taken the time to point out at a party that the IT guy is not really an architect - then you need to shut up, study and take the blasted exam already.
Crowbert. Sorry, your post was snide and not at all in the spirit of the questions I've been asking.
I'm two exams away from my license, for what it's worth, and have spent the last six months taking roughly an exam a month. I've also spent the last number of years working on architecture from concept through detail drawing, on museums, skyscrapers, houses, etc, as I'm sure many of us on this site have. This hardly counts as not "fulfilling the required qualifications in the area of [my] practice."
Your attitude is exactly the perspective in our practice that I'm railing against. Older, licensed architects essentially treating younger, unlicensed architects as chopped liver or as "interns": "Why should I treat you with respect if you haven't fulfilled the basic obligations of your profession by getting your license.....blah blah blah. Shut up, study, and take the blasted exam.....blah blah blah."
This is not my point. My point is that the title conferred on young architects working toward their license is not one that connotes respect and encouragement.
Do you get upset when people slap the term "___ Architect" on their business card who have not gone through the pain in the butt that is NCARB, IDP and graduating from school in a tough profession?
If "Yes" then the word means something, and you need to do what everyone else who is a registered architect out there has done before you. It is a title deserving of respect, otherwise you wouldn't care.
If "No" then why do you care if I care if you call yourself an Architect - its just a word to you.
And all that amazing work you're doing is not meaningless, it does not make you chopped liver, but neither does it make you an Architect, any more than a guy reconfiguring a server.
I don't automatically respect someone because they are licensed, and I don't automatically discount someone who is not. Sorry you took my comments to mean that you were no good, because I have no idea if you are or not. I don't know you. You may design great buildings, but until you go through the same pain in the ass that I did - as did many others here did - then you're not entitled to call yourself a Architect - at least in terms of being responsible for protecting the health, safety and welfare of the public.
Maybe one part of being a full-fledged, capital "A" Architect also has to do with being responsible and thorough enough to do what is required of him or her as set forth by the state government and licensing bodies.
I agree wholeheartedly that if someone is misrepresenting themselves as an architect, they are in the wrong.
However, my point was (again) that the title conferred on young architects working toward their license is not one that connotes respect and encouragement. I don't personally need any praise from anyone. But I do feel, as a member of this profession, that the titles "intern architect/architectural intern" or "designer" is misleading and ultimately bad for the profession as a whole.
It impacts young architects in their interviewing process, in their promotion of their role in the profession, in their attempts to make business contacts, and even (as they're approaching licensing) in their attempts to get a practice off the ground. It creates ambiguity.
I also despise the word intern, for all the reasons listed above: sounds like you work for free, like you're still a student, like you're young.
I'd love for us to find a term that signifies having achieved a professional degree in architecture but not yet licensed. I'm also not crazy about "junior" as a qualifier.
I think someone who has completed an architecture degree, and anyone working in the field is an "architectural designer" which is accurate enough... A graduate from an architecture degree already has the prestige of M Arch or B Arch... If you need letters to put next to your name use your degree as a qualification...
For licensed architects, NCARB (registration which indicates you are registered to be able to become licensed in other states as needed is enough) or AIA if you want the association with the professional association... The funny thing about AIA is, ironically, it doesn't even mean you are a licensed architect... There are honorary AIA memberships, etc. IMHO, M Arch or B Arch or NCARB actually have a more specific qualification so that is a little more clear what level of qualification you have, maybe we should be instead using these as our qualifying designations instead?
