Perhaps the only debate that is more endless (is that even possible?) than the which is is better Revit or ArchiCAD brawls, is the question of what to call unlicensed individuals who design buildings. Everybody hates the term intern and there have been countless initiatives to replace it. There is one vocal contingent that argue for the simple term “architect.” The view is that once you graduate from architecture school you should be an architect.
There is another similar view. If you design buildings then you are an architect. Well I guess if you design good buildings. If you design crappy buildings I think more people are okay with not letting you call yourself an architect. But let’s be honest, we all know architects do a whole lot more than just design buildings, so even that narrow view is horribly flawed. To assume that all that architects do is “design” buildings belittles us. We do so much more, like coordinate multi-disciplinary teams, advocate for the building and client, navigate regulations and codes, research building technology, integrate new technology, project management… One could just do a blog called “Everything BUT Design” and fill it with endless posts about all the things architects do other than make things pretty.
To those who want everyone who graduates from an architecture program to be called an architect, I say “Tough Shit.”
I think that solution devalues the purpose of the term architect. If it’s a legal term referring to someone who holds a license, then diluting the term to give comfort to people who don’t pursue the license is backwards. Why should people without a license or not pursuing one be rewarded with the term? Why should we say “okay. so you are too impatient to work for a few years, and you don’t want to take some tests, and you have really good excuses why you didn’t get an accredited degree, that’s okay. You can still call yourself an architect.” This is why I think Architect in Training (AIT) is a great solution. It clarifies people as licensed, in the process of getting a license, or not on that spectrum. If someone’s end goal isn’t to have the term architect as their title then tough, they don’t get to usurp that term. I know it’s not black and white because the whole IDP process could also use revamping, but sometimes stars don’t align and people with the right education get stuck in the wrong jobs that don’t qualify. But that’s a different issue.
Because say we let anyone with a degree claim Architect (by the way BA, BS, BArch, and MArch, or just MArch & BArch, or only MArch…and what about other variants…DArch?), then what about the people who have worked in the industry for years but may only have an AA or who have come up via the builder route? Do they get excluded because of a lack of education (or proper education)? Are they less of an architect than someone with just the right educaiton? Or do they qualify too?
Draw a line in the sand or let everyone in. I’m cool with either, honestly.
If the term architect is not about the license but about education or job tasks or experience (instead of education + experience + exams) then scrap any government regulation (or the intent of it) and just let anyone who does anything in the building trade claim the term architect or some variation of it. If one feels like an architect then one is an architect. But then is there any value left in the term at all? Have we accomplished anything by letting everyone claim architect if they want? What is the value of all inclusiveness?
If we are going to say the term architect is reserved for only a certain group of people, what’s so bad about saying you need a certain amount of education, experience, and examination to qualify? Sure we can argue about improving the tests, tweaking the experience rules, and fixing our education system, but it seems like requiring some entry requirements is an okay thing.
Just the Symptom not the Illness
Perhaps the real problem isn’t who should be allowed to be called an architect. It’s actually that the value of architects has eroded. And except for some legal minutia, it doesn’t matter who is or isn’t an architect. The fact is you don’t need an architect for every project. Others can sign the drawings. And even in an architecture firm, the number of licensed architects required to call the organization an architecture office is what, one? If the main goal of being an architect is to design beauty and functionality, you don’t need to go to school for that. You don’t need to take a bunch of tests for that. You need practice and some natural talent to do a good job. Anyone can put in effort to attain that. So perhaps our profession is a bit meaningless these days. None of us should be licensed. We should all just be building designers and leave it up to the code guys and the structural engineers to make sure the buildings don’t kill people. Or maybe not. Maybe we should find ways to return value to our profession. I don’t know where to start. But every time I tell someone not to call themselves an architect if they aren’t licensed I get a little closer to finding out. Because each time I have to explain slightly differently why it’s wrong and why licensed architects matter. Each time I learn a little something more.
I’ll leave you with this quote from Joe Lstiburek. It’s from this article I read a few years ago.
“Q: Back to architects–is the profession changing at all? Joe:Â What’s stunning is the architects giving up so much of their responsibility. But I hold hope the profession will fix itself. Architects are continuing to lose respect where it matters most. They’re being laughed at by the people doing the building. They need to get the respect back.”
BONUS THOUGHTS: Go read follow up to this post. She has some awesome things to add-and some information on how both the AIA and Federal government are only making this problem worse. Thanks AIA. Way to understand the issues and misuse use the term architect. That’s really making things easier.
