architecture. -What about "Architects" that provide our society with disposable architecture? The ones that come up with the type of architecture that does not work for its purpose; the type of design that is hideous in every way? Should those be called "Architects" just because they have passed the exams and were granted a license? No, not if you ask me. My point is this: It shouldn't matter if you call yourself an "Architect" or not, or what others think you are meritable of dependent on standardized tests. What should matter to us is that we practice well thought Architecture for the benefit of our society, as much culturally, as environmentally; not for our sense of self. I think like this because I am not one to go around trying to dismantle things in order to see how long it takes them to break apart. In our society, that is what happens with everything; we take it, analyze it, take it apart and put it back together in an unrecognizable way. But incase it has been missed, I think the issue is that an "Architect" is a person entrusted with public life safety (in the US) and that MINIMUM competency includes experience under a registered architect before you are entrusted with that responsibility. This is now only a few years for most graduates. I agree that "intern" wrongly depicts an intern's role in the profession. I am in favor of something along the lines of Architectural Apprentice or Architect's Apprentice,