AIArchitect

"[S]hould an education at an accredited school of architecture be the only path to the privilege of taking the architectural registration examination?"

No.

This should be a requirement not an option. If the AIA chooses not to recognize candidates that are not NAAB acredited then possibly the practice could stop.

Should it be the only way? No, I've practiced 27 years and have worked Internationally and Nationally on very large projects. I have a Fine Arts Degree. Worked for 3 top 10 out of 100 firms. I feel very gifted and respected in what I do. Tried grandfathering in and was short by a few months of the criteria and then tried getting a Master in Architecture only to have spend more time helping teach the courses than taking them. AIA needs to look at the individual and what they contribute to the profession.

An Architecture degree should be required to take the ARE. However, I personally have the four year degree and do not feel that somehow makes me less of an architect. I paid my dues in an extra long IDP process and passed the same test as everyone that did go to school for 1 or 2 more years than me.

Things have changed, yes you can be a good designer and come from a different field. I think the accedited education process requires you to take a step back and look at the reasons why. I have the 3 1/2 year masters in architecture and had to go back to school after ten years of working in a firm to get that degree. It was a very hard transistion and had some hard feelings about having to go through the process to move forward - at the begining. But after letting myself shed the irritaiton I realized how much more I needed to learn.

Yes you should have an accredtited degree to be an architect.

No, having an accredited degree should not be the only path to the privilege of taking the architectural registration examination. Economically disenfranchised schools do not have the funds or support to meet NAAB educational program standards. Yet these schools still offer a high-quality educational experience appropriate for an architect. NAAB understands and states itself that “graduation from a NAAB-accredited program does not assure registration”. The value of education and more specifically, on-the-job training is invaluable to the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the public through the practice of architecture.

I think it is pretty closed minded to think that an education is the only way to become a professional in the architure world. I am an example of an indivdual with an education in architecture but not from an accredited school. So much more is learned in years of experiance then can be learned in a classroom. Do not get me wrong. My education was important to get me started but my past 17 years of experience has been more valuable then school. I am a registered architect in the state of Wisconsin but reside in Michigan making it had to utilize my license the way I would like. May be the requirements for certification should be reviewed and make it possible for an individual with many years of experience and some higher education be eligible to take the registration exam. To many bright and talented individuals are being tied down and held back because of the restricting requirements of today. Were all of the great architects of the past people of higher education? No, many started in this profession write out of high school.

Absolutely not! Not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to aquire or complete an accredited degree program. Standards should be in place to ensure that only qualified individuals get licensed, but there needs to be flexibility in the ways a person meets the standards. The things I learned and the experience gained in college is only a small part of what makes me a good Architect. My experience is far more valuable than anything I learned in college.

No. One it depends on the person as some have said. I have a 4 year degree, and have worked for over five years for different firms. I am now getting ready to take my exam. The only difference between my degree and a NAAB degree was 2 design classes. In fact I think I learn more about how a building goes together and how to draw it than someone who has a NAAB degree. It is one thing to be able to design a building, but can you draw it so that it can be built? I have seen some students that could not do this and they had a NAAB degree.

It is no longer the process to work in a desired field long enough to gain the minimum required knowledge before becoming a professional (apprenticeship).

An accredited program is a requirement to push individuals through the preliminary obstacles of becoming an architect. These programs are meant to validate the cost vs benefit of the architecture profession as well as assure that improper professional training during the IDP process (yes, poor mentors DO exist) does not become the basis of an architect's career.

An NAAB accredited degree should not be a requirement for registration/ licensure. When people like myself get out of high school and look for an architecture program students are not informed (at least they weren't when I was a student 8-10 years ago)about the differences in a BS or BA Arch and a BArch and what it means for your eventual licensure. Schools with a pre-professional BS or BA dont want to point that out and lose students to BArch programs instead trying to entrap those students into their masters programs. Bottom line is 1 or 2 more years of school and thousands of dollars in tuition should not be more valuable than (for arguements sake) 4+ years of professional practice. It is un-imaginable to me that someone with 5-6 yrs of school and 3 years of practice should be eligible for ARE and someone with a 4 year degree IN ARCHITECTURE plus 7 or more years of practice can not become elidgible for ARE without additional schooling. I would say NAAB should create some type of accredidation for what are currently known as pre-professional degree programs, and some reasonable ammount of apprenticeship/ professional experience should always be acceptable to qualify for the ARE. After all, until the last century architecture was always primarily passed down through apprenticeship and nothing can teach you how to be an architect like working as an architect.

