"Anything we can do to expedite the speed with which people can get licensed is a good thing," says David Cronrath, AIA, Dean of the University of Maryland's School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation. "What Renee [Cheng, Professor and Head of the University of Minnesota's School of Architecture,] has done is establish a roadmap which a lot of people can follow. And, I think, of course they will." — University of Minnesota
Starting this spring, the School of Architecture, at the University of Minnesota's College of Design, will offer a new concentration in research practices within their master of science in architecture degree (MS-RP) for students starting the fall of 2013. The program aims at halving the amount of time from high school to licensure for architects--from an average of 14.5 years to 7.
By offering this model, the School of Architecture nudges the profession toward true culture change, one that expects all students to be licensed upon graduation, regardless of their final career choices. It also takes advantage of recent changes to the National Council of Architectural Registration Board's Intern Development Program and Architect Registration Examination, and leverages the historically strong connection between practice and academy in the Minneapolis/St Paul community.
Architect Magazine is out this January with a piece featuring the MS-RP degree. The article details the work Professor Renee Cheng and her colleagues have undertaken to make the degree come to fruition. Read the entire article here.
More on the MS-RP degree can be found at z.umn.edu/msrp. Consortium for Research Practices information can be found by visiting rp.design.umn.edu.
9 Comments
Why??? Like we have a shortage of architects...
that would be fantastic! I been saying this for years!
interesting - yeah, i'm on board in concept. i'd like to know more about the structured experience part of it, but it's similar to what dan friedman's been pitching for a long time as well. at least, they're both trying to integrate experience into the curricula enough to grant the license along with the degree.
what's the downside here? if anything, it would revolutionize how graduates can position themselves in the market, especially if you don't go into "formal architecture". in a sense, it's a bit like a law degree - yes, you can practice law, but wouldn't you be excited to see more architects working for client groups, raising the bar of how design is integrated into the discussion? and, even if you have a license, it won't mean that every client would hire you straight out - no university is going to hand a 60M bio-engineering lab to someone who just graduated. experience and teams would still rule the high end of the profession.
the only people who have something to fear (if this takes off) are the other schools; firms who are simply looking to keep cheap drafting labor with recent grads and older more traditional architects (practice wise) who could be out-hustled...
I'm NOT for it. No surprise. The problem isn't really in the education which takes place in a university, which can be 4, 5, 6, or 7/7.5 years (if changing course). The problem is actually IDP. The intent, to create well-rounded practitioners, is good. The practicality and enforcement is not. Take a category like cost analysis. They want 80 hours of that task, or whatever they're called - units. That's 2 full weeks. One evaluates costs for a hour or two at a time, and NOT every week during their internship. In IDP, there are about 2 or 3 elusive categories, such as this one, that could not realistically be fulfilled in 3 years. IDP is more of a bureaucratic layer THAN is requiring an architecture degree.
I'm all for rolling back the internship process to a flat 3 years under a licensed architect for the 5, 6, 7/7.5 year crowd and a flat 5 years for the 4 year crowd. I disagree with educating architects in 7 years, from the beginning of high school.
I am extremely skeptical of this. Outside of the fact that I don't believe in the wholesale mixing of the Profession and Academia, I don't think coming up with a new degree is addressing the real problem. As observant stated above, and the article itself points out, IDP is broken. Schools should not be responsible for fixing what the AIA has screwed up, and the AIA should take this as a wake up call.
The program aims at halving the amount of time from high school to licensure for architects--from an average of 14.5 years to 7.
Shh ... don't people that they can move to CA and get the same thing done in just 8 years without having to go to college.
"leverages the historically strong connection between practice and academy in the Minneapolis/St Paul community."
That part is key. Last I knew they had an unusually large number of adjunct practicing faculty. Even with that there could be problems, but it is an interesting option in a system that could use shaking up.
@ everyday:
CA, NY, and 10 other states ... and if you like tropical beaches, Guam, too. Oh brother.
The rolling back to flat time internships, instead of IDP, puts the initiative on the intern. Rather than plugging holes on a chart, they should concentrate on learning. This means that they might spread their 3 year period over two employers, who could provide them with a diverse slate of experience, and then take the licensing exam.
If someone wants to start practicing on their own, the very next day, that's their prerogative. However, most of us would agree that would be foolish. More experience is needed.
That IDP prepares more well-rounded architects than the flat time system is not measurable, and debatable. It is also interesting that Minnesota is exploring this. U Minn. used to have an almost 4 year M.Arch., sort of 2 + 2, for unrelated degrees, when on the quarter system. It now has a 3 year M.Arch. on the semester system.
Adora's comment is most succinct :)
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.