Hmmm...... no one knows anything on this... hmmm.... ok... might as well bump it before it gets buried.

True. It just might be useful to EESA evaluation so as to minimize deficiencies if any after transcript transmittals from my education. There maybe a bit of it that I am already familiar with but it counts at all, it isn't necessarily a bad way to 'certify' my self-study and building design experience in a sense that is next to impossible to get viable credit otherwise. 

When I talked to NCARB, if a program is not accredited, it is evaluated via the EESA process and credit maybe given to fulfilling the NCARB Education Standard used when evaluating under EESA. 

I may not typically go with programs that are not-accredited but they are presumingly working on an institutional accreditation. Presumingly... DEAC which would be good in my opinion as that would help.

I would reason that it really depends on things a little. At total tuition for all courses from their AA (program one), B.S. (program two) and M. Architecture (program three) being under $30,000 at current prices isn't bad prices. Doing so could make it easy to keep costs of meeting NCARB's Education Standards for EESA down and manageable even with the cost of EESA evaluation and other associated fees and even tuition from courses taken at an institution that is regionally accredited. If there are any determined deficiencies, it would be very little when factoring in my other education. 

However, my circumstances would not necessarily make sense or apply to others so necessarily finding anything substantively unfamiliar to me is less of a concern at this point in my life. 

EESA is an NCARB alternative to NAAB degree. 

For most people, I wouldn't necessarily recommend this.

SpontaneousCombustion,

Technically, the option is there. The thing is you don't do it under BEFA or BEA, You can get it done under the Intern option of EESA + IDP + ARE process. Anyone willing to spend the money to have the EESA evaluated can have their courses evaluated. Don't confuse BEFA/Foreign Architects or applicants and those doing under BEA being the only two paths that REQUIRES EESA evaluation as the only two options to have an EESA evaluation. 

"Coursework in all the other categories must come from four-year institutions offering professional or pre-professional program accredited either by NAAB or by one of the six regional accrediting bodies (Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, New England Association of Schools and Colleges, Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, and Western Association of Schools and Colleges.)  An unaccredited online program isn't going to help you with this. "

This only applies when you are fulfilling 'deficiencies' AFTER an initial evaluation. The point would be to use the SFIA courses BEFORE they are evaluated. To satisfy a deficiency, yes. Remember, initial EESA evaluation process generally doesn't look at whether courses are from institutions that are regionally accredited. In the initial evaluation, they determine if the courses fall under the subject matter for credits to be given. After all, foreign degrees are not accredited by any such entities and some aren't accredited per se.

However, the point is not that the online programs would help me fulfill officially determined deficiency. After all, I haven't submitted for EESA evaluation. If I do the courses before they are EESA evaluated, they can reduce courses in the deficiencies area.

Fulfilling deficiencies and what they accept at initial evaluation are two different things.

You need to read that fulfilling deficiencies is after initial evaluation and courses from any college or university can fulfill any category as fit during the initial evaluation. Their standards for fulfilling deficiencies are stricter than what they would accept in an initial evaluation so relax there.

With my education transcript, they'll probably be fair and reasonable within their policy.

"Finally, most NAAB programs limit enrollment in studio courses to full time students.  Finding an accredited program that will allow you to pick only the courses you need/want to take would be difficult."

Not necessarily true. They limit to admitted majors and that is not necessarily an issue. 

Public universities may not legally require a student to be full-time enrolled to take a course. They may require them to be enrolled into their major. Nothing in law says I have to complete the major. They may require some degree of progress but generally only grad school admissions have I seen requirements where a degree had to be fulfilled within so many years. Undergraduate school is a different issue. 

I might not have a precise pick and choose as some courses needs to be taken in sequence or have a pre-requisite and some of them can be waived but those exceptions aren't often public knowledge to students anyway.

I already know self-study isn't evaluated. Duh. The point so to speak is SFIA courses maybe an okay way to 'certify my self-study' but that was more linguistic liberty on my part. In the course of my self-study and experience, there probably not many course subjects in architecture school anywhere that I've not studies to some degree and would be unfamiliar to me hence my point in the first place of not being all that concerned about courses in which I would not be familiar with to some degree.

When you start an EESA evaluation, you submit your transcripts and course descriptions and such. They evaluate the courses and then assign credit. Then they will send a list of deficiencies if there is any. When you need to fulfill deficiencies THEN they need to be approved before taking them and they need to meet the standards they set for satisfying deficiencies.