Minimum standard of education? Yes. NAAB the only organization to determine accreditation of schools? No.
I have a foreign degree and after having practiced and being licensed 15 years in 2 states, I found the need to obtain a license in a third state. Oh surprise that I needed an NCARB record. Oh surprise that NCARB required a NAAB/EESA evaluation of my studies.
It was an expensive and long road: 22 months. During which time I was treated rudely and even mocked by personnel at NAAB/EESA (not all, just the then person-in-charge who left a mess of paperwork to her successor). My general impression was of pre-potency and greed. If the NAAB accreditation area is as bad as the EESA area, then the process is completely arbitrary and subjective. Independent agencies should be able to do what the EESA does and leave out the accreditation program from NAAB. Individuals should be accredited, not schools. Attendants to schools of architecture are adults and as such responsible for their education. There is already the ARE test for this. There is already the IDP program for this. Why add an elitist mentality to the status of architectural schools. In my opinion both NAAB and NCARB unnecessary except to save the states money by centralizing the evaluation processes.

After 24 years in architecture with 10 of those teaching, I see a profound difference in the knowledge base of those who have completed an accredited degree verses those who have not--even the four-year degree. A few individuals have innate talent, and some individuals have worked decades in the profession and have contributed immensely through their experience. I wish to take nothing from them, but the world has changed—continues to change, and the standards by which this profession must adhere to in order to set itself apart to demonstrate not only the ability of its members to maintain the health, safety and welfare of building users, but to create a value-added service to their clients makes being an architect something special. Although there are many non-accredited-degreed individuals who easily demonstrate they deserve public trust in what they do, there are far more who do not. Consequently, the standards are what the public has to have trust in, and accreditation is what provides that trust in the absence of individual deeds.

Yes. If we are talking about the next generation in school or going into school soon, then it is absolutely Yes. There was once a good arguement against it that I supported but no longer do. One reason is that young people who don't have a degree don't get the same experience they would have years ago. Second, it is not the degree itself it is what it represents. It is not hard any more with the standards programs are adopting to get in to a program and recieve an accredited degree. So if someone chooses not to do the work why should they be rewarded.

I think to determine whether a degree from an accredited institution has greater value than any other, one needs first to establish the criteria for what is vital in the preparation for the making of a future architect.

In a pluralistic culture the role of architect changes from client to client, job to job. Quite possibly, is this more a question of what our perceived value in the market place is and what associated skill sets are necessary to maximizing that value? Academic training has the least value within this system.

As stewards of culture, the academy is of greatest value (i.e. J. Jacob's concept of political morality). As such, Academia serves as a testing ground for ideas of the imagination and begins to establish the idiosyncratic working methods of the designer.

A particular bias is presently reflected in the nature of the IDP training process and the ARE structure. I would argue that academics have little or no value within the system today. I'm not sure that the ARE --a reflection of marketplace demand-- wishes to acknowledge that it is the synthesis of the two poles that gives birth to Architecture.

As such, does a NAAB-accredited degree have any value at all?

The system has simply become too restrictive and time consuming for older architectural employees to become registered. I have been working in drafting rooms since 1983 and graduated in 1996 from an accredited school with a 4 year degree(BSAT). I am a 42yr old successful Senior PM working in Manhattan and have not yet sat for my ARE because, as far as I know, there is NO system in place thru NCARB to qualify for ARE without sitting thru years of IDP. Why should someone in my position have to do an intern program? Just so that I can send my money to NCARB? I believe that having an accredited degree is better than having a degree that is not and that this should be taken into consideration when reviewing qualifications for ARE, however, it most cetainly should not be the only path to the top of the mountain. There are many people like me out here that would like to see a system put in place where extensive practical work experience is given the consideration it deserves! I guarantee that with an experience based qualification system in place you will see many older Architectural employees seek licensure. I would be the first in line.

As a non-traditional ARE candidate, I believe that an accredited degree is NOT the only valid path to licensure. I have worked full time in architecture for the past 21 years. During these years I have more knowledge of architecture and its practice than someone with a 5 year degree. I can not count on two hands the number of interns fresh out of college that I have mentored, who didn't have a clue how to PRACTICE architecture. The non-traditional path to licensure is a very demanding path to travel, and equal to any 5 year accredited degree, in my opinion. We all, regardless of how we get there, are required to pass the ARE to obtain licensure. Thus far, I have taken three exams and passed them all with relative ease. I'm not licensed yet, but have no doubt that I will be eventually. It would be a horrible shame to disallow individuals such as myself the opportunity for licensure. There seems to be a "I earned my college dues...holier than thou" mentality which strives to divide and conquer those who fail to conform to a predefined mold. Some of the most talented architects I know are non-traditionally licensed architects. Thus, my answer would be an emphatic NO!! The path to licensure should be strict and demanding, but it should also be flexible.

