In a major adaptation to U.S. licensure rules, the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards has proposed a new option for gaining licensure -- simply through the process of an architecture education. As announced in a NCARB press release earlier today, architecture students could earn intern experience and take their licensing exam while still in school, to receive licensure upon graduation. This stands in addition to the previous paths to licensure, and is completely optional.
The details behind the plan are still hazy, as NCARB puts together a task force of top architecture organizations (including the AIA and NAAB) to design how a "licensure-at-graduation" program could work. Research and plans for implementation are said to last a couple more years, with NCARB sharing their plans with interested schools in October 2014. But at this point, at the very least, the proposal is a step towards facilitating the process of becoming a licensed architect.
From NCARB's Board of Directors:
"The Board of Directors endorses the concept of an additional, structured path to licensure that may lead to licensure upon graduation. This additional path will integrate current education, experience, and examination requirements and requires a collaborative partnership with institutions offering NAAB-accredited programs, our Member Boards, students, and firms."
Read NCARB's complete press release here: "NCARB Endorses New Path to Becoming an Architect: Architect License Upon Graduation"
88 Comments
Although this is no doubt good news for some, it scares the shit out of me. Schools currently do virtually nothing to prepare one to practice. Working in a design firm, 98% of my day is nonetheless code, technical drawing and trying not to bankrupt the client or myself, and at even the most technical schools these are maybe 9 credit hours out of a minimum five years of education...
Without a shadow of doubt the greatest possible news from NCARB. Amazing news for our profession!
"Before I was 30, I served as the architect of record for more than 100 churches and parish halls (multipurpose first units for a new congregation). The primary reason for this remarkable number of clients was the result of a new venture that several of my classmates from Illinois and I began in 1952. When we graduated, we reasoned that our education and summer working experiences had given us a general understanding of how to prepare design and working drawings for a building, but we lacked any experience in actually constructing one. As a result, we formed a company we called Creative Buildings (in Urbana, Illinois) and began designing and building houses – primarily for university faculty members who were interested in contemporary design. Through a series of ventures, we moved into the business of panelized (prefabricating) buildings, including church buildings. By 1958, we had a manufacturing plant that employed 75 people and a large backlog of church clients. We had so many clients because a church building committee knew they could trust us to design, fabricate, and assemble a finished structure within a reasonable budget, something architects in traditional practice seldom did because they lacked sufficient experience to estimate construction costs. The American Institute of Architects did not condone this form of practice at the time, although it is accepted today." - p. 12 from Brain Landscape by John Paul Ebehard.
Is anyone listening...NCARB and maybe the AIA will catch-up with the 21st century finally...Neuroscientists are doing our job by now - http://www.anfarch.org/ ...
NCARB wants to keep talent in the profession, who came up with this idea? This is so silicone valley 1980's, why create a system that allows those with talent over privilege to flourish?
Philip Johnson is turning in his grave...rich kids do something about this, call your dad and lobby for a law to delay talent from becoming licensed or allowing such a system that supports those with the best ideas to get ahead...stonewall this, we need more clueless people in the position of power. I can't stand another day of kids with talent getting an opportunity, my deflated delusional career funded by my inheritance will fail....please I'm scared.
.
A good question is what will change as a result. Will it change what a licensed architect looks like? Currently there isn't much required to become one. It requires 0 talent or naturally gifted ability. So will curriculum/pedagogy morph licensure? Plenty gets done in the profession without being licensed. So if every new grad is licensed (assuming there will be a "licensure-track" a student can opt into whereby licensure is earned, as opposed to handed out like a degree) does that change what a licensed architect means to the profession? Unless they do actually confer licensure simultaneously/parallel when giving a graduate their degree and literally everyone graduating is already an "architect" in the NCARB/beaureaucratic sense.
I can't imagine that they would simply ham-fistedly force the current licensure requirements into a curriculum/pedagogy (however you chose to call it) without full integration. But it seems likely, since those not earning licensure in school would still need an opportunity later to become licensed, but wouldn't currently be in school. Which means their requirements may be different. Which would mean two types of licensed architects. What would that mean? This also seems likely because of the good-old-boy nature of licensure, which would likely be more stubborn to change than the more flexible academic world.
