As schools of architecture around the country continue to focus on how they can make architecture more diverse and equitable, Princeton University School of Architecture Dean Mónica Ponce de León is on a mission to rethink the nature of architectural licensure as it exists in the United States.
Following the dean's recent statement in support of radically rethinking licensure, Archinect recently connected with Ponce de León to discuss the significant barriers to access created by licensure as currently designed, her efforts to bring diversity to the faculty and student populations at Princeton School of Architecture, and how licensure might change moving forward.
In a statement responding to the most recent set of Black Lives Matter protests, you wrote that “the system of licensure that has defined the architecture profession needs to be eliminated or radically transformed.” Do you support efforts to include professional licensure as a part of receiving an M.Arch education or do you envision a more fundamental transformation? Should licensing be gotten rid of entirely?
We need to be honest. The profession is predominantly white and male. Only 2% of all architects are Black American. In 2008, that number was 1.5%. Let’s do the math, at that rate it will take 240 years for the profession to look like the rest of America. I, for one, cannot wait that long. If you focus on Black women, the picture is more dire. Black women comprise just under 0.3% of all architects. In 2008, that number was 0.2%. This is unacceptable.
I point to 2008 because back then, many of us thought everything was about to change. The prior year, Marshall Purnell had become the first Black American AIA president. MIT and Harvard both did conferences on race and architecture. The AIA did its first Diversity Plenary session. But as it turns out, 12 years later, little has changed.
Only 2% of all architects are Black American. In 2008, that number was 1.5%. Let’s do the math, at that rate it will take 240 years for the profession to look like the rest of America. I, for one, cannot wait that long.
I think it has been clear for a long time that we need radical change at all levels: who gets to study architecture, who gets to teach it, and who gets to practice it. Licensure determines who practices architecture.
I know that this is a sensitive subject. I am a licensed architect. I belong to that rare 1% of licensed architects who are Latinx. I am first to go to college in my family and my family was very proud of me when I became licensed. I worked hard to get my license and licensure has been empowering for me. Many think of licensure as the great equalizer. An example I hear often is that after graduation, Norma Merrick Sklarek applied to 19 firms and, facing discrimination, she got rejected by all of them. She ended up working for the City of New York department of Public Works for four years, took the exam, and passed it on the first try, becoming the first Black woman architect licensed in the state of New York. It was only then, that SOM hired her. That was 1955.
Today, we need to confront the reality that the face of the profession has hardly changed. It is predominately white, and predominantly male.
Licensure is empowering; but who does it empower? The numbers speak for themselves.
It is evident that we need a fundamental transformation.
Licensure is empowering; but who does it empower? The numbers speak for themselves.
What would an ideal transformation of the licensure system look like from your perspective? How do you envision instituting such a change both at Princeton and within the larger legal and regulatory frameworks of architectural production?
I believe that we need to eliminate practical training from the process of licensure. Practical training is an exclusionary tactic that serves nothing but to maintain the power structures within the discipline. Architecture should be more like the legal profession. After graduating from an accredited program, our students should take the ARE exam, and become licensed.
We are one of the few professions that requires both examination and experience. Think about this, in order to be a licensed architect: You need to graduate from an NAAB accredited institution. The process of NAAB accreditation is rigorous and thorough, and a whole industry revolves around it. You then need to have “practical training” working for a licensed architect. If everything goes well, that takes about three years. You also need to pass the six divisions of the ARE exam. You need to meet the additional requirements of your jurisdiction; and then, you can earn an NCARB certificate so that you can practice across borders.
Architecture should be more like the legal profession. After graduating from an accredited program, our students should take the ARE exam, and become licensed.
Do we really need so many checks and balances? Who does this benefit?
All of this seems particularly excessive when we take into account how highly regulated the process of building is. Consider this: Architects are required to work with licensed engineers in various specialties. Building codes control every aspect of a building. Construction documents go through an extensive review for permit, and regular site inspections ensure the building is constructed according to codes and regulations.
Historically, professional licensure has effectively served to lock Black people out of professional advancement, what can be done at this point in time to reverse that legacy?
The story that we hear about architectural licensure is that it was necessary to ensure life safety. This may be true of structural engineering. but I am not sure this is true of Architecture. Calls for licensing for many professions emerged during Reconstruction and there is a great deal of scholarship about how licensing was used as a tool to discredit Black skilled labor. Architecture is no different, and within this legacy, the requirement of practical training is particularly disturbing. Apprenticeship was a key component of the Southern Black Codes.
Calls for licensing for many professions emerged during Reconstruction and there is a great deal of scholarship about how licensing was used as a tool to discredit Black skilled labor.
To reverse this legacy, we need a system of licensure that acknowledges the gross inequities of the profession and is designed to remedy them. Not a licensure system that perpetuates it.
In the late 19th century the emergence of architectural education at the university was intended to replace the apprenticeship model. But in the 1920s practitioners expressed “concern” that graduates did not have enough “hands-on training,” and so began experience as a licensure requirement. There is no evidence that working for another architect for three years has made buildings any safer. However, at a fundamental level, “practical training” has ensured that those who are licensed have de facto control over who can or cannot get licensed.
A hundred years later we are still operating under the same model of control; IDP and AXP have only made it harder. With the current system Norma Merrick Sklarek would have never become licensed. Today, we need to ask what does “hands-on training” in architecture really provide that an architectural education cannot provide? What necessary knowledge does practical training verify that the ARE cannot? Who truly benefits from the system?
I believe, the numbers speak for themselves.
There is no evidence that working for another architect for three years has made buildings any safer. However, at a fundamental level, “practical training” has ensured that those who are licensed have de facto control over who can or cannot get licensed.
In 2019, the AIA, along with NCARB and other professional organizations in various industries, launched the Alliance for Responsible Professional Licensing (ARPL), “a new coalition of technical professions focused on educating policymakers and the public about the importance of rigorous professional licensing standards.” Is this the right approach?
I worry when I hear Robert Ivy, someone who I respect, say: “The best way to maintain the public’s confidence is to continue to require that architects demonstrate rigorous and ongoing education, examination, and experience. Attempts to weaken or undermine professional licensing requirements for architects not only harm our profession, but could potentially endanger public health, safety, and welfare."
How does making licensure more accessible “weaken or undermine” it? How will public health really be “endangered” by making licensing in architecture equivalent to licensure in Law? We cannot call for diversity in the profession; and then also call for making it hard to become an architect. Not only that, how can we defend a system designed so that those who are in the majority directly control who gets to be a licensed architect?
We cannot call for diversity in the profession; and then also call for making it hard to become an architect.
