The article echoes much of what I have thought and tried to do personally in my chosen profession.

Architecture has a title problem. The term, Architect, is protected by law in many states and it implies certain criteria: minimum 5 years of higher education + degree, 3 years of documented internship under a licensed Architect, and 7 (+1 for CA) licensing exams before you can legally put "Architect" after your name...anywhere. These leaves anyone else involved in the profession, short of full completion of the above criteria, as an Intern. Yes, that is the official title of a person fresh from university as well as the title of the matriculated professional with 20 years and 6 completed exams on their resume. The oft used interim titles of Job Manager, Project Manager, Job Captain, and Designer leave much to be desired and give little information to the receiver mostly due to the relative project type/size/complexity of the projects undertaken by the titled. Not to mention the recent preponderance of the term architect being used in the technology field with no legal recrimination. I can recall the last time I conducted and internet job search for "architect" positions; the vast majority were not solicitations for an Architect.

Perhaps, in our special little world, an expansion of titles could be useful or at the very least more nuanced in description. Personally, I hate 'em. I would rather have no title than call myself a designer. I would rather be a Project Architect than a Project Manager. Alas, that is not the way the profession runs.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. TL:DR.

Thoughts on expanding titles versus contracting?