It would definitely eliminate confusion from the general public and eliminate the need to answer the question "so what exactly did your degree get you?" when explaining that although you did everything required to get a diploma with the words Masters of Architecture on it, you are not an architect let alone done much as of yet to master it (the last part which is either my fault or only comes with experience or both).
Exams:
drew I think it could look at lot like the PE path...You graduate and can take your exams if you like. Exams are easier when you are in school anyway, especially if you spent that last year preparing for them.
Architect (legal name):
but if you don't take your exams and you graduated as an M.Arch or B.Arch with all the NCARB items you are still an "architect" - just not licensed...or in other words can not file just like a Handyman can't pull a permit like a General Contractor, etc...
The whole process now deters creative upstarts or at least hinders/hampers them. How many Archinect features are about "working outside the box"...let's not have a BOX. How many designers you know find a Architect of Record to process the paperwork?
see my previous post with quote from John Paul Eberhard Brain Landscape book...
Education:
I spent 3 semesters at Technische Uni-Dortmund, early 2000's, the Dortmund Bauswesen Modell at the time included 3 major studio/projects, ranging from 1 to 3 semester long requiring Architects to work in partnership on their Studio project with other Engineering or Construction Management Students. All the MEP and structural classes informed and tested your knowledge as it applied to your studio project. If you were a brave student you pushed the envelope of standard design and construction. There usually was only 1-2 top grades out of a 100 students...Also, when I taught at Parsons AAS program they integrated skills into the studio curriculum essentially rendering 2nd semester students proficient in basic software usage as 4th year Architect students...simple fixes within the system already.
You could make the last 1 year of the 5 year B.Arch or in M.Arch the last of the 3rd year.a studio project requiring integration of reality.
This way upon graduation, if for whatever reason the young "Architect" prefers not to take exams and take on liability and add costs of insurance overhead they would at least understand the process.
just a long winded suggestion.
Great News!!!
Good news. I wish they did this 10 years ago.
These newly minted architects will have a license before years of work in mediocre firms kills their spirit and lowers their design standards.
It also increases their earning potential while they pay off student loan debt.
I'm very excited about this change. In fact, YAY! for NCARB considering our changing world and our profession within it! I'm very excited.
That said, I think it's important to note this phrase from the announcement:
The new path—licensure upon graduation from an accredited program—would integrate the rigorous internship and examination requirements that aspiring architects must fulfill into the years spent completing a professional degree in architecture.
Bolds mine. This seems to imply that internships can happen while still in school, not that internships are abolished. So there may still be plenty of time for drawing of bathroom elevations before one can be licensed!
My most idealistic hope is that this path will provide students who choose to do so the opportunity to focus in the practical skillset of the profession within a BArch program, and maybe allow the Master's degree to go back to focusing almost exclusively on the theoretical side or on specializations like sustainability, computer modeling, etc.
Couple of observations:
The educational system will be geared to the (licensing) test.
The length and cost of schooling will increase by the number of years required to intern.
An interesting metaphor for the inevitable conflict between old schooling and new schooling could be what happens to those in jail for possession of marijuana after it's legalized.
Simple. There is more than enough technical classes with rigorous testing in existing 5 year programs to satisfy NCARB. Let's make those tests count towards licensure not just grades.
Internships should be integrated into studio; except - the student studies/works on a research subject of their choosing with a teacher/ practitioner for mutual intellectual gain. Here the student intern can run studio exercises on realistic alternate scenarios for real sites. Win for the teacher, Win for student, Win for NCARB.
Finally, we catch up to Europe and other parts of the world.