If we really care about the public’s confidence, then let us prioritize having the discipline of architecture reflect the public it serves. If the AIA is serious about including Black Americans and other groups in the profession, then the system of licensure needs to be designed to empower them. The requirement of over 5,000 hours of work for an already licensed architect, does the opposite.
When we began the interview, you stated we also need to change “who studies architecture and teaches architecture.” What has the School of Architecture at Princeton done in that respect?
When I came to Princeton in 2016 the representation of Black Americans and other groups at the school was dismal; we have done a great deal in a short period of time and there is a great deal more to be done.
Let’s start with tenure and tenure track faculty: We had 0% Black Americans in our faculty in 2016. By 2018 the number changed to 12% of Black Americans with tenure or in tenure track. But they are all design faculty. So, while 20% of our faculty in design are Black, and 20% of our faculty are Latinx, we continue to have zero faculty in the PhD program that are Black American or Latinx. That is not acceptable and changing this will be one of our priorities this coming year.
Let’s discuss who gets to study at Princeton: In 2015 0% of the Master of Architecture Program incoming class was Black American. The incoming class in 2020 is 14% Black American and 13% Latinx. The incoming class in the PhD program last year had close to 30% Black Americans and 0% Latinx. But this year it is the reverse, with 0% Black American students and close to 30% Latinx in the PhD incoming class.
Who gets to study needs to be tackled at multiple levels, including making architecture accessible to high school students. At Princeton, we developed a high school program in partnership with Trenton High School. This is a program that Milton S.F. Curry and I developed at the University of Michigan in partnership with the Detroit Public School system, where it is still running. High school students take studio five mornings a week for one semester as part of their regular high school instruction, and they receive high school course credit. It is not an after school program. It is not a summer program. It is embedded within their high school curriculum and taught by a Princeton Architecture graduate at the High School. These Trenton students have portfolios that rival the private high school programs, and this year they will be applying to undergraduate programs nation-wide. Dean Curry is developing the same program in Los Angeles. We hope to start a national consortium with these kinds of partnerships.
As I say this, I am mindful that all of this is insufficient and will continue to be insufficient until change is systemic and sustained.
In your statement you also wrote that “data drives diversity.” Can you explain what this concept means in greater detail and how Princeton SoA’s new diversity database supports this idea?
First, let me be clear: We do not need to wait for data to enact change.
I have argued for data because it makes institutions and their people accountable. For 10 years I have heard that there is “progress” in diversity. The numbers say otherwise. I do not consider the change from 1.5% to 2% any kind of progress.
For 10 years I have heard that there is “progress” in diversity. The numbers say otherwise. I do not consider the change from 1.5% to 2% any kind of progress.
Why has the AIA, NCARB, the NAAB, and even the ACSA made it so difficult to find demographic data? Why is it that when these institutions publish data, it is incomplete or hard to understand? Why have these organizations not funded serious demographic studies? We do not have information as to what truly results in any kind of systemic “progress” or what is getting in the way of that “progress.” If diversity was truly their priority, these organizations would take this on as a priority.
Our plan for the new SoA diversity database is for Princeton to push the institutions that control the information to share it, for us to track it, cross-reference it, and make it easily accessible to the public at large.
Antonio is a Los Angeles-based writer, designer, and preservationist. He completed the M.Arch I and Master of Preservation Studies programs at Tulane University in 2014, and earned a Bachelor of Arts in Architecture from Washington University in St. Louis in 2010. Antonio has written extensively ...
90 Comments
"Only 2% of all architects are Black American. In 2008, that number was 1.5%. Let’s do the math, at that rate it will take 240 years for the profession to look like the rest of America."
So should each industry simply be a reflection of the demographic makeup of the country? The focus solely on numbers, percentages and statistics based on the physical appearance of people is not very constructive, or forward-looking in my opinion, that makes it an exclusive rather than an inclusive effort, no? Should a specific underrepresented gender, sexual orientation, religion, or how people identify themselves be a box that needs ticking, or their political affiliation? Shouldn't socioeconomic factors play a larger role? If the goal is to fight inequality, that would make kind of sense to me. Just stop accepting rich applicants and drastically lower your grotesque tuition fees. Make the circumstances of how people actually live and how their socioeconomic situation is play a larger role in the entire process, maybe...I don't know.
Why should the members of the architecture industry not represent a very similar demographic breakdown as the population it serves???
also, her explicit point in that response was that it's not about the number, it's about having an objective standard to measure. otherwise it just becomes a boilerplate statement with no effect in practice.
Just would like to point out that all professional master program students at Princeton get 95% of their tuition covered by financial aid.
Meanwhile other grad schools are creating an "indentured servant" class of professionals. Princeton was founded by Yale Faculty... and slaves. There is little accountability in higher ed and the idea that a privileged Dean claims authority for our profession is frightening. It is a broken professional system that will not be saved by a broken educational system.
Archinect, I don't think any industry should necessary reflect the demographic of the society it serves, it needs to serve society and needs to serve society well, all of society, without focussing on skin colour, religion, sexuality, gender, etc. You should not shut out anyone of having access obviously but I really don't care that the person designing my home is a gay muslim veteran in a wheelchair or not, as long as the roof doesn't leak etc. We should get rid of all those labels, we are all individuals and we are equal before the law, and not make having the "correct" labels a prerequisite to receive a proper education or a scholarship...or not (in my opinion). I know it is easy for me to say as a straight white man from a social democratic country, but I think the focusing on such labels faster leads to more division rather than inclusion...On a side note, does it really matter to people what gender, skin colour, or sexuality etc. their mail delivery person is? And do they really take offence or feel discriminated against if their mail delivery person is differently labeled than they are? As a former mail delivery person I really had no trouble putting envelopes in mailboxes of people that looked different than me, had a different religion or sexual preference...and nobody seemed to mind me doing so either.
randomized, read thread central. You keep making this argument and all it proves is that you are completely out of touch with the cultural conversation, the zeitgeist. You're willfully ignorant and happy to stay so. Which is fine, but sad for you.
Donna, what is the argument you think I keep making over and over again? If the cultural conversation or zeitgeist is moving in a direction I think is more harmful than leading to real progress across the board, I will obviously bring that up...Universal human rights are universal for a reason and should be considered without something as volatile as zeitgeist in mind, I think...
Yes, universal human rights should be universal. You are the one arguing that they apply to everyone equally, when most of the world is saying that some people will require more work to achieve the same universal rights as others. If you believe in universal rights, then you believe that that additional work is worthy and good to ensure that everyone actually is equal. Why are you so obtuse about this?
