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 professions of law and medicine have many television shows, books and movies that portray their profession to the public. But what do we have? Keep using the term "Architect" to describe yourself to those outside of the profession, whether you are licensed or not, but be sure to explain to them the many intricacies of our profession and how important the term "Architect" really is.

Personally, I don't subscribe to a system of naming different classifications using the word "architect." The risk to the public is real...many unlicensed individuals are practicing under confusing titles such as "architectural designer" and "buiding designer." Many other professions have co-opted this title as well (e.g. "network architects"). This already has damaged and diluted the profession.

We need to keep things simple. Our clients also deserve a fair representation of the credentials of the people working on their project. Anything else would only add to their confusion.

I don't see why the term "intern" is so demeaning (afterall we have to complete the "Intern" Development Program). I was never ashamed of my intern status. However, we can certainly entertain different job titles if "intern" raises a client's eyebrows on an invoice. This is provided that in no case the word "architect" is used in the job title of an unlicensed person. For simplicity, there should only be one kind of architect- a licensed one.

It wasn't a surprise to me when i graduated that my 'title' in terms of the professional registration process was 'intern'. I worked in offices and had typical 'titles' like draftsman, job captain, project manager, associate principal, vice president, and now principal. If i was asked, "Are you an architect?" I would take the time to clarify the term, most often replying, "No, I'm not registered." Not that hard to do really. I certainly did not refer to myself as an architect, partially out of respect for the registered architects i worked for, also in recognition that in my state, Arizona, using that term requires haveing become registered, completeing that process. It wasn't such a bad goal to have. In addition, I have reported to the State Board on a couple occasions what i considered blatant mis-use of the term, per the state regulations. Recently i brought that distinction to an artist acquaintance, basically informing her of the law, and directing her to the statutes online, and advising her to make up her own mind, and weigh the penalities. I don't have a problem with any preface that provides clarity, 'apprentice or intern' it's irrelavant to me. I simply encourage them to get licensed. I absolutely agree that confusing the public image of 'architects' as registered professionals is a very bad idea. And yes, I'm aware of how the term 'architect' is applied in other countries.

As anyone who attended a school co-located with a law school knows, lawyers can take their exam (what, only one?) immediately upon graduation and are thus "lawyers."

Great. More lawyers.

Furthermore, a critical look at the content of the ARE would tend to suggest that the exam that entitles us the term "architect" doesn't do much to guarantee that we are capable of architecture. "Building Safety Engineer" might be a better moniker for someone capable of passing the nine sections of the exam. If the industry doesn't want to call me an architect for a few years until I pass the tests (which I will) that's fine. Just don't pretend that passing them actually makes me an architect. I'll stick with Le Corbusier's definition of architecture:

"the conscious, correct, and magnificent interplay of volumes assembled under light.”

The ARE is, however, a necessary portion of our training and one that tests our ability to "assemble."

So, for now, accept the term "intern," realize that everyone thinks you are responsible for making the coffee (which you may be, but only because you've been up all night) and use it as additional motivation to pass your exams.

I like this idea by Ana Gordan:

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

I struggle a bit with this topic because I have competed IDP, I am taking the ARE, but I no longer work in a traditional firm. I don't have direct supervision by an architect so I am not apprenticing under anyone. Everyone in my office sees me as an architect, I do make the distinction that there are certain things I can't do because I am not licensed yet.

I believe that the term Architect should be reserved for those who are licensed. However, I do understand that Interns need to have their position more clearly stated. Perhaps one of the following titles would be more appropriate: "Intern Architect, Apprentice Architect, Architectural Designer, or Architectural Draftsman". If you can call yourself an Architect while you are an intern, why bother with the ARE?
During my internship, I was very happy to call myself an Architectural Draftsman, or later as I learned more, an Architectural Designer. Since I completed my ARE fourteen years ago, I have called myself an Architect, and I'm darn proud of it. It was worth the wait.
Part of being an Intern is looking forward to the day when you can truly call yourself an Architect.

Wow, this was a lively discussion... Can we next talk about how the current ARE is a joke for licensure?

If I took anyone off the street, and let them study only one section for two months, then let them take the test, I would be suprised if in the span of a couple years they wouldn't have their architecture license too.

I agree that the term Architect should be used only by those who have become registered. However, I have many friends in the Civil Engineering field and they use the term "EIT", Engineer in Training, when describing a professional who is not licensed. Why is this so complicated when discussing Architecture. What about "AIT" Architect in Training? It defines the person's career, yet let's the public know they are not registered.

Seems simple to me!

Although I am striving towards registration and deplore the debasing title of "intern", I still believe only registered-licensed architects should wear the professional banner. If not, what stops a person from using letters behind their names like M.D., Esq., CPA, etc.

This "intern" title blatantly reminds me to keep up with my IDP hours to become registered and strive toward licensure, so I can also join that elite group of people called "professionals".

Lawyers are law clerks or paralegals, until they get their bar card. Doctors are residents(grunts) until they complete their residency. "Intern architect" is not such a bad title. Passing the exam and being granted a license should confer something of importance and value.

As stated in previous comments a possible focus of this issue is a clear distinction of what the post-graduate/pre-registered individual should be called. They are not interns in the common everyday use (summer jobs) and they are not Architects (having passed the A.R.E)...so what are they???

It is not appropriate to call someone with 7 year experience and 4 exams passed an "Intern".

Nor is it appropriate to call someone with 2 years experience (one full year and four summer internships) an "Architect".

Maybe the solution are categories of experience (Arch I = 1-3 years, Arch II = 3-5 year...etc) or maybe a modifier of Graduate, Junior or Associate Architect to indicate their sub-Registration status.

The overarching focus of this obviously long overdue discussion should not be augmenting the well-earned title of "Architect", and should be the creation of a title well suited for individual pursuing the A.R.E.

Telling someone “I’m an Associate Architect with 5 years experience” works in any professional and non-professional conversation.

Do you ask your physician if he/she is a Doctor or a Licensed Doctor - of course not. The general public will likely not perceive a distinction btw Architect and Licensed/Registered Architect if the former term is allowed to represent an "Intern".

I agree with Mr. Joseph Mello an "Architect in Training" is what I was until I passed my licensing exam why degrade the proffession more by watering down the title.

It is bad enough to have people who are Building Designers, and Engineers fishing our pond for clients, cutting fees and generally creating a terrible built environment.

From someone who has a M.Arch and has chosen to take the exam later than most, the terminology bothered me at first. I've heard people call themselves architects who don't even have architectural degrees. I agree with some that the title should describe the job description, after all not all registrants are stamping documents. The reality is it truly takes dedication and years of "on the job training" to acquire the breadth of knowledge and skill to perform the duties of a legally and ethically responsible architect. Acquiring the education, passing the ARE doesn't make you an architect, it earns you the right to become one.

The word Intern is fine, leave it like it is. It shows how much we value the profession and the importance of the learning that is still going on beyond school. There is so much to learn about the profession of architecture since it is so detailed and complex that we should let everyone know that learning continues beyond school.

It is about time. I can not express the disappointed look I have seen in a clients eyes when I have legally had to tell them I am an "intern". I can tell Monica is the mental picture there. Professionally this just makes the firm look like they are dumping the their job off, no matter the experience of the "intern". I know there should be a declaration as to who is registered vs. who is not. "Resident" Doctors seem to have found a non belittling term. CPAs have added some terms to delineate between someone who is licensed and someone who is not. I do not know the answer, I am just glad there is some discussion on this issue and those at the top are not arrogantly letting things go on just because they always have.