As far as being called "architect" I personally think in for example a social setting we are architects if we are working in the profession, if we have either a degree qualifying us or licensure (which anyway doesn't even require the degree necessarily)... Legally and contractually or as a professional title, "architectural designer" if not licensed, "architect" if licensed, "project manager" or "project architect" if that IS your job... (truth is, you don't need licensure to be a project architect... This is a very specific role, people in our industry know what project architects are, it doesn't mean being the licensed archtect on the project necessaily... "architectural staff" is also accurate... "intern architect" is also accurate and widely understood as someone working towards licensure... I don't see the problem... Having NCARB or AIA designations should be enough... I mean people have LEED but you can be a sustainable designer without LEED... Same for engineers... Engineers who have graduated from degrees in engineering call themselves engineer even if they are not licensed... The only difference is the letters next to their names, the letters indicate clearly what the qualification is and that means something for people, whereas "architect" is anyway non specific and will always be ambiguous...
Legally though, you need to be licensed to Stamp drawings, makes sense... What's the big deal, get the license of you want to be able stamp drawings...
Also, having an M Arch DOES mean something, just as having NCARB or AIA, or "registered architect" or RA does mean something concrete... For a potential client or employer... So these are real qualifying measures easily identifiable that we can use to designate what we've accomplished... I think more graduates should emphasize their degree qualifications M Arch and B Arch, and registered architects should use a clear standardized designation, RA (maybe with the State) for licensed architects, NCARB or AIA indicating professional affiliations or registrations...
Simply take out the ambiguity... I mean some dude who hasn't even a degree or licensure or any qualification would not be able to list any qualification so that would eliminate that problem....
I agree. I was thinking about how doctors have MD after their name, lawyers have JD, accountants have CPA, engineers have PE. All of these say that you are certified by a legal authority to practice in your field.
But architects use the convention AIA, which is just the initials of our professional organization. Why don't we have a more official designation?
Unlicensed, but practicing architecture
Can I call myself an Illegal Architect?
I think it is ironic that one can create a self image as an architect, which is merely an ideological template, and at the same time feign to resist the institutions that reproduce that ideology in society. The desire to define oneself as an architect exists only because the institutions exist, and participation is voluntary. If one aspires to the societal distinction that comes with the label, then it seems to me that that person would support those institutions that reproduce the ideology in society.
In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
The ideology existed before the the institution, and the institution keeps changing. IDP is quite new. When I graduated in california it was not required and I'm not even 30.
Our argument is not so much with professional licensure, simply the current state of it.
Just because there are rules and laws that currently exist, it does not mean those laws and rules are perfect or free from reproach. I believe they are massively flawed and stand to benefit greatly from re-examination. So that is what we are attempting to do here.
The more I learn about how laws are enacted in our country the less respect I have for Congress and the laws they enact. I don't think we should accept the status-quo simply because we already had to trudge through all the bull-shit so everyone else should as well.
Some of us see some problems with the state of the profession and I believe the licensure process is a contributing factor. While there have been 4 threads on this already there are a number of us who feel it's a discussion we can still benefit from.
There are many developed western countries in the world which have professional requirements for licensure as an architect from whom I think we could learn. In some licensure is obtained upon graduation, others simply don't require licensure to practice architecture, I believe the big difference in these countries is what the architects responsibilities are. It carries some fundamental differences in the way the profession is practiced and from my limited exposure to architecture in these countries, I believe it's for the better. It's something I've been interested in but have not yet managed to thoroughly research. The bigger difference may actually be in these countries legal systems, or maybe just their legal culture (our country is disturbingly litigation happy) and how disputes are resolved.
hey i'd be fine with being a 'licensed architect' upon graduation if the degree was as thorough as what's required to be a doctor.
doesn't it take 8+ years of education before your medical residency? isn't that similar to a 5 year professional degree and 3 years of IDP?
sure, you then have to take all those tests .. but if you look at it like the good ol' days when the architecture exams were once a year, taken over a 1 week period. so just sign up for all the exams over a 1 week period at the end of your 3 year IDP and you're done! hello architect!
Actually you don't even "need" an undergraduate degree to get into many medical schools nor is it required for licensure. Medical school takes 3 years typically, but then there is the residencey which they all complian about but I'm sorry it's no wosre then the arch firms I've worked for and they still got paid better than any first year architects.
Also in some states (california included) law school is not required, you have to pass the bar.