No, I do not think attaining an accredited degree should be the only path to registration. As long as individuals must be registered to practice architecture then I think the requirements should have some flexibility to accommodate otherwise qualified.

No. Architecture didn't start out as "a profession". it was a trade. you apprenticed under other architects and learned their practice. you moved on until you felt you learned enough to start your own practice. The Practice of Architecture is about dedication and contribution. The Design of Architecture is about reflection and communication. I've built my career on being one of the hardest working people in my environment. i've listened and learned a great amount from very talented architects and engineers (some not so talented, learning what NOT to do is just as valuable). so much that in my last office i could probly retire on the number of times i was asked if their were seven of "me" around somewhere or the number of time i've been told (and continue to be told) that i wasn't "ruined by school".

everyone keeps talking about an "education" being ground work; "preliminary obstacles" (lindsay macklin) and that if you have a degree or go through the IDP process you are somehow insulated from poor mentors. i disagree. your education isn't to be expressed. your education is be expanded upon. and that's one of the reasons Architecture is so stagnant and developer driven now is that the Architect isn't expanding upon their degree, re-thinking their education, disagreeing with what you "learned" in school and figuring out how YOU want interpret the world. You are chasing your "professional" billing cycle. The public doesn't understand the value of an Architect... of good honest, design. You are too busy trying to "represent the Profession".

Now, with the "Profession", people have huge loans to pay back and that's the only reason we are having this debate. you are trying to defend your choice of trying to BUY yourself a job. i simply GOT a job and have worked my ass off, from the ammonia blueprint room to drafting/CA support to designing/managing projects, to, now, being self-employed and being able to freelance the services an office staffed me to do.

fortunately i live in colorado and can sit for the state exams with 10 years experience and NO degree. and get reciprocity after another ten years. if that isn't "doing the work", i don't know what is.

remember we "are experts in the Human condition relative to the built Environment" -myself

No.

Completion of a NAAB-accredited academic program is not a guarantee of design or technical ability. Nor is lack of an NAAB-accredited academic degree an indication that an individual cannot design or detail a project, and appropriately deal with government agencies and contractors to see it to completion.

For me, the answer is no. When an NAAB-accredited degree could be had in five years, the requirement was a reasonable ticket to licensure. But with current trends in architectural education requiring upwards of seven years at costs that have obscenely outstripped both the cost of living and entry-level salaries, there should be other options.

AIA’s continuing professional education program set a national standard, embracing the idea that becoming an architect is a journey, not a destination. Formal education is an important step, but architecture has always been a practical profession with vastly more to be learned on the actual journey than in any single step along the way.

Finally, keeping alternate paths to licensure open works hand-in-hand with the Institute’s commitment to diversity, and can only enrich the profession.

No.

Not to undervalue the importance of architecture education. I think becoming licensed with out a degree from an accredited programs will be more difficult. In the past additional years of internship was required for example. There are many paths in life and our profession can benefit from those taking different ones.

Academic education teaches you how to do be a problem solver, think critically, and produce good design. Practice teaches you how to execute the design and construction of a building. An accredited degree doesn't mean you are a competent architect, just like ten years of experience in the field of without a design degree doesn't make you a competent architect. Competency and maintaining the integrity of the profession should be left to the ARE's. It is the responsibility of the profession to demand high design standards from colleges and the emerging professionals they produce. IDP should continue to require practical experience, as experience in the field is critical. I have an unaccredited 4 year degree in architecture and I've worked with peers that have accredited 5 year degrees. I have been surprised at how subpar their design educations have been, as if the schools had gotten lazy and had given up on fostering truly innovative thought within the picture of our responsibilities to society. The previous statement is based on numerous informal discussions with my peers and how disheartened they become when they hear about the opportunities that were provided to me. My design education landed me a job with a young, innovative, forward thinking design firm in Western New York (an extremely architecturally and sustainably conservative location). I've worked within 10'of, and under the direct supervision of 2 licensed architects for over three years now and have helped build the firm from ground up. When my time comes to be licensed nobody can tell me that I won't make a competent architect. It all depends on the school and how serious you are about your education, NAAB does a poor job. Education isn't what is truly undermining our profession today.

NO. I have been licensed and registered as both an Architect and Professional Engineer in New York, NCARB and 8 other states by reciprocy after completing the then requirement of 13 years of professional employment and passing the state exams. That was in 1948. I was also lucky that the then State Boards considered my 5 years in the Army Engineers equivilent to professional employment.

I never got a degree, even tho I went to 3 different colleges at night. I learned a lot more from actual employment, the Army and from many projects for good clients and from associated consultants.

The practice of Architecture is very complex. Many of us are terrific Designers or Administrators or Construction Code Consultants or Construction Methods Consultants. There is room for all of us.