I think much of the problem lies in the culture of the office. Much of my disappointment with the title "intern" is the liberties that are taken with employees that are title "by law" an intern. Many times I hear "just get an intern to do it", or "that is an intern's job". I think this goes to the heart of what the article was talking about. Many employees contribute greatly to the success of the firm and the profession both in the professional realm and the public realm.
I understand the legal ramifications of using the term "Architect" inappropriately and I don't advocate calling interns architects, but there needs to be something to distinguish and intern with experience form one that doesn't, at least in the office culture. This allows the intern with experience to gain and acquire the respect they deserve.

There is no shame in being an intern in the architectural profession. Being an intern shows people you are taking the necessary steps to achieve more in your chosen profession. While I understand providing an explanation on what an intern is can rain on an intern's parade, most people I've spoken to admire that I would go to such measures to become a licensed architect. Architecture and becoming an architect is a craft and should require training, study, and continuing education to validate our status as professionals.

As for alternatives to the label intern; apprentice architect or architect in training are very sutible for those who are concerned about their egos; however, I would agree with the sentiments of several other bloggers that lessening the title of architect is not required nor should it be entertained for the sake of those yet to pass the ARE.

Engineers and Architectural Engineers no longer use the term EIT for the same reason, it is confusing. They can use the title 'Engineer' by simply graduating with an engineering degree, and not having to pass the FE or Fundamentals exam (must pass before they can sit for the PE test) which it is my understanding they where considered EIT's after passing the FE in the past. Just as they use 'PE' in their title to designate their registration status, would not the 'AIA' or 'RA' as we currently designate it not identify registered persons?, and that the term 'architect' be used for individuals that have graduated from an Accredited program. Seriously, the term 'architect' is used by about every industry and person who 'plans' something to be built/assembled, regardless if it is a building or not and maybe that’s more justification for designations to identify the licensed professionals than Intern Architects/Graduates?

I think the real issue here is what to call a young professional who has completed their IDP requirements, but is in the transition phase of taking the exam. The public connotation of the title Architect presumes licensure and experience. A recent graduate is an Architectural Intern or Apprentice. After some level of experience is obtained before licensure, it is appropriate for that person's title to be adjusted to more accurately reflect their position and duties within the firm (Designer, Project Manager, Job Captain, Project Coordinator, etc.). Once I had completed my IDP and received my certificate from NCARB, I no longer referred to myself as Intern or Apprentice. Those whom are seeking an identifier following their name should also consider joining the AIA as an associate member and list as Assoc. AIA. This can be very helpful with regard to client contact.

I liked the transition from "intern" to "architect". It made the journey getting to that point that much more exciting and rewarding! Besides, who cares what your title is...just do good work and everyone around you including your clients will realize your talents and potential.

There have been several posts regarding using the term “Apprentice” in lieu of “Intern.” I strongly oppose the use of the term Apprentice because it embodies the connotation of indentured servitude. (Refer to definition from Merriam-Webster below.) It also implies that the person is “inexperienced”, which does not apply to persons that have completed IDP and are currently testing. Plus, just by passing the A.R.E. doesn’t mean one is experienced. Apprentice does not suitably fit the title of one on the path to registration.

I agree with several posts that there are serious under current problems within the profession and that creating a new title will not solve these issues. Though, beginning to document and talk about titling is a good step; I think the deeper issues need to be discussed first, documented, and a plan of action created. The under current issues that will be exposed will help determine an appropriate title(s). Until these issues are exposed; a new title will only act as a superficial band-aid covering an infected wound.

Apprentice
1 a : one bound by indenture to serve another for a prescribed period with a view to learning an art or trade b : one who is learning by practical experience under skilled workers a trade, art, or calling
2 : an inexperienced person : NOVICE

If the AIA has only just come to recognize the wide middle ground of unlicensed Architects, why is it so hard for the rest of you? Or does it put your nose out of joint, that one of us running around w/out a "license" might be dragging the profession down? Ever stop to consider some of us have a hard time taking those ARE tests? And for the righteous few who are able to take it and pass it immeadiately, how does this make you any better than those of us w/out a license and YEARS of experience, not just the minimum 3 required to start taking the tests. It's minimal competancy as required by your state, it's not a magic wand that grants you all sorts of knowledge. Knowledge comes w/ experience, years of experience, not just books.

And for those of you who think the ARE is a cakewalk, walk a mile in my shoes. You would be hard-pressed to pick any Joe Public up from the street and get him to just "take the test". Get off of your pedestal. The tests are generally stupid and I hate them. Necessary evil though they are in order for me to pass this chapter of my life and move on to a more productive, less petty career. It also amazes me how individuals will not share the study materials they were given themselves, how the whole NCARB/ARE testing system is so twisted in its question, and lack of proper study materials, and don't lets get started on the fact that it's virtually impossible to look at a failed exam, know by how much, or even a better system of what was screwed up. You want to throw other professions up against ours? They can look at their failed exams, no "veil of secrecy", they encourage one another and share materials, as well as have valid sources of materials, not just dependant on a "victim's" memory as he is leaving the test center. Not only that but they dont constantly try to undercut up-and coming professionals by inventing stupid test questions that a google search on the internet will find ONE company that even uses that procedure. Those other professions also pay more while we here sit back on the title alone as "prestige", are we idiots? I can honestly say that if I had known about the "Secret Society" that is Architecture while in school, I would have headed for a saner, more prosperous career. So make the tests as difficult as possible, do your best to keep as many people down as you can, it's only the future of Architecture. You "professionals" had to eventually pay the interns, the piper will always be paid. Keep digging that hole, and arguing about the petty semantics, so long as it keeps you distracted from the real problems.

We have nothing but our names on our business cards. I was titled LEED Technician in our proposal material. In China, all interns are called Architect. Licensed architect is called Licensed Architect, which is classified by three levels.

I agree that the term Intern is a misleading job title and that maybe Apprentice is more appropriate. However, if you want to be called an Architect then spend the time and pass the exams.

I don't think it matters if one already does the same job as a licensed Architect on a daily basis. If that's the job title you want, then complete the requirements like everyone else has done. We are all told what these requirements are early on in our careers, so one should either commit to fulfilling these requirements or accept that he or she is not an Architect yet.

Regardless of your opinion of the quality or legitimacy of the exams themselves, everyone takes the same exams - no one is given an advantage over anyone else. So when you finally pass the exams, the title of Architect is your reward and is a reminder to everyone else that you have fulfilled ALL of the requirements that this profession has clearly defined.

Kevin J.
Architect

The firm that I work for rid itself of the title of "intern" and replaced it with "senior staff" and "designer." The firm reconizes the importantance of the title Architect, and hence, made it requirement to be licensed for an individual to move on to the traditional title of "Associate" within the firm. I think "designer" is more appropriate than "intern" given that the individual probably has a professional degree and working towards completing IDP and become licensed. They should be celebrated given the large task of completing a degree in architecture and working hard afterwards to become licensed, and a term such as intern just does not reflect that hard work.

If the ARE test really measures one's ability to safely practice architecture, then it should be the sole source of one becoming an "Architect". That being said, you should be able to take the test whenever, without prerequisite. Since an ability to pass the test is tantamount to an ability to responsibly practice architecture.
If the test doesn't adequately measure ones ability to practice architecture, then why do we set it as the benchmark? The real problem of proper title has more to do with the limitations of actually defining a reasonable benchmark of ones ability to safely practice architecture, not just the implied meaning of a term.

