The National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) has, for the first time, published data on Architect Registration Examination (ARE) pass rates that are broken down by demographics. The statistics show that white candidates are more likely to pass the ARE than candidates of color, that men are more likely to pass than women, and that younger candidates have higher pass rates than older candidates. The findings will also be included in an upcoming joint report between NCARB and the National Organization of Minority Architects (NOMA).
The ARE, which is developed and administered by NCARB, is a key step on the path to professional licensing and is required by all state licensing boards in the United States. To generate the latest statistics, NCARB analyzed the pass rates from more than 32,700 ARE exam participants, studying information on race, ethnicity, gender, and age. NCARB says that releasing the findings is an effort to “help inform essential discussions about equity, diversity, and inclusion in the profession, including the current licensure framework.”
Overall, NCARB found that white candidates for the ARE are much more likely to pass than candidates of color. In all six divisions of the ARE, white candidates have the highest pass rate, while in three of the six divisions, white candidates are the only candidates to exceed the overall average pass rate.
The Programming & Analysis division of the exam, which focuses on evaluating a project’s requirements and constraints, has the highest disparity, with white candidates passing at a rate 38% higher than Black and African American peers. In the Construction & Evaluation division, meanwhile, white candidates have a 77% pass rate, while Black and African American candidates have a pass rate of 45%.
The statistics also found that for five of the six divisions of the ARE, men are more likely to pass than women. The only exception is for the Practice Management division, where men and women performed equally. The highest disparities are in Project Planning & Design, where the pass rate for men is 12% higher, and Project Development & Documentation, where the pass rate for men is 15% higher.
These trends continue when factoring race and ethnicity, with the exception that Black or African American women generally outperform Black or African American men. Hispanic or Latino candidates were the only race/ethnicity where women perform worse than men on all divisions and experienced the greatest overall disparity in pass rates between men and women.
Meanwhile, for all six divisions of the ARE, candidates between the ages of 18 and 29 had higher pass rates, with candidates over 40 years old performing the lowest. This gap is largest in the Programming & Analysis and Project Management divisions, where the younger cohort holds a 14% higher pass rate than those over 40.
In releasing the latest findings, NCARB notes that independent bias and accessibility studies reveal that individual questions “do not drive disparities in candidate performance,” and instead point to disparities being impacted by unequal access to education and professional experiences.
Commenting on the statistics, newly inaugurated NCARB President Alfred Vidaurri Jr. said: “These findings, while not surprising to architects of color, are unacceptable. I challenge us to do better. During my year as president, analyzing, understanding, and addressing these disparities will be a key focus—and I invite the entire profession to join us.”
With the disparities across demographics clear, NCARB has pledged to launch several changes and opportunities for feedback. This includes appointing ARE candidates to the 2021 Examination Committee which influences exam format and policy changes, and the commissioning of external independent bias audits on the ARE. NCARB is also developing free practice tests for all six ARE divisions, in response to findings from NCARB and NOMA’s Baseline on Belonging study which found that almost half of respondents spent more than $500 on test prep material.
Meanwhile, NCARB is due to launch two outreach initiatives in 2021 and 2022: licensure candidate focus groups conducted by an external consultant, and an Architecture Licensing Feedback survey, where the community can share their experience and recommendations. Finally, NCARB’s internal working group which studies licensure programs through an EDI lens will now explore potential links between exam performance and the criteria driving candidates’ Architectural Experience Program (AXP) reports, as well as firm culture.
76 Comments
Being male and white has nothing to do with passing the ARE’s. What does, is your study habits and your desire to learn, not skin color or gender!
... and access to education and professional experiences.
"In releasing the latest findings, NCARB notes that independent bias and accessibility studies reveal that individual questions 'do not drive disparities in candidate performance,' and instead point to disparities being impacted by unequal access to education and professional experiences."
Most disparities start at elementary school and widen through-out the education pipeline where schools are largely segregated in terms of demographics and funding with student performance differences solidified in college not to mentioned biased recruiting/faculty.Also most hiring architects are not diverse and based on AIA data(https://www.ncarb.org/nbtn2020...)
continue to limit licensing opportunities and internship which are needed to succeed in the exam. This is a problem in US CANADA UK ALL OF EUROPE AUSTRALIA NEWZELAND unfortunately they have the same common denominator .https://archive.curbed.com/201...https://www.dezeen.com/2020/06/04/racial-inequality-minnesota-american-institute-of-architects-opinion/
The goal is for practitioners to demonstrate competence, or at least it used to be. If the goal is pass rate based on biology, it diminishes the profession. Perhaps the focus should be on why some groups do not perform as well, and fixing that should be a focus.