“Two years of college work” means a minimum of sixty semester or ninety quarter units of college credit
Or
“Demonstrated equivalent intellectual achievement” means achieving acceptable scores on Committee-specified examinations prior to beginning the study of law."
You also must have:
"studied law diligently and in good faith for at least four years in a law school registered with the Committee; in a law office; in a judge’s chambers; or by some combination of these methods"
Shit my dad's a judge.... I could take the BAR in california but not the ARE and I've gone to architecture school and worked as an architect for 5 years. That's fucked up.
Correction - I worked as an "Intern Architect".
I wouldn't want the CAB think I was holding myself out as being qualified to provide services that fall under the practices of architecture.
Bravo and well stated!
I do prefer the two terms (discussed in one of these previous discussions) Architect (professional degree) and Licensed Architect (licensed).
If you could get a license (and the "right" to call yourself and architect) by passing the exams, that wouldn't be all that bad.
FRaC
My very point in mentioning countries which issue licensure upon graduation is that they don't seem to have a more thorough education than we do. I do however think responsibilities as an architect are somewhat different than in the US. So in that sense they may be better prepared.
Snooky,
"otf...your original remark was way off point and your last even farther off point."
I don't buy it. My post(s) wwere crystal clear and on point. Both/all.
Either you have the qaulifications that make you something or you do not. I don't know how you can miss the point, but there it is. I will spell it out for you one more time though. If whatever the qualifications are that make a person an architect (or Marine or Navy Seal) are not met then you can not call yourself an architect (or Marine or Navy Seal) no matter how you feel about the system or requirements. I hope I have been able to get you back on track here.
Sorry for the confusion with the comparison that went over your head. I'll try to keep those at a more lowbrow level in the future.
"Navy seals put in a lifetimes worth of sweat, blood and tears, and at the end of the day they still can not call themselves a U.S. Marine."
otf
Like I said otf a Navy Seal has no need to call himself a U.S. Marine. No reason to impersonate a Marine. I agree with you on all
other matters.
I have cleaned up the messes of to many people playing architect.
Rather than broaden the definition of who is an architect, perhaps we should just change the name of professional degree programs to reflect that graduates aren't ready to pracice. A CV might look like this:
Bachelor of Continuous Surfaces (B.CS), Columbia, 1999.
Master of Rhino Scripting (M.RhS), Extended Research in Mile Long Green Hovering Planes, UCLA, 2003
A graduate of such programs could legally call themselves a Continuous Surfacer. Or a CAD operator. Or someone who could readily design a project for clients with no regard for materiality. Or an intern.
LOL, Janosh!
I'm happy with my Bachelor of Trace With Sharpie, but feel I can increase my CV if I get a Sketchup Certificate soon.
liberty bell.....ya I be working on the sketchup certificate myself....but I have been told you must be able to down a
complete bottle of catsup before they will hand you a certificate.
i love this thread. what's so great about it, is the fact that the complainers will get no where by their complaining. they'll waste time instead of working towards licensure, and when they finally get it done, they'll come back here and lambaste everyone that will complain about having to get a license. do the time, finish the exam, join the AIA, NCARB and work the system from the inside.
it's a simple fact and it won't ever change, ever.
Snook,
"Like I said otf a Navy Seal has no need to call himself a U.S. Marine. No reason to impersonate a Marine. I agree with you on all
other matters."
In as much as any designer has no need to call themselves an architect. I agree. If they did, they'd follow the route to licensure just as any Seal who wanted to be a Marine would follow that route instead of the route they chose. The two, or four in these cases, have different paths, plans, and skills in which to achieve the end goal set before them. The targets may differ based on that but their certainly is a goal for each. And although an architect can do what a designer can do, legally, whereas the opposite is not true, it could be said the same of the Seal in regards to being a Marine. That is of course my opinion and fortunately I know a bit of what I am talking about.