The public is already horrifically mis-informed as to what an Architect is and does. I have encountered an alarming number of people who honestly think that all you have to do to be an "architect" is to take a few drafting courses at a local community college or draft up some house plans for your uncle. We do not need to further the confusion and foster ignorance by attributing this hard-earned, highly specialized title to those who feel badly about not having yet passed the exam themselves. Nobody is confused about what distinguishes doctors and lawyers from those who aren't. Why should our profession be any different? Just study hard and pass those divisions one at a time! Also, let me just say that I strongly agree w/ Em. The test really has some ridiculously useless questions that are NOT in the study material and which you do not encounter at work. And the computerized graphic portions of the exam are ludicrously irrelevant to real life as an Architect.

There is nothing like starting your own practice to give full perspective on the hard won title of Architect. My first employer referred to the title as the "right to be sued".

Lately, I have begun to contemplate deeply the meaning of what Architects are bound to do by the state: "protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public." If it had not been so difficult to get the title, constant client pressure to break the law/code, or contractor errors, with "aw, it'll be alright" might be easier to cave in to. No client is worth the risk of losing the license, and this is good. It is our job to keep the occupants of buildings out of harm's way (sometimes despite themselves) in one of the safest built nations in the world.

All kinds of things can happen on jobs, and in the safety of an established firm (internship), you are more likely to have good clients and know all your contractors. Gaining the "minimum competency" is great, but the test experience should also help you understand what you DON'T know. Finding mentors with more experience in the profession is a way to help with the rough patches, even if only for commiseration.

The past couple of months I have been grateful that the journey to "Architect" was not easy; it makes the road ahead easier to navigate.

To me the term 'architect' does NOT in our current society imply professional practice/experience that it used to. Has anyone gone on Google lately and typed in architect???? You will get one, maybe two pages of pertinent sites that relate to architects or architecture as we know it, but the rest of the results pertain to Information architects, infrastructure architects, software architects. These people also openly call themselves architects with no distinction until you read further in the site to determine what they actually do for a living. I know this is a separate issue, but why do we care if the poor 'interns' (that have already slaved away for 5 years just to get their BArch) call themselves architects when there are a millions of other people running around calling themselves the same thing? I have one more exam to go until I get my license. When I do, my title will be "REGISTERED ARCHITECT" or "RA". Not "architect", because who knows, I could be designing the next email client instead of the next residential house.

Ditto with Andrew Labov.

Plus legally I had always heard you could not call yourself an Architect until you are licensed/Registered.

I have moved to florida and there are alot of people who call and practice architecture that are not licensed on there own. Example the "Architect" who got the job to build the Tampa Bay Art Museum. That's florida, alot of wanna bees....

Lisa

As Chris B states - this is a wonderful discussion, and I encourage it to continue by adding the following food for thought:

From Merrrian-Webster
Main Entry: ar•chi•tect
Pronunciation: 'är-k&-"tekt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French architecte, from Latin architectus, from Greek architektOn master builder, from archi- + tektOn builder, carpenter -- more at TECHNICAL

1 : a person who designs buildings and advises in their construction

2 : a person who designs and guides a plan or undertaking

One of the most mentioned books within the profession at various conclaves over the last year was Thomas L. Friedman’s, “The World is Flat.” And while some would argue that Christopher Columbus would disagree, we have to consider what opportunities Globalization opens up to the profession of architecture.

Why then, are we one of the few counties that does not allow our graduates from accredited schools to be called Architect? What does that say about our colleges and universities?

As a profession, we are too late to protect the title of “architect.” It is used throughout the computer industry, by strategists, and even within some branches of the government. One could be called an “Architect of War,” before being able to call themselves an Architect within the building profession.

The general perception of the word Architect, does not link the title of Architect with the “Health, Safety, and Welfare” that the profession knows it to be. A child who wants to grow-up to protect the “Health, Safety, and Welfare” of the public becomes a police officer, not an architect.

How often does any architect respond to the question, “Why did you become an architect?” with “To protect the Health Safety and Welfare of the Public.”

Rather, an augmentation of the word Architect is suggested (as in previous posts), such as Registered Architect or Licensed Architect. After all, no one has their Architect #, but they do have their License or Registration #. The augmentation of the word is indicative of the process it took to earn one’s registration or license.

There is an interest within the profession to help the public understand that Architects, have much more to offer than being an expensive designer of buildings. We look to create livable communities, healthier lifestyles, creative workspaces, sustainable buildings and are amazing collaborators.

We have a workforce of recent graduates from accredited programs leaving the profession to use their skills as consultants, video game programmers, graphic designers, work in cinema, analysis, etc… Would not the ability to call all of these graduates from professional programs “architects” let the general public become more aware of all the talent and resources an architect is capable of?

We are a shrinking profession, only to those who believe that due to the IDP and ARE process we are lazy, and procrastinate, and do not take the time to get licensed. (Although admittedly it is tedious processes having almost complete it.)

We are a tremendous growing profession, to those who understand the extent of the new opportunities for recent graduates to the profession the economy has to offer.

I would argue that we are not lazy procrastinators, rather entrepreneurial and creative individuals. Remember, graduation rates from accredited degree programs are not shrinking, only the architectural workforce.

So the real question is, does this profession continue to diminish by only allowing those who are licensed to call themselves architects, or do we accept that we have become invaluable resources in many areas, are growing, and acknowledge these individuals as graduates of architectural degree programs and call them architects?

I am a licensed Architect. I'm damned proud of it. I also feel that Doctors and Lawyers are called doctor and lawyers before gaining the experience that would make them good physicians and attorneys. Architects will never garner the respect of the public as doctors and lawyers have simply because we have not been organized. Frankly, professional naming is a non-issue. You don't see doctors saying that PhD students can't be called doctors, just like you don't see some uptight bag of wrinkles in law accusing a recent graduate who JUST passed the BAR of not being worthy of his coveted title of Lawyer. Experience levels in architecture are inconsistent, and the current standard is simply not cutting it because there are entirely too many middle-aged interns who can't seem to get some grey-haired narcissists to shift the requirements of licensure to be consistent with requirements of possessing a well-earned title. Law students go to three years of law school and pass the Bar. They are Lawyers. Doctors attend 3-4 years of medical school (depending on whether their 4th year of undergraduate becomes their first year of medical school), and are qualified to pass an examination which allows them to be called doctors. Architects attend 1-2 years of a professional program, and have to work 3+ years, be called 'interns' and still may take double that to even qualify for the examination. Trust me folks, doctors and lawyers have complex professions too, so while the gatekeepers of licensure are stroking their elder egos by overcomplicating the process, doctors and lawyers are walking around with more money AND the tile, and comfortably completing their internship requirements. Architects in this country have proven to the public that we are in fact simple-minded and unfocused on professional excellence versus title appropriation. Look it up on the US Dept of Labor Website.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos053.htm

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos074.htm#training

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos038.htm#training

We are far behind the mark, and that's why our next generation of Architecture school graduates turn their backs on licensure and pursue non-traditional, better paying career paths and leave us with no interns...who should really be allowed to take the ARE upon graduation and be called ARCHITECTS during their internship (or residency).

