I use RA frequently, AIA when I feel like it (I'm a dues paying member so far, though it may lapse this year if I'm broke). But you're right, farwest, that AIA is the recognized standard, and if non-AIA architects want to change this they will need to take it up as a cause, because the AIA certainly has no incentive to.
The letter designation is actually a good idea. So I might be
or, to make the professional degree count for something:
bRink, MArch (as a graduate)
vs.
bRink, MArch, RA (if licensed)
or
bRink, MArch, AIA (if professional association matters)
I think we need to emphasize a little more the degree also... Define a standard the way MD or MBA or JD does...
The degree has value, Im currently working towards registration, it's not as though I am not willing to put in the hard work to get the license, but I think the issue some graduates have is that the degree, which IMHO is underappreciated these days and which IMHO is just as hard or more difficult to complete than a MBA or JD for example is not as widely recognized as a standard professional qualification... In my mind, maybe all BArchs should automatically be upgraded to MArchs with the current system, and MArch should be a standard... For simplicity sake? And then make RA a standard designation for licensure, and AIA should just be a professional association designation... 2 cents...
Question: does MD or JD mean you are licensed? Or does it just mean you have completed the degree and are qualified to sit for the exam and complete your internship requirements?
If the question is what to call yourself in an interview, why not use "unlicensed architect"? Farwest, that's what you see yourself as and there is zero ambiguity about it. as for missing the point, I was not directly addressing you, but rather the community at large who on the one hand thinks that getting licensed does not make any difference at all in whether or not you are an "architect" but will complain to no end if some IT guy puffs up his job title by adding that same word to the end of his job description. The title of Architect either means something to you or it doesn't. Since we are a society that (mostly) values the rule of law and that the law applies to everyone equally, then the legal definition must apply to everyone equally.
As a person who completed his exams far later than he should have, I kinda wish more people would have given me grief so that I would have finished sooner. To everyone who wants to get licensed and has not yet, consider my snide remarks as the kick in the ass to finish and make this thread irrelivent.
In the case of doctors, you gain your MD title at the end of medical school.
However (unlike architecture) you can't do anything with it if you don't go to residency and then pass your exams. (There is no such think as an unlicensed doctor, only a resident doctor pre-licensing. The license grants you the ability to write prescriptions.) Whereas architects can practice for years, or a lifetime, under someone else's license.
I sort of feel like raising this issue with the profession. I think it's important enough to be argued about among professionals. Where would I do this? NCARB? State licensing boards? Which group has created our current system?
It just means that you have finished a doctorate at a qualified university and people should be calling you doctor.
The idea is that "back in the day" completing a "bachelor's" degree meant that you became an eligible bachelor. Not just for marrying but the term also means someone capable of being an apprenticeship.
You could essentially call this middle management.
That's why education was so highly valued because finishing the trivium and quadrivium (liberal arts education) was a guaranteed ticket to formal society.
This particularly only really mattered though because up until maybe the late 19th century... there was less than two dozen widely influential "true" universities.
There was a schism in the university model between universities like Oxford (which is ran in a way completely independent from society in general) and newer universities (research universities).
The bigger difference between the two is the research universities pride themselves on churning out the "most advanced" practices and techniques for "advanced degrees." Where as medieval universities do teach, a large focus of their education is on life skills.
(Unrelated: The mildly humorous thing here is that medieval universities were "designed" to be especially liberal as the church wanted to continue the tradition of monastery-like environment without the actual monastery part. However, there has been a lot of criticism in the last few decades about how the university system is discriminatory towards conservative-oriented members of staff and faculty.)
I know this is a little off-topic... but the point was that degrees do not necessarily confer any competency when licensure is in place.
So, in that sense... someone can be a J.D. but may not necessarily be a lawyer-- they'd still be a doctor!
The other thing is Doctors do not seem to like it when others are being called Doctors. However, the better styling for a medical doctor is a physician anyways!
Now why is it that even in this down economy engineers are generally still holding their heads above water? (and before this Depression were consistently making 1/3 more than architects to begin with?)
#1, MArch/BArch = MD. An unlicensed architect is still an architect, just as am unlicensed doctor is still a doctor. They both can work in the profession under a licensed professional. In my mind, one issue is that we've made a distinction between the old system (BArch) vs. the new system (MArch) which confuses the degree qualification... This would go away if we simplified it to give BArchs the MArch, which in my mind is basically the same thing... A BArch in the old system has completed 5+ years of schooling, far more than other bachelors programs like a BSc or BA or B Eng... As a reference, non-honors BA or BSc can be obtained with as little as 3 years of schooling... I think a BArch graduate should be upgraded to MArch and this made the standard qualification for an architectural graduate in order to brand the thing competitively with MD... An MD quite honestly isn't even a graduate program let alone a doctoral program... It is a professional degree, but can be completed within 6 years I think... 2-3 years pre-med, plus 3 years for the professional degree...
#2. IDP = medical residency. Architects need to complete IDP to be registered, just as Doctors need to complete their residencey to be registered,
stamping drawings = writing prescriptions. Architects need a license legally to provide legally legitimate services, just as doctors need a license to provide legally legitimate services.
The difference I see is the differences in the traditions of practice... Not all architects choose to become licensed, and some architects can work for years under a licensed practitioner, whereas doctors typically get their license immediately after completing a residency... This is not in my mind a distinction between education, but simply a difference in the nature of the profession...
The complication I guess is that some people working for years in architecture can become licensed without ever having completed the formal educational requirement of an MArch... In my mind, this is simply an alternative process by which doctors who did not follow the traditional method towards licensure can become licensed to practice, but should not diminish the standard of an MArch... From Wikipedia: "U.S. osteopathic medical school graduates are permitted to take the USMLE for medical licensure, which they can also obtain by passing the multi-part Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX) professional exam. Students who have graduated from non-US medical schools must pass all three steps of the USMLE to be licensed to practice in the US, regardless of the title of their degree."
