What's in a title?

摘要

We pay a lot to protect the title 'architect' and yet there is no real protection of the public. Most architects seem to assume protection of title is a sacred right that we should hold on to come what may. That was my view. Now I am not so sure. The Architects Act 1997, which we supported overwhelmingly as a profession, gave the Architects Registration Board the singular role of keeping a register of all those entitled to call themselves architects. At least that is what we thought. As we now know, it has far exceeded this role by moving deeply into areas of education and practice with a dramatic effect on its registration fee, which used to be nominal, but has never given proper consideration to this all-important issue of protection of function. Without it, what is the point of the protection of title?