The National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) convened its new Future Title Task Force, which is comprised of interns and architects from across the country, to discuss the profession’s title debate. The task force is charged with discussing the terminology used for those who are candidates for licensure and those who are architects. — NCARB
The word "intern" contains a minefield of professional connotations. The job-title is often associated with a position that is unpaid, undervalued, or disposable, flying in the face of employment laws and professional ethics. And in some ways, it's no different in the architecture industry: it's deplorably and repeatedly the case that unpaid internships play an integral role in professional practice. It seems strange then, that the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) uses the title "Intern Architect" as the official term for those educated enough to pursue licensure. Under this definition, the babe in the woods can have the same title as a seasoned vet.
This disconcerting overlap of meanings has led NCARB to reconsider the term used to describe practicing professionals seeking licensure. NCARB's newly formed Future Title Task Force met late last August to outline the issues of this sticky naming-debate, eventually to determine what architects, before and after licensure, can call themselves. The variety of titles available to a pre-license architect varies state-by-state, just like the licensure requirements in general. This alphabet soup of names, with no national overarching logic, is starting to drag on the profession.
While nothing is set in stone, the Task Force has already set out to identify an overall logic for the naming regulations, with help from standards set at comparable professions in the US. Currently, the word "intern" is used to describe an enormously vague period in an architect's professional development. According to NCARB, an "intern architect" (as opposed to simply an "intern") is someone (students included) who has completed enough education to qualify for the Intern Development Program. Slightly more specifically, an Intern Architect is anyone currently chipping away at licensure's "experience requirements", set out by NCARB's IDP. Unpaid internships do not qualify as experience under NCARB's requirements, although certain "approved" volunteer work does. All in all, Intern Architects must fulfill standards of experience, education, and examination to become licensed, all of which depend on where in the US is issuing the license.
The Task Force will meet next in October, so we'll keep you posted. Here are the current members of the Future Titles Task Force:
The Task Force will no doubt recognize that there is a certain legacy around the "intern" role, that assumes poor-treatment and low or no pay is justified, and simply part of the natural "hazing" process to becoming an architect. Those who were once victims of such hazing often become perpetrators when they become authorities, under the vindictive attitude of "I had to suffer through it, so you should too". Not only does this perpetuate a cycle of abuse in the architecture industry, but it devalues architects in their most formative professional years. Here's to hoping NCARB's Task Force can settle on terms that respect the architect's experience, regardless of their progress towards licensure.
13 Comments
Yay!!! So happy NCARB is taking a strong position on this. This was a well-written explanation of an issue that has become unnecessarily thorny.
I also appreciate the AIA's sponsorship of the Emerging Professionals Summit where this idea was fully rooted. Great to see it growing so quickly - great job, Haley!
I don't see any interns on that members list.
Miles, I see as many as four...
Why is NCARB spending so much of their time restructuring the way internship and licensure are structured and so little providing basic customer service in return for their exorbitant fees?
When I graduated 10 years ago it was verboten to use the term "architect" for anyone who was not duly licensed. They relaxed that and now it's not relaxed enough? Everyone knows that "intern" is a step on the way to being physician and that these people are called "Doctor," why are we agonizing about our nomenclature when the general public will almost never encounter it?
Don't get me wrong, no one should do work for no pay, period. But as long as graduates are willing to do it, and unscrupulous employers are willing to offer it, it will persist.
What you call it is largely irrelevant. And the fact that the traditional name we use for unlicensed grads is now evocative of it is an unfortunate coincidence.
And the most laughable part of it is, while we agonize about who in the profession can be called "architect" and what kind, the computer/information folks have completely co-opted the term without NCARB raising a peep...
No peep is raised about computer/information folks because they don't compete with us for work. However, unlicensed building designers do compete with us.
aren't doctor interns called "resident?"
And in some ways, it's no different in the architecture industry: it's deplorably and repeatedly the case that unpaid internships play an integral role in professional practice.
is there any evidence to support this claim? are unpaid internships really integral to our profession, and if so, is it really because of a title chosen to identify those who are trying to do the work to become an architect?
in my experience, which certainly doesn't account for everyone or all areas, but unpaid internships in most offices are not all that common. they were probably more prevalent during the recession though. so it's not really an integral part of the profession, but rather an outlier for starchitects or 'entrepreneurs' who can't keep their businesses afloat. changing a title won't fix either of those problems.
i'd be a bigger supporter of all of this if there were some evidence that changing a title would allow people who work hard to be paid what they're worth, but i can't help but think this is a sensationalist sort of comment thrown out there like fox news strategy. we can do better than make baseless claims to incite the rabble.
in the mean time, "intern architect" means someone wants to be an architect and they're trying to do what they need to do to make that happen. that's more respectable imho than someone who wants to be called an architect but has given up because it's too hard.
" 'intern architect' ... that's more respectable imho than someone who wants to be called an architect but has given up because it's too hard."
Man, those are some fightin' words! And completely true.
Miles, the "Assoc AIA" people are likely not yet registered. Of 13 names I see 6 that are likely still classified as interns.
To clarify, NCARB is not claiming that unpaid internships are integral to the profession because they piggy-back on the "intern" title as a necessary phase in architecture licensure. NCARB is reconsidering whether it makes sense to continually refer to architects that are seeking licensure as "Intern Architects", when the term "intern" is more widely used to refer to someone at the start of their career, who typically stands to gain more from the experience than the employer does from their work (see DOL description).
Previous accounts of unpaid internships in architecture:
Exploitation of Interns Coming to an End?
The Intern Catch-22
Forum discussion of Sou Fujimoto's unpaid internships
Also related: U.S. Department of Labor's stipulations on unpaid internships
"the term "intern" is more widely used to refer to someone at the start of their career, who typically stands to gain more from the experience than the employer does from their work"
I know I'm going to catch hell for the observation, but the above actually describes the majority of recent graduates...
There is a solid year, give or take, when most grads are learning just to be able to be productive (software, office practices, etc).
That is followed by several additional years when (theoretically) you learn all of the actual aspects of practice not taught in school, i.e. everything beyond the spatial/theoretical focus and rudiments of materials/detailing/codes/systems, that you leave school with. Basically, you are still learning everything... You should be paid because your employer profits from you work, but you are learning. An internship, even.
And to clarify the question on physicians, it looks like "intern" and resident" are interchangeable (I believe it depends on the program you are in), but the concept is exactly the same, from wikipedia:
"Following completion of entry-level training, newly graduated doctors are often required to undertake a period of supervised practice before full registration is granted; this is most often of one-year duration and may be referred to as an "internship" or "provisional registration" or "residency"."
And keep in mind the typical MD has a LOT more hands-on experience integrated into their schooling.
^ that's not your concern. I know a few grads with more experience than their bosses.
Why aren't they titled 'intern'?
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.