I'm trying to get confirmation and I'm trying really hard not to be cynical, but my fears are this is what this looks like:
NCARB is going to take the current NAAB criteria and re-write it to become more prescriptive in addressing the exam criteria. This will be repackaged as a 'model curricula' that is then offered to the schools with the following caveat: IF you adopt our curricula, then your students who successfully graduate will be allowed to sit for the exams AND get our blessing to become immediately registered IF a state/jurisdiction allows it. (just because NCARB endorses it doesn't mean squat - you have to get buy in from each state to legally modify their Practice Act).
I find it extremely telling that NCARB made this announcement, on their own, without calling the model proposed 'jointly adopted' - they duly noted that they convened leaders of each of the collateral organizations. But (and a big one), they don't even pretend that these groups endorse it (whatever "it" actually is). And, if you look at their study group, it's predominantly NCARB officials or past officials. There's 1 NAAB representative out of the 20 people on the group. 1 ACSA representative. 1 AIAS member. 1 official AIA member (who is also an NCARB Board member, though they do have 2 other past Presidents who are also NCARB Board members on the panel). This was not - contrary to what is implied in the statement - a true 'summit' that was jointly convened and developed by all the stakeholders in this problem. It's NCARB's event - they invited hand selected members to come. The results, including this press release, appear to me to be their opening gambit - a play to the students to have them try and force their schools to 'adopt or die'.
I've gone on record as completely endorsing alternatives to the current path, which is unsustainable. Until the details emerge, until all the groups involved give it their blessing - I'm chalking this up as PR and a naked power grab by NCARB.
IMO, the experience req. does nothing to protect the public. The hsw safeguard is already built into the reality of the business. Grads are not going to come out of school and get a client for a new hospital project. Not gonna happen in a million years. What would happen would be similar to what happens with law school grads. Most will go on to work for many years prior to setting up their own firms, some will start right away and take on very small projects that are exempt any way. In any case, years and years will be required before any savy millionare is gonna hand over a 20 million dollar project. With or without the experience requirement the nature of the profession and the nature of the wealthy clients will self regulate. The main difference is that grads will be empowered to explore small startups and to demand higher salary. It will give some financial weight to the expensive degree making it more worth the investment.
great. what should separate an architect from anyone else is that the architect should think some stuff is neat. they should probably also criticize some other stuff for not being neat.
maybe this will also come with cities no longer requiring architect stamps at all. let people hire who they want to design and build their buildings, and if that's a metal building manufacturer, why force them to work with an architect?
what should separate an architect from anyone else is that the architect should think some stuff is neat
The world is littered with buildings that some idiots thought were "neat".
etc., etc.
Gregory I would forsee this development with our without the states full involvement or NAAB as follows...whichever school that would create a NCARB accredited program would have students who were certified by NCARB to sit for exams. Lets say a state like Florida who I think only requires 1 year out a school to sit for exams would allow anyone with a NCARB accreditation to sit and then practice however which way they see fit. This would create a mecca for talent with visions like eberhard or SHOP...which in turn curtkram would allow architects to take control or better integrate themselves into the economy and society instead of allowing metal home manuf. Who can afford the risk and hiring a licensed pro is a drop in the bucket to render those constrained by regulations to take a back seat to progress. On phone so cant double check but I think NYS was loosening up the PLLC requirement for one obvious reason to make pros competitive within the market...
Gregory, I can say that when I was at the Emerging Professionals Summit in January this was a *very* hot topic. So there has definitely been some work done on it by voices including NAAB, AIA, and NCARB all at the same table. I don't think it's in any way a power grab.
That said, it is absolutely not going to happen without each State agreeing to adopt it. This will likely be a many year process, but I think NCARB's announcement is a way of saying that all the involved parties - schools, practitioners, and accreditation powers - are committed to seeing it happen.
Does NCARB know that most professors in architecture school are not licensed themselves? Would this have to change with the new program?
The idea that minting more architects quickly will have the result of increasing said architects earning capacity is akin to saying, "printing more dollars quickly will certainly increase the value if each dollar, right?"
This is bad for:
1. Technical drones (most with 20+ years of experience of being technical drones) that control the convoluted NCARB licensure process to keep the number of architects limited by defining the profession as narrowly as possible.
