London's UCL Bartlett School of Architecture. Photo © Jack Hobhouse. More details about this building can be found here.

Having previously examined architecture licensure systems in the United States and across mainland Europe, this edition of the Archinect In-Depth: Licensure series profiles changes underway in the United Kingdom's licensing system, which is currently undergoing a “fundamental overhaul” for the first time in half a century.

Stepping across the Atlantic

While Archinect In-Depth: Licensure is primarily focused on the U.S. licensing system, the series has also seen comparisons drawn between other countries. In particular, the third edition of our series explored the architecture licensing landscape across France, Germany, and Sweden, asking what the U.S. system might learn from its European counterparts.

That article included commentary from Yale Emeritus Professor of Architecture Peggy Deamer, who found that her own goal of studying European models by way of spurring reform in the U.S. system turned out to be, in her own words, “misplaced and rather naïve.” The significant differences in structure between the U.S. licensure system and its European counterparts, Deamer concluded, were grounded in the unique attitudes and outlooks each country had on its architecture profession and on the built environment. As such, the models explored in our previous piece were deemed ‘non-importable’ by Deamer.

Nevertheless, Archinect In-Depth: Licensure is once again on the move. This time, our journey across the Atlantic lands us in the United Kingdom, and for two distinct reasons of interest to our series.

Firstly, the UK model of architectural licensure is much closer to the U.S. model than other European countries. Like the U.S., practicing architects in the UK are required to complete a path to licensure, bringing them (typically) through two university degrees in architecture, practical experience requirements, and a final professional examination process. Like in the U.S., the licensure system is administered on behalf of the state by a public body, the Architects Registration Board (ARB), whose job is to protect the health and welfare of the public by ensuring those calling themselves ‘architects’ have the necessary training and competency to do so. Like in the U.S., the UK system also sees the licensure body, ARB, act independently of the organization committed to promoting, supporting, and celebrating the profession, namely the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), effectively the UK equivalent to the AIA.

Given the similarities and reciprocity between the U.S. and UK systems, the moves currently being taken by ARB to reform UK licensure arguably stand a greater chance of informing discussions on U.S. licensure than the countries explored earlier in this series

Subtle differences do exist between the systems. Though ARB in many ways performs the same roles as NCARB, it is worth noting that unlike in the U.S., which sees primary responsibility for licensure devolved to 55 state licensing boards, ARB has direct responsibility for licensure across the UK and is thus in a stronger position than NCARB to enact reform. One could, therefore, think of ARB as performing the same enforcement and protection role as the 55 state boards across the U.S. but on a national level.

ARB also has direct responsibility for accrediting architecture schools in the UK in addition to professional licensing, whereas the U.S. sees those roles split between the NAAB and NCARB/state boards. On that note, it is also worth emphasizing the strong role played by UK architecture schools in the final stages of licensure. Whereas the U.S. system sees experience (AXP) and examination (ARE) components administered directly by NCARB, the UK system sees those components (collectively known as the ‘Part 3’) administered by accredited architecture schools on ARB’s behalf. More on that below.

As a side note, RIBA also plays a role in validating UK architecture degree courses, though that role is beyond the scope of this article.

These differences withstanding, the broad similarities between U.S. and UK licensure make the UK system a worthwhile subject when exploring how U.S. licensure compares with other systems, particularly given the recent move by NCARB and ARB to sign reciprocal licensure agreements between the two countries.

The second reason why the UK system merits examination in our series is that UK licensure is currently undergoing what ARB describes as “a fundamental overhaul of the regulatory framework for the education and training of architects.” Given the similarities and reciprocity between the U.S. and UK systems, the moves currently being taken by ARB to reform UK licensure arguably stand a greater chance of informing discussions on U.S. licensure than the countries explored earlier in this series. As such, the primary goal of this piece is to introduce the U.S. reader to the reforms currently being undertaken by their UK counterparts.

UK licensure today

Before outlining these reforms, let’s first take a closer look at the UK path to licensure as it stands today in its pre-reform state. The path to licensure in the UK typically begins with a three-year undergraduate degree in architecture, such as a BArch, a BA(Arch), or a BSc(Arch). Completing this degree constitutes completed ‘Part 1’ of the pathway.

Next, a candidate will typically enroll in a Master of Architecture (MArch), lasting two years. Before enrollment, most universities will require applicants to complete at least 12 months of practical experience in an architecture office after graduating from their Part 1 degree, during which time the individual is referred to in practice as a ‘Part 1 Architectural Assistant.’ After completing their Master's degree, an individual is deemed to have completed ‘Part 2’ of the licensure pathway and is subsequently referred to in practice as a ‘Part 2 Architectural Assistant.’

