Has anyone out there managed to get their 3 year M Arch degree recognised by the RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects), and if so, to what level?
My understanding is if you have studied a non-architectural undergrad and complete a 3 year M Arch degree in the US, you will only fulfil the criteria for Part 1 recognition (the equivalent of a 3 year UK undergraduate degree in arch), and not Part 2. This is of course ridiculous, because a 3 year graduate degree is undoubtedly far more intense and mature then its undergraduate counterpart.
I contacted ARB about this issue and they responded with the following:
“…I would advise first of all that you proceed with caution if you are to follow the direction that you propose: American postgraduate degrees are often problematic for us when they are accompanied by undergraduate degrees in other disciplines…Prescribed Examination eligibility rules state that ARB cannot consider applications made by candidates with degrees of shorter durations as the testing of candidates is in no way as extensive as the testing embedded into three or five years of degree level study…”
I wanted to know if anyone has any first hand experience of this? Does work experience hold any weight with ARB/RIBA? For those of you working in the UK with unrecognised degrees, how has it affected your job prospects?
Cheers.
jplourde
Dec 19, 10 1:50 pm
''This is of course ridiculous, because a 3 year graduate degree is undoubtedly far more intense and mature then its undergraduate counterpart. ''
Really? Because in my experience 5 year under grads are more hungry, driven and precise than 3 year post grads who have dilly-dallied along the way. However, of course that's just my personal subjective opinion and experience.
Also, what the person at RIBA said is correct, a 5 year undergrad translates to a part 2 equivalency while a 3 year post grad translates to, I believe, a Part 1 equivalency. Because, in their mind, a Part 1 is 3 years and a Part 2 is 5 years [they call 3 years a 'bachelors' and 5 years a 'diploma']. It makes sense, if you can see it from the other point of view.
However, that said, in either construct you still have to sit for all 3 exams. Equivalency does not supercede competency, according to RIBA. It's all about showing knowledge of British Standards, which are more robust than the IBC.
There was an open letter to RIBA that was passed around this past year that said something to the extent of giving all architect immigrants Part 2 whilst withholding Part 3. For, as you may be aware, a student/architect from the EU with 2 years working in the UK does not currently have to sit for Part 3 [or pay the £1200 fee].
Also, it may interest you to know that there used to be reciprocity between the UK and US systems, whereas if you were licensed in one it was merely a matter of a nominal fee and some paperwork and you could get licensed in the other. I've been told it was the AIA/NCARB that changed this. But I can't be certain.
I would ask why you have any interest in working in the UK at all, in the first place. If you're not applying to an international firm, with projects in the middle and far east, there is literally no work. Also, the Home Office won't permit a visa unless you're going to be making above £75k.
Good luck, let us know how it goes.
jplourde
Dec 19, 10 1:53 pm
Scratch that. It's not a student who can supercede the exam, it's only a qualified architect who had been working in the UK for two years, who can get around the Part 3 exam.
However, most architects on the continent sit for their professional exams at the end of their education, and are therefore usually licensed upon graduation.
LinkOne
Dec 19, 10 3:25 pm
Thanks for the detailed response jplourde.
The reason I want to work in the UK is because I’m from the UK. I therefore know all about how little work there is! A bit about my situation:
I have an undergraduate degree in Urban Planning, and masters in Urban Design. Having worked as an “urban designer” for over 2 years I really feel I would like to pursue an architectural qualification. Most of the experience I have gained thus far is concerned with large scale strategy and policy where “urban design” is really urban planning expressed graphically. I want to work in masterplanning, and from my experience this is very difficult for someone with my qualifications (part of me feels this prejudice is very warranted, as planners are taught to think at a strategic level, and not to design). This is why I want to study architecture – so I can break this border. The U.S. is the only place I can do this at masters level, without having to revert back to an undergraduate degree.
Sorry to turn this into an autobiography – I just felt it made sense to explain my motives. Strictly speaking, RIBA accreditation isn’t entirely necessary to work as a masterplanner for a decent urban design firm – however if it is possible I would definitely go for it.