I practiced for just under 60 years, before I retired this year.

While this state, New York, requires a degree, I still think the old way had it's points.

However, you must remember that I grew up in the depths of a depression, when very few of us could afford to go to college full time. It is a lot easier financially now.

No - architecture is a profession that not only guides young professionals into a wide variety of fields but is one that would greatly benefit by pulling talent from other venues. As a young professional in an international architecure firm, the firm thrives on the variety of skills. Many of those skills simply aren't developed by a standard NAAB degree. The profession as a whole is severely limiting itself and its future by continuing down this path. Yes, there needs to be checks and benchmarks to ensure the quality of Architects but a "standard" approach doesn't allow us to develop the profession it should.

No.

I am the COO of a highly regarded commercial architecture firm. My wife is a residential architect. My father is an architect and professor (at an NAAB accredited school). My mother is a commercial interior designer. I’ve lived and worked with people in the design professions for a long time, and nothing in my experience suggests that an NAAB accredited professional degree is an essential ingredient to being a good architect.

An NAAB professional degree certainly helps. It may legitimately be the fastest way to achieve a certain foundation in the field. It may even remain the most commonly chosen path. However, to suggest that it is the BEST way, or that it is so superior to the alternatives that it ought to be the ONLY way, not only strikes me as absurd but it is also demonstrably false.

Among the 16 states that either do not require an NAAB accredited degree at all or that will accept experience as a substitute are some of our most populous states like California and New York, mid sized states like Georgia, Washington, and Wisconsin, and less populated states like Maine and Vermont. There is no evidence whatsoever that the health, safety, and welfare of the public in these states is jeopardized, or that the quality of architecture is diminished, as a result of alternative paths for qualification. There is also no evidence to suggest that the architecture profession and individual professionals are any poorer in these states as a result of alternative paths for qualification.

I also echo the sentiments already posted here that requiring an NAAB professional degree is unnecessarily elitist, antagonistic toward lower income populations and foreign trained architects, again with no empirical evidence to suggest that there is any benefit to society or the profession.

The opportunity to structure the profession of architecture like the professions of law or medicine has long since passed. IDP already gives us a framework for tracking important breadth of experience for a new practitioner, and that framework could easily be used to track additional experience in lieu of a particular academic credential.

YES! An accredited degree in architecture should be required for licensure. You are still welcome to practice at an architecture firm or even be part of running one, but you should not be able to be licensed without an accredited degree.
The thought that just because higher education isn't available to everyone --architecture should bridge the gap is silly. Higher education is more available than it ever has been in this country. I don't think you would want a surgeon that didn't have a degree no matter how much they learned on the job. The same holds true for architecture. We could listen to the stories of people who went back to school and had to "teach" the courses or how little they gained from higher education but that is more a reflection on them than the requirement.
Let's not lower our standards as a profession!

Regardless of what the future holds for requirements for licensure, we should attempt to adopt a clear universal standard so that those leaving high school are not misled in choosing their path of education.

When a young person decides that he or she may want to be an architect, what do we tell them?

"Don't bother with going to college - just learn CADD and get a job after high school graduation. You'll learn all you need to know on the job. An degree is not a requirement for licensure, anyway."

Many professions have requirements for licensure outside of empirical knowledge. Philosophically, this may not be necessary. However, we should be able to arrive at a universal national standard - whatever thay may be.

Absolutely not. Some of the best architects I know have come from other backgrounds and non-accredited programs.

Yes and no. For any student coming through the ranks right now, it should be a requirement because architecture is a profession. Most professionals are educated to a set standard. That part shouldn't be an issue.
For an individual with years of experience who wants registration, there should be another process. I can't see the IDP as having any value to someone who has been managing a firm for 10 years!

yes, it should be a requirement. education starts the foundation of an architect's career like any other profession. look around - you'll see the difference among most of the people based on their background.

I agree with Ruth Knapp. In addition, I think NCARB needs a major efficiency overhall and bureaucratic barriers to completing IDP need to be removed.

There are two reasons that there should be an alternate path to having a degree in order to obtain registration.
First, I, as several other people who worked in the office I was part of in DE, came to the profession after other careers & work experiences. It's not easy to go back to school when married, having a family and having been away from college for several years.
Second, and perhaps more important, experience counts for a great deal. I found that when I took the exams that practice experience was much more valuable than the college level course work for much of the exams.
I was able to combine some college architectural courses and experience to be able to take the exams (before the degree requirement was in place).
I am now retired after 37 happy years in a second career as an architect.

