In response to a FOIA request, NY State recently provided data on the 15,088 licensed architects in the state, showing the date of graduation, school, and date of licensure as an architect.
In 1983 more than half of newly-licensed (state resident) architects obtained their license in less than 5 years; since then the average has declined -- in 2009 the average time was 11.06 years; the median time was 9.96 years.
The ARE was introduced it looks like during the deep recession of the early 90s. Maybe the correlation has more to do with the lingering effects of that shock to the profession more then the exam format. Despite the rosey report the AIA put out saying salaries are up for architects over the last 15 years, they are not. The earning and buying power of staff architects and interns ( Jounior Architects ) just isnt what it was and it shouldnt be a surprise that the best and brightest simply go where the money is. Honestly, you simply could not raise a family in a place like NY on an architect's salary, so is it any wonder people disappear around their 30th birthday ehen they would be taking the exams?
So after 1983 you didnt have to sit in a room for a long test?
Well I cant explaine the decline ( or increase in years toput it another way) other than maybe licensure has become less important for career advancement early on.? An office usually only has 1 or 2 stamps so to get licensed looks good for marketing and to the client but really makes little difference to the architect unless they go out on their own.
could one factor be that the education of an architect has become so diverse as to allow graduates entry into other possible endeavors? another factor could be is that becoming a PM does not require a license, and coupled with the fact that their seem to be less interest in becoming a principle or owner of a firm?
Actually I think Beta may be on to something. When I was in school before a lot of you were born, you went to school to be an architect. You didnt go to 4 or 5 years in biology then transfer into architecture. Some did but it was rare. People who set out to become architects were usually good at math, like to draw and wore pocket protectors. Most were men. So yes, maybe the educational filter has just been changing the makeup of the potentates.
funny thing about the theories about education changing the talent pool is that these statistics are only the people who actually became licensed. Those who chose other career paths aren't reflected in these totals at all.
Keep in mind that the only reason to attend an accredited program in architecture is if your goals include becoming a licensed architect -- that's the reason there's such a thing as accreditation.
But did the education system change at the exact same time? Accredited degrees used to include 4 year BARCH if Im not mistaken. I dont believe this is the case anymore. Im not sure when it changed. Certainly there is a clear difference in the Architects who graduated in the 1950s,60s and 70s ( do their own calculations for all disciplines often ) versus the 80s ( Marketing and sales experts it seems ). Then again a different type of architect who graduated in the 90s and 00's ( Conceptual Design Oriented ). I mean how many architects except us old fogeys still do their own structural calcs or write their own contracts? An accredited masters is 3 years of study whereas a 4 year or 5 year is a longer duration of study often with work experience at the same time. So if more people are getting 3 year masters they are a few years behind the learning curve to licensure.
It could also be that less project architect positions open up so there's less need to get licensed until you've been in line at a firm for 10 years.
It is interesting. I was very surprised at the consistency of it, across more than 25 years. There are almost 7,000 in-state resident licensed architects represented there.
I am hoping to get data from at least two other states -- Nebraska and Oregon -- very soon. The other states have uniformly told me that they rely on NCARB to maintain the data. NCARB has not responded to my requests for substantive data. They do publish an annual IDP survey in affiliation with AIA and NAAB.
It will be interesting to compare the trends in the other data. I'll be sure to post an update here and at the stairwaytoarchitecture.com site & on twitter @stair2arch.
matthew, my point about the education and career path does not change the narrative all that much. i know many of my friends have yet to get licensed or have just been licensed, they graduated in 96, and a lot of them have done different things in animation, rendering, marketing, design and other areas, but are often led back to architecture. the larger point however might be that there are other distractions, as they might be called, and thus a lack of internal motivation or lack of incentive by those in charge to give a potential candidate a sense of purpose.
in short, if you're looking for a scientific answer there will be none.
I'm only trying to get an actual picture of what is really happening. Policies that are based on fiction are unlikely to be successful. You can't improve what you can't measure. Whatever the reasons for this trend are (and I am sure there are many) we can improve the results (however we define 'improvement') only if we know where we are starting from.
