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
That's the worst metaphor yet.
again, its just a title so give it away.....See Carerra's point abkut skyscrapers.....like some developer is going to hire Daniel Libeskind to design a skyscraper because of a title????.........see my sample discussion above. once everyone gets to call themselves architects- having a license will become an important attribute, one necessary to FULLY practice architecture.......clients are not stupid, they know now if they hire a non-licensed architect they can get cheap services because there is no liability etc....services that for the most part are low grade, but there are plenty designers and project managers who do do better work than licensed professionals...."intern" is clearly the wrong term.
Architecture is a funny profession. Practitioners get abused and have to claw their way to success only to make sure the next generation has to put up with the same shit they did, all out of a vindictive, ego-driven shortsightedness. If we put as much effort into helping the best and brightest become architects as we do into keeping everyone who isn't a masochist out, we might GET SOMETHING DONE.
Remember when I was taking my professional exams, other licensed guys would quiz me about the tests and then say…”oh it was much harder when I took my exams….” Sneaky is right, it’s all about “now that I’m in, my job is to keep you out”….”you couldn’t possibly be a real architect, my tests were much harder”, and “by the way, where did you go to school?”
Bulgar, “destroying the value of the profession”? We already did destroy it.
The “worst metaphor” is the constant comparison of architects to doctors….when you get around to stopping that kind of thinking….then we might be able to get somewhere.
Right on Pete!
next time there's a marathon- just go to the finish line.. don't run the marathon... just get your medal...
If you see it like that then ok...I personally don't need a license for the work that I do...and being 5 years out of M-arch with an established business, a non-profit in the making, an early retirement plan, and constant growth as a designer/artist/business person, I see no reason to pursue licensure...If you don't want me in the club-house then that's fine...not going to stop me from doing my thing.
in god's eyes we are his little architects.
lol.
Do it already. Sorry to say, licensed architect are dime a dozen, one can always "partner" with one.
If I woke up licensed tomorrow, my work load, knowledge, future career path, immediate situation, etc. would change exactly 0.
so get your license, then you can wake up tomorrow and you would have a license.
carrera says '”oh it was much harder when I took my exams" but seriously, if carrera could get a license, and i can get a license, what's holding you back? its a pain in the ass, and you have to throw money at people. that sucks. but you throw money at the cable company for shit too, right? and everything is a pain in the ass. so it's not that bad.
jlax, what about nurse practitioners and doctors?
Curt, just for clarification, that's what the old guys told me when I was young, I would never say that.
A license should be looked at for what it is, a ticket. I didn't need it either, but always felt that no matter what happened, no matter where I went, I had a ticket to work... meaning, in my mind, that I could always round up a commission to survive, regardless how small.
Getting one is hard, but easier for some, but worth it... look at me, my premonition came true.... now retired, I don't need to work, but want to sometimes, for certain people, and flying solo I couldn't do that without a license.... I'm taking those baby's to my grave... heard they have a building boom in Hell:)
I love having a license. I love being Donna Sink, Registered Architect. It makes me feel like I *did* complete a marathon! All who don't have one, I encourage you to just do it, because seriously it feels so good.
But I also feel we should allow anyone *with an accredited degree in architecture* to call themselves an architect. Not a registered architect, not able to seal drawings, but the word architect itself implies a certain collection of knowledge about human engagement in the built world that doesn't have to be constrained to sealing documents.
Note that I do think that - for now anyway - we should limit the term legally to those with an accredited degree. I'm not sure how this would be managed and implemented, but it's certainly possible, and I'm very curious to see what the Future Title Task Force recommends.
I do not trust NCARB to do the right thing. I do not think NCARB has the profession's best interests at heart. I think it's very telling that when one speaks to State Architect Licensing Boards, the derision when speaking about NCRB is biting.
This is a problem with our society and the ever changing linguistics that are involved. At some point someone took offense to the term 'intern', and convinced someone else it was bad, and they convinced another, and another....What ever we change it to will have derogatory meaning at some point in the future....or worse
Look at what is happening with the interior design profession in many states. Several years ago people fought to be called interior designers without education or training. Now, those same are fighting to remove the requirement to license interior designers all together...Architects and architecture will slide down the same slippery slope if we aren't careful. To all of those that are not proper Architects. it is not your right nor privilege to take away what others have earned. Stop complaining and go take your exam...if you can't pass that's on you...not the system you bought in to....which was put in place to protect the general public, not to stroke your ego.
I've been stewing about this for a couple days now and have to add to it...
There is enough confusion among the laymen as to what exactly an Architect is and does. Adding another layer to that by including by reclassifying all those with a degree (professional or not?) would only compound that issue.
I'll agree that docs are a bad comparison to us. How about lawyers? I relate more closely to them because the majority of what I do is driven by codes and oversight...from a chain coffee shop, dine-in movie theater, hospital lab, 300+ unit apartment building, to a $50m hotel...all dictated by laws. Shit you can't design a trashcan without looking into the legal implications of doing it in a way that would exclude a certain sector from its use. How do you think lawyers would take it if all those with a JD would be permitted to use their title?
