I worked somewhere where the term appeared to be ‘resources’, I also watched a documentary recently about a British army team attempting the north face of Everest whom referred to their Sherpa betters by the same term. The army team failed to summit.

Granted I'm not in any of the cities on your list, but I just tried this on the people at the sidewalk cafe across the street from my office. I asked 6 people, none of whom heard me ask the others, or heard their responses. I got: one "Architect", two "Apprentice", two "Designer", two "Architectural Designer", and one "Trainee Architect". Maybe others can try and report on their results.

Interesting; in my experience, nearly 100% of the greater public says 'Architect' when they hear that I have a degree in the same. It's amazing - especially when dealing with the media. Thanks for sharing kjdt!

not this dead horse beating spectacle again...

I have no idea what the situation is in the various international cities you mentioned, but I think there's some general awareness in the US that in most professions the terminal title isn't bestowed immediately upon graduation (medical professions being exceptions). More people are probably familiar with engineers than with architects, and engineers typically go through the EIT stage, so a lot of the public probably assumes the same about architects. I also let the people I asked guess multiple titles if they wanted to, and they may have guessed just from my asking the question in the first place that the answer might not be as simple as "architect".

Some people are not able to become licensed for the rest of their lives, thanks to the new and improved NCARB. Licensure is not for everyone - that's the main point. Schools of architecture are geared toward licensure exclusively, and the truth is that not everyone is geared for professional practice. There are many other areas of participation, and even the federal government lists jobs as 'Architect' which do not require registration. Historic Preservation and Planning are huge fields which need non-registrants to fill positions, so non-registrants have a right to the title of 'architect', like they do in other nations, because that's what they/we are.

That's just plain dumb. Want the title? Pass your exams. Anything less, just call yourself a designer or whatever.

What is the title: of a person who works in an Accounting Office reconciling accounts?

Funny, I recently had a discussion about that with an accountant in my office. He said most of the people that the general public refer to as "accountants" are not actually certified and licensed and so should properly be referred to as "bookkeepers", not "accountants". (He is the only  credentialed accountant in our Accounting Department of four people).

Damn millennials... it's easier to whine and complain on fluffy feel good things like "titles" instead of working and passing the required exams. Passing a glorified art school program is not sufficient to call yourself architect.

Not so, Master Secretary!

Indeed, I couldn't agree more, Volunteer! It's a real muddle. NCARB and the AIA have a real deathgrip on all non-registrants - and it's intentional....in order to force all non-registrants to become licensed, thereby limiting competition for projects within the profession itself, while also continuing the stream of funding for maintaining the regulatory bureaucracy of the profession. I do believe that there is a real concern for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, but I also believe that this self-same concern is the front-man for the unspoken and stealthy gatekeeper. Even licensed architects squabble and fight all the time among themselves about competition, and are ever keeping their eyes open for any sign or twitch of anything that even looks like it might be competition...........yes, it is insane! No wonder the profession is in trouble - there is no real esprit d' corps.

But medical school is actually difficult, where architecture is not. Comparing doctors to architects is not a valid argument.

Thanks Non-Sequitur; the principal is the same - it should be the same for engineers also. Of course, each professional field must determine their course. I've known many physicians who have commented that architecture was much more difficult than med-school.

NCARB is in favor of the terms "architectural associate" or "professional designer" for unlicensed people, and the AIA issued a position paper about two years ago supporting both of those. But, most states immediately nixed the use of "architectural associate" by anyone unlicensed, because of the use of a word related to "architect", and some states also nixed "professional designer" (see example reasoning on NY's licensing site). There were only four states that would commit to stating they did not have a problem with one or both of those titles.   NCARB and AIA are not the gatekeepers on this - the individual state boards are.

Shaw I sincerely doubt that but if true, it's far more likely that those doctors / med students were just trying not to hurt your feelings knowing you / we spend far too much time in school than is necessary.

I suppose that is probable, Non Sequitur.....it really seemed spoken in earnest. As you shared previously, it's not a fair comparison of professions.

Many AIA chapters have been to the state boards specifically to address this issue. Have you asked your local chapter to pursue this with your state? What was the outcome? I know that it was pursued with my state - the board was just non-committal, citing difficulties with changing statutes, multi-year timelines for that, etc. - and wanting to wait for other states to adopt the new titles.

Here's an idea... instead of arguing pointlessly about receipt of title upon not failing art school, how about that energy is spent revising the intern and exam requirements in order to allow more folks to take and pass the exams?

How much more revising does that need? They've already cut IDP/AXP requirements in half, cut the number of tests from 9 to 5, and let some schools build testing into the degree program to graduate instant architects. Again the impediment to some of these measures has been states - not NCARB or AIA. The median time from graduation to license is 2 years shorter than it was a decade ago (5.5 vs. 7.5 years).

I guess it's not enough for the lazy and loud disgruntled interns. Maybe they should rebrand their $200k art degrees into something shinier to appease their damaged self-esteem.

I agree with you there. I think it's the same set of kids whose moms did their homework all through high school and wrote their college application essays.

The state board is all about the NCARB model law, and total conformity to it. Comme ci, comme ca. Our state board is a follower, and won't do anything that really solves problems like this one. I think there is such a culture of fear and paranoia among the ranks that this subject never surfaces. In other words, the state board is fully on the side of keeping 'interns' interns (sorry again).

Volunteer, you said it.

But NCARB has retired the term "intern". NCARB is specifically in favor of the term "architectural associate" - that's what's in NCARB's current model laws. I get that it's not "architect" - but it's a lot closer. It's not NCARB or AIA that have the hangup with all terms that use words related to "architect" - they're both advocating FOR "architectural associate". It's the boards that are not adopting it.

Interesting, kjdt. I still feel - based upon what I have had to endure for 35 years - that I still have a target on my back. I told someone once that even if I took my diploma and all of the documentation which declared that I earned a degree in architecture and attested to my career in architecture, and burned everything publicly in a 55-gallon drum outside of the state board of architects office, the target would still be on my back because of how OTHERS refer to me - which is my biggest problem. I just want that aspect removed from my life, and enjoy the work that I do without ever having to think about someone calling the 'hotline' or sending an electronic complaint to the board about me. I support licensure, and stand behind the registration law for those who've earned it. I also do not wish to 'score' off of being able to be known as an 'architect' (unlicensed) by taking business away from others who are. But at the same time, if I can do work for downtown revitalization, historic preservation, etc., as an 'architect' without worry, that would be grand.

Thanks RickB-Astoria, but the problem is still there with how others refer to me - as 'architect' (I had an earlier post about a burning in a 55-gallon drum that explains better my dilemma) but no I so appreciate your kind thoughts and counsel.

It's good to know this....you have obviously had much insight and experience in this. Truly appreciate you sharing your knowledge and experience. Everyone on the blog has been so great - it is a very frustrating dilemma in this profession which we all obviously love or we wouldn't do it. I can see now that the profession itself has taken some unfair hits, but that still doesn't excuse it from exercising good judgement, fairness, and promoting reasonable and best practices.

I wouldn't put too much stock in Rick's advice about this. He's evidence of what you're saying yourself, that by using the wrong titles one is making themselves a target. Most state boards really don't investigate that many people, yet Rick has described being reported and investigated at least once each in two different states. If it was that easy for an unlicensed person to just go about their business and use whatever title they like, then he wouldn't even have his stories to tell.