2. Academics who will now not only have to actually understand the basic mechanics of architecture, but teach it to their students.
This is good for:
1. All young aspiring architects who will no longer have to undergo an 8-12 year process to licensure.
2. The general public who will have greater exposure to the talents of young architects.
This is the BEST news I have seen come out of NCARB, well, ever. Finally someone there is listening!
+++Won and done Williams!
I attended what may have been the then most "practical" work-focused program at the time, the University of Cincinnati's B.Arch (prior to morphing into an M.Arch) with 2 years of total required, paid co-op experience before graduation.
I was still not qualified to practice architecture when I graduated, in my opinion, though I was a hell of a lot more valuable employee that my contemporaries graduating from traditional programs. They had learned the valuable, important critical thinking skills we all take away from studio, but almost NONE of the practical knowledge about how things stand up, are constructed, and maintained, which as others have pointed out, very few academic faculty are equipped to teach. Within a few YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, however, these differences had leveled out as a baseline of professional knowledge was established.
This sounds like a "back in my day..." cantankerous response, but I think allowing interns to begin ARE testing before IDP is completed was a mistake, and I think this is further progress down that road...
This is a profession with a HUGE amount of associated knowledge, none of which any professional will entirely master, but only with experience does one begin to command the general knowledge needed to be a well-rounded professional. I fear that we are designing the licensed architect out of existence by lessening the importance of what the designation means, all in service of paying more for education, and making sure that no one feels like those many dollars were squandered because they need to wait a few years to put an RA or and AIA after their name...
2. The general public who will have greater exposure to the talents of young architects.
on that point...there are many many small projects out there that are going to other professionals. These projects are getting done one way or another and getting done very poorly. We are losing huge markets (maybe never had to begin with) that could be better served by an arch grad with some knowledge and much passion than some bozo contractor with a financial incentive to offer expensive solutions...We talk a big talk about protecting the public, but in reality we simply do not serve the vast majority of the public and thus have no ability to protect anything...Its out of our "jurisdiction". Maybe if we are able to better serve the average man/women, architecture will be seen as a more valuable and more democratic service. We cannot influence the built environment in any meaningful way if we cannot find a way to serve 99% of it. Young creative entrepreneurs will get out there and tap these markets in new ways that older firms cannot and will not in the same way newly minted lawyers take on low pay immigration and asylum cases that would otherwise get tossed to public defenders out of default. Not that public defenders are are bad, but the clients have no viable options if they end up with a bad one because most firms charge too much for such complex/ low fee cases. young grads will be no threat to older firms because they will not be competing in the same market. They will have to tap new markets inorder to survive which will overall expand the scope and influence of the profession as a whole.
The influx of newly licensed young architects working cheap is going to further devalue the profession.
most of the arguments that I hear are not about protecting the public but about protecting the profession and protecting the infantile grads from failure. This is not...I repeat NOT, a justification for regulation. Regulations are created to protect the public and must be as minimal as possible as to not create unnecessary or overly burdensome barriers to entry. When they do, it become protectionism, and no profession is entitled to such a privilege. If we are talking about basic hsw then there is no reason that this cannot be taught in school to the same level as it is in a 3 year internship period filled with idol time and tasks that have nothing to do with hsw.
jla-x- "must be as minimal as possible as to not create unnecessary or overly burdensome barriers to entry..."
These are your political opinions and you are entitled to them.
Professional protectionism was the norm in western culture for thousands of years (think craft guilds, trade unions) as a way of protecting both the trade and the public (we can argue the extent to each), but the "small government" ideas you espouse are unique to the last century or so, and arguably unique the the US.
The AIA itself was a protectionist, collusionary body until it was "trust-busted" in the early 20th century. We can argue whether this was good or bad ad naseum, as well.
But I will stand by my central argument: NO structured school program can compete with actual experience in creating a well-rounded professional.
The influx of newly licensed young architects working cheap is going to further devalue the profession.
