Letters After Your Name

What does it mean to be an architect?

What does it mean to be an architect? While it is clear that this definition has shifted over time, in particular in the last few years as a reaction to the mass exodus from the profession due to the housing bubble crisis of 2008, I have seen several sources arguing for a more inclusive definition that takes into account the expanded design fields in which architects find themselves working. (Link Link Link) This has lead to several changes in how architecture is perceived, not the least of which is the recent rule change by the American Institute of Architects to loosen the rules that govern how interns can earn hours that count towards professional certification. However, I would argue that the problem with the field is not simply the high barrier to entry, is in the image of the architect and how it is interpreted.

A little background: the American Institute of Architects (AIA) is the governing body of the profession, established in 1857 to “elevate the standing of the profession”. Every person who is legally allowed to call herself an architect must be certified by their peers to a certain level of competency. Licensure means that a person is qualified and can be trusted to fulfill a contract, and is limited to people who complete a degree (BArch or MArch), years of internships, and finally a battery of exams. This is an oft criticised, grueling process that many competent, talented designers never finish.

However, the true mission of the AIA here is not about establishing actual competency*, it is about image. The AIA has the duty to represent the profession of architecture to the public, who typically sees architects in the media as dilettantes, and in a media saturated society, it becomes important to project the image of professionalism. While this is clearly a single facet of a very complex organization, it still helps to look at the current trend towards lowering the bar through this perspective. The impulse to open the profession, lower barriers to entry and make it more inclusive works exactly at odds with the needs of the architect.

From an image standpoint, we need to find a way to simultaneously preserve the carefully curated view of the architect that the AIA letters after a name on a business card imply, while allowing a more open and flexible system that permits young designers to experiment and push boundaries. The answer is not to put everyone in the same category. Currently, there are two levels of licensure that allow an architect to legally sign their own drawings, as a full member of the AIA, and as a Fellow of the AIA, (FAIA). The latter is awarded sparingly only as a mark of high achievement. We need a third level within the legal definition of architect before either AIA or FAIA is reached, that of baseline licensure by the state that does not automattically qualify one for AIA membership. A qualification that says I am 5 years out of school, know my way around a job site and can be trusted with a complex project and can legally call myself an architect. But without AIA letters after my name. That should be reserved for actual achievement, not mere competence.

Those letters should immediately signify a talented designer, awareness of social impact of design, knowledge of responsible building and proven ability, not the ability to take a multiple choice exam.

*This is clear by the testing methods. In order to pass the exams, you are actually at a disadvantage if you have more experience, since the correct answer to an exam question often has very little to do with best practices learned from years of practice. The exams test only the ability to take the exams. If the certification were actually interested in ability to competently build, one of the requirements would be to show proof of skill through an actual completed building, with all of the complex skills sets and negotiations of constraints that it implies.