Finding out why some groups do not perform as well and fixing that is the focus.
"In releasing the latest findings, NCARB notes that independent bias and accessibility studies reveal that individual questions 'do not drive disparities in candidate performance,' and instead point to disparities being impacted by unequal access to education and professional experiences."
"'These findings, while not surprising to architects of color, are unacceptable. I challenge us to do better. During my year as president, analyzing, understanding, and addressing these disparities will be a key focus—and I invite the entire profession to join us.'"
Sorry, I do not buy disparities in opportunity. Even when I attended school in the mid-1970s, people of color were given preferential admission status and funding opportunities not available to others. The students of color were demonstrably as capable as any others. Perhaps one issue might be that the trek towards licensure is arduous and, as a profession, architects are undercompensated relative to the effort it takes. Perhaps the best and brightest people of color are choosing professions that are more lucrative (which actually is evidence they are performing better than their peers).
I am wondering what the percentage of each ethnic group (and gender group within each ethnic group) are those whose English is not their primary language. That and also if they are relatively recent immigrants or foreigners. I think that the statistics isn't really showing. From what I see, the ARE is not easy to read even for those whose primary language is English. I can see that the exam would be harder for examinees where English is not their primary language. Is that a factor that NCARB's study is not taking into consideration? There is a much higher percentage of immigrants coming to the U.S., these days, where English is not their primary language and of those in the ethnic groups typically referred to as minorities than "white" immigrants coming from the U.S. as it once was.
29% of physicians would fall under your definition.Medical Exams require more reading than architecture exams.Also the number of English as a second language is insignificant because the barriers already present in internship and licensing.Architecture is still a largely homogenous profession compared to others.
https://www.americanprogress.o...
For those taking issue with the conclusions, what is the take on the M/F split?
It is interesting to me that the category the women out-perform the men in is practice management, given other statistics about leadership in the profession, and what I perceive as some fairly easy to find bias. Not that I think the AREs are really a good indicator of professional ability.
papd, how do you define insignificant? In 2016, this article was written: https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/october-2016/immigrants-to-the-us-where-they-are-coming-from-and-where-they-are-headed - in addition, there's significant percentage of immigrants not speaking english very level or would speak and read english at the same level of fluency and speed as a native English-only speaker/reader as most Americans are essentially.
Even if you took a year of foreign language for high school, most don't continue the use of the language and effectively forgets the language and therefore can not count as measurable so they are essentially English only. Most white Americans are essentially English speaking only or that's the language they think, read, and speak in. Because ESL speakers/readers do not natively think in English, they are more likely to have difficulty with the exams.
I suspect a portion of the poor performance among Hispanic/Latinos is due to immigrants / ESL where English is not spoken as THE language to the point where the person thinks in English at native level fluency.
What is causing the blacks/African Americans to perform so poorly? I'm not sure. ( Something I was reading: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/24/key-facts-about-black-immigrants-in-the-u-s/ ) About 8.7% of the black population are foreign-born based on Pew Research.
Another study: (https://ncela.ed.gov/files/fast_facts/FactSheet_ELsWhoAreBlack_032620_508.pdf ) indicates over 40% of foreign-born black (immigrant blacks) speaks another language at home but that would likely be their native language as most foreigners have a native language other than English.
Their proficiency in English while doable and workable in conversation can become a hindrance to them in high pace high-pressure test-taking situations because they aren't THINKING in English natively like most Americans. While I think that may be a contributing factor but I don't think it quite adds up so there's something else going on. Not all English speakers are speaking the same English. There's a form of English that is commonly spoken by black among American black... such as Ebonics (African American Vernacular) is essentially the native language of a sizable percentage of the population of American black population. This is not the same "English" used by NCARB with the exams. Not sure how exactly talking Ebonics or some other vernacular dialect will translate to not reading 'standard English' at the same level but it may be a factor.
