I've got it! Just spell it arkitekt and you shouldn't run into any legal problems. Maybe make the Ks backward. It looks more contemporary than the boring NCARB version. And it sounds the same, so when you're trying to impress someone at a party, you won't need to cloud your mind with the legal stuff. You might even get laid.
Going back to the question asked - don't use architect or architectural in CA with out the license. For good or ill, the CAB seems to take special delight in busting people - - see the enforcement actions in the newsletters posted here: CAB
The simple way around the question is to say that single family houses and small multifamily buildings are not architecture, since the CAB definition of architecture has to do with life safety. Ironically the other big enforcement issue is small (licensed) practitioners not using written contracts when designing house additions etc.
from now on a secret but seasoned group of archinect jury will decide if you can call yourself an architect or not.
you need to post some built work, including *plans elevations and structural drawings, photos and a max. 200 words statement explaining why you "should" be called "architect."
please don't forget to include a $50 cashier's check sent to le bossman, treasurer of archinect independent council of appropriations, for processing fee.
note: we are not affiliated with the "other" guys and agencies.
*possible submittal examples for considerations:
1 complete house ground up
or
3 bathroom + a kitchen remodels with at least 1 master bathroom
or
plans for a 2 story library with 1 small and 1 large conference rooms on the upper level with small conference room adjacent to reception room with a view of the 30 car parking which is minimum 50' from the lake.
or
a master plan for a thriving chinese city
j, I at least want it to be a "we need a different and better term for unlicensed professional than 'intern'" thread. or a butt plug thread. both are fine, really.
I really do believe that you should be licensed to be considered a full-blown architect and to represent yourself as such, if for no other reason than what On the Fence said:
Symantics? Maybe but it not only lets the public know, it protects them at some minimum level.
I don't think that because "i have a degree/experience and therefore should be able to call myself an architect", but I do think that's the start--the professional degree--and as a graduate of such a program, I should have a title other than, and more well-defined than "intern", if for no other reason that what -aj said:
...as someone who just recently graduated last year with a four yr degree in Architecture, I am always so confused as to what my job title is/should be. I mean I have a degree in architecture, but its not a professonal one ... At my previous firm I was and an "intern architect" but someone else I graduated with and had the same degree was considered a "graduate architect" ... And, there was another person there who had graduated from our school several years before us, when the program was still a 5 yr BArch and they were called a "graduate architect" too, but they were basically a project manager and had all the same responsiblities and a bigger workload then any of the other project managers
This is my point: I earned a professional degree, which entitles me (after some apprenticeship) to sit for the AREs. I don't like the idea that someone who did not earn a professional degrees, who is not yet entitled to sit for the AREs can have the same job title as I do. So I guess I'm a protectionist after all, and yes, it's symantics, but I think the problem is how poorly chosen and how poorly designed our nomenclature is.
"I don't like the idea that someone who did not earn a professional degrees, who is not yet entitled to sit for the AREs can have the same job title as I do."
Job titles refer to "what you do" not your academic or professional qualifications.
I may be a licensed architect, but if I go to work at WalMart as a "greeter" I'm still a "greeter" when I'm on the job.
NCARB model law provides provisions for the use of the terms Architectural Intern and Intern Architect.
"A person currently employed under the responsible control of an architect and who maintains in good standing a National Council of Architectural Registration Boards Record may use the title “intern architect” or “architectural intern” in conjunction with his/her current employment, but may not engage in the practice of architecture except to the extent that such practice is excepted from the requirement of registration."
Clearly this does not help anyone legally designing buildings that do not require the involvement of an architect. It may help you describe your qualifications on your CV or in an interview for a position.
But even for those licensed professionals holding NCARB accreditation:
"Even with the NCARB procedure accepted by most jurisdictions, the out-of-state architect has often faced a dilemma when he/she offers to render services in an initial interview with a prospective client or by entry in an architectural design competition. Technically, that interview or that entry in a design competition may violate the provisions of the local state law, in that the out-of-state architect is holding himself/herself out to be an architect (offering to render architectural services), in attempting to get the commission, without first having been registered in the jurisdiction."
