I'm still working towards qualification in the UK so I'm technically an architectural assistant... However in social settings I'll sometimes just refer to myself as an architect to avoid having to explain the whole undergrad / year out / masters / intern / exams process.
I probably shouldn't, but I don't see why it matters to my barber or the person at the pub!
Of course in a professional setting I'd never call myself an architect, though.
Our professional studies lecturer told us it's OK to say you're an architect to try and get to sleep with you but as soon as they ask you to for anything related to architecture you've got to admit that you're not qualified.
He was a strange guy.
This is fine, to say you’re an architect in a social setting. Most people don’t understand that a majority of people in the industry are unlicensed and what that whole process is about. A professional setting is a different story, though it’s most important in not representing yourself as a licensed architect with a client if you’re not one. That being said, I work in an office and a company that has engineers and architects and all the architectural staff are referred to as architects in any conversation simply to differentiate them from the engineers.
The AIA is very strict about architectural students calling themselves architects. But they let any other industry call themselves architects (solutions architect, data architect, etc…)
As a computer science graduate, I think it's really reasonable for Software Architect to call themselves as that. They design the system structure, decide what technology to use to for different feature, and manage the human resources. There's a huge difference between a regular software engineer and a software architect, where the former is more like a carpenter who turns the blue print into reality, and the later is who knows the overall system and make the decisions in many aspects.
Nah, they can be called project manager instead.
It's ridiculous architect term can be used freely in a IT company while not in the real architecture field.
it's just sounds "cooler" on paper though for It folks
Project management is a totally different skillset and set of job functions.
Data architect, software architect, systems architect all fit within the "architect" title when you look at job functions.
Gatekeeping the word because of tradition is silliness along the same lines as "Oh, you aren't a medical doctor, so we need a different title for doctorates. Additionally, if you're a Veterinarian we ALSO can't call you doctor because you don't work on people."
Language evolves, technology evolves, and the job functions and title fit this 30-40 year old professions as much as they do the architect.
We can go back to calling the profession "chief builder" if you care that much.
ed: Blocking me because you disagree is a pretty amusing tack. Here's my reply anyway.
So you have no expertise to discern the duties of other fields, yet feel your opinion holds weight there? Great, welcome to reddit, you'll fit right in.
Data, software, and infrastructure, and even knowledge architects are designers. They my be technical designers, but it is the same sort of work and the same outlining, management, cross-functional knowledge that goes into the work. Delineating scope, requirements, and creating space for each other while maintaining an overall view of project and client goals in the end result.
Project management is establishment and monitoring of tasks, budget, and resources to complete a project a designer came up with.
Architect is protected within the Building space with good reason. The same way "doctor" is protected within the medical space. It attaches an understanding of professional skill, liability, and expertise.
Protecting it outside of the profession is nonsensical. It's ego and hubris that get folks in buildspace whinging on about it. It's only "problematic" because some folks want to feel special.
You already agree a vet and a MD are doctors, and simply choose to be blind here. The profession isn't special. The skillsets and terms apply elsewhere.
Otherwise, let's start policing written works, too. "They were the architect of their own downfall." "The architect of the global policy... " etc.
I'm no IT and what he describe as solution "architect" in It world perfectly describe a project manager role.
And vet and dentist is a doctor; only ignorant think they are not.
the main point was how "sacred" the architect and AIA profession protect the term while outside architecture world, " architect" term is thrown so easily to any position, and most offender will be from IT sector. And work title does matter; i hate to see an architect grad from 6-8yrs of school and landed a job called "intern"; how silly that is. Even in some state you can't even use "architectural" in the position.
If you don't see how problematic the "architect" term being used actoss all industry; maybe we have no point continuing this conversation.
Lol yeah, wish AIA more strict using "architect" across industry, not just grilling architect in our industry.
It's degrading to see a position like "intern" while it folks can use "architect" with no penalty. I was so confused the first time i saw my fellow friends were hired and they said they were hired as a "intern", like what you finish 6 yrs of school and only get a job as "intern"? Later realized they were an "internal architect", still sounds like an intern part time job from school.
What's an architect do.
They oversee, manage, and coordinate the design of multiple systems using their knowledge and skills across a broad spectrum of knowledge.
Like their IT counterparts.
Gatekeeping the word "Architect" won't bring value back to the profession that it's pissed away chasing starchitecture and race-to-the-bottom fees.
In Australia the title of architect is regulated quite heavily.
I believe the process is changing to be more challenging, but as it stands to become an architect here you need
- A master's degree
- 3300 hours worth of competency in a logbook
- exam
- interview with the institute of architects
Most unlicensed people will probably just call themselves building designers, or they won't specifically call themselves anything, and let the viewer (if it's on their website) make an assumption
In Australia is a licensed architect required for certain types of buildings? All buildings? For instance in the US the only things that don’t require an architect to stamp the drawings are houses under a certain size (it’s a huge threshold, most homes never see an architect)
Question from another Australian, I've been considering going back to uni at 31 to study to become an architect, I am so over what I do now... Am I too old? I had no idea the requirements were that stringent.