I would think there are linguistic handicaps that happens when the examinee does not think, read, speak, and write natively in the language the exam is written in. Already the ARE is difficult with its verbosity. Compound that with examinees that don't natively read, talk, write, etc. like how the exam question writers write the questions in their form of "standard English".
The ARE doesn't allow for much time at all to read the exam questions and the information that is provided to find the answer. This doesn't mean that the person is dumb or incapable of passing the exam. It will just come with more difficulty and require more or better preparation.
The ARE isn't generally written in vernacular and I don't think it's intentional for the ARE to be discriminating on basis of race or gender. I think there are a multitude of contributing factors, some that are totally and entirely outside NCARB's control. NCARB can't change the language their examinees natively think in. This includes dialects as well because words people don't use often are words they'll get stumped over.
As professionals, this shouldn't be a huge issue because we already have a huge set of vocabulary that is profession related terms. I think we need to be careful about making everything a racial/gender discrimination narrative. English is the official de facto language of the United States since everything official is primary in English but that comes out of a long history (full of good and bad issues but that's history... we can't change).
I agree that linguistic handicap shouldn't be a problem BUT it can be in the break neck pace the exam questions are at... the volume of questions, the amount you have to read and work required to answer questions. I don't think it is all the factors rests in.
nattmatt, requires a more detailed look at the information and more research. There is more dimensions of information that we need to research on before we can arrive at conclusion for causes. I'm just proposing a factor but I think it's going to be more complicated but I think its being a little lazy to not get more information about why before arriving at why.
ra8147, you say you don't buy the disparities in opportunity thing, but then go on to explain a couple of disparities in opportunity that you yourself have witnessed or identified. You're so close if you'd actually think a bit harder.
If people of color are being given preferential treatment and funding opportunities, it's because they don't normally get them like others do. You can't seriously think that those few opportunities are actually creating a level playing field.
If people of color are choosing other professions because they pay better, it's because they don't have the generational wealth to compete with the others (ie. white people) in architecture who do have that benefit and can still put food on the table and pay bills when they don't make as much. Not to mention the implicit bias that is constantly elevating white peers over people of color to higher paid positions within the profession.
All I have is a theory of *a* factor involved in some but it's just a theory and I only expect the theory to be at most a portion of the issues but I think there's more involves and the exact narrative would be a lot more complex than a simplistic narrative of "white" NCARB discriminating against non-"white" in the exams. I don't think that's the case. I hope that isn't the narrative being suggested. I don't think anyone that ever worked on the exam development process has ever been going around thinking "lets see how we'll make it more difficult for blacks and Latinos from passing the exams". I don't think that's what's going on. It would be more interesting to know from these test-takers in these various ethnic groups, more insight into why the exam is more difficult. I am not sure what the issues are but the more we dig into this, the more convoluted it's actually going to get. Then we have individualistic issues as well. NCARB sampled something like 32,700 exam participants. Ok. Lets run this with all participants over a five-year period and see how the data holds or if it changes.
Rick, I don't think anyone is suggesting that NCARB is making the test to discriminate against people of color. The issue could be (I have no idea if this is the case, I'm just speculating) a lack of representation in people developing the exam questions which results in implicit bias toward people of similar backgrounds and socioeconomic status as being able to understand and answer those questions more readily. That's just a theory, but one that is based on research done for other standardized tests that have shown similar findings.
It's not an issue of people intentionally thinking (as you put it) "lets see how we'll make it more difficult for blacks and Latinos from passing the exams." Rather it's that white people, for example, unintentionally write and evaluate the likelihood of someone getting that question correct based on their lived white experience. A person of color can be disadvantaged by that to an extent that the white test question author and evaluators wouldn't even think about unless they've been specifically trained to avoid or account for that type of bias. Even then it might still be a difficult ask to get them to write and evaluate questions that present no implicit bias. IMO, it would be better to make sure that the group creating the test has broader representation.
I agree with you. We do need more architects from a diverse background that is part of this process. I would support that provide that we are not compromising the exam.
I'm not sure if they are basing the experience based on their "white" experience but maybe from the way the profession is when it comes to those health, safety, and welfare & related stuff in the codes and so forth. We should be cautious with ideas (whether said or not, it might come up in the mind) about writing up multiple versions of the ARE for each ethnic group because then it isn't the same exam with the same rigor that needs to be applied to all.