While writing this post, I was very cognizant of both this great website and this favorite post. Subscribe to my blog to read more about the tricky world of being an Architect, AIT, or Design Professional in the 21st century: Shoegnome on Facebook, Twitter, and RSS feed. And now you can join the LinkedIN group too!
23 thoughts on “You graduated from Architecture School and want to be called Architect”
Someone who is designing (and I use that word loosely) and/or drawing structures that is not an architect, nor pursuing an Architecture License in my view should be called a draftsman.
I like the title Architectural Designer. Intern Architect or AIT does not apply to many and indeed seems downgrading. BIM Specialist anyone?
I like BIM Specialist. That raises a good point. Archtiect or Architectural Designer or Intern Architect, etc. aren’t very good descriptors. BIM Specialist says a lot more to me… maybe the generic fluff terms all need to go.
Sorry JaredI don’t know about that one, I wouldn’t even call myself a specialist yet. Specialist means that you are somewhat of an expert or could guide a practice through setting up BIM processes.
Draftsman is for someone who board or CAD drafts in 2D.
I’m with you on this, Jared.
I blog about it too, sometimes.
Today I read the text of the National Design Services Act, which was written by the AIA and the AIAS “to try to help alleviate this massive accumulation of debts for architecture students,” http://www.architectmagazine.com/legislation/national-design-services-act-introduced-in-congress-to-assist-with-architecture-student-loans_o.aspx
The bill defines an eligible participant as an “eligible architect” and defines “eligible architect” as an individual who “has completed an accredited masters program in architecture; or “is an intern architect who has completed an accredited masters program in architecture and is enrolled in the Intern Development Program of the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards.”
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr4205/text
So, the AIA is writing legislation that misleads the public by ignoring the fact that by state law, a person can’t be called “architect” without a license to practice architecture. Aggravating. How is THIS advocating for architects?
The AIA also doesn’t seem to believe that a person with a 5-year professional degree (BArch) should be eligible for loan forgiveness – the bill only addresses masters degrees. This may be an oversight. Or not.
As I wrote to my senators and representative, the profession has problems, but this bill is a bad idea that may further the problems of the profession by allowing schools to continue to charge more tuition every year, and deliver less to architecture students every year. Schools turn out architecture graduates who are nowhere near equipped to produce construction documents that buildings can be built from, but schools seem to be telling their grads that they’re ready to practice as full-blown architects upon graduation. That’s simply not true, and it’s not how our profession is set up. Internship is an essential part of our training in this profession. (I also like the term Architect-in-Training.)
It’s not too late to find ways to return value to our profession. And I do know where to start. From one of my blog posts (which also quotes Lstiburek):
“To be able to deliver what owners expect and need, and to be able to charge fair fees for these services, architects need to get more technical.
“Architects should keep technical expertise in-house or under their umbrella. I am not talking about computer software; I am not talking about Reviteers. I am talking about building code expertise. I am talking about an understanding of building technology (knowledge of the technical processes and methods of assembling buildings). I am talking about comprehension of building science. (“If architects did their job there wouldn’t be any need for building science.” — Joe Lstiburek.) I am talking about effective construction contract administration.” http://lizosullivanaia.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/illogical-part-two/
Good to know the AIA doesn’t think my degree counts. Someday I’ll write an article about how I think the BArch is the best degree one can get for becoming an architect. I’ve come across some of your posts before and really enjoyed them. Thanks for the reminder. I’ll have to go back and read some more.
Starting a new post right now – because you really clarify for me WHY the improper use of the word architect bothers me – it’s because, as you say, the more widespread improper use of the word is just a symptom of the problem that the value of an architect has eroded. (Hope I can write this blog post more clearly than this comment.)
Jared I always find this an interesting debate. As everyone that is an Architect knows there is a black hole between Graduation and Registration. The few years of your life when you meet with people and they ask you what you do. My answer was I work for an Architectural Practice as an Architectural Graduate. It is a frustrating time but there is purpose for that period of time between Graduation and Registration.
The Universities do not provide training that is adequate for a person to commence practice, you only receive that training in the real world environment in an office working under an architects wing. Universities teach you base skills that need refining.
The term “Architect” is purely there to protect the public. When a member of the public engages an Architect to undertake work for them they have the expectation that this person is adequately trained to undertake the commission. Where is a person that is not an “Architect” could be anyone that may have adequate experience but are not as accountable if things go wrong. They will not be dragged in front of the Board of Architects and disciplined.
