In June 2020, we conducted an interview with Princeton University School of Architecture Dean Mónica Ponce de León on the future of architectural licensure. Ponce de León’s perspective, which generated 90 comments from our readers, centered on disparities in licensure success along racial and gender groups.
“We need to be honest,” Ponce de León told us. “The profession is predominantly white and male. Only 2% of all architects are Black American. In 2008, that number was 1.5%. Let’s do the math, at that rate, it will take 240 years for the profession to look like the rest of America. I, for one, cannot wait that long.”
Media interest in the path to architectural licensure peaked once again last week with the news of two architecture graduates from Auburn University in Alabama who had become licensed architects at the age of 23. For perspective, NCARB data shows that the average age of those beginning the licensure process is 29; and the average length of time to complete said process is 7 years. While any individual who completes this path sooner is to be commended for doing so, one cannot lose sight of the troubling realities in a wider licensure context.
NCARB’s data on candidate ages suggests the age of an average newly licensed architect is 36, placing additional academic, procedural, and financial burdens on aspiring architects for over a decade. For individuals who pass through this path at an accelerated rate, NCARB data suggests such candidates are overwhelmingly likely to be white males.
In 2021, NCARB found that in all six divisions of the ARE, white candidates score pass rates 27–38% higher than candidates of color. In three of the six ARE divisions, white candidates are the only candidates to exceed the overall average pass rate.
In a separate NOMA/NCARB survey, the organizations found that African American and Latino candidates are 7% and 9%, respectively, less likely to receive contributions from their firm towards ARE costs. Meanwhile, African American candidates are 14% more likely than white candidates to report personal debt as a factor impacting their ability to afford the ARE.
“The disparity in architecture exam pass rates is hard to see, but facing that number head-on empowers us to ask better questions and create new programs and policies that help ensure a successful career in architecture is both accessible and achievable to those historically marginalized by the process,” said NOMA President and Gensler Senior Associate Jason Pugh, commenting on the latter report.
“The path to licensure is long, non-linear, costly, and strenuous, but even more so without the appropriate milestones to benchmark successes for people of color — and most drastically for Black and Latina women,” he added.
To support upcoming coverage on the path to licensure, our editorial team wants to hear from you. Archinect invites prospective, current, and recently licensed candidates to take part in our survey on the topic. We welcome responses before August 31st.
21 Comments
It's no wonder why young, non-professionals are complaining about licensure. They've been told they're all stars from birth and have most likely never had a real job or seen adversity. They literally complain about everything and are feel entitled to everything. If they fail at one or two exams, they look to blame others. They are a victim because they needed to study a little bit more (or get a few more years of experience). The exam is not racist or sexist. I would recommend carving out a consistent study schedule, close the door and get at it. You will almost certainly fail at least one exam, but that should only help you move forward in getting your license.
- Boomer
The exam content may or may not be biased but that's not where the charges of racism and sexism lie. The exams are not a measure of architectural knowledge, but a measure of who can afford the extra time to study for an exam about architectural knowledge, which are completely different things. And in the society we live in that means white people and specifically white males get an advantage and the data from NCARB completely bears that out, it's why they released it in the first place, and it needs to addressed. Unless of course you think those pass/fail rates mean something else - which would be pretty gross.
Why aren't you dead yet.
- Gen X'er
guys im pretty sure this is sarcasm
Actually, if you look at they're past record, I think it's a boomer.
getting AXP signed off - some PMs just won't sign off on your hours. In one case, I had to write a long winded narrative with excel sheets describing what I did and why. took 9 months to get it all signed off, lots of back and forth. recently, the problem is trying to get the necessary experiences - 1000hrs to go and it's done but with yet another looming recession, once again, I have to focus on what I was hired to do and once again set aside "self actualization"
IDP is a f@$king joke and should be eliminated immediately. At most you should simply have to show that you were employed by a firm for 3 years.
It absolutely should be eliminated. There's a lot of cheaters out there inflating the number of hours they worked or misclassifying them to fill up all of the required categories. All you need is a friend with a license who will sign off on the bogus experience. NCARB pretty much turns a blind eye to all of it.
B
I think this focus on licensure is misguided. I doubt it is responsible for the lack of diversity in the profession. I would look at the demographics of those who enroll and graduate from accredited architecture schools. Architecture school requires a significant time commitment, making it near impossible to “work your way through school” like you might be able to do in other majors. It also requires more years of study, and at the end of it your salary is comparatively low. Top that off with the primary path to success post graduation being your connections to affluent / powerful people and you get a profession dominated by rich, white men. There are definitely improvements to be made to the licensure process, but if you (Monica) want to address a lack of diversity, you should focus on academia (your own back yard)
Statistics on the economic backgrounds of today's elite arch school faculty in the US would be really interesting to know. I suspect most of them come into the teaching world from affluent situations. The number of poor people who worked their way up into elite school teaching jobs is probably very small.
I think the issue is with the "one path to licensure" that is where unintended (likely) impact it causes for people who are not benefiting from many of the privileges associated with so-called "white privilege". A truth is that "white privilege" is progressively becoming obsolete and to an extent, it is because it is not so much a thing exclusive to white people. Many elements of so-called "white privilege" is really "rich person privilege" (or otherwise a sliding scale of "wealth privilege" because ever since the 1960s, there has been any things to make it easier for non-"white" to be wealthy than it used to be if they put the effort if they do someting about raising their socio-economic status. It would take a few more generations for residual effects of systemic racism (many if not most) had been eradicated throughout the legal systems. However, there are still some residual effects because demographically, non-"white" households income is lagging because access to college education and financial aid had only begun in the last 50 years. It was what was to be expected even then.