Most of the questions is something architects are going to face because of the various project types. I think and can agree with you about the lack of representation from diverse ethnicity that could potentially create some unintended implicit bias. If there is any implicit bias from any given author, a diversity can at least balance out some of the racial biases of any item writer. Luckily the process involves a pool of item writers and that is a great opportunity in the existing system & process to have diversity.
In short, I agree with you on the last sentence and substantively overall.
It's not about writing different versions of the ARE based on ethnic group ... not at all. It's about removing the implicit biases that might be in the ARE that disadvantage one or more ethnic groups compared to others. Even then NCARB says those don't really drive the disparities in candidate performance.
"In releasing the latest findings, NCARB notes that independent bias and accessibility studies reveal that individual questions 'do not drive disparities in candidate performance,' and instead point to disparities being impacted by unequal access to education and professional experiences."
Even if they don't "drive [the] disparities," they might add to the issues by simply being along for the ride. I'd need more information and expertise to really comment on it.
And it should be said that this is only part of the potential problem that NCARB could and should address. There are also the other issues of access and opportunity that NCARB really doesn't have any control over that need to be addressed separately. I fear that NCARB is going to get a lot of pressure to solve "The Problem" because they've identified a symptom stemming from the (likely multiple) problem(s). There's only so much NCARB can do to combat systemic disadvantages with the ARE and AXP alone. Reality is there might not be much they can do at all to correct it.
If there is anything NCARB can do within the scope of their authority, within reason, NCARB should do something. The rest is something the profession must do something about it.... collective... that's us.
I agree 100% with what you said.
"ra8147 wrote: Sorry, I do not buy disparities in opportunity. Even when I attended school in the mid-1970s, people of color were given preferential admission status and funding opportunities not available to others. The students of color were demonstrably as capable as any others. Perhaps one issue might be that the trek towards licensure is arduous and, as a profession, architects are undercompensated relative to the effort it takes. Perhaps the best and brightest people of color are choosing professions that are more lucrative (which actually is evidence they are performing better than their peers)."
ra8147, if there are these preferential admissions, then are they being admitted into architecture without the academic preparation for college? Are they being admitted without meeting the same standard level but that of a lower standard so it's kind of setting them up for failure down the road?
Sure, they get the degree but not the educational training and skills at the same level. Giving A's when their work is B level, B's when their work is C level. Are we not grading them on the same level? Sure, there are those that do meet the same rigor as the rest as you stated. I raised the questions but for some reason, I don't buy that the education is different. If you went to architecture school at the University of Oregon, the degree and education are the same whether you're black, Latino, white, or whatever.
"Everyday Architect wrote: ra8147, you say you don't buy the disparities in opportunity thing, but then go on to explain a couple of disparities in opportunity that you yourself have witnessed or identified. You're so close if you'd actually think a bit harder.
If people of color are being given preferential treatment and funding opportunities, it's because they don't normally get them like others do. You can't seriously think that those few opportunities are actually creating a level playing field.
If people of color are choosing other professions because they pay better, it's because they don't have the generational wealth to compete with the others (ie. white people) in architecture who do have that benefit and can still put food on the table and pay bills when they don't make as much. Not to mention the implicit bias that is constantly elevating white peers over people of color to higher-paid positions within the profession."
What are you alluding to here? I can see you're referring to the workplace. I'll take the ARE and see if this is such a barrier. However, I would love to see more study on this subject matter of the ARE.
Its a study based on real facts deal with it and stop pointing fingers or calling it a racist study. There must be a fundamental reason why people of color are not performing well in the exam, further study can be done to find out why, maybe their educational background for instance, how many people of color get into the top tier design programs? or work experience; when I was job hunting, I found that the top design firms had only 1 or 2 people of colors (excluding the office assistant and accountants) and good luck finding black partners or principals in the larger design firms. Maybe if they were accepted into such firms, they will gain much experience to sit for the ARE. Only privileged white guys (the ones passing the tests because they are well equipped) will disregard this study and call it BS. There is a fundamental problem in the system.
I am a 57 yo French born Haitian African American citizen with an M. Arch degree (2018). My previous career was in Software Engineering. So far I've passed PcM, PjM on 1st try and plan to pass all other ARE tests on 1st try also. I study using AHPP (nearly read the whole book), Kaplan PPI, Pluralsight, and Quizlet. Study about 6 hrs everyday, 4 hrs on my own, 2 hrs with a group. If you want to fix the problem try this, NCARB should have a program similar or better than Kaplan PPI, Black Spectacles, etc, that is free to all NCARB members. I think this would make it more equitable given the horrendous pay gap amongst the races and genders.