Too bad. Value should be created by quality of work not by scarcity and exclusivity. Its this mindset that has devalued the profession. This is what annoys me so much about this issue. Its a completely anti-creative attitude. Rather than increasing value by making a better car we simply produce less cars thus increasing demand by reducing supply. Diamonds aren't that rare so just hold them in some vault and release them gradually into the world. Artificial value generated by manipulating supply. Where have we seen this before??? Everywhere! A recipe for failure.
These are your political opinions and you are entitled to them.
No this is actually how the law is written.
Rather than increasing value by making a better car we simply produce less cars thus increasing demand by reducing supply.
All I am saying is that I want my better car designed by someone who knows more than where the four wheels go. And maybe has had the chance to help create a few cars with guidance before doing their own...
"These are your political opinions and you are entitled to them.
No this is actually how the law is written."
So "the law" (which is unique to every state incidentally) that regulates how a physician is licensed, for example, has as even ONE of its primary purposes: "to not create unnecessary or overly burdensome barriers to entry" ?
I'm calling BS.
The IDP system isn't great - PE and PLA process is much more straight forward (requiring experience after graduation but w/o such tedious bean counting - basically needing licensed professionals to say 'yes, this individual should know how to do the work properly and be liable for it').
I'm not sure how this is supposed to:
1. help 'raise the level' of talent/quality of architecture work
2. increase work for architects
3. raise salaries for graduates
as many of y'all state.
So "the law" (which is unique to every state incidentally) that regulates how a physician is licensed, for example, has as even ONE of its primary purposes: "to not create unnecessary or overly burdensome barriers to entry" ?
I'm calling BS.
here we go with the comparison to doctors...We are not doctors. We design buildings we don't cut peoples brains open. Yes protectionism is not allowed...It happens as do many other things that violate liberty such as "stop and frisk." Not that the state cannot create regulations to protect public, just that the regulations cannot be created to protect the pockets of the guild. A fair and balanced exercise of power. I really don't want to get into this argument and derail the thread with one of my political rants...
All I am saying is that I want my better car designed by someone who knows more than where the four wheels go. And maybe has had the chance to help create a few cars with guidance before doing their own...
Often great things are created by people who did not follow the prescribed path. Should these things be kept from the public marketplace? There are non-engineers that invent things all the time...some even call themselves engineers...do engineers complain? nope.
Since IDP has been adopted, you would think the quality of architecture would increase and the "value" of the title would as well, but the opposite has happened. Explain that.
Graduated License, I agree with that.
Even better, remove the title protection of the general term "architect" that means anything from god to war monger and create a protected RA title achieved through testing and proven experience under the supervision of an architect or on ones own. I would also like to see a national license so that architects can more freely compete across the arbitrary state lines.
empower grads with the title that reflects their education and allow them the freedom to gain experience in any way they feel fit. these are adults not kids. Lawyers are able to take test out of school and become licensed right away. Peoples liberty is at stake. Nurses can become nurses in 2-3 years and have lives at stake... Its absolutely nothing more than protectionist bullshit to make an architect license take 10-15 years. We design buildings and work with savy clients with plenty of time to review past work of the architect.
Matt Diersen I agree with this: NO structured school program can compete with actual experience in creating a well-rounded professional but with one HUGE caveat: becoming a well-rounded professional architect requires many more years beyond the minimal 5-year BArch and 3-year internship that is possible (if not common) currently. There's a reason why "young" architects are generally categorized as under-40 or even up to 50 while every other category of society considers that to be old - this profession takes a long time to learn to do well. As others have said, no one is going to hire a very recently-minted architect under this new program, especially if that person is in their mid-20s, to design and execute solo a hospital or airport or tower.
GraduatedLicensure, I totally agree with you and was hoping the changes at NCARB etc. would focus more on the use of the title rather than the registration, at least as a first step. I had hoped that use of the term Architect would be granted to accredited-degree holders, with the term Registered Architect, and the stamping capabilities, reserved for those who take the exam. This would fall in line with most municipalities' code laws, which allow smaller projects to be unstamped.