The path to going up in socio-economic status is difficult for everyone. It's reletively easy to stay in the same or to drop in socio-economic status. We used to drive this more on race than we do now although some of that still exists in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world but everywhere in the world, has systemic barriers to make the rise in socio-economic status difficult by making it difficult to raise in the wealth stratums. You may ask what does this have to do with my claim to "one path to licensure". The cost of the educational institutions is very costly and this can be difficult especially with people who are non-"whites" whose families are very low on the wealth tier. If you don't have the financial resources, making it through the path of licensure is near impossible. This effects those of non-"white" people disproportionately than it does "white" (although it does effect a part of the white population as well). Why does it effect non-"white" more than it does white. Since we are talking, namely, US as the geographic context, we had system racism in our socio-economic-governmental "institutions" for centuries.
It was not until the civil rights movement and the years after, that we knocked down a lot of the government barriers. For example, there was once upon a time that federal dollars can not be used to benefit non-whites. By the time of the G.I. Bill programs came into being, the policy only scaled back a limited degree... but however, black people and potentially other non-"whites" can not receive benefits from the G.I. Bill.
There was a time, they can not own property and then a time when there was enforced covenants that prohibited people like black people from being able to buy property. They also could not get financial aid (which is a program that benefitted from G.I. Bill) or any other grants and financial assistance to pay for college even though they served in our military during WWII, Korean War, etc. until the civil rights laws put an end.
However, the long train of oppression against people of our country, we had made it difficult for blacks and some others and to a degree, the "one path to licensure" makes it significantly more difficult for those low on the socio-economic status. This system makes it easier for a mediocre person from a more wealthier family to go through the path to licensure than even a highly talented person with great academic achievement if they are from a very low income household which disproportionately impacts non-"whites".
Multiple paths to licensure increases access to the proffesion of architecture allowing people who can't afford the cost of going to architecture school a path to licensure. Whether that be a community college level education or a GED/HS diploma to get employed and even work their way through an architectural office and get licensed as an architect. States like California and Washington makes it easier to get licensed through these other paths than some states because they are more willing to hire people without an NAAB accredited degree. Architectural employers in states where there is only one path, the employers tend to not tend to be willing to hire people who don't have an NAAB accredited degree.
One option I think is NCARB establishing a model "alternative path" to licensure ranging from HS Diploma / GED to 4 year architecture degree that can become a "standard" alternative paths that would make reciprocity easier if a person meets the "NCARB" standard. This does not mean that individual states might have more additional alternative paths to that of NCARB's (if NCARB were to make such a path). A path I might support is something akin to a path to licensure that involves more AXP hours. Say, 5x AXP and it incorporates something like NCARB Certificate Portfolio (essentially a program based on that model but used for this path to gain access to AXP and be something recognized accordingly) where they will then gain Initial licensure and possibly also gain NCARB Certificate status once they obtain initial licensure and provide proof of licensure status to NCARB. I think the process will need to still have rigor and determination to meet some standard.
The AXP provide a structure for experience but the the NCARB Certificate Portfolio can be a model for this idea I have. I think if we can get more and more states recognizing such a model for a standardized Alternative path to licensure, although some states may have their own additional alternatives but this would at least make for a fair path. 5X AXP would be roughly equivalent to 10 years experience and also incorporating the Portfolio model from NCARB Certificate program would align for educational aspects. If the processes are more made more streamlined in the administrative procedures without losing a quality element. I would support ARE being allowed to be taken at any time or point but to obtain licensure, one must meet all the requirements and have to file the application for initial licensure using an NCARB Alternative Path to licensure using this model I propose. I think it would be reasonable and would be more accessible to some. The architectural profession and their hiring practices may need to be adjusted a little bit to be supportive. I think the experience and portfolio model I suggest is potentially a decent option for those who can't afford the cost of going to an NAAB accredited institutions. It would be more accessible to people who are not of the wealth-privileged class of our society. It would still have the rigor in needs to assure there is some standard that permits reciprocity on such an alternative path that if all states (over time) adopts amendments either in statutes or administrative rules, to support such alternative paths.
I wouldn't want the rigor of licensure to be neutered into meaninglessness but still have standards for qualification as needed for someone to become licensed that still addresses the professional standard needed to protect the HSW of the public regarding practice of architecture.
The whole architecture system needs a complete overhaul. Likely from politicians because architects will always defend the status quo. Dissolve professional orgs, the arch cartel, including the AIA and NAAB, and make it completely state run and simple.
First step would be to ban all non-accredited 4 year architecture programs until the profession offers license credit for them. You will quickly see the profession change its tune when all the architects lose their lucrative side jobs.
Then offer different kinds of smaller accreditation tokens, instead of a generic license, that you can get over time as you complete types of projects. That way a person can be IDed by their experience over time.
Right, so let's see if I get this correct. Destroy the thing, and give it over to 52 different, individual jurisdictions, run by a whole cohort of yahoos?
That would return architecture to its golden age jurisdiction before it was captured.
Well, responsive and free-thinking state boards would be an improvement over the NCARB puppet boards we currently have. The current set-up has NCARB, a non-government entity that answers to no one, exerting defacto control over our state boards, which are supposed to be government entities accountable to state legislators and citizens.
Are either of you licensed?
I am licensed and an AXP supervisor for several people. I am not against the idea of a smaller, more efficient (and thus way less expensive) NCARB that is more accountable and has some reasonable checks on its power.
BS in architecture school but went into a more profitable specialty that doesn't have ridiculous regulations. All part of the same fragmented and inefficient system that needs reformation. Being indebted to a broken system to do strip malls while less regulated Europeans and legacy architects from pre NCARB era do all the design work doesn’t add up.
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.