What's the percentage in the group are foreigners or recent immigrants? Could that influence the figures especially when English is not their primary language? Considering most recent immigrants these days are of ethnic minorities because we are not having as many people immigrating from Europe of "white" ethnicity. The reason I think falls into "what are the current push or pull factors to drive immigration from Europe by those of "white" ethnicities".
It is worth looking into the studies and finds out why exactly. I'm only throwing an idea because some of those numbers are actually statistically close enough that it can be partly because of factors I mentioned. I don't think it is entirely the case but it is something that might be partly a factor.
Having a background in software engineering helps alot in any technical field.If you had a different education system means that you might have escaped the flawed education pipeline that would have limited your chances of becoming an engineer or architect.
My background fits well for using the Rhino/Grasshopper scripting environment for parametric design.
if you went to college and had to complete coursework for software engineering or computer science then the classes that you picked up like math and physics makes it easier to succeed in an exam like ARE just like the top performing students in the LSAT and MCAT come from a math/physics or science background(https://faculty.mtsac.edu/cmcgruder/whyphilosophy/WHY.STUDY.PHILOSOPHY.joshblackman.com-Which_undergraduate_majors_score_the_highest_on_LSAT.pdf) the critical thinking benefits that you get in Software engineering spill over onto ARE
Also if you attended grade school and high-school with teachers that look like you or were supportive that goes a long way in building your confidence as a student. The case is not always the same for people attending public schools which are largely segregated and under-funded.This limits their chances of attending architecture school gaining internships in largely homogenous fields and succeeding in the ARE.
it’s deeply flawed to compare and contrast race and sex in the same study. Racial disparities are cultural and societal. Sex disparities could have biological/cognitive root causes.
How much percentage of the examinees in each ethnic group taking the exam are those, whom, English is not their primary language? The ARE has a lot of information written in "American" English.
Did the study take into consideration of that and how that will affect a statistical analysis like that shown?
The study did not identify language as a significant barrier. This is a deflection that happens similar to grouping all females as monolithic in their experiences in architecture school. English was not LECORBUSIER's primary language but he still became an architect. the test test takers already passed their English coursework in college and those that did not attend college in NEW ENGLAND are already practicing architecture before they take the test.
Le Corbu didn't take these exams. It was a different exams back then and I am not sure he even got licensed in the U.S. Different times, too!
The reason I bring it up is NCARB could have easily not factor this in their study because they didn't collect data or applied it in the study that would indicate so there is more data and information to be gathered and study. In other words, it's incomplete and more study is needed, still.
Oh boy the calipers are out...
The costs of the exams and exam prep can cost 5-6k total when all said and done with potential retakes and what not. I think a poster above is right when the cost of exams, AXP process, and low pay eventually drive out all the high achievers who are not already well-heeled white males on the partner track. This goes double for women as this profession detests motherhood and families.
Absolutely.
You'll know we've achieved equity and equality when smart people other than white males are well enough off thanks to generational wealth and opportunities that they can squander their smarts and their time working in this farce of a profession.
Thanks for nothing, NCARB.
Clients don't detest motherhood; only firms. Client like it. It is a strength, not a weakness.
flatroof didn't say clients detest motherhood. He said the profession (hence: firms or simply put.... employers).
I don't think tintt needs you to mansplain what flatroof said.
"mansplaining"... really. I'm not assessing people under anonymous account on this forum by gender and talking differently to people bases on gender. If tintt is a woman, doesn't make a difference. Being a woman is not a divine thing. It's just a random roll of the dice who you are born to and what your gender is and you don't get to roll the dice. Why did tintt bring up or was making a statement, "Clients don't detest motherhood; only firms" and the rest of the post in reply to flatroof and archanonymous didn't make any kind of statement referring to client.
If tintt is a woman, doesn't make a difference. I MANSPLAIN TO EVERYONE.
Rick is an equal opportunity offender
By using "mansplaining" instead of 'explaining', which the latter is the correct word in the English language because mansplaining is a pejorative term popularized on social media in the last 12-13 years. "mansplaining" is not proper formal English. By using "mansplaining", EverydayArchitect implied that tintt was a woman because this perjorative term is defined by common usage as a "man (male person) explaining to a woman or to women". I know there's technically a little more to the definition but the core of the meaning of this pejorative has been described.
