06.18.04 NCARB Annual Meeting
This coming week, the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) will hold its annual meeting in Portland, OR. The most visible change for interns coming out of this meeting will almost certainly be the implementation of a five-year “rolling clock” for completion of the ARE, starting in 2006. Currently, 14 jurisdictions have imposed various time limits for completion of the ARE, ranging from three years in Maine to eight years in DC. This resolution by NCARB is intended to resolve differing requirements among the states and to strengthen the validity of the exam.
Presumably, a not insignificant number of people are actually taking longer than five years to complete the computerized ARE. What is stunning, however, is how little information the profession has regarding how long the exam takes, who is taking it, who is passing (and who is failing), and how many people are getting licensed. NCARB publishes a very small amount of aggregate data in their annual meeting reports, and none of it is compared to any other data beyond what happened the previous year. And you can only access that data if you happen to have a hard copy of NCARB’s Annual Meeting Report (or if you get ArchVoices and we spend our evenings typing it up for you).
A rolling clock for the ARE is arguably a good thing–even one that rolls as slowly as this one. But we’re about to make yet another decision with zero statistical information about the impact that decision might have, and on whom. How many candidates for licensure might be affected by this change: 5 percent? 25 percent? Will women be affected more significantly than men, since they are still more likely to take a few years off early in their careers? How significantly? Have those 14 states that already have rolling clocks seen candidates respond, or have they seen candidates go elsewhere? Do we know how many people simply abandon the exam process now, so we can know if more or fewer people abandon the exam process later? And why the heck is it that