I don't know if IDP is working as designed, but it certainly is not working as advertised, at least not in New York.
idp will never work as designed, it places all of the responsibility on the applicant and none on the owner/principal. so long as there is a lack of any punitive response from the aia. now ncarb has moved one step further by placing arbitrary punishments on applicants, and yet again the owner/principals skate by.
Just a question. I didn't read through all of the postings. But, don't you think that it has a lot to do with the requirements for IDP? You have to get experience in all of the different phases of a project and then you have to be able to prove it by tracking hours. When were these requirements added?
To my knowledge, the requirements haven't changed substantively since I got out of school in 1982, certainly not in a way that would necessitate a doubling of the time involved. The rules and requirements for reporting have become more labyrinthian, certainly, but nothing has been implemented that "intentionally" increased the time involved.
Ok. I honestly didn't know. I didn't intend to hint that it was intentional, but instead a factor that could lead to a longer period of time between graduation and licensure.
@21Ronin -- it could be a factor, among many other things.
@smallpotatoes --
the four types of schools identified in the chart came only after the drawing -- there are highly selective schools with low attrition, typically only offering one type of degree, which I've called Pennant; there are selecive schools with slightly higher attrition that offer BArch and MArch degrees, or Torch schools; there are less selecive schools with higher attrition, the Funnels, and there are schools that are less selecive and have very high attrition rates, the Wedge schools. What surprised me most when preparing the diagrams was the Matriculation Latency at some schools. There are schools that provide more than ten years of student instruction for every graduate.
Wouldn't it be interesting to see that chart for a series of years, with ARE success rates for graduates added? Thank you for the comment.
I've posted another chart (likely the last, I doubt I will be able to procure more information from any of the other state boards) showing similar statistics for Oregon. The pdf is posted at
The average duration of internship for architects who became licensed in Oregon in 2009 is 8.96 years. The chart breaks this down by M.Arch and B.Arch degrees.
To summarize the results so far for internship in 2009, NY: 11.06 years; Nebraska: 10.86 years; Oregon: 8.96 years.
Did I read the chart wrong or does NYIT Old Westbury(my school) have the highest licensure rates?? O_0
"In 1983 more than half of newly-licensed (state resident) architects obtained their license in less than 5 years; since then the average has declined -- in 2009 the average time was 11.06 years; the median time was 9.96 years."
Yes as the years progress the time to get licensed increases. I believe it is due to increased educational requirements. Since in the past only 4 year degree was accredited people got out of school faster and obtained more work experience leading to better knowledge and passing the exam.
If this chart is accurate and it is taking most people from 5-10 years to get licensed maybe I shouldn't worry too much about getting licensed after a 4 year degree in NY.
NYIT OW has the highest number of licensed graduates. I do not have graduating class sizes, so I can't speak to the rates. Your understanding of the degree requirements is unlike mine, however, in NY the Board will accept 12 years of experience in lieu of any degree, and this would appear to be a shortcut, when you add the time for school into the equation. Time spent in school is not included in the charts or averages.
Honestly, I think it's simply a matter of architects needing a deadline!
When the test was only once a year, you and all your friends knew it was study now, take it now, or you'd have to wait another year to do it. If all your friends are preparing for it, there's positive peer pressure to join them.
Now that we have the convenience of taking the exam whenever we want to, we never seem to make time to actually do it.
In my firm experience, where six of us were all happily functioning as interns, we never pushed each other to take the exam. When the firm pushed us to do it - via fee reimbursement and promise of a title when we got registered - we all started focusing on it, and within a few years we and the firm had pushed us all into registration.
Total time for me, BArch to registration, was 12 years, with a three-year detour for a MArch in there.
Why does the increase in registration time surprise anybody? The whole point of the registration process is to slow entry into the profession. Licensed architects like it because it discourages competition and keeps college grads dependent on them for a longer period of time at lower pay. Test providers and state agencies like it because they make a buck on it. The only reason it is taking longer for graduates to become licensed is that over time the registration process has been tweaked to become better at what was always intended to do.