Your first series of words is not a sentence. Maybe consider that before explaining how to use the English language next time.
Rick, you don't need to mansplain the term "mansplain" to us. Yes, tintt in her post history has been pretty clear that she is a woman (here's a thread with examples ... it can also conceivably be deduced from the context of her post) so I was using the term correctly given the circumstances, even though that doesn't really matter. I used it because I knew it would trigger you enough to pay attention. Now let this topic die a slow death as it gets pushed off the "Just posted ..." thing by new items.
If you study hard and don’t give up on it you will pass the exam. Period.
...and if it didn't cost hundreds of dollars that would be great advice.
not sure why SP is getting thumbs down for this. Access to wealth to afford study materials, and afford the cost of the tests and retakes, etc. is a real thing that could be holding back many people that would otherwise love to study hard and not give up. But it's hard to do that if you can't afford the time or money to keep at it until you pass.
I should have said "is" not "would be." It's great advice aside from the cost.
But my one example that I experienced one time, embody, or just made up prove every prejudice I have is right. Don't you all see that? Your study means nothing compared to my one example!
the root problem is simple. ones future should not depend on others. Internships are a racket. Test and license upon graduation. It will make the schools more responsible for teaching the material, like law schools are.
The root problem is never that simple. One's future depending on others is only something you can do away with if every project was able to be won and designed by sole proprietors*. As long as there are employees, your future will always depend on others whether you are the one employing them or the one being employed.
Otherwise, I agree that schools should be more responsible for teaching the material and that internships are a gate-keeping racket.
*Even then it still will depend on others awarding you the work or hiring you for the work. So after all architects can be sole proprietors, the next step is to make them all developers.
I think ALL the architecture schools in ALL the communities should do a better job and being more responsible in teaching the materials.
By offshoring the responsibility from the schools that are being paid for by the student, to firms that provide the internships, one’s exposure to the materials is only as good as his/her ability to garner the resources of that firm. It’s not hard to imagine that white students may have a greater level of familial connections, or academic connections, where the firm taking them in is more invested in them personally. I find it harder to believe that direct racial bias is the main factor.
In other news grass is green and water is wet
access to opportunity should start at elementary school and licensing or internship requirements should be moved away from individual architects who are more likely to practice biased hiring ,internship and promotion.
The AIA and individual architects have failed.
Schools should create independent licensing programs in partnership with states where non-faculty architects prepare students for licensing and exams through internal internships with the state and alumni contributing to project options for current students.
Schools should have a robust admission and outreach program that targets all schools regardless of demographics. Architecture does not reflect the general population. PERIOD.
How the hell does experience-based path to licensure going to work?
AXP
IPAL
it hasn't worked for decades, rick. One or two paths in a couple of places doesn't prove otherwise.
Not sure Rick, how does your yellow brick road to licensure look like?
SneakPete, experience-based paths to licensure are legitimate paths to licensure. PS: I think there's at least half the states have some path to licensure without requiring a NAAB accredited degree.
Harmonious Frenchman, IPAL is basically NAAB degree (commonly B.Arch)+AXP+ARE exams in a concurrent process.
There can be a number of reasons people don't go after additional college because they won't be able to get financial aid grants and would have to pay out of pocket for entire cost of attendance. This is a problem when you attend college at more than 6 credits a term or semester because it would impact a person that needs to continue working which almost ALWAYS happens at the same time as college classes are scheduled. 8AM-5PM is when a significant majority of every college class even in architecture takes place. This is also when most jobs where a salary takes place.
You think there are? Not exactly reassuring. Last I checked the moment you have any connection to NCARB you need to pay them and play by their rules. I'm the last motherfucker to support the sole path being education and dues-paying, you can check my post history to find that out, but you are not a trustworthy source, Rick. You might be a nice guy outside of the forum, but you have ruined your reputation with me. You provide too much irrelevant information and get it wrong too frequently.
SneakyPete, the licensing laws are governed by the states not NCARB itself.
