National Associates Committee

Well for the longest time I called myself an Architectural Designer. The title wasn’t the real problem for me though.

It was getting myself to align all me ideals I’d acquired in the safe educational environment with the realities of the work and earn, 9-5 desk job.

I have a Bachelor’s Degree from University of Miami, but I would have loved the Mockbee’s “Rural Studio” or other similar hands-on experience of what we do.

As you can see at the end of the message my company’s title for Intern Architect is Architectural Coordinator. It has a more corporate ring I guess.

I have passed two sections of the exam and am working on my third. I am hoping that by this time next year or soon thereafter I will have acquired the official title of Architect!

Have a wonderful Holiday Season,

Gail Goretsky

Architectural Coordinator

Other professions use professional terms before getting a license.
Accountant vs. CPA
Nurse vs. Registered Nurse
Interior Designer vs. Certified Interior Desiner
Doctor(having a PhD) vs. MD
I think the profession of architecture should go by the same rule. Architect should mean someone with a degree in architecture and Licensend or Registered Architect should mean, just that, licensed or registered. This very distinction would make clear the different tasks we are legal allowed to perform.

I had the same frustration as young professional when I entered the profession. However,the use of the term 'Architect' implies a certain expertise and experience level that is measured by obtaining a licence. I don't want my credentials diluted in the public mind to include green and untested indivduals who's feelings are hurt. It is not my job to bolster their self -esteem. Pass the test, and then call yourself ( proudly) and 'Architect"

In our office, interns are students who are still in school (and always paid).

No one is called an architect until they are licensed. Until then they are called designers.

After licensing, a professional goes through a period where he or she adds to their skill set and knowledge under the leadership of the professionals that oversee them.

Once an individual has progressed to a point where they are aware of what they don't know and aquire the ability to supplement their skills and knowledge to actually practice architecture unsupervised, can he or she call themselves an Architect.

As a professional only 4 exams shy of my license with 4 years of experience, I understand the frustration of being titled an "intern" and have refused to call myself that when talking to people outside of the industry. I do not call myself an architect though because I do agree that there should be some kind of distinction between those who are licesned and those who are not. Currently, that is the only distinction, so when I complete the exams, I will wear that title with pride. The amount of initiative, dedication, and intense study involved in going through the process of taking the exam sets those who do apart from those who don't. It has been my experience that completing the exam is a testiment of the professional character of the person. Those attributes tend to permiate all areas of work and are not isolated with the exam. One suggestion is to follow the example of other industries. Call those with a degree in architecture, architects. Then, perhaps licensed architects should have a "LA" or "PA" after their name like professional engineers have a "PE" after theirs. If there is a shift in titles, having a membership in the AIA should not be the only way to identify oneself in signature as a licensed professional.

Let's be very clear here. You are not an Architect until you are licensed. There is no middle ground.

The sooner you get licensed, the sooner you can enjoy the rewards, and the risks, of that title.

The AIA should be very cautious going down a road which could water down the significance of this title. The profession has already lost ground by silently letting other professions co-opt the title of Architect (i.e. Information Architect, Infrastructure Architect). We should not water down that title from within our own ranks.

Inclusiveness of our young professionals does not require loosening our standards. If anything, it should demand greater standards of education, performance, and professionalism.

I agree that the term intern couses a lot of confusion for people outside the profession. I remember dealing with the confusion when I was an intern. I think a different term should be considered. I do not think they should be called Architect until they have passed their exams and earned the priveledge to use the title. Maybe Apprentice Architect is a more appropriate title for interns.

Sincerely,
James Henderson, AIA

While I don't enjoy being called an intern, I am not totally against a slightly different title for a pre-licensed professional. My mom tells people that I am an apprentice architect. This seems fairly accurate, but a little old-timey. The partners at my firm like to call us young architects, though youth is not always exactly correlated with licensure. I often compare architectural internship with medical residency, because that is something which is familiar to people from TV shows.