California Architects Board's (CAB) Consumer Guide provides a starting point of what terms you can and can't use:
"Architect" and "architectural services" are no go:
"California law defines architectural practice as the planning of sites, and the design, in whole or in part, of buildings or groups of buildings and structures. Any person who uses the title of architect, or advertises to provide architectural services in California, must be licensed as an architect by the Board."
"Design services" should be perfectly legal:
"Current California law provides that persons who are not licensed as architects or registered as civil or structural engineers can design certain types of buildings or parts of buildings..."
A group of interested practitioners should contact CAB and ask what they would see as acceptable marketing of services, similar to architectural services, legally provided by unlicensed professionals.
A philosophical note on the use of the term architecture:
Don't mix it into the debate about licensed versus non-licensed practitioners. Leave it up to others to declare your work as architecture or not.
I personally do usually use the term "Intern Architect" when appling for jobs, just because that was my official(paperwork) job title at my previous firm. Since my firm had engineering depts. too there were several differnt types of interns floating around. The situation for me when I graduated wasnt so much what I wanted my job title to be, it was more a question of what firms wanted my job title to be, because I graduated from a fairly well-known school with a lot of alumni in the area from a brand-new program(they actually changed the program to a 4+2 about half-way through our second year, and we were only the second class to graduate from our school with a BS in Arch).
I dont think my fellow intern nessecarily intended to mislead anyone, and declare herself a "graduate architect." It was just a misunderstanding between the HR person, the project manager who gave the interview and the head of the arch dept, that wasnt really cleared up until a few weeks later when I was hired and we went through training together. The wasn't really any difference between our job duties, responisblities, skills...whatever, it was just a case where the offer letter she was sent had a different job title then the one I was sent. And to anyone outside the company she was an "intern" just like me, not a "graduate architect."
I also am careful during interviews to point out that I have a BS in Arch not a BArch, most project managers dont really seem to care what my degree is, they just want to know if I know AutoCAD.
"A philosophical note on the use of the term architecture:
Don't mix it into the debate about licensed versus non-licensed practitioners. Leave it up to others to declare your work as architecture or not."
To go even further, the term Architect as a legality, which is part of what is being discussed here, has little to do with the capability of someone to produce architecture. These professional titles, along with their enforcing beaurocracies, are pretty recent developments, and most of the great architecture that has been produced in the world has been done by people who did not need to be accredited by NCARB.
...and many self righteous Stamp holders, are merely office drones producing work that is evidence of their equivalency as remaining simple Building Technicians.
Exactly. Perhaps that's one of the reasons I am particularly bitter about it. I spent ages learning how to design a building and that's what I care about.
There seems to be little credit given to those that put that effort in, from a design stand point. The title "architect" is not just about legalities and tests, imo, it is about design also. But nothing in this profession is done to promote good design over bad design, at least not in the US.
How's this sound:
"I designed the building, chose the materials, drew the plans."
"I designed the building, chose the materials, drew the plans."
"So you were the architect?"
"No."
Well, that scenario plays out with countless registered architects too. If you design a building, chose the materials, and draw the plans while working in someone else's office, he/she/them will always be considered the official architect of that project, and it will go down in the record as such (although you can list yourself as the PA or PM on your resume, so I guess that's some consolation).
"...and many self righteous Stamp holders, are merely office drones producing work that is evidence of their equivalency as remaining simple Building Technicians."
what a load of rubbish, spoken by a true effete, self righteous snob.
Here's another idea - call yourself an Archiknecht. Knecht means "servant" in German, which seems totally appropriate. www.archiknecht.com kind of has a ring to it, and its available!
a person professionally engaged in the design of certain large constructions other than buildings and the like
to plan, organize, or structure as an architect:
One who designs and supervises the construction of buildings or other large structures.
A person skilled in the art of building; one who understands architecture, or makes it his occupation to form plans and designs of buildings
someone who creates plans to be used in making something (such as buildings)
IF YOU WORK ON THE DESIGN OF A BUILDING IN ANY WAY,
YOU ARE AN ARCHITECT!!!