Perhaps “ridiculous” was too harsher word to use, but having gone through the UK undergraduate degree system at the Bartlett, I can tell you the majority of the first year is more concerned with personal growth and less about the technicalities of professional practice – this is of course just my subjective opinion.
I am aware of the previously held reciprocity between the RIBA and AIA – I think it was the RIBA who opted out of this as they are seem very keen to protect the integrity of the 3 + 2 system (I could be wrong). With regards to your second post:
“It's not a student who can supercede the exam, it's only a qualified architect who had been working in the UK for two years, who can get around the Part 3 exam.”
Are you suggesting an accredited architect from anywhere in the world would automatically qualify for RIBA membership? I’d imagine 5 years of study would be a prerequisite…
Thanks again.
jplourde
Dec 19, 10 3:45 pm
Well, if you hold UK citizenship than you already have a one up on the rest of your competition! If only for getting around the £75k thing. I recall when I first started in 2008 even then my firm had to sign a piece of paper that said they could not find someone in the country who could do my job. Which of course even then was total BS, the AA and UCL [at the Bartlett] being as good as they are.
I think the way it works currently is that a qualified architect from the EU, aka Germany or Italy or France, only has to work in the UK for two years, and then can submit some red tape and get qualified under the British system. As a Part 3.
Whereas under the proposed system, as I understand it, RIBA would recognize Part 2, but would not recognize Part 3. Which makes sense to me, because Part 3 is supposed to be all about operating within the British system in regards to professional conduct, practice and code.
If you ask my opinion, I completely agree with the new system. Architects coming to work in a new country have to learn that countries codes and requirements, if even for geography's sake. Simple as that.
So, there is a difference in regards to RIBA membership between Part 2 and 3.
Personally, I would really like it if the reciprocity could be reinstated, but I'm not holding my breath. If it was RIBA, it might happen in the next 15 years, if it was indeed NCARB and the AIA, then I have a few letters to write.
Don't know if that really helps, but good luck. We seem to be on opposite sides of the same coin.
LinkOne
Dec 19, 10 4:14 pm
It does appear that way. I wasn’t aware non-eu skilled migrants hand so much trouble with immigration in 2008 – at least that’s not what the Daily Mail would have you believe. I guess your situation has not been helped by the Coalitions plans to introduce an arbitrary cap on non EU immigration (around 50,000). At best it’s a crude and clumsy bit of legalisation.
I also agree that architects trained in a foreign country should have to undertake Part 3 exams – this is the only way to ensure professionals are aware of various legislative, and as you point out geographic, matters.
As a member state, Britain has to comply with various EU immigration laws; hence the RIBA making concessions for those trained in Europe. I guess for me the question is really whether ARB would judge my qualifications (potentially 3 degrees spread across 7 years…) to be equivalent to Part 1 or Part 2…
Do you have an article or source setting out the proposed changes you describe? I’d be interested to read about it.
Thanks for your help - and good luck to you too.
p.s. If its any conciliation we really wont be building much until the next parliamentary term (not sure if you’ve heard about the new Localism bill), so you probably won’t be missing out on much in the meantime.
will galloway
Dec 20, 10 2:19 am
the requirement is 5 years of "architecture only" education based on my own correspondence from several years back when i was going through the process. a few friends did it easy enough. all it cost was time and money. but none of them were 3 year m.arch, wherein lies the rub. i don't think it will be easy to get the bureaucracy to bend much, especially nowadays when things are more tight, not less.
getting a visa back in 2002 was not easy, but they didn't have that 75k rule yet, so was really about jumping a certain set of hoops, and paying a bit of cash to get a lawyer to handle things.
is the rule in place now jplourde? i had heard about it being in the works, didn't know it was implemented. how shitty.
part III exam is not such a hardship to do in my opinion. being set back to a part I after all that education is not good tho. i like the flexibility of the us system. pity that it is not possible in the UK as well..
QueenBcp
Jun 18, 15 6:50 am
Hi all,
I have moved over to the UK from the US to be with my British partner and I have a work visa and a job within architecture. I am licensed in the US and as I plan to be here indefinitely, I would like to get licensed here. I have an unrelated Bachelor's Degree and a Masters of Architecture Degree. It does sound like there might be some hassle in having the ARB recognize this, but I would like to pursue it. Any input / suggestions / tips from other people who have gone through the process? Cheers!