You can do additional work without the racism, why are some so obtuse about that? Just use non-racist socioeconomic criteria, for example. It is simply racist and discriminatory to provide help only to people of certain skin colour. And also when is that help still given, do people with mixed heritage still have rights for it, so when they are only 50% Black, or 25%, 5% etc. where does it end and who decides if they're Black enough?
There is no reason that the profession shouldn't demographically represent the population it serves. There is no reason it should either. The assumption is that the system is discriminatory. That may, or may not be the case. I find it difficult to believe that after years of incentives and recruitment that the numbers are still off due to some inherent bias. Most firms I know try to hire a diverse workforce, and, quite frankly, I don't see race as relevant to competence in any professional field. Competence and incompetence is color blind.
So basically any field or profession that is not a solid representation of the demographics of a place should be considered discriminatory according to some...It is such a slippery slope to connect "race" to performance, that to me is the real racism behind such attempts to balance the numbers (of only a limited amount of jobs or professions by the way). I find it disgusting that people think only people of a certain background can represent that part of society that looks exactly like them, believes exactly what they believe or fuck whomever they prefer to fuck.
it's hard to believe this system persists actually. it's a relic of the master-apprentice system of medieval times.
AXP makes existing licensed architects gatekeepers to the profession, and effectively gives them the full power to judge who is qualified to practice by letting them passively or actively impede the career progress of their subordinates. They are not required to provide mentorship nor to support the career ambitions of any of their staff, it's just hoped as decent people they would do so , and do it without prejudice or bias or petty obstructionism.
As a check on this extraordinary veto power the licensed architects have to ... complete 12 hours of continuing education annually. And check a box stating they have been in compliance with applicable laws. It's a system that invites abuse.
I do believe most architects have no malicious interest in obstructing the development of subordinates. But even the best of us have no meaningful incentive to help. When times are tough, the unlicensed and unemployed just have to sit things out and wait for someone else to give them a chance.
All this, and I don't see how the public benefits at all. As Ponce de Leon explains, the laws on codes and ARE testing already provide adequate oversight for public welfare in the work of architecture. The internship process provides no relevant education on achieving public safety or assurance of professional quality. It is merely an apprenticeship system that effectively lets architects filter down the field without oversight.
Sadly though, the very barrier licensing system has put up is currently almost the last shield to keep the profession to be a viable means of living. The barrier IS the profession for all I know. I hope what she says becomes reality like what we have been taught to do in schools; selling ideas for living and letting other professions pick up the pieces to support us. Some people actually do, but how many and do they really?
me, for one, which is probably why i have this view ;D
Let's first go through all the barriers before you can even take the exam, which Ponce actually is in a position to change. She is not in a position to change the profession beyond media hype.
Barrier #1 - Being admitted to architecture school. If you attended some rural public school or poorly funded urban or suburban school more than likely your college prep will be weak. Your ACT/SAT scores will be low and your options on where to attend limited.
Barrier #2 - Cost of College. It appears after a quick browse, Princeton like many Ivy League schools doesn't even offer an undergraduate degree in architecture, so you first have to attend somewhere else for 4 years +/-. Assuming you made it through Barrier #1 but not as a genius rather just really smart, you'll most likely have to work at Starbucks or something to pay for basic things like room and board which will limit your time in Studio and studies and you'll rack up a hefty college loan with not exactly perfect grades. But say you complete this as well and you become one of the lucky ones admitted to - Princeton. Princeton Admission stats You're onto Barrier #3.
Barrier #3 - After 5-7 years of higher education you graduate and decide you want to enter practice and exit the world of Academia. Academia is a world unto itself, it's like the Internet - free ideas with no real world Feedback. Although interesting work - https://soa.princeton.edu/ for the most part utterly useless and irrelevant to the REAL world and practice. Hence, the apprentice requirement. Now this is where Ponce is correct, people will hire people of similar backgrounds as this is natural human behavior, not somehow systemic architectural racism or whatever, it's 'natural human behavior'. Given the history of this profession, and its really a recent one of mainly modern Western European decent in America, those practicing architecture for the last 100+ years or so will be mainly white males, for example - Ecole de Beaux Arts and Bauhaus, etc... But yes, let's abandon the ARE and learning real world experience because of history itself - well outside this profession (I'm joking, I think the words naive and ignorant come to mind for Academia and it's approach to writing histories wrongs...).
If you can't design an entire single family house in one semester, down to every last waterproofing detail, provide structural framing plans and do the engineering, size MEP equipment (do you even know what MEP stands for?), do nice marketing renderings, provide a construction budget, understand contracts, legal ramifications of liability as a professional,etc... then you have learned nothing of any value as a professional....Ok you probably learned how to make nice renderings of concept design, not something that distinguishes you much from say an HGTV TV host- fashion does not make you superior the lay person. FASHION.
Suggesting single-family homes because its the closet project work type that reflects a real world demographic. Some states do not even require an architect to build new houses. But Yay for Academia - Architects Design Just 2% of All Houses–Why?
but...Please continue that bullshit myth propagated by Philip Johnson, continue the cult of fashion and useless art and blame a metric to test your fucking competence.... you know, just make this myth accessible to all, that'll show 'em (sarcasm, in case the tone of the text was missed).
or you know, teach people how to be architects, the professional version, so they can get jobs and stuff in their communities, just a suggestion.
1- Princeton does have Undergraduate Degree in Architecture-- and a very strong and prestigious program.
2- All students receive equal 95% funding for the Professional Master of Architecture Program, so the tuition for the Professional Master of Architecture Program is under $3,000 a year.
Did you even read the interview? or did you just read the title? How is this Latina, first to got to College in her family "privileged?" Oh I see... because she succeeded in a white world?
The point is clear: practical training = WHITE MEN get to decide who becomes licensed.
I also think that who ever thinks that "practice" out there makes for better architects instead of schools has not been to a school in 20 years.
1. do they receive same funding and is it a B.Arch or a B.A. in liberal arts? (if not B.Arch, its just bullshit to get your money).
2. that's nice, but whats the acceptance rate?
did you read my post or make up the word "privilege" for your own use?
Yes practical training is what you learn in practice and if you want to change practice you may want to know how to do it, so if you can't get a white guy to hire (appears to be the clear problem as others have noted, architects are literally very progressive liberal people, who are these racist supremisists in practice, names please?) anyway, you at least you could ask your school to train you, right? seems rational.
But I guess asking Princeton to be Vocational is a stretch right, let's continue the "privileged" version of practice, that will help those minority communities...like Kayne West may be your best match to a modern day Philip Johnson...
