Poll – Title “ARCHITECT” could (should) be used by:

The truth is more important than the facts.

Frank Lloyd Wright

.

…………….

Did you like the poll? Check out another tricky architectural polls here >>

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Comments
11 Responses to “Poll – Title “ARCHITECT” could (should) be used by:”
  1. M Steven Davis says:

    Let’s hear what the IT industry has to say on the subject. I’m sure they’re very happy to have an official sounding monicer in their job title after earning a proffessional degree. But why does it have to be ours? Let them create their own unique designation so as not to cause confusion, like “IT Warlord” or “Data Wizard”. I’d like to issue a call for entries to anyone who can come up with a proffessional designation for an IT Specialist.

  2. El arquitecto de los pobres says:

    I have been a licensed Architect with an NCARB certificate for 30 years and have tremendous experience with many typologies… These days, all of that and $3.25 will buy me a fancy coffee at the local cafe.

    • Albert says:

      So the price for this certificate / license (with whatever abbreviation it holds) is $3.25? I think it is still overpriced. After all it is just a worthless paper issued by worthless bureaucrats… While the talent is priceless, At any time.

  3. El arquitecto de los pobres says:

    IT peeps shoud be called “Digital Gurus”

  4. Dave Mayfield says:

    Whomever wrote the 3 “poll” response options above might want to go back the drawing boards. I don’t believe that you’re going to get the objective data you may be looking for w/these three responses. They show a basic misunderstand of the process of associating the word “architect” w/one’s name and the related description of the word. Good luck!

  5. Sean Catherall says:

    In the U.S, this is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of state law. States regulate who may and who may not use the title “architect” with or without modifiers. In order to use the title, you must prove that you are capable of designing a building that does not put the public at undo risk and each state has relied upon the National Council of Architectural Review Boards (NCARB)–and sometimes additional mechanisms–to test those capabilities, along with the requirement that prospective architects provide evidence that they have acquired adequate education and/or experience and that they have not committed any negligent or criminal acts that would make them untrustworthy. If anyone has a better plan for protecting the health, safety and welfare of the public, let’s hear it.

    • Sean Catherall says:

      “undue” risk, not “undo”

      • Albert says:

        Thank you for your informative post, Sean.

        Yes, I’m perfectly aware of the legal state of things in US and Canada. I also have pretty good understanding of how it’s done in some non-English speaking parts of Europe. Obviously everywhere status of the architect is somehow protected and legally defined. One way or another such definition is based on the number of reasons and interests (part of which you clearly listed in your post). My poll is to see general public opinion of the people from different countries (not necessarily architects) as if this issue is free of administrative / juridical constrains.

        Plus, you know law could be changed; it is not set in stone, especially if public opinion is not quite in favor of the current situation (as you can see the poll so far shows that only ~40% are in favor of “American model”). As for the discussion of what are the other plans (“better plans”) to resolve those important issues you raise – that would be very interesting debate indeed (I could recommend LinkedIn network where such forums take place very often, sometimes in very emotional style too.)

        • scott piper says:

          There should be laws and governing boards to control who does and does not practice architecture. However the question is should there be laws that govern the word “architect”. An engineer is an engineer (maybe not a PE). An accountant is an accountant (maybe not a CPA). Someone with a bachelors degree from an accredited school should be an architect. The destinction between someone with an architectural training and the authority to practice architecture would be the internship & licensing exam. complete these steps and you become a Licensed Architect.
          We should prosecute anyone who practices illegally but we should release the word architect from a protected status because it limits the degreed individual from taking a career path that does not include a traditional course.
          For the record I am a licensed architect and if my neighor wants to call themselves a backyard architect or IT architect or whatever other title they can think of, that is fine with me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: