[kerr23]

> Why doesn't 'software architect' get the same criticism for not being an architect?

I'm married to an Architect, it bugs them too.

In most states - Legally they can't call themselves Architects until they've passed the AREs. You can't take the AREs until you have enough IDP hours (which takes about 3 years). You can't start IDP unless you have a Masters (or more recently a "professional bachelors"). Oh, and you have to take a new test for every state / country you want to practice Architecture in (Reciprocity is getting better but not quickly)

So it's that sense that they have to scratch and claw to get the title where we can just sort of make it up that bugs them.

I think we should switch to a different title scheme. I'm going to be a Doctor of Site Reliability (you know since I'm already doing operations....)

[psyc]

Personally, I never call myself an engineer. Partly for the reason it annoys engineers, but partly because I don't think of what I do as engineering in the first place. And I think the reason for that is I have studied the hell out of CS, programming, and math; but I have not studied a lick of engineering! Learning a few engineering approaches by needing to stress-test software, because it's too complicated to grok, does not qualify one as an engineer in my mind.

I do however wish that people were better able to make the distinction between titling oneself 'software architect' and claiming to be a sub-type of architect. Perhaps it's too subtle. What I mean is, 'software engineer' and 'software architect' are singular roles, peculiar to this industry, that happen to be made of two words.

[apple4ever]

They sure can call themselves software architects legally if they want. Its not related to the building architects.