They should be in the salary report.

We used this as our guide. This is from our policy manuel. note the pre-intern class.


Department Head/Senior Manager — senior management architect or non-registered graduate; responsible for major department(s) or functions; reports to a principal or partner.

Project Manager — Licensed architect or non-registered graduate with more than 10 years of experience; has overall project management responsibility for a variety of projects or project teams, including client contact, scheduling, and budgeting.

Senior Architect/Designer — Licensed architect or non-registered graduate with more than 10 years of experience has a design or technical focus and is responsible for significant project activities.

Architect/Designer III — Licensed architect or non-registered graduate with 8-10 years’ experience, responsible for significant aspects of projects.

Architect/Designer II — Licensed architect or non-registered graduate with 6-8 years of experience; responsible for daily design or technical development of project.

Architect/Designer I — Recently licensed architect or non-registered graduate with 3-5 years of experience; responsible for particular parts of a project within parameters set by others.

Third-Year Intern — Unlicensed architecture school graduate in third year of internship; develops design or technical solutions under supervision of an architect or five (5) years experience in architecture with non-professional degree.

Second-Year Intern — Intern in second year of internship after completion of first professional degree or three (3) years experience in architecture with non-professional degree.

First-Year Intern — Intern in first year of internship after completion of first professional degree or two (2) years experience in architecture with non-professional degree.

Second-Year Pre-Intern — Intern in second year of pre-internship after completion of four-year non-professional degree.

First-Year Pre-Intern — Intern in first year of pre-internship after completion of four-year non-professional degree.

Student — Currently enrolled in an academic architecture program.

Senior Principal/Partner — Typically an owner or majority shareholder of the firm; may be the founder; titles may include President, CEO, or Managing Principal/Partner.

Mid-Level Principal/Partner — Principal or partner; titles may include Executive or Senior Vice President.

Junior Principal/Partner — Recently made a partner or principal of the firm; title may include Vice President or Associate Principal.

Just a comment... I find it interesting that the job descriptions above place no additional value on licensure/registration. An employee with 6-8 yrs exp and an arch degree has the same rank/position as one with a license. Although I don't necessarily agree with it, I think many firms have same view implied by these position listings: that years of experience and skill are ultimately more important or of equal weight to the license credential, which is more like icing on the cake than anything else.

However, whenever the topic of "why aren't people taking the AREs and going through with the licensure process?" comes up, it makes me think that this perception that licensure is not necessary for advancement w/in a firm is at least partially to blame.

Here is the AIA's 2005 Definition of Architect Positions.

The 2008 AIA Compensation Survey developed an expanded group of definitions that did make a distinction between "licensed" and "unlicensed" positions and then surveyed compensation accordingly. However, I'm not aware of those definitions being available in the public domain -- you would need to acquire the 2008 survey, which is copyrighted material.

That AIA list is pretty much the same template we use at our firm.

By the way -- to address Gresham's point above, the 2008 survey results indicate that licensed professionals do earn more money than unlicensed graduates working at the same level -- generally about 13%-20% more.

Not to mention...

One's an Architect, the other's a Designer.

because as we all know the term "archiect" "architectura designerl" and even "building designer" are all trademarked and deemed 'protected titles', at least here in california they are, and if you are "caught" utilizing this title, you will be subject to fines and even imprisonment.

"trademarked" by who ?

Only the word 'architect'. Architecure Digest refers to 'architectural designers' all the time (the ones who design the homes, that are not legally an 'architect').

Do you know for sure that the other titles are legally protected? If so, someone should sue AD.

file, thanks this is exactly what I was looking for. My previous office used the term "Technical Coordinator" for unlicensed people with an Architecture degree. I never thought it made a lot of sense.

I don't get it, how can someone without a license climb so high in an architecture firm? Salary- and opportunity-wise, why don't I continue with my Architectural Technologist degree instead of bothering going for an M.Arch and getting licensed?

Along time ago i was JR to a person who never tuned in his thesis. He had the experience but no degree - no path to partnership.

also, I hire (have had hired) an number of architecture technologists (2yr cc degree) Some never needed to go to university. I wanted them to have a good career path if they stay with us.

Along time ago i was JR to a person who never turned in his thesis. He had the experience but no degree - no path to partnership.

also, I hire (have had hired) an number of architecture technologists (2yr cc degree) Some never needed to go to university. I wanted them to have a good career path if they stay with us.

As for the "trademarking" perhaps that was not the best word to utilize, but here in California, the California State Board (ie: the MAN) has essentially acquired legal council to write/draft up laws (which have been passed) in order to "regulate" and control what terms are and are not able to be utilized.

Here is a bit of that "law" if you will:

quote: "if you do not have a California license to practice architecture, you are in violation of the Architects Practice Act, Business and Professions Code (BPC) Section 5536. BPC section 5536(a) states:
“It is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment for any person who is not a California licensed architect to practice architecture in this state or to use any term confusingly similar to the word architect, or advertise or put out any card, sign, or other device which might indicate to the public that he or she is an architect or is qualified to engage in the practice of architecture or is an architectural designer.”

As you can see the terms 'architect', 'architecture', 'architectural designer' and as I found out later, also 'building designer' are protected titles here in the state of California.

What was the biggest shock to me was that they have protected the term "architectural designer", which is (as far as I know) utilized by many colleagues I know to describe the fact that they are not licensed, but in fact practice under the license of their individual employers. When asked 'who can use that title?' I was told, only licensed architects!

What about IT Architect, C++ Architect, Java Architect etc.? This whole thing with NCARB, Practice Act is bunch of bull shit...If you are going to enforce it then do it!

poop 876, the NCARB does not have the balls or the conviction to go after the software companies. They like to attack smaller fish who cannot really fight back.
I wish they sue, say, Google and get a good ass whooping!

in reference to the fact that you can climb quite high professionally without a license is true to a certain extent...after 10 years or so, you will hit the ceiling, and clients will want to make sure that their project designer is registered (or anyone with a high billing rate actually)...also, some offices will only consider Licensed Staff for Associates, Principals, etc...the 13%-20% pay increase however, I can not vouch for (actually, personally, i think it's overstated)

oh, also, if the AIA or NARB went after software companies over the use of the term "architects", we might lose our right to use the term "architecture"...it's all about lobbying power!