If we look at it in this way, we ought not to be focusing on title so much as qualifications... If anything, we should be focusing on 1. the degree: whether the standard professional degree has merit (the standard for an MArch), 2. the value of IDP (whether our internship training works well), and 3. the ARE (whether our exams are a good test of competance and practical knowledge)... In my mind, licensure is important, but if it is not seen as important as in medical practice, that is simply a result of the nature of architecture stamping (and professional insurance, etc.) not being as essential as in medical practice where the practitioner to patient transaction / administration of services is as direct and treatment so immediate... I personally don't think there is a problem with architects having a much more drawn out licensure typically... Or architects choosing not to get their license if they are not planning to run their own practice... They might simply *not need* to have a license of to stamp drawings for that matter... This shouldn't diminish the fact that they are professionals... My 2 cents...
*writing prescriptions* for a doctor is essential (making licensure essential) because patients are treated in a much more direct way. by contast, *stamping drawings* is not as essential for an architect, if they plan to only work under a licensed architect who will be doing the stamping... This is not a problem, it is just a difference in the nature of the profession... The M.Arch. should still = the M.D.
*non-degree paths to licensure* are simply like *non M.D. paths to licensure* (like people who complete a D.O. or a degree in another country)... It's just non-traditional avenue, but they can still become licensed...
brink I think the difference between an MD out of school and an intern is what they were taught.
Doctors actually study medicine and ususally go into specific fields whereas in architecture school we mostly study design and other general principles. The you learn how to perform architecture over the next 2,3 5 10 years to a level where you can then take the exams.
OTF, it would seem that this thread gets resurrected, often in different ways, because IDP and the exams seem so far out of reach. i remember dealing with this 15 years ago; same issues, same complaints. ultimately, i realized only too late, that spinning my wheels kvetching about these problems only kept me from the goal of becoming an architect. some lessons i guess you have to learn in your own time.
i'm in for the 'ra' designation - as much as i think the aia is a great organization (and i've been a member for a long time), we've come to a point where allowing it to define professional credentials makes no sense. i mean, i'm a member of ncarb - should i put that behind my name?
so, all these professional groups - iida, asid, ace, asla, etc - at least in my book, they're out as official title designations.
On the fence, first, this is an important issue for our profession. For that reason, it's worth debating. See above for people's criticisms of the term "designer" and even "draftsman."
Second, in medical school you study general issues. Everyone basically deals with the same curriculum. You are a generalist, just like in architecture school. It's not necessarily true that people learn "more" or a more specialized skill set.
As a medical resident, after graduating from medical school, you specialize in, for instance, pediatrics, surgery, internal medicine--still broad categories but getting narrower. This is the equivalent to our IDP, where I might choose to go to work for a skyscraper firm or a residential firm to learn specific skills.
From residency, you can further specialize through a fellowship, such as in gastrointestinal issues, or endocrine disorders.
I'm with you, outed. My current business cards say "AIA" but when I order replacements I think I'll stick with RA. I use it on letters and contracts already.
Farwest1, exactly... In my mind MArch = MD. Or at least it *should* be... Both are general practice degrees... Specialists in Medicine specialize *after* completing their MD, in fact that means going to years more of schooling and I believe separate licensing exams or requirements I believe to become a specialist... As for example, not just a GP, but a psychiatrist, or an opthamologist, eurologist, cardiologist, pediatrician, gynocologist, dermatologist, neorologist, anaesthesiologist, etc. Maybe we need those kinds of specialized practice avenues as well? For example building envelope specialist? Sustainability specialist? Transportation specialist? Etc.? Maybe our advanced post professional programs need to become more specialized in designation? And standardized, or certain schools that have strong programs in specialties recognized? Not sure... A GP in medicine for example would know about the specialties generally, but might refer to a specialist as needed... In architecture, specialists could be consultants or staff architects with specialist credentials...
onthefence, if you think we don't learn anything in school or the MArch is inferior to an MD, I think that is simply a criticism of the degree as it currently works, I would disagree... I think the degree could be improved perhaps, but it is already as much a professional education as an MD... Maybe it could improve as a practice component, but those years of working you talk about, the field experience are needed for the MD as much as for the architect... An MD graduate is not instantly a great practitioner, that comes over years of practice... I think the nature of the professions are different, so the educational emphasis is simply different...
That is not to say you don't need licensure, I'm just pointing out that licensure is separate from the degree for MDs as well... You are a doctor when you graduate, just not licensed until completing residency... So in my mind you are an unlicensed architect at graduation from the professional, or you *should* be...
I think if our professional degrees are not actually preparing us as professionals, then this is a problem with architectural education... Should IDP or the AREs be integrated with degree requirements?
I really don't see a problem with allowing degreed, working, but unlicensed architects to call themselves "Architect". If you're working as a Project Architect you should be allowed to call yourself that, licensed or not, and other terms, like Intern or Apprentice should be followed by the word Architect.
What bothers me much more is what the appellation "AIA" has come to represent, because I have a feeling that most non-architects now think that it represents a licensed and trustworthy architect and you're suspect if you don't show it after your name. I don't belong to the AIA, so I have to deal with whatever doubt of "unprofessionality" the missing acronym plants in potential clients (most of them probably have to think twice about what "RA" means), which is unfair, because, as someone pointed out above, "AIA" is also given to persons who are not even architects.
getting a license definitely helps (and should be the goal of ANY practicing designer) however the root of the problem goes back to market demand.
the public simply does not want design services, other than to pay an architect to execute THEIR vision. Part of this is cultural (american's obsession with nostalgia) and also lack of legal protection. Architects are not required to stamp residential drawings - so the battle was lost long ago. The practice of contractors employing in house architects just makes the problem worse.
that being said, i heartily agree with bRink on taking the ARE's right out of (or in) school. Intern architects are not getting the experience they need to fulfill IDP and a required license would immediately trim some fat.
We are not marketable in any sense when we graduate, period. It's a problem.
