Stepping into a hornet's nest here I know...
An Architect is a person whom: graduates from an accredited University, works in an Architectural office, obtains the proper amount of time as required under the direct supervision of a licensed Architect, passes their accrediting exams and becomes licensed themselves. They then will have to keep their license through on going education, keep insurance on themselves and continue to practice in the field of designing buildings.
At least that is the synopsis I got from reading the thread. There has been very little discussion about what to call the class of professional whom has the talent to design some of the most beautiful buildings and is not a registered Architect. A great man once told me, Jefferson was not a licensed Architect, though he designed and built Monticello, undoubtably one our nations greatest examples of classical Architecture and a crown jewel. Under the current system, a person can not call themselves an Architect even if they have completed school and been in the field for decades on end. This is absurd and irrational. This ideologue is akin to the seagulls in "Finding Nemo" who screech "mine", when they see a bit of food being offered.
Architecture is the science of blending Art with construction to form the art of design through the built form, more or less. In today's construction world, A licensed contractor can erect an enclosed space with minimum plans and the final product can be abysmal. His take at Architecture on that project could be seen as a failure, even if the building is sounds and meets all codes, the final aesthetic appeal makes the project a flop. He is still not an Architect, just a builder. An Architect can design a building and it too can be a flop, even if it passes all building codes. Just like writers can flop at their craft, painters etc… So this argument leads me to consider anyone who engages in the design of a building is practicing Architecture, just as anyone who obtains pay to build a building is a Builder, anyone who paints and gets money for it is a painter; painter, "one who paints".
I am a draftsman. I draw for a living under the direction of Architects, Planners and Contractors. Often time I am asked to draw a house plan or help with the renovation/addition of a house. I could be considered a Designer under this pretext. I have been in the field of Architecture for roughly 14 years. I have not been through an Architecture program, much to my dismay. Life events have kept me from the opportunity to do such, and so I would never use the term Architect, to describe myself. This does not mean I am not qualified to be able to produce a set of construction drawings and a beautiful design. After so many years in a field, one learns a little something. With side studying and networking, I have picked up and am more capable of most students, interns and probably many registered Architects to come up with a solution to a design need.
Now, of two people, one being a licensed Architect proven by the state to have met the minimum requirements to be capable of designing a building; the other having 20 years in the field and perfectly capable of the same project management and design. Common sense tells us to hire the person with the degree, then we look at experience, ability, availability and cost. That is what a client really needs to consider: "Can this person perform for me and help me design the best design for my needs". THAT is what I do. When I need another professional such s a structural or civil engineer, I call someone. When I need a registered Architect, I have a group of people I work with I can pick who I think would be the best person to work on a specific project. In essence, I'm not selling you on just me and my ability, but someone who can choose the right team for your project.
Then there are the Java/software Architects... that's for a whole other discussion...
