Thirty-eight universities with programs accredited by the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) responded to NCARB’s recent Request for Interest & Information regarding the proposal for a rigorous, alternative path to licensure upon graduation. [...]
Of the schools that responded, 32 (representing 26 percent of institutions with NAAB-accredited degree programs) declared interest in submitting a formal proposal for consideration by NCARB’s Licensure Task Force.
— ncarb.org
Previously: NCARB announces it will create program for architecture students to graduate with licensure, and NCARB's "licensure at graduation" announcement rubs Archinectors both ways
14 Comments
I need someone to explain to me how this would be a good idea. At the time of graduation from Arch. School I was very confident but ultimately, as I would learn 5-8 years later, I was clueless about what it takes to work with clients, solve real design problems at a variety of scales, and actually build well and safely. I learned that through working with architects who knew more than me and by being exposed, empirically, to the work process over time. The thought that I would have had the ability to file and build projects after school not only weakens the integrity of a license, but also is terrifying. I'm all for shortening the process of IDP/ARE but eliminating? This seems like a baby/bath water solution.
There is no intent to eliminate IDP/ARE. Read the article:
The new path to licensure would integrate course work required for an architectural degree with the rigorous internship and examination requirements that aspiring architects must complete. This includes providing students with opportunities to obtain real-world experience through the Intern Development Program (IDP) and passing the Architect Registration Examination® (ARE®).
Huh. Missed that. So loading more work on top of students who are already struggling to keep up. This seems like a bad idea still. I'm amazed NCARB is pursuing this.
i don't think that's necessarily true either studio. from what i guess, this is a broad outline of the goals ncarb and the participating universities want to move towards, but they haven't worked out how to actually implement those goals yet. we won't know what this actually looks like until they develop an actual plan. could go either way.
Window dressing. Universities like it because it helps them sell their programs. NCARB likes it because they start generating fees earlier. The corporate profession likes it because it means more free interns and university credentials.
Meanwhile there is zero consideration for scrapping dysfunctional theoretical architectural programs in favor of actual building technology, construction practice, administration and zoning, energy and materials sustainability, etc., etc., etc.
It's all about the path to licensure, not making qualified architects. These are two very different things.
in Europe they have you take the licensing exams at the end of your education. Then you have to work a few years and document the projects you worked on.
I think the point is the students will be struggling with a more relevant workload, not just more work piled on top.
Miles I agree wholeheartedly that licensure does not equal quality. But is our existing system working <sarcasm> sooooo well </sarcasm> that we should not experiment with changing it?
its like relying on the dems and repubs to fix the environment. The system is too dysfunctional to fix itself.
as long as the wolfs are in charge of the hen house...
Could be just one more way to raise lambs for the slaughtering.
i think jla brings up a good point.
if there is the perception that the wolves are running things, which is apparently what miles and studiomodh think, then it would be anticipated that this will be implemented in a way where those who matter (aspiring architects, architects, the profession) get screwed and a few bureaucrats (ncarb, school administrators-not educators-, and maybe the aia) gets to celebrate ill-gotten gains.
if there is a more optimistic perception that things will be run by benevolent shepherds, closer to donna's approach, then much needed change will improve the profession by properly educating those entering, and offering them more realistic expectations.
i'm curious to see which plays out. i believe that there isn't enough evidence yet to conclusively say one side wins out over the other. however, it seems hard for me to believe the powers that be are looking out for any interest but the their own, which makes it kind of hard to accept the optimistic route. i haven't experienced very many examples of ncarb putting the needs of architects ahead of their own self-interest, or seen many schools put education ahead of new rec centers and football. that leaves either being angry and cynical that option (1) will screw up my life even more, or just not caring. perhaps just giving up and accepting there isn't going to be much hope within the profession is the preferable path?
on the other hand, this could be the impetus for giving the title of 'designer' more prestige than the title of 'architect,' which i advocated for earlier.
I guess I am old school.
I my opinion architecture requires education, experience and training
I think that sacrificing education for training is a bad idea and will turn the profession into a trade or craft.
IDP does need to be re-thought. Now it just provides a stable, minimum/no pay and benefit workforce.
I guess if one does not consider architecture an art form, theoretical coursework would be seen as irrelevant bullshit. I think that theory is part of what separates architecture from just building. If you do not get it in school your sure are not going to get it in the industry.
I do not think that sharpening a mind by narrowing it is the answer.
just my 2 cents
I propose 1-2 years of theory and history classes (what we get 5 years of now) plus 3 years of practical skills in a structured apprenticeship, plus an exam. Forget IDP.
The system is too dysfunctional to fix itself.
The system is too corrupt to fix itself. It works just fine for those in power, dysfunction for everyone else is a byproduct.
I think that sacrificing education for training is a bad idea and will turn the profession into a trade or craft ... I guess if one does not consider architecture an art form, theoretical coursework would be seen as irrelevant bullshit.
This gets into a much deeper argument that has been discussed here at length.
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.