LOL,...Janosh.....maybe the MArch1 is just an obsolete Academic convention anymore? )I mean a shitload schools teach surface modelin,kl scripting, and the like now.)
I made the mistake once of starting a harmless and sincere inquiry-thread about my pre-licensure endeavors. If I remember correctly, it ended about the same as this one ....full-blown Aristotelian windbagging versus philosophically loose notions of relative semantics.
...love the comparison to the military, how appropriate. ARRG!
otf... I would think it would be regarded the opposite: and although an architect can do what a designer can do, legally, whereas the opposite is not true, it could be the same for a Marine in regards to being a Navy Seal. I believe all Marines operate under the command of Department of the United States Navy. May be I'm missing something. It is infact true the navy and marines serve together on many important missions. A Navy Seal would have a counterpart in the Marines along the lines of the MOCS.
Well, the Marine Corps is a military branch. Technically a department of the Navy. Which is funny because the Marines were initially put together to keep the navy seamen from mutaneering. We work together though. Just as designers and architects do at times although, and the same is true of the military, one can and sometimes does work without the aid of the other. Some architects do not require an outside designer. Some military ops do not require the Marines to use the Navy or Seals. I think you just have some soft spot in your heart for Navy personel. If that is the case, fine but I am not going to try and degrade or belittle the Seals or the Corps in my attempt to prove this point. There are no stats I can think of that you can use to promote your position or in other words your opinon is based on unsubstantiated personal feelings that no Navy Seal would have wanted to or ever wanted to be a Marine. It's really a ridiculous argument and I hope that I have not been led down that flamebait trap in my past posts. I personally have nothing but respect for the Corps and Navy Seals as I have served/trained with both.
otf....enough said I'm not looking for a pissing match. It is a great thing about this site and this country we can differ in our opinions. Just keep your sniper rifle ready if things head south.
Just reported Graft for unlicensed practice. I'll keep everyone posted.
are there any Navy Seal Architects?
I don't know. But I bet there have been a few Navy personnel who are licensed architects. There sure seem to be enough naval architects.
The state testing requirement is not new. If the rules are easier elsewhere, then why not get a license there, and then ask for reciprocity like some of the famous architects mentioned above. The California Architects Board recognizes degrees from other countries, so perhaps it is easy to use your USA Diploma/Masters to get a license in another country. Figuring that out is probably too much work, right?
A quick search on the CAB site reveals that none of the partners at Graft are licensed in CA. They may have licenses in germany, iceland or wherever but that's not relevant if they are running a firm in LA.
Spoke with the CAB yesterday and they have had several compaints file and are investigating.
"Just reported Graft for unlicensed practice. I'll keep everyone posted."
what are you some kind of Rat?
go design a bungalow or something
Graft should be the ones designing bungalows.
I dont know about Seal Architects but a project I finished up last year had an ex-Seal for a job super...
How would you like to be a sub not finishing your work on that project!
hello,
I think the real issue for those of us who aren't licensed but have worked for our degrees and may or may not spent years working in the real world to finish our IDP is that the term "intern" has a different connotation for those in the architectural profession than everyone else. We understand that it means someone who is academically trained but not professionally licensed. For the rest of the world it means a college student who has not finished their education but is working for the experience.
People often compare our licensing and nomenclature issues to Doctors and Lawyers. Yet, doctors and lawyers cannot work as such until they pass their exams, but we on the other hand cannot take our exams until at least 3 years of office work. There is no word for an unlicensed doctor or lawyer, except maybe "fraud." Even "residents" are licensed doctors.
=========================
michel123
=============================
Download Songs- Download Songs
hi every i really like your comment many knowledgeable information in this site and every articles in this site really very nice thanks for share it.
web design edinburgh
Can I *bump* this thread?
I'm very close to licensure (two more exams). However, I've spent the last eight years having to call myself "architectural intern," which everyone not in architecture understands as coffee gopher and copy maker rather than "architect-in-training." I think this does a great disservice to our profession, for all of the reasons stated above.