THE ONLY TIME YOU WILL HAVE A PROBLEM IS IF YOU TRY TO GO AROUND THE PROCESS OF HAVING DESIGNS/DRAWING REVIEWED BY A REGISTERED ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER.
IF YOU DESIGN A FUCKING BUILDING, YOU'RE A FUCKING ARCHITECT.
but:
remember the Code of Hammurabi
If a builder build a house for some one, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death.
If it kill the son of the owner the son of that builder shall be put to death.
If it kill a slave of the owner, then he shall pay slave for slave to the owner of the house
If it ruin goods, he shall make compensation for all that has been ruined, and inasmuch as he did not construct properly this house which he built and it fell, he shall re-erect the house from his own means.
Right, Lib - dictionary definitions mean bubcus (sp?) when it comes to legislated terms.
Original poster shuld look up the term in his jurisdiction's legislation, and go from there.
I have been (unfairly) on the pointy end of that stick. No fun.
but you dont need to be legally an architect to do architecture
your building just has to pass a series of tests from:
a registered architect
various engineers
various code and requirement officials/authorities
that's why there are associates, architects-of-record, executive architects...
to get through the scientific and legal process
the CRIME is when you mislead people to believe you are licenced when you are not.
you dont need to be legally an architect to do architecture.
you might not know shit and no one will be interested in your work
but you could be passionate and end up like Tadao Ando and design something beautiful. And no one will mind if you call yourself an 'architect'
who me?
sorry, dude lived like 3700 years ago;
but the general thought is the same,
licencing really comes down to a safety/liability/quality issue more than a holier-than-thou thing.
Everybody wants a better title is what it is coming down to.
The college student wants to be an itnern.
The intern wants to be a drafter.
The drafter wants to be a project manager or designer.
The project manager or designer wants to be an architect.
The architect wants to be a retiree.
Deal with the level that you are at today and become the next.
An architectural graduate does NOT want to be a drafter. You can go to school for 2 years, and be a drafter. Its like compairing a receptionist with an executive assistant. I think. In anycase, you get my point.
I have to say that the title Intern Architect does make me have to go into the whole speil about how I have a degree, and do get paid, but am not liscenced because I haven't taken the test, yada yada yada - in social settings. On the other side, you'd have to go into the opposite speil if you said you were an architect, and then they asked for services, and I could see the back peddling being detrimental to any relationship simply because back peddling tends to make one look like untrustworthy.
Honestly, the title thing is enough to make me trudge through IDP and the AREs just so I can say confidently "I am an Architect." Actually, if I ever get through it all, and pass, ect, I may stamp everything in site.....y'all better watch out!
unless you work for yourself you won't need to stamp anything sarah. but it is nice to have the official status anwyay.
ando never bothered to get a license, or so he told my classmate who was in his class (this bothers many of the licensed professors at the university - it is palpable, the envy). in japan it isn't exactly necessary depending on how the office is set up. shigeru ban also never bothered, or at least he hadn't a few years back which pissed my old boss off to no end. instead he was privately wealthy. whatever.
in usa no license means not architect. live with it.
Jump, I know I wont NEED to stamp anything, which means to me it will be more a power trip. I may stamp the back of my underwear just to claim them as mine. Who knows.
Honestly, the title thing is enough to make me trudge through IDP and the AREs just so I can say confidently "I am an Architect."
Exactly.
I've never once seen anyone who'd done the work to get licensed and call themself an architect come on here and bellyache about the unfairness of it all. It's the cost of doing business in this particular profession.
call yourself what you want but it is self defeating either/any way
fairness, now there is something we can all grasp because it is universally intrinsic to life, the infinite different ways in witch we go about achieving it and for whom
And my question for anyone with a BArch complaining about the inability to properly claim the title "architect" without completing the licensing process:
Would you object to hearing someone with only a 4-year BA or BS (or less) in architecture claim to hold the professional BArch, since they'd done most of the very same work? It's not a perfect analogy, but gives sense of the issue.
Fairness is right, antisthenes. I did the work to legally call myself an architect; someone else didn't. To whom is it "fair" for us both to use the term?
And how exactly is earning a label then using it "self-defeating"?