Miles Jaffe .. You're one jaded sob, judging by almost every post of yours xD
jla-x, very few doctors ever cut anyone's brain open, but the state has decided that what all doctors do impacts enough on the common good that there is a common interest in ensuring that they have the qualifications and skills they pretend to. I fail to see how this isn't an EXACT parallel to architects.
Even your example of car-design is apt to disprove your point: If the market were allowed exclusively to dictate car design unencumbered by regulation, we'd all be impaling ourselves on rigid-steering columns due to the lack of seatbelts (both innovations which the all-wise market resisted).
Donna Sink, an excellent point, you are very right in that no one ever attains command of every facet of the profession. I regularly explain to others that the reason architects never retire is because no one really listens to what they say until they're about 55 or 60 anyway...
However, the current ARE and licensure system at least sets a baseline for some level of experience (or at least self-discipline and application) that can be generally understood by the public, accurately or not.
Further muddying that is my worry, not someone muscling in on my protected preserve....
jla-x, very few doctors ever cut anyone's brain open, but the state has decided that what all doctors do impacts enough on the common good that there is a common interest in ensuring that they have the qualifications and skills they pretend to. I fail to see how this isn't an EXACT parallel to architects.
Because architects do not design for emergency situations and do not construct buildings alone. We follow the already established codes or our buildings don't get built. We have engineers ensure that buildings don't fall down. There are far more checks and balances in the year or two it takes to complete a building than the 20 mins. it takes to do an emergency surgery. Doctors, nurses, lawyers also on average take less time to get licensed than architects... our system is in dire need of some streamlining. Even chefs are more of a danger to society than architects. You know how many people die from food born illnesses.
Even your example of car-design is apt to disprove your point: If the market were allowed exclusively to dictate car design unencumbered by regulation, we'd all be impaling ourselves on rigid-steering columns due to the lack of seatbelts (both innovations which the all-wise market resisted).
There is a huge difference in regulating product vs. practice. Product regulations imo are too lien. We should increase regulation on the end side and decrease it on the front side. This would make the know how more valuable because the end result would be more difficult to achieve. This would put the know nothings at a disadvantage and create a need for knowledge rather than a need for stamping. This would create a higher quality built environment by regulating the outcome rather than the players. We should not be worried about the hypothetical senario of some grad creating a tower that falls down and kills 100 people but instead the real existing scenario of a shitty cheap toxic built environment that already exists and could kill 7 billion in due time. We are doing nothing to address the real problems with licensure. I don't care who designs my car as long as its a good car and passes all the safety tests.
Haha if someone says they are going to perform brain surgery and it will take 20 mins. save the deductible and just Lobotomize yourself.
jla-x- I can only assume your opinions of how easy it is design safe buildings is based on your years of experience doing so? And that it's others responsibility to safeguard both the public as well as the clients interests is also based on a deep portfolio of satisfied clients, healthy fees and beautiful spaces.
Below:
an interesting analysis of medical profession timeline of experience education and income. I don't find his conclusions very accurate as he seems to be manipulating numbers to say a doc makes not much more than a hs teacher. but would love to see a similar analysis of our own profession.
http://benbrownmd.wordpress.com/2010/06/20/informedconsent/
Haha if someone says they are going to perform brain surgery and it will take 20 mins. save the deductible and just Lobotomize yourself.
You combined 2 different posts to discredit my point. that's low.
jla-x- I can only assume your opinions of how easy it is design safe buildings is based on your years of experience doing so? And that it's others responsibility to safeguard both the public as well as the clients interests is also based on a deep portfolio of satisfied clients, healthy fees and beautiful spaces.
Never said any of this. another straw man argument.
Since IDP has been adopted, you would think the quality of architecture would increase and the "value" of the title would as well, but the opposite has happened. Explain that.
no one answered my question...
This is great news. Maybe this will induce schools to be more practical.
Does anyone know if Ted Landsmark's was involved in this? He was president of NAAB from 2012-2013, and former (current?) president of the Boston Architectural College - where half the requirement for graduation is work experience. Theoretically, by the time people graduate from that school, they should be capable of running projects.
