.. diskusi di architectural record 2006 tentang titel/gelar arsitek. jadul tapi lumayan bisa dibandingkan dengan apa yang terjadi di indonesia ..
Should architecture-school graduates working in the field (or not) be able to call themselves “architects” if they are not licensed?
+ In Canada we could call ourselves ‘graduate architects’. This was sort of wordy but did make the distinction between those that were licensed and those that were not. There is (was?) also the tradition of wearing a silver ring on your small finger if you were a graduate architect from a Canadian school. Engineers in Canada wear a stainless (or some kind of nickel/iron) ring on their small finger. right hand I think
+ I believe that the title ‘architect’ currently should be reserved for those who have completed the licensing exam and are licensed to practice in a particular state, similar to the title ‘medical doctor’. Because the role of the architect is first and foremost to serve the health, safety and welfare of the general public, the title is the only indication that one has completed and been held accountable for a minimum amount of knowledge in this regard. Perhaps if the term ‘licensed architect’ were more widely recognized, and were to be designated an official title, it could replace that of ‘architect’ in the future?
+ I fail to see the overall importance of this subject. The work that I do is independent of my title. Whether or not I call myself an Architect before licensure, it my responsibility to carve my career path and it is a sad state of affairs if an individual allows a title to detract from his/her feeling of self worth. Call me whatever you want, it won’t limit my possibilities or my ability to make a difference.
There are so many more important issues to consider in our profession, this topic seems to only be a distraction.
+ This shouldn’t be difficult. The title architect ought to be reserved for those who are legally qualified (licensed).
The NCARB should have created a title for those enrolled in the IDP and on a direct path to licensure, such as “intern architect.” The word intern alone isn’t descriptive. It’s moronic that they didn’t do that at the get-go. The IDP was created, supposedly, in part to distinguish “future architects” from career drafters.
When I graduated, there was no such program, and we REALLY had nothing we could call ourselves. Ryanc, you ARE an intern if you’re in the IDP. There’s nothing derogatory about the term, and nobody at a cocktail party is likely to turn you in to the licensing board if you say “I’m an architectural intern with Big Fat Architects Inc” or “I work in architecture.” I’ve been licensed for over 20 years, and in answer to a casual question, I usually say “I work for an architectural firm.” One thing I’ve learned over the years is that casual acquaintances really, really aren’t interested in knowing your exact job title or academic credentials or career aspirations. If they want to know about that, they’ll ask.
People who aren’t licensed, and aren’t on that career path (like the politician), can call themselves architectural graduates, or former architecture students, but shouldn’t use the title architect loosely, if they actually care about the profession. I think the guy was wrong to call himself an architect, without qualifying the word, in the context of giving his credentials for public office.
I also think that state boards should direct their energy toward cracking down on those who have zero affiliation with the field, such as computer programmers, who misuse the word as a generic term far more than anyone in our field does.
+ I agree. You’ve studied to be an architect, taken the exam and passed, so now you are an architect – a professional, just like a doctor, lawyer, or any other regulated profession. You should be proud of that achievement and work to protect your profession – your ability to earn a living. Only those licensed should be able to use the term and most states regulate the use of the term. Using the term without the license can be viewed as a violation of practice laws.
artikel lengkap tentang diskusi ini ada [disini]
Filed under: arsitek, pendidikan arsitektur | Leave a Comment