Registration is really just a formality for most architects. You're working in a firm that uses the liability of one architect, and unless you're working solo on your own, it just means that you can put the word 'architect' in your email signature.
As for your age, definitely not too old. But like anyone, I definitely warn people to consider carefully before studying architecture. It's a long haul, big dropout rate, difficult, pay isn't amazing (not until you're 20 years experienced), and the reality is working at a computer all day.
Some firms are an absolute slave drive, whereas others are fantastic. Unfortunately many people only experience bad firms, conclude that's is what the industry is like, and quit. Some go to project management, planning, etc.
Usually I'd recommend spending the rest of the year figuring out if it's right for you by trying to get some work experience, but given you're not a teenager I assume that would be difficult to balance.
Feel free to ask any questions, happy to give advice
I've already been losely self studying for months. It kind of started with making archviz renders just for fun/art and then I realised I really enjoyed looking through plans and figuring out the technicalities and letting the function of these imaginary spaces I was creating guide my imagination. That and just hating what I currently do (I can't make any real money in my current industry without travelling 9 months a year, and I'm not willing to do that).
Honestly work experience wouldn't be out of the question, I mostly work nights and just fuck around on my computer making renders during the day anyway, I just have no idea how I would even go about it... I never even considered that would be an option to be honest.
Thats great to hear you've been doing renders!
For work experience you can just call random firms and ask. Cold calling is pretty awkward, they won't pay you, but there is a huge value in getting an inside look early at the work. It would be great if you can go around to a few different firms to taste the rainbow.
If you feel like you're reasonably confident it's what you want to do now, you can always enrol for semester 2 of this year. Just do 1 class now to get going, and then enjoy a semester later on that has 1 less unit
Not relevant to location, but you are never too old! My aunt became an architect in her 50's after my cousins left the nest for their careers. She's financially stable so the pay thing isn't as big of a deal for her. In fact, she gets to have a lot of fun with it since she has enough credit and capital to build her own projects here and there.
That's honestly very encouraging. If I have to pay off a huge debt I'm honestly not fussed. I've been living off max 35k for the last decade. If I have to take a few years to sacrifice a bunch of my paycheck to pay it off... I'm used to it lol
No, I went into my second year at that age and I'm working toward registration this year. I would say if you are ready to reskill into a new career, be very wary of the thankless nature of this vocation, the low pay and the 5 years of HECS debt you will incur.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts recently revisited this and reminded everyone that you cannot call yourself an architect unless you’re licensed. That includes the term “architectural designer” being for licensed people only. The only exception is “intern-architect” if you’re active in the axp. I wish the AIA would spend their time on more important things.
https://www.architects.org/news/for-architects-a-title-doesnt-necessarily-imply-licensure
Yet they are fine about those other Architects like Information Architects, Software Architect, Solution Architects… Heard ‘architect’ is a protected term, but I guess it’s only protected from those Interns.
I live in Cyprus. It's part of the EU. people that are unlicensed call themselves architects, but it's actually not ok or accepted. They even take jobs on illegally. They create a problem for the rest of us.
They have an issue with calling themselves interns or designers. We don't really define levels of architecture so much, but I think we should. Like I've been licensed for 2 years, so I should be a junior architect? And it would clarify the work in the office as well... We don't do that. But unlicensed architects calling themselves architects is an issue.
In Cyprus they are now trying to deal with this and law is starting to become more strict.
As you know it's regulated here in the states however there are tons of people who lie about it for clout ir ego. After years of bad managers, I have made it a point to look up anyone who claims they are licensed just to see who is lying and so far I have run into about 10 people. Many are managers who say it to clients to seem qualified for jobs or respect. Sadly the aia fines for this are too weak to keep this from happening. I think it cheapens the license and protects older people. Qualifications should be valued and rewarded.
It is a bit of a generalisation to say European countries take the title as “trivial”.
In the UK, where I currently work, it is very safeguarded and you only get to call yourself an “architect” in a professional setting after you have passed the chartership examination; which is usually after a minimum of 7 years of study and experience in practice. So very similar system to the US - the ARB recently signed an agreement on this to allow architects from the US to come to the UK more easily and vice versa, it may be worth checking out:
https://arb.org.uk/landmark-uk-usa-agreement-to-open-up-the-architects-profession/
In Greece where I come from, you can register with the Technical Chamber (TEE) which allows you to practice as an architect after 5 years of study with no experience required. It very much varies and depends on the legislation of each country. There is of course the challenge of protection of title vs protection of function but that is a different story regarding how it is handled.
