by Erin Nunes Cooper, AIA
National Associates Committee

Summary: Intern Architects are creating quite a stir at their offices, state boards, and AIA chapters. They are loudly seeking a change in the title of “intern,” because it does not accurately describe what they do or who they are. Further, it causes confusion to anyone outside the architecture profession. The problem with "intern" is that it typically describes a student who is still in school and engaged in work experience, often for academic credit. Architects specifically use the term for graduates who are not yet licensed, and many professionals on the path to licensure find this unacceptable.

To put things in perspective, many architects who are firm owners and managers today were able to sit for the registration exam and earn a professional license within three years of graduating from school. Today’s architects must complete required training units in the Intern Development Program (IDP), then sit for nine separate and focused exams. The process often takes seven years to complete: an average of four years to complete IDP training units, and an additional two to complete the exams and process paper work. (Some states do allow concurrent exams with IDP.) Professionals on the path to licensure can and do make real contributions to the field of architecture. Many are even recognized as experts in areas such as building information modeling, sustainable design, or historic preservation. Others are licensed professionals in other countries but find themselves relegated to intern status in the U.S. Calling such individuals “interns” is inappropriate and ignores the true value of their work.

Professionals on the path to licensure can and do make real contributions to the field of architecture.

The reality is that many architects recognize this problem and use "intern" in a limited manner among other architects, but avoid the title when communicating with the public. For example, a fee schedule that includes an hourly rate for a designer with seven years of experience would certainly cause a reaction if the designer’s title is “Intern.” Architects substitute "technical staff," “architectural designer,” or "job captain." Intern architects themselves are forced to develop alternative job descriptions to secure a mortgage or car loan and, in some cases, even to file their taxes. Peruse the AIA's own career job postings and find that employers use other creative titles to distinguish graduates from students: titles such as Junior Architect, Project Architect (or experienced intern), Architects 1-5 years’ experience, Graduate Architect, or Project Architectural Designer are common alternatives. Clearly Intern isn't working. By insisting on this title in regulations, but avoiding it in practice, we are creating a culture of avoidance and deception instead of one that nurtures tomorrow’s leaders.

Not a new problem
The title of Intern is not a new problem. It has been a key discussion at the 1999 and 2002 National Summits on Architectural Internship, and the 2005 Designing Tomorrow's Architect. The AIA National Associates Committee formed the Intern Titling Task Force in March 2006 to develop titling recommendations to NCARB and the AIA. The task force set as its goal to develop titles that accurately describe the job of professionals on the path to licensure, respect the professionalism of early-career architects, and maintain a distinction between licensed and unlicensed professionals. All recommendations must uphold NCARB's mission to safeguard the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Members of the task force collected data from state boards and sought suggestions for titles among licensed and unlicensed professionals. “Architect” consistently emerged as the preferred title. If "Intern" isn't working, can we use "Architect"?

If "Intern" isn't working, can we use "Architect"?

This is the question that the Intern Titling Task force is now attempting to answer. The Task Force is investigating other regulated professions such as the medical field where a “resident” can be called a “doctor” while practicing under the supervision of a licensed medical doctor. Could an intern be called an “architect” until completing the registration exams and becoming a “registered architect?”

1969 simply isn’t good enough
The titles of unlicensed and licensed architects are determined by individual state boards, with NCARB providing recommended standards. At the time of this writing, as many as 13 states prohibit unlicensed professionals from using any derivative of the word architect in their titles. The AIA Board of Directors has authored a position statement encouraging state boards to allow “Intern Architect” or “Architectural Intern.” This is a small step in the right direction. However, this is exactly were we were in 1969, the year when NCARB first created the title Intern-Architect with a voluntary internship that eventually evolved into today’s IDP program. 1969 simply isn't good enough.

Change will happen, and it is truly an exciting time for architects. In the past three years alone, there have been major initiatives and resolutions to increase diversity in the profession, embrace sustainable design, develop reciprocal relationships with architects internationally, and broaden the paths to licensure. All of these offer a bright future for architecture, one of which we can all be proud. None of this can be successful without including young professionals. If we are to move forward, we must respect early-career architects, the future leaders of our profession. Let's start by not calling them interns.