If you are unlicensed, you may or may not be an intern, but you certainly are NOT an architect.

I think every licensed architect is going to respond the same way in that interns are not architects until they pass all the criteria to become licensed. I have never heard anyone refer to a student as an intern. The interns just need to wait their turn to become designated as an architect when they have fullfill all the requirements to EARN that title.

An incredible amount of work and time goes into the achievement of licensure. It should be very clear to the public who is truly licensed and who is not. If all levels in the architectural profession are called architects where is the distinction? Does a CADD technician become an architect because he gains expertise in an area of design, or technical engineering? Engineers use the term EIT (engineer in training). Is AIT (architect-in-training) better than intern? Until one is licensed they truly cannot represent themselves as an architect. Expecting the clients to understand the difference between "registered architect" and "architect" is not practical. If you tell someone you are an architect they expect you to have fulfilled all requirements to obtain that title. If the title of intern is objectionable, but all means, there should be dialogue as to a more acceptable title, but it should not be architect.

In the state of North Carolina you can nott be called "architect" until you have passed all exams and registered.

Those seeking regisraion could be titled, "AIT"
Archiect in Training.

There are too many unlicensed individuals who call themselves "Architect

Thanks

why don't they bring back the term "Apprentice"- I know that the title is a little clique at the moment with the tv show and all, but I believe that it better describes what the role of the architectural intern is.

I tend to call myself an "Architectural Intern." I agree that the term "Intern" does have a connotation that implies that you might be only answering phones and running errands, not actually doing architecture. However, I also believe that the stand-alone term "Architect" should be reserved for those who are licensed. I like the idea of qualifiers like Intern Architect, Junior Architect, or Graduate Architect, but none of those seem to be quite exactly what I'm looking for.

This is a real issue, but one with real challenges. I agree with the premise though: "intern" has got to go!

Nevertheless, we need to find a way to distinguish between someone licensed by their state and someone who is unlicensed, while at the same time, being able to use the term "architect."

There is one other nagging issue that I don't think I've seen mentioned. What if you have no formal architectural training whatsoever, and you're working at a firm getting OJT and have been for years. You probably know more than most graduates and in most states, with enough documentation and experience, you can get licensed this way. Can you call yourself an architect (assuming that is the word we agree that everyone should use)?

In this unavoidable world of political correctness, I’m sure that the label “intern” is undesirable by many. People are too concerned with labels and they often get wrapped up in frivolous “problems” of minute substance in order to lend themselves more self-importance. I’ve seen this as a problem with many in this profession. But I suppose that other professionals like doctors and lawyers suffer from the same low self-esteem issues.

To sum it up, who cares what the label is? It is irrelevant. Call yourself whatever you want – it doesn’t make you smarter or better able to do your job or better apt to help a client. But if it makes you feel good when you hob-nob with a group of like-minded professionals, and if it allows you to flex your “title-muscle”, then knock yourself out.

Architect-in-Waiting

Balderdash. Use of the term "architect" by unlicensed practitioners is a significant problem for the profession. Liberalizing its use is not the answer. If "intern" doesn't sound quite important enough-- and I agree-- what's wrong with describing interns by their job titles (job captain, project manager, etc.) which, as the article states, we do now. Nothing disparaginig in those labels. Also...regarding the time it takes to become licensed, the article overstates the case in comparing the 7 years it often takes nowadays to 3 years in olden times. As one who straddled the 2 systems, I can say from personal experience that there are many advantages to being able to prepare for 1 exam at a time, and having the opportunity to test more than 1 time each year. And if there were accurate stats on how long the average person used to take to finish their "apprenticeship" (there's a term you don't see anymore) and pass all the exams, I'm pretty sure you'd find that the 3 year time frame was an optimistic minimum that most didn't meet. My impression is that the biggest delaying factor in becoming an architect today is getting the paperwork done and through the mill...and that is the real problem that should be addressed.