For example, to get authorization to test, if you don't use the NAAB accredited degree path then you may still be authorized to test by a state. I have that AOT from the state of Washington. There's more to it to become licensed, obviously. Most states do in fact have alternative paths to licensure. A little less than that for states with experience in lieu of a degree path or paths with less than a BA/BS degree in architecture but that requires more years of documented experience working for an architect.
When you take the ARE and when you can get the AOT from the state in order for NCARB to unlock the registering for an exam division to take via your MyNCARB portal, this is all dependent on the state. Most states will require taking the ARE after completing the other requirements such as AXP and additional experience. You may receive some credit for other education and that can reduce some time on the total required experience.
Getting employment is another beast altogether and actually a separate point. I appreciate that you do support multiple paths to licensure. I'm with you in that regard. Alright.
Yes, you have to abide by NCARB rules but authorization to test by a state licensing board trumps over NCARB-direct. Having a NAAB accredited degree, you work directly with NCARB for virtually everything from AXP and ARE and then worry about a specific state at some point for actual registration.
For me, only until I meet all the requirements for a valid path to licensure in a state (in this case, Washington for initial registration), then I can register. ARE is only one step in the process. In order to get registered in Oregon, under the current laws and rules, I would have to get NCARB certified in a path that NCARB has available. There are ways to get that without an NAAB accredited degree under current NCARB rules. If you check, what I am saying is actually true even if not verbatim written here.
Yes, there are those dues-paying for keeping NCARB record active or to have it activated. Those are a lot less than the cost of a university degree in most people's situation will likely be. Unfortunately, we can't get away with getting licensed (under current laws & rules) without some involvement with NCARB whether that be the ARE or AXP.
Less "white people" talking and more "other". Thanks.
Or less everyone talking and more everyone studying and helping each other.
...or we could just drop pass/fail measure and give professionals a scoring status as their credential. your designation could be an RA95 or an RA65. how do you think that would work out for professionals?
if you are given the choice before major surgery, do you want be under the knife with an MD95 or MD65?
'equal opportunities' should be advocated, and there are big socioeconomic issues in play that will require a lot of generational and cultural sea-change across all spectrums of society. let's be careful about advocating 'equal outcomes'.
(... and speaking from 12+ years on the other side of passing ARE, the ARE was the easiest hurdle i have had to encounter or overcome in my professional career.)
Swing me some free Black Spectacles as reparations and we're straight.
They already can see in babies from four months old the differences in development and health coming from a more affluent background or growing up in (relative) poverty...they’re fatter and develop slower motorically, poorer toddlers are behind in their language skills and have difficulty concentrating, poorer kids and teens have more problems socially and psychologically...and since race is still connected to growing up less affluent, you’ll have more difficulties passing the ARE when not white.
I can see how that plays into it. Even some "white" also will have that issue but it may be harder to notice given the pool size of examinees in the "white" ethnicity category. I would think a few more years and larger sampling over time is something that would be good to help in researching and seeing how the data holds up. A larger cumulative data sample can help in the research.
You’ll have more trouble passing when from a poorer background and in a racist society not being white means you’re more likely to be poor
That may be but I don't think we'll find a singular smoking gun. Each culture may have some differences in the factors going into poor performance. I do not know the complete answer to this. I don't think any of us do but various insights are interesting points to look into and study.
We must know and understand the Problem before we can develop Solutions that may bring about Results.
AIA and architects have failed to provide egalitarian education/internship/licensing opportunities.
Hiring and mentorship in architecture have been subjective and biased creating a pool of architects who do not reflect society or interested in meeting the aspirations of the public they serve.
This is the case in US,CANADA,UK,ALL EUROPE,AUSTRALIA,NEWZEALAND,BRAZIL etc and there is a common denominator......
https://www.architecturalrecor...
https://www.architectsjournal....
https://blogs.mcgill.ca/race-s...
https://www.theguardian.com/ar...
https://www.theage.com.au/nati...
https://www.theguardian.com/ar...
https://www.fastcompany.com/90...
https://www.theguardian.com/ed...
Architecture schools should take a proactive approach in recruitment and mentorship; creating an independent pipeline of mentors within the schools where all students can get an equal chance at mentorship and licensing that way they can cultivate social demographics and diversity of thought that reflect the general population. Public education has failed to mitigate ancient flows therefore architecture schools should be robust in their approach at identifying diverse students and talent at these schools.
Mentorship programs and mentoring architects should be within the architecture schools funded by the state; a mandatory alumni fund and projects captured from current and former students.