The profession is suffering because of ignorant, prideful, and childish attempts to motivate the public on the sole basis of title. If doctors and lawyers can agree on an examination that will qualify its candidates to be worthy of that tile, Architects can surely get over their LACK of intellectualism and figure out a way to stop demoralizing its future professionals and allow them equal access to licensure and title.

Oh, and the "title" of my previous post would be "LET THEM TAKE THE EXAM".

Frankly, it was easy as pie, I passed them all the first time-- in 4 months while nursing a newborn and working fulltime. Neither did I draw on my experience nor did it TEACH ME ANYTHING about being an Architect. Lets put the ARE to the test, and let the new graduates take it. They'll probably have higher scores because of information retention from their curriculum versus anything they'll learn in the field. The AIA & NCARB are pathetic and antiquated. We need new breath and less ego. There should be no such THING as an intern after earning a professional degree. LET THEM SIT FOR THE EXAM THEN CALL THEM ARCHITECTS.

--End of Rant.

My card read “Architectural and Engineering Consultant.” The Architectural firm I worked with had no problem with this.
I happened to over shine a leading Engineer at a meeting, and he contacted my Licenses board.
It cost me $1000 in fines from my board here in Pa. It was also picked up picked up and published in two local News Papers, how embarrassing.
This was nothing compare to the harsh discipline action of the Society of Professional Engineers I was fined an additional $1500.00, the Structural Engineer I used to design and stamp the project was fined and had nearly lost his position in the firm
Could we fight it, sure $20,000 up front, and if the case is lost well it could get nasty.
I worked for 24 years for the same Architectural firm. They turned a blind eye to my problem.
Up to now I have passed all my Divisions with the exception of GS.
Pennsylvania. now imposes there own rolling clock status, which started in 2002/2007 this allows me one more test by the end of January 2007.
If I fail that all my previously pass divisions are thrown out and I have to take all the divisions over again.
So I am hitting the books and praying a lot.
Young unlicensed architect’s best to call your self Project Manager. No client with a multi million dollar project ever wants to be talking with a god forbid intern.

My two cents worth is this...many boards of registration won't allow the term "architect" to be used at all in a title without a license. Sorry all those "intern architects and graduate architects" I believe someone brought up the medical profession using the term "resident." This is the closest "idea" to what we are as it relates to the architecture profession. Would it be so bad if we adopted a similiar terminology? We can all wear black coats if it will make you feel better.

Nonetheless, I don't want to see the terminology change to "architect" and "licensed architect." Where we are in the business of details, the public is not. This can easily lead to mis-representations in our profession as anyone with a degree can profess to be an architect without a license. In turn, weakening our visibility and marketability to the world. Why pay for the real thing when i can get the imitation cheaper? Not good. I am all for working for the title by doing the time. We all knew this was part of the package as we embarked on this journey. So do not pass go and collect $200. Go get licensed if you want the title so badly. The time has come to follow through with what we all set out to do!

People in my company always refer to me as an architect and i always politely remind them, even in front of clients, that i am not an architect, just an intern waiting to take my exam. I have always felt that the title of architect is earned. Yes we have all suffered through school and felt that we should get more pay and a better title than just intern for what we went through. But, that is what it is. If you are out there to seek titles to place on a business card or behind your name then you are not in architecture for the right reasons. Be known for what you do and how you make the world a better place and not for titles. Titles are just that, they speak nothing of what you can or have done. I will continue to refer to myself as an intern until i pass the exam, then i will proudly state that i am an architect. Until then i will do what is right for my fellow man.

As a recent graduate from an accredited Masters Program I find that the title "intern architect" is a disadvantage to the young professional. As many others have stated "intern" typically applies to someone who is completing their schooling, not someone who has completed schooling and is on a professional career track.

I do not believe that these individuals, myself included, should be given the title of "Architect" but rather "Junior Architect" or something that implies apprenticeship .

The title "Architect" should be reserved for licensed individuals as it has been for years, I believe it would be much easier to transition from the title "intern architect" to "junior architect". This will allow for recent graduates to get the respect they deserve without deceiving the public.

I hate having Intern Architect on my business cards. Our clients always ask me what college I am attending... I graduated 5 years ago. I'd like to ask my firm to just leave off the title under my name but, I don't know how to ask.
I think part of the solution might be to think of ways to educate the public on what it takes to be a licensed architect.

Here in our local AIA chapter we refer to our not-yet-licensed architects as EA's - Emerging Architects. I also like the term "Graduate Architect" since it implies that the person has a degree but is not yet licensed.

Wow, what an exploration into insignificance. Someone has entirely too much time available for carping over titles. Whether one is or is not an architect is not a question to be answered from withing some gray zone of subtile shades of meaning. There are state laws that can settle this question quite easily. As far as what one is called who may still be in architectual school or is a graduate as yet unlicensed, how about Intern I and Intern II? If one is interested in having a bit of fun, do a Google search on "architect" and see if you can decide what an architect really does.

I like "Intern Architect"..
It makes perfect sense, doesn't it?!

There is truly a level of confusion in the public’s eye when a person who holds a bachelors or masters in architecture tells them they are an Intern Architect. Generally the term intern is used in reference to someone who is still within a registered academic institution. I find the term junior architect is a much more suitable term. After licensure the person can then say they are an architect, and maybe after 50 years of critique by his/her pairs, master architect. By the way I find that doctors do not have the same problem.

I am a woman, in my 40's, just beginning in the profession and I think I have a very mature perspective, which I would like to share.
I wish to communicate my job title and the skill in which I have been trained, clearly and succintly.
I have a masters in architecture.. and every day when I go to work I practice ARCHITECTURE. ....That is what I do, that is what I am educated to do and no one can convince me otherwise. I have come to believe that there is an absolutely profound lack of respect in our profession. It obviously begins from within after reading some harsh comments on this subject by registered architects. Those registered architects should value the education and the hard work of the unregistered architect. If you don't, then our ranks will continue to be very unhappy.. Do not keep down the next generation of registered architects. We are already underpaid, undervalued and underappreciated..We are required to attend college for an additional year in order to be able to become registered.. Masters programs are double the amount of credits of a usual masters program.. Our education is intense. We have to sit for 9 exams! What other profession required that many exams.. Then we get out of school and earn under $30K a year. Let us begin to have a respectable title so we can communicate our positions to our clients and our community without having to go into an entire diatribe..
I agree with one writer.. There should be "architect" and "registered architect".. just like the term "nurse" and RN or "registered nurse". They have a profound amount of responsibility also..yet their job titles are communicated clearly.
NCARB and the AIA have a responsibility to protect ALL of us.. not just the registered....No one can justfy treating the unregistered architect with disrespect just to say that you must earn the right to use the word "architect" to describe what you do all day.. This is a subject which must be resolved very soon..

I earned my MArch in 1995 at the University of Michigan. Unlike many students, I worked 30 hours per week while in undergrad and grad school. I had to inspite of the colleges rules against Architecture undergrads working. I was an older student, which also influenced my perceptions of how the 'Intern'(IDP) program operated.

It has been my experience that 'Intern' is purely academic. The educational system pushes it yet the only direct participation of the firms I worked for was in offering lower wages for 'Interns' than for entry level (zero to minimal experience)Architects, as well as keeping the duties limited to drafting, now CAD. Keep in mind that an Architect with no experience cannot be a licensed Architect.

Another important aspect of the profession was that 'Interns' were also paid much less than two-year degreed CAD drafters, and many times placed in a subordinate position to the CAD drafter.