Currently in our office, we have 3 different types of "Architect":
1. Licensed Architect: Practicing architecture and stamping documents.
2. "Old" Graduates (from 3-10 years after graduation): These "Architects" perform exactly same tasks as the Licensed Architect does, EXCEPT, they do not stamp the documents.
3. Recent Graduates (within the first 3 years after graduation): Yes, these "Architect" are learning, yet they are also practicing similarly to the Licensed Architect does!

We constantly asking ourselve, that we shed our tears and sweat ourselve through 6 years of Professional College, and work very hard in the office to obtain our practicing license.

Now, ask yourself, do we deserve the title "Architect"? Please remember, it is the honor that we are asking for, not the practicing.

I feel that this profession has serious issues and in fact is working it's way to exstinction. If doctors, lawyers and engineers are able to use the title why can't the AIA and the architectural word follow suit. Intern is an insulting and inadequate title for someone that has endured the rigors of the architectural education and degree. Architect in Training sounds like you're still in school. Why don't we elevate the profesion by allowing the title of Architect to grads and Profesional or Licensed Architect to those that have completed certification.
Additionally those that are sitting for exams should have to work in the field and take business classes because the class of architect that is passing the exams is still lacking in true ability and understanding of what they do, IMHO.

After completing 8 tests and three and a half years of "interning," I am looking forward to being called an Architect. I feel I will have earned that title. However, I do not feel that being called an "intern" during my three and a half years has been informative for those that address me as such. I play many roles, but none of them are that of a student in college.

Would unlicensed professionals be willing to refer to themselves as an "Non-licensed (or Non-registered) Architect"? If not, then I suspect they really wish to use the title "Architect" without meeting the regulatory requirements mandated by law.

1) An architect has legal liability which accompanies a professional license; no other titles that sound similar have such liability.
2) If you want to be titled as an architect, join the Federal government, which for some strange reason allows persons to be titled architect (job category 0808) with no license. Go figure. AIA, I suspect you may have weighed in on this to no avail.

I believe the profession needs different classes of architect based on eductation, experience, and licensing, (i.e.Architect I, Architect II, Architect III). There should be a distinction made between architects qualified to design houses and those qualified to design skyscrapers.

With more municipalities requiring licensing for even minor design work, these classifications would provide better opportunities for those starting out in the profession.

I think that there is value in using a term that the general public can understand. In that regard "intern" is misleading and implies qualifications that are too low. The old-fashioned term "apprentice" is well-understood by the general public.
I think that the terms "architect" and "registered architect" are too similar to offer clarity.

What a great conversation!

People that have passed the A.R.E. are adamantly opposed to allowing unlicensed architecture school graduates share their title. One thing that we all should remember is that we, as a collective whole, do not own the term “architect.” That is why people that are Data Architects, System Architects, etc. can be called such. One article that comes to mind is the one about Jack Johnson in Colorado. http://archrecord.construction.com/archrecord2/work/0611/johnson.asp
Here he took the issue to court and won. The sole purpose of State Boards is to protect the Health, Safety, and Welfare of the public. In doing so, they can only regulate the commercial use of the term “architect” where an individual/group is advertising architectural skills defined by the State Board of Architects.

In a noncommercial arena the precedent has been set by Jack Johnson; the use of the title architect to describe one’s job is legal.

The tougher job lies ahead, determining the appropriate title of a graduate from an approved school of architecture in the commercial world. What about:
Architect
Architect in Training (implies that the person is already an architect)
Associate Architect
Graduate Architect

We older architects are wary of diminishing the alleged esteem we've earned by passing the exam. I doubt that the new system of licensure is much more difficult than what I endured thirty years ago. Many of us did not achieve this goal as readily as interns assume. Besides, there is nothing inherently wrong with "intern," it just means a graduate under apprenticeship. Connotations are all in the mind. You're still learning the profession and should never stop. We welcome the fresh air that interns bring to our office, their contributions and challenges to our work. At the same time, we are often frustrated with the overblown rhetoric we hear from graduates who adopt the archi-speak of their pedantic professors. Architecture is not about words.

