Thanks kjdt. So in effect, if there is a lack of interest in becoming licensed, or registered folk decide to do something else, this affects NCARB (and State Boards) significantly - whereby you get the 'Welcome Back To NCARB' type of campaign? It then stands to reason that it is in both bureau's best interests to push for a very heavily emphasized 'licensure-based curricula' in the schools of architecture in the US - to keep the stream of revenue coming in....at one time, it was about turning people away at the gate (lots of architects paying the fees/overall revenue), and now, the gate is open (fewer architects = less fees/overall revenue).............this is not like Pyramid or Ponzi? or is it? I confess my ignorance of how these things work....

I don't think states are making a great push to increase revenue by licensing more people. For most states the number of architects is fairly small and the licensing boards are parts of much larger divisions (many of us are in states where the one administrative staff person who handles architecture is also the sole staff person for everything from the regulation of auto glass to the licensing of hearing aid technicians.) Bringing in 15% more dues-paying and fine-paying architects per year isn't going to fill the state's piggy bank, or make much of a dent in anything really.

NCARB exists mainly because it's much more economical for the states to pay $7000 per year or whatever to NCARB to verify records, administrate testing, etc. than for each individual state to staff and administrate those things themselves.  So sure, it's in NCARB's best interests to keep licensing architects.  I'm not sure where the pyramid or ponzi scheme would come in...  NCARB is a non-profit - their records are all publicly available.  Same with the state boards. 

Also you seem to be assuming that numbers of architects are dropping overall, which isn't the case. The numbers of registered architects have continued to grow, albeit at a fairly slow rate, with some dips during recessions, but with the end result that there are approximately 50,000 more US architects than there were 70 years ago.

While it is true that NCARB is a non-profit with publicly available records, the diffuse nature of the member state boards makes holding NCARB management accountable for their high fees and inefficiency difficult.

https://www.ncarb.org/press/number-us-architects-2016

Yes indeed! It would be interesting to learn what the salaries are for the staff of NCARB - most likely, even the lowest paid staffer makes much more than most architects, and there is no telling how much the higher-ups make....way more than the average architect. The former executive in our state made around $100,000 a year - I read that somewhere, and am pretty sure of it as fact. The people in these bureaus make more than we do, for certain, while at the same time telling us what we can and cannot do. Yes, it's Washington, and real estate is higher there, but....... same argument I'm sure from state boards.....it's the cost of living.......I would be interested in Ivan Karamazov's take on this issue........

NCARB has a lot of institutional bloat, high staff salaries, and questionable expenses like their fancy annual conference. Their expensive misadventures with computerizing the ARE are well-documented, and they also persist in pursuing ventures outside their core mission. An example is their CEU Monographs, which are pretty unnecessary in a world where anyone with an internet connection can access, for free, all of the continuing education required to maintain architectural licensure.  As many have said before here, the core examination and record-keeping functions of NCARB could easily be accomplished by a small staff in an inexpensive location, creating a substantial cost savings for those who are forced to use their services.

I think it would be great for there to be regional cooperations of states that would grant automatic reciprocity. But... my state and the others around it don't even all use the same building codes (nope, IBC and IRC are not universally adopted throughout the US). They also have widely varying educational requirements for licensing: my state requires an NAAB-accredited degree - no "experience path" options at all, while one of the adjacent states still grants licenses with just a high school education and experience - so there's little chance my state would ever agree to blanket reciprocity without a whole bunch of exceptions/caveats/verifications - and once you add those caveats you need record-checking/verification... and you're back to needing NCARB or some NCARB-like regional record-keeping consultant to which to outsource.

Perhaps you did not read my post. I said that states with similar climate, soils, and typography would have to harmonize their building codes first. If your state will not issue reciprocity to a registered architect in another state because he/she came up through the ranks the hard way your state has a very serious problem. You can continue to get financially raped by the NCARB while the architects in neighboring states could band together, enjoy a wider range of opportunities, and save a lot of money by avoiding the NCARB. Enjoy writing those annual checks.