"Your understanding of the degree requirements is unlike mine, however, in NY the Board will accept 12 years of experience in lieu of any degree, and this would appear to be a shortcut, when you add the time for school into the equation."
Yeah the board will accept 12 of experience. The 4 year degree is not accredited so 4 years of school+5 years of professional experience=licensure. Say 9 years if you immediately start working after school..
or 5 year degree+3 year professional experience=8 years.
Hmm..maybe I should be proud of my school..It is at the bottom of the "top arch school" rankings but apparently they are doing a good job teaching people real life skills.
The whole point of the registration process is to slow entry into the profession.
I don't believe this is true. With an accredited degree and three years of internship you can take all three tests in three days if you want to, and at any time of year. So ideally BArch+internship+exams=8 years plus three days.
As to testing agencies and governmental bodies liking the money they make on the process, well of course. But thinking the process is "the man trying to keep you down" is a little paranoid.
The fastest I have personally known anyone to finish the test was 1 month. He studied for many months and then scheduled a few tests per week. This is very rare.
What I've seen in our firm is that most folks spend about 10 months-1 year taking, on average, 1 test per month.
You're probably right, marlowe - I figured you could jam a few tests per day in but I couldn't remember how many hours long the actual tests are in relation to the testing center hours. But in the scheme of 8 years plus a few days, 3 v. 7 isn't really a big deal.
I knew someone who took one test a week for nine weeks and passed them all. One test per month is a very easily manageable schedule.
And seriously you guys: they're not hard tests. They're more emotionally exhausting than anything. I did fail two of them, but it was due to poor time management not lack of knowledge. The second time through was a snap.
what i find fascinating is the disconnect between the number of licenses issued vs. the time to getting licensed. it tells me two things: first, that ncarb is probably working well in terms of being able to be cross-licensed more easily (honestly, it's a snap now compared to 10 years ago). it also tells me how much easier it's been for people to truly conduct more 'global' practices - we just grab a quick license and it's off to do a new hotel in manhattan.
as to why it takes so long: there's a lot of anecdotal evidence (most notably the 'take it all at once' vs. in sections), but those charts don't back that up. as noted, it's been a gradual decline, even across the introduction of the computer exam (around 1994-95). there's no big spike on either side of that.
so i'm stumped. my far flung theory (and it's just that) is that if you could track the rise of critical theory in the schools (early 80's onward) and the converse decrease in importance of "actual building" being taught might have made some grads less able to take the exams in a timely manner. but this pure conjecture.
what may have more solid grounding is that the are instituted a very tight amount of time/criteria to the training and test schedules. this could have discouraged more people from taking it as they found themselves falling short. even this is mere conjecture, though.
Here are Vado Retro's encouraging words found on Thread Central that really hit home:
"hurry up and pass those exams. great architecture careers await!"
Ok, kidding aside, I just read an email from DesignIntelligence and I recoginized one of the articles. Lo and behold, here it is on Archinect while it was in development.
I would definitely want to get to the bottom of what is really behind this trend towards longer time for licensure. If its something like increasing complexity in training I'd be OK with that, but I fear that it is increased beauracracy, pigeonholing interns (renderings, presentations, coffee, etc), and now unemployment.
Jan 13, 10 11:10 am ·
·
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.
NY State Licensure report
In response to a FOIA request, NY State recently provided data on the 15,088 licensed architects in the state, showing the date of graduation, school, and date of licensure as an architect.
In 1983 more than half of newly-licensed (state resident) architects obtained their license in less than 5 years; since then the average has declined -- in 2009 the average time was 11.06 years; the median time was 9.96 years.
Charts of this information are posted at:
http://www.stairwaytoarchitecture.com/images/NY_STATE_REPORT.pdf
other charts of related data are also posted at stairwaytoarchitecture.com.
I'm hoping the data speaks for itself, comments and questions are welcome.
-- Matt Arnold
perhaps the test format had a lot to do with the results.
a single 4 day exam v.s. 7-9 parts, taking 1 at a time, stretch it however long you wanted.
the decline has been incremental and regular, this is obvious from the chart.
this is a nice piece of work -- thanks for doing it. Have you considered longer range data?