Bill Cordray, AIA, LEED-AP

I agree with Casi:

"Architect should mean someone with a degree in architecture and Licensend or Registered Architect should mean, just that, licensed or registered."

The only reason insiders may not agree is because we have been convinced that you are not an architect until you get licensed. Many unlicensed folks are doing the same tasks as licensed architects, especially in large firms, without signing the drawings. They are practicing architecture and should be allowed to call themselves architects.

If the profession made a distinction between licensed and unlicensed with an 'RA' or 'LA' designation then the public would understand and look for that distinction. Again I reference the examples given by Casi.

If someone has the degree but never intends to practice they are probably using a totally different title anyway, but for those on their way to licensure Intern is totally demeaning.

Based on the nonchalant and generally indifferent attitude many graduates currently have toward completing the process of becoming an architect I say let them get off their backsides and take [and pass] the exam, and then I would be happy to call them "Architect".

Yes, absolutely. It is incumbant upon the individual to indicate that they are not licensed, and if they falsely represent themselves as being licensed they should be punished, but there is no reason that an individual who works as an architect, is trained as an architect and is (poorly) paid as an architect should not be able to refer to themselves as an architect.

A medical intern, in the context of medical education in the United States, is a historical term for a physician in training who has completed medical school, passed step two of the USMLE or COMLEX-USA, and is undergoing his first year of post-graduate training (PGY1). An intern in the medical field has an M.D. or D.O. degree, but does not have a full license to practice medicine unsupervised in the U.S.
Similarly Architects who are not yet licensed should be called "intern" or some other version that indicates they have completed training but not licensing. Perhaps "Architect in training" or "AIT" similar to engineers in training who "enjoy" a similar status.

An intern is an inters until he/she earns his/her licencse. The title architect conveys to the public that the person has been licensed and has certain credentials, the same as for other professionals. Granting such stature without earning it is just more of the dumbing down syndrome.

I would also suggest a return to the use of the "apprentice" or "apprentice architect" label. It gets the appropriate meaning across. It works for the trades so why not for us? Or is it too "blue collar" for some?

The term intern does not do justice to the perseverance of having obtained a degree in our chosen field. Being called an intern is demoralizing and degrading once you have obtained that hard sought after degree – in my case a bachelors and a masters degree in architecture, but calling myself an architect is also not correct – because I have not obtained that status. So a middle ground needs to be sought. Those of us between graduation and licensure should have a title like apprentice architect or junior architect to make the distinction of one who has graduated and one who has not. This would also give us the respect we deserve. And once you raise the respect level for those beginning in the world of architecture, natural that raise would benefit all others in the field and raise the level of respect from the outside world.

i agree that the whole issue is really overblown. licensed architects will always cling to the "earn the prestige" nonsense, just as fast as the intern pulls out the "i do what everyone else does" line. so get over it. we all know in both positions there are folk that are enormously underwhelming and outstanding in their positions. some test well, yet are dolts. some bright people can't get past the ARE, yet perform flawlessly on projects. to all: focus on bettering yourself instead of looking what to call others.

This is timely. We were having a roundtable discussion in our office the other day. One of senior architects who is very keen on mentoring the young talent uses the term "intern" in a purely professional fashion to these young professionals that are on the IDP path for licensure.

However, the bookkeepper asked that he be more politically correct and perhaps use the term "graduate architect". Although we registered architects understand the technical inuendos in the definition and do not see it as derogatory, it is perceived by the public as someone without experience such as a "summer intern".

There are legal ramifications, but is also public perception. I would be in favor of coming up with a more favorable term, such as "Graduate Architect". This would indicate that this person has graduated an accredited institute, but is not yet an "Architect". I think having the modifier of "Graduate" would be enough distinction to avoid confusion with a registere professional.