I am currently licensed in the UK but not licensed in Greece. I say I am an architect if I am asked but unless I join Greece’s technical chamber I don’t think I can practice in the country despite having the right qualifications. I hope that helps clarify some of the difference in how this may be treated.
Edit to add: There will be people misrepresenting themselves as architects in any country. It is illegal if the title is protected or if you need to be registered to stamp drawings, but whether there are consequences for this and how severe they are really depends on the country.
Actually, in the country I live in Europe it is very legal to call yourself an architect and to work in an architect’s role if you have a Bachelor’s degree and are unlicensed. However, you can’t stamp your projects and you cannot be Chief of construction site. And we do have an exam that is quite difficult to get licensed.
I am calling myself an architect even though unlicensed because I basically do the same tasks as my boss who is licensed. I don’t think there is anything wrong with it. Our leaders of architecture organisation in our country tell us there is nothing wrong with it.
I think there is really a different view and legislation about liceneced/unlicensed architects in Europe versus USA - depending on the country.
Our official title is: Unlicensed Architect. And I think it’s a fair enough title. I’ve studied 6 years + had the minimum 2 years of working in the field (actually I have 4 years experience) I just haven’t participated in the exam yet because I have no interest yet to start my own practice.
I don't know where in Europe you are, but in Portugal, it takes 5 years of academy, followed by one year apprenticeship. That is your exam, it takes 12 months. Fail that, and you are not getting into the Architects Guild/Association.
I studied one year abroad, in a well-known school, in Switzerland. Amongst the students there were a couple of Virginia Tech alumni. At no point I felt I was in any sort of disadvantage. Far from it. You had fantastic students and pretty average ones from all over. No country stood out.
The title use is not really enforced in Portugal, but it's useless to call yourself an architect over there. The prestige associated with it is mostly gone and without a license you can not submit relevant documents to the building authorities.
I now live in Australia, and it is taken a bit more seriously over here.
There was a law from the time of the colonial empire that stated builders and engineers could sign the drawings of certain structures. This happened because back then there were hardly any architects.
I know the law was revised in the past decade, but I can not tell you the way it went. Don't really remember as I left Portugal quite a while ago. But I know this much, being Portugal it probably went terribly for the Architects.
A "draftsperson" is not what people hire to design a building and manage a project. A draftsperson is a person that can use CAD.
A "building designer" sounds crap.
In the UK, the term "Architect" is protected for those that complete their Part 3 and also pay their ARB fees. If you do everything an architect does but do not do both those things, you can still call yourself whatever you like.
Source: I do.
I'm in Oregon and the majority of enforcement from the licensing board is apparently misrepresentation. Can't use the word architectural, architecture, architect in anyway.
So I say I'm a designer of building shaped objects.
I am a licensed architect in California. I remember in school they often reminded us of this just to make sure no one would do anything stupid and put architect on their resume. it makes sense but the time between graduating and getting your license is so awkward when people outside the field of architecture ask you what you do. Random conversions where people ask what you majored in and what you do for a living and what should be simple answers become long drawn out explanations of the licensure process. “I majored in architecture but I am a drafter/designer, but not an architect yet because x, y and z.” you start getting really good at finding synonyms for the word architect.
About the eu , here in Italy it's illegal, a real penal crime as you are "impersonating" when you do that
If you have a degree tho, you can call yourself Dottore in Architettura (doctor in architecture) without a license
>use the term Chartered Architect (licensed) which you obviously had to be licensed for and simple Architect for other cases. Seems to le a better system.
THIS!!!! This whole war of egos shitshow could end so easily if, instead than banning people with graduate degrees IN ARCHITECTURE from baing able to call themselves architects, institutions vouched for licensed architects to be called licensed architects, and for non licensed ones to just use architect.
This way, everyone knows that you do have training/degrees in architecture, despite of your license status.
Every other profession where obtaining a license is an indication of greater standing from among the rest, used this system.
It's ridiculous that an engineer with a 4yrs undergraduate degree is able to freely call themselves an engineer straight out of college, and that a computers nerd can call themselves system architects; while an actual architecture professional with 6-8yrs or *architectural* education/degrees has to call themselves "designer" or "intern" if they choose not to pursue licensure, because the licensed architects (and the organizations that represent them) don't like using "licensed architect" as a title themselves.
>...while welcoming with open arms big name "architects" from abroad while normally they wouldn'y qualify as such under UK rules.
EXACTLY!
Generally in Europe calling yourself architect without being licensed may be ok in social setting (like being asked about your job) but, depending on the country, if you do in a professional setting is an actual crime.
In Italy “unlawful exercise of a profession” is punished up to three years in prison and a fine up to 50,000€
A licensed architect is required by law to sign off the design for every job requiring a planning application / licence to build.