I went to a grad school less than 20 years ago, was like taking drugs, interesting but utterly useless in practice (Ivy school and I paid for it and I too am first in family to go to college, yada yada)
In most of the world, students are licensed after finishing school. I think only the US, Canada, UK and a few other countries require practical training. I believe if we should be able to take the ARE after finishing school (and pass) we need to take a serious look at our curriculum as I don't think many of the schools, specially the ones we flaunt, are properly equipping the students to pass the ARE exams as they stand today.
The #1 reason why there is lack of diversity in this profession is simply that it doesn't add up; the cost to become an architect vs. the outcome we make. Only a tiny section of social spectrum, which must be dominantly white male if we look at statistics, who can support themselves despite all the odds, can afford to become architects. We have to look at the diversity issue through the lens of how broken our profession is in financial terms and how systematically and voluntarily we made it slip under our nose. I can't believe she referred to a hiring instance from 1955. That was the time when being an architect made a financial sense. Also, she claims that architects do not need to be licensed because there are other professions who check our plans? It further undermines the profession by giving up liabilities; we get paid for taking liabilities not for suggesting some half-baked ideas. I am just appalled at this academic for being so far away from the everyday battle field of the profession.
Agreed. And to tailgate on this in the context of my point above, the cost of tuition in other countries are marginal compared to the cost of tuition in the US.
Tuition at TU Delft for EU nationals is just over €2000 per year, which is below $2500...
yes, that's why I'd like to see how many students from disadvantaged backgrounds APPLIED to architecture school in the first place. If nobody applies (see above) of course they will not enroll.
Sorry, I meant to say minor, not marginal.
A student from an low income background would be incentivized to go to law or medical school on ourely financial reasons.
If medical profession can attract diverse students in less than 10 years architecture should also regardless of income or background.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/12/04/673318859/the-push-for-diversity-in-medical-school-is-slowly-paying-off
One way to attract more diverse applicants would be to pay recent graduates a salary comparable to doctors or lawyers. Architects get paid like shit for years despite having the same costs of education. This is what drives a lot of people to other profession and even a lot of architecture grads move on from actually practicing Architecture. It just doesn't pay well enough.
We have a public/lobby relations problem. Quite frankly, there are far to many that think they can do it. Couple that with a number of states that allow PE firms to supplant work that was traditionally architectural and you have far more people fighting for the work that is out there than work available.
I wondered the same thing when I was in school years ago. Architects are very liberal/progressive as a group, so it doesn't make any sense that there would be a "racist" or "white supremacist" reason for the statistics. That being said, there are many liberals who champion all the right causes but are just as prejudice about other peoples religious, cultural, and economic status, to say nothing about ethnicity.
Part of the issue is academia's focus on philosophy, social theory, etc rather than practical experience. There's so much conceptual bullshit that passes for architectural work that schools like Princeton tend to attract a wealthy demographic that tends to be white. There are a lot of Asians in these programs so you'd have to figure that one out as well unless they get to be honorary white people. But the issues of how out of touch academia is with their stated goal to prepare an educate architects is separate from the endemic racism our society faces. Make academia more affordable, more grounded in reality, and use esoteric language to describe mundane things and you will attract more working class people who tend to be black and brown. Till then, practical experience will be necessary to learn a thing or two about what you're actually going to get paid for, and that is build for average human beings with-in a budget.
Racial matters aside, academica and the profession serve two different functions. An architecture education is a broad-based, project-centric background that provides a powerful thought process that can be applied to many fields. Licensure as an architect is a narrow professional qualification that addresses public safety (and very little else) in the overall process of construction of buildings. The experience for an architectural license is best learned in the field as it would detract from the freedom and breadth of an architectual edcuation. The small proportion of architectural graduates that go on to gain licensure but instead choose other paths and other professions is not an indictment but rather an endorsement of their education.
I will make a wager that most of those who chose another path are a result of 1) slow economy and/or 2) disillusionment.
And 3) low pay
Yes
There are also certain stereotypical fields that especially people from minority backgrounds are forced into by their parents, they need to study "business", "law", "engineering" or "medicine" because those have greater chance (according to parents?) of a stable job and better pay or else they will not support them?
The moment people of minority backgrounds will be as willing to put their parents in retirement homes and basically forget about them as WASP's are able to do for decades already, there will also be more people daring to stand up against their parents' wishes.
How many dreams have been crushed because people try to do the right thing and follow their parents advice and not study the arts or architecture, etc?
I have met and worked with Architects of varied races and backgrounds. Education and test scores are rarely indicative of skill. Quite frankly, some of the best I have seen have hands on experience in construction.
With all due respect to the Princeton Dean, I learned far more about buildings, design and construction my first year in an office than I did in 4 years of school. Elimination of the experience requirement is short sighted and accomplishes nothing more than checking a feelz box. The cost of entry into this profession is long and expensive. Perhaps looking into that aspect would be more beneficial in recruiting our future than focusing on diversity.
You can still work for a firm if you fell like you need it after school. The problem is the requirement that you have to do it. Many generations are lost because they graduate into a recession. We are asking architects to train their competition and there is no requirement for them to do so.
What you feel like you need is, by and large, irrelevant. School and a test do not prepare you for real world practice, any more than a video game prepares you for actual combat. Agree or not, the experience requirement is there for the protection of your client. I would make a counter argument that there should be a return to having a path to licensure based on years of experience under the direct supervision of a licensed professional.
So let's remove the reqirement of schools and 6 tests. All states should have multiple paths to licensure to allow a diverse group of people to attain it in a variety of ways.
Totally agree. Experience is key and should not be ommitted.
One path that would reduce the cost of architectural education as well as provide the practical experience is co-operative education. 50% of the semesters would be internships at real firms in which you earn wages, experience (including AXP), and school credit. Those internships would be facilitated by advisors and coordinators who manage partnerships between the university and a network of firms across the country. The other 5 semesters would be focused on a balance of history/theory, structures/construction, and design. I think educational programs set up this way would be extremely appealing to students who are dubious of the current student loan burden relative to an architect's expected salary.
This is what my undergrad program (University of Cincinnati) had and it led to a great job offer right out of school.
I think this would work as 5 year B.Arch program out of which you will have completed a majority of your AXP. 2 year graduate programs could provide deeper specializations in specific expertise, like sustainability, BIM/computational work, urbanism, and theory.
Similar to Philly’s Drexel University architectural degree program. In my 40+ years of highly varied practice here (but BArch @Cornell, not locally), it is commonly perceived that Drexel grads are the best well-rounded employees (plus those who get licensed to practice), overall. Whole, competent, professionals (and of course such people arrive at this state from many & varied backgrounds).