I'm pleased to see that most other comments are consistent with my belief that their should be many paths to licensure, that recognize the different circumstances of the individuals. My own experience was on the long and winding path, and the result has been one that is rich and rewarding. After a 4 year non professional degree and three semesters in a M.Arch. program, the demands of supporting a family made continuing my education impossible. Eventually qualifying for the exam, (passing it on the first try)and having had the great fortune of practicing architecture and this year being admitted to the AIA College of Fellows supports my heartfelt belief that alternative paths, rigorously vetted to protect the public interest, should remain a part of our profession.

Yes, the professional degree from an accredited school is the most reliable measure of fitness for architectural licensure, but it should not be the only one.

An accredited degree should not be a required. However, a bachelor's degree AND experience should be an optional path to licensure. Architecture school allows you to gain a foundation of knowledge in order to learn even more so after graduation. In school, you learn the basics; how to design. At a firm, you learn how to draw construction documents, details sections and the like, you interact with clients, engineers, and other professionals, you learn the business aspects of running an office among other numerous skills that come only with on-the-job training. However, if a person has innate skills in drawing and design and has a bachelor's degree, I believe the rest can be learned with experience. Someone had compared architects to surgeons... There is NO comparison. The amount of knowledge a doctor needs to practice after graduation is gargantuan compared to the amount of knowledge an architect needs to start a career. You don't get out of college and start off as principal... you work your way up. The best of the best are architects who have an innate sense of design coupled with experience. As an aside, I think in today's time driven age, the younger generations are also expecting results faster. They expect to practice architecture right after college. Being a part of that younger generation, we need to understand that to practice architecture requires an incredible amount of on the job experience.

No.
I graduated with a 4 year pre-professional degree only 3 years ago and am alrady seeing the limitations of it as far as getting licensed. Fortunately I live and work in California, where you technically don't even need a college education to become an architect. Work experience can count for a lion's share of the requirement for the state board. I am also forunate that I can take my AREs before I finish IDP as well. California does attach their own bureaucratic IDP process and additional exams but the process is actually pretty fair for those who have the professional degree and those who don't.

If i went back to my home state on the east coast, there is no way I can obain reciprocity, even if I am licensed in CA for 20 years, despite the fact that it is succinctly more difficult to build in CA than most states. My home state will not even honor the broadly experienced architect provision.

I feel that most of the knowledge you meet to do good architecture is learned on the job. To that fact, I've worked with people that do not have prof. degrees that were very good at what they do, and people who have Master's degrees that are incompetant. School is primarily where you learn the aestetic and theoretical part of the industry, never did I learn what an RFI was. And since architect's are vested with protecting the "Health, Safety, and Welfare of the public" (at least in CA) then i think we should tie licensing requirements soley to those specifics, not on some degree that does not teach you that.

There is too much confusion about what education accomplishes. Education is important, essential to being an architect, but there are many ways to get it. It is the knowledge, skill and ability that education and experience combined create that makes good architects. It surprises people when I tell them that I took the ARE prior to getting my degrees.

I was designing homes on my own for contractors when I was 16 years old and still in high school. I was pretty good at that time, and frankly could have passed the ARE then.

I went to college after graduating from High School. Then after a year or so of studying Engineering I moved to Seattle and took a job at Boeing working with Engineers as an E.I.T., while attending college in the evening. I was tutored by the best engineers in the world for 5 years and with these men looking over my shoulder I continued to design buildings sometimes just for fun and sometimes to pick up extra money.

In 1979 I took a leave of absence to attend the University of Washington.

Boeing had offered to pay for the college education if I enrolled in the engineering program at the UW. I enrolled in the School of Architecture instead. I left without graduating in 1982 although I had enough credits accumulated to take the degree, but I wanted to take a few more classes.

Unfortunately circumstances intervened, as I became a father. I worked on my own for a while designing homes and then I made application to the State of Washington to sit for the exam, but with no degree or internship with an architect I was refused. So I had to take a job with an architect and then served a 4 year internship before they would let me sit for the exam.

All this was of course prior to the computer exam. With a letter from my employer the State Board decided I was finally qualified for the ARE by virtue of my experience alone.

Although I had not taken the Bachelors degree at the University yet, I had enough credits to graduate from the University of Washington. I had held off taking the degree intending to pick up a few more classes but had never made it back there. I sat for and passed all but the design exam on the first sitting, it was not difficult. At that time we had to draw the solution to the design problem by hand in 12 hours, that was difficult, and I passed that the following year.

Then with only the oral exam remaining, I went to the University and requested that they graduate me. They did so in 1994. I delayed the oral exam, and while working during the day I earned an MBA at night, graduated, and only then made the appointment for the exam and passed. I am licensed in the State of Washington.

I worked for several employers after I had my license. I learned first hand that there are two very serious problem in our profession. Upward mobility in architectural firms and an unfair competition with the unqualified, uneducated, unexamined and non-licensed building designer.

