Recently they sent me a draft for the revised bylaws of my local architecture registration board (San Juan, Puerto Rico) that greatly limits what an Architect in Training can and can't do within the practice of architecture, to the extent that we can't even refer to ourselves as Architects any longer.
I wanted to get an idea of the limitations of architect in training (independent design work, professional associations, can you call yourself an architect?) within the different Registration Boards across the US.
Local AIT's are greatly concerned and are getting ready to make ourselves
heard. We need as much information as we can get, as soon as possible.
Most, if not all, state boards in the US prohibit an individual from calling herself/himself an Architect (or use that word in their title) in that jurisdiction until that person has successfully completed the exam. The idea, I think, is to avoid confusing the consumer with respect to the individual's qualifications.
Yeah, there is a lot of legal mumbo jumbo that is confusing but something we have to follow. Its amazing to think about how little we get paid compared to Lawyers yet go through as much if not more training and our contibutions to society are so much greater - oh well.
Anyway, call yourself a designer, an architectural designer, or something along those lines. A lot of the greatest architects never went to school or became licensed. I don't think Rem Koolhaus is a licensed architect - maybe he is now, FLW wasn't. You can still design a building but you can't stamp drawings if you aren't licensed.
Even "Architectural Designer" is not allowed in some US states by someone unlicensed.
Some states regulate only the title "Architect" or any title with that word in it, but other states regulate also "Architectural", "Architecture", and even sound-alike creative spellings (i.e. "Arkitech"), etc.
On the other hand, there are a few states in which "Architect in Training" or "Intern Architect" are specifically allowed, if the person using that title is actively enrolled in IDP.
Generally plain old "Designer" is safe, though a few states do not allow "Building Designer" specifically...
Call yourself an urban designer and a livability consultant and you can pretty much do design work legally (since most planners have to get the stamp from a civil engineer anyways... better yet, if you're a planner with enough clout... you can abuse the fuck out of the army corps of engineers).
The language of the new bylaws are very specific about "stamping."
Translation:
You can get a fine or your license revoked,if you stamp documents that you did not make yourself (licensed architect) or under your immediate and responsible supervision, which under architect or a landscape architect has the name of of somebody that is not legally authorized to carry out this profession.
Another reason why you could get your license revoked
Translation:
Help, employ, advice, instigate or facilitate in any way the practice or exercise of architecture or landscape architecture to any person that is not authorized in Accordance of law to practice these professions.
How does this make any sense? Its totally ambiguous and open to too many interpretations.
Asume responsability, certify professional work, or enter in direct or indirect contract with the general public for architectural design or landscape design , when you are only and Architect or a Landscape Architect in training.
Does this mean we can't design?!? I spent 5 years getting a professional degree in architecture and now they want to tell me I can't design!!!
why should an architect in training be legally entitled to call themselves an architect? lawyers in training and drs in training do not get to pretend they are qualified so why should you? the line is clear. once you have the license you can call yourself an architect.
choosing to not cross that line, as trace has done, is a personal decision. one i understand. and the frustrations that ensue i also understand. but the line is not vague. either you have the license or you don't.
in the meantime if you don't have license then i am guessing you need to work under someone else's supervision until you get it. i have no idea what happens in puerto rico, but that is the way it works in the usa, in the UK and europe. also same here in japan. generally you study for 6 years at uni, then work for 2 to 3 years, and THEN take the exams. which is to say, you have a few more steps to take.
btw, rem koolhaas is a licensed architect and always has been. and FLW lived more then 100 years ago so please don't use him as a role-model for licensure...;-)
Doctor's can call themselves "Doctor" once they graduate medical school, they do NOT need to be licensed.
That's the gripe I continue to have. The grip on the title will lessen as more and more people don't pursue a traditional path. I am confident that the numbers not pursuing licensure will grow rather quickly, too, as forums like this give people a glimpse of the low pay, etc. etc.
blurring of the line happens in every industry. It simply happens out of necessity and efficiency, you can call it evolution.