These comments are also appropriate for licensure of landscape architects.
AIA and the architecture schools have failed.Architects provide shelter for all demographic groups.therefore they should have been proactive in going into high schools and mentoring diverse students with interest in architecture and encouraging them to apply to the profession.
The military though not perfect have tried and have shown how this is done for the last 60 years.It is still not perfect but they have tried and have done wayyy better.2% is not trying.Architects should not pretend that they are part of the profession purely because of their gifts and talents.If they believe its their gifts and talents/academics that made them become architects, i challenge the current crop of licensed architects to send their kids to Compton School district from elementary to high school and have them apply to USC School of architecture and lets see the outcome.That would be a real life experiment.
Licensed architects will ultimately determine who gets licensed because of internship requirements.As the numbers show they primarily hire and mentor based on their personal preferences and not social/demographic/professional or industry requirements.
Architecture is a subjective profession therefore it is easy to get away with employment and academic barriers.Demographics will eventually change though.Unfortunately as boomers retire they have not spread internships and professional paths to a more diverse demographic that is replacing them.
Architecture is OVERRATED and will become obsolete as it has been known with the role of technology and developers expanding.
The same problem in the US is in Canada(https://raic.org/news/taking-action-against-systemic-racism),the UK(https://www.dezeen.com/2020/06/09/racism-widespread-uk-architecture-industry-aj-survey-news/),Australia etc the system uses its own members to perpetuate exclusionary social vices.
Licensure while noble on the surface has been used as a negative.AIA licensed members are not Angels expected to objectively determine whom they mentor towards licensure.If left to their own discretion they perpetuate the same social problems affecting society tarnishing the word profession or professional.
Because Architecture and its current members have failed to stand for truth and objectivity it will decline and be replaced by a more sustainable model that is responsive to technology,social,demographic and professional needs.
One and Only criteria for architectural licensing should be based on knowledge and competence. If somebody needs help getting to that point that’s fine, but we shouldn’t lower the bar that our profession has.
would you send your kids to Compton School district to get the knowledge and competence
the problem with the school district is the same problem with the architecture industry social problems.people sat down and created negative laws where school district funding is tied to property taxes meaning wealthy school districts will have better schools which do not reflect national demographics;neighborhoods are the by product of redlining and other negatives.So would you still take your kids to Compton school district so that they can become architects if not then it means standards are already compromised even before kids apply to architecture school.this is what Princeton and other schools are trying to correct.
Nobody seems to get it.
Enforce the requirement to have a license!!!
You cant contract with your neighbor to put sprinklers in for them, unless you have a contractors license for that type of work. So why can unlicensed people do the same thing I do?
The city of Palm Desert hands out brochures saying "Why you should use a licensed Architect"...excuse me, "should"? It goes on to say that an architects license takes about 8 years to get, then it waxes eloquently about how your project will turn out better...really? is that all it is, using a licensed architect is just a wish list item?
Early in my career I worked for civil engineering firms, so I wound up doing a lot of my own grading plans on my residential projects, however pretty much all cities started requiring a civil engineer to do any and all grading, drainage, civil type of work, even though I could get my plans approved, they would still require a civil engineers stamp on them, while turning a blind eye to the unlicensed designers doing most of the architectural work that they were approving.
I have been told by many unlicensed designers that they don't need a license, don't want to deal with it, so they don't get licensed, however pretty much all of them have said that they have or could pass all the architects exams and meet all the requirements. This is how you deflate the architectural fees, let anybody with a cad class do the work, no requirements, just be able to draft it.
The belief is that architects get rich off their exorbitant fees, yet it's the contractors, and subcontractors towing $200,000.00+ rigs to the desert, and river every weekend, most architects live a very low to middle income life at best.
The AIA and the states are all asleep at the switch regarding this, and I can't seem to get a groundswell movement going on this. I emailed hundreds of architects in L.A., San Diego, and the desert to see if they would join me on getting enforcement for the use of our license, like it is for contractors and engineers, I received only two reply's to my hundreds of emails. Sad...
I cant speak to the race equality or inequality issue raised here, I have however met many ethnic architects of all colors that are extremely bright and would have no problem passing the exams and meeting the requirements to become licensed, if they thought it would be worth it, and could afford the expense for the education and licensure, the sad truth is that the allowance of unlicensed individuals to continue practicing architecture will keep the architectural fees down, which I believe is the real issue here, making the practice more and more unaffordable and uninviting to newcomers.
I have several issues with this article.
First. A professional degree in architecture in no way prepares you for professional practice. This should change but I doubt it ever will. Most professors have very little real world experience.
Second. The idea that you don’t need that much knowledge to be an Architect because city’s do plan review is malpractice. Must plan reviewers don’t know what they are doing. They change what they are looking for based on whatever seminar they got sent to. You need proper plan review by someone who knows what they are looking at like a licensed Architect.
Third. Me and my wife who is also a licensed Architect own a small firm with 5 people including us. When we hire sex and race have no bearing on our hiring decisions. No business owner who wants to make money will hire less qualified people based on race or sex. That’s crazy. I want the best talent I can for what I can afford to pay. If they are black white hispanic or whatever I don’t care.
Lastly we should not lower our professional license standards because one race is under represented. Instead increase mentorship programs, outreach to kids before they made decisions on what they want to study, and other things like that.
How many of your employees are POC?
Licensing is first a means to regulate the numbers of a profession. For architectural practice in the USA licensing is also one of the means by which we state and enforce our obligation to the health, safety and welfare of the public. But architectural licensing has not been and is not now a perfect system. It is reasonable to assume that most licensed architects did learn and benefit through the process of licensure, but the process itself can guarantee nothing other than that the successful licensee has gone through the necessary steps.
Licensing does however give the state licensing board, NCARB and AIA (if licensed architect is a member) the ability to punish and/or revoke the license and/or membership should the architect not conform to the standards of practice set up by state and federal law, the NCARB Rules of Conduct and/or the AIA Code of Ethics. Those standards and the enforcement of them, like the licensing process also imperfect, are the means by which we, as a profession, enforce our obligations. It is the good implementation and the regulation of that practicing of architecture that enforce, not the original licensing of the architect.
Currently, initial licensing, reciprocal licensing and the practice of the licensed architect are seemingly inextricably bound together and are seen by many as all necessary in their current form, to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. But lets go back to the idea that Licensing is first a means to regulate the numbers of a profession.