The final step in the path to licensure is ‘Part 3’ which typically involves the individual enrolling once again in a university program to complete coursework and/or examinations administered by the university, as well as showing evidence of a minimum 24 months of practical experience (12 months of which can be achieved in the gap between Part 1 and Part 2 mentioned earlier). While Part 1 and Part 2 see students enrolled full-time in academia, Part 3 is typically a part-time degree that students undertake while also working full-time in practice. Upon completing that final course, the individual is deemed to have completed ‘Part 3’ of the path and may submit their application to ARB to join the UK's Architects Register.

The UK licensure system has stayed largely static for over fifty years and is often subjected to the same critiques as the U.S. system.

It is worth underscoring once again that in the UK, individuals primarily interact with universities on the path to licensure and have little need to interact with ARB until applying to join the Architects Register. Instead, universities administer Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3, with each structuring their degree programs to meet so-called ‘ARB Criteria.’ As of writing, there are 68 institutions in the UK prescribed by ARB to administer such degrees, the vast majority of whom are universities.

The ‘ARB Criteria’ themselves are broken down into ‘General Criteria’ met during Parts 1 and 2, specific ‘Graduate Attributes’ met in Part 1, specific ‘Graduate Attributes’ met in Part 2, and ‘Professional Criteria’ met in Part 3. The criteria are detailed and prescriptive, ranging from knowledge of histories, theories, regulations, and climate to building procurement, practice management, and professionalism. Institutions must prove to ARB that their students are adequately taught all criteria in order to have their Part 1, 2, and 3 programs accredited by ARB.

The UK licensure system has stayed largely static for over fifty years and is often subjected to the same critiques as the U.S. system. A 2019 opinion piece in the UK outlet Building Design described the UK system as one “groaning under the strain of the realities of 21st-century life: high student debt, a vastly increased regulatory framework, and PI insurers driving an increasingly risk-averse style of architectural practice.” Elsewhere, a 2016 survey found that 25% of UK architecture students had been treated for mental health problems.

Meanwhile, ARB recently noted in their case for reform that “the cost of education and the requirements for work experience create barriers for people from less affluent backgrounds or without existing networks in the profession,” supported by RIBA findings that the average student takes ten years to register as an architect, accumulating over $100,000 of debt in the process. In addition, ARB data recently found “a continuing lack of diversity in the profession and the need for sustained action,” particularly on the grounds of gender and ethnicity.

A ‘fundamental overhaul’

In response to such concerns, the past few years have seen ARB embark on a process to reform the path to licensure. In 2020, the board commissioned research into what competencies architects today require in practice, the results of which were published in 2021. One year later, ARB undertook an industry survey on the proposal of a regulatory model built on ‘outcomes’ instead of ‘criteria’ before launching a consultation on the board’s proposal for a “fundamental overhaul” of the system last year.

“We want the profession to be representative of the society that it serves,” ARB’s Director of Governance and International Emma Matthews told me recently. “Our reforms have been focused on putting in place a framework that will help to broaden access to the profession in the UK.”

“It's also about us looking at ourselves and modernizing the way that we are regulating qualifications and entry onto the register,” Matthews added. “It’s about asking ‘Are we doing it in the best and most efficient, effective way we can?’”

A qualification based on an apprenticeship could itself be accredited as fulfilling the Academic Outcomes in place of a Master's degree.

Under ARB’s plans, which will be fully phased in by 2028, the current ‘Part 1, 2, and 3’ framework will be replaced by two accredited qualifications. The first qualification is likely to be fulfilled by a Master-level degree as per the current Part 2, with the second being a qualification gained through professional practical experience, similar to the current Part 3. While some universities may still opt to make a Part 1-style undergraduate architecture degree a requirement for entering their Master's program, such a degree will no longer be prescribed by ARB as the Part 1 degrees currently are.