When you are getting credits initially evaluated, you are not in the phase of "fulfilling deficiencies' officially. 

If SFIA at least becomes nationally accredited through DEAC and that being recognized by U.S. ED and CHEA then it would probably be satisfactory to NCARB / NAAB that would be evaluating the courses.

Yes, if you are a foreign applicant or architect or you are applying for BEA then an EESA is required but those instances are not the only paths. 

http://www.ncarb.org/Certification-and-Reciprocity/Standard-Path-to-Certification/US-Requirements.aspx

Technically, I can use the EESA but if I use SFIA courses, I could reduce what deficiencies reported during the EESA evaluation.

There are ways to work through all this. I don't mind taking a handful of courses via a university in my state but I would want to limit how many I need. I don't have to be full-time. At a public college, you don't have to be a full-time enrolled. You have to be 'enrolled in the major' and for all that matters.... "degree seeking" so to speak... ie. taking the courses for credit.

As for completing the degree... nah.

There is Oregon. Lets remember that all education and experience requirement is done by rule of the Oregon Board of Architect Examiners. Actually, you can use EESA evaluation to get authorization to test for ARE under a state like Oregon which accepts education approved by NCARB. If education is approved by ARE such as EESA evaluation then you are in. How do you think foreign architects can get licensed in Oregon without necessarily completing an NAAB degree. They may have to take extra courses. 

http://www.ncarb.org/Getting-an-Initial-License/Registration-Board-Requirements.aspx?jurisid=57
 

Look under initial registration. Yes, they accept EESA-NCARB evaluation as an alternative education. If they accept EESA-NCARB evaluation for foreign trained architects then they will accept it even if the education isn't foreign trained. The point is, when someone meets and completes EESA evaluation and basically 'passes' that with all deficiencies requirements fulfilled then all that is required is completing IDP and passing the exams.

Basically, EESA is an alternate education path for standard path of initial licensure with IDP and ARE. 

So, you know, I already called OBAE and NCARB and NAAB.

Undergoing EESA although unusual is doable. I could use PSU (for example) but the cost is perceivably higher for the courses. It would also require me to commute to Portland a lot more and possibly have to rent a place in Portland. Two hours commute is doable but a little rough to do.

You can imagine the gas cost.

I rather not have to take as many courses resulting in crazy commuting.

Fair enough. Lets remember that the reason there is just about zero percent that is doing things my way is simply that nobody has ever tried it. Whether unaccredited online degree or a pre-professional curriculum from a university... either way. 

Good point you made about getting it in writing. I can push the issue before Oregon board of Architect Examiners under an agenda item so it is in writing and on public record. Getting NCARB to put it in writing is going to be an interesting proposition as they don't tend to do thing in writing other than email or phone communication. They do evaluate applicants trained in the U.S, especially under BEA. 

My state licensing board is mostly enough. The biggest reason there is so few if any people doing things under EESA is that it is little known or talked about and very few ever done things this way. 

BTW: How do you know these numbers? Do you work for NCARB or NAAB?

You got the EESA evaluation guidelines?

Perhaps for BEA but what I suggested is not technically BEA. 

Where is your source on:

"Also be aware that the EESA evaluation guidelines assign different percentages of credit to past courses depending on the program in which they were earned, and in which year of that program - for instance a 4th year course in an NAAB-accredited program is counted at full credit, while a first-year course in a non-NAAB program is only worth half its credits at best."

There is EESA and there is Education dossier. 

My understanding of EESA is stuff is assorted by the category in which the courses are fitted under. The only category with multiple levels that could be interpreted as based on year of program is the Design Category such as Level I, II, III, IV and V which would be reasoned to to be basically first year, second year, third year, fourth year and fifth year based on a 5 year B.Arch type of curriculum. 

Of course in reality courses might not be exactly taken like that in a program but it would be largely categorized based on course description evaluation and other information from such courses based on analysis of the courses if you can provide a detail and comprehensive information.

Also, if you have an NAAB degree then you wouldn't undergo EESA. You may take courses from an NAAB accredited college to fulfill EESA requirements but you can satisfactorily take courses from a pre-professional program from a school that offers for example a 4+2 program. As for SFIA, perhaps, it maybe an issue but so be it. However, the nature of the curriculum and what is covered matters but one thing I can say is regardless some courses from Community college on building codes will satisfy EESA requirements on practice because the curriculum is literally on that including the fact I have several courses that would cover that requirement a bit and even if I take the SFIA courses on it, the combination of the courses would reasonably cover what they would be teaching in an architecture school course. 