Stick with intern!! If you don't like it call yourself a designer, project manager, project coordinator, or just put your degree after your name if you want everyone to know!
^ retarded
Thanks for being so politically correct.
interior designers came before the regs...what these penny sucking talentless scum bags did was to try to use state powers to deepen their pockets and give value to a made up badge...money for nothing...has absolutly nothing to do with hsw...
The interior designers that I hire are extremely concerned with HSW as it pertains to the minutia of finish material properties...as an example, off gassing of certain chemical from the floor, walls, or otherwise can cause big problems for people...especially those in a hospital, or nursing home, or a house in general.
Open your eyes and take a wider view of the world.
I love how its ok to be blatently fascist in content, but not ok to use blunt words...
Please, explain to me how anything I've written could be construed as fascist.
So by your logic their should be more instances of injury in states who do not license interior designers....there is not! Also, by your logic, sweden would be an architectual death trap...In fact, europe should have greater levels of off gassing. I would bet my left nut thats not the case...Monsanto poisons our food and this guy wants to regulate cooks to pay fees for a badge that may make them more knowledgable about the use of organics...flawed logic man!
Why not regulate the materials? you know...the big guys...
its fascist and unconstitutional to use state powers for professional protectionism unless there is truly a hsw benefit...can you show one? If not why should anyone believe that these powers serve a public interest? The merger of state and corporate interests=fascism...
Not going to get all political...bottom line, regulating the player has little to no effect on quality. Regulate the game itself and stop trying to create a "safe haven" for practice...The lobby effort by these trade groups is deplorable and reflects the worst of American politics and economics.
All I want is proof that someone knows what they are doing and are willing to take personal responsibility if they screw up and harm someone. That is the point of the license that is the point of the state regulations...the point of the title is to make it clear to those that don't research before hiring.
To compare Sweden to the US is asinine. We are an extremely litigious country with 300m+ Sweden is semi-socialist with less than 10m. Very different cultures.
May I ask, If you are 5 years out of an MArch, why don't you pursue it? Is it too difficult? Are you afraid of the liability? Or do you just want to be handed the title and rest on the laurels of others?
Oh, and in most major metro areas a cook has to get a food handler's license...for that a waiter has to do the same.
Did you know that some engineered hardwood flooring sold in the US has formaldehyde levels 100x higher than allowed in EU.? Do you really believe that a certification on interior designers is going to lower VOC's? The internal policing is pathetic...we should be fighting outside the profession!
I'm well aware of the material difference in the US and EU. We build in a different manner than in the EU....again...culturally driven differences.
If you really want to make a difference from the top down stop fighting over title changes and spend your time lobbying for manufacturer regulations.
anyone can be held liable for anything
and title acts are different from practice acts.
actually J-Lax, you can be liable nothing as well.
Yes, but they are tightly related in that the title is the public representation of license holders. And as mentioned before...adding a layer of confusion by allowing those without a license to carry the title could be detrimental to our profession.
^how exactly? sounds like one of those "if you legalize weed everyone will become crack addicts" lines...
no one is going to medical research labs for cardiac surgery. The med industry is way more complex...Also, who the hells cares if the public is confused. They are confused anyway and most dont use architects anyway only very rich people do... The state now has to protect the public from confusion? That sounds like one of those " if we legalize gay marriage the children will be confused" lines...
Your analogies are weak at best. Your attitude is the reason there is a level of disdane for what we do. It appears you have a very jaded view of the world, and need to crawl out of whatever hole your in and take a look at the rest of it.
My clients are by no means rich....they are often employees of companies, upstart developers, or common 'middle class' folks for my residential side gig.
I worked very hard at the chance to call myself an Architect...full time job, infant child, wife in grad school full-time...who was also working full-time, and I designed and oversaw construction of 2 ground-up homes that were about 2 hours away from my house in opposite directions. During all this I somehow found the time to study for/take/pass all 7 sections of the ARE...also squeezed in a LEED specialty exam. All within a 9 month span. I too am 5 years out of my MArch, and was registered almost 2 years ago today.
Now what's your excuse?
Good for you. thats what you wanted to do and you did. bravo. Just because that was your path in life does not give you the authority to dictate or stiffle the paths of others... My attitude is a creative one. Yours is a beurocratic one. I believe that diversity and inclusion leads to innovation. You believe that exclusion leads to relevance and prestige. I see that you have come to an intellectual dead end in your argument as you have resorted to personal attacks. I have no interest in dick swinging contests. If you want to talk licensure then you can begin by answering the questions I asked...
can I ask what state you licensed in?
You started with an attack...or does calling someone else's post 'retarded' not constitute such?
The detrement that it could cause is proven in the time prior to licensure laws being enacted. There were dangerous building conditions that were thrown together by those that should not have been allowed too, and these reactionary policies were put into place. The term Architect was protected in order to provide means to a penalty of sorts to those that knowingly and willingly act beyond their capabilities. Case in point...I have a friend who designed and contracted a house for his parents right after we graduated...middle class. A year ago it had to be abated for black mold, the slab had to be cut out to repair the plumbing, and the second story floor joists had to be reinforced...school does not prepare everyone to take on that responsibility. If it had been for a true client it would have in a small way further sullied the general opinion of Architects. Thus being detrimental to our profession.