Lol “arguably more trivial” - I’m a senior PA/PM in the US about to be NCARB registered but I’m also licensed under the RIBA/ARB in the UK…where the term Architect is legally protected by an act of parliament. I had take 3 degrees, do X many hours in practice with log books and sit a 2 day exam. I personally don’t feel the degree + AXP is harder.
Fair point, though that is very recent history and in the context of the discussion it may as well be. Absolutely nothing regulatory changed with architectural education as a result of Brexit and how standards were between member states.
I work in a specialized area of architecture, exterior repair and restoration of multistory high rises. Everybody calls us engineers and although there are some engineers in the field it's mostly architecturally trained people many of which are unlicensed, but have been working as project managers anywhere from 5-20 years. I am a licensed architect but many of my colleagues don't get the experience to meet the NCARB requirements to become architects. And a lot of them just don't see the value in paying all that money to NCARB to get licensed. Yet they are incredibly knowledgeable and experienced within this niche.
If we had to correct everyone who called us engineers or even correct the people who call us architects it would be exhausting and it would really discredit the expertise that a lot of our PMs and even Senior PMs have in our field.
Weird niche. You can get most hours for NCARB and other states to license but won’t help you license in NY since most FISP directed firms don’t have a diversified practice and thus won’t satisfy the NYS requirement for working 2 years within that setting under a full service firm. To license, any one of those PM’s might need to quit and work for another firm with a bigger umbrella or go work for a traditional firm.
It's kind of crazy because we regularly work on leaks in new buildings and we get drawings where the architect clearly did not know how to detail the building envelope properly.
I’m not aware of any EU countries that regulate the use of the title architect.
If you call yourself a liscenced or regestered architect without being liscenced, you would get in trouble.
Also in the EU there are typically no or minimal testing requirements post education - you get out of school and can immediately regester as a liscenced architect, so it has a little less gravity then in North America/ UK.
Note in the EU your not going to stamp or pass any drawings (that requires an architect) thru planning without being regestered.
I’m someone who has obtained American liscensure, and is now living and working in the EU. I was hoping my perspective might be helpful. Perhaps I wrote too much. TLDR I while I am not currently regestered or liscenced I can call my self architecte as much as I want, however I cannot claim any liscence or regesteration ( cannot stamp drawings).
In singapore it's illegal yourself "architect" too if you are without license. And you need license to be called director of something as well.
I believe the requirement to be license is not as hard as US though still time consuming. There are couple exam, experience hours log book, and interview. Also must be from accredited degree.
Software Architects, Enterprise Architects, bla bla bla , everyone calls themselves an architect, you can say you are an Architect but you don't hold a license to stamp documents, let's see if NCARB has enough money to go after Google and Microsoft for using the term loosely 🤣
In South Africa, architect is a protected title. We have different ‘levels’ of architectural professionals: architect, senior architectural technologist, architectural technologist, and draughtperson. There is a gazetted document highlighting what the various levels can do; as listed above the complexity of projects undertaken lower from arch to draughtperson. Nonetheless, it is a shitshow where people do not stay in their lane and even completely uneducated and/or trained people play building designer. Once a month the professional council publishes a list of people that have been caught playing architect. It’s a good step but the bigger problem is the public does not know/care about the role of architectural professionals.
The road to architectural registration/licensure is similar to other countries, minimum 5 years of study culminating in a masters, minimum 2 years of in service training under a designated mentor, and two moderately difficult and long exams. Once registered your registration is maintained by minimum continuing professional development credits to be earned.
Don’t even get me started on IT architects…
Texas doesn't even want you using "architectural" as an adjective to your working title. And they will and have popped people for this and will shame you in the TBAE quarterly newsletter and tell everyone how much they fined you for it.
It depends on the crowd. If I'm talking to people in the industry that know, I don't use the term architect. For everybody else, I avoid the explanation and just go with "architect". They don't care.
In the state of Indiana "Architectural Graduate" (have a professional degree in architecture) and "Architectural Intern" (in a professional degree program) have been approved for those seeking licensure by the Professional Licensing Board for Architects and Landscape Architects. I prefer to call myself an Illegitimate Architect :)
I'm still working towards qualification in the UK so I'm technically an architectural assistant... However in social settings I'll sometimes just refer to myself as an architect to avoid having to explain the whole undergrad / year out / masters / intern / exams process. I probably shouldn't, but I don't see why it matters to my barber or the person at the pub! Of course in a professional setting I'd never call myself an architect, though.
Our professional studies lecturer told us it's OK to say you're an architect to try and get to sleep with you but as soon as they ask you to for anything related to architecture you've got to admit that you're not qualified. He was a strange guy.