So - I'm wondering if NCARB is going to be looking at programs that have concurrent (only one I know of is the BAC) and co-ops as places where it might be possible to graduate with a license.
I'm also wondering if this will just create two classes of schools - the ones where you go to become a licensed architect, and the ones where you go to do "cutting edge" design and theory and/or gain access to the global elite. Although - this could help some schools return to their more technical and practice based roots and market this to potential students as an actual alternative. Right now everyone's trying to be "interesting."
Rather than increasing value by making a better car we simply produce less cars thus increasing demand by reducing supply.
Or make cars that must be repeatedly replaced because they have a limited lifespan (planned obsolesce) or are out of style (as defined by marketing forces such as the manufacturer's advertising).
Artificial value generated by manipulating supply.
More like negative pressure on wages due to an oversupply of architects and speculative development for maximum profit. The measurable value (economic return) comes with various costs to others. As to whether or not this is artificial I leave to another discussion.
Some of us are into are 30s now (still plodding along with the existing requirements) and now suddenly we might find ourselves in a new paradigm where a bunch of 20-something kids are graduating with professional licenses? Talk about be caught in no man's land career wise.
Thus the analogy about marijuana legalization and those still serving prison terms for possession. Don't worry, by the time this gets sorted out you will most likely be retired.
accesskb, I just call it like I see it. For some that cuts a little close to the bone.
The attempt at standardization of a complex system is problematic. No architect in his right mind would attempt to engineer a major building, where responsibility and liability for structure is passed on to an engineer. On the other hand, single family residential requires an entirely different skill set. It's always interesting - or should I say educational - when someone with one of these skills sets ventures into the other world.
donna, i wish i could share your optimism, but right now i can't. if ncarb isn't planning to run this show, why are they announcing that schools will need to respond to THEIR rfp? not "a jointly developed" curricula, but their rfp? i'm glad to hear that it was a good part of the discussion at the ep summit, but why isn't naab administering this rfp/curricula? why is ncarb? that's what concerns me - it's not the (currently) recognized body that defines accreditation.
are we comfortable if naab goes away and ncarb defines the curricula path (and only curricula path) that leads to licensure upon graduation? i'm not sure it's a rhetorical question...
My guess - and it's truly conjecture - is that since NCARB already has dealings with each state, and the state is the level at which this decision will *actually* be made, NCARB was selected to take the lead. I don't think NAAB is going anywhere.
I also have to say: there's a discussion of this going on at Architect Magazine and, um, it's disappointing. No nuance, at all. Makes me feel super optimistic about the intellectual abilities of Archinectors, suddenly.
"I'm also wondering if this will just create two classes of schools - the ones where you go to become a licensed architect, and the ones where you go to do "cutting edge" design and theory and/or gain access to the global elite."
If by global elite you mean the Chinese developers who hire Koolhaas and not those Wall Street Bankers who go for the Shingle style. Either way, any building could benefit from an emphasis on performance and not just concept. Afterall, for most of our beloved architural heritage was done by architects trained with an emphasis on practical skills, even when pertaining to aesthetics.
"Although - this could help some schools return to their more technical and practice based roots and market this to potential students as an actual alternative. Right now everyone's trying to be "interesting."
Amen. Schools still refuse to acknowledge that when it comes to one's built environment, beauty and practicality still trump "interesting". Interesting is great, but like a candy coating, it wears off pretty quick, and if we're trying to move away from a disposaple environment, it seems like a smart move. This move could only help a profession who's schooling is far removed from the actual practice.
greg - NCARB is going to have to be involved in any process that leads to licensure - and I'm thinking will be the ones dictating since it's their butts on the line, not NAAB. I'm also guessing many name-brand schools aren't going to go this route because they don't need to offer this option to fill seats (so NAAB isn't going away), but I do think it's an opportunity for schools that had been struggling to find an identity (and students) after shifting away from a more technical/practical focus to be able to position themselves differently.
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.