The whole purpose of government is public service...that includes protection of the general public from those who would provide a lower quality service at a lower price. And yes differentiating with licensed and non licensed architects would continue to protect that But not to those that do not know the difference or do the reaserch prior to hiring. Protecting the title is a simple way to aid in that and does not exclude anyone. If your charge is artistic in nature and design focused than call yourself a designer...it isn't that difficult.
New York, New Jersey, South Carolina, Illinois, California, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and Texas.
building codes were responsible for safety improvements not licensure.
And the "retarded" comment was clearly about the content of the post and not you personally. You are mis reading my disdain of occupational licensing for laziness which is in and of itself a lazy conclusion to arrive at. In my opinion (and you are entitled to your own) licensure is not an effective way to regulate the quality of the built environment. It also reduces diversity within the profession which in turn limits the adaptability and innovation of the profession...
Licensure is a measure to help ensure implementation of the building codes. In that the Architect is held personally liable by law for the work they do involving such codes.
Why do you think licensing reduces diversity in the profession?...and how could it possibly limit innovation? Or, adaptability? There are a lot of amazing people doing great and innovative work that took the steps necessary to become Architects. The same is also true for a lot without a license, but they are limited in order to protect the end users.
Calling a post 'retarded' is an attack. I did not take it personally. Just found it crude and offensive, but (like my original post says) because of the fluidity of linguistics...used to be a scientific term...conversation for elsewhere.
diversity is limited because title laws force grads working outside of traditional practice out of "architecture" and into whatever...Its semantics, but it defidently has an effect by consequently narrowing the general dicipline of architecture to fit within the narrowing turf of pro-practice. It has also led to a dislocation from academia, from allied professions like landscape, art, industrial design, interiors, environmental sciences, ect.... Broadening the term will broaden the profession and help to create a mutual respect/cooperation/community between related areas by blurring the lines between us and them...In a profession that seems to preach the value of collaboration it would be beneficial to broaden the term "architecture" to create a sense of a unity and alliance among professionals. Has nothing to do with shortcuts, its about increasing "biodiversity" as a proven method of strengthening the overall "ecology"
Now, getting rid of the stamp is a different debate...This one was about reforming title act.
I disagree whole-heartedly. To what lengths do you allow people to claim the title? Industrial design has no education requirements...so a person that designs any object can claim to be an 'architect'? Or a simple landscaper that designed a garden can claim the same?
We are part of the design profession...just so happens that Architects directly influence and effect the lives of all people in the U.S. in one way or another. Maybe we just have very different understanding of what an Architect is. I believe that a return to the 'master builder' way of practicing would be ideal, but our predecessors have given that away.
Architects have very little real influence on the built environment. HSW is very subjective. I would say that 90% of the buildings built by architects adversely affect the HSW of the public and the environment in a direct or indirect way...
"to what legnths do you allow people to claim the title"
The question is to what legnths do you restrict the use of the title and hence the liberty of the individual? The constitution does not give the state power to limit ones liberty for the purpose of protecting the value of a profession.
regulations must serve a public interest or they are unjust.
architect licensing and titling regulations do serve the public interest, and they are just.
i don't understand why you want to be called something you aren't. it's been clearly established and codified in the ordinance of every state i know of that there is a process to obtain a license to practice architecture, and that you have to complete that process in order to use the title "architect," because using the title "architect' without going through the clearly defined process of getting a license to practice architecture is misleading.
what you do is something other than what architects do. that certainly doesn't make what you do worse or somehow inferior. what you're doing might be much more artistic and soulful and whatnot. it doesn't matter. if you want to do what architects do, then go do what architects do, which includes at least in part getting a license to practice architecture or at least working under someone who has a license to practice architecture.
i think the problem is that you just don't understand what architecture is, or what the practice of architecture entails. so where do you get the idea that the practice of architecture should include so many other disciplines?
Not sure titles and licensing are the same thing in our business, health & safety only comes into play when something gets built, and that can't happen without a license, we're all architects....some are licensed to build things, some not.
Think the biggest failing of architectural schools is not opening the exit door wide enough for students to see the myriad of career opportunities beyond licensure... more of us need to go into politics... don't think "intern architect" would swing much weight in Washington, rather he/she call themselves "architect" so they can get something done.
the point of title restrictions is that if i say "i'm an architect" that implies i'm a licensed architect. a normal person would make the assumption that i can practice architecture within the guidelines set by the state.
i also have a notary stamp. the same title restrictions apply. why isn't jla complaining about why he can't be called a notary public?
in archinect's news section is a thing from ncarb saying there are a record number of people actively progressing towards licensure. that suggests licensure is accessible, and there isn't some 'good ol boy' network conspiring to limit diversity. 37,000 people. jla could be one of them.
http://archinect.com/news/article/127290187/ncarb-gives-preview-of-data-report-to-be-released-in-july-says-profession-is-healthy-and-growing
one more edit: 100th post! woo!
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.