Maybe we should do away with "intern architect" and call it "apprentice architect"... Sounds more of the master builder / apprentice tradition... "intern architect" sort of sounds lame given that "interns" in the job market these days in other industry generally equates to *gopher* / *filing bitch*.... :p
"apprentice" seems also to have an implication of a mentor / mentee relationship which "intern" doesn't... I like it! :)
maybe we could skew practice towards mentorship even with just a subtle title change... subconscious influence on the profession towards a greater degree of mentorship?
wrecking ball, you think that the system as it is qualifies students at student level or upon graduation to sit for the ARE?
I don't want to tell you I am laughing because I don't want to insult you but.......well.....I am laughing. Sitting for the ARE and even passing it doesn't really even make one qualified as an architect. Someone coming right out of 5,6 or 7 years of school is not prepared to sign and seal drawings. Yet that is what you would have.
JMHO.
26 years old and ready to sign off on the $50,000,000 hospital.
OTF
'you think that the system as it is qualifies students at student level or upon graduation to sit for the ARE?'
absolutely not. But passing the ARE even after 3 years experience doesn't qualify anyone to sign off on a 50 million hospital unless they have the necessary experience. school/exams can never replace that. not to mention that most IDP participants fib on their hours anyway - so i'm not sure that the 3 year requirement really does anything (except encourage intern architects to procrastinate). If you want to require a licensed architect to be able to demonstrate proficiency in any type or scale of building, they will be doing IDP for 10+ years.
the ARE is a base set of knowledge to build upon. European students enter the marketplace licensed. I'm suggesting that we do the same. But I agree with you, with our CURRENT academic system of teaching design only, an architecture graduate is almost unbillable, much less prepared to sign drawings!
But maybe the professional degree *should* prepare students to sit for the ARE... If it doesn't already... If it doesn't, maybe the system needs to be improved to better equip graduates... That is an issue of improving the education system, not in my mind anything that has to do with general practice title.
I think the issue is, *how can the profession be competitive with other professions?* The fact is, in my mind, the architect is as much a professional as the doctor or the lawyer, so why is it we have an inferiority complex that diminishes our graduates and seeks to keep them from reaching a competitive standing with respect to other professionals? It's counter productive if architects want to market ourselves competitively overall as a profession, isn't it? I mean, we should be raising the bar for graduates, not diminishing the importance of graduates...
Personally, I don't think just any and all licensed architects are ready to sign off on the $50,000,000 hospital. Just as a licensed doctor a few years out of med school is not ready to perform brain surgery... That's why there are specialist qualifications in medical school... Should there be a specialization credential for those who are experts in hospital design and qualified to sign off on a hospital?
2 /ˈɪntɜrn/ Show Spelled[in-turn] Show IPA
–nounAlso, interne.
1.a resident member of the medical staff of a hospital, usually a recent medical school graduate serving under supervision.
2.Education. student teacher.
3.a person who works as an apprentice or trainee in an occupation or profession to gain practical experience, and sometimesalso to satisfy legal or other requirements for being licensed or accepted professionally.
–verb (used without object)
4.to be or perform the duties of an intern.
ap·pren·tice /əˈprɛntɪs/ Show Spelled [uh-pren-tis] Show IPA noun, verb,-ticed, -tic·ing.
–noun
1.a person who works for another in order to learn a trade: an apprentice to a plumber.
2.History/Historical. a person legally bound through indenture to a master craftsman in order to learn a trade.
3.a learner; novice; tyro.
4.to bind to or place with an employer, master craftsman, or the like, for instruction in a trade.
When I was coming through, "apprentice" was the commonly used term in my community and we young-uns hated it because of the "indenture" aspect of the term.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
What are they protecting the public from again by limiting the use of that term? Even if Joe Public meets Susie Intern at a cocktail party and gets duped into thinking she can actually design a building, whatever that means, you still need a registerd architect to stamp your drawings if you want it built. And an engineer or two. Or three. Even if Susie designed a building with no doors, and Joe Public loves it, he still can't build it.
Why is it potentially punishable, for instance, for an intern to say he/she is an architect when not licensed as such. But it isn't unlawful for that same person to work at an architect's office, practicing architecture.
Cause it's genius! The fact that you can, do and HAVE to practice architecture for many years before you are allowed to use the word or any of its forms to describe yourself makes total sense. To ensure an always available supply of cheap drafting labor of course! And to weed out the people who want to start their own careers before propping up the careers of those that came before them.
If you don't maintain your license, are you still an architect? What term could we give to architects who no longer maintain their license because of retirement, career focus shift, etc?
for whatever it's worth, one of our mechanical engineers sent an email the other day that had "Joe Smith, EIT". i had to ask him what the EIT meant, having never heard it before. his reply: Engineer In Training is the official designation for an unlicensed engineer. PE, of course, is the licensed title.
"absolutely not. But passing the ARE even after 3 years experience doesn't qualify anyone to sign off on a 50 million hospital unless they have the necessary experience. school/exams can never replace that. not to mention that most IDP participants fib on their hours anyway - so i'm not sure that the 3 year requirement really does anything (except encourage intern architects to procrastinate)."
And NOW we get to the cruxt of the problem. You and everyone else added up the required hours and decided it was 3 years of IDP. It isn't. it is a minimum of 3 years and can sometimes/usually takes 10, 12 or more. Instead, like you said, people lie there way into taking the exams.
It is a serious problem and removing the minimum 3 years isn't the solution.
brink,
"But maybe the professional degree *should* prepare students to sit for the ARE... If it doesn't already... If it doesn't, maybe the system needs to be improved to better equip graduates... That is an issue of improving the education system, not in my mind anything that has to do with general practice title."
It has everything to do with it. And yes the schools need ot be fixed first. But that ain't going to happen anytime soon. Just because the schools fail us does not mean we reduce the standards for licensure, does it?
Doctors who perform brain surgery have to go to more schooling than just regular MD school. If you want to sign seal hospital buildings, maybe an extra 4 years of school on top of the MArch should be required.
I think it would have really helped my career to be allowed to take the ARE right out of school. I would have studied for it, much like I studied for it after years of working to satisfy IDP. Maybe then it wouldn't have taken me years to get exposure to some important principles within the industry.
