One of Archinect’s most significant editorial undertakings of 2024 was our Archinect In Depth: Licensure series. Across four months, we spoke with key organizations, researchers, leaders, and commentators related to licensure, in addition to eliciting views from our community. 

Our journey took us across the history of licensure, the current pathway to licensure, state and national laws, barriers, opportunities, visions for the future, and comparisons with other countries. As we explored the topic, meanwhile, the licensure landscape continued to evolve in 2024 as the U.S. sought to reform the process and competencies held within the licensure system, while also updating its reciprocal agreements with other nations.

Explore further insights on Archinect's leading coverage of architectural licensure in 2024 below.

Our in-depth exploration of licensure

In May, we began a conversation about architectural licensure

Our Archinect In-Depth: Licensure series began with an introduction to the path to becoming an architect in the United States. We noted that, as a topic, licensure often evokes an emotive response from the architectural community and, as such, demands a deeper, wider, and more rigorous investigation than what is currently on offer in U.S. architectural discourse. The introductory article itself received over 30 reader comments, many of which were in-depth, personal reflections on the community’s experience of licensure.

To start, we looked back at the history of licensure

Before looking to the future of licensure, we wanted to understand how ‘architect’ became a protected title in the United States. Reviewing the columns, speeches, and literature emerging from architects in the late 1800s, we saw a profession harboring deep fears and insecurities over its future. As a result, from the early 1900s, avenues for protecting the ‘architect’ title began to expand beyond AIA membership to engage with state legislation.

Before exploring how Europe approaches the topic

With the help of Yale Professor Emerita Peggy Deamer, we brought our series beyond the U.S. to explore the licensure systems of France, Germany, and Sweden. Differences in approach included the lack of an ARE-style examination in France and Germany and a lack of protection of the ‘architect’ title in Sweden. As Deamer noted, however: “While there are lessons to be learned about how architectural associations everywhere can more effectively nudge architecture into the public consciousness as a focus of national concern, the overriding revelation is how much architecture is used as an agent of nationalist ideology.”

In June, we explored the limits of the ‘architect’ title protection beyond AEC

As part of the above question, we reached out to every state licensing board across the U.S. as well as NCARB. The consensus among NCARB, the state boards who directly addressed our question, and our reading of the statutes that other states referred us to, is that the technology sector’s use of titles such as ‘software architect’ does not breach laws protecting the title ‘architect.’

While also asking if using the title ‘architectural’ was permissible

While other sectors incur few barriers in their use of the ‘architect’ title so long as it doesn’t pertain to providing architectural services, state boards we contacted were more concerned about those within the profession using terms such as ‘architectural associate’ or ‘architectural designer.’ No jurisdiction told us that they would freely allow architect-adjacent titles to be used by unlicensed individuals, while many explicitly told us such titles were protected.

In July, we shared our community’s views on licensure

In response to a survey of our community’s experience of licensure, we uncovered many challenges and concerns. Among the ten broad trends we found was that licensure is a financial and mental health burden, long hours in the office leave little time for exam study, and that candidates do not feel supported by architecture schools. Elsewhere, however, our community sees value in the experience component of the licensure path, and believe licensure is personally and professionally empowering.

While in August, we explored major changes afoot in UK licensure

The UK licensure system has stayed largely static for over fifty years and is often subjected to the same critiques as the U.S. system. However, new plans by the UK’s Architects Registration Board may change that. Given the similarities and reciprocity between the U.S. and UK systems, the moves currently being taken by ARB to reform UK licensure arguably stand a greater chance of informing discussions on U.S. licensure than the countries explored earlier in the series.

Later that month, we told the story of when California tried to abolish licensure

 In the late 1970s, California almost became the only U.S. state to ever abolish architectural licensure. The story, a multi-decade saga led by some of the most prominent leaders across the political aisle, holds lessons and reflections for the profession of today, including its members and representative bodies. 

While in September, we examined barriers to licensing diversity and equality

According to recent data, the demographics of candidates on the path to architectural licensure are beginning to counter the longstanding underrepresentation of women and people of color in the profession. However, deeper studies of the licensure experience reveal ongoing disparities along gender and race on exam pass rates, completion time, financial burdens, and external support. We explored how licensure can evolve to address these inequalities with input from NCARB CEO Mike Armstrong, NOMA President Pascale Sablan, and architect, author, and Archinect contributor Melvin L. Mitchell.

As the series closed, we shared six expert views on the future of licensure

The six viewpoints shared in the article came from individuals who, whether through their research, experiences, or roles in relevant organizations, have developed strong views on how U.S. licensure stands today and how it could evolve in the future. The perspectives offered a variety of possible futures for architectural licensure that range from strategic evolution through radical reframing and reorganization.

Before ending with a reflection on how architectural licensure helps and hurts the profession

Archinect In-Depth: Licensure ended with a reflection on the challenges and opportunities in the current system highlighted by readers and commentators, as well as our final thoughts on how licensure helps and hurts the architectural profession. In particular, we noted that those with power and responsibility over licensure must ask how reforms made today can strengthen the profession’s relevance throughout the 21st century.

Major licensure news from 2024

As our licensure series began, NCARB shared feedback on its decision to phase out the rolling clock policy

The change mandated that scores from all previously expired divisions be added to the ARE 5.0. Of the 7–8 years inactive group affected, about 20% have restarted their licensure. The organization says 70 candidates have now completed their exams and that it has benefitted women and candidates from minority backgrounds at a higher rate. 

While also sharing data that the profession was expanding and becoming more diverse

NCARB’s annual survey revealed the total number of licensed practitioners to have grown by 1% to 121,368 in the past year. Another 37,708 are on their way to obtaining licensure. In 2023, there were 3,734 new architects reported to have earned a license, reversing last year’s decline by a total of 6% nationally. 

In October, NCARB releases a new 16-point competency standard for architects

NCARB said it will make updates to its existing programs over the next two years to align with the new standard, which likewise provides a "flexible foundation" for the development of future licensure programs. The move is expected to allow NCARB to build more accessible pathways to licensure without compromises to the professional standards needed to protect the public.

Just as the UK announced a proposal to overhaul registration for international architects

ARB announced that it was in the process of pursuing a public consultancy that would seek to eliminate demonstrated knowledge gaps while streamlining the number of examinations and outsourcing their administration. The proposed changes will impact the pathway for U.S. architects wishing to pursue licensure in the UK.

2024 also saw NCARB sign a new reciprocal agreement with New Zealand and Australia

The agreement expands on an existing system that has been in place since 2016, eliminating a requirement for 6,000 hours of post-licensure/registration experience while accepting the qualifications of architects who obtained a license through alternative pathways. Having announced the change in August,  the agreement was implemented in November.

While also updating its existing reciprocity agreement with Canada and Mexico

The updated agreement between the Regulatory Organizations of Architecture in Canada (ROAC), Mexico’s Comité Mexicano para la Práctica Internacional de la Arquitectura (COMPIAR), and NCARB removed several post-licensure barriers to eligibility, designed to ease barriers to obtaining licensure across the three countries. 

Be sure to follow Archinect's special End of Year coverage by following the tag 2024 Year In Review to stay up to date.