Some other well known and respected profession regulate their numbers upon entry to graduate programs (medicine) or immediately upon completion of studies (law), and both of these require entrance exams for placement in the schools. It is in that entrance exam, to school, where these professions regulate their numbers, accounting for natural drop-off rates due to other factors. The Architecture Profession regulates its numbers well after graduation from an accredited school, after the student has committed substantial time and resources and at the point where young people are planning for their own families, taking care of their extended families, and burdened by the other obligations and complexities of impending adulthood. The primary reason given for the delayed license is to allow for practical training.
But by regulating our numbers of licensed architects so long after graduation, and setting so many redundant hurdles to offering our services to the world (as Dean Ponce de Leon clearly lays out), we, as a body of architects, virtually ensure that 1) minorities and women will be at a persistent and insolvable disadvantage; that 2) schools will continue to knowingly benefit from enrollments of tuition paying students who will never be and architect or practice architecture; and 3) as a result between of the now axiomatic disconnect between admissions into the school, graduation and licensure, the academy and the profession will continue to make it the other’s problem.
Licensing upon graduation means that schools would bear a significant burden of racial integration and diversity and that our efforts in the academy would result in a more diverse profession. The profession does not have the means to do this without the school acting first and empowered to enact lasting change.
Licensing upon graduation means that schools would have to knuckle down on core competencies of practice and weigh the balance of navel gazing against the responsibilities and opportunities of serving a broad public.
Licensing upon graduation means that NAAB would have be completely overhauled and would have to create new rules that commit the school to core competencies while allowing sufficient space for the creative exploration and the speculative architectural research of the academy to continue to be a force for innovation in the field.
Licensing upon graduation does not mean that freshly minted ARCHITECTS, upon graduation from school, will be given any more opportunities by their employers or by clients to exercise their architectural license, than ARCHITECTS who have just finished their EXP and ARE’s under the current system. The risk of architecture remains real and the drivers, suppliers and receivers of that risk will remain the essential differentiator of who gets jobs and the opportunity to practice and who does not.
The process of changing the system would be long and bumpy. There is no easy fix or simple conversation. But we should have this conversation and we should be willing to change.
Let's assume a Dean of some school could prove their kids pass mock ARE's and can put together a building in theory right out of school and all find job placement ASAP (I attended a school like that in another country). It works. Many of those graduates opened up offices right away, only their reputation was really low for "creativity" or "fashion"...I like this post more than a thumbs up, specifically the paragraphs starting with "Licensing upon graduation..."
As long as architects are the final say in who gets to be licensed by determining who they hire the system will always be biased and flawed if the majority population becomes a minority the shoe will be on the other foot.Better solve the problem now.The best laws are those that would ensure even your worst enemy is judged fairly because societies change and you might be on the receiving end.Demographics will change and the narrative can flip.Architects are trying to make it seem that it is licensing and competence that made them to get where they are.Not so.Being favored and given opportunities at the expense of other groups helps.minimizes competition.Medical field decided to change 10 years ago and its working.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/12/04/673318859/the-push-for-diversity-in-medical-school-is-slowly-paying-off
papd, the blame based on your post lies squarely on academia still. just admit it's Academia's fault, who cares about their politics, practically speaking they only propagate a myth of practice that can only be done by those who are already wealthy. lowering the bar of the profession because Academia has failed it's students is not a solution.
Experience hours are just one hurdle and perhaps the main one, but the examination process is also currently hugely problematic.
On Experience Hour Requirement: Experience hours necessarily delay licensure by a minimum of roughly two years (that is if the candidate was able to log the required number of hours in each of NCARB's six categories in the most efficient way possible, which is rare and unlikely). So, for most employees, logging hours takes much longer. This disproportionately affects minorities and women when it comes to supervisors failing to fairly provide adequate numbers of hours for each of the six categories.
The biggest issue with the above point is that unlike the law profession, whose education costs roughly the same as that of architecture school, salaries of unlicensed (and licensed) architects average roughly 1/3rd those of lawyers upon graduation. The amount of time it takes a new graduate to complete experience hours (AND pass six exams) while interests on loans are accruing is already a deterring factor. So, many students who have graduated from architecture schools end up pursuing more lucrative career paths outside of architecture.
Few students from underprivileged backgrounds are inclined to even apply to architecture school not because of the cost of education but because of the very little pay for practicing architects. And by the way, most employees do not even get a raise upon receiving their license. So there is not even a monetary incentive to do it to even offset the costs associated with obtaining it.
On Examination Process (reasons for eliminating it or reforming it to a GREAT degree): Barriers for minorities lie largely in the process of standardized testing as well (which is only just now finally being addressed at the college entry level with SATs). Minorities, specifically Black candidates, are 25% more likely than their white counterparts to abandon the licensing process after starting it, due in large part to the very high likelihood of failing the exams, the sheer number of them, and of course their associated costs.
Study guides are ridiculously expensive as well, and they are all frankly embarrassingly inadequate. There are contradictory arguments within a single textbook, spelling errors, and calculation/equation errors. You may not be able to pick up on them unless you have looked at multiple sources, which many people cannot afford to get access to. All in all, a terrible system for administering the tests.
Many practices do not help pay for the exams, and those who do typically only reimburse employees once they have completed all six, at which point it is often the case that the employee has left the firm and gone somewhere else. As far as I know, few (if any) employers pays for time off to study for the exams, very few help pay for study materials, and even fewer pay for time off to sit for the exam.
That is not to mention that the content of the exams actually actively promotes racist agendas, whether knowingly or not. For example, there is some material that is taught by the current AREs regarding designing for crime prevention (CPTED) that has actually been proven to disproportionately affect Black and other minority communities.
the likelihood of failing exams and abandoning licensing is based on other factors and not their race.its 2020 and you should take an anthropology class to debunk some of the things you might have heard from your peers or relatives or neighborhood.
I've been saying the same thing for years. And yet... her critique is too protective of the educational side -- would still require the same M.Arch degree to become licensed. Schools would have no incentive to lower costs, as they would still act as gatekeeper. Point still stands--why do we need just one controlled way to limit architects?
Anyone can design, but not everyone can. We need a new system that recognizes this--and the myriad ways that can make a person an expert--and a larger cultural movement that puts design first, rather than as a second thought.
One way to increase the number of black (and other groups) architects in schools is to increase the demand for them. That de facto segregation and substandard housing falls heavily on these groups is a matter of historical neglect. There should be tremendous demand for better housing and more responsive neighborhoods, and these groups would be well poised to meet it—assuming, of course, they have interest. Why go to starchitects in Katrina housing, for example, when local groups of color might be better positioned and better motivated?