They have the latitude to consider the nature of the education I have. 

It is not a big leap of imagination for NCARB/NAAB to look at the courses with blanket discrimination. Lets say I got only half credit for the studio, it isn't a hard stretch to take 25 semester credits of studio. That's about 38 term credits of courses in the design category. 

However, I have options to take courses I need from PSU if I feel I need to have design studios covered with minimal effort. The premise is it all comes down to tuition. For most universities, the courses I am required to take simply requires me to be admitted into the major not full time enrollment. 

The fact is NCARB doesn't really publish much about how one can undergo EESA evaluation without being under BEA or foreign architect. You don't necessarily have to be registered in another country and if you are getting initial licensure in a state it is not under BEA, typically. If you do initial licensure it is NAAB (or Canada equivalent) or EESA evaluated education + IDP + ARE. So you are doing the standard path to licensure but under an alternative education method. 

EESA isn't gone and they wouldn't have bothered to be revising how they are handling the EESA. The stuff would be integrated into the MyNCARB. 

so, yes, it would be interesting but unusual. Given the small number of applications a year, I doubt anyone has ever tried my unconventional if not daring approach. Let keep in mind that architects often aren't that creative in how they get their education background approved or have my unconventional approach to education. Not that many people have more college courses from a community college than a typical NAAB degree let alone additional courses from University.

With all that said, I will seek getting this stuff in writing from these sources for more secure documentation.

The EESA is still going to be around for some time at least. They will either morph EESA in some way or form but they wouldn't be moving EESA into the MyNCARB if it still going to be around for awhile. For foreign degrees and a number of states, they have to do that and NCARB/NAAB isn't exactly discontinuing EESA.

If they have some other option appear, I'll consider it.

Since you are talking about stuff referenced on another forum.  Fair enough point. Where the F--- did you get one of the evaluator manual? 

Ok. As for getting into a major, it just wouldn't be the school in Eugene. I'm not exactly into attending a university where I have to accumulate massive student loans to attend as you are probably aware. Major part of the student loan amount issue is the student housing.

I went around circles at UO but PSU... is an option. It would just be the issue of attendance cost. 

But BEA is being shorten down so that is fine... too!

With as many times their website has been updated, it shouldn't be an issue. I'm looking at the 2014 Education Guidelines so there isn't anything explicitly barring it. 

Since we are talking 15 years ago... I'll grant you some details are missed or forgotten or memory recollection deteriorated on the issue:

http://www.ncarb.org/News-and-Events/News/1999/08-Certification-Countdown.aspx

Option 3 of course had some wording adjustments since then but nothing that would result in outright barring of someone without an NAAB accredited degree but other U.S. based education that would fulfill credits to use this process.

As you may notice, courses I submit at initial evaluation are not subject to fulfilling deficiencies. Deficiencies are determined an initial evaluation and then the requirements set forth in fulfilling deficiencies such as regional accreditation applies.

However, it is better that the courses be at least nationally accredited. Remember, the reason regional accreditation is required is because it is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education which accredits NAAB itself. A DEAC (previously known as DETC) is nationally accredited and recognized by U.S. Department of Education and CHEA.

If a program is at least nationally accredited, then NAAB/NCARB would be happier and it wouldn't be much different than many foreign degrees. After all, many are only nationally accredited in their country as that country doesn't have regional accreditation.

I also have courses from accredited institutions. The point is not to run the evaluation too early. I'm sure they'll be continuing to evaluate education that isn't NAAB accredited. They aren't discontinuing it in June/July this year.

I do agree with you they could eliminate it in the future so yeah... can be a problem.

BTW: that's "assurance". There is no insurance is this matter.

How do propose I get through licensure?

Get into a $100K debt on top of around $50K I already have.

You got to read NCARB's site no only in the guidelines.... its called a guideline for a reason. Then there is their whole website of information.

You got several sources all concurrent and valid with subtle variations of what they are requiring including I talked to NAAB itself, NCARB and my state board's Administrator Maria Brown. Whether she bothers to remember the conversation is another matter altogether.