My wife, a doctor, was able to call herself "doctor" and MD upon graduation from medical school. Sure, she wasn't licensed to practice on her own until she finished residency and passed her exams--that's when she obtained a license number. But she had the title, which conferred respect and professionalism.
I think our profession would be much better served by relaxing about whether architectural interns call themselves "architect" and only going after those cases where someone practices without a license. In fact, I'm of the opinion that obtaining an architecture degree (M.Arch or B.Arch) should confer the title of "architect." To my mind, this would increase rather than decrease professional respect. This is how they do it in Europe. Passing your exams and IDP would then confer your license to practice on your own.
As it stands, architectural interns spend years in limbo without feeling entirely respected by the profession. I know hardly anyone who obtained their license within three years of graduation--most people take much longer.
Thoughts?
Kudos to this guy. It appears in some states you can informally call yourself an architect as long as you don't do so in a legal or contractual sense.
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20060510/NEWS/105100034
If you knock "because that's what he is" off that lawyer's sentence, than I totally agree.
It's just a shame that it has taken a year and a great deal of money to prove what I said that night ... that I am an architect," he (Johnson) said.
Except, that, you know, legally, he's actually not.
But again: in a non-commercial context I think everyone who graduated from architecture school should be allowed to call ourselves architects.
Though here's a question to all you unlicensed architecture degree holders: would you be angry if someone who never went to architecture school went around calling themselves an architect? Would you feel there was a bar that had not passed that you have?
Well....yes. Someone without even an architecture degree calling themselves architect would be bad. Because the implication is that anyone can call themselves architect.
But that's different from an architectural intern who went to an MArch or BArch program and has made a commitment to the profession by working for a number of years (and who is probably slogging through our 7 tests) calling themselves "architect."
My point above is that the medical profession honors those who go to medical school and intend to practice: by giving them a title. Whereas the architecture profession kind of dishonors young architects...oops, I mean, architectural interns.
So what will we call the person who is going the no-degree but worked for a licensed architect for a decade (or however many years req.) before they sit for the test?
I don't hear them complaining.
I guess there's no Internet in Colorado.
before i was licensed i just called myself a 'designer' or said i was a designer in an architectural office. i understood the rules of what it meant to be called an architect and it never really bothered me except that it did finally motivate me to pass all those exams and pass the california supplemental exam.
as far as med school it seems to me that they go to school longer (8 years?) and know a lot more about their field once they graduate.
some architecture programs do teach about how buildings actually go together and all that legal professional practice stuff but seriously when you think back to getting your degree and what you actually know i can understand why you shouldn't legally be called an 'architect' with just a degree.
I went to school for 7 years (and 1.5 in other arch schools that didn't count towards my degrees), is that close enough?
When I say I am a "designer", that means I design websites, motion graphics, graphic design, etc. And that's what I say.
That is different from designing buildings and should not be lumped into the same category.
Eventually this will be resolved, esp. now that there are so many unemployed "architects" that won't want to diminish their marketability or future. That, and their just won't be finances to go around threatening and suing people.
Hopefully the AIA can spend resources on actually helping the profession and not eroding it from the inside out (I'd be curious to see if the 'let's sue ourselves over silly semantics' dept. got cut back in this recession or not).
as someone who is studying for the California Supplemental Exam i am
struggling with this question myself...
per the California Architects' Practice Act:
§ 5500 Architect Defined
As used in this chapter, architect means a person who is licensed to practice
architecture in this state under the authority of this chapter.