As the previous writers inferred, the use of the term "architect" has legal consequences in its use.

The New York State Education Department says that only a person licensed or otherwise authorized to practice under this article (Article 147, Section 7301) shall practice architecture or use the title "architect".

It is important when speaking to others, one must separate out the difference between using "architect" in its legal and professional use and using "architect" as a description of your employment or trade.

I hold myself out to others as a Registered Architect(RA) and/or use the AIA initals; I use Principal as my title desciption.

Let interns call themselves architects.

They are architects. The hard part is being a registered architect. No matter in what state or country.

Let them deal with the community and its environment where it is not under the umbrella of the registered architect.

This is not a new idea but one that has existed a long time in Europe. In Europe an architects' work proceeds them. Registered or not.

This will help to bring design issues a little more inline. Lately they seem to have scattered to technologists and architectural engineers.

What needs to be made clear to the public is the term "registered architect". This issue I have seen overlooked and can be the biggest deterrent to our profession. Not intern.

I began working in health care design after graduation, and I always thought "intern architect" perfectly summed up my position with the health care clients I worked with. During school, I called myself a draftsman. 3 years after graduation, I passed the exam and became an architect.

The author argues the point that the of titling of Post Graduate professionals as "Interns" is not in keeping with their actual job description. In fact, the author could not be further from the truth. Merriam-Webster defines intern as... "an advanced student or graduate usually in a professional field gaining supervised practical experience". I certainly hope that is what we are doing for our Interns. I certainly hope that the Intern is gaining experience and is being appropriately supervised, better yet, they should be mentored. Otherwise, they are being done a great injustice.

Further, I am not suggesting that their business card could not be appended, or make no mention of the title Intern. Their card could certainly read as "Drafter", "Designer", "Job Capt.", "Project Manager", or "Contracts Administrator". The office of an Architect has many specialized jobs that should have more descriptive titles so as to better inform their clients. But, the title of Architect (or form of the word for that matter) should be reserved for those who have completed the necessary licensing requirements. Yes it is a long and grueling process. Once you arrive the title is ever more sweet. So my advice, study more and complain less. The faster you complete your exams, the sooner you get to shed the dreaded tag as an "Intern".

I do not use the term "intern" for my young staff architectural professionals carrying degrees in architecture. Obtaining a professional degree in architecture (often a Masters level degree) is a tremendous accomplishment. The term "intern" is generally viewed as "student" level. I would prefer referencing non-registered graduate architects as "architects," and licensed professionals as "registered architects." As long as we are being honest with our clients, (and young professionals are honest about their level of experience) all is clear. I am bothered by the fact that educated recent grads in architecture get less respect than graduates in other fields, particularly when many of us have had office and/or construction experience (internships) during our years of schooling. As a profession, we should be supporting our graduates of accredited programs, by giving them the opportunity to be addressed as respected young professionals.

Should someone who is licensed in Nevada not be able to call themselves an "architect" in California or any other state? When you cross state lines, do you change?

I disagree with the assertion that the requirements of IDP and the computerized test CAUSE a longer time period from graduation to licensure. This was the system I became licensed under and found that it makes it easier to delay, and easier to procrastinate, but it does not CAUSE us to take longer.
Regarding the term for interns, I agree that term is confusing. I also agree with most other posters here that the term Architect should remain for licensed architects only. We have enough trouble garnering respect in our society for what we do, that any reduction in standards for what that title means would be shooting ourselves in the (collective) foot. If anything, we need to increase the standards for what it means to be an Architect in order to bring back some of the respect for our profession that it had in earlier centuries.
The closest professional example we have for what to call folks that are not yet licensed is the Engineering Profession. They are called EIT (engineer in training) - I wonder if they like their title?