The schools have alumni who can support this initiative by contracting this program to design and build personal projects.
For instance USC has a population of at least 40,000;ucla 50,000.The Alumni office in these schools can reach out to their members to use the mentorship initiative in their personal residential, institutional or commercial projects etc.
Other alumni can also participate in marketing initiatives ensuring constant supply of real projects for students and licensed mentor architects to work on. MOST IMPORTANLTY STUDENTS,FACULTY AND MENTORS MUST CHANGE THEIR VIEWS ON PEOPLE WHO ARE DIFFERENT FROM THEM.
USC architecture for instance has almost 1000 students and staff members. If each one of them brings in a single project for this program and it happens continuously everyone will be busy and students also learn the professional/marketing they will need when licensed.
Everyone uses a home or has used a home or a building. The state should also be part of this program to ensure compliance and a constant supply of architects who reflect society. Some schools like USC are experimenting with such an approach.
https://arch.usc.edu/integrate...
but more needs to be done. Individual architects can no longer be trusted to meet the needs and aspirations of society. Through their personal and professional biases in recruitment, hiring and mentorship they have failed together with the AIA.
Medical schools are doing it and the military is the best example at mentorship and meeting the aspirations of society even though not perfect.
https://www.npr.org/sections/h...
architecture is a racist.
just one?
... and a sexist lol
#defundlicensure
Late to the party, but this is a problem with American society AND the architectural profession, interwoven with each other.
A lot of us non-white (like yours truly) and non-male candidates just do not have the damn luxury of being able to take the exams when the time is right. A lot of us have other issues - immigration, getting settled in, helping folks out, rent .. you name it. Which a lot of white, male candidates who have a stable family background do not have to deal with. It may sound like an excuse but is really not. This is the society part
One may say - how do immigrant and non white doctors get licensed? Well, a doctor makes a shit ton more than a licensed architect, and that is the real motivation to get the license. Not so much for us. This is the Profession part.
laws have in the past and present been created to perpetuate disparities in stabilities.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/26/white-male-minority-rule-us-politics-research
thoughtful response- just another reminder of why the intensive education, mentorship/experience program, and 6 exams is totally out of tune with the reality of what the profession returns (and necessitates), in complete contrast to your example of doctors.
This report-- including a few of the lads on this thread agreeing with it-- are full of utter and complete rubbish -- and just as sameolddoctor said above, this is a problem with American society AND the architectural profession, interwoven with each other. I'm from Europe and find this NCARB report already flawed on so many levels concerning race, sexism, and MOST importantly, innate cognition.
The AXP mentoring system already leaves much to be desired for young professionals because it does not effectively equip a lot of of them from their architecture student days on how to properly navigate licensure through the racist and sexist challenges. Over here, I constantly impressively brilliant, creative, talented women and minorities who are thriving in increasingly progressive international architectural communities. However, in America why has the progress been baffling?
First of all, for a couple years now, the NCARB has been accused of blatantly giving harder versions of the ARE exam questions to minorities and women (based on using name recognition)-- I did not make this up, there are a slew of forums online dedicated to unpacking this, go search them yourself. It truly is insidious the more one researches it.
This of course directly contributes the nonsensical report generated from NCARB that 'white males are more likely to pass the NCARB'-- well of course they are, after NCARB has intentionally (and systematically) failed out the women and minorities while also using them to generate additional revenue through exam retakes. It's already horrible enough that the American architecture system has been propagating this selective segregation all the way from freshman admissions. Acceptance rates for minorities, especially African Americans-- are reduced to literally 1% to 2%, with women hovering around 30% (depending on the US region). Ironically, when one examines the graduating class, in almost every metric both the women and minorities were graduate with outstanding results.
Then they suddenly find themselves struggling to get a job within the architecture industry already dominated with white males, which further cuts down their representation in the architecture community; thus, funneling many of them off into building management jobs, interior design, or construction related jobs. The very few ones that do mange to finally get hired in architecture firms are then surreptitiously presented with the glass ceiling. On top of that, they then have to contend with the expensive route to licensure that NCARB has placed in front of them. Then add the icing layer of intentionally failing them every time they try to take the exam.
Aaaah, yes-- did I mention NCARB went the extra mile to develop a report on the whole shenanigans?
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.