Again, draftsmen works just fine to start out. Seriously, that is what you are/were when first hired somewhere, right? When the company promotes you you can be a project manager so on until you reach architect.
Why should IDP need to come before ARE? In my mind, even if we argue that IDP requirements are made more rigorous, this is separate from ARE... Sure, spending years working in the field is beneficial to you when studying for the ARE because you can bring the in the field experience to your exams, but either way, you still have to pass the exams... And even if you can pass the ARE, you would need to finish your IDP units to get your license so I don't see the problem...
It seems to me that we are not in disagreement that licensure needs to be rigorous, and are not trying to *expedite* licensure... My point is, why not step up the qualifications for graduates to prepare them for the ARE right away... Quite honestly, I think if every graduate had some motivation to finish the exams earlier rather than later, they would be a little better equipped across the board for practice (up front)... The ARE is *supposed to* test a broad baseline competency which is valuable even before working on IDP... Why it is such a late career hurdle doesn't make alot of sense (if we are trying to encourage people to get licensed)... Wouldn't it be better to get that overview of the profession early on in the internship to have a better sense of where we need to be at the least up front?
Doctors who perform brain surgery have to go to more schooling than just regular MD school. If you want to sign seal hospital buildings, maybe an extra 4 years of school on top of the MArch should be required.
Exactly my point. But the MD is a doctor already. Even an unlicensed MD is just an unlicensed doctor, but cannot *stamp* (to use the analogy) until he / she gets the license, at which point he / she is simply a general practitioner. Yeah, maybe architects *should* have an extra 4 years of schooling (or equivalent practical experience + qualifying examination) to stamp a hospital if that is what it takes...
It seems to me, barring MArchs from calling themselves "architect" (even an "unlicensed architect") is simply diminishing the recognition of a professional education in architecture... Lets raise the bar of the education maybe, expect more...
New hires aren't always draftsmen... It really varies... draftsmen and project manager don't have so much to do with years, it's more a description of task... just as "project architect" or "designer" does...
[i]It is a misdemeanor... for any person who is not
licensed to practice architecture under this chapter to practice
architecture in this state..."[i/]
Sooooo, is it is unlawful to work in an architect's office to gain IDP? Doesn't fulfilling the requirements of IDP involve practicing architecture without a license?
Or does "practicing architecture" simply mean stamping drawings? Like it makes sense that it be unlawful to make up a stamp and use it without obtaining the license.
I am not a licensed architect, so I am not privy to this kind of knowledge! Please share!
"It seems to me, barring MArchs from calling themselves "architect" (even an "unlicensed architect") is simply diminishing the recognition of a professional education in architecture... Lets raise the bar of the education maybe, expect more..."
Probabaly becaue a lot of those M.arch's are really 2 /3year degrees where the applicant has a degree in russian language or psycology or some other non related field. Why on earth would I want to allow an M.arch with a bachelors in woodworking of the native brazillian tribe Zakmandota be allowed to go from M.arch to licensed architect?
You have pre-requisites to go to Med school, but you don't explicitly need to be "pre-med" some schools have "pre-med" programs but you only need to take the pre-requisites,
HOWEVER, it is not technically necessary to have an undergraduate degree to practice medicine, some schools require it, you will not be very competitive without it, but you don't need it (same with law school), so you are better off trying to get into medical school with a bachelors in woodworking.
no, you don't need pre-med to get into medical school. I could have applied to med school with my bachelors in business since, I also finished undergraduate Calculus, Biology, Chemistry and Physics... So to answer your queston: no.
Also, lets not exaggerate or belittle what it takes to finish an M.Arch. The M.Arch is at a minimum, a 3.5 year, more likely a 4 year degree, not a 2 year degree. *If you did a 4 year non-accredited undergraduate degree in architecture* you would get *credit* for courses which you have already completed, for example an engineering graduate in structural engineering who has completed all of the structures requrements might not have to take structures 1 and 2 again in the M Arch, or an B Sc in Architectural Science who has taken the drawing and history requirements along with studios and upper year seminars might get credit for the equivalent course credits reducing the M. Arch to 2.5 years (in addition to the 4 years it took to complete the undergraduate program)...
Lets be a little more realistic here: the M Arch has minimum core course requirements: 2 semesters of structures, environmental controls, MEP, 2 semesters of history, 2 semesters of drawing and representation I believe, 2 semesters of building technology, 3 semesters of professional practice, minimum requirments for advanced level seminars (which could be structures, environmental controls), at least 2 I believe history and theory seminars, am I missing anything? plus the design studio and graduate thesis requirements... In order to be accredited...
if anythng, the problem isn't that students don't have to finish the coursework, it's that attention is overweighted towards the design studios so that students only get through the core course curriculums... Maybe having them take the ARE concurrently would give more attention to the practice components of the curriculum?
To be honest, I think architecture school is more rigorous than most professional schools... Law, MBA, dentistry... I have plenty of friends in those professions, and I have a great deal of respect for my peers from architecture...
Unlicensed, but practicing architecture
I use RA frequently, AIA when I feel like it (I'm a dues paying member so far, though it may lapse this year if I'm broke). But you're right, farwest, that AIA is the recognized standard, and if non-AIA architects want to change this they will need to take it up as a cause, because the AIA certainly has no incentive to.
The letter designation is actually a good idea. So I might be
Liberty Bell, Architect RA
or
Liberty Bell, Architect AIA
or just
Liberty Bell, RA
or, to make the professional degree count for something:
bRink, MArch (as a graduate)
vs.
bRink, MArch, RA (if licensed)
or
bRink, MArch, AIA (if professional association matters)
I think we need to emphasize a little more the degree also... Define a standard the way MD or MBA or JD does...