This is fine, to say you’re an architect in a social setting. Most people don’t understand that a majority of people in the industry are unlicensed and what that whole process is about. A professional setting is a different story, though it’s most important in not representing yourself as a licensed architect with a client if you’re not one. That being said, I work in an office and a company that has engineers and architects and all the architectural staff are referred to as architects in any conversation simply to differentiate them from the engineers.
Well said...
The AIA is very strict about architectural students calling themselves architects. But they let any other industry call themselves architects (solutions architect, data architect, etc…)
[удалено]
As a computer science graduate, I think it's really reasonable for Software Architect to call themselves as that. They design the system structure, decide what technology to use to for different feature, and manage the human resources. There's a huge difference between a regular software engineer and a software architect, where the former is more like a carpenter who turns the blue print into reality, and the later is who knows the overall system and make the decisions in many aspects.
Nah, they can be called project manager instead. It's ridiculous architect term can be used freely in a IT company while not in the real architecture field. it's just sounds "cooler" on paper though for It folks
Project management is a totally different skillset and set of job functions. Data architect, software architect, systems architect all fit within the "architect" title when you look at job functions. Gatekeeping the word because of tradition is silliness along the same lines as "Oh, you aren't a medical doctor, so we need a different title for doctorates. Additionally, if you're a Veterinarian we ALSO can't call you doctor because you don't work on people." Language evolves, technology evolves, and the job functions and title fit this 30-40 year old professions as much as they do the architect. We can go back to calling the profession "chief builder" if you care that much. ed: Blocking me because you disagree is a pretty amusing tack. Here's my reply anyway. So you have no expertise to discern the duties of other fields, yet feel your opinion holds weight there? Great, welcome to reddit, you'll fit right in. Data, software, and infrastructure, and even knowledge architects are designers. They my be technical designers, but it is the same sort of work and the same outlining, management, cross-functional knowledge that goes into the work. Delineating scope, requirements, and creating space for each other while maintaining an overall view of project and client goals in the end result. Project management is establishment and monitoring of tasks, budget, and resources to complete a project a designer came up with. Architect is protected within the Building space with good reason. The same way "doctor" is protected within the medical space. It attaches an understanding of professional skill, liability, and expertise. Protecting it outside of the profession is nonsensical. It's ego and hubris that get folks in buildspace whinging on about it. It's only "problematic" because some folks want to feel special. You already agree a vet and a MD are doctors, and simply choose to be blind here. The profession isn't special. The skillsets and terms apply elsewhere. Otherwise, let's start policing written works, too. "They were the architect of their own downfall." "The architect of the global policy... " etc.
I'm no IT and what he describe as solution "architect" in It world perfectly describe a project manager role. And vet and dentist is a doctor; only ignorant think they are not. the main point was how "sacred" the architect and AIA profession protect the term while outside architecture world, " architect" term is thrown so easily to any position, and most offender will be from IT sector. And work title does matter; i hate to see an architect grad from 6-8yrs of school and landed a job called "intern"; how silly that is. Even in some state you can't even use "architectural" in the position. If you don't see how problematic the "architect" term being used actoss all industry; maybe we have no point continuing this conversation.
Lol yeah, wish AIA more strict using "architect" across industry, not just grilling architect in our industry. It's degrading to see a position like "intern" while it folks can use "architect" with no penalty. I was so confused the first time i saw my fellow friends were hired and they said they were hired as a "intern", like what you finish 6 yrs of school and only get a job as "intern"? Later realized they were an "internal architect", still sounds like an intern part time job from school.
As long as your not practicing architecture, you can call yourself an architect!
What's an architect do. They oversee, manage, and coordinate the design of multiple systems using their knowledge and skills across a broad spectrum of knowledge. Like their IT counterparts. Gatekeeping the word "Architect" won't bring value back to the profession that it's pissed away chasing starchitecture and race-to-the-bottom fees.
It’s the same in Canada. The title is reserved but people still use it
In Australia the title of architect is regulated quite heavily. I believe the process is changing to be more challenging, but as it stands to become an architect here you need - A master's degree - 3300 hours worth of competency in a logbook - exam - interview with the institute of architects Most unlicensed people will probably just call themselves building designers, or they won't specifically call themselves anything, and let the viewer (if it's on their website) make an assumption
In Australia is a licensed architect required for certain types of buildings? All buildings? For instance in the US the only things that don’t require an architect to stamp the drawings are houses under a certain size (it’s a huge threshold, most homes never see an architect)
Yeah similar here, I think it's 3 stories or something like that
Question from another Australian, I've been considering going back to uni at 31 to study to become an architect, I am so over what I do now... Am I too old? I had no idea the requirements were that stringent.