The additional experiences needed for licensure were left up to the individual
'Intern' to gain even if it meant moving from firm to firm frequently.

I also found that many smaller firms refused to employ 'Interns' as they "...did not want to help potential competitors reach their goal of licensure."

With a MArch degree, a BS in Architecture, and two associate degrees, I worked too hard for my education and borrowed too much money to finish it. I consider myself an Architect, although not yet a Licensed Architect.

Another problem I found with Architecture firms utilization of 'Interns' was their pension plans. It never being their intent to keep 'Interns' very long, they were, however, a good source for accumulating more money in the company pension plan than the principals were allowed by law to contribute on their own. The firms would match or sometimes double the amount that their temporary 'Interns' contributed, vast sums being accumulated. A contributing employee had to work for the firm for several years to become invested (5-10 years before allowing the withdrawal of money contributed on their behalf, percent based on years) and with the rapid turn around of 'Interns' the amount contibuted by the firm on behalf of the 'Interns' remained in the kitty which would be available to the principals in the future. Often there were non-Architect 'investors' which were in bed with the firm and would eventually profit from these pension funds. We were warned of this type of activity in our Pro-practise classes.

As for the profession of Architecture and the respect and treatment of 'Interns' in this industry I think it can be illustrated by a phrase passed around in the School of Architecture,
..."Architects devour their young."

Good luck to all of us 'Interns' and remember, the law states we cannot stamp or draw commercial construction documents on our own without a license. It does not state that we cannot design any building and hire licensed professionals to complete the legal documents. Developers do it every day.

Wow, this topic has caused some stir in our community huh? I am an architect from India and been pursuing to get my license here(am a Job Captain here), am close to giving ARE exams now. I was searching online on the terminology of a Jobcaptain and that lead me to this blog. I respect the proffessionals and registered architects because they are definitely serving anoble cause. Being fair to both sides I would suggest how about call the jobcaptains/ Interns as Assistant Architects as it well defines the role of an Intern, of working towards being a licensed Architect.

12 yeras of night school, 5 years of IDP/Passed ARE exams. Waiting for licensure application to be approved. Still an intern and no big deal.

hi
i would like to shere this with all of you
as i graduate from oversas collage and had licnce back at this time
when i moved to usa i found that i have to go backward a lot
send my paper to ncarb to evaluate with 400$+all people i worked for 15 years has t send their forms too and my collage
then i will be consider as intern with one year experince (IDT)
so i have to go over two more years as intern then take A R E exam then i will got my licence
i think by this time i'll be over 60 years
and right now i can not even find work as intern or even drafter ! do you guys belive that after working for 20 years as a licensed architect i go through all this
and have nothing right now
do you really think the title still important than got way to see those people who have the same setuation like me

Keep it intern. It keeps the fakes and wannabes out. Everyone wants to be an architect. Pass the test then call yourself an architect. I can tell you how many people with no licesnse are walking around calling themselves arechitects and making a lot of money doing it. Its not fair to the ones that are qualified.

Well said Frederick W. Brink. I have nearly the same credentials and story.

My "opinion" on what to call an unlicensed architect depends on the audience. When I try to explain what I do to people "outside" architecture they give me a blank look and say "oh, you're an architect".

I hailed the Jack Johnson verdict as finally common sense prevailing.

ONLY when looking for work does it even matter if one is "licensed" or "unlicensed". Therefore business cards need to be accurate in their titles, but not in conversation.

What the business card should say, in my opinion, is Apprentice Architect--as our professions is probably the last renaissance profession closely aligned with the trade guilds. Academic or not, most of our knowledge comes from working with a "master" or "journeyman" until we have gained the knowledge to even pass an exam.

As for those whose shitr collars get ruffled by the mere thought of an unlicensed architect daring to use the title--they ASSUME the "intern" does not know as much as the licensed architect--and I know of FAR too many cases of those who have practiced for decades, but due to some snafu with their degrees or when the state changed the rules, etc. and can never be licensed without returning to school. Some of these cases would have been able to sit for the exams before the rules were changed that disallowed experience alone to sit for exams. THAT should change back. This argument would have a lot less heat.

What does my business card say? LEED A.P. (HA!) until I can get the AIA or RA after it soon. My firm gives me the title "designer" which I never use as I have been one of those since I was 5.

1. There are many people that call themselves "Architects" but are not "Qualified by the State" to do so. Therefore these are not Architects.

2. There are many "Architects" that are “Qualified by the State", but do not qualify through design. These, in my opinion, are also not Architects.

Then there is Tadao Ando, and Frank Lloyd Wright.

Two Architects that did not study the profession, but rank amongst the best Architects of our times, and are known world wide for their contributions to our societies through architecture.

-What about “Architects” that provide our society with disposable architecture? The ones that come up with the type of architecture that does not work for its purpose; the type of design that is hideous in every way? Should those be called “Architects” just because they have passed the exams and were granted a license? No, not if you ask me.

My point is this: It shouldn’t matter if you call yourself an “Architect” or not, or what others think you are meritable of dependent on standardized tests. What should matter to us is that we practice well thought Architecture for the benefit of our society, as much culturally, as environmentally; not for our sense of self.

Now, if I were to decide on a title, it would be as simple as this:

1. Apprentice Architect for Non-Licensed Professionals
2. Licensed or Registered Architect for Licensed Professionals

I think like this because I am not one to go around trying to dismantle things in order to see how long it takes them to break apart. In our society, that is what happens with everything; we take it, analyze it, take it apart and put it back together in an unrecognizable way.

I confess that I did not read all 3 months of posts...

But incase it has been missed, I think the issue is that an "Architect" is a person entrusted with public life safety (in the US) and that MINIMUM competency includes experience under a registered architect before you are entrusted with that responsibility. This is now only a few years for most graduates.

I agree that “intern” wrongly depicts an intern’s role in the profession. I am in favor of something along the lines of Architectural Apprentice or Architect’s Apprentice, but Apprentice Architect could imply a licensed architect undergoing apprenticeship rather than apprenticeship to become an architect. I feel that it is valid to take all precautions to prevent even the slight chance of any misinterpretations individuals in the public may make in ignorance, when hiring an Architect. An "Architect" should continue to only mean a licensed professional, the license proving a MINIMUM COMPETANCY, in order to avoid any confusion. I further agree that on the other hand, when not representing your firm or seeking, i.e. in a social setting, calling oneself Architect is perfectly justified.

I was proud to call my self an architectural intern, but I also believe that interns with established experience deserve a more substantial title.

We are Architects or architects (use the way you feel more comfortable) when we graduate from the University. Non-registered Architects ( or non-registered architects)while we do the IDP and take the ARE. Registered Architect (or registered architect) after we pass the examination.
This CONCEPT is around the world, I am pretty sure.
Architects (registered and non registered) could do many activities, not only design, construction management of all kind of buildings, urban design, and furniture or equipment design. Also we could teach Architecture and related subjects,write critics or theory regarding Architecture, research regarding Architecture, Urbanism and related topics, evaluate buildings, participate in the writing of codes and regulations of constructions, urban planning, etc. So, performing all these activities we always are Architects... Who went to the University and his/her diploma say "graduate" as Architect, of course he or she is an architect. Just non registered.
I am non registered Architect in USA, in the rest of the American continent, Europe, Asia, Africa, the moon, where I go if someone ask me my profession I AM ARCHITECT, NON REGISTERED in the respective countries.
But, it is important to be registered Architect and while we wait associate to AIA. We need to do an effort to become registered, because this is about to support our organizations.
By the way it is not a royal title, just a profession...I don't want to offend the aristocratic point of view of some people that feels we cannot be called architects. Because in the way they speak about the subject, it sounds like first class and second class professionals... really it sounds ugly and very discriminatory. A little offensive for foreign architects like me. I am very sorry collegues but I am Architect from Argentina, licensed 10 years there, non registered architect in USA, I feel it in this way, anyway I follow AIA rules and I write "intern architect" because still I am doing the IDP , even though I will be very happy if we could RETHINK THIS CONCEPT, AND RENAME OURSELVES AS ARCHITECTS WITH OR WITHOUT LICENSE HERE AND EVERYWHERE. 'WE NEED TO BE UNITED AROUND THE WORLD AS ARCHITECTS'.