I did read your post. I'm saying I completely agree with your intent. I just don't see the states "harmonizing". I'm in the northeast - a mix of tiny urban states with huge populations vs tiny rural states with tiny populations. the climate, soils, topography, etc. are certainly similar enough to pull off what you're proposing - but the state above me steadfastly refuses to use most of IBC and doesn't even have a residential code, and the state to my left has mostly its own state codes that trump the model codes, and the state on the other side uses a different accessibility standard than everybody else - and I just don't see them all agreeing to harmonize codes, as that would take agreement by code officials, who do not care at all about the cost of architects' license reciprocity. How do you propose getting them all on the same page? As for the education requirements: some of these states do already grant automatic reciprocity for some other states' licensees. For example I can go to the states above me or to the left and they will grant reciprocity on the basis of my license, without requiring my NCARB record and school transcripts and such. Unfortunately my state doesn't feel the same about the reverse of that deal, because they're hung up on the education part. Yes, it's a "very serious problem" - one created by very stubborn officials. I think their stubbornness will hold fast even at the prospect of saving a few thousand dollars per year by not paying into NCARB.

"Unfortunately my state doesn't feel the same about the reverse of that deal, because they're hung up on the education part."

You seem to think I'm agreeing with my state's position on this. I'm not. I'm asking you how you propose to change minds on that point. The benefit to candidates would be great - but the benefit to the board and state coffers is pretty small, if there'd even be any savings at all, so there'd need to be some other incentive for them to change course on that issue.

My earlier reply was cut short. Briefly I think if you could get two states to agree that would get the ball rolling and others would follow.

Convince a significant percentage of state boards that there's a viable alternative, and a reason to change to it. With most of the boards this would require convincing the legislature and/or governor to direct the board to study the alternatives, as the boards don't generally have the authority or initiative to pursue that on their own.

If only there was a national organization of architects with state chapters to represent the interests of its members.....

Some states have adopted the “right to work act” which essentially was designed to give individuals recourse against erroneous occupational licensing rules. Basically, you can challenge a state boards decision, and the board bears the burden to prove in court that the ruling/rule has a necessary hsw purpose. It also places restrictions on the board denying licenses based on past criminal records that have little to do with the license being sought...like a dui, etc.

So possibly can use it to negate the ncarb requirements that you find unnecessary. If the judge agrees, you win.

I recall some person or organization sending a survey to all the boards some years ago, just to get feedback on how willing they'd be to consider changes of the sort discussed in this thread. Some of the boards seemed to feel threatened/hostile just about receiving a survey, and contacted NCARB about it, and NCARB then sent out a model response that they suggested all the boards use, refusing to provide any feedback or information. I don't think the survey creator got back more than 1 or 2 responses that were different than the NCARB-authored one, and most states didn't respond at all.

I was on an AIA committee that went to our state board with similar concerns 15 years ago or so, and they listened politely and seemed sympathetic, but the rules including requiring NCARB records were written in the statute and they didn't have authority to change it - the only ways were by getting a congressperson to champion the cause or suing the state, but to do that successfully would have needed a lot of money, plus one or more people who could be shown to have been financially damaged by the the current policies. We tried the legislature route, it didn't make it to a bill, and in a year or two the committee membership changed and so did the causes pursued.  It needs some fresh energy I guess, and more coordinated than state by state.

No one really understands like we do, if I may be so bold, and that is because of our training, education, experience, and life in this. I keep wondering if 60 Minutes, for example, did a story on just a few of the problems we have been discussing, that would be a start, and then another media venue like 60 Minutes could explore other issues. The one thing that board members (NCARB and State Board) don't want is getting that kind of attention, and I'm actually very surprised that an in-depth feature like that hasn't been done before now.

Most of your complaints seem to be about the unfairness of titles, and the bloated expenses associated with NCARB. That's going to make an extremely boring story. Who'd want to film that, let alone watch it? The only architect licensing related story that's going to happen is when a nice big public assembly space falls or burns down, killing an impressive number of villagers, and it turns out to have been drawn up by an unlicensed, under-educated, inexperienced "designer" - because then the story can have dramatic reenactments, weepy family members, harrowing survivor tales, and some following around of the guilty designer hiding his face and swearing at the cameras. But when that story happens the result will be more rules about titles, more regulations about permits and stamps, more fees, and more hoops, all enacted by politicians eager to be seen taking action.

My bad, it’s called the “right to earn a living act”

This observation about NCARB is a like a bell that needs to be rung and rung and rung.......

State boards have become overly reliant on model policies and procedures developed by NCARB. NCARB basically controls most state boards.

True, thisisnotmyname.

The basic functions of uniform examinations and reciprocity between states are indeed necessary, but spending a few minutes on the NCARB website reveals many examples of organizational bloat (90+ staff members!, trophy office space on K Street!) and overreach into functions well beyond their core missions (authoring CEU monographs, awarding medals, paying speakers at their annual conference, the NCARB Scholars Program). The list goes on and on.

Great research. Kudos!