Back in August of 2014, NCARB began reevaluating whether the title "Intern Architect" was an appropriate label for those pursuing licensure. Currently used to call an architect experienced enough to be working towards licensure, but not yet licensed, "Intern Architect" is fraught by the associations around the status of an "intern" in most professional cultures, as someone not inherently experienced and near the absolute bottom of an employment hierarchy.
Now, NCARB aims to settle the debate over the title in an announcement formally made at the AIA National Convention next week in Atlanta, Georgia. Culminating the efforts by NCARB's "Future Title Task Force" devoted to this issue, the announcement will not only mark changes in titling for the architecture profession, it will also set out new guidelines for US licensing boards.
If you plan on attending the AIA National Convention, NCARB CEO Michael Armstrong will address these issues on May 14 at 2pm (booth #2145), at the Georgia World Congress Center in Atlanta.
130 Comments
Well this is exciting! But it means I'll have to update my talk in the 24 hours after the announcement.
I misread that as "Futile Task Force"
This is good news, however.
How about: "Architect" and "Licensed Architect" ???
We need more architects, so if this helps to solve that, then I'm all for the change.
That's what I like, Evan. "Architect" with an accredited degree, either "licensed architect" or "registered architect" after passing the exams.
... and what happens in 10years from now when there is a new pool of fresh grads looking for their professional edge at cocktail party and the label "architect" has long become tainted in the same way as "intern" is today?
Should we propose to skip a few steps and replace the unnecessary registered prefix with something better? Perhaps something along the lines of:
Captain-Awesome-Architect
General Architecturous
Architect Space-Pope
No?
Personally, I find the re-branding of the term unnecessary without significant change to the course-work and unpaid-internship culture. To give green students the ability to use the title simply because they chose not to drop out of expensive art-schools is just an illusion and I would think most are smart enough to see through this... well, perhaps not because the smart ones just get their degrees, find real jobs, get licensed and move on. This is turning the label "architect" into a fashion accessory just to boost the moral of the weakest group of graduates.
If anything, architectural designer is the better label. I'm not adding any other unnecessary "registered" or otherwise after my name... unless it's Space-Pope.
Not sure I’ve ever understood this title thing; one can’t “build” anything significant without a seal, so who cares what people call themselves.
Yes, for "architect" and "licensed" 30 years too late, sadly. How much damage this label has done......
The re-branding of the word "Architect" began years ago...
"Several years ago when Bill Gates, chair of Microsoft, relinquished his title as chief executive officer, he appointed himself chief software architect instead. Since then, several industries have adopted the term architect. If you’re in the insurance industry, you can call yourself a workforce architect. If you’re in the electronic industry, you can be a software architect or a systems architect." AIA Best Practices: An Architect by Any Other Name Sept. 2006
I'm on the fence with this one but I believe the AIA hasn't done enough to protect the official title "Architect"... but is there really anything they can do now? I'm an Intern Architect and have peers that are very accomplished designers and Architects that still carry the title because they have not passed all there tests. Explaining why you can not call yourself an architect to a potential client or even a friend is a pain in the ---.
I'm all for the title architectural designer instead of intern architect but not sure where to go with the whole licensed architect bit...
Architecture should use the same nomenclature as engineering: "Architect in Training"
When people ask intern architects what they do for a living, I hope they say architect because if they say intern architect or anything else, it usually devolves into a mea culpa about how pedantic and silly the profession can be which devalues the entire occupation.
This is good news for "Average Jills and Joes" It will help level the playing field
I put “architect” on the cards of anyone who talked to clients, because I wanted the clients to listen to them….think if you’re out selling work on your own there needs to be a distinction, but not when a client works with someone in a 50 person firm.
AIA CAN'T do anything to protect the title, it's the states that regulate the title.
Architect - just let anyone call themselves that, but they do not have a license......
so all that will happen -
Client - "So you are an architect?"
unlicensed Architect "Yes?"
Client - "Can you sign and seal drawings for filing with the municipalities?"
unlicensed Architect "No, I am not registered with a license, but I can recommend someone we work a lot with."
Done.
Over the years rumors will spread that there are a lot of Architects out there, but you need to talk to the licensed ones to get approvals and permits....and eventually the word Architect will actually represent the majority of students graduating from architecture school - useless and clueless.
So as a Registered architect I don't care....
also, they should not allow AIA to replace RA....it should say
Joe Schmoe, RA member of AIA
people actually think AIA designates having a license (which it does) but its indirect.
