I agree with good design vs. a title/stamp.
However, in any profession, a ‘stamp’ is valid. It maintains liability and accountability…
Also, I’m not a fan of completing with ‘Land Artists’ for a job that entails knowledge of engineering and ecology. Form ought to follow function…which, in my mind, goes back to liability. Landscape Architecture ought to be held to a higher standard, a good part of that is the certification process. I like to equate it with Civil Engineering. Once again, I would always prefer a better designer and simply have them get their plans certified by someone with the title than someone who simply has the title. It is a matter of professionalism that does everyone in the profession a whole lot of good versus unregulated practice.
I’ve stitched up someone’s hand before, it doesn’t make me a doctor…hm?
In casual conversation if people with an LA degree who practice in the field say they are a Landscape Architect, I don’t find harm in it.
If you have the degree, and you work in the field…okay, you’re an LA, if you are registered, you’re an RLA. Bottomline, if you’re not an RLA you can’t legally get things done. Good, that’s how it ought to be, I’m simply pointing out that it hardly does anyone benefit job and salary wise to call themselves an LA if they’re not an RLA. If a company needs an RLA, they’re going to hire an RLA.
I get the point though and I would tend to agree with you on principle, but do not find it an issue or anything that would really bother me considering what I said above. Also, I find it humorous when someone puts down Landscape Architect on their resume when they aren’t an RLA. In this instance, yes I would calm correct their error.
Also, students who say they are Landscape Architects, no, they are student’s of Landscape Architecture.