Having to explain why you are called an intern architect is awful.

Sample Conversation:

"So, you're still in school?" "No." "So you're an architect?" "No." Lengthy explanation follows.

Somebody told me I should call myself a designer. That is not understood by the general population either.

"Do you design clothes?" "No. I design buidlings." "So you're an architect?" "No."

And we're back to where we started.

The term intern architect is so belittling. I didn't go to school for 8 years (although not all in pursuit of a degree in architecture) to be called an intern.

I didn't read all 3 months of comments, either, but I'm somewhat amazed at the idea that the concept of 'intern architect' is somehow too difficult or debasing to explain.

I've been licensed for almost 15 years now. Last year I took my son in to the doctor, and happened to get the newest PA (physician's assistant). Making conversation, he asked, "Mom, what do you do?"

I answered that I was an architect. I must have not looked too 'architecture-y' that day, because he then asked what I really did -- like draft house plans and stuff? Did I have to get an AA degree or something for that?

So I gave him my standard speech, which goes something like this...

"In most if not all states (Florida is one), only those who are licensed are allowed to call themselves 'Architect'. Generally, to become an architect requires three things:

"First, one obtains a professional degree from an accredited university program. This is usually a 5-year bachelor or a 4+2 bachelor plus master program. [Incidentally, I have both a BArch and an MArch.]

"Upon graduation, most states require some type of internship...most follow the Intern Development Program which requires a minimum of 5600 hours of training in more than a dozen categories including code research, construction observation, etc., etc.. It can be very difficult to complete an internship with exactly 5600 hours because each category has minimum training hours, and some categories, such as 'client contact' are difficult for interns to access at some firms. IDP takes a minimum of about three years, with most interns needing longer to meet all requirements. [Those last 17 hours of construction observation seemed to drag on forever!]

"Upon the completion of internship, states require an exam the A.R.E. or Architectural Registration Exam. In my day, this was a 4-day procedure, offered once a year, culminating in a 12-hour design exam to produce plans, elevations and sections for a building type announced at the test day's beginning. Currently, the exam is offered on computer and its 9 sections, including written (such as structural/lateral forces) and graphic (site and building design) may be taken over a 5-year period. The exam fee is currently running somewhere around $1000.

"Once a candidate completes all three steps, he or she pays a licensing fee and is subsequently required by the state to pledge to guard the health, safety and welfare of the public and is professionally liable for such. Every two years (Florida) I may renew my license, provided I have met the state's continuing education requirements."

* * *

Really -- that takes less time than it takes for someone's eyes to glaze over. It's not even 2 dozen sentences. It's basic, and it's true. Edit at your leisure. For me, the trick is to explain it in a matter-of-fact manner. When I was an intern, I finished by mentioning that I was in the midst of completing my internship.

I was damned proud of being an intern architect. *I* knew what it meant. And I sure didn't have any problem explaining it to anyone.

As for the physician's assistant, well, I now consider him a bit more educated than he was.

And he doesn't call me 'Mom' any more.

Credit definitely goes to my professional admin. teacher, J. David Brinson, at LSU, also state IDP coordinator (way back when), who explained each step in gritty detail, and sure wasn't about to allow us to graduate without knowing what was ahead of us. Thanks to him (and experience in severral middle school career fairs), I know how to explain my career preparation prior to licensure in a quick and precise way.

Because after licensure, the learning is just beginning....that is why they call it the 'Practice' of Architecture, isn't it?

Very well said Archi-Mom.

I can't believe that I was as cocky at 24-26 as most of these people who think they are architects, but are not. If those in the position to know thought that a degree was enough to make a student into an architect, this blog wouldn't exist. Three years experience, properly diversified, is a very small price to pay, even if you have to call yourself intern for those three years. Especially in the interest of the public safety you are training to be entrusted with!

Stop crying!

I think "intern" implies something like 'working for the summer to get experience before going back to school in the fall' or something so generalized as even Monica Lewinsky as an intern or someone who runs errands or does meaningless office chores. Intern architect still seems to be wrong becuase it uses the term "Architect" which I will happily use when licensed but disagree with it now. Architectural Intern seems more fitting as it is used as an adjective rather than a noun. however some kind of title for both registered architects as well as their interns should be standard as in engineering (EI) possibly Architecture Apprentice (AA) or architectural intern (AI) vs. PA or something. its rediculous to have to deal with silly questions about what i put after my name after i have taken tests and gone through school. and paying to put AIA after my name just doesnt seem right to me. I think several people on here thinking their priveledge to use "Architect" is being challenged are mislead. read the title of the webpage one more time - thats not the issue here, we dont want that title, just some more respect than "Intern."

You are not a licensed architect until you are licensed. What are you if you have an architectural degree?

I have had this discussion with some of the recent grads in our office; we've told them they're allowed to use the title "project architect" when they are running their own projects... until then, they are "junior" or "intern" or "unregistered" - their choice. For the purposes of our office, if we trust them enough to do the work, they can choose what to call themselves.

I am a "registered professional engineer" in multiple states, and before I was registered I certainly did not appreciate not being able to be call myself a professional until I passed a series of exams. The reality is no matter what you call yourself, until you get the license you cannot get building permits or professional insurance so the argument about misrepresentation to the public believes is a really weak one - i know many architects/engineers that have AIA/PE behind their name, that only gives them the legal right to stamp drawings, it certainly does not many them any better or more competent at there jobs.

Let's face it, this is just business security and a way to have some assurance of at least the appearance of competence.

I had took this talk with the Oregon Board of Architect Examiner and submitted an appropriate title.

The proper title usage shouldn't be "intern architect" but

"architectural intern" or
"architectural apprentice".

You are not an architect until you are license. Nor is a medical intern a doctor. Often you have your degree already. The thing is you are getting your training experience.

What is also the case with IDP is that you are often STARTING your internship BEFORE you are even completed with your degree. This is your choice.

There is a title for "unlicensed" design professionals and that is "building designer" as well as a few others.

I provided a suggestion for our local board and there is a reason for this. Allowing a title containing "architectural" makes sense because you are describing your job. You are in training and that is the difference.

Alternatively, we could do what the Engineer Boards often do like in Oregon and that is - Engineer In Training (EIT). So in your case, architectural interns, is "Architect in Training" but wait a second. EITs takes an exam called the Fundamental of Engineering Exam then after so many years of EIT, they take the Principle of Engineering Exam plus Discipline specific exams to become a "Professional Engineering". This means a two level of examination with two status levels.