§ 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.
i guess one way to look at it would be: there is another set of terms that are called "architect" and "architecture". it just depends on whom you are speak with as to which meaning you use. i would have laughed my ass off if someone in school used the CAB's definition of "architect" when asked what it means to be an architect.
ultimately, these terms are being used in a legal context which is a different world entirely. so, while we might consider ourselves architects who make architecture...the reality is, not in California, unless you meet the State's criteria.
as for your dilemma...i recommend that you don't get yourself in trouble. leave "architectural" or any permutation of that out of your title or business card or company name.
trace, honey.....<sigh>
The AIA has nothing to do with this. Someone - possibly a registered architect, maybe an AIA member, maybe not, and possibly not an architect at all, perhaps, given the circumstances, a political opponent who knows something about registration laws - reported Johnson to the state licensing board. The state licensing board - a body not always made up of architects, and definitely not in any way affiliated with the AIA - decided the use of the word "architect" was improper in this circumstance. A judge decided they were wrong.
This entire lawsuit took place in the realm of lawyers. As it says in the article, the reimbursement of Johnson's defense fees are going to the lawyers. Honestly, lawyers have an edge that we architects just haven't managed to figure out.
It's so tiresome to keep repeating all this, but for those who don't know:
State boards issue licenses and regulate the practice of architecture, just like they issue licenses and regulate the practice of law, medicine, accounting, engineering, and cosmetology.
The national body that administers the registration exams is NCARB. It's a governmental body. If you want to get licensed, you will have no choice but to go through them for the process. After you're licensed, you can choose to keep your NCARB file active or not - if you decide to seek reciprocity (get licensed) in additional states, you'll have to keep your NCARB file active.
The AIA is a professional organization that you may join at your discretion if you so choose. If you're licensed, you join as a full member; if you're not yet licensed, you join as an AIA Associate member. (If you sell products you want architects to specify, you join as an Allied AIA member.)
If you don't choose to join the AIA, you're still a licensed professional regulated by the state in which you hold your license(s).
As I've said many, many times: i've never had a problem with unregistered graduates calling themselves architect in a social setting, I certainly did before I got licensed. What I think is interesting is that Johnson is using the term in a political setting - which means he *was* using the title to help him try to get a job, just not a job practicing architecture. It's a very fuzzy line to me, which is why I raised the question about non-architecture school grads using the term socially or even politically: if Johnson can call himself an architect because not being allowed to do so violates his free speech rights - which is what it says in the article - then doesn't that same right apply to anyone, no matter their background? Everyone has a right to call themselves an architect, the precedent has been set!
I just find it all very interesting.
I agree with farwest on this one about architectural interns and the disservice it does to our profession.
I think one of the main problems within the profession and titles is the lack of continuity from one place to another. It seems that there is no set standard either. Some offices you are an architectural intern, some you are an entry level drafter, one firm I was at used the term Junior Designer.
Personally I have no problem be labeled as a designer, and actually like the term designer, until I become licensed but I think it would be a great service to profession to have some consistency from one firm to another.
In my opinion the term intern conveys a lack of skills, education, and intellectual ability to those not in the architectural profession, which isn't always the case.
My parents always introduce me and when asked what I do they say I'm an architect. When around I correct them and say well not legally, or i'm not licensed or something to those effects, but in most other professions when you graduate with a degree you then become a professional in that field, not an intern in that field. If I say i'm an architectural intern they so "oh so do you not get paid" (in a lot of other professions the term intern resembles being unpaid) or other remarks that in my opinion degrade what i've worked for.
My other problem with the term 'intern' is that there is a difference between being an 'intern' and 'architectural intern' but if you aren't in the architectural community you don't see it that way.
Until the professional community creates some sort of standard that shows a little more respect for people graduating with degrees in the field then there will always be this lack of respect from those outside the field.
Agree with mugged. However, I'v always kind of hated the term designer for the following reasons:
1. It's ambiguous. Industrial designers, graphic designers, interior designers, Information designers, and a thousand other legitimate to completely un-legitimate uses can be lumped under the term.
2. It's the name that many unlicensed home-builders use, at least in the California market that I'm used to. Many or most of these people are contractors by training, edging into the architecture market. More often than not, what they "design" isn't very attractive. A legitimate architectural intern working toward his/her license wouldn't want to be lumped into this category.