The ARE was introduced it looks like during the deep recession of the early 90s. Maybe the correlation has more to do with the lingering effects of that shock to the profession more then the exam format. Despite the rosey report the AIA put out saying salaries are up for architects over the last 15 years, they are not. The earning and buying power of staff architects and interns ( Jounior Architects ) just isnt what it was and it shouldnt be a surprise that the best and brightest simply go where the money is. Honestly, you simply could not raise a family in a place like NY on an architect's salary, so is it any wonder people disappear around their 30th birthday ehen they would be taking the exams?
mespellrong -- I've charted everything I've been able to get my hands on. That chart goes back to 1947. What do you have in mind.
Jack -- the ARE was formally put in place in 1983. The trend you see since then is consistent across economic ups and downs.
So after 1983 you didnt have to sit in a room for a long test?
Well I cant explaine the decline ( or increase in years toput it another way) other than maybe licensure has become less important for career advancement early on.? An office usually only has 1 or 2 stamps so to get licensed looks good for marketing and to the client but really makes little difference to the architect unless they go out on their own.
could one factor be that the education of an architect has become so diverse as to allow graduates entry into other possible endeavors? another factor could be is that becoming a PM does not require a license, and coupled with the fact that their seem to be less interest in becoming a principle or owner of a firm?
Actually I think Beta may be on to something. When I was in school before a lot of you were born, you went to school to be an architect. You didnt go to 4 or 5 years in biology then transfer into architecture. Some did but it was rare. People who set out to become architects were usually good at math, like to draw and wore pocket protectors. Most were men. So yes, maybe the educational filter has just been changing the makeup of the potentates.
funny thing about the theories about education changing the talent pool is that these statistics are only the people who actually became licensed. Those who chose other career paths aren't reflected in these totals at all.
Keep in mind that the only reason to attend an accredited program in architecture is if your goals include becoming a licensed architect -- that's the reason there's such a thing as accreditation.
But did the education system change at the exact same time? Accredited degrees used to include 4 year BARCH if Im not mistaken. I dont believe this is the case anymore. Im not sure when it changed. Certainly there is a clear difference in the Architects who graduated in the 1950s,60s and 70s ( do their own calculations for all disciplines often ) versus the 80s ( Marketing and sales experts it seems ). Then again a different type of architect who graduated in the 90s and 00's ( Conceptual Design Oriented ). I mean how many architects except us old fogeys still do their own structural calcs or write their own contracts? An accredited masters is 3 years of study whereas a 4 year or 5 year is a longer duration of study often with work experience at the same time. So if more people are getting 3 year masters they are a few years behind the learning curve to licensure.
It could also be that less project architect positions open up so there's less need to get licensed until you've been in line at a firm for 10 years.
Its a very interesting pattern the data exposes.
It is interesting. I was very surprised at the consistency of it, across more than 25 years. There are almost 7,000 in-state resident licensed architects represented there.
I am hoping to get data from at least two other states -- Nebraska and Oregon -- very soon. The other states have uniformly told me that they rely on NCARB to maintain the data. NCARB has not responded to my requests for substantive data. They do publish an annual IDP survey in affiliation with AIA and NAAB.
It will be interesting to compare the trends in the other data. I'll be sure to post an update here and at the stairwaytoarchitecture.com site & on twitter @stair2arch.
:/ ...still getting the hang of twittering. the correct tweeter is @stairway2arch..
matthew, my point about the education and career path does not change the narrative all that much. i know many of my friends have yet to get licensed or have just been licensed, they graduated in 96, and a lot of them have done different things in animation, rendering, marketing, design and other areas, but are often led back to architecture. the larger point however might be that there are other distractions, as they might be called, and thus a lack of internal motivation or lack of incentive by those in charge to give a potential candidate a sense of purpose.
in short, if you're looking for a scientific answer there will be none.
I'm only trying to get an actual picture of what is really happening. Policies that are based on fiction are unlikely to be successful. You can't improve what you can't measure. Whatever the reasons for this trend are (and I am sure there are many) we can improve the results (however we define 'improvement') only if we know where we are starting from.
