Summary: Emotions run high on the subject of intern titling—both for keeping the title “intern” and for changing it—in this week’s letters to the editor as well as the joint National Associates Committee/AIArchitect blog. While we edited some of the letters, we published one from William H. Prelogar Jr., AIA, Prairie Village, Kan., in entirety because of the number of thoughtful suggestions he has put forth. It’s the last one..

1. YEA

It works for other professions: 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”? Yes.

—Eric Johnson, Assoc. AIA,
Zimmerman Architectural Studios Inc.
Milwaukee

Erosion of the “architect” in society?: As an "intern-architect" pursuing licensure, I wanted to thank you for the article. It was one of the first among many articles about this question of professional terminology that really accomplished something. In its frank, direct tone, it blew the haze away that surrounds this question. Most importantly, it points to the larger question in which our professional title as un-registered, young architects, is just one symptom: Will the vacuum caused by the increased length of the licensure process cause further erosion of the "architect" in our culture? If we look around us, I think the answer is clearly affirmative.

—Martin Bacich, Assoc. AIA,
Architect-in-Training, HDR,
San Diego

There’s “Associate Architect”: I agree, a graduate architect should not have the title "Intern". I always preferred the title "Associate Architect" as a manager.

—Louis LaDouceur, AIA, Senior Architect,
Bechtel National Inc.
Richland, Wash.

Gatekeeper mentality?: I fully agree this misleading nomenclature must change. At Skidmore Owings and Merrill and other firms in the ’70s and ‘80s, I was respectively a project designer, senior designer, and a studio head before I was licensed. I think this title is sort of demeaning, and the fact I was not licensed was not much of an issue until the promotion to partner level required it legally. I wonder if we’re holding back our young architects with a gatekeeper mentality.

—Craig Kronenberg, AIA
Chattanooga

2. NAY

Keep standards high: Let's protect the term Architect and not use it or any word confusingly similar to it to describe unlicensed people, no matter how talented they may be. Words are important, and the public's perception of our profession needs to be built-up, not watered-down. It takes a long time and a lot of work to get licensed, true, and it should. Keep the standards high and the title unambiguous.

—Bill Fisher, AIA
Santa Cruz, Calif.

Symbol of expertise and respect: What I have seen over the last 10 years or so is a disturbing trend towards young graduate architects—interns in other words—not being diligent about becoming registered or even starting the exam process. It is not unusual to see graduates working as designers or “job captains” or intern architects who have taken few if any of the licensing exams, even long (several years) after they have completed their IDP requirements. Some even drag their feet on completing their IDP requirements and filing the paperwork.

It seems to me that after I graduated from college the trend was to become eligible and take the exams as quickly as possible after school, so you could become an “Architect.” It was a badge of honor, a right of passage, a symbol of your expertise and competency, and the way to gain a measure of respect from your peers. It was a goal that no one had to remind us of, or coax us into doing, or provide special incentives to work towards. It was just something that you did and wanted to do.

Which leads me to my point: I believe that to be called an Architect, or to carry that title in a firm or organization, you should have met the criteria for your chosen state, passed the exams, and paid the required fees. Until those things have occurred, you have not in my opinion earned the right to call yourself an Architect. Any change to this not only potentially misleads the public and our clients or potential clients, it further reduces the incentive for young graduates to truly become Architects.

—Chuck Dietrick, AIA, pb2
Kennedale, Tex.

Devaluing the title: As one who sat for all nine exams and the oral, it would be very disheartening for me if we began to call interns architects. It's a title we all worked very hard to acquire, and that effort is devalued if it is handed out to others who haven't run the paces.

—Dulcie E. Horwitz, AIA
Thousand Oaks, Calif.

Protecting the profession: I fail to see the problem with the title intern to describe someone working during their three-year intern period. As for it taking seven years from graduation to being licensed, that seems like a long time and should be the exception. If it takes longer than that, extenuating circumstances aside, then maybe they aren’t qualified to be an architect in the first place.

It is difficult enough already to protect the title architect and to distinguish in the public’s mind what an architect does. We are competing with numerous unlicensed competitors who describe themselves as building designers, drafters, plan services, construction specialist, etc. And the title architect has been usurped, especially by the computer networking industry. Just go to a large job listing Web site and enter the keyword “architect.” You will find yourself sifting through more IT jobs than architecture jobs. I am completely against any proposal that waters down the title architect and allows its use prior to full licensure. Otherwise, similar to people who become fulltime students with years in school and no degree, we may find ourselves with a gray area loaded with lifelong intern architects and a further dilution of our profession.