And I hate the term architectural intern/intern architect for the following reasons:
1. It sounds provisional, like you're trying out architecture as a summer job.
2. It's so widely mistaken as a position where people do menial tasks in a temporary way, almost as bad as "temp."
On my resume, I've used the term designer, but it never feels entirely comfortable. For instance, I was the "designer" of a facade for a skyscraper. I did everything that an "architect" would do in this case, except stamp the thing. I did the curtainwall details, the specs, the coordination. But on my resume, when I say "facade designer" it always feels half-assed, like I did the watercolor and someone else did the hard work of detailing it. Employers never understand it either--I always get questions about my role in situations like that.
My proposal would be to formalize the definition of an architect pre-licensing. I'd argue for Junior Architect, Associate Architect, Journeyman Architect, or any other phrase that didn't contain the ambiguity and misleading meaning of either "architectural intern" or "designer."
Having a definition like this would also clear up a case like Johnson's. For professionals who decide never to sit for the exam and don't get licensed, they could refer to themselves as "Associate Architects" or whatever.
Thanks, LB, for your thoughts on this. Always insightful.
i used to just call myself an Intelligent Designer or God for short. that usually said all i needed to say.
(Off topic slightly:
I've always liked the names in closely related job titles because they always sound more authoritative and more well career-oriented.
Planner I [planning technician -> junior planner -> assistant planner], Planner II, Planner III... et cetera.
Urban Designers follow a similar scheme. But the lowest title I've found for an urban designer is Junior Urban Designer or Assistant Urban Designer.
But the Department of Labor categorizes intern architects as (Architect I). Actually I think it is Architect VII. Seven seems the be the lowest on the list for generalized architectural services.
I've taken a hiatus on posting but I must say:
If you are unlicensed but still consider yourself to be a Architect without fulfilling the required qualifications in the area of your practice, then you have zero reason to be mad at or desiring distinction from people who refer to themselves as "Information Architects" or "Web Architects" or any of the other things on the myriad of other treads around here complaining about our cruel fate. Hell, you should encourage people to insert "Architect" into their title because it proves your view that its just a word and has no real meaning.
But if you have ever taken the time to point out at a party that the IT guy is not really an architect - then you need to shut up, study and take the blasted exam already.
Crowbert. Sorry, your post was snide and not at all in the spirit of the questions I've been asking.
I'm two exams away from my license, for what it's worth, and have spent the last six months taking roughly an exam a month. I've also spent the last number of years working on architecture from concept through detail drawing, on museums, skyscrapers, houses, etc, as I'm sure many of us on this site have. This hardly counts as not "fulfilling the required qualifications in the area of [my] practice."
Your attitude is exactly the perspective in our practice that I'm railing against. Older, licensed architects essentially treating younger, unlicensed architects as chopped liver or as "interns": "Why should I treat you with respect if you haven't fulfilled the basic obligations of your profession by getting your license.....blah blah blah. Shut up, study, and take the blasted exam.....blah blah blah."
This is not my point. My point is that the title conferred on young architects working toward their license is not one that connotes respect and encouragement.
Do you get upset when people slap the term "___ Architect" on their business card who have not gone through the pain in the butt that is NCARB, IDP and graduating from school in a tough profession?
If "Yes" then the word means something, and you need to do what everyone else who is a registered architect out there has done before you. It is a title deserving of respect, otherwise you wouldn't care.
If "No" then why do you care if I care if you call yourself an Architect - its just a word to you.
And all that amazing work you're doing is not meaningless, it does not make you chopped liver, but neither does it make you an Architect, any more than a guy reconfiguring a server.
I don't automatically respect someone because they are licensed, and I don't automatically discount someone who is not. Sorry you took my comments to mean that you were no good, because I have no idea if you are or not. I don't know you. You may design great buildings, but until you go through the same pain in the ass that I did - as did many others here did - then you're not entitled to call yourself a Architect - at least in terms of being responsible for protecting the health, safety and welfare of the public.
