There have been many levels of checks and balances the profession of architecture has assembled to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Among them is a minimum standard of education as defined by the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB). This year, as Jonathan Matthew Taylor, Assoc. AIA, LEED-AP, explains this week, NAAB will be re-examining its accreditation criteria, as the organization does every five years or so.
In conjunction with the AIA and other collateral organizations representing students, faculty, and registration boards, NAAB will be looking into ways to incorporate learning requirements for such issues as collaboration, business insight, building information modeling, and communications skills within the limited timeframe of acquiring a professional degree.
At the same time, the U.S. collateral organizations are working through the International Union of Architects to establish reciprocal standards for practicing architects. Somewhere down the road, there may be a global accreditation standard for architecture education.
But should an education at an accredited school of architecture be the only path to the privilege of taking the architectural registration examination? Some jurisdictions recognize the more traditional internship, recognizing the value of on-the-job learning. Some recognize architecture education programs that have not received accreditation, yet still offer a high-quality educational experience.
What do you think?