I don't know if IDP is working as designed, but it certainly is not working as advertised, at least not in New York.
idp will never work as designed, it places all of the responsibility on the applicant and none on the owner/principal. so long as there is a lack of any punitive response from the aia. now ncarb has moved one step further by placing arbitrary punishments on applicants, and yet again the owner/principals skate by.
Nebraska provided data on the architects with current active licenses in the state who took the
exam there -- dates of graduation and licensure.
http://stairwaytoarchitecture.com/images/Nebraska_Report.pdf is where the chart is posted. Average time in 2009: 10.86 years, almost identical to NY.
Oregon will provide data shortly.
Just a question. I didn't read through all of the postings. But, don't you think that it has a lot to do with the requirements for IDP? You have to get experience in all of the different phases of a project and then you have to be able to prove it by tracking hours. When were these requirements added?
To my knowledge, the requirements haven't changed substantively since I got out of school in 1982, certainly not in a way that would necessitate a doubling of the time involved. The rules and requirements for reporting have become more labyrinthian, certainly, but nothing has been implemented that "intentionally" increased the time involved.
Ok. I honestly didn't know. I didn't intend to hint that it was intentional, but instead a factor that could lead to a longer period of time between graduation and licensure.
matthewarnold your graphic on your website with the composite wing diagrams is facinating...
@21Ronin -- it could be a factor, among many other things.
@smallpotatoes --
the four types of schools identified in the chart came only after the drawing -- there are highly selective schools with low attrition, typically only offering one type of degree, which I've called Pennant; there are selecive schools with slightly higher attrition that offer BArch and MArch degrees, or Torch schools; there are less selecive schools with higher attrition, the Funnels, and there are schools that are less selecive and have very high attrition rates, the Wedge schools. What surprised me most when preparing the diagrams was the Matriculation Latency at some schools. There are schools that provide more than ten years of student instruction for every graduate.
Wouldn't it be interesting to see that chart for a series of years, with ARE success rates for graduates added? Thank you for the comment.
I've posted another chart (likely the last, I doubt I will be able to procure more information from any of the other state boards) showing similar statistics for Oregon. The pdf is posted at
http://www.stairwaytoarchitecture.com/images/Oregon_Report.pdf
We've updated the stairwaytoarchitecture.com site, and added a forum at http://www.stairwaytoarchitecture.com/talkback/index.php for those interested in discussing licensure and internship issues related to the statistics. Anyone is welcome to drop by there.
The average duration of internship for architects who became licensed in Oregon in 2009 is 8.96 years. The chart breaks this down by M.Arch and B.Arch degrees.
To summarize the results so far for internship in 2009, NY: 11.06 years; Nebraska: 10.86 years; Oregon: 8.96 years.
Did I read the chart wrong or does NYIT Old Westbury(my school) have the highest licensure rates?? O_0
"In 1983 more than half of newly-licensed (state resident) architects obtained their license in less than 5 years; since then the average has declined -- in 2009 the average time was 11.06 years; the median time was 9.96 years."
Yes as the years progress the time to get licensed increases. I believe it is due to increased educational requirements. Since in the past only 4 year degree was accredited people got out of school faster and obtained more work experience leading to better knowledge and passing the exam.
If this chart is accurate and it is taking most people from 5-10 years to get licensed maybe I shouldn't worry too much about getting licensed after a 4 year degree in NY.
NYIT OW has the highest number of licensed graduates. I do not have graduating class sizes, so I can't speak to the rates. Your understanding of the degree requirements is unlike mine, however, in NY the Board will accept 12 years of experience in lieu of any degree, and this would appear to be a shortcut, when you add the time for school into the equation. Time spent in school is not included in the charts or averages.
The charts are accurate.
Honestly, I think it's simply a matter of architects needing a deadline!
When the test was only once a year, you and all your friends knew it was study now, take it now, or you'd have to wait another year to do it. If all your friends are preparing for it, there's positive peer pressure to join them.
Now that we have the convenience of taking the exam whenever we want to, we never seem to make time to actually do it.