The degree has value, Im currently working towards registration, it's not as though I am not willing to put in the hard work to get the license, but I think the issue some graduates have is that the degree, which IMHO is underappreciated these days and which IMHO is just as hard or more difficult to complete than a MBA or JD for example is not as widely recognized as a standard professional qualification... In my mind, maybe all BArchs should automatically be upgraded to MArchs with the current system, and MArch should be a standard... For simplicity sake? And then make RA a standard designation for licensure, and AIA should just be a professional association designation... 2 cents...
Question: does MD or JD mean you are licensed? Or does it just mean you have completed the degree and are qualified to sit for the exam and complete your internship requirements?
If the question is what to call yourself in an interview, why not use "unlicensed architect"? Farwest, that's what you see yourself as and there is zero ambiguity about it. as for missing the point, I was not directly addressing you, but rather the community at large who on the one hand thinks that getting licensed does not make any difference at all in whether or not you are an "architect" but will complain to no end if some IT guy puffs up his job title by adding that same word to the end of his job description. The title of Architect either means something to you or it doesn't. Since we are a society that (mostly) values the rule of law and that the law applies to everyone equally, then the legal definition must apply to everyone equally.
As a person who completed his exams far later than he should have, I kinda wish more people would have given me grief so that I would have finished sooner. To everyone who wants to get licensed and has not yet, consider my snide remarks as the kick in the ass to finish and make this thread irrelivent.
In the case of doctors, you gain your MD title at the end of medical school.
However (unlike architecture) you can't do anything with it if you don't go to residency and then pass your exams. (There is no such think as an unlicensed doctor, only a resident doctor pre-licensing. The license grants you the ability to write prescriptions.) Whereas architects can practice for years, or a lifetime, under someone else's license.
I sort of feel like raising this issue with the profession. I think it's important enough to be argued about among professionals. Where would I do this? NCARB? State licensing boards? Which group has created our current system?
It just means that you have finished a doctorate at a qualified university and people should be calling you doctor.
The idea is that "back in the day" completing a "bachelor's" degree meant that you became an eligible bachelor. Not just for marrying but the term also means someone capable of being an apprenticeship.
You could essentially call this middle management.
That's why education was so highly valued because finishing the trivium and quadrivium (liberal arts education) was a guaranteed ticket to formal society.
This particularly only really mattered though because up until maybe the late 19th century... there was less than two dozen widely influential "true" universities.
There was a schism in the university model between universities like Oxford (which is ran in a way completely independent from society in general) and newer universities (research universities).
The bigger difference between the two is the research universities pride themselves on churning out the "most advanced" practices and techniques for "advanced degrees." Where as medieval universities do teach, a large focus of their education is on life skills.
(Unrelated: The mildly humorous thing here is that medieval universities were "designed" to be especially liberal as the church wanted to continue the tradition of monastery-like environment without the actual monastery part. However, there has been a lot of criticism in the last few decades about how the university system is discriminatory towards conservative-oriented members of staff and faculty.)
I know this is a little off-topic... but the point was that degrees do not necessarily confer any competency when licensure is in place.
So, in that sense... someone can be a J.D. but may not necessarily be a lawyer-- they'd still be a doctor!
The other thing is Doctors do not seem to like it when others are being called Doctors. However, the better styling for a medical doctor is a physician anyways!
always John Doe, PE never John Doe, ASCE
always John Does, AIA, never John Doe, RA
Now why is it that even in this down economy engineers are generally still holding their heads above water? (and before this Depression were consistently making 1/3 more than architects to begin with?)
-sigh- I guess they really are smarter.
farwest1, thanks that answers my question.
#1, MArch/BArch = MD. An unlicensed architect is still an architect, just as am unlicensed doctor is still a doctor. They both can work in the profession under a licensed professional. In my mind, one issue is that we've made a distinction between the old system (BArch) vs. the new system (MArch) which confuses the degree qualification... This would go away if we simplified it to give BArchs the MArch, which in my mind is basically the same thing... A BArch in the old system has completed 5+ years of schooling, far more than other bachelors programs like a BSc or BA or B Eng... As a reference, non-honors BA or BSc can be obtained with as little as 3 years of schooling... I think a BArch graduate should be upgraded to MArch and this made the standard qualification for an architectural graduate in order to brand the thing competitively with MD... An MD quite honestly isn't even a graduate program let alone a doctoral program... It is a professional degree, but can be completed within 6 years I think... 2-3 years pre-med, plus 3 years for the professional degree...
#2. IDP = medical residency. Architects need to complete IDP to be registered, just as Doctors need to complete their residencey to be registered,
#3. ARE = USMLE. Architects need to complete exams to be licensed just as doctors need to complete exams to be licensed. From Wikipedia, regarding medical licensure exams: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Medical_Licensure_Examination
stamping drawings = writing prescriptions. Architects need a license legally to provide legally legitimate services, just as doctors need a license to provide legally legitimate services.
The difference I see is the differences in the traditions of practice... Not all architects choose to become licensed, and some architects can work for years under a licensed practitioner, whereas doctors typically get their license immediately after completing a residency... This is not in my mind a distinction between education, but simply a difference in the nature of the profession...
The complication I guess is that some people working for years in architecture can become licensed without ever having completed the formal educational requirement of an MArch... In my mind, this is simply an alternative process by which doctors who did not follow the traditional method towards licensure can become licensed to practice, but should not diminish the standard of an MArch... From Wikipedia: "U.S. osteopathic medical school graduates are permitted to take the USMLE for medical licensure, which they can also obtain by passing the multi-part Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX) professional exam. Students who have graduated from non-US medical schools must pass all three steps of the USMLE to be licensed to practice in the US, regardless of the title of their degree."