I hail from the early days, when licensing requirements did not require a college degree, but 13 years of experience with a licensed professional was needed to take the exams.

I was first called a "junior draftsman" and then after some time was elevated to "architectural draftsman".

It was an apprentice system used to provide a means for young people like me to obtain a professional license. It was an approved system for just about any profession. It worked well.

I went to college at night for 7 years, spent 5 years in the military, and was able to take and pass 2 professional exams after service - without a college degree. My licenses were just as good as if I did have a degree.

The term "intern" is well understood in the profession. Making a big deal about it is just a bit ridiculous. It makes more sense to use the title that appears on the Invoice to clients.

Being an Intern and ARE candidate, I have experienced the same scenarios that all Interns have faced over the years prior to getting their professional license. The question “Are you an architect?” arises at introductions to clients, meetings with construction professional, and consultants. Everyone immediately classifies you as inexperienced and or not worthy of complete trust in judgment towards their projects from the name “intern”. The term by definition is: “a person who works as an apprentice or trainee in an occupation or profession to gain practical experience, and sometimes also to satisfy legal or other requirements for being licensed or accepted professionally”. If the general public understands this term for its intended use, you are still categorized as “insufficient” for the role of an architect.

In my opinion, you are awarded the role and title of architect by professional degree from the college you attended however the public views this differently. The work that is being performed by an “Intern Architect” involves the same type of work that a licensed architect performs so why not have the title as architect? In my opinion, it can be deceiving to the public. If one has a professional degree but no license and practices architecture within the legal boundaries of their state, are they considered an architect? They cannot provide fully legal services for architecture. Too many un-licensed individuals refer to themselves as architects as it is. Adding to the current situation of too many self-proclaimed “architects” will only add to the current problem of professional misrepresentation.

Being a licensed architect is a professional achievement that should be lessened if an “Intern Architect” is referred to as simply an “architect”. In my opinion, you cannot be an “architect” simply because you have a professional degree in architecture. A licensed architect is certified and acts as a fiduciary for the public. An architect implies licensing in the publics eye. To call someone “architect” implies that they are fully capable to provide architectural services and if you are not licensed, the capacity is now in question. The license certifies that one is capable of performing services and by law within rights to act as a fiduciary. To imply that an intern architect is within right to act as a fiduciary for the public is reasonable only when they are supervised by a licensed architect. Therefore an “ARCHITECT” is in the supervisory position. Too many individuals have professional degrees but not enough experience or thorough knowledge to be considered a true architect.

This debate may continue for much longer due to the nature of the subject being so overlapping. One can somewhat argue the subject both ways and still not result in a clear cut definitive answer. The best precaution at that point would be to protect the public which is why there is a professional license in the first place. Being an Intern myself, I await the day when I can be proud of completing all of the architectural registration exams. On that day, I will be proud to call myself architect in the truest sense. Until then, I am an architect practicing under a licensed architect; therefore my title is INTERN ARCHITECT.

I think the only real solution, as others have expressed, is to further expand the title of 'Architect' to include a 'Professional Architect' or 'Registered Architect' category for those who are licensed and at least allow graduates of professionally accredited architectural degree programs bear the title of 'architect' they have worked hard to acheive. After all, an engineer receives that title upon graduation and I don't see the public being too concerned that there are too many engineers running around. As a profession we need to focus on expanding our role in the public's eye and not diminishing it based on our own insecurities. With that expanded role, however, comes a duty to educate the public about what an architect does and how an 'architect' is different from a 'licensed or registered architect'. How many times have you heard someone refer to an architect as a person who builds buildings? And here we are arguing about how the public MIGHT perceive us if we revise our titles? Lets put our insecurities aside and increase the role of the architect in the community through education and inclusiveness.

After going thru' 5 or 6 years of architectural education thru' an accredited program, it is really disheartening to folks to get a title as intern. I agree with few other earlier comments, we should do the same as other professions and
call them; architects and upon licencing - registered architect.