Has anyone out there managed to get their 3 year M Arch degree recognised by the RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects), and if so, to what level?
My understanding is if you have studied a non-architectural undergrad and complete a 3 year M Arch degree in the US, you will only fulfil the criteria for Part 1 recognition (the equivalent of a 3 year UK undergraduate degree in arch), and not Part 2. This is of course ridiculous, because a 3 year graduate degree is undoubtedly far more intense and mature then its undergraduate counterpart.
I contacted ARB about this issue and they responded with the following:
“…I would advise first of all that you proceed with caution if you are to follow the direction that you propose: American postgraduate degrees are often problematic for us when they are accompanied by undergraduate degrees in other disciplines…Prescribed Examination eligibility rules state that ARB cannot consider applications made by candidates with degrees of shorter durations as the testing of candidates is in no way as extensive as the testing embedded into three or five years of degree level study…”
I wanted to know if anyone has any first hand experience of this? Does work experience hold any weight with ARB/RIBA? For those of you working in the UK with unrecognised degrees, how has it affected your job prospects?
Cheers.
''This is of course ridiculous, because a 3 year graduate degree is undoubtedly far more intense and mature then its undergraduate counterpart. ''
Really? Because in my experience 5 year under grads are more hungry, driven and precise than 3 year post grads who have dilly-dallied along the way. However, of course that's just my personal subjective opinion and experience.
Also, what the person at RIBA said is correct, a 5 year undergrad translates to a part 2 equivalency while a 3 year post grad translates to, I believe, a Part 1 equivalency. Because, in their mind, a Part 1 is 3 years and a Part 2 is 5 years [they call 3 years a 'bachelors' and 5 years a 'diploma']. It makes sense, if you can see it from the other point of view.
However, that said, in either construct you still have to sit for all 3 exams. Equivalency does not supercede competency, according to RIBA. It's all about showing knowledge of British Standards, which are more robust than the IBC.
There was an open letter to RIBA that was passed around this past year that said something to the extent of giving all architect immigrants Part 2 whilst withholding Part 3. For, as you may be aware, a student/architect from the EU with 2 years working in the UK does not currently have to sit for Part 3 [or pay the £1200 fee].
Also, it may interest you to know that there used to be reciprocity between the UK and US systems, whereas if you were licensed in one it was merely a matter of a nominal fee and some paperwork and you could get licensed in the other. I've been told it was the AIA/NCARB that changed this. But I can't be certain.
I would ask why you have any interest in working in the UK at all, in the first place. If you're not applying to an international firm, with projects in the middle and far east, there is literally no work. Also, the Home Office won't permit a visa unless you're going to be making above £75k.
Good luck, let us know how it goes.
Scratch that. It's not a student who can supercede the exam, it's only a qualified architect who had been working in the UK for two years, who can get around the Part 3 exam.
However, most architects on the continent sit for their professional exams at the end of their education, and are therefore usually licensed upon graduation.
Thanks for the detailed response jplourde.
The reason I want to work in the UK is because I’m from the UK. I therefore know all about how little work there is! A bit about my situation:
I have an undergraduate degree in Urban Planning, and masters in Urban Design. Having worked as an “urban designer” for over 2 years I really feel I would like to pursue an architectural qualification. Most of the experience I have gained thus far is concerned with large scale strategy and policy where “urban design” is really urban planning expressed graphically. I want to work in masterplanning, and from my experience this is very difficult for someone with my qualifications (part of me feels this prejudice is very warranted, as planners are taught to think at a strategic level, and not to design). This is why I want to study architecture – so I can break this border. The U.S. is the only place I can do this at masters level, without having to revert back to an undergraduate degree.
Sorry to turn this into an autobiography – I just felt it made sense to explain my motives. Strictly speaking, RIBA accreditation isn’t entirely necessary to work as a masterplanner for a decent urban design firm – however if it is possible I would definitely go for it.
