ARCHITECTURE: Licensure and Titles.

It would seem to me that if one does it, then one is an architect. However,
one may not call herself/himself one, if one does not have a license. THAT
is the "guild" at work. Sure! There is the aspect of law. Health, safety,
morals and general welfare are at risk. But I suspect there are some excellent
designers who are kept out of the guild by the EXAMINATION. How about some
discussion? Howard

- - The original note follows - -

From: [email protected] (Bradford A. Wellstead)
Subject: Re: Illegal Architecture
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 23:30:23 +0100

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Daniel Mittleman) wrote:
> So "architecture" has gone the way of "kleenex" and "aspirin". It now
> has a general meaning. Deal with it.

I agree with the frustration of Architects with software designers calling
themselves "Architects" particularly if one is disappointed when looking
for employment. Perhaps they should have a separate designation as
"Software Architects". In this case, there should be no problem.

On the other hand, if someone without an architectural license is engaging
in building design and construction activities _and_ identifies themselves
as an Architect --THEN we have a problem. That goes directly in the face
if why licensing exists in the first place.

"Architecture" has NOT gone the way of kleenex, aspirin, Xerox, and bandaid
in this regard and I take exception with being required to "Deal with it"
and I imagine many other registered architects, like myself, would agree.
Partial thread listing: