NCARB Fire Sale

Can we have an open, honest discussion about the fire sale going on with architectural licensure being promulgated by NCARB? This was the subject of the email I received on July 1st, directly from NCARB: “IDP Required Hours Reduced by a Third.” To be fair, NCARB has been touting this “streamlining” since late last year. Quoting CEO Michael Anderson directly, “NCARB and its Member Boards have put many new programs in place to remove unnecessary impediments without reducing rigor. In one year alone, participation is up and the average time to licensure has been reduced.” While the above statements may be true, and it has been documented that, indeed, diversity in architecture is on the rise, I cannot help but feel as though the reduction of 1,860 "supplemental" experience hours coupled with the impending consolidation of the 17 experience areas in the IDP [see footnote] to 6 “broad practice-based experience categories” is supposed to make us believe that the idea of rigor is still at the fore of the decision making process for NCARB.

I suppose those of us that are licensed can take solace in the fact that NCARB has essentially determined that we were more than minimally competent to practice architecture given our additional 10+ months of intern experience. What it feels like is bar lowering in an attempt to stave off a impending shortage of licensed architects. We lament in the office and in certain professional circles that we provide a very real and beneficial service to the public. While 2% of the population will actively engage an architect in the design of the built environment, the EPA has said 90% of our time is spent inside of a building. We should be compensated as a doctor or a lawyer, we argue, yet how can we convince potential clients and the general public, that while we have reduced the practical requirements of an architectural license, we still maintain the level of competency and integrity of previous generations?

What it feels like is bar lowering in an attempt to stave off an impending shortage of licensed architects.

I encourage and applaud the efforts of each and every [ _ ] since we cannot call them 'interns' on the path to licensure. The idea that more licensed architects, ones that have become so as the result of streamlining [read: reductions] in the process, make the world a safer place is as myopic as it is preposterous. How terrifying would it sound if the FAA made an announcement that in order to bring diversity into the cockpit and ensure that there will not be a shortage of pilots in the near future, they were going to “remove unnecessary impediments” by reducing the amount of flight hours required of pilots in training? 'No, there is still all the rigor within training to become a pilot, it is just that we decided that our pilots were becoming more than minimally competent. Remember, more licensed pilots makes the skies a safe place – pay no attention to the fact that the increase in pilots is due almost exclusively to our decision to reduce the amount of experience required by trainees.'

The idea that more licensed architects, ones that have become so as the result of streamlining [read: reductions] in the process, make the world a safer place is as myopic as it is preposterous. 

Effective October 1, 2014, candidates were allowed to retake a failed ARE exam after 60 days of failing the section. It used to be six months. I suppose this too is an impediment in the path to licensure. Of course, a candidate may only take the same division of the ARE three times in one year. Well good, there's the rigor we were promised. It is perfectly acceptable to fail a section of the AREs, maybe you just missed a passing score, perhaps it just wasn't your day, or you realized you spent your efforts studying material that the test was light on. Whatever the reason, a candidate does not need three tries in 365 days to pass one section. Where are the standards to which we insist we be held on our path to license?

Two weeks ago, AIAS President Charlie Klecha, impressively revealed that he had passed all seven ARE exams over the course of seven days. After the live reveal of the results, he looked at the camera and said “If you are stalling because you think you need experience, guess again. I have no time in a firm: it's possible. Seven weeks of hard work and studying, dedication. You can do it.” That's right, not only are the professional experience standards of licensure being reduced, the exams themselves are being relegated to the classic late night self-help infomercial tag line. If someone who never thought the end goal was possible can do it, guess what? You can too.

the exams themselves are being relegated to the classic late night self-help infomercial tag line.

I am tired of NCARB apologists that will say this is good for the profession; that somehow more licensed architects will make the built environment safer. What NCARB is doing is creating a hierarchy between those that benefited from an additional one year of supervised experience and those that did not. The real value of the experience program is not to provide graduates with the necessary exposure to all facets of the design process, but to give them the opportunity to learn and make mistakes within a safe environment to do so. As architects, we may not be as good at math as conventional wisdom may lead people to believe, but we certainly can comprehend the impact that the loss of one year of experience can have on a career. Recently, NCARB drafted a proposal that would allow aspiring architects to submit hours in fulfillment of their IDP requirements that have expired under the current protocol. This proposal recognizes that the experience, while not logged within an arbitrary time frame, is no less valuable to the [ _ ]. I can support this proposal. A wholesale reduction in hours that threatens to separate newly registered architects even further from their already registered colleagues, I cannot.

The real value of the experience program is...to give them the opportunity to learn and make mistakes within a safe environment to do so.

At PJA, we will continue to support our junior staff as they work towards licensure. We will be responsible for ensuring the rigor remains while encouraging each graduate to pursue licensure with the passion she or he channeled for each final jury while in school despite NCARB's best efforts to undermine the rigor of the development process.

 

 

Note: We cannot even call the IDP that anymore now that the Future Title Task Force boldly punted the 'intern' debate by suggesting that it's degrading, counter-intuitive and somehow responsible for keeping newly graduated architecture students from reaching their full personal and professional potential. So now we get to wait to determine what we can call this necessary experience.