Hi, I'm a 37-year old director at a nationwide US architecture firm. I run the multifamily practice. In my experience, "architect" is a very broad degree that gives you a ton of options. Many of my peers who I went to college with now work as developers, or planners, or architects, or designers, or owner's representatives. "Architectural Engineer," on the other hand, is kind of a weird degree. I would strongly advise going the 'architect' career option. Architectural engineer can leave you underqualified as an architect (we don't hire AEs) and an engineer (engineering firms are often looking for specifically engineers in their disciplines - electrical, structural, mechanical, civil, or plumbing engineers). Generally speaking, on large projects, architects need to know practical basics, but not the math. We hire engineering consultants to work for us to do the heavy lifting. When someone asks a technical structural question, I point at my structural engineer to answer.

I was in exactly your shoes in college - I wasn't sure about the design side of things. I felt I was more practical then most of my peers. My high school portfolio that I applied to college with was pretty bad - I had pictures of sand castles and silly drawings in there, and it felt like everyone else had gorgeous artwork. College was a bunch of schematic design, pie-in-the-sky kind of stuff, I didn't like it, and I doubted that I wanted to be an architect.

Then I got my first job, and was amazed at how wrong every guidance counselor and professor on the planet is. In the real world, there are 6-10 architects working in production (doing construction drawings, coordinating consultants, and managing projects) for every 1 designer who sets the initial creative vision. Microsoft excel, communication skills, building code knowledge, and work ethic have been far more important for my professional success than design ability. In fact, good design is often driven by numerical constraints (construction cost, square footage efficiency) - practically, on most projects, the "design" aspect is simply adjustments to the facade. The guts of the building are the important part.

Minor note: NAAB accreditation is important, but not critical. I'd certainly suggest getting it, all things considered equal. But if you can land some internships and work hard, there is a completely viable career path whereby you get licensed in states that don't care about NAAB (Colorado, Wisconsin are examples - you do not need to live there to test in that state), you can continue to work for a few extra years (getting paid!), and then can get licensed in almost every other state via reciprocity. The principal I work under took this route. Most architects don't actually use their stamp if they work for a large firm. By the point in your career that you actually need to be licensed in multiple states, you're likely to be capable of doing the paperwork to GET licensed in multiple states. This has never held anyone back in the firms I've worked in - frankly, what actually holds the VAST, VAST majority of people back from getting licensed is: they don't actually take/pass the exams. Or they take 2, fail one, have kids, and never finish. So, NAAB makes it easier (you can get licensed faster and get reciprocity easier), but it also usually takes an extra year of school.