In Australia we have a National Test but Registration is handled by each state. So in other states in Australia I am not formally an Architect. I can apply for registration and obtain it if I want to but I don’t want to spend the money on ongoing fees when I am not undertaking work there.
Appart from the Construction Industry standards decreasing the knowledge of Graduates is also decreasing. The Universities are teaching them less and less.
The biggest role of the Traditional Architect of Co-ordination of all of the consultant’s work is getting harder as each Discipline has less and less knowledge about the other that they need to co-ordinate with. Let’s hope BIM processes make this better, although I have concerns that unless Service Consultants adapt quickly they will fall out of the process.
Just a few thoughts I could go on for days about the status of the industry and Registration. As a final comment I feel that the term Architect has less and less meaning, I thought it was protected!!! There are Software Architects, System Architects!!! An Architect designs a building not an IT system.
This conversation (while spot on) circles back to the standpoint that the general knowledge of what architecture is or what architects do is vague for most of society. Architecture has undergone so much change in the past few decades that this loss of identity and through extension, their value seems far more of a pressing issue as opposed to, “What am I legally entitled to title myself upon graduation?” Sadly, though, this circled argument is nothing more than the chicken vs. egg debate. I think I will close with the philosophical assertion of – it is not merely what we call ourselves, but how we thoughtfully execute and produce a tailored safety and wellness of a built environment that will allow the terms of ‘architect’ and ‘architecture’ to appear with valuable meaning to support them.
Pingback: Shoegnome Hit the Nail on the Head | Comments From a Spec Writer
As a qualified Architectural Technologist (B.Tech:Arch – South Africa) I have the pleasure of working for a great firm of architects, master planners and town planners in the UK. In our office we have 5 registered (RIBA, ARB) architects who are all very capable designers but don’t have a clue how buildings go together. Only 3 have ever been on site and only one has done any contract management. They are all very quick to jump into the design process but when you ask them if they’ve checked the stair cores for Building Regulations compliance they don’t even know where to look up the regulations. Ventilation requirements…Who needs those, the M&E guy will sort it out…
I really struggle with the idea that they are allowed to call themselves architects simply because they paid a university tuition fee and spent 2 years in an office environment. The last ‘intern’ to go through our office managed to do his RIBA Part 3 on-site works module simply by visiting site with me and taking some photos. “Yep, that’s all I need for my interview thanks”.
I cannot call myself an architect. I have project managed schemes, done on-site works and managed a full consultant and client team. I have designed buildings and housing schemes from the initial rough sketch layouts all the way to 1:5 details. My last project, from initial inception (client contact, brief etc) to cutting the ribbon with the client on site was a 40,000sq.ft office building. Two of my schemes have been nominated for design awards so far, so I don’t lack design skills. Two of recent schemes have received press coverage.
Needless to say, the architects in my office often come to me for advice, and I don’t any issues sharing ideas and knowledge. They are quick however to refer to me purely as a technician or technologist. Can I call myself an architect, no.
To me, and architect is as defined in the Oxford dictionary
“A person who designs buildings and in many cases also supervises their construction:”
It does not say “a person with a B.Arch, M.Arch….degree” who designs….”
So, to me a person who holds an architectural degree does not automatically deserve to be called an architect. Studying ors not make one an architect, subscriptions to institutions like the ARB and RIBA does. There are those that I would call qualified architects, those who have full grasp and understanding of their profession, sadly there few of those about today.
I think that the problem with any argument on this subject are the many uses for the description of architect. Should a graduate of architecture, working in the architectural field, not be introduced at a party as an architect? At the same time this person should obviously not solicit work as an architect. Furthermore, society in general has not taken to calling people building designers and really are not interested in the distinction between them and architects.What distinction is left, while fundamental, is lost on the lay person.
In offices here in Australia, I have seen the use of “Graduate Architect” or “Registered Architect” to distinguish, when needed. Only registered architects may solicit work as architects and others must be licensed building designers to work on their own, though they will invariably be introduced as architects at parties.
Here’s my view on the party scenario: https://shoegnome.com/2013/12/17/hi-i-am-an-architect-but-let-me-add-some-qualifiers/
Should they be introduced as an architect? No. Absolutely not. They aren’t architects. They can just say “I work in an architecture firm but aren’t yet licensed” or “I am an AIT” or “I am a drafter” or “a CAD monkey” or “a building designer” or some other accurate descriptor of their job. But if they aspire to get licensed and/or recognize the difference between unlicensed and licensed, then it doesn’t matter if the general public understands the difference. We do. And that disconnect will persist until we support clarity. If they graduated with a degree in architecture, are working in the field, and aren’t licensed then they better stand up for that difference.