In addition to removing the requirement for Part 1, ARB’s reforms will see the current ‘ARB Criteria’ replaced with ‘learning outcomes’, which, in ARB’s words, “are based on what architects can do, not what they are taught.” The Master-level qualification in the new system will be required to meet a series of ‘Academic Outcomes’ while the subsequent practical qualification will be required to meet a series of ‘Practice Outcomes.’ Combined, the outcomes will cover five areas: ‘Professionalism and Ethics,’ ‘Design,’ ‘Research and Evaluation,’ ‘Contextual and Architectural Knowledge,’ and ‘Management Practice and Leadership.’ In contrast to the relatively prescriptive ‘ARB Criteria,’ which comprise 18 criteria containing over 80 sub-criteria, the new five outcome themes currently contain 49 sub-outcomes, which may lead to a broadening in the design and composition of degree programs that gain ARB accreditation.

What we're hoping is that we can broaden opportunities for institutions to develop new provision, and it gives them a little bit more flexibility so that we can broaden access to the profession and broaden the profession itself. — Emma Matthews, ARB

By eliminating the Part 1 requirement and altering the lens through which degree programs are accredited, ARB hopes that the reforms will result in a diversification of pathways into the profession. Entrants to a Master's in Architecture program may, in the future, come not only from undergraduate architecture schools but adjacent fields such as planning, urban design, or engineering. Meanwhile, some schools may recognize apprenticeships or years of prior experience as valid attributes to enter a Master's, with ARB previously noting that a qualification based on an apprenticeship could itself be accredited as fulfilling the Academic Outcomes in place of a Master's degree.

“What we're hoping is that we can broaden opportunities for institutions to develop new provisions, and [the reforms] give them a little bit more flexibility so that we can broaden access to the profession and broaden the profession itself,” Matthews told me.

The flexibility built into the new model may also see institutions discover ways of merging and overlapping Academic and Practice Outcomes rather than each being delivered consecutively. “Initially it may fall into Academic Outcomes being covered by the Master-level qualification and then the Practice Outcomes being covered more by the practical and diploma qualification,” Matthews noted. “But over time, as everyone gets familiar with this system, we hope that people will find ways to mesh those together.”

“They are not exclusive things, academic and practice,” Matthews added. “This is a vocational subject, and it leads to a profession, and so the two go very much hand in hand.”

Reaction and reflection

So far, ARB is satisfied that its reforms have broad support within the profession. In 2022, the board claimed that its survey on the plans produced a “clear endorsement for the proposals ARB is making,” while feedback from its more detailed 2023 consultation found that the “new competencies are a fitting update to the old criteria.”

Beyond the board, the RIBA published a response to the plans in September 2023 in which RIBA Chair of Board Jack Pringle noted: “While we are encouraged by some of ARB’s decisions, we feel that they do not go far enough to remove the current barriers to pursuing a career in architecture and fail to ensure that competence and innovation in architectural education are prioritized.”

While Pringle welcomed reforms to Part 1, which he noted “will open up the profession to graduates with undergraduate degrees (including RIBA Part 1) from other countries, those who already have relevant career experience, a related degree, or even non-cognate entry with a conversion course,” Pringle warned that “only focusing on the later stages of academic study and practical experience (equivalent to RIBA Parts 2 and 3), the reforms lack detail around ensuring key competencies such as climate literacy and building safety are met.”

The reforms underway in UK licensure will not be a matter of interest only for the UK, however. With the U.S. and UK now one year into a mutual recognition of qualifications agreement, which Matthews told me is proving popular on both sides of the Atlantic, both ARB and NCARB have newfound interests in how each other’s licensure systems are evolving. So far, Matthews is confident that the changes underway in UK licensure will not impact the agreement, telling me that ARB is “not anticipating that there will be any difficulties” from the reforms.

Even a system that has remained stagnant for half a century is not above a “fundamental overhaul,” whatever that overhaul may be.

Beyond ensuring that a ‘special relationship’ is maintained through similar licensure standards between the U.S. and the UK, the outcome of the current reforms underway within UK licensure may yet serve as valuable points of reference as the U.S. system considers its own future evolution.

If UK universities see no drop in the competency of MArch graduates, even with students entering without undergraduate architecture degrees, might that inspire more confidence in U.S. universities to relax their own entry requirements? Might further integration of apprenticeships and practical experience in lieu of academic degrees in the new UK model invite the U.S. to more actively embrace similar diverse paths? What would the consequences be if the U.S. moved away from prescribed national licensure components such as the ARE and towards the UK model of educational institutions taking a lead in testing practical as well as academic outcomes?

When such questions are litigated, it may well emerge that the specific reforms undertaken in the UK have little to teach the U.S. What they do demonstrate, if nothing more, is that even a system that has remained stagnant for half a century is not above a “fundamental overhaul,” whatever that overhaul may be.