And who said I ever crossed any lines? I am careful about what I say and around whom. I would never misrepresent myself.
It simply happens out of necessity and efficiency, you can call it evolution.
Aw, trace....trace.....trace......
You know I respect and like you, but what you call "necessity" hasn't been a necessity at all to those thousands of us who have gone ahead and taken the dang exam ;-) DO it, man, I know you can!!
i understand you trace, and i am not pointing any fingers. i agree with you frankly, but the reality of the situation is that there is a line and it is pretty clear, right or wrong. there is a similar line for doctors and lawyers, etc. we get to choose where that line is as professional groups, but somehow i just don't see the one in north america moving anytime soon. although interestingly in UK there is talk again of removing protected status from the term architect again. which i find rather worrying.
Uh, jump, i do believe that's an exageration seeing how he kicked it in '59 but whatevs.
The thing is, i can get an engineering degree and call myself a "systems architect", or I can work in washington as a chief political advisor like Rove or Axelrod and be referred to as an "Architect" by the press. I can do alot of things that have nothing to do with architecture or building whatsoever and call myself an architect, but even if i've been designing buildings my entire life I cannot call myself an architect unless i get my license. This makes no sense but its how society at large uses the word "architect".
People should just be allowed to take the ARE's without having to deal with all the formal education and training requirements, if they can pass the ARE's, they can be architects. There are so many hurdles to becoming an architect its almost not worth it when you see what we actually do on a day to day basis and how we are compensated. Being an architect seems relatively simple and straightforward, but requires years of experience in field that you will never get from a college or even under formalized training regimes like IDP. So many of us interns get to teach ourselves everything and in my experience get little actual training from our superiors and systems like IDP will never be successful if that's how we train architects.
We keep trying to graft 21st century methods of professional training and legitimization on a model of practice that I feel has evolved little since the profession began to formalize in the late 19th century and if we keep raising the bar of entry higher and higher without actually changing the basic model of practice we are just going to make things worse for ourselves. I don't think that it is going to be that long before BIM is going to make the permit process of building design and execution far more straightforward to the point that you wont need an architect anymore for the permit process because everything will be preprogramed into the computer. When that happens, much of our profession is going to lose our relevance as clients will be able to design buildings themselves at hugely reduced costs.
What I meant was that in business, things cross over from one field to the other all the time. My first LLC was setup by a lawyer, but the others have not been, etc.
Perhaps someday I'll take the test, but I highly doubt it. The only incentive is piece of mind, not greater design opportunities or higher pay. The last two are what drive me, so I'll keep pursuing those. I'll never have any interest in putting together the construction drawings.
jump - the line is logical for doctors. The line for architects should be a professional degree for the term, then licensure to stamp drawings. It really is not that different.
I like logic and have a hard time with things that don't make sense ;-)
The UK is considering changing, eh? Hmm, looks like we might have precedent!
Anyway, I'll leave now. I've hijacked another thread, I think we are all pretty clear where we stand.
i need to take this online or offline course and pass the test when i renew my license this year. wheelchair lift manufacturer Hogan Mfg., Inc. offers it. yeah, it is a cali requirement signed by governor making it mandotary for architects for renewing their licenses.
aprimac, FLW also was born in 1867 (the same year as canada, which makes it easy to remember!), so when he was dealing with getting a license and choosing not to, well it was like 1890 or so. come on now. he is at best the exception that proves the rule, not the other way around ;-)
i agree, people should be able to become architects just by taking the exam. that is how it works here and i think it is fine. people like ando who never went to university make up huge proportion of the architecture community in japan. few are any good mind you. ando is again the exception that proves the rule and not something to base averages on.
i totally get you trace. i can call myself architect in some parts of the world, some because i have license and am registered, some because they accept my foreign license, and some places just because architects aren't protected. but not in north america. that is just the way it is. i will call myself architect in all of them cuz to not do so is silly. but i would not do that if i were not registered somewhere...ot sure why it makes a difference to me, but it does...
waiting for the world to make sense is a full-time job. i am waiting too ;-)
But I thought that the title Architect is regulated?