God I get so tired of talking about this. Like citizen said, no one who has done the work to get licensed tears their hair out over the minutiae of it. We just move forward.
I think those of us who have gotten their pre-professional degree (be it a BArch or an MArch) can all agree that we shouldn't be called Architects unless we are licensed.
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.
As someone studying for my exams I do not want to be an "Architect" until i get my license. I would prefer to be called an "architectural designer" or as I have seen more and more commonly "graduate architect".
So what would you call an person who have finished Medical School....
A graduate Doctor?
I think this labeling thing is a bit nuts....Intern....is an excellent term.
Why are you young ones hung up on it. You could say your and Architectural Intern or on Intern Architect. It seems to fit the bill for me.
or when we aren't young, there is just more out there than the traditional career path. I don't need the term, but I have put many years into this and feel a bit robbed, have more education than most, etc. etc.
See, the problem is that I can do architecture, but can't use the title. That will never make sense to me. Make it so any building has to be done by a licensed architect, just as other professions that require licensure do, and I'll shut up. Till then... ;-)
I really should know better than to engage these types of discussions, no one is going to see eye-to-eye.
perhaps it would be un american, but i am for all buildings need an architect's approval/design thing. that would pretty much establish architecture to licensing standarts.
imagine how much it would elevate the profession's role in the community, if everyone building a substantial building (not by stories in height but use, residential included) in city limits, required to have an architect's input.
until then, i see trace's point too.
Unlicensed, but practicing architecture
I've got it! Just spell it arkitekt and you shouldn't run into any legal problems. Maybe make the Ks backward. It looks more contemporary than the boring NCARB version. And it sounds the same, so when you're trying to impress someone at a party, you won't need to cloud your mind with the legal stuff. You might even get laid.
Going back to the question asked - don't use architect or architectural in CA with out the license. For good or ill, the CAB seems to take special delight in busting people - - see the enforcement actions in the newsletters posted here:
CAB
The simple way around the question is to say that single family houses and small multifamily buildings are not architecture, since the CAB definition of architecture has to do with life safety. Ironically the other big enforcement issue is small (licensed) practitioners not using written contracts when designing house additions etc.
from now on a secret but seasoned group of archinect jury will decide if you can call yourself an architect or not.
you need to post some built work, including *plans elevations and structural drawings, photos and a max. 200 words statement explaining why you "should" be called "architect."
please don't forget to include a $50 cashier's check sent to
le bossman, treasurer of archinect independent council of appropriations, for processing fee.
note: we are not affiliated with the "other" guys and agencies.
*possible submittal examples for considerations:
1 complete house ground up
or
3 bathroom + a kitchen remodels with at least 1 master bathroom
or
plans for a 2 story library with 1 small and 1 large conference rooms on the upper level with small conference room adjacent to reception room with a view of the 30 car parking which is minimum 50' from the lake.
or
a master plan for a thriving chinese city
Yes.
j, I at least want it to be a "we need a different and better term for unlicensed professional than 'intern'" thread. or a butt plug thread. both are fine, really.
I really do believe that you should be licensed to be considered a full-blown architect and to represent yourself as such, if for no other reason than what On the Fence said:
Symantics? Maybe but it not only lets the public know, it protects them at some minimum level.
I don't think that because "i have a degree/experience and therefore should be able to call myself an architect", but I do think that's the start--the professional degree--and as a graduate of such a program, I should have a title other than, and more well-defined than "intern", if for no other reason that what -aj said:
...as someone who just recently graduated last year with a four yr degree in Architecture, I am always so confused as to what my job title is/should be. I mean I have a degree in architecture, but its not a professonal one ... At my previous firm I was and an "intern architect" but someone else I graduated with and had the same degree was considered a "graduate architect" ... And, there was another person there who had graduated from our school several years before us, when the program was still a 5 yr BArch and they were called a "graduate architect" too, but they were basically a project manager and had all the same responsiblities and a bigger workload then any of the other project managers
This is my point: I earned a professional degree, which entitles me (after some apprenticeship) to sit for the AREs. I don't like the idea that someone who did not earn a professional degrees, who is not yet entitled to sit for the AREs can have the same job title as I do. So I guess I'm a protectionist after all, and yes, it's symantics, but I think the problem is how poorly chosen and how poorly designed our nomenclature is.
Job titles refer to "what you do" not your academic or professional qualifications.
I may be a licensed architect, but if I go to work at WalMart as a "greeter" I'm still a "greeter" when I'm on the job.
Point of information:
NCARB model law provides provisions for the use of the terms Architectural Intern and Intern Architect.
"A person currently employed under the responsible control of an architect and who maintains in good standing a National Council of Architectural Registration Boards Record may use the title “intern architect” or “architectural intern” in conjunction with his/her current employment, but may not engage in the practice of architecture except to the extent that such practice is excepted from the requirement of registration."
Clearly this does not help anyone legally designing buildings that do not require the involvement of an architect. It may help you describe your qualifications on your CV or in an interview for a position.
But even for those licensed professionals holding NCARB accreditation:
"Even with the NCARB procedure accepted by most jurisdictions, the out-of-state architect has often faced a dilemma when he/she offers to render services in an initial interview with a prospective client or by entry in an architectural design competition. Technically, that interview or that entry in a design competition may violate the provisions of the local state law, in that the out-of-state architect is holding himself/herself out to be an architect (offering to render architectural services), in attempting to get the commission, without first having been registered in the jurisdiction."
This is true for California, question #38.
California Architects Board's (CAB) Consumer Guide provides a starting point of what terms you can and can't use:
"Architect" and "architectural services" are no go:
"California law defines architectural practice as the planning of sites, and the design, in whole or in part, of buildings or groups of buildings and structures. Any person who uses the title of architect, or advertises to provide architectural services in California, must be licensed as an architect by the Board."
"Design services" should be perfectly legal:
"Current California law provides that persons who are not licensed as architects or registered as civil or structural engineers can design certain types of buildings or parts of buildings..."
A group of interested practitioners should contact CAB and ask what they would see as acceptable marketing of services, similar to architectural services, legally provided by unlicensed professionals.
A philosophical note on the use of the term architecture:
Don't mix it into the debate about licensed versus non-licensed practitioners. Leave it up to others to declare your work as architecture or not.
I personally do usually use the term "Intern Architect" when appling for jobs, just because that was my official(paperwork) job title at my previous firm. Since my firm had engineering depts. too there were several differnt types of interns floating around. The situation for me when I graduated wasnt so much what I wanted my job title to be, it was more a question of what firms wanted my job title to be, because I graduated from a fairly well-known school with a lot of alumni in the area from a brand-new program(they actually changed the program to a 4+2 about half-way through our second year, and we were only the second class to graduate from our school with a BS in Arch).
I dont think my fellow intern nessecarily intended to mislead anyone, and declare herself a "graduate architect." It was just a misunderstanding between the HR person, the project manager who gave the interview and the head of the arch dept, that wasnt really cleared up until a few weeks later when I was hired and we went through training together. The wasn't really any difference between our job duties, responisblities, skills...whatever, it was just a case where the offer letter she was sent had a different job title then the one I was sent. And to anyone outside the company she was an "intern" just like me, not a "graduate architect."
I also am careful during interviews to point out that I have a BS in Arch not a BArch, most project managers dont really seem to care what my degree is, they just want to know if I know AutoCAD.
"A philosophical note on the use of the term architecture:
Don't mix it into the debate about licensed versus non-licensed practitioners. Leave it up to others to declare your work as architecture or not."
To go even further, the term Architect as a legality, which is part of what is being discussed here, has little to do with the capability of someone to produce architecture. These professional titles, along with their enforcing beaurocracies, are pretty recent developments, and most of the great architecture that has been produced in the world has been done by people who did not need to be accredited by NCARB.
...and many self righteous Stamp holders, are merely office drones producing work that is evidence of their equivalency as remaining simple Building Technicians.
Exactly. Perhaps that's one of the reasons I am particularly bitter about it. I spent ages learning how to design a building and that's what I care about.
There seems to be little credit given to those that put that effort in, from a design stand point. The title "architect" is not just about legalities and tests, imo, it is about design also. But nothing in this profession is done to promote good design over bad design, at least not in the US.