If we look at it in this way, we ought not to be focusing on title so much as qualifications... If anything, we should be focusing on 1. the degree: whether the standard professional degree has merit (the standard for an MArch), 2. the value of IDP (whether our internship training works well), and 3. the ARE (whether our exams are a good test of competance and practical knowledge)... In my mind, licensure is important, but if it is not seen as important as in medical practice, that is simply a result of the nature of architecture stamping (and professional insurance, etc.) not being as essential as in medical practice where the practitioner to patient transaction / administration of services is as direct and treatment so immediate... I personally don't think there is a problem with architects having a much more drawn out licensure typically... Or architects choosing not to get their license if they are not planning to run their own practice... They might simply *not need* to have a license of to stamp drawings for that matter... This shouldn't diminish the fact that they are professionals... My 2 cents...
gah... all kinds of typos / poor editing there...
what i meant to say is:
*writing prescriptions* for a doctor is essential (making licensure essential) because patients are treated in a much more direct way. by contast, *stamping drawings* is not as essential for an architect, if they plan to only work under a licensed architect who will be doing the stamping... This is not a problem, it is just a difference in the nature of the profession... The M.Arch. should still = the M.D.
*non-degree paths to licensure* are simply like *non M.D. paths to licensure* (like people who complete a D.O. or a degree in another country)... It's just non-traditional avenue, but they can still become licensed...
bRink you have some great ideas
There is a term for people who work in architect firms or even design firms.
Draftsmen
Designer.
Either are acceptable alterantives.
Now who decided to resurrect this train wreck of a thread?
brink I think the difference between an MD out of school and an intern is what they were taught.
Doctors actually study medicine and ususally go into specific fields whereas in architecture school we mostly study design and other general principles. The you learn how to perform architecture over the next 2,3 5 10 years to a level where you can then take the exams.
OTF, it would seem that this thread gets resurrected, often in different ways, because IDP and the exams seem so far out of reach. i remember dealing with this 15 years ago; same issues, same complaints. ultimately, i realized only too late, that spinning my wheels kvetching about these problems only kept me from the goal of becoming an architect. some lessons i guess you have to learn in your own time.
i'm in for the 'ra' designation - as much as i think the aia is a great organization (and i've been a member for a long time), we've come to a point where allowing it to define professional credentials makes no sense. i mean, i'm a member of ncarb - should i put that behind my name?
so, all these professional groups - iida, asid, ace, asla, etc - at least in my book, they're out as official title designations.
On the fence, first, this is an important issue for our profession. For that reason, it's worth debating. See above for people's criticisms of the term "designer" and even "draftsman."
Second, in medical school you study general issues. Everyone basically deals with the same curriculum. You are a generalist, just like in architecture school. It's not necessarily true that people learn "more" or a more specialized skill set.
As a medical resident, after graduating from medical school, you specialize in, for instance, pediatrics, surgery, internal medicine--still broad categories but getting narrower. This is the equivalent to our IDP, where I might choose to go to work for a skyscraper firm or a residential firm to learn specific skills.
From residency, you can further specialize through a fellowship, such as in gastrointestinal issues, or endocrine disorders.
I'm with you, outed. My current business cards say "AIA" but when I order replacements I think I'll stick with RA. I use it on letters and contracts already.
Farwest1, exactly... In my mind MArch = MD. Or at least it *should* be... Both are general practice degrees... Specialists in Medicine specialize *after* completing their MD, in fact that means going to years more of schooling and I believe separate licensing exams or requirements I believe to become a specialist... As for example, not just a GP, but a psychiatrist, or an opthamologist, eurologist, cardiologist, pediatrician, gynocologist, dermatologist, neorologist, anaesthesiologist, etc. Maybe we need those kinds of specialized practice avenues as well? For example building envelope specialist? Sustainability specialist? Transportation specialist? Etc.? Maybe our advanced post professional programs need to become more specialized in designation? And standardized, or certain schools that have strong programs in specialties recognized? Not sure... A GP in medicine for example would know about the specialties generally, but might refer to a specialist as needed... In architecture, specialists could be consultants or staff architects with specialist credentials...
onthefence, if you think we don't learn anything in school or the MArch is inferior to an MD, I think that is simply a criticism of the degree as it currently works, I would disagree... I think the degree could be improved perhaps, but it is already as much a professional education as an MD... Maybe it could improve as a practice component, but those years of working you talk about, the field experience are needed for the MD as much as for the architect... An MD graduate is not instantly a great practitioner, that comes over years of practice... I think the nature of the professions are different, so the educational emphasis is simply different...
That is not to say you don't need licensure, I'm just pointing out that licensure is separate from the degree for MDs as well... You are a doctor when you graduate, just not licensed until completing residency... So in my mind you are an unlicensed architect at graduation from the professional, or you *should* be...
I think if our professional degrees are not actually preparing us as professionals, then this is a problem with architectural education... Should IDP or the AREs be integrated with degree requirements?
Maybe architecture degrees should be more rigorous in work term / co op terms... Something like the University of Waterloo for example...
I really don't see a problem with allowing degreed, working, but unlicensed architects to call themselves "Architect". If you're working as a Project Architect you should be allowed to call yourself that, licensed or not, and other terms, like Intern or Apprentice should be followed by the word Architect.
What bothers me much more is what the appellation "AIA" has come to represent, because I have a feeling that most non-architects now think that it represents a licensed and trustworthy architect and you're suspect if you don't show it after your name. I don't belong to the AIA, so I have to deal with whatever doubt of "unprofessionality" the missing acronym plants in potential clients (most of them probably have to think twice about what "RA" means), which is unfair, because, as someone pointed out above, "AIA" is also given to persons who are not even architects.
I think "RA" is far better for designating licensed professionals. I see interns with "associate AIA" after their names - it gets confusing.
I also really like the idea of having a designation for having earned a degree, but not yet licensed.
getting a license definitely helps (and should be the goal of ANY practicing designer) however the root of the problem goes back to market demand.
the public simply does not want design services, other than to pay an architect to execute THEIR vision. Part of this is cultural (american's obsession with nostalgia) and also lack of legal protection. Architects are not required to stamp residential drawings - so the battle was lost long ago. The practice of contractors employing in house architects just makes the problem worse.
that being said, i heartily agree with bRink on taking the ARE's right out of (or in) school. Intern architects are not getting the experience they need to fulfill IDP and a required license would immediately trim some fat.
We are not marketable in any sense when we graduate, period. It's a problem.
I use RA often, never NCARB, and occasionally ALA (Association of Licensed Architects).