That this won't happen is because of how skewed and unresponsive the housing construction is in this country, public and private.
the AIA and architects have used their profession to perpetuate historical defects.Since they were a small group.Few people,mostly those in the profession noticed their unfair practices,but the larger society assumes they are dealing with professionals.not so.its sad and unfortunate that a profession that touches the lives of literary everyone was not at the fore-front of diversifying their ranks like the military and like medical schools are doing.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/12/04/673318859/the-push-for-diversity-in-medical-school-is-slowly-paying-off
Left to their own devices architecture will cause more problems than solutions just like in the other sectors of development.
https://projects.newsday.com/long-island/real-estate-agents-investigation/
The architectural profession was founded and controlled by white men, just as all of modern Eurocentric/colonizing societies. Straight white men formed these societies (and the architecture profession) with themselves as the default and everyone else (women, people of color, etc.) as ‘other’ -i.e. a white man needs no qualifiers, he is just a man – the ideal human. Everyone else requires a qualifier: ‘a woman architect,’ ‘a Black architect,’ ‘an openly gay architect,’ etc.
The architectural profession has changed little in the past 100 years – in the way architects are trained, licensed, and practice - and the demographics remain stubbornly antiquated as well. Ponce de Leon is correct in asserting that the profession must change to reflect society. Architects cannot hope to design buildings and public spaces for everyone if only white men are creating these spaces. What nuances of breast feeding does a man understand that would allow him to empathically design a lactation room? What does a white man (or white woman) understand about the historic use of town squares for the spectacles of lynching and the emotional impact of these spaces on Black Americans? These are two very specific reasons why the architectural profession must reflect the society it serves. Diverse voices in the room making design decisions (not just drafting a design the white man in charge hands down) are necessary to create equitable spaces that reflect and shape diverse communities.
As Ponce de Leon points out, licensure must change. The academy must also change to support changes to licensure. The academy will have to embrace teaching the mundane facets of the profession, including codes, practice management, and engineering (structural, civil, and MEP) in a robust way that gives the graduate the tools necessary to fully design, sign, and seal the drawings for a single-family home. The academy must also address its own barriers to entry, as Ponce de Leon rightly points out in the statistics on student diversity.
In addition to reducing or eliminating barriers for entry into the profession, the profession must also address retention of women & minorities in the profession. Even once all of the hurdles for entry can be cleared, if pathways to leadership and ownership remain blocked, the upper echelon of the profession will remain white and male.
small correction ;) at least the city I mainly work in- it's a gay white man's profession really.
Interesting, in a field controlled by males, the Princeton Dean is female.
ra8147 - academia, even the best, as clearly explain unwittingly by Ponce herself serves no purpose nor has relevancy to the profession. In short, Ponce's version of architecture is not even part of the field. Again, she is in the position to change the uselessness of Academia but instead has lashed out from her privileged position. Maybe she can up her game a bit and and be a transformative Dean?
hey Ponce, make Princeton Vocational
at the gsd, graduates can recruit with tesla, amazon, facebook, ideo, pepsico etc. etc.
of course faculty strongly discourage these paths and it's cultural suicide to "sell out".
but each of these jobs have 80-130k pay bands for a recent graduate. in comparison, on-brand, culturally acceptable offices like LTL illegally pay new graduates below salary minimum wage (58k) for NYC. you get paid more by the MTA to be an apprentice bus mechanic.
i like monica, but nowhere is she calling out her friends--the wealthy, spoiled, 3rd vacation house owning firm principals who use abusive labor practices to enrich themselves at the expense of junior staff who, lets be honest, do 80% of the work. i agree with her on the future of licensure, but i don't think it'll get more BIPOC into the profession--abusive labor practices + better options outside the industry preclude a change in BIPOC representation.
i appreciate the nuance in this, rather than the defensive, entrenched, insecure professionals who tend to blame all their problems on academia, as if school should be a vocational training ground instead of place to learn how to learn (from which it has certainly gone astray from, no doubt). the truth is, though, that the whole discipline is broken and needs to be re-examined across the board. things will never change if professionals, together with academics like ponce de leon, refuse to remove the splinter from their own eye, too.
The fault can be laid at the feet of a system that holds formal education to be the only means to financial success. I have volunteered in a number of career days at local high schools. Very few people of any color are interested in pursuing the "dirty" trades because the system has done such an awesome job of marginalizing blue collar workers, while claiming to be their champions. As a result, the best and brightest tie their futures to a gold ring that doesn't always pay off. A large percentage of those could do well in the trades.
There are very few career paths that allow someone to flourish financially with just a HS education like the building trades. That should also include architecture. From a purely economic standpoint, for a professional degree, Architecture has an extremely high cost of entry relative to potential earnings for the vast majority of graduates. It has to be something you are passionate about, or it doesn't make sense.
Yes, the USA has greatly harmed itself by orienting the education system away anything to do with blue collar work. Everybody is expected to spend a bunch of money on an undergrad degree and then work in the gig economy doing freelance pr for internet startups.
education and the profession*.. let's not forget the AIA was formed in order to distinguish architecture as a profession, thus distinct from the blue collar building industries. it's not hard to imagine that school followed suit.
My intent is not to diminish the value of education. Learning how to learn and where to look were two of the most valuable lessons learned in School of Design. Over emphasis of education over experience leads to very bright and talented designers with very little idea how the pieces fit together. Architecture is both art and technical expertise. Emphasis of one at the expense of the other is short sighted and leads to some of the bad attitude other well educates and experienced construction professionals have regarding those Gee Dee Architects.
From what I understand, the entire pedagogy of Princeton (and many other NAAB accredited schools) is based around a glorification of obscure theory / academia and a disdain for professional practice.
Personally, I don't know a single business owner that thinks that any School of Architecture is turning out students that are competent employees, much less capable of being a licensed Architect.
Frankly, I'm terrified of the damage the profession would sustain if a whole crop of Architecture graduates were suddenly granted a license to practice without having to actually learn what practicing Architecture is like. It ain't like school, that's for sure.
Until they are willing to replace Architectural Theory classes with classes on MEP/Structural coordination and Submittals, the Dean at Princeton should really reserve comment on what is best for the profession.
princeton actually has extremely strong classes on "MEP/Structural coordination and submittals" and many of them are taught by Guy Nordensen, who knows a thing or two about the subject :)
They are probably electives. Most every school has a small minority of the faculty teaching useful information, the problem for me is that it has limited benefit when the other 90% of the curriculum is rubbish fantasy.
there is much rubbish in the profession, too- plenty of shit to go around both spheres. yet most professionals are content to live under the thumb of developers, clients, contractors, and technology instead of asserting an agenda or mode of operating. academia is a "strong" sector, in the sense that it asserts its agenda, yet has a tendency to assert it in a misguided and detached way. the profession, on the other hand, is a "weak" sector, following the directives of other forces (which are often not in its interest), but typically with more appropriate or relevant priorities. the bigger problem in my mind is how far apart these two have moved, and continue to do so- how can the two correct their relative misguided directions, towards a common ground that mutually strengthens both?
as noted its an elective, when it should be integrated into a studio project just to see if your crazy ideas can accomodate what is often referred to as reality!