Should someone call themselves an architect if they aren’t licensed? No because people shouldn’t obfuscate the truth, regardless of what their profession is.
You have a degree in architecture, you design buildings, you oversee the construction, but-because you do not have an Architecture License-you’re not an “architect.”
You asked “Why should people without a license or not pursuing one be rewarded with the term?”
While I may agree, there are some parts I find to be ludicrous. I can understand the reason and importance to be a licensed architect. But Lets not forget a lot of who we consider to be the greatest architects of all time did NOT go through these 3, 4, 5, 6 long hours and costly exams. If I am correct, a lot of the world renowned architects or greatest and innovative architects ahead of their time are honourary members of these same Architect Associations: RIBA, AIA etc. I find it hard to comprehend this excerpt in an article you posted:
“If someone is not en-route to their architecture license, then they are something else. To me, if you don’t have an architecture license then you are not an architect. Simple. If you don’t have a license but are in the process of getting one, then you are an AIT. If you have the education and the experience but haven’t gotten around to taking the ARE-I don’t care if you’re 25, 55, or 75-if you still daydream about getting licensed then you’re an Architect in Training.” – See more at: http://blog.ncarb.org/2014/March/InternDebate.aspx#sthash.7gfnDENH.dpuf
For reference and as an example: “Mr. Frank Lloyd Wright held honorary degrees from Wesleyan, Princeton University, the University of Venice and Florida Southern.
He was an honorary member of the Academie Royale des Beaux Arts of Antwerp, the Akademie der Kunst of Berlin, the Royal Institute of British Architects and of the National Academies and architectural societies in Mexico, Portugal, Uruguay, Cuba, Brazil and Finland. He was a member of the National Academy of Design, the American Institute of Decorators and Phi Delta Theta.” – http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0608.html
That’s just one, and there are many others. I refuse to accept the reason “That was a different time.” Another example is Tadao Ando a Japanese self-taught architect who never took any formal training in the field.
Let me say that with the increasing complexity of building technologies, regulations, and knowledge needed to adequately and competently practice (as it should be), I can understand the reason for the license. But if you one choose to not get licensed, then there should be another set of requirements where you can become a registered architect. Maybe: Architecture degree, + after a certain amount of work experience. License or not, you SHOULD follow the building codes, know the regulations, and the knowledge needed to do a professional job. .
Having a license should not be the answer to be sure every ‘Architect’ has the knowledge needed to carry out Architectural duties. Having that license does not exempt you from making ‘architecture’ mistakes, and it certainly does not make you a better designer. As I said previously, every architect, licensed or not should be held accountable by state or whoever that they are building, designing according to the state’s building codes, regulations etc. Please excuse my English grammar. I am open to any thoughts.
I think I have a post half-written somewhere about the unlicensed greats. I need to pull together my thoughts on that as it’ll take more time than just a comment. But in short, I do think someone like FLW gets a pass because of the culture he began practicing in. The world was more apprenticeship based then than now. But I also don’t think using the example of a few famous greats really means much in the context of who can or can’t call themselves an architect. Are we to compare every person in the field (licensed or otherwise) to FLW or one of the many other late 19th century/early 20th century unlicensed masters? Does this really mean much in our modern context? Maybe if FLW had proper training his buildings wouldn’t have leaked so much? Or maybe he would have built more large scale projects? I don’t know. Regardless, I do agree that the many famous architects who achieved that status without today’s regiment of experience, education, and examination is a good reminder that something within our profession and current system is broken. But just because FLW can call himself an architect doesn’t mean everyone else without a license can too. It would benefit our profession to resolve this confusion, but I think the wrong solution will make the role of architect vanish. But then again maybe the correct solution will do that too. I don’t know.
Well, I have read everyone’s reviews, everyone is trying to make a point. Who is a true artist? the one who wins Academy Awards? Fine agreed but then there are Globe Awards and bla bla awards and IFFA and goes on and on… They keep everyone happy one gets Academy Award and the one who is rejected from there, gets Golden Globe Award….