Sure, there is no way of getting licensed in Oregon under initial licensure without an NAAB accredited degree or EESA evaluated education. All on-campus curriculum always interferes with work and a job as you know. You can't work in an office and get the accredited degree and all the online NAAB accredited education costs as much to attend online as an on-campus degree which makes absolutely no real sense. They charge more per credit for the online program by nearly doubling the tuition. Geez, why? I'm not paying for housing so why would I pay double on tuition? It is like NAAB deliberately mandated they charge more tuition for an entirely on-line degree in architecture than it would be on-campus to compensate for not paying dorm rooms costs. Like a distance education student won't have their own housing costs to live where they are?

That is what somewhat pisses me off about AAU. I'm looking for online/distance education options that would work for someone who has to work for a living. Lets say I want to complete my IDP hours that has to be under an architect for example? How am I going to do that if I have classes in the hours between 8AM and 6PM. Classes have to start after 8pm or on weekends because employers do not work with class schedules of students. If you are not available to work during office hours, they won't employ you or they'll fire you. That is how they do things in Oregon and even Washington.

You mention this thing about working. Sure.. fine but unless I get the education requirement completed in some fashion that will allow me to get licensed, there is never going to be anyway I would get licensed.... EVER!

Unless things change somehow to allow that.

What he said is fine but also have errors in it own right.

You might just look thoroughly NCARB's website on EESA. If I got my education EESA evaluated with no outstanding deficiencies, all I need to do in Oregon is to have the EESA transmitted to OBAE before I start the ARE. EESA+IDP+ARE is a valid process. These things don't all happen at the end. Yes, when I file for NCARB Cert. I would have to have completed IDP but that is completed when it is completed and obviously before licensure. I can have an EESA evaluation done if I pay for it. If evaluated and no deficiencies remain or exists then my education meets NCARB Education Standards. 

Lets say you are foreign trained but you don't qualify for BEFA... ok. what do you do? You have two options, get an NAAB degree or undergo EESA evaluation and take care of deficiencies and you complete IDP and the ARE. This is an option available to those not necessarily licensed at all but foreign trained.

Who says the degree has to be foreign for EESA evaluation. Lets say a person has a pre-professional degree in architecture but only a few minor deficiencies. 

I understand the concern for using EESA such as the possibility of it being discontinued before I finish the process. Ok... a valid concern.

So the question then is what other options? What options are there in the educational realm for getting licensed in Oregon. If I have to do it under reciprocity... perhaps. So what are the options since I am already enrolled in IDP so that kind of rules out Washington as they implemented some rules that makes a mess of issues.

Now, I may consider BEA but I'm tabling that until I see what it would look like in June/July. So, lets see... what are the options.  I could perhaps play it out under California law but that's a little bit of a pain in the butt way to go about it.

I have a valid right to be concerned about undergoing debt load from courses that would be a wreck on finances for decades. If I am looking at ways to get licensed under my education which is substantially more, cumulatively, than many of you with only a B.Arch. Why should I have to do things exactly the same way as you? Under your circumstances in life, it was the easiest path to licensure but under my circumstances, it might not be. So, I am looking at my options. Is spending 6 years at a college after 15 years really reasonable all the while not being able to work because public universities and many on-campus architecture education programs places their courses literally in the midst of office hours so there is no way to be employed while in school because most firms and almost all of them won't employ someone while they are in school and unpaid internship isn't going to do me any good. I've done enough volunteer work in my life that I done my fair share of it and more than most architects do except for the terminally stupid who wishes to work a full-time job for free.

If I am going to be undergoing additional education, I need to be able to be working and earning an income. Understand?

So, I am looking at the options to get there. 

Should I bother with the education or should I use an experience path to initial licensure in a state such as California and say do the BEA. It might be cheaper but it has its own duration.

I could use an experience path but it be money earning and if I decide to, I could take courses from SFIA just so I can say I have a B.S. in Architecture or M.S. in Architecture or whatever, and use experience path to licensing. It might be 8 years but so what. Then upon license, I use the BEA process. I suppose it depends.

If I am lucky, I can get it down to 5-6 years for initial licensure. My community college education would get me 1 year credit. 

Looking at the evaluation table. That's an option.

I can't speak about how BEA would look after June/July of this year.

If it is less than that would be great. 

As it looks, I may mostly just have to be admitted into the major at PSU which is doable while working. This way, I get licensed in California via initial licensure. Then look at BEA, It might be more secure way in and through licensure.

It would just take transfering my CCC and UO credits. I can then get maybe 2 to 2.5 years credit. If I finish the whole B.S. Arch then it would be 3.5 years credit in California. It is hard to say how things will pencil out just being enrolled. So be it, I guess.