If anything, that should be more illegal than calling yourself an Architect without a license.
I didn't even think the title "Intern Architect" was allowed to be used. The term "architect" by definition mean licensed so how can you be an intern and licensed at the same time?
If someone is not licensed and uses the title "Intern" or "Designer" this is ambiguous and causes more confusion than just saying "architect." In other words the term architect, as 99% of the population knows it is the most accurate way of communicating what you do on a daily basis.
There's technicality and then there's reality.
If you support increasing the diversity of the demographic makeup of architects and the reach of architecture, then you should support the deregulation of the title.
I think the hang-up is our thinking that the public’s perception of the word “Architect” is the same as “Doctor”, not even close.
Who is going to deregulate the title "architect"?
B3, it's already "deregulated", it's just that we’re the only ones who don’t know it.
the states should, but will only happen with a major group like aia behind the effort...The AIA is not talking about changing practice acts...just title acts...Title has a huge bearing on ones earnings and percieved value. Title also empowers people working out of the box to acuratly describe what they do if their work is architecturally related but dosent require stamping powers...how they were trained...etc. It will also allow architects working across state lines more freedom with how they market themselves...It will allow grads to work in other industries while still representing their base/core training and experiance... urban design, graphics, interiors, fabrication, etc..
I think it's a sad day when titles become a way of underpaying talented individuals.
What's even sadder is that NCARB one day will find itself in a corner (if it already hasn't) reevaluating the longevity Of the Architectural profession.
Hopefully one day one can get out of a six figure education and take licensing exams without being pressured to devalue ones self by low paying position of intern. Whatever title you want to put on it, Interns will always be interns. underpaid and flipped.
Imagine that a profession that wants to see their younger generation grow.
^
So just because you get to use a label once leaving school you're automatically in line for top jobs? Seems rather ridiculous. The same shitty jobs will be held by the same shitty graduates... regardless of their label.
^ non, I agree with you on that, but I think that the aia is thinking more along the line of expanding the breath of the profession. Title alone will not and should not make one go from school to the top instantly...but it will improve their percieved value and allow them to express their background while working on small exempt building projects or non-building related design work...
Work that they can do anyways...
Carrera,
"I think the hang-up is our thinking that the public’s perception of the word “Architect” is the same as “Doctor”, not even close."
That's exactly how I look at it. Can you elaborate on your stance towards this to help correct my flawed understanding? I actually support the title of Architect becoming as exclusive as possible, like an M.D. is.
Jla-x, agree in full but, giving out titles along with diplomas will not remove the need for washroom elevations and other grunt work. In the future, it won't be the lonely intern drafting said elevations but the lonely architect.
BR.TN, don’t think your understanding is “flawed”; it’s the public’s perception that’s flawed. It’s too late (IMO) to make it harder to use the title; we’ve confused the public about what we do, our value, purpose…..a bunch of titles just makes it worse, it should just be “Architect” to clear the air. Who cares? Only we do, not the public…..nobody’s going to rush out and build a skyscraper with a title, we need to get real with this….what’s the risk, really?
the grunt work is important, plenty of grads will still want to be traditional architects who design buildings...the minority will go on to do other things that are related but that do not require a stamp...they will open up totaly new areas of practice and probably regain ones that have been lost to other diciplines...it doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing. Some med school grads go on to work in research, imaging, etc...they still carry the umbrella title of doctor...just not MD. They mingle, share knowledge, cross pollinate...basically expand the field of medicine...I know a guy who went to arch school that now does energy modeling for arch firms...even pioneered some software...kinda between the green tech world, programming, and architecture...its related but dosent require a stamp...
intern architects will be referred to as charlatan epigones because, well, it's to good of a name not to use for something.
We called ours, "Our Minions" (in private):) Not good to be "The Piss Boy".
only white bros can deregulate
Suitable titles for architectural interns
by Paul May,
Architect Minnesota Statutes 326.02, subd. 1 on licensure and title for architects has had a tremendous amount of discussion in recent years. Currently NCARB has a task force to explore options for uniformity in describing those seeking licensure. The AELSLAGID Board has also been part of these discussions. The title “architect” is a protected term under these Statutes. Use of a “title or description tending to convey the impression that the person is an architect”, unless licensed, is unlawful. This could apply to such terms as “Intern Architect”, “Residential Architect”, etc. Filing a complaint with the AELSLAGID Board would be appropriate when these terms are used without a current license in the State of Minnesota (for process details see www.aelslagid. state.mn.us/complaints.html). The term “architectural” is not a title protected by statute at this time. This would enable the use of the term “architectural designer” or “architectural intern” for those not licensed, and on the path to licensure. Other “architectural” derivatives may also be appropriate. Please review the Statutes regulating licensure if you have questions. They can be found on the Board website.
