While I don't necessarily agree, this is the way it was explained to me:
A profession outside of building & design can use Architect, because a reasonable person would not be confused that an "IT architect" or "policy architect" or "architect of the matrix" can do the job of "architect-ing" a building...
(A salon here in Napa is 'Hair Architects' )
But, therefore designers and builders cannot use anything with 'architect', because of the specific responsibilities it encompasses within the building trade, and the chance for confusion, or deception.
Its' unfortunate to me that there is not a better description for those about-to-be-architects, such as A.I.T. (engineers use EIT before they get their PE). Someone might have worked for years, have several degrees, and be nearly done with their testing, yet have little to distinguish themselves from a 'designer' that just got into the field last week, and is not pursuing their license at all... I asked the California Architect's Board years ago if any variation of AIT, journeyman architect, apprentice architect, or architectural wannabe or architect lackey would work, but was told no.
I'd like to see a bit more regulation of the word, since it was made clear to so many of us how important it is within our field.
Notably - the number of people that congratulated my on getting my 'AIA' when I passed my final exams, was also funny...
------------------------------
Casey Hughes (architect) AIA
Napa CA
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 09-14-2020 21:48
From: Charles Dagit
Subject: Architect
Hi:
Years ago I asked the AIA administration and leadership to go after the networks who call Carl Rove for example that "Architect" of George Bush's policy. That is only one example but it is done many times by the major networks. I don't understand the AIA"s reluctance. The use of the word is illegal in these circumstances as I understand it.
381 Williamson Road
Gladwyne, PA 19035
cdagit@comcast.net
215 817 6591
www:charlesdagitjr.com