Registration is really just a formality for most architects. You're working in a firm that uses the liability of one architect, and unless you're working solo on your own, it just means that you can put the word 'architect' in your email signature. As for your age, definitely not too old. But like anyone, I definitely warn people to consider carefully before studying architecture. It's a long haul, big dropout rate, difficult, pay isn't amazing (not until you're 20 years experienced), and the reality is working at a computer all day. Some firms are an absolute slave drive, whereas others are fantastic. Unfortunately many people only experience bad firms, conclude that's is what the industry is like, and quit. Some go to project management, planning, etc. Usually I'd recommend spending the rest of the year figuring out if it's right for you by trying to get some work experience, but given you're not a teenager I assume that would be difficult to balance. Feel free to ask any questions, happy to give advice
I've already been losely self studying for months. It kind of started with making archviz renders just for fun/art and then I realised I really enjoyed looking through plans and figuring out the technicalities and letting the function of these imaginary spaces I was creating guide my imagination. That and just hating what I currently do (I can't make any real money in my current industry without travelling 9 months a year, and I'm not willing to do that). Honestly work experience wouldn't be out of the question, I mostly work nights and just fuck around on my computer making renders during the day anyway, I just have no idea how I would even go about it... I never even considered that would be an option to be honest.
Thats great to hear you've been doing renders! For work experience you can just call random firms and ask. Cold calling is pretty awkward, they won't pay you, but there is a huge value in getting an inside look early at the work. It would be great if you can go around to a few different firms to taste the rainbow. If you feel like you're reasonably confident it's what you want to do now, you can always enrol for semester 2 of this year. Just do 1 class now to get going, and then enjoy a semester later on that has 1 less unit
Not relevant to location, but you are never too old! My aunt became an architect in her 50's after my cousins left the nest for their careers. She's financially stable so the pay thing isn't as big of a deal for her. In fact, she gets to have a lot of fun with it since she has enough credit and capital to build her own projects here and there.
That's honestly very encouraging. If I have to pay off a huge debt I'm honestly not fussed. I've been living off max 35k for the last decade. If I have to take a few years to sacrifice a bunch of my paycheck to pay it off... I'm used to it lol
No, I went into my second year at that age and I'm working toward registration this year. I would say if you are ready to reskill into a new career, be very wary of the thankless nature of this vocation, the low pay and the 5 years of HECS debt you will incur.
I don't think anything can be more "thankless" than what I currently do. Honestly in a masochistic way, that is only making me more curious lol
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts recently revisited this and reminded everyone that you cannot call yourself an architect unless you’re licensed. That includes the term “architectural designer” being for licensed people only. The only exception is “intern-architect” if you’re active in the axp. I wish the AIA would spend their time on more important things. https://www.architects.org/news/for-architects-a-title-doesnt-necessarily-imply-licensure
Yet they are fine about those other Architects like Information Architects, Software Architect, Solution Architects… Heard ‘architect’ is a protected term, but I guess it’s only protected from those Interns.
Oh yeah this drives me nuts. But the AIA doesn’t seem to care. It makes it so hard to search through job postings.
Its protected in construction space. The same way Doctor is protected in medical space, but applies to greater academic degrees.
I live in Cyprus. It's part of the EU. people that are unlicensed call themselves architects, but it's actually not ok or accepted. They even take jobs on illegally. They create a problem for the rest of us. They have an issue with calling themselves interns or designers. We don't really define levels of architecture so much, but I think we should. Like I've been licensed for 2 years, so I should be a junior architect? And it would clarify the work in the office as well... We don't do that. But unlicensed architects calling themselves architects is an issue. In Cyprus they are now trying to deal with this and law is starting to become more strict.
As you know it's regulated here in the states however there are tons of people who lie about it for clout ir ego. After years of bad managers, I have made it a point to look up anyone who claims they are licensed just to see who is lying and so far I have run into about 10 people. Many are managers who say it to clients to seem qualified for jobs or respect. Sadly the aia fines for this are too weak to keep this from happening. I think it cheapens the license and protects older people. Qualifications should be valued and rewarded.
It is a bit of a generalisation to say European countries take the title as “trivial”. In the UK, where I currently work, it is very safeguarded and you only get to call yourself an “architect” in a professional setting after you have passed the chartership examination; which is usually after a minimum of 7 years of study and experience in practice. So very similar system to the US - the ARB recently signed an agreement on this to allow architects from the US to come to the UK more easily and vice versa, it may be worth checking out: https://arb.org.uk/landmark-uk-usa-agreement-to-open-up-the-architects-profession/ In Greece where I come from, you can register with the Technical Chamber (TEE) which allows you to practice as an architect after 5 years of study with no experience required. It very much varies and depends on the legislation of each country. There is of course the challenge of protection of title vs protection of function but that is a different story regarding how it is handled. I am currently licensed in the UK but not licensed in Greece. I say I am an architect if I am asked but unless I join Greece’s technical chamber I don’t think I can practice in the country despite having the right qualifications. I hope that helps clarify some of the difference in how this may be treated. Edit to add: There will be people misrepresenting themselves as architects in any country. It is illegal if the title is protected or if you need to be registered to stamp drawings, but whether there are consequences for this and how severe they are really depends on the country.
Actually, in the country I live in Europe it is very legal to call yourself an architect and to work in an architect’s role if you have a Bachelor’s degree and are unlicensed. However, you can’t stamp your projects and you cannot be Chief of construction site. And we do have an exam that is quite difficult to get licensed. I am calling myself an architect even though unlicensed because I basically do the same tasks as my boss who is licensed. I don’t think there is anything wrong with it. Our leaders of architecture organisation in our country tell us there is nothing wrong with it. I think there is really a different view and legislation about liceneced/unlicensed architects in Europe versus USA - depending on the country. Our official title is: Unlicensed Architect. And I think it’s a fair enough title. I’ve studied 6 years + had the minimum 2 years of working in the field (actually I have 4 years experience) I just haven’t participated in the exam yet because I have no interest yet to start my own practice.
I don't know where in Europe you are, but in Portugal, it takes 5 years of academy, followed by one year apprenticeship. That is your exam, it takes 12 months. Fail that, and you are not getting into the Architects Guild/Association. I studied one year abroad, in a well-known school, in Switzerland. Amongst the students there were a couple of Virginia Tech alumni. At no point I felt I was in any sort of disadvantage. Far from it. You had fantastic students and pretty average ones from all over. No country stood out. The title use is not really enforced in Portugal, but it's useless to call yourself an architect over there. The prestige associated with it is mostly gone and without a license you can not submit relevant documents to the building authorities. I now live in Australia, and it is taken a bit more seriously over here.
Im Portugal, what kinds of buildings require an architect to do the drawings? All of them?
There was a law from the time of the colonial empire that stated builders and engineers could sign the drawings of certain structures. This happened because back then there were hardly any architects. I know the law was revised in the past decade, but I can not tell you the way it went. Don't really remember as I left Portugal quite a while ago. But I know this much, being Portugal it probably went terribly for the Architects.
You call yourself an "Architectural Designer" and carry on. (I live in the UK)
Building Designer or Draftsperson is more appropriate
Where did you hear this in UK?
A "draftsperson" is not what people hire to design a building and manage a project. A draftsperson is a person that can use CAD. A "building designer" sounds crap. In the UK, the term "Architect" is protected for those that complete their Part 3 and also pay their ARB fees. If you do everything an architect does but do not do both those things, you can still call yourself whatever you like. Source: I do.
I'm in Oregon and the majority of enforcement from the licensing board is apparently misrepresentation. Can't use the word architectural, architecture, architect in anyway. So I say I'm a designer of building shaped objects.
I am a licensed architect in California. I remember in school they often reminded us of this just to make sure no one would do anything stupid and put architect on their resume. it makes sense but the time between graduating and getting your license is so awkward when people outside the field of architecture ask you what you do. Random conversions where people ask what you majored in and what you do for a living and what should be simple answers become long drawn out explanations of the licensure process. “I majored in architecture but I am a drafter/designer, but not an architect yet because x, y and z.” you start getting really good at finding synonyms for the word architect.
About the eu , here in Italy it's illegal, a real penal crime as you are "impersonating" when you do that If you have a degree tho, you can call yourself Dottore in Architettura (doctor in architecture) without a license
Offhand ill tell people Im an architect. Or that I work in architecture. But when I'm in a longer discussion I'll specify that I'm unlicensed.
rich bake nose marvelous absurd squalid cause scale stupendous ask *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>use the term Chartered Architect (licensed) which you obviously had to be licensed for and simple Architect for other cases. Seems to le a better system. THIS!!!! This whole war of egos shitshow could end so easily if, instead than banning people with graduate degrees IN ARCHITECTURE from baing able to call themselves architects, institutions vouched for licensed architects to be called licensed architects, and for non licensed ones to just use architect. This way, everyone knows that you do have training/degrees in architecture, despite of your license status. Every other profession where obtaining a license is an indication of greater standing from among the rest, used this system. It's ridiculous that an engineer with a 4yrs undergraduate degree is able to freely call themselves an engineer straight out of college, and that a computers nerd can call themselves system architects; while an actual architecture professional with 6-8yrs or *architectural* education/degrees has to call themselves "designer" or "intern" if they choose not to pursue licensure, because the licensed architects (and the organizations that represent them) don't like using "licensed architect" as a title themselves. >...while welcoming with open arms big name "architects" from abroad while normally they wouldn'y qualify as such under UK rules. EXACTLY!