—Bob Smith III, AIA,
Talley & Smith Architecture Inc.
Shelby, N.C.

Protecting the public: Calling an unlicensed professional an Architect will further degrade the respect of the profession and will confuse the consumer. It encourages the continued nonlicensure of mid-level design professionals in large firms. The problem with the profession is that there is a whole generation of unlicensed designers who are mid-level designers in large firms. I have had principals of larger firms tell me that they do not encourage licensure because they would have to pay more to licensed designers. My office manages architectural consultants for a major university, and the lack of licensed designers in firms is seen by us as a problem. Unlicensed professionals are often presented as competent designers and project managers, but we find that they are sorely lacking the skills to manage a project from concept to occupancy, which jeopardizes the success of projects at the public's expense. The license certifies a level of competency and responsibility.

Commercial and public architecture is comparable to brain surgery, and I would not want an intern physician doing brain surgery on me even if he/she is called a “Doctor” . . . The title “Architect” refers to one who has completed a professional development program, has passed an exam, and is legally competent to practice architecture. This title should not be diluted by attributing it to unlicensed professionals.

—M. Blakey Smith, AIA
Shelby, N.C.

Watering down the profession: This is a very bad idea. They should be interns or some other name other than architect—I think associate is good—maybe associate architect. Additionally, the education has been watered down enough with no more math, calculus, physics, engineering mechanics. My concern is that they must learn to think, be careful, know codes, learn how to put drawings together. Is the public ready for them to be “architects”? I think not. This is one more step in giving contractors more control and architects a less significant role. Look around, more and more, architects are no longer driving the process.

—Doug Wells, AIA,
Wells and Associates
West Des Moines, Iowa

No sob stories: There is a way to change your title and remove “Intern.” Pass the exams! Now quit crying.

—Tymn Waters, AIA,
SMPC Architects

PC pandering: One is not an architect until they pass the tests and become licensed—period. The same is true in medicine, law, accounting, engineering, and driving a car. Enough of this PC pandering! ... It is sad to see the "ME generation" evolving into a pack of whiner cry-babies who can't handle the commitment and pressure of a real profession and the dedication and patience that is required to become an "architect." Entitlement and instant gratification seem to be the daily diet of all too many "interns.”

—Richard Bryant, AIA

Ain’t broke: I don't see a problem with the use of Intern. The medical profession uses it. Could it be the "self esteem" generation needs a title to make them feel better? Not sure on this one. I had the title of Junior Draftsman, etc. and did not have a problem with it. I guess it's just part of this culture who chases titles and positions and feel-good platitudes, rather than concentrating on learning the craft and the skill sets to becoming a stand-up Architect.

—Philip Griffen, AIA,
Cannon Design
Los Angeles

3. ALTERNATIVES

ARE right out of school: Here is my solution: Architects should be allowed to take the ARE following the completion of their education. Upon completion of the ARE, an individual should be afforded the title of Architect with some modifier that explains the actual level of experience such as Associate, Apprentice, in Training, or Intern. Until passing the ARE, an individual is a Designer or Draftsperson. The exam provides a formal registration process for those who have passed, and insures that those that call themselves Architect have a minimum threshold of knowledge to protect life safety and be stewards of the built environment.

—Douglas Pruitt, AIA,
Barrentine.Bates.Lee
Vancouver, Wash.

By any other name: If the AIA chooses to consider diluting the word Architect, then we are choosing to dilute our own brand. The AIA is there to serve the architecture profession. Why would we think dilution of our brand would be at all constructive or beneficial? If some Interns need a new name, then I recommend we consider professionals, associates, designers, or staff. Progression from this is senior professionals, senior associates, senior designers, and senior staff. Some organizations get around this issue by providing numerical classifications instead of names: G-7, G-13, G-15, etc. Or the AIA [could] follow up with CSI and other organizations and provide intermediate certification programs: Certified Design Professional, Certified Health Care Design Specialist, Certified Historic Preservation Specialist, etc. Perhaps some of these certifications may already exist, but there may be room for intermediate certifications.

—John Biggs, AIA,
JCJ Architecture
San Diego

Associate Architects: Have we considered calling them Associate Architects (taking from the Associate AIA nomenclature)? I understand the concerns of people in this position; I remember it being frustrating during my time, when trying to "prove myself.” However, I strongly feel there still needs to be some distinction between a licensed architect and someone who has not yet passed the exams, at least to provide some clarity to the general public who may not otherwise understand the difference. I do agree that it should be a consistent title throughout our profession and regulations.