Sadly it is not. Unlike in the construction business, the IT industry is completely wild and there is no restriction to call yourself Grand Principal Enterprise Architect. In the construction business the title Architect has legal protection and it is against the law for people who are not registered to use the title Architect. (see the UK Architects Act 1997 -link
If the title is protected, how can then be used in the IT industry?
Well, it is protected in the building design context. The ARB (Architects Registration Board) sais on their website: “The Board is aware of widespread use within the computer and IT industry of the word “architect” being incorporated into certain job descriptions, eg. “Systems Architect” or “Software Architect”. ... “The Board therefore takes a pragmatic view, and accepts that the use of the word “architect” causes no concern when used in a context which is clearly not related to the design and construction of buildings.” link
OK, what does that mean, in plain words?
It means that ARB (or other similar organizations) regulate Architects in the construction industry only. Outside that they let others to regulate it – or let it grow wild. They couldn’t care less if it grows wild. And in IT industry it did grow wild. Very wild. Just about anybody and everybody can claim the title. As WWISA puts it nicely: “In software construction, many borrow the gravitas of the title, but fail to fulfil the role” link
Limitations of Architects in Training
Hi,
Recently they sent me a draft for the revised bylaws of my local architecture registration board (San Juan, Puerto Rico) that greatly limits what an Architect in Training can and can't do within the practice of architecture, to the extent that we can't even refer to ourselves as Architects any longer.
I wanted to get an idea of the limitations of architect in training (independent design work, professional associations, can you call yourself an architect?) within the different Registration Boards across the US.
Local AIT's are greatly concerned and are getting ready to make ourselves
heard. We need as much information as we can get, as soon as possible.
Thanks for you help,
".......Architect in Training.......we can't even refer to ourselves as Architects any longer."
Damn right, you have to earn the title and qualify as it's a protected title here. You would be referred to as Architectural Assistant in the UK.
Not sure about your specifics but Professional Indemnity Insurance would be a requirement to protect you and clients for independent design work.
Most, if not all, state boards in the US prohibit an individual from calling herself/himself an Architect (or use that word in their title) in that jurisdiction until that person has successfully completed the exam. The idea, I think, is to avoid confusing the consumer with respect to the individual's qualifications.
just to add that it's Architectural Assistant if you are in training, Designer would cover most occupations within the field of Architecture
Yeah, there is a lot of legal mumbo jumbo that is confusing but something we have to follow. Its amazing to think about how little we get paid compared to Lawyers yet go through as much if not more training and our contibutions to society are so much greater - oh well.
Anyway, call yourself a designer, an architectural designer, or something along those lines. A lot of the greatest architects never went to school or became licensed. I don't think Rem Koolhaus is a licensed architect - maybe he is now, FLW wasn't. You can still design a building but you can't stamp drawings if you aren't licensed.
Lucas Gray
www.talkitect.com
Even "Architectural Designer" is not allowed in some US states by someone unlicensed.
Some states regulate only the title "Architect" or any title with that word in it, but other states regulate also "Architectural", "Architecture", and even sound-alike creative spellings (i.e. "Arkitech"), etc.
On the other hand, there are a few states in which "Architect in Training" or "Intern Architect" are specifically allowed, if the person using that title is actively enrolled in IDP.
Generally plain old "Designer" is safe, though a few states do not allow "Building Designer" specifically...
What about limitations on projects? I heard that some states let unlicensed architects can design small projects to a certain budget?
Unlicensed architects can design ANYTHING, they just need a stamp from someone licensed.
I could go on about how ridiculous this is (the title bs), but I'll spare everyone, there are plenty of other threads that go on about this.