"Architect"
Great news! I assume this will also raise median incomes to the level of "Software Architects" and reduce if not eliminate the industry-wide practice of unpaid overtime and weekend work.
i propose that part of the problem is that some people just aren't able to recognize other people as people. the title may have been developed in part as a way to identify those people who should not necessarily be viewed as people. as if there is a caste system where we should just accept that some people are superior to others, which as it turns out is really not the case.
i further propose that we give interns the title "noob." this reflects the lack of experience rather than the desire to not pay them or the general lack of consideration for them as people. after all, we all started as 'noobs,' even the silver spoon and ivy league sets. 'noob' implies a person to be nurtured and developed, rather than an object that should be subject to your will.
architects are licensed architects that passed the ARE and fulfilled all of their IDP requirements - period - non architects are designers, drafters, BIM specialist or intern.
An architect is a legal professional designation. If people want to be architects they must do all that it takes - there should never be some kind of "expedient/dummied down bogus title"
There can be no architect on the cheap
I think the point is xenakis, 'intern architect' is not comparable to 'intern' in other professions, such as dave letterman's interns. 'intern architect' is a real job, whereas the term 'intern' implies a student working in a temporary and probably part-time position for college credit or something along those lines. in that sense, the title 'intern' is probably being misused in this context.
'intern architect' is not comparable to 'intern' in other professions,
WHY DOES IT MATTER?? YOU ARE NOT APPLYING TO WORK IN OTHER FIELDS... IF EVERYONE IN THE FIELD KNEW THAT THE TITLE 'INTERN' IS NOT WHAT IT MEANS IN OTHER PROFESSIONS, THEN WTF CARES?
its the lazy bastards who call themselves PA's and PM's who have NOT gotten their license, who want to be recognized as "something else..."
Bulgar, its not about being recognized as something you are not, but rather being accurately recognized for something that you actually are/do. I hate the doctor analogies because its a completely different profession, but MD's must be licensed to practice. Architects do not have to be licensed to practice architecture so long as they are working in a firm that carries a license, or doing work that does not require one. Sounds like firms want to have their cake and eat it too. You have many people doing the work of licensed architects, or at least specialized portions of it, and not being able to accurately describe their work, education, and overall professional affiliation... This limits them in many ways, stifles their ability to create small businesses, and limits their perceived value with employers....It also has no actual benefit to public hsw because in order to do the work deemed to be a threat, one would need to have a license...title alone does not create any public danger what so ever, and by protecting it, via title acts, to a degree that far exceed the reach of practice acts, it deprives grads and experienced practitioners of representing them selves accurately for professional gains...
I would be against anyone calling themselves an architect if they are not licensed. period.
I would be against anyone calling themselves an architect if they are not licensed. period
But its ok if they work as architects?
its never okay, even if they work under a licensed architect...
a woman can deliver a baby at home, can she call herself a midwife/nurse? no.
a man wants to trade money on the market. can he call himself a broker? no.
(Among countless other examples)
Why should the rules for an architect be different? It's people like you who will be responsible for destroying the value of the profession. Soon architecture will mean absolutely nothing to anyone...
jla, to carry on the MD analogy, are you saying nurses, analysts, receptionists, and other people who help the doctor do his job should be called medical doctors? after all, they're doing the same thing.
architects have to be licensed to practice architecture. architects do not have to be licensed to do drafting for architects.
JLA, are you licensed?
As soon as NCARB stops charging $225 a year (certificate renewal) and $400 a pop (reciprocity) to do something the states charge a whopping $150 (license renewal, your state may vary) and maximum of $365 to do without NCARB, I will give a shit what they think.
jla, to carry on the MD analogy, are you saying nurses, analysts, receptionists, and other people who help the doctor do his job should be called medical doctors? after all, they're doing the same thing.
You and I both know that this is not how it works in architecture. Unlicensed employees do the work of architects all the time acting as PM's and Project architects while the partners are off golfing...Nurses do not do the work of MD's...
bulgar, no im not.
If I woke up licensed tomorrow, my work load, knowledge, future career path, immediate situation, etc. would change exactly 0.
jla-x
next time there's a marathon- just go to the finish line.. don't run the marathon... just get your medal...
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.