—Laura Cooney, AIA, FRA
Rochester, N.Y.

Make internship more meaningful: I agree that this has been an ongoing topic for discussion among young professionals for some time. It was also a frequent topic of discussion in ArchVoices. Being 62, I’m sure I am regarded as just an old fossil but I am an observant old fossil. I have noticed that there has been a real trend toward extending the time from graduation to licensure. I don’t have a real clear understanding as to why, but I do think this article just chronicles the situation and not the causes for the time extension. My perception is that the young graduates simply are not putting the same personal emphasis on getting licensed as we did 30 or 40 years ago. We had the same three-year waiting period (during which we were professionally referred to as “draftsmen”) and a rigorous seven-part, four-contiguous-day exam process. This exam was administered by most states only once or twice a year. and you had to pass four of the seven parts to obtain and retain credit for passing any part.

Past the history and on to the observations:

1. The tendency of the organization of practices within the profession to become larger has lessened the urgency felt by young professionals to become licensed so they can leave their internships and strike out on their own.
2. The tendency of those now larger practices to recognize increasing competency by granting greater responsibility and commensurate pay increases based on performance rather than achieving an individual milestone such as licensure.
3. The institution of the IDP program’s rather rigid training and experience regimen has, for many young graduates, lengthened the internship period.
4. The introduction of the “take any part at any time” format for the professional examination has allowed a degree of procrastination to creep into the personal initiative of the interns.
5. Societal changes in the length of time that young people take to find and settle on a mate and commence family (and therefore more responsible) life has greatly extended the “let’s party” lifestyle we all enjoyed in college. After all, who wants to wake up Saturday morning after a fun Friday night, dig out those ALS Seminars and “hit the books”?
6. The profession has a dickens of a time already trying to get the lay public to understand what the title “Architect” means and stands for. Just look at the periodic newsletters from state licensing boards. The ones I receive are generally full of disciplinary actions taken against unlicensed professionals calling themselves “Architects.” What we clearly don’t need is another fuzzy title floating around out there to further confuse the public.

Now for some suggestions:

1. All states should, through the NCARB, determine which sections of the exam are designed to test the mastery of primarily “academic” knowledge and which parts are designed to test knowledge gained through the internship experience. Once determined, those academic parts should be eligible for examination at any time after graduation.
2. The IDP program could and maybe should be loosened up a bit as far as the precise number of units required in each experience category.
3. The professional organizations (AIA) should really encourage its member firms to adopt and embrace IDP. As far as I’m concerned, the AIA is really weak here.
4. Member firms should be encouraged to reward and recognize achievement of professional status by their young interns.
5. The academic institutions should make sure that their curriculums include a clear and concise outline of the steps that new graduates will be expected to take to complete their preparation for achieving “professional” status.
6. The interns themselves need to be more proactive in pursuing their licenses. When seeking a job make sure the firm you are going to work for has an active and useful IDP training program in place and agrees to provide you with timely and relevant experience and is prepared to mentor you through the process. If that firm is not willing to make that commitment, look elsewhere. Take responsibility for determining what your state board requires of you prior to your sitting for parts of the ARE, set timetables and deadlines for achieving your goals, and do not let procrastination interfere with your established priorities.
7. Firms should accept responsibility for encouraging their interns to set personal goals, enroll in the IDP program, have regular review sessions to make sure the intern is getting the relevant experience, provide information about exam review sessions sponsored by the local AIA chapter, and be generous to this next generation of young architects. Provide paid time off for taking the exam. Pay the enrollment costs. (This, by the way, in most jurisdictions amounts to big bucks.) Pony up for a set of the ALS Seminars.

Remember, lawyers can’t call themselves “attorney-at-law” until they have passed their state bar exam, medical students are not “doctors” until they have passed their medical boards, and bookkeepers are not “certified public accountants” until they have passed also rather rigorous exams. I don’t see anything to be gained from watering down the title “architect” by applying it to individuals who have not completed their training and examination process. Instead of diluting what “architect” stands for, let’s proactively, as a profession, figure out how to make the time of internship more meaningful, the process more lucid, and achieving the status “architect” more compelling and rewarding.

—William H. Prelogar Jr., AIA
Prairie Village, Kan.