Call yourself an urban designer and a livability consultant and you can pretty much do design work legally (since most planners have to get the stamp from a civil engineer anyways... better yet, if you're a planner with enough clout... you can abuse the fuck out of the army corps of engineers).
The language of the new bylaws are very specific about "stamping."
Translation:
You can get a fine or your license revoked,if you stamp documents that you did not make yourself (licensed architect) or under your immediate and responsible supervision, which under architect or a landscape architect has the name of of somebody that is not legally authorized to carry out this profession.
Another reason why you could get your license revoked
Translation:
Help, employ, advice, instigate or facilitate in any way the practice or exercise of architecture or landscape architecture to any person that is not authorized in Accordance of law to practice these professions.
How does this make any sense? Its totally ambiguous and open to too many interpretations.
And another:
Translation,
Asume responsability, certify professional work, or enter in direct or indirect contract with the general public for architectural design or landscape design , when you are only and Architect or a Landscape Architect in training.
Does this mean we can't design?!? I spent 5 years getting a professional degree in architecture and now they want to tell me I can't design!!!
why should an architect in training be legally entitled to call themselves an architect? lawyers in training and drs in training do not get to pretend they are qualified so why should you? the line is clear. once you have the license you can call yourself an architect.
choosing to not cross that line, as trace has done, is a personal decision. one i understand. and the frustrations that ensue i also understand. but the line is not vague. either you have the license or you don't.
in the meantime if you don't have license then i am guessing you need to work under someone else's supervision until you get it. i have no idea what happens in puerto rico, but that is the way it works in the usa, in the UK and europe. also same here in japan. generally you study for 6 years at uni, then work for 2 to 3 years, and THEN take the exams. which is to say, you have a few more steps to take.
btw, rem koolhaas is a licensed architect and always has been. and FLW lived more then 100 years ago so please don't use him as a role-model for licensure...;-)
dude you want to be a designer.
no liabiltity, and it's assumed some schmuck with a license will ceritify your work.
the blurring of the line happens in architecure.
Doctor's can call themselves "Doctor" once they graduate medical school, they do NOT need to be licensed.
That's the gripe I continue to have. The grip on the title will lessen as more and more people don't pursue a traditional path. I am confident that the numbers not pursuing licensure will grow rather quickly, too, as forums like this give people a glimpse of the low pay, etc. etc.
blurring of the line happens in every industry. It simply happens out of necessity and efficiency, you can call it evolution.
And who said I ever crossed any lines? I am careful about what I say and around whom. I would never misrepresent myself.
Aw, trace....trace.....trace......
You know I respect and like you, but what you call "necessity" hasn't been a necessity at all to those thousands of us who have gone ahead and taken the dang exam ;-) DO it, man, I know you can!!
nietov, read this and this.
i understand you trace, and i am not pointing any fingers. i agree with you frankly, but the reality of the situation is that there is a line and it is pretty clear, right or wrong. there is a similar line for doctors and lawyers, etc. we get to choose where that line is as professional groups, but somehow i just don't see the one in north america moving anytime soon. although interestingly in UK there is talk again of removing protected status from the term architect again. which i find rather worrying.
Uh, jump, i do believe that's an exageration seeing how he kicked it in '59 but whatevs.
The thing is, i can get an engineering degree and call myself a "systems architect", or I can work in washington as a chief political advisor like Rove or Axelrod and be referred to as an "Architect" by the press. I can do alot of things that have nothing to do with architecture or building whatsoever and call myself an architect, but even if i've been designing buildings my entire life I cannot call myself an architect unless i get my license. This makes no sense but its how society at large uses the word "architect".
People should just be allowed to take the ARE's without having to deal with all the formal education and training requirements, if they can pass the ARE's, they can be architects. There are so many hurdles to becoming an architect its almost not worth it when you see what we actually do on a day to day basis and how we are compensated. Being an architect seems relatively simple and straightforward, but requires years of experience in field that you will never get from a college or even under formalized training regimes like IDP. So many of us interns get to teach ourselves everything and in my experience get little actual training from our superiors and systems like IDP will never be successful if that's how we train architects.