Employees have absolutely no opportunity for upward mobility. I worked for three or four. I formed my own firm after the last employer, who had promised me a partnership when he hired me, then bailed out on his promise and to escape the financial obligation, manufactured false allegations of fraud and fired me. I had to sue him to clear my name.

Walker Architects now works with some the worlds wealthiest people.

Unlicensed persons should not design buildings without a licensed professional involved. In the State of Washington 80 percent of the permits filed are filed by persons who are not licensed. These persons have not been qualified, examined or licensed yet they practice with little or no liability where those of us who have been licensed, compete for the same jobs.

Licensed professionals must stamp and sign every technical submittal and are the only persons under law who can do so. The law does allow non licensed persons to design and draw up plans, write specifications, engage in construction supervision and administrative functions under certain exception in the States licensing laws. Although law here has no provision that empowers non professionally licensed person to make a technical submittal.

The wide spread practice in the State of Washington and many other states of permitting technical submittal to regulatory authorities for permits with-out the prudent review and approval of a licensed professional is not lawful. For one group in competition with another for the same market to have such disparate treatment, expense and associated liability constitutes a breach of federal antitrust legislation. Licensing and that is what all this is about, exists to protect the public welfare. There is no point to having any system at all unless every building design is subject to review. Licensing exists so the licensed professionals are in place to review, the work approve and certify every technical submittal made to regulatory authority. The exceptions do not exist as a way of creating an area of practice for persons who want to design buildings but do not want the work effort, time and expense of getting licensed.

The truth is that I am a very well educated architect and well respected but I do not have an NAAB accredited professional degree. I believe that the knowledge base has meaning and the paper symbols do not. That those diploma's the universities hand out after students complete some course work is worthless without practical experience. But that license had better mean something and make a difference or there is no point to having such a licensed profession at all. We should never lower the bar.

We must have all three things, practical experience, education and licensing.
TLW

No, as someone already said, as long as you learn the knowledge why should you be barred from taking the exam. While I have an accredited degree, I work with a lot of employees, that came to the practice from other careers, or because of financial hardship didn't manage to get a 5 or 6 year college education. These people will never be rid of their financial burdens to go back to college, and will pay for that mistake until they reach the grave.
I don't think the universities need to worry that people will quit going to colleges, but it seems these arguments are just to protect the universities' enrollments.
Before it was abolished there were only a limited number of architects who ever sat for the exam based on what was then a 15 year experience requirement. The exam itself weeds out the chaff. There are university graduates who can't pass the exams. And with most university teachers not being practitioners, in more than a minor sense, most of the daily skills of the profession are learned in the office. My opinion is that this will likely never change.
So lets quit being such Elitists! And regain our sense of reason.

"...privilege path..!"
We have the dubious distinction of being probably the only profession where a large group of the practioners insist we don't need any standards, such as a college education, to do what we do. The same group usually can be counted on to downgrade postgraduate architectural programs and continually bemoan the low salaries compared to other educated professionals. I say congratulations to all who have successfully made it through college and passed a very rigorous examination process to become licensed architects. And I would like to encourage those who have not completed the process to keep at it. It's something that is worth the effort.

NO, there are many path of the journey to the destination of architectual practice. The profession has a long history of many outstanding architects contributing to our rich history without "credentialition excessivus". Far too many institutions have become exclusive and insular. When I returned to school in the early '90s to complete my architecture degree started in the '60's I noticed how many students were borrowing heavily against their economic future. Universities with ongoing funding problems are ever so willing to load up students with loans. Just now this unbalanced student loan system is under scrutiny and the excesses coming to light. While the intentions of NCARB et al are well meaning and for the greater good I fear we may lose in the end, lose the future design greats that may not fit in the ever tightening molds of credentiaization. Frank Lloyd Wright graduated from what architectural program?

No. It's just a money making requirement by NAAB/NCARB. I had a 3 year architectural education in Europe and learned much more there, than I learned in the 3 years of graduate school in the US. But I had to go through grad school in the US, because NAAB/NCARB wouldn't even consider to give me any credit for my European education. As other posters have mentioned, NAAB/NCARB treat people with a non-traditional career path very rudely and with a "holier-than-thou" attitude. This is very inappropriate, especially in todays global economy, but that's all you can expect from a greedy monopoly. I think anyone, that has an education and experience, and can pass the ARE, should be eligible to do so and become registered!

I strongly agree with others that there should be alternative paths to licensure. I sat for the exam in 1991 based on meeting the qualifications of the Broadly Experienced Architect option that my home state had in place at the time (long since abolished).

I am currently registered in three states and have been practicing as a "licensed" professional for around 16 years. As part of my professional role, I also lead a large team of architects and CAD specialists.