Maybe one part of being a full-fledged, capital "A" Architect also has to do with being responsible and thorough enough to do what is required of him or her as set forth by the state government and licensing bodies.
Again, crowbert, you miss my point.
I agree wholeheartedly that if someone is misrepresenting themselves as an architect, they are in the wrong.
However, my point was (again) that the title conferred on young architects working toward their license is not one that connotes respect and encouragement. I don't personally need any praise from anyone. But I do feel, as a member of this profession, that the titles "intern architect/architectural intern" or "designer" is misleading and ultimately bad for the profession as a whole.
It impacts young architects in their interviewing process, in their promotion of their role in the profession, in their attempts to make business contacts, and even (as they're approaching licensing) in their attempts to get a practice off the ground. It creates ambiguity.
I also despise the word intern, for all the reasons listed above: sounds like you work for free, like you're still a student, like you're young.
I'd love for us to find a term that signifies having achieved a professional degree in architecture but not yet licensed. I'm also not crazy about "junior" as a qualifier.
Associate Architect
Graduate Architect
Allied Architect
Affiliate Architect
Consociate Architect
Adjunct Architect (!)
Attendant Architect
Novitiate Architect
Probationary Architect
Apprentice Architect
Initiate Architect
Dabster Architect
Well, the clear winner for me is Dabster Architect.
A close second is Noob-Architect.
I think someone who has completed an architecture degree, and anyone working in the field is an "architectural designer" which is accurate enough... A graduate from an architecture degree already has the prestige of M Arch or B Arch... If you need letters to put next to your name use your degree as a qualification...
For licensed architects, NCARB (registration which indicates you are registered to be able to become licensed in other states as needed is enough) or AIA if you want the association with the professional association... The funny thing about AIA is, ironically, it doesn't even mean you are a licensed architect... There are honorary AIA memberships, etc. IMHO, M Arch or B Arch or NCARB actually have a more specific qualification so that is a little more clear what level of qualification you have, maybe we should be instead using these as our qualifying designations instead?
As far as being called "architect" I personally think in for example a social setting we are architects if we are working in the profession, if we have either a degree qualifying us or licensure (which anyway doesn't even require the degree necessarily)... Legally and contractually or as a professional title, "architectural designer" if not licensed, "architect" if licensed, "project manager" or "project architect" if that IS your job... (truth is, you don't need licensure to be a project architect... This is a very specific role, people in our industry know what project architects are, it doesn't mean being the licensed archtect on the project necessaily... "architectural staff" is also accurate... "intern architect" is also accurate and widely understood as someone working towards licensure... I don't see the problem... Having NCARB or AIA designations should be enough... I mean people have LEED but you can be a sustainable designer without LEED... Same for engineers... Engineers who have graduated from degrees in engineering call themselves engineer even if they are not licensed... The only difference is the letters next to their names, the letters indicate clearly what the qualification is and that means something for people, whereas "architect" is anyway non specific and will always be ambiguous...
Legally though, you need to be licensed to Stamp drawings, makes sense... What's the big deal, get the license of you want to be able stamp drawings...
Also, having an M Arch DOES mean something, just as having NCARB or AIA, or "registered architect" or RA does mean something concrete... For a potential client or employer... So these are real qualifying measures easily identifiable that we can use to designate what we've accomplished... I think more graduates should emphasize their degree qualifications M Arch and B Arch, and registered architects should use a clear standardized designation, RA (maybe with the State) for licensed architects, NCARB or AIA indicating professional affiliations or registrations...
Simply take out the ambiguity... I mean some dude who hasn't even a degree or licensure or any qualification would not be able to list any qualification so that would eliminate that problem....
I agree. I was thinking about how doctors have MD after their name, lawyers have JD, accountants have CPA, engineers have PE. All of these say that you are certified by a legal authority to practice in your field.
But architects use the convention AIA, which is just the initials of our professional organization. Why don't we have a more official designation?
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.