Our profession could be more effective in educating the public about the title of Architect alone.

In many cases, it seems a plumber's expertise is better understood (and therefore carries more weight in specific situations) by most outside the building industry.

The above discussions are relevant only to the profession 'intern'ally (Sorry, I couldn't resist).

I could use a few more titles to ambiguously describe myself.

I agree that using the term "intern" does not place the proper value on pre-licensed individuals and what they bring to the profession of architecture. Intern carries a stigma of being green, juvenile, etc. A change must be made.

On the other hand, the change must not create an opportunity for un-licensed people to fraudelently sell themselves as architects thus putting the public at risk. Calling an intern an "architect" (then "registered architect" after passing the exams) leaves the door open for individuals who have no intention of becoming registered to loosely throw the term architect around and sell themselves as such. The general public would not know the distinction between "architect" and "registered architect". When a layperson hears the term "architect" they automatically assume that person is fully qualified to practice architecture and has the credentials to back it up.

Our firm uses the term "graduate architect" to title people who have not passed the exams. This term is helpful in two ways, it indicates to the client/public that this person has graduated from a college of architecture thus indicating qualifications. Second, it is a not-so-common term that the general public is not familiar with which will raise the question of their license status without applying the stigma of an unqualified intern.

The simple, one-word term "architect" should be only used by people who have a degree in architecture, have completed IDP, and have passed all 9 of the exams. All other uses and play on words will only cause confusion within the public realm.

Rememeber that the title "Architect" is legislated by 50 states and a few more territories and the District of Columbia. Any change, such as "Professional Architect" will require that all 50 plus states revise their current laws. That is extremely unlikely, so if we start down this path and some states change and others don't the confusion will be endless. Changing the name of interns is possible but realistically changing the legal use of the title "Architect" is impossible

Great Discussion.

The term "intern" itself creates quite a problem from a Human Resourses standpoint. An intern in our office usualy would be a high school student who is job shadowing or a college freshmen or sophomore who is co-oping for the summer, etc. Many people at our firm who have recieved a graduate degree are not licenced yet, but do hold critical positions within the firm such as Lead Designer, Managing Designer, Design Development Coordinator, etc. I was fortunate enough to be involved with our company's business plan and had a chance to define my position and title. Intern Architect was discussed, but it caused too much confusion with our clients and HR as a 6 year employee.

I agree with many of the licesned architects who have responded to the blog. Architect should not be watered down or abused. It does not help. A term as suggested like AIT or Appretice Architect may be useful. What about those of us who have recieved an undergraduate degree or graduate degree that do not pursue licensure. Are they Intern Architects for life if they stay in the architecture field?

The long and the short of it is, in NCARB's eyes, you're an intern architect. It's a classification for someone pursuing licensure. It's not your job title. Whatever professional way you decide to handle your title is up to you and your firm as long as it does not cross the line. If as a whole we can come up with a term that is more applicable to the level of education for those of us who are pursuing licensure, then more power to us, and I'm sure many firms would adopt it as a job title.

Salvatore A. Moschelli, Assoc. AIA
Design Development Coordinator
 
Dominick Tringali Architects
 
Tel. 248 335 8888 Fax 248 335 0944
www.DTArchitects.com

I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I was an "intern" for nearly 14 years. That is until I discovered that once I completed the IDP internship, I couldn't legally call myself an intern anymore either! I was truly "nobody" at that point, despite working in the field twenty years. I've wondered if "EP" would be a better term, short for "Emerging Professional", since it is similar to EIT? Perhaps we could also get rid of "AIA Associate" as well? Replace it with AIA EP? With so many terms floating around in our profession, the public is totally confused.

"Associate Architect" would be the appropriate title considering the fact that AIA allows unlicensed individuals to be "Associate AIA" members.
The second best title should be "Professional Architect" if a person works full time in the practice of a professional architectural firm. Intern truly denotes smaller and inexperienced in the eyes of the public. We work too hard practicing everyday to be labeled as less than what we are (license or no license).