I just work it around a schedule and then I can begin ARE upon completing minimum IDP hours.

The first two years would be pretty modest and I probably can get approval to take the upper division clusters right away in the first two years anyway because I would be at such a part time level so to speak. Then after portfolio review, be allowed to take the remaining stuff.

Placebeyondthesplines

I am not saying for an easy path but fair and reasonable path to licensure. I just don't want to have to do more than you to become licensed. I can design non-exempt buildings and do it as good as 90% of the architects out there without a license. I just don't flat out violate the licensing law. Yet, I don't get recognized for what I already done?

I'm looking for the EASIEST path under my circumstance not necessarily an easy path but not an unfair burden to have to get basically a third degree of college. Is that that hard to ask?

Lets not get distracted on that. If I want to violate the architectural licensing law, I would be willing to prove that evidence but I won't be doing that today.

My client projects in connection with my business is generally involved with working with existing buildings. We don't see much new construction in Astoria, Oregon area. Most new construction has been the new box stores in Warrenton, Oregon and they use in-house staff.

What I am capable of and what I am getting for client projects are two different things by the way. I'm not posting concept drawings for non-exempt buildings on my business profile/website because that would get me into trouble with the licensing board in Oregon. I'm not trying to be a regular investigation case with OBAE. 

I do not post information regarding my client projects online. You don't do that with residential clients without explicit permission. There is this thing of protecting your client's privacy and that includes not causing to effect anything that would cause and draw attention to your clients including anything that would cause to effect people calling your clients.

That is why you don't give out your client's name without permission and that include projects displayed on a website/profile. 

There are several clients I have had. I do not disclose them publicly. Unless I have permission or otherwise it is public record on the client's part in the first place through newspaper, I do not disclose my clients in general unless I have explicit permission. In general, it would be inappropriate and compromises the client's privacy and sanctity of their home and privacy. As disclosing them can cause people to contact the clients which may not want to be disturbed or bothered by people calling them or contacting them.

Is that understood?

Lets keep the the main area of point and not side track to a peripheral/tangent point.

When I have CAD, historic preservation, building design experience. One building design experience with a client teaches more than 5 years of studio projects. Studio projects are all basically art assignments. They don't deal with real issues with real clients with real budgets.

When it comes to studio projects, you aren't dealing with real clients in which permits are going to be issued. 

They are like art work. I can sketch and draw whatever the hell I want to for whatever criterion I artificially place on the assignment. That is all it is. Universities don't have students on real projects because of liability issues. 90% of the students entering a B.Arch out of high school which accounts for close to 3/4 of the students in architecture school has no clue to this. They have to be taught this. They aren't taught this in high school.

Reality is simple. Should I be recognized for what I have done and what I know... yes.

Should I have to do everything that a fresh out of high school student has to for architecture education? I would hope not. I made a whole class of fresh out of high school students look like a bunch of idiots on the assignments. Should I have my education and experience evaluated by those parties, yes. 

I'm not talking about bypassing education requirements entirely. I'm talking about not having to enroll for 130+ credits of shit that I already know. Otherwise, I would be having to essentially take courses that are teaching me exactly what I already been taught and known for over 10 years. Having to do that is BULLSHIT !!!!

Give me authorization to take the ARE, right now, I would pass each exam first time around and do it all within the rolling clock. That be better than most of you. 

Oh wait, you can't do that. 

Meeting EESA education standards isn't really bypassing sh-t is it other than ridiculous redundancy at a ridiculous tuition rate. 

Sure, if I have to go through initial licensure in say California via education/experience options and then BEA... so fine. I'm not looking at doing an M.Arch at a typical college unless I am making enough money for that. If I went for an M.Arch, it would cost an arm and a leg plus the tuition is considerable. It isn't like I would make $20/hr more just because I have an M.Arch.

I want to do this process without an outrageous debt. I am less concern if it took a little longer but 6-8 years for initial license and maybe another 2 years perhaps for BEA and reciprocity. At that point, I'd be making money and $50K+ ahead or more. 

Ok, my post previous to the immediate previous post is a little rough and probably should be deleted given certain points were a little bit emotionally driven and harsh then I really want to say about the other students in the class. Simply put, when it comes down to comparative, they were nowhere in the same category level as me. They wouldn't and shouldn't be. They come from no architecture background for the most part. No drafting skills. No CAD skills. No architectural knowledge. They are a just entering into the subject. I had invested already since 2001 before I first attended UO in 2011. So, with nearly 10 years of formal education, self-study and experience over the time frame including structural engineering in my areas of studies, CAD, drafting, historic preservation... etc. Yeah, I have a whole assortment of courses in architectural subject matter including mentors who were practicing architecture since before many of you were even born.