If Architectural Interns wish to take that root, they will need to take a "Fundamental of Architecture" exam before they take their IDP and they'll have to take that upon completion of their NAAB degree. Then they will need to take the full ARE plus jurisdiction exam.

We would also expect the architect exam to be expanded a little bit more.

Alternatively, we can use the NCBDC exam as the "fundamental of architecture" that certified building designers must take as the basic exam for "Architect in Training" but you must establish NCARB record and be active in IDP to use that title otherwise use "certified building designer".

What would your choice be, two extensive exams. To qualify for NCBDC exam as right now, requires 5-6 years of experience but only 2 years of education maybe used in place of 2 years of experience.

If you go by this process, you will need your NAAB degree, 3-4 years of non-IDP work experience plus 3 years of IDP work experience plus passing the NCBDC exam and the ARE exam plus jurisdiction's exam plus an oral interview if required by your State to become a licensed architect.

This can equate to more competent architects but would make it tougher to be licensed.

I don't mind it as I'll be doing that pretty much anyway.

What would be YOUR choice in the process to licensure.

In general rule of thumb,

I would say that if you completed your IDP and you have yet to be licensed and you are being given liberty to work on projects on a more independent level and that you are the design profession in responsible charge, then title "building designer" or even "certified building designer" if you took the NCBDC's exam and is in good standing along with AIBD membership.

A building designer may work under an architect and retain the use of the title of 'building designer' if you are given a larger range of responsibility over a project that does not require an "architect stamp" like S.F.R. However, under IDP - you'll need to do your work under the direct responsible supervision of your employer.

If you are practicing independently after obtain IDP and haven't completed your exam, then by ALL means use the title building designer or certified building designer if you have already taken that exam (but NCBDC exam does NOT make you or qualify as an exam for architectural license like no exam in the classroom qualifies you as an "architect" even though they maybe the same questions.

Here is the bottom line.

"Architect" shall be used ONLY by those who passed ALL the registration/licensing requirements and all pre-requisites (eg. all exams, education and training has been passed/completed)

While you are taking IDP internship/apprenticeship, you are practicing under the direct control and supervision of an architect and you can not be operating independently as any time working independent of the responsible supervision and control and guidance would not qualify towards your IDP. This doesn't mean the architect has to watch over you every second of the day but the architect would be the person making decisions and excersing restraining powers over the preparation of design documents and other documents.

Once you complete IDP, you can remain working for the firm or go independent but in that case until you are licensed, you can only use titles like 'building designer' like anyone else in the profession of designing houses.

Many of those building designers DID do their IDP. They either chosen not to get licensed and stick with designing houses and light commercial structures or maybe even were licensed but when they moved to another State, they didn't do reciprocity to be licensed as architects and chosen to stick with houses or light commercial or other exempt structures of the State.

As a building designer, I understand the need to protect a title and understand the problem of just using "intern" as a title.

I would be hesitant to use the "AIT" - Architect In Training title unless you follow the examination model that engineers use. As it would be a parallel.

Instead of doing a "Fundamental of Architecture" exam prior to IDP, the NCBDC's exam for "certified building designers" would be appropriate as the "Fundamental of Architecture" exam and it would provide the architectural graduate the ability to use "certified professional building designer" for any "independent work" or work in which the person has been given full control of the preperation of. However, this would mean the person will need to have 3-4 years (5-6 years total*) of "non-IDP" work/practice experience prior to IDP.

* - Only 2 years of the 5-6 year work experience can be your education In short, only 2 years of education can be used in lieu of work experience.

This would apply additional requirements and third-party testing of knowledge.

I'm pretty sure most of the folks will be happy as is and not want to go through an additional testing requirement PRIOR to their IDP then to take another bank of exams AFTER their exam but PRIOR to licensure.

Anxious to use the title "architect" is what I see.

Hmmm...I guess by the standards that a few elitists are bringing up here, Frank Lloyd Wright was not really an "architect". Poor fellow was an uneducated individual who could really only be considered a drafter. In actuality, there are several famous "architects" who aren't architects at all in that case.

I have worked in the profession long enough to recognize that using the title of architect in no way represents your knowledge of architecture or your capabilities. I do agree, however, that registered architects should refer to themselves as such. That is the representation that all of their educational and training requirements are completed and they have the capability to sign and seal documents for life safety purposes.

I agree that "architect" should be for licensed professionals but I think that "intern architect" should be referred to as "junior architect." Some of us actually went to school for 5 years and have been working for atleast 5 years or more, and then what, just to be called an "intern"?

for us in Oklahoma the issue boils down to the state law which prohibits any form of the word architect to be used to describe what you do unless you are a licensed individual. Therefore i can only refer to myself as an intern which contains no description of what type of intern I am or what i do. I am not legally allowed to say I am an "architectural" intern only an intern. This is ridiculous. i am in no way attempting to pass myself off of as a licensed architect, i only want to inform an individual of what it is i do.

There are intern architects and then there are non-intern, non-architect designers. There are (1) students who work part-time, temporary jobs in architecture offices who are called interns; There are (2) full-time, permanent employees with benefits who hold B.Archs and M.Archs and are training under licensed architects in order to become licensed (also inexplicably called just interns); And then there are (3)the others-- those (as myself) who hold professional degrees in Architecture who do permanent, full-time design work, but do not work in an architecture office, nor under licensed architects. I am not an intern in any sense of the word, as I am not a student, I am not in an internship program working towards my license, nor am I in apprenticeship under a licensed architect. I am a self-employed "professional" (as is evidenced by my professional masters degree). It is not financially feasible for me to work as an intern at this time (which is another topic in and of itself), so I work for myself. I will be an intern one day, but until then, it is ridiculous and inaccurate for me to introduce myself to prospective clients as a self-employed intern. Instead I call myself a "Design Professional" which always begs the question "What kind of design?" Dare I admit architectural?

In nearly every state licensure laws allow the production of and the permitting for residential projects from those individuals who are not licensed/registered architects. The documents they provide must meet code as dictated by IRC and local code review.

Builders, home owners, remodelers are all permitted to provide documents for permits of construction documents without the stamp of a licensed/registered architect.

I for one, have 31 years experience in the practice of, education of and application of architecture. I have sat next to those who have a degree from an accredited school of architecture and those who have a 2 year associates degree in drafting and design. In some cases it is hard to tell these people apart. One should ask why that is.

Why would a person who spent 7 years in college be unable to do more than a person who spent 2 years in school and who has 5 years experience in a firm? Typically these people are draftsmen. They provide the manpower to produce many of the required drawings, details, sections, elevations and countless other pieces of documentation for projects.

It is important to know who is ultimately responsible for these documents. That is the Architect. He or she has the duty and the responsibility to the client to provide the documents and oversee the construction of the building commissioned.

What isn't important is how that person got to be in that position of responsibility. It isn't important to the client if that person recieved a degree from Notre Dame or Miami, Carnegie Mellon or Roger Williams. The client wants the architect to deliver documents that are accurate and meet all requirements set forth in a program. If the architect has a 5 year degree and completes IDP and passes the ARE, all well and good. If another architect went through the path of being a draftsman and through experience became eligible to sit for the ARE and passed it, that person too is an architect. Both licensed, both registered, both architects.

The question of what we call those people who are not architects is simple, they are draftsmen, pure and simple. What school you went to means nothing. Just because you spent time in a classroom and another person spent time in an office, you will both be used as draftsmen until you have completed IDP and passed the test.