I might drop them all in favor of GC after my name, since it pays a lot better.
Emilio:
"apprentice" I like that!
Maybe we should do away with "intern architect" and call it "apprentice architect"... Sounds more of the master builder / apprentice tradition... "intern architect" sort of sounds lame given that "interns" in the job market these days in other industry generally equates to *gopher* / *filing bitch*.... :p
"apprentice" seems also to have an implication of a mentor / mentee relationship which "intern" doesn't... I like it! :)
maybe we could skew practice towards mentorship even with just a subtle title change... subconscious influence on the profession towards a greater degree of mentorship?
wrecking ball, you think that the system as it is qualifies students at student level or upon graduation to sit for the ARE?
I don't want to tell you I am laughing because I don't want to insult you but.......well.....I am laughing. Sitting for the ARE and even passing it doesn't really even make one qualified as an architect. Someone coming right out of 5,6 or 7 years of school is not prepared to sign and seal drawings. Yet that is what you would have.
JMHO.
26 years old and ready to sign off on the $50,000,000 hospital.
OTF
'you think that the system as it is qualifies students at student level or upon graduation to sit for the ARE?'
absolutely not. But passing the ARE even after 3 years experience doesn't qualify anyone to sign off on a 50 million hospital unless they have the necessary experience. school/exams can never replace that. not to mention that most IDP participants fib on their hours anyway - so i'm not sure that the 3 year requirement really does anything (except encourage intern architects to procrastinate). If you want to require a licensed architect to be able to demonstrate proficiency in any type or scale of building, they will be doing IDP for 10+ years.
the ARE is a base set of knowledge to build upon. European students enter the marketplace licensed. I'm suggesting that we do the same. But I agree with you, with our CURRENT academic system of teaching design only, an architecture graduate is almost unbillable, much less prepared to sign drawings!
On the fence, you have a point...
But maybe the professional degree *should* prepare students to sit for the ARE... If it doesn't already... If it doesn't, maybe the system needs to be improved to better equip graduates... That is an issue of improving the education system, not in my mind anything that has to do with general practice title.
I think the issue is, *how can the profession be competitive with other professions?* The fact is, in my mind, the architect is as much a professional as the doctor or the lawyer, so why is it we have an inferiority complex that diminishes our graduates and seeks to keep them from reaching a competitive standing with respect to other professionals? It's counter productive if architects want to market ourselves competitively overall as a profession, isn't it? I mean, we should be raising the bar for graduates, not diminishing the importance of graduates...
Personally, I don't think just any and all licensed architects are ready to sign off on the $50,000,000 hospital. Just as a licensed doctor a few years out of med school is not ready to perform brain surgery... That's why there are specialist qualifications in medical school... Should there be a specialization credential for those who are experts in hospital design and qualified to sign off on a hospital?
wrecking ball, agree totally... didn't see your post...
2 /ˈɪntɜrn/ Show Spelled[in-turn] Show IPA
–nounAlso, interne.
1.a resident member of the medical staff of a hospital, usually a recent medical school graduate serving under supervision.
2.Education. student teacher.
3.a person who works as an apprentice or trainee in an occupation or profession to gain practical experience, and sometimesalso to satisfy legal or other requirements for being licensed or accepted professionally.
–verb (used without object)
4.to be or perform the duties of an intern.
ap·pren·tice /əˈprɛntɪs/ Show Spelled [uh-pren-tis] Show IPA noun, verb,-ticed, -tic·ing.
–noun
1.a person who works for another in order to learn a trade: an apprentice to a plumber.
2.History/Historical. a person legally bound through indenture to a master craftsman in order to learn a trade.
3.a learner; novice; tyro.
4.to bind to or place with an employer, master craftsman, or the like, for instruction in a trade.
When I was coming through, "apprentice" was the commonly used term in my community and we young-uns hated it because of the "indenture" aspect of the term.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
comb... okay... although... "intern" just sounds sort of lame these days... cultural context of today being the thing...
I mean... You don't need a professional degree to be an intern... I could be an intern as the gopher for Dunder Mifflin... :P
But ya, not important... "Intern Architect" works as well... Better than just "Intern"...
What are they protecting the public from again by limiting the use of that term? Even if Joe Public meets Susie Intern at a cocktail party and gets duped into thinking she can actually design a building, whatever that means, you still need a registerd architect to stamp your drawings if you want it built. And an engineer or two. Or three. Even if Susie designed a building with no doors, and Joe Public loves it, he still can't build it.
Why is it potentially punishable, for instance, for an intern to say he/she is an architect when not licensed as such. But it isn't unlawful for that same person to work at an architect's office, practicing architecture.
Cause it's genius! The fact that you can, do and HAVE to practice architecture for many years before you are allowed to use the word or any of its forms to describe yourself makes total sense. To ensure an always available supply of cheap drafting labor of course! And to weed out the people who want to start their own careers before propping up the careers of those that came before them.
If you don't maintain your license, are you still an architect? What term could we give to architects who no longer maintain their license because of retirement, career focus shift, etc?
for whatever it's worth, one of our mechanical engineers sent an email the other day that had "Joe Smith, EIT". i had to ask him what the EIT meant, having never heard it before. his reply: Engineer In Training is the official designation for an unlicensed engineer. PE, of course, is the licensed title.
Wrecking ball,
"absolutely not. But passing the ARE even after 3 years experience doesn't qualify anyone to sign off on a 50 million hospital unless they have the necessary experience. school/exams can never replace that. not to mention that most IDP participants fib on their hours anyway - so i'm not sure that the 3 year requirement really does anything (except encourage intern architects to procrastinate)."
And NOW we get to the cruxt of the problem. You and everyone else added up the required hours and decided it was 3 years of IDP. It isn't. it is a minimum of 3 years and can sometimes/usually takes 10, 12 or more. Instead, like you said, people lie there way into taking the exams.