I am constantly amazed at how little "practical” knowledge most young students coming out of "accredited" programs are armed with. While many of them are gifted with extraordinary design skills - a good number of the students have not learned how to put a building together.

One of the goals of an IDP (also part of the licensure process) is to teach graduates this "practical" side of the profession. So in a way, isn't the profession already saying that an accredited degree doesn't provide enough of a "working" knowledge to become an architect?

(I'm on my soap box now)
I will also echo what others have said concerning NCARB and NAAB. I am currently working through the very painful and expensive BEA process to obtain NCARB certification and have been extremely disappointed in the way that I have, personally, been treated as an existing member of the profession.

If this is how the organizations that set the standards for the profession treat those who need to pass through them - then I believe we risk the danger of the profession becoming irrelevant as more and more students decide the price to be paid is not worth the reward.

As a profession that prides itself in being creative - we should be able to move away from the linear thought process that says there is only one way - and develop optional paths so that we welcome the very best talent available regardless of the schools they've attended.

It seems to me this question must focus equally on a) what do NAAB accredited schools actually teach; and, in that context, b) what should be the minimum requirements to become eligible for the exam?

Too many young practitioners today say that their NAAB blessed education did little to prepare them for the rigors of the exam ... consequently, their firms have been left with the primary responsibility for helping them over that hurdle. If NAAB is not going to actually require substantial, meaningful education aimed at preparing young practitioners to pass their professional exam, then I see no point in requiring a NAAB accredited degree in order to become licensed.

However, if NAAB actually imposed meaningful curriculum requirements on the schools, aimed at preparing students for licensure, then the requirement might make more sense.

I am amazed at the cost being incurred by students today to earn a "professional" degree. It's sad such a degree really has little relevance to becoming a professional, in the legal sense.

Yes I believe that this is the best system towards licensure. The alternative would create a new generation of incomplete architects. The traditional university system provides the basic education for architects to grow. Otherwise, we would find ourselves with glorified draftsman calling themselves architects. Education + in field experience equals an architect, not just one or the other. Our european colleagues (United Kingdom and Ireland) require a university degree to sit their respective exams, I don't think we can afford to fall behind.

In this country, a person may be a licensed Architect as defined by the State (architectural licensing board) in which the person receives their initial registration. After the initial registration, without an NCARB certificate, there are few States that will grant the Architect reciprocity. I am an Architect in Maryland. I am not an Architect in Pennsylvania or other surrounding States. These States will not grant me a reciprocal license because I do not meet their licensing requirement - "Without an NAAB accredited degree, you are not eligible for reciprocal licensure in Pennsylvania."

I am very proud of my title - Architect. I worked very hard for the honor of the title through a long sequence of job experiences in engineering and architectural firms, planning departments and architectural millwork shops. I take the title very seriously. My questions are many, but these questions stand out the most. Why am I not an Architect in other states? What makes me less qualified to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public than another Architect with a NAAB degree? I took the ONE national exam, the Architectural Registration Exam, just like every other Architect in the country - and passed. I completed my "experience qualifications" and my Intern Development through NCARB.

While some responses in this blog border on pompous, I can't help but wonder if the integrity of the title - Architect - has slowly degraded over the years through the membership's privileged version of entitlement. How does the public interpret that I am an Architect in Maryland but not in other states?

Maybe the following was the initiation of the slow disintegration of the word Architect (elitist separation from Master Builder to Architect) - In 1907, the AIA Committee on Education recommended that a prerequisite for a degree in architecture be a proficiency in Latin. They also said an adequate architecture education should consist of a year of prep school; four years in a school of architecture, at least one (and preferably two or three) years of advanced study in Rome, Paris, or American ateliers; and at least a year of travel in Europe.

In another reality how would the world look and what would the profession be if enforcement meant that Frank Lloyd Wright was not allowed to be an Architect? I for one am thankful for this "glorified draftsman".

It is true that such geniuses as Frank Lloyd Wright did not require to follow the traditional path, but this is an extremely rare case and belongs to a bygone era. Architectural practice is a very complicated business today which requires a great deal of formal education in addition to practical real world experience. How can we be certain that people taking an alternative path will have the tools to properly serve their clients. I believe that it would be pompous to even dare to compare ourselves to someone of this stature. I would also respectfully point out that the vast majority of today's great architects are not self taught and that very few of us are in Tadao Ando's and FLW's league!!!!!! So if it's good enough for Lord Norman Foster, Richard Meier, Frank Gehry, etc, etc, etc it should be good enough for most of us.

Thierry Paret, Ireland, EU

No.

I obtained my license via an accredited degree. However, some of the best architects I have worked with, including one of my partners, obtained their licenses without an accredited degree.