How's this sound:
"I designed the building, chose the materials, drew the plans."
"So you were the architect?"
"No."
"So you were the architect?"
"No."
Well, that scenario plays out with countless registered architects too. If you design a building, chose the materials, and draw the plans while working in someone else's office, he/she/them will always be considered the official architect of that project, and it will go down in the record as such (although you can list yourself as the PA or PM on your resume, so I guess that's some consolation).
trace
If you have all those skills, why have you not sat for the exam?
what a load of rubbish, spoken by a true effete, self righteous snob.
fuck you, pal.
Here's another idea - call yourself an Archiknecht. Knecht means "servant" in German, which seems totally appropriate. www.archiknecht.com kind of has a ring to it, and its available!
Fuck all this, lets get juvenile:
mr. dictionary says:
a person professionally engaged in the design of certain large constructions other than buildings and the like
to plan, organize, or structure as an architect:
One who designs and supervises the construction of buildings or other large structures.
A person skilled in the art of building; one who understands architecture, or makes it his occupation to form plans and designs of buildings
someone who creates plans to be used in making something (such as buildings)
IF YOU WORK ON THE DESIGN OF A BUILDING IN ANY WAY,
YOU ARE AN ARCHITECT!!!
THE ONLY TIME YOU WILL HAVE A PROBLEM IS IF YOU TRY TO GO AROUND THE PROCESS OF HAVING DESIGNS/DRAWING REVIEWED BY A REGISTERED ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER.
IF YOU DESIGN A FUCKING BUILDING, YOU'RE A FUCKING ARCHITECT.
but:
remember the Code of Hammurabi
If a builder build a house for some one, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death.
If it kill the son of the owner the son of that builder shall be put to death.
If it kill a slave of the owner, then he shall pay slave for slave to the owner of the house
If it ruin goods, he shall make compensation for all that has been ruined, and inasmuch as he did not construct properly this house which he built and it fell, he shall re-erect the house from his own means.
real talk
1d2d3d4d:
If you live in the United States: if you don't have a license, you're not legally an architect. What kind of work you do is irrelevant.
Sincerely, liberty bell
Right, Lib - dictionary definitions mean bubcus (sp?) when it comes to legislated terms.
Original poster shuld look up the term in his jurisdiction's legislation, and go from there.
I have been (unfairly) on the pointy end of that stick. No fun.
if you have slaves why would you make someone else build the house?
Good point, techno!
but you dont need to be legally an architect to do architecture
your building just has to pass a series of tests from:
a registered architect
various engineers
various code and requirement officials/authorities
that's why there are associates, architects-of-record, executive architects...
to get through the scientific and legal process
the CRIME is when you mislead people to believe you are licenced when you are not.
you dont need to be legally an architect to do architecture.
you might not know shit and no one will be interested in your work
but you could be passionate and end up like Tadao Ando and design something beautiful. And no one will mind if you call yourself an 'architect'
i knew hammurabi and you are NO hammurabi.
who me?
sorry, dude lived like 3700 years ago;
but the general thought is the same,
licencing really comes down to a safety/liability/quality issue more than a holier-than-thou thing.
Everybody wants a better title is what it is coming down to.
The college student wants to be an itnern.
The intern wants to be a drafter.
The drafter wants to be a project manager or designer.
The project manager or designer wants to be an architect.
The architect wants to be a retiree.
Deal with the level that you are at today and become the next.
Um, just want to chime in to say...
An architectural graduate does NOT want to be a drafter. You can go to school for 2 years, and be a drafter. Its like compairing a receptionist with an executive assistant. I think. In anycase, you get my point.
I have to say that the title Intern Architect does make me have to go into the whole speil about how I have a degree, and do get paid, but am not liscenced because I haven't taken the test, yada yada yada - in social settings. On the other side, you'd have to go into the opposite speil if you said you were an architect, and then they asked for services, and I could see the back peddling being detrimental to any relationship simply because back peddling tends to make one look like untrustworthy.