We keep trying to graft 21st century methods of professional training and legitimization on a model of practice that I feel has evolved little since the profession began to formalize in the late 19th century and if we keep raising the bar of entry higher and higher without actually changing the basic model of practice we are just going to make things worse for ourselves. I don't think that it is going to be that long before BIM is going to make the permit process of building design and execution far more straightforward to the point that you wont need an architect anymore for the permit process because everything will be preprogramed into the computer. When that happens, much of our profession is going to lose our relevance as clients will be able to design buildings themselves at hugely reduced costs.
lb - just friendly little discussions :-)
What I meant was that in business, things cross over from one field to the other all the time. My first LLC was setup by a lawyer, but the others have not been, etc.
Perhaps someday I'll take the test, but I highly doubt it. The only incentive is piece of mind, not greater design opportunities or higher pay. The last two are what drive me, so I'll keep pursuing those. I'll never have any interest in putting together the construction drawings.
jump - the line is logical for doctors. The line for architects should be a professional degree for the term, then licensure to stamp drawings. It really is not that different.
I like logic and have a hard time with things that don't make sense ;-)
The UK is considering changing, eh? Hmm, looks like we might have precedent!
Anyway, I'll leave now. I've hijacked another thread, I think we are all pretty clear where we stand.
i need to take this online or offline course and pass the test when i renew my license this year. wheelchair lift manufacturer Hogan Mfg., Inc. offers it. yeah, it is a cali requirement signed by governor making it mandotary for architects for renewing their licenses.
http://liftu.hoganmfg.com/resources/aia/lu003/default.aspx
specify Hogan.;.))
aprimac, FLW also was born in 1867 (the same year as canada, which makes it easy to remember!), so when he was dealing with getting a license and choosing not to, well it was like 1890 or so. come on now. he is at best the exception that proves the rule, not the other way around ;-)
i agree, people should be able to become architects just by taking the exam. that is how it works here and i think it is fine. people like ando who never went to university make up huge proportion of the architecture community in japan. few are any good mind you. ando is again the exception that proves the rule and not something to base averages on.
i totally get you trace. i can call myself architect in some parts of the world, some because i have license and am registered, some because they accept my foreign license, and some places just because architects aren't protected. but not in north america. that is just the way it is. i will call myself architect in all of them cuz to not do so is silly. but i would not do that if i were not registered somewhere...ot sure why it makes a difference to me, but it does...
waiting for the world to make sense is a full-time job. i am waiting too ;-)
^agreed about FLW jump, its just i personally think of his work as more early-to-mid 20th century
On the 'IT Architect' Microsoft says:
But I thought that the title Architect is regulated?
Sadly it is not. Unlike in the construction business, the IT industry is completely wild and there is no restriction to call yourself Grand Principal Enterprise Architect. In the construction business the title Architect has legal protection and it is against the law for people who are not registered to use the title Architect. (see the UK Architects Act 1997 -link
If the title is protected, how can then be used in the IT industry?
Well, it is protected in the building design context. The ARB (Architects Registration Board) sais on their website: “The Board is aware of widespread use within the computer and IT industry of the word “architect” being incorporated into certain job descriptions, eg. “Systems Architect” or “Software Architect”. ... “The Board therefore takes a pragmatic view, and accepts that the use of the word “architect” causes no concern when used in a context which is clearly not related to the design and construction of buildings.”
link
OK, what does that mean, in plain words?
It means that ARB (or other similar organizations) regulate Architects in the construction industry only. Outside that they let others to regulate it – or let it grow wild. They couldn’t care less if it grows wild. And in IT industry it did grow wild. Very wild. Just about anybody and everybody can claim the title. As WWISA puts it nicely: “In software construction, many borrow the gravitas of the title, but fail to fulfil the role”
link
It's all quite funny, no?
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.