In terms of professional practice most architecture programs are pretty horrendous. If a school does offer it, how much of the student body actually takes it seriously? I think it is slightly incongruous for a professional licensing entity to require participation in a program that often has little to no bearing on actual professional practice.

I think if the internship requirements are met and the exams are passed, there should be no reason that a candidate cannot receive a professional license. Granted, their work may not be the most thought-provoking or aesthetically pleasing- but if they love designing parking garages and office parks, who am I to stop them?

Let's say I know "a friend" that has licensure and significant work experience in structural engineering, but at the same time is an accomplished sculptor. Is it too far-fetched to believe that they lack the ability to successfully complete the IDP process, pass the AREs, and continue their career as an architect? Personally, I don't think it is.

I feel the exact opposite of Token AE. There are too many architects who may know the IBC or AIA Contract Documents inside and out, but couldn't design their way out of a paper bag. NAAB accreditation at least gives the pretense of a design education. Without it we're stuck with a bunch of technicians designing our built environment - scary thought in my view.

I actually agree with you won. But from the legal/ liability standpoint (the only concern of licensure at the moment), there is no way to account for and to enforce what ultimately comes down to subjective taste.

There were plenty of designers that were duds in the studios that I have taken, yet they eventually graduated and have an NAAB degree. Many of those same people remained in the profession and are now licensed and designing god knows what. Should we bar them from continuing their development for the same reason that you would bar an artist/ engineer hybrid or an industrial designer? What about gifted students who graduated from an unaccredited architecture program in another country?

Not to beat a dead horse, but what about someone like Tadao Andao? He has no formal architecture training whatsoever. I'd say he's pretty qualified to be licensed.

I guess it is just a personal opinion that learning good design and learning how a building fits together are concepts that are not exclusive to a NAAB-Accredited architecture curriculum. It's an old boys club more often than not.

I don't personally like it, but in the bigger picture not letting the universities have a monopoly on entry to professions would certainly help the student loan debt crisis. Besides, it's not like all buildings designed by accredited program grads are amazing testaments to the sanctity of design education, so whatever "proctection" or "genuineness" we tell ourselves it is providing is all in our heads. The proof is in the pudding.

I'm conflicted on this, but licensure is required to protect heath, safety and welfare, not ensure design competence.  Since schools do very little to address public protection in the curriculum and defer this training to practice, why would an NAAB degree be required?

Nearly all those fugly, horrible buildings we are exposed to are from Architects with college degrees. California has it right, the non degree route can be just as effective as college, it has been for me!

it's an interesting proposal, though in an already competitive field, removing the degree requirement seems like it will potentially just increase the amount of architects, thus lessening all of our values?

i wonder though, would you then be only able to work in DC?  or would this then remove the degree requirement for licensure in other states as long as you get your license in DC first?

I kind of like how it is reversing the trend of people thinking that the M.Arch is the new B.Arch

the actual degree requirement has always been by far the least important of what is required to get your license.  I always felt the order of importance was:

1. work experience

2. pass exams

3. have your degree

marmkid, in some states you can already get licensed without a NAAB accredited degree. You can then apply for NCARB reciprocity if you want a license in another state. Some states will allow reciprocity from someone who got their license from a non NAAB degree, many don't.

Doesn't NCARB control NAAB requirements for IDP?  From the universities I've attended it seems NAAB has a really low threshold.  I would advocate strengthening school accreditation requirements rather than relaxing them.

Also, I don't think there is a 'make it pretty' requirement in NAAB accreditation; nor is there a firm statement on which starchitect fad is currently considered 'pretty' at the exclusion of the others, so fugly buildings shouldn't be a consideration (at least to my understanding of their rating system).

curtkram - NAAB is an independent agency. they have relationships with ACSA (the educator's association), AIA and NCARB. each brings a viewpoint to the shaping of the accreditation criteria. they did an overhaul about 2 years ago and the first reviews under the new criteria happened last year. in my opinion (having helped write the AIA's position paper going into those deliberations), it's better than it was (in some ways) but bloated in others.

where i'm torn is a the broad, meta-level of the discussion relative to a kind of national standard for licensure (and the requirements behind that). i agree with the notion that there shouldn't be just 'one' path; how that gets squared up with making sure that california's definition of an 'architect' is equivalent to what new york considers an 'architect' is of paramount importance. it's also why you see some states being more liberal with reciprocity and some that aren't. so, saying a naab degree isn't required does at least ask the question of 'what measures are there?'  simply passing the test isn't sufficient, to me, to get the title.

(and work experience is so utterly and irredeemably varied, i can't put my faith in that either...)

Why kill NAAB, but not IDP?  Why can't we just take the bloody tests and be done with it?

hold it.. You can become a lawyer by "reading the law"... Why can't you become an architect by practice (including IDP and plus exams, of course)? WDC's move may actually make sense, but it should be tied to years of experience. Accredited degree + 2 years, non-accredited professional degree in select areas + 5 years, no relevant degree + 10 years, no tertiary degree at all + 15 years, for example

Urbanist, I think that is largely what the broadly experienced path to licensure aims to address.

The only issue is that many states do not offer reciprocity to those that received their license via this path, as someone mentioned above.

I don't think that what DC is attempting to do is that outlandish. It doesn't strike me as them opening the floodgates and letting in the uneducated masses to the profession- it just comes off as them finally adding the broadly experienced path as an option in my opinion.

I thought NCARB required an NAAB accredited degree in order to register with them and go through IDP.  It's my understanding from your statement above that DC required degree/IDP/ARE then changed to just IDP/ARE.  It seems to me (and I may be wrong) that an NAAB accredited degree is still required since the state requires IDP.  The NCARB website does say that the states get to regulate requirements to sit for the ARE.

I did not know NAAB had an overhaul.  I hope it improves our universities.

curtkram,

I think what Token's talking about is the broadly experienced path some states have.  California, for example, lets you qualify for licensure based on # of years experience, plus IDP, plus exams.  You do not need a degree at all, in theory, if you worked for long enough, subject to their requirements for what that work experience should entail

http://www.cab.ca.gov/candidates/education.shtml

so.. let' say you got a related non-licensed 4 year degree (say a BS in structural engineering), Cali would give you 2 years (of the 5 required), and you'd have to work under the direct supervision of an architect for 3 years to make up the difference.  So.. let's say you finished your 4 years BS at 22, you'd have to work for 3 years and begin IDP at 25.  Seems fair to me.

The only problem is, your Cali license, thus obtained, may not be portable under reciprocity arrangements.

@won and done

we already have technicians and contractors who "couldnt design their way out of a paper bag" responsible for our built environment, someone help me out with the stat, but isnt it something like architects are only responsible for like 10% of all buildings? go to any new housing development for upper middle class and below and see how little relevance we have today.

I think skipping 100 000 in debt would allow people with superior design skills but lack of funding to get to the position of architect and start their own practice who would otherwise be forced out of the profession

To follow up on my post above, I think to gain an NCARB certificate, you must have 8 years of experience POST registration.  So.. to use my example above, you could bel icensed by, say, 28, but, as I understand it and I may be wrong about it, you may not be able to gain an NCARB certificate (permitting reciprocity) until you're 36, under the BEA track.  TIll then, you're pretty much limited to practicing in Cali.

I think 10% is probably low...Many of these contractor / development firms have in house architects. For me reciprocity isnt an issue...no real desire to ever work outside of California. My work equiv. was a great experience for me, working under some very good Architects, and nothing like learning by doing. Not for everyone, though..I understand that.