Honestly, the title thing is enough to make me trudge through IDP and the AREs just so I can say confidently "I am an Architect." Actually, if I ever get through it all, and pass, ect, I may stamp everything in site.....y'all better watch out!
Architect In Training (AIT)
Proved To Test(ATT) Architect
static labels just create entropy and dehumanize
Jack of All Trades
i have seen this title on the drawings of an unlicensed person:
YADA YUDA Associates
ARCHITECT (FRANCE)
123 Street Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA
unless you work for yourself you won't need to stamp anything sarah. but it is nice to have the official status anwyay.
ando never bothered to get a license, or so he told my classmate who was in his class (this bothers many of the licensed professors at the university - it is palpable, the envy). in japan it isn't exactly necessary depending on how the office is set up. shigeru ban also never bothered, or at least he hadn't a few years back which pissed my old boss off to no end. instead he was privately wealthy. whatever.
in usa no license means not architect. live with it.
Jump, I know I wont NEED to stamp anything, which means to me it will be more a power trip. I may stamp the back of my underwear just to claim them as mine. Who knows.
Hey, I *could* stamp my underwear if I wanted to! Great idea, Sarah!
Exactly.
I've never once seen anyone who'd done the work to get licensed and call themself an architect come on here and bellyache about the unfairness of it all. It's the cost of doing business in this particular profession.
Static Labels only serve to dehumanize
call yourself what you want but it is self defeating either/any way
fairness, now there is something we can all grasp because it is universally intrinsic to life, the infinite different ways in witch we go about achieving it and for whom
And my question for anyone with a BArch complaining about the inability to properly claim the title "architect" without completing the licensing process:
Would you object to hearing someone with only a 4-year BA or BS (or less) in architecture claim to hold the professional BArch, since they'd done most of the very same work? It's not a perfect analogy, but gives sense of the issue.
/me didn't know they made strings that were nearly wide enough for a stamp??
Fairness is right, antisthenes. I did the work to legally call myself an architect; someone else didn't. To whom is it "fair" for us both to use the term?
And how exactly is earning a label then using it "self-defeating"?
God I get so tired of talking about this. Like citizen said, no one who has done the work to get licensed tears their hair out over the minutiae of it. We just move forward.
lb - damn straight.
just get it done people - really, there's no excuse...
I think those of us who have gotten their pre-professional degree (be it a BArch or an MArch) can all agree that we shouldn't be called Architects unless we are licensed.
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.
As someone studying for my exams I do not want to be an "Architect" until i get my license. I would prefer to be called an "architectural designer" or as I have seen more and more commonly "graduate architect".
So what would you call an person who have finished Medical School....
A graduate Doctor?
I think this labeling thing is a bit nuts....Intern....is an excellent term.
Why are you young ones hung up on it. You could say your and Architectural Intern or on Intern Architect. It seems to fit the bill for me.
The problem is when we get laid off and have to find employment outside of the architecture world, our resume and job experience can be confusing.
or when we aren't young, there is just more out there than the traditional career path. I don't need the term, but I have put many years into this and feel a bit robbed, have more education than most, etc. etc.
But you seem quite happy with the not architecture that you are doing. Why then cling to the title?
I am still designing architecture, just not full time.
Trace,
"I don't need the term, but I have put many years into this and feel a bit robbed, have more education than most, etc. etc."
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.
what's your point? I don't want to call myself a U.S. Marine, or doctor, or lawyer
Human. that was my point, no title can take that away from us.
that being said definitions change, tis all semantics. skill up, act.
I think the point is obvious.
If you WANT to call yourself something, then you need to meet the requirements for that.
See, the problem is that I can do architecture, but can't use the title. That will never make sense to me. Make it so any building has to be done by a licensed architect, just as other professions that require licensure do, and I'll shut up. Till then... ;-)
I really should know better than to engage these types of discussions, no one is going to see eye-to-eye.
perhaps it would be un american, but i am for all buildings need an architect's approval/design thing. that would pretty much establish architecture to licensing standarts.
imagine how much it would elevate the profession's role in the community, if everyone building a substantial building (not by stories in height but use, residential included) in city limits, required to have an architect's input.
until then, i see trace's point too.
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.