Unknown's avatar

Ummmm, What is He Thinking? AIA chief economist Kermit Baker suggests that architects should do what they do best—design—and hire paraprofessionals to do the rest.

This month’s Architect Magazine has an article about using design “paraprofessionals,” written by the AIA’s chief economist, Kermit Baker. 

“AIA chief economist Kermit Baker suggests that architects should do what they do best—design—and hire paraprofessionals to do the rest. Try it. Your profitability might just skyrocket.” 

http://www.architectmagazine.com/business/add-a-layer-the-case-for-paraprofessionals.aspx

I think Mr. Baker is misguided, or misunderstands how our profession works.  Here’s my response, which I posted on the website.

“In this scenario utilizing paraprofessionals in architecture firms, who would train the interns?  What would they learn?

“Since interns who want to become licensed someday have to work under the direct supervision of licensed architects, what would they be learning if the licensed architects aren’t doing anything technical?

“The best way to learn how a technical detail is supposed to look is to draw that detail from scratch.  If interns never learn that, we would be very, very poorly training the future leaders of the firms.  What we are licensed to do is to design safe and sound buildings.  We are not licensed to just design whatever we want. A good start to designing safe and sound buildings is to understand building technology.  We are not training architecture students in building technology in architecture school, and if we stop training interns in building technology, we are headed for much tougher times for the profession.”

Medical students receive 2 years of clinical training, working in hospitals, while they’re in medical school, before they graduate as M.D.’s.  Architecture students have no official training working in architecture offices while they’re in school, but they don’t graduate as Architects.  They go to work as architectural interns after they graduate.  They receive their training on the job, before they’re allowed to sit for their licensing exams and, if they pass their exams, become Architects.

In school, we do not train architecture students in what they need to know to become licensed.  If we quit training them them in technical matters on the job, how will they even become licensed?  And if they do become licensed, how will they be able to oversee the paraprofessionals working for them, if they actually have no technical understanding themselves?  Who will do the construction contract administration?  The licensed architects are the ones who need to seal the drawings and specifications.  The licensed architects are the ones with the professional liability and obligation to design safe and sound buildings.  That’s what they are licensed to do.   

It’s not all about profitability.  Unless the system of architectural education and training completely changes, architects have an obligation to train interns in practical and technical matters.  We can’t shift that responsibility to paraprofessionals.  Soooo… if we have paraprofessionals doing the work that interns and young architects usually do, why would anyone hire an intern?  And if there are no interns, who will be the architects of the future?

Unknown's avatar

More on the improper use of the word “architect”

Below is some of what I posted on the Denver Post Online, regarding the improper use of the word “architect”:

People need to know that the Department of Regulatory Agencies of the State of Colorado has some statements about the legal use of the title “architect.”

From the DORA website http://www.dora.state.co.us/aes/licensing/licensure-arc.htm :

“The unlicensed practice of architecture and the improper use of the title ‘Architect’ or the word ‘Architect’ may constitute a violation of the Colorado Architect Law.”“Title 12, Article 25, Part 3 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (‘Architect Law’) creates the Board and grants it the authority to examine and license duly qualified applicants to practice architecture and use the title ‘Architect’ in Colorado.”

I believe that an education in architecture is a great background, one that translates easily into many fields of work.  But having a degree in architecture does not make someone an architect.  An architect’s training comes primarily from working under the direct supervision of a licensed architect.  That is why Colorado law (and the law in most other states) requires architecture school graduates to work under the direct supervision of a licensed architect for a certain number of years before being deemed eligible to take the licensing exam.  Only after passing the licensing exam and being registered in the State of Colorado is a person allowed to call himself an architect here. 

This is the reason that the media should not use the term “architect” as casually as it does.

Unknown's avatar

Improper use of the word “architect”

The media is misusing the word “architect” again.  See the text of my Letter to the Editor of the Denver Post, below:

In the April 18, 2010 Denver Post article “Off the Grid,” the Post referred to Mr. Wayne Snider, the town manager of Fowler, as “architect of the project.”  Mr. Snider is not an architect.

Colorado law defines an architect as “a person licensed… and entitled thereby to conduct a practice of architecture in the state of Colorado.”  An architect is licensed by the State to perform the professional services of planning and design of buildings, preparation of construction contract documents including working drawings and specifications for the construction of buildings, and the observation of construction. 

The casual, improper use of the word “architect” dilutes the meaning of the word and misleads readers.  Please do not use the word “architect” to describe people who are not architects.

Liz O’Sullivan, AIA
Denver