Often those who didn't go to college become the most detail oriented, competent, and professional architects you will find. What some may lack in theory, they make in practical common sense, of which we see far too little in our profession.

If we consider on our present course, in the future, these solid practitioners that grew up through the ranks and developed technical competency through years of experience and training will no longer be a part of our profession.

I think our profession will be the poorer for it, and I will miss them.

the old saying. Would you go to a lawyer that did not have an education or better yet would you have surgery done to your heart from a doctor that did not have any education? (that must be an expensive issuance) Read these post again and see the attitudes of those whom have received a degree and those whom have not. A NAAB school is tightly watched and part of a higher eduction society so its not that they are better schools but more so, different. Of course you need a degree from this type of School.

No, which seems to be the prevailing thought.
My background was an accredited 4 yr degree when few states required more. I took the qualifying right out of college and passed. I worked the 2 additional years and sat for the professional and passed. Seven years later I started my own firm and now employee a staff of 7-9. As needed, I have acquired registrations in 11 states. (I do meet NCARB requirements in those.) But there are some that because of my registration date I will not be able to acquire. As noted by other post, I am unqualified by their state rules to call myself an architect.
Near my office is a college that is attempting to acquire their NAAB certificate. From them, I have hired nearly half of my staff. With the work that we do here and the working "education" they acquire, they are more knowledgable in the practice of architecture than some older registered architects I know. The sad part is because of their financial and/or personal issues, these are people who may have to leave the field (and at least one had given it some thought).
After discussing this with them, all noted that the education at least to the bachelor of science or art from an accredited school would still be a good requirement; strengthen the IDP; and allow credit for the "practice" of architecture under a registered architect.
(Not totally relevant, but after reading at least three post on it, I have to add a note. Not all people preforming surgeries are educated and licensed. I have a friend who trained and "assisted" for years under a surgeon. It wasn't until he realize his liability that he had to quit. The surgeon was coming to surgery increasing late and for the last few not showing up at all. All the surgeries were successful, but the story notes that there is a real value on experience in all fields and not just the formal education. My friend did attend internet school to eventually acquire his nursing degree so he had something to pursue another position.)

Yes, an accreditted degree should be the only path to licensure as an architect.

It is hard to believe that we are fighting so hard to keep interior designers from being licensed in very limited ways yet would turn around and say to anyone wishing to become an architect; "don't bother with school, you don't learn anything".

Thinking like this is both hypocritical and dangerous. On a whole we endlessly complain about the poor pay and lack of respect, but will turn around and open the flood gates to anyone that can bide their time and study for a test. Anyone can pass a test, but that doesn't make them an architect.

The standards for licensure have been around long enough that anyone who is foolish enough to venture down a dead end path and then bemoan what should have been clear from the beginning deserves the position they are in.

If we don't see the value in obtaining the degree, maybe the question should be why are fresh graduates from so called "accredited programs" so woefully prepared to perform in the profession

We are graduating too many architectural students who really are not very well educated. Given the cost of private & State Universities the idea of requiring an accredited degree as the only path to an architectural career is an act of economic red lining, because it is not intelligence or ability that limits enrollments nearly so much as it is money. It this really a good idea for the profession?

Training is indeed important, and a lot is necessary to practice architecture, but does it all have to take place in a university? If a university teaches young architects that their university education puts them above the other building crafts, then it's doing a great deal of harm. A classroom setting is a very efficient way to transfer knowledge, but it's only part of the picture. They call it practice for a reason. The learning really ramps up when you go out and do it.

But should an education at an accredited school of architecture be the only path to the privilege of taking the architectural registration examination?

NO

It is now an old cliché that America is the land of opportunity. The truth is that social mobility is slowly but steadily disappearing as social structures become fosilized.

According to reliable sources, income inequality has skyrocketed since the 1980s, : income in the poorest household percentile grew by 6.4 percent, whereas the top one grew by over 70 percent.

This occurred while social mobility declined: the Economic Policy Institute argues that there has been a 16 percent decrease in social mobility for the second-to-lowest quintile, and the prospects are even darker for the poorest one.

But more significantly, economist Earl Wysong found in a cross-generational study that nearly 70 percent of all sons in 1998 were doing equally or worse than their fathers twenty years before. Perhaps daughters are doing better than mothers but the trend is solidly established as fact.

Education is the driving engine of class change, it has played a large role in this disturbing social disease. A 2004 Century Foundation study found that only three percent of America’s 146 most selective colleges come from the bottom socioeconomic quarter of the population. At any of those campuses, it is 25 times more likely that any given student’s family is rich and can afford to convey a college education than that they are poorer Americans.

To continue to require that an Architectural education from an expensive university must remain