I mean with covid and all, maybe architect's with less "engineering" brains would come up with better solutions?!?
yes, but there are many programs that already have an integrated building construction/systems component. both my ungrad and grad programs did, and they are very different schools, and still produced this so called staw-man, "unprepared student." i think it's a good idea to do this, but still very hard to fully assimilate this kind of knowledge outside of a professional context. what would be better is getting students to actually build things, which is what i would call reality, not the false dichotomy of the professional world is "real" and school is "fake" (life up until the point of a career is fake for people? it's a ridiculous argument that you yourself as a student at any point in your life would have rejected). seeing as it's quite possible to have a career in architecture where one never or rarely visits a construction site (large firms, overseas work, etc.), there are plenty of working architects who would benefit immensely from an interaction with reality by actually building something with their hands. to assume that because one is operating in the professional sphere they are automatically engaged in reality is a false one.
honestly, I got in trouble a lot in studio telling my profs. what they were asking for was bullshit (a.k.a. fake) and would never happen in the real world. I either received A's or near fails.
I agree on the build, but it has to be somewhat more standard, some schools go over the top with cutting edge 3D.
I also understands the schools angle, when I was a student 3D rendering would get you the job at a top of the line firm, then it became Rhino/Grasshopper, scripting, etc...and the most talented do end-up there, but the rest have this training they may never use.
But beyond building there is just straight-up legal practice and how to coordinate a damn engineer.
Not sure how you integrate that other than make architects work with engineering students on a projects, their brains function totally different. I would want to see a full set of Construction Drawings for a studio project, even if it took a few semesters.
You are also correct about architects know nothing about construction, I worked for many, told most of them they were idiots and they always said "design intent" (that I blame on the AIA).
for sure; having experience in construction, engineering, and other areas, i can tell you they taught me more about certain aspects of architecture than any courses designed for those purposes. the irony is once graduated, ncarb, aia, and the state saw little to no value in my "outside" experience; this disincentivizing of related experience with other sectors within the industry is something that needs to change asap.
NCARB and AIA are too narrow in scope as you put it and that is a serious problem. Reading a book on how the AIA formed, they were competing with other organizations at a time, the way it reads, somewhat like a group of fancy pants dudes who are higher than thou needed to establish something and pushed a more market based (integrated into various sectors) out eventually. I think you combine the AIA's attitude and we'll call it the 1% elite design schools, and you effectively exclude yourself from society.
what book? would love to read it..
link (p.38)
start there, I probably had a 6 pack of beer when I was reading this, but when you get to "The American Institute of Architects After 1889"...can't say I'm too off with my assessment....and covers a lot of this discussion above.
I'll highlight this bit and suggest Ivy (League) and AIA no good for most of us ;)
WAA (Western Association of Architects)…Licensing…various country comparisons…Prussia (Germany/Poland/Austria/Czech Republic and that funny bit of Russia on the Baltic - modern day map)
p. 41 “Uniform standards and licensing established a mechanism to test and certify practitioners. Such a review did not necessarily privilege breed or class or degrees. The process, open to all, effectively meant that society sanctioned professionalism as being in the public interest.”
I’m extremely late to the party on this, but just in case anyone stumbles across this article in the future, I want to add this clarification-
It is not necessary to have a NAAB-accredited degree to become a licensed architect, or even get an NCARB certificate I most cases. Most states, including the one I am licensed in, California, allow some combination of non-accredited degrees and experience to be eligible for licensure. I am a licensing advisor at my firm, and work with with several people who are on this path currently. It is even possible to become licensed in California without ANY university education.
Although a NAAB -accredited degree is a base requirement in the state of New Jersey, where Princeton is located( this is one of the states with the least-liberal licensing requirements), it is possible for a non-accredited degree to be evaluated and used as equivalent, or an engineering degree to be substituted. Someone without an equivalent degree could become licensed in another state and then become “licensed via credentials”( by endorsement) in New Jersey. While these alternative routes are a bit more complex, they are certainly available.
It is a bit disheartening that the dean of a prestigious school of architecture that grants professional degrees would give students the impression that the path to licensure is so limited. If her interest is really in the success of young people who didn’t have access to a traditional architectural education, then it would make much more sense for Monica Ponce de Leon to use her platform to make sure aspiring architects know what avenues are actually available to them. She could also advocate for the licensing board in her New Jersey to also accept practical training in lieu of years of costly education.
If you’ve been working for awhile, and feel that some things aren’t right in the profession at large, please consider becoming a mentor to junior staff at your firm, or graduating students from your school. The regulatory framework for architectural licensure in our country is complex, and it doesn’t seem like schools are doing enough to provide students with the tools they need to navigate this system.
.
I don't post a lot but this topic is I never miss an opportunity to talk about our licensure process. Two ideas:
1) It's no surprise Monica, a head academic, wants to put more focus on academia. I'm all for it but that would mean truly restructuring programs from what's basically a liberal arts (which I really enjoy) to a more technical emphasis. As it stands, students have no baseline competency in the field and that deficit would have to be made up- especially since we'd be stamping drawings on day 1 out of school. Also, let's reign in the cost of school while we're at it. Her data comparisons of racial makeup (very clear and instructive) should extend to cost of tuition cost relative to starting salary and be capped by it.
2) Actually eliminate the academic requirement and focus on an apprenticeship model. Being able to learn on the job, while getting paid for four years would teach you more about architect than doing design studios for four years, avoid debt, and actually get you on the right footing to do whatever you want with your life. We can carry over the 4year + 2year convention of undergrad and grad so you do your first set of experience at a baseline service provider and then get two years at a more ambitious firm. The risks here is one might stagnate, so being introduced to history, theory, and the arts would have to be addressed.
3) Oops, I thought of a third. Have two or so years of school focused heavily on software and history to make you somewhat useful- and then the mentorship model kicks in.
I definitely like to see Guy Nordenson continue to teach exactly what he teaches.
https://archinect.com/features...
yes, it's quite an odd critique considering nordenson is definitively a professor of practice with a large body of built work... perhaps more so than azp?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.