In my firm experience, where six of us were all happily functioning as interns, we never pushed each other to take the exam. When the firm pushed us to do it - via fee reimbursement and promise of a title when we got registered - we all started focusing on it, and within a few years we and the firm had pushed us all into registration.
Total time for me, BArch to registration, was 12 years, with a three-year detour for a MArch in there.
Why does the increase in registration time surprise anybody? The whole point of the registration process is to slow entry into the profession. Licensed architects like it because it discourages competition and keeps college grads dependent on them for a longer period of time at lower pay. Test providers and state agencies like it because they make a buck on it. The only reason it is taking longer for graduates to become licensed is that over time the registration process has been tweaked to become better at what was always intended to do.
"Your understanding of the degree requirements is unlike mine, however, in NY the Board will accept 12 years of experience in lieu of any degree, and this would appear to be a shortcut, when you add the time for school into the equation."
Yeah the board will accept 12 of experience. The 4 year degree is not accredited so 4 years of school+5 years of professional experience=licensure. Say 9 years if you immediately start working after school..
or 5 year degree+3 year professional experience=8 years.
Hmm..maybe I should be proud of my school..It is at the bottom of the "top arch school" rankings but apparently they are doing a good job teaching people real life skills.
certainly the graduates of your alma mater are motivated.
I don't believe this is true. With an accredited degree and three years of internship you can take all three tests in three days if you want to, and at any time of year. So ideally BArch+internship+exams=8 years plus three days.
As to testing agencies and governmental bodies liking the money they make on the process, well of course. But thinking the process is "the man trying to keep you down" is a little paranoid.
3 Days?? More like 7 days for ARE 4.0
Are 3.0 and 3.1 was 9 tests If I recall correctly.
http://www.ncarb.org/ARE/Taking-the-ARE/ARE4-Divisions.aspx
The fastest I have personally known anyone to finish the test was 1 month. He studied for many months and then scheduled a few tests per week. This is very rare.
What I've seen in our firm is that most folks spend about 10 months-1 year taking, on average, 1 test per month.
You're probably right, marlowe - I figured you could jam a few tests per day in but I couldn't remember how many hours long the actual tests are in relation to the testing center hours. But in the scheme of 8 years plus a few days, 3 v. 7 isn't really a big deal.
I knew someone who took one test a week for nine weeks and passed them all. One test per month is a very easily manageable schedule.
And seriously you guys: they're not hard tests. They're more emotionally exhausting than anything. I did fail two of them, but it was due to poor time management not lack of knowledge. The second time through was a snap.
what i find fascinating is the disconnect between the number of licenses issued vs. the time to getting licensed. it tells me two things: first, that ncarb is probably working well in terms of being able to be cross-licensed more easily (honestly, it's a snap now compared to 10 years ago). it also tells me how much easier it's been for people to truly conduct more 'global' practices - we just grab a quick license and it's off to do a new hotel in manhattan.
as to why it takes so long: there's a lot of anecdotal evidence (most notably the 'take it all at once' vs. in sections), but those charts don't back that up. as noted, it's been a gradual decline, even across the introduction of the computer exam (around 1994-95). there's no big spike on either side of that.
so i'm stumped. my far flung theory (and it's just that) is that if you could track the rise of critical theory in the schools (early 80's onward) and the converse decrease in importance of "actual building" being taught might have made some grads less able to take the exams in a timely manner. but this pure conjecture.
what may have more solid grounding is that the are instituted a very tight amount of time/criteria to the training and test schedules. this could have discouraged more people from taking it as they found themselves falling short. even this is mere conjecture, though.
Here are Vado Retro's encouraging words found on Thread Central that really hit home:
"hurry up and pass those exams. great architecture careers await!"
Ok, kidding aside, I just read an email from DesignIntelligence and I recoginized one of the articles. Lo and behold, here it is on Archinect while it was in development.
I would definitely want to get to the bottom of what is really behind this trend towards longer time for licensure. If its something like increasing complexity in training I'd be OK with that, but I fear that it is increased beauracracy, pigeonholing interns (renderings, presentations, coffee, etc), and now unemployment.
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.