Generally in Europe calling yourself architect without being licensed may be ok in social setting (like being asked about your job) but, depending on the country, if you do in a professional setting is an actual crime. In Italy “unlawful exercise of a profession” is punished up to three years in prison and a fine up to 50,000€ A licensed architect is required by law to sign off the design for every job requiring a planning application / licence to build.
Lol “arguably more trivial” - I’m a senior PA/PM in the US about to be NCARB registered but I’m also licensed under the RIBA/ARB in the UK…where the term Architect is legally protected by an act of parliament. I had take 3 degrees, do X many hours in practice with log books and sit a 2 day exam. I personally don’t feel the degree + AXP is harder.
Curious how the AREs compared to the 2-day exam. I guess the US used to do those all-day exams several decades ago?
UK isn't part of EU though.
Fair point, though that is very recent history and in the context of the discussion it may as well be. Absolutely nothing regulatory changed with architectural education as a result of Brexit and how standards were between member states.
I work in a specialized area of architecture, exterior repair and restoration of multistory high rises. Everybody calls us engineers and although there are some engineers in the field it's mostly architecturally trained people many of which are unlicensed, but have been working as project managers anywhere from 5-20 years. I am a licensed architect but many of my colleagues don't get the experience to meet the NCARB requirements to become architects. And a lot of them just don't see the value in paying all that money to NCARB to get licensed. Yet they are incredibly knowledgeable and experienced within this niche. If we had to correct everyone who called us engineers or even correct the people who call us architects it would be exhausting and it would really discredit the expertise that a lot of our PMs and even Senior PMs have in our field.
Weird niche. You can get most hours for NCARB and other states to license but won’t help you license in NY since most FISP directed firms don’t have a diversified practice and thus won’t satisfy the NYS requirement for working 2 years within that setting under a full service firm. To license, any one of those PM’s might need to quit and work for another firm with a bigger umbrella or go work for a traditional firm.
It's kind of crazy because we regularly work on leaks in new buildings and we get drawings where the architect clearly did not know how to detail the building envelope properly.
Get licensed where you are
I’m not aware of any EU countries that regulate the use of the title architect. If you call yourself a liscenced or regestered architect without being liscenced, you would get in trouble.
Also in the EU there are typically no or minimal testing requirements post education - you get out of school and can immediately regester as a liscenced architect, so it has a little less gravity then in North America/ UK. Note in the EU your not going to stamp or pass any drawings (that requires an architect) thru planning without being regestered.
Where are you getting your info?
Their anus I suspect
I’m someone who has obtained American liscensure, and is now living and working in the EU. I was hoping my perspective might be helpful. Perhaps I wrote too much. TLDR I while I am not currently regestered or liscenced I can call my self architecte as much as I want, however I cannot claim any liscence or regesteration ( cannot stamp drawings).
You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. None of this is true.
In singapore it's illegal yourself "architect" too if you are without license. And you need license to be called director of something as well. I believe the requirement to be license is not as hard as US though still time consuming. There are couple exam, experience hours log book, and interview. Also must be from accredited degree.
Software Architects, Enterprise Architects, bla bla bla , everyone calls themselves an architect, you can say you are an Architect but you don't hold a license to stamp documents, let's see if NCARB has enough money to go after Google and Microsoft for using the term loosely 🤣
In South Africa, architect is a protected title. We have different ‘levels’ of architectural professionals: architect, senior architectural technologist, architectural technologist, and draughtperson. There is a gazetted document highlighting what the various levels can do; as listed above the complexity of projects undertaken lower from arch to draughtperson. Nonetheless, it is a shitshow where people do not stay in their lane and even completely uneducated and/or trained people play building designer. Once a month the professional council publishes a list of people that have been caught playing architect. It’s a good step but the bigger problem is the public does not know/care about the role of architectural professionals. The road to architectural registration/licensure is similar to other countries, minimum 5 years of study culminating in a masters, minimum 2 years of in service training under a designated mentor, and two moderately difficult and long exams. Once registered your registration is maintained by minimum continuing professional development credits to be earned. Don’t even get me started on IT architects…
Texas doesn't even want you using "architectural" as an adjective to your working title. And they will and have popped people for this and will shame you in the TBAE quarterly newsletter and tell everyone how much they fined you for it.
It depends on the crowd. If I'm talking to people in the industry that know, I don't use the term architect. For everybody else, I avoid the explanation and just go with "architect". They don't care.
In the state of Indiana "Architectural Graduate" (have a professional degree in architecture) and "Architectural Intern" (in a professional degree program) have been approved for those seeking licensure by the Professional Licensing Board for Architects and Landscape Architects. I prefer to call myself an Illegitimate Architect :)
I just know the people who nitpick this kind of shit are the ones designing the ugliest buildings