Perhaps “ridiculous” was too harsher word to use, but having gone through the UK undergraduate degree system at the Bartlett, I can tell you the majority of the first year is more concerned with personal growth and less about the technicalities of professional practice – this is of course just my subjective opinion.
I am aware of the previously held reciprocity between the RIBA and AIA – I think it was the RIBA who opted out of this as they are seem very keen to protect the integrity of the 3 + 2 system (I could be wrong). With regards to your second post:
“It's not a student who can supercede the exam, it's only a qualified architect who had been working in the UK for two years, who can get around the Part 3 exam.”
Are you suggesting an accredited architect from anywhere in the world would automatically qualify for RIBA membership? I’d imagine 5 years of study would be a prerequisite…
Thanks again.
Well, if you hold UK citizenship than you already have a one up on the rest of your competition! If only for getting around the £75k thing. I recall when I first started in 2008 even then my firm had to sign a piece of paper that said they could not find someone in the country who could do my job. Which of course even then was total BS, the AA and UCL [at the Bartlett] being as good as they are.
I think the way it works currently is that a qualified architect from the EU, aka Germany or Italy or France, only has to work in the UK for two years, and then can submit some red tape and get qualified under the British system. As a Part 3.
Whereas under the proposed system, as I understand it, RIBA would recognize Part 2, but would not recognize Part 3. Which makes sense to me, because Part 3 is supposed to be all about operating within the British system in regards to professional conduct, practice and code.
If you ask my opinion, I completely agree with the new system. Architects coming to work in a new country have to learn that countries codes and requirements, if even for geography's sake. Simple as that.
So, there is a difference in regards to RIBA membership between Part 2 and 3.
Personally, I would really like it if the reciprocity could be reinstated, but I'm not holding my breath. If it was RIBA, it might happen in the next 15 years, if it was indeed NCARB and the AIA, then I have a few letters to write.
Don't know if that really helps, but good luck. We seem to be on opposite sides of the same coin.
It does appear that way. I wasn’t aware non-eu skilled migrants hand so much trouble with immigration in 2008 – at least that’s not what the Daily Mail would have you believe. I guess your situation has not been helped by the Coalitions plans to introduce an arbitrary cap on non EU immigration (around 50,000). At best it’s a crude and clumsy bit of legalisation.
I also agree that architects trained in a foreign country should have to undertake Part 3 exams – this is the only way to ensure professionals are aware of various legislative, and as you point out geographic, matters.
As a member state, Britain has to comply with various EU immigration laws; hence the RIBA making concessions for those trained in Europe. I guess for me the question is really whether ARB would judge my qualifications (potentially 3 degrees spread across 7 years…) to be equivalent to Part 1 or Part 2…
Do you have an article or source setting out the proposed changes you describe? I’d be interested to read about it.
Thanks for your help - and good luck to you too.
p.s. If its any conciliation we really wont be building much until the next parliamentary term (not sure if you’ve heard about the new Localism bill), so you probably won’t be missing out on much in the meantime.
the requirement is 5 years of "architecture only" education based on my own correspondence from several years back when i was going through the process. a few friends did it easy enough. all it cost was time and money. but none of them were 3 year m.arch, wherein lies the rub. i don't think it will be easy to get the bureaucracy to bend much, especially nowadays when things are more tight, not less.
getting a visa back in 2002 was not easy, but they didn't have that 75k rule yet, so was really about jumping a certain set of hoops, and paying a bit of cash to get a lawyer to handle things.
is the rule in place now jplourde? i had heard about it being in the works, didn't know it was implemented. how shitty.
part III exam is not such a hardship to do in my opinion. being set back to a part I after all that education is not good tho. i like the flexibility of the us system. pity that it is not possible in the UK as well..
Hi all,
I have moved over to the UK from the US to be with my British partner and I have a work visa and a job within architecture. I am licensed in the US and as I plan to be here indefinitely, I would like to get licensed here. I have an unrelated Bachelor's Degree and a Masters of Architecture Degree. It does sound like there might be some hassle in having the ARB recognize this, but I would like to pursue it. Any input / suggestions / tips from other people who have gone through the process? Cheers!