It is a serious problem and removing the minimum 3 years isn't the solution.
brink,
"But maybe the professional degree *should* prepare students to sit for the ARE... If it doesn't already... If it doesn't, maybe the system needs to be improved to better equip graduates... That is an issue of improving the education system, not in my mind anything that has to do with general practice title."
It has everything to do with it. And yes the schools need ot be fixed first. But that ain't going to happen anytime soon. Just because the schools fail us does not mean we reduce the standards for licensure, does it?
Doctors who perform brain surgery have to go to more schooling than just regular MD school. If you want to sign seal hospital buildings, maybe an extra 4 years of school on top of the MArch should be required.
I think it would have really helped my career to be allowed to take the ARE right out of school. I would have studied for it, much like I studied for it after years of working to satisfy IDP. Maybe then it wouldn't have taken me years to get exposure to some important principles within the industry.
Again, draftsmen works just fine to start out. Seriously, that is what you are/were when first hired somewhere, right? When the company promotes you you can be a project manager so on until you reach architect.
Why should IDP need to come before ARE? In my mind, even if we argue that IDP requirements are made more rigorous, this is separate from ARE... Sure, spending years working in the field is beneficial to you when studying for the ARE because you can bring the in the field experience to your exams, but either way, you still have to pass the exams... And even if you can pass the ARE, you would need to finish your IDP units to get your license so I don't see the problem...
It seems to me that we are not in disagreement that licensure needs to be rigorous, and are not trying to *expedite* licensure... My point is, why not step up the qualifications for graduates to prepare them for the ARE right away... Quite honestly, I think if every graduate had some motivation to finish the exams earlier rather than later, they would be a little better equipped across the board for practice (up front)... The ARE is *supposed to* test a broad baseline competency which is valuable even before working on IDP... Why it is such a late career hurdle doesn't make alot of sense (if we are trying to encourage people to get licensed)... Wouldn't it be better to get that overview of the profession early on in the internship to have a better sense of where we need to be at the least up front?
onthefence:
Doctors who perform brain surgery have to go to more schooling than just regular MD school. If you want to sign seal hospital buildings, maybe an extra 4 years of school on top of the MArch should be required.
Exactly my point. But the MD is a doctor already. Even an unlicensed MD is just an unlicensed doctor, but cannot *stamp* (to use the analogy) until he / she gets the license, at which point he / she is simply a general practitioner. Yeah, maybe architects *should* have an extra 4 years of schooling (or equivalent practical experience + qualifying examination) to stamp a hospital if that is what it takes...
It seems to me, barring MArchs from calling themselves "architect" (even an "unlicensed architect") is simply diminishing the recognition of a professional education in architecture... Lets raise the bar of the education maybe, expect more...
New hires aren't always draftsmen... It really varies... draftsmen and project manager don't have so much to do with years, it's more a description of task... just as "project architect" or "designer" does...
[i]It is a misdemeanor... for any person who is not
licensed to practice architecture under this chapter to practice
architecture in this state..."[i/]
Sooooo, is it is unlawful to work in an architect's office to gain IDP? Doesn't fulfilling the requirements of IDP involve practicing architecture without a license?
Or does "practicing architecture" simply mean stamping drawings? Like it makes sense that it be unlawful to make up a stamp and use it without obtaining the license.
I am not a licensed architect, so I am not privy to this kind of knowledge! Please share!
"It seems to me, barring MArchs from calling themselves "architect" (even an "unlicensed architect") is simply diminishing the recognition of a professional education in architecture... Lets raise the bar of the education maybe, expect more..."
Probabaly becaue a lot of those M.arch's are really 2 /3year degrees where the applicant has a degree in russian language or psycology or some other non related field. Why on earth would I want to allow an M.arch with a bachelors in woodworking of the native brazillian tribe Zakmandota be allowed to go from M.arch to licensed architect?
I think someone has to answer me this question. Does a medical school student have to have been a pre-med student first?
on the fence, no.
OMG... seriously OTF?
Someone HAS to answer YOU?
You have pre-requisites to go to Med school, but you don't explicitly need to be "pre-med" some schools have "pre-med" programs but you only need to take the pre-requisites,
HOWEVER, it is not technically necessary to have an undergraduate degree to practice medicine, some schools require it, you will not be very competitive without it, but you don't need it (same with law school), so you are better off trying to get into medical school with a bachelors in woodworking.
Sorry. I am not a medical student nor have I ever attempted it. I think I have a legit question.
I did understand that about law school though.
onthefence:
no, you don't need pre-med to get into medical school. I could have applied to med school with my bachelors in business since, I also finished undergraduate Calculus, Biology, Chemistry and Physics... So to answer your queston: no.
Also, lets not exaggerate or belittle what it takes to finish an M.Arch. The M.Arch is at a minimum, a 3.5 year, more likely a 4 year degree, not a 2 year degree. *If you did a 4 year non-accredited undergraduate degree in architecture* you would get *credit* for courses which you have already completed, for example an engineering graduate in structural engineering who has completed all of the structures requrements might not have to take structures 1 and 2 again in the M Arch, or an B Sc in Architectural Science who has taken the drawing and history requirements along with studios and upper year seminars might get credit for the equivalent course credits reducing the M. Arch to 2.5 years (in addition to the 4 years it took to complete the undergraduate program)...
Lets be a little more realistic here: the M Arch has minimum core course requirements: 2 semesters of structures, environmental controls, MEP, 2 semesters of history, 2 semesters of drawing and representation I believe, 2 semesters of building technology, 3 semesters of professional practice, minimum requirments for advanced level seminars (which could be structures, environmental controls), at least 2 I believe history and theory seminars, am I missing anything? plus the design studio and graduate thesis requirements... In order to be accredited...
if anythng, the problem isn't that students don't have to finish the coursework, it's that attention is overweighted towards the design studios so that students only get through the core course curriculums... Maybe having them take the ARE concurrently would give more attention to the practice components of the curriculum?
To be honest, I think architecture school is more rigorous than most professional schools... Law, MBA, dentistry... I have plenty of friends in those professions, and I have a great deal of respect for my peers from architecture...
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.