THIS TERM ARCHITECT OR NOT AN ARCHITECT is all about who is “where or what” and if that person allows others to be called by that term, Does this person have a narrow mind and keeps people at a distance or does this person have an open heart and respect for others and feels pride in giving others same respect.
The respect is not something you can buy from people or from a shop, it is a reciprocal thing. If that person on the higher pedestal extends same respect to others, then that person will keep getting respect, otherwise HE will be a history, no one will know or remember HIM.
Coming back to weather or not an architect – you went to school to become an Architect, you go for an Associate degree, you are an Associate Architect, You went for a B.Arch, you are an Architect. You can keep arguing about it as long as you wish. To allow them to be called as an Architect or not is the phenomenon being controlled by SO CALLED ARCHITECT SITTING ON HIGHER PEDESTAL with an PA or AP etc. to control the population of Architect, working as a contraceptive to the profession. Another example is in one strip mall if you have a wings spot business, you do not want to allow anyone else to open same business because you are afraid of competition and you are greedy of money you do not want to split that money by splitting those customers.
The debate should only be Architects and Licensed Architects. Those who are creative and can design good buildings with creativity and responsiveness to the society giving this world beautiful buildings with good functionality and environmentally better — Are “Architects”. Those who limit their creativity and go by numbers and maths and City/ State building codes, they can be anything else but “not Architect”, you can call them “Registered Architects”.
LEED Certification is another example of such contraceptive approach to the profession, by those who do not appreciate beautiful buildings or who can not design beautiful Architecture. It is all about pinning someone down like ” OOoo you aren’t an architect if you don’t do this, you aren’t this if you don’t do that. It is all about saying “WHAT AM DOING IS REAL/ GOOD and WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS NOT REAL/ GOOD”
It amazes me just how much time and energy Architects spend on this topic. Here in Australia the Royal Australian Institute of Architects have practically waged war on building designer’s. They seem to object to draftsman who have years of experience moving into building design soley on the basis that they don’t have the accreditation, conveniently forgetting the fact that architects are afforded that very same pathway if they decide to become a registered builder.
Hello
I am not an qualified architect. I am in in this field of designing for last 25 years, i had designed more than 17 hospitals, Many commercial buildings and lots of residential projects. My scope of work includes architectural designing and coordinating with other services ( MEP & Structure) and train junior architects.
After all that experience and expertise no one except me as an architect coz i am not qualified or licence Architect.
What u call people like me who works and fullfill all the requirments without any designation.
Regards
Aman
Your story is a good example of why we need clarification and revision of how one gets licensed as an architect. There really needs to be a standard route based on education + experience and one based on experience. While I do feel the term architect deserves protection, the route to attaining that term could use revision. Here in the USA because of current regulations, you could be a project manager, project designer, team lead…
I’m really interested in architecture. I want to do a degree in architecture, and I understand that after the 3 year degree, I will have to undergo 2 year internship and then do a further 2 years study and intense tests. To me it puts me off, because I am a young single mother, I already have a lot of responsibility looking after my child. I want to give my child the attention she needs, yet I still want to pursue my dreams while struggling financially for a few years, it’s a tough call. I feel like this is a man’s industry, all the architects I know are men. While they study they don’t have the responsibility or distraction of a child, and if they do have children their wives look after them while they are both able to receive government benefits.
I think you have a good perspective on the struggles of attaining an architecture license when you aren’t going the prototypical path of high school to college to career. And I definitely agree that the profession is geared towards people without kids, or those with a spouse at home to take care of the kids. I’ve got some very strong feelings about that topic.
I wish I had some magical advice for you. There’s of course one thing you didn’t mention: the reward for navigating that path is not a big pile of money. It’s hopefully a career that you are passionate about, but it’s probably not the best financial decision. That said, I think if it’s your dream, you should go for it. In the timeline you describe above, are you talking about a masters, then work, then work plus testing? That’s the way it’d be in the USA if you already have an undergraduate degree. I think doing that path would be tough as a single parent, but not impossible. Plus I know many people who delay taking tests for many years until it better aligns with their home life. So if I had advice, and I don’t think I’m necessarily qualified to give it, I’d say focus on whether or not you can make the schooling work. And if you can, jump. A lot of architecture school is people wasting their time being inefficient. As parents, we don’t have time for that. So you will be amazing how much you can get done while everyone else is goofing off getting another cup of coffee at 4 am.
I’m happy to chat more, if you need a sounding board.
Jared, I found this very instrumental. I have always lacked how to express myself to people who ask.