"Associate Architect" would be the appropriate title considering the fact that AIA allows unlicensed individuals to be "Associate AIA" members.
The second best title should be "Professional Architect" if a person works full time in the practice of a professional architectural firm. Intern truly denotes smaller and inexperienced in the eyes of the public. We work too hard practicing everyday to be labeled as less than what we are (license or no license).

David--
Put in your time and your work, and don't be a cry-baby about your title. We need to protect the title of Architect for those who have become licensed--that is the threshold. It is a tough job and it is difficult to get to the finish line, but you will if you've got what it takes.

Words are important and the public's perception of the profession is fragile. We should be thinking of ways to boost their opinion of our contribution--that's our real public relations challange. We won't do that by watering down our standards.

Intern is passe. Something new needs to be used. Architect is only for those who have become licensed. I prefer Apprentice Architect for those who have not passed the registration exam.

When I was a few years out of school, I used to roll my eyes when I was told I couldn't call myself an architect until I was licensed.

Now that I'm licensed, I notice when unlicensed "intern" architects call themselves architects (or others call them architects). For people in this profession who have a lot of experience, it seems ok. But for someone with little experience, and with a professional degree, it doesn't quite seem right.

Perhaps it's because I feel that many architecture schools don't adequately prepare someone for the many (sometimes mundane) realities of the profession. I mean, can architecture students, when they graduate, know all the ins and outs of taking a project from start to finish? I'm licensed with 9 years of experience and I'm still learning new things at work everyday.

Experience and internship are key. Architecture schools that require internship at an architecture firm (or under a practicing architect) as part of the curriculum for a professional degree have the right idea. In my opinion, more architecture schools should follow suit. Medical schools require internship and for their students to pass part of their boards to earn their MD--hence, students can call themselves doctors upon graduation. I believe they also distinguish interning students from MD's on the job with short white coat vs. long white coat.

I'd propose this naming convention for architecture professionals:

First 3-4 years of experience: Intern Architect. After completion of IDP: Architect. After passing the exams and registering w/ the state: Registered Architect.

It should be much easier for an architect who's licensed in another country to become licensed here. Of course, there are many professionals who don't bother with IDP (fees, paperwork etc)--where do they fall in all of this? Perhaps another discussion for another day.

Will we start to see undergrads starting to ask if they can use "Bachelor of.." or "Apprentice Architect" because the work/contribution they provide as students is not all that different in the first year than in their final year? How about a title for those that have graduated with a professional degree: "Apprentice Architect".
And for those who have been out of school for 4+ years: "Architectural School Graduates who have not yet completed IDP or made the commitment to pass the ARE like those who did and have earned the title, assets and liabilities of those with title Architect"
Advice to the emerging professionals: Time flies when you are having fun. Focus, smile and enjoy the dance.

I agree intern may not be an accurate term for what architects do. When I worked in a firm after school it was called an apprenticeship. It may sound "old timey" as one person commented, but I was proud of the tradition that dated back to the masonic and mideival guild traditions. This title reflects one's learning on the job rather than just out of books. A professional apprenticeship was a term that my friends understood and respected, as did the trades in the field.

When studying architecture and working to attain a NAAB accredited degree you are an "Architecture Student." Once you graduate with your NAAB accredited degree, begin working in an architecture firm, and begin IDP then you become an "Architectural Intern." Finally, once you complete your internship AND successfully complete the ARE you are a "Licensed Architect." I do not understand why that is so hard for people to understand. Perhaps it is because the profession of architecture is the least appreciated and understood of all professions and the public needs to be educated as to who we are and what we do. So I suggest that instead of all architects spending their time and energy arguing with each other over titles that we instead focus on helping those outside of the profession understand what it is to be an architect. The prof