Be proud that you have a job in a field you love at whatever title you earn. Don't be so concerned what you are called, be happy you have been called and strive to be more.

"Intern Architect" is a contradiction in terms; one is not an architect until passage of A.R.E. and Intern denotes someone still in school. What are individuals who meet the requirements of eligibility without having a 5 year degree? These folks are by some states permitted to use experience in lieu of education, they too are not "interns". Why is the term "Architectural Designer" not permitted? If a computer geek can use the term System's Architect but I can't, something is wrong with this picture. Why don't the State Board(s) adopt, assimulate and recognize the N.C.B.D.C. ( for those of you who aren't familiar with the term - National Council of Building Designers - www.ncbdc.org)? They are acknowledged in some states and could be the bridge between non-licensure and licensure. Or is it too much of an ego trip for licensed architects to use logic and reason...never mind my bad, that was a silly thought - architects using logic and reason.

My latest degree simply states "Master of Architecture". Although I know enough to acknowledge that my little more then six years of experience in the scheme of things does not amount to much when most architects are forever learning. However I do not under any circumstances think or refer to myself as an intern. I don't think that Junior Architect is very appropriate either. I use Architectural Designer and always state that I am not licensed. Although in any conversation I am always given a follow-up question, "you mean you do interiors?"
I always have to answer,"no, the structure also."

I have heard of building architects such as yourselfs getting all upset with the ITS industry's use of the term "Architect" to describe someone doing architectural work involving ITS. The work could involve only software, networks, a whole company's system, etc. Some use a prefix in front of the word Architect but not all. My thoughts are that one should get an understanding of the use of the word being used based on the context or the company the perosn works for. Still I have heard of states that have laws not allowing the use of the lone word Architect in any fashion verbally or written. Definitions of the word Architect states the it refers to adesigner of structures and ITS is a set of structures. I could understand if someone involved in ITS was trying to pass themselves off as a building architect but that is not the case. They call us geeks but you guys sound more like geeks to be so hung up on a specific word.

I feel it is degrading to call someone an intern with many years of experience. I feel it's just a way to but people in the have and the have not categories. I have one exam left and after that I really don't want to practice Architecture for all that I had to go through as a married mother with two little children this profession sucks. Every test you fail you have to wait 6 months with no real explanation why (just pay me for another exam) And after the title I might get 20k more if I'm lucky or work for myself with a whole bunch of liablity on my hands. I meet people that don't have any experience or degrees and they are directors of communities that we work so hard to influence. I speak to young people who think that this is such a great profession and I have to tell them the truth, to do something else because all that I have been through trying to prove myself for the extra pennies they can keep it.

When I finished college, I got a degree in Architecture. During the time I studied for my master's I worked as a proyect supervisor and specifications consultant (certified by CSI) for a mayor design firm. I have over 12 years of direct design experience under my belt. And now that I finished school, I have someone, with less experience tell me I am not an Architect?

The real laugh here is that I am in charge of training the new licenced architects how to work large scale proyects and specifications.

If, when we finish, we are not architects, why the hell is there an architectural school? Why not go back to the mentor/aprentice educational sistem?
How does passing an exam make you a better architect? Not by some of the built projects I have seen. Also I guess that there is no such thing as a good non licenced architect, and I am not going to even mention Wright.

Those who pass the test want a distinction. Call them registered architects. What if I do not want to become a practicing architect? What if I decide to become a theorist, an educator, and get a doctorate? I cannot call myself an architect?

Guess almost all the colleges out there are lying about their curriculum. May be we could penalize them for false advertizement?

I have commented on this situation before and it is time for me to comment again.

Within the architectural profession itself there is no common definition of what intern means. I have wasted much time and money sending resume's and portfolios in answer to want ads for 'Intern' architect and having the firms personnel office tell me I do not qualify because I have too much experience and already have my professional degree. This is quite common for the joint Architecture/Engineering firms as the Intern definition is carried over from the engineering section.

On the other hand even with several years of experience and an MArch, B.S., A.S. and A.A.S. I am told by other firms that I do not qualify for the architect position which they posted. I need to be able to pay back the student loans I borrowed toward my $100,000.00 education and am getting damn frustrated by the established professionals who seem to be toying with my future and financial success.

I have yet to work for a firm that cared if I complete my IDP requirements and certainly they wouldn't allow me to accomplish the variety of tasks granting me the required work experience levels needed to do so. I worked while in grad school and I am capable of doing much more than I've been allowed.

I also am highly perturbed with some in the profession who tell me they won't hire me because my goal is to complete my IDP requirements and become a licensed professional. They say I will become a competitor and they will not contribute in helping a potential competitor.

I have not been able to find a position since 1999 and I am about to begin practicing on my own, it's a matter of survival and at this point I really do not care what others in the profession think about it. I didn't spend that kind of money and time out of my life to be treated this way.

The "title" of intern does fail to describe the responsibilities we take on and has a common definition that far under rates our role.
But having real experience and having to pass licensing exams before you earn the title of architect is NOT unreasonable. It is ten years from the start of school. If you don't like it, pick an easier profession to master. Architecture is too complicated for you!

I was an intern for 6 years, and I am now licensed. Interns are NOT Architects until licensed. I wore the title "Intern" with pride (as well as "Project Manager"), and now I wear the title "Architect" with even more pride.

I was an intern for 6 years, and I am now licensed. Interns are NOT Architects until licensed. I wore the title "Intern" with pride (as well as "Project Manager"), and now I wear the title "Architect" with even more pride.

If licensed Architects are the only people that
qualify to use the word
architect then they should
be the only people that
work in their office's.
There are too many of these
licensed architects that
do not have any real talent
and use other unlicensed
individuals to do the work.
They like to take credit
for all the nice work other
people do. I have worked in
office's where accountants
and other non architectural
people are partners in the
buisness. The rules and
requirements should be more
strict or throw all rules
out and everyone can be an
architect.

Duane Baade "I have worked in
office's where accountants
and other non architectural
people are partners in the
buisness. The rules and
requirements should be more
strict or throw all rules
out and everyone can be an
architect."

Anyone can hire an architect, even accountants. Owning a business does not mean you are practicing architecture, nor does drafting.

Wherever you look you will find examples of people who are in over there head. But it would be far worse if we did nothing to test architects abilities to ensure safe public buildings. When you take the exams you will know you do not get a license without having some idea of how to design and put a building together.

There are some thin if the legitimate work as a line there. Most are sites and marketing study for the site owner rich, not you. The only thing is true legitimacy Ebay, selling things you already own.....

www.onlineuniversalwork.com

There are some thin if the legitimate work as a line there. Most are sites and marketing study for the site owner rich, not you. The only thing is true legitimacy Ebay, selling things you already own...

onlineuniversalwork

There is obviously a lot to know about this, I think you made some good points in Features also.

Lets be frank, in this day and age, I think a more accurate title for the "intern architect" would be "recently graduated and unemployed artist".

I am a lawyer and I encourage all professionals to guard closely the title that defines their profession to the public.

A university degree is not sufficient to maintain the basis of all professional: self-regulation!

No professional should allow itself to be diminished by allowing unqualified persons to complain that their 'feelings are hurt' when they are required to disclose to potential clients and the public that they are not licensed.

We don't refer to licensed lawyers or licensed doctors. Beware of creating such distinctions!

Here's a site similar to elance.com but aimed at multi-year ouitsourcing contracts. OutsourcerMasrketplace.com