You tell me that someone who went to Cranbrook Academy of Arts when Eliel Saarinen was head of the school as well that person's father was prominent architect of Astoria - John Wicks and another who worked for Eliel Saarinen after attending Lawrence Technical Institute in the mid-1930s when the school opened. 

In addition to them was another architect who began his career as an architect in the 1960s. You got to say one thing, that's a big comparative skill difference between me and the students in the intro to architecture course. 

Why in god's name should I have to sit through the shit I already know. After all, you think color theory is unique to architecture? Heard of Art Basic Design courses. They teach that there. Why can't I just deal with the stuff explicitly about architecture. I don't need that much hand holding to connect principles of art into architecture.

Actually, the work experience could possibly be done in Oregon so the IDP is complete. I could skip wasting time on education and work for 7 years under an architect including IDP. That is 7 years, 

There is also the fact that BEA is being reduced so actually the 6 to 10 years of practice to qualify for BEA would be reduced. That's is part of what has been discussed in streamlining BEA. The thousands of dollars foe BEA would be what?

Even if I was 50 when I can practice in Oregon... ok. 50 years of age isn't a big deal. Many architects got licensed by then and also 50 year olds tends to be trusted more than a 27 year old.

So what.

I may have to do some comprehensive work in California but okay. It can be done. 

A little awkward but ok.

What is $5,000 to $10,000 ????

The scheme maybe longer but the question is does it get me there. Even if longer, I get paid working and frankly in architecture profession working for an architectural firm, your pay rate doesn't just increase because you get licensed. So, the thing is, it might be longer but I don't have increased student debt and my loans would be paid off. If I go an NAAB degree, I would have to take 3-4 years just to get the NAAB degree... right? It would cost me $100K in student loans for tuition and fees. I wouldn't be able to get IDP completed while attending because you don't get employed in architectural office while attending college these days. They just don't because classes on-campus interferes with working during the hours firms operate. Architecture firms are 8 - 5 office hours typically. classes are scheduled during such hours not during evening hours after offices close for the day so no way to really work for a firm.

Just the way it is.

So 3-4 years plus 1-2 years to complete IDP (the hours needed to be done under an architect) which I can do before or after the degree. Then you got 6 years plus 1-3 years to passing the ARE because in Oregon I can't start taking the ARE before IDP and/or education is completed. So, it's 10 years there. Oh yeah, 10 years and I get close to $200K in loan debt to pay off in 20 years or so. So, that kisses off buying a house or anything else so to speak.

Therefore, I'm living on less than 40% of my income. While I could be living on 50-60% of my income all along. It isn't like I'm getting a significant pay increase just because I get licensed.

BEA has never cost as much as an NAAB degree costs. So a dossier... wow! What dossier if they are getting rid of EESA ? How are they going to determine deficiencies?

Yes but a dossier in the current systems is used as an alternate way to satisfying education deficiency in the BEA program. You need an EESA evaluation for the dossier program or the dossier system doesn't operate.

I like to see this info. Let me get this straight, you are on one of these licensing boards.

http://www.ncarb.org/News-and-Events/News/2014/06-SpBEA-BEFA.aspx

Broadly Experienced Architect (BEA) Program 
Currently, the BEA process allows architects without a degree from a National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) accredited program to earn the NCARB Certificate by proving they have six to 10 years of licensed practice in responsible control. In addition, they must have their education evaluated by the NAAB to define education deficiencies. Architects prepare a dossier to demonstrate post licensure, how they learned through experience to overcome identified education deficiencies. Then, their dossier is reviewed by NCARB’s BEA Committee.

Proposed Program Overhaul 
The proposed change would remove those steps, and instead would ensure that the applicant has completed a state board’s education and experience requirements, passed the Architect Registration Examination (ARE), and practiced for one year. This proposal acknowledges that architects without an accredited degree are required by their original licensing jurisdiction to complete more rigorous experience requirements prior to initial licensure. The streamlining of the submittal process also ensures an objective rather than subjective review.

- See more at: http://www.ncarb.org/News-and-Events/News/2014/06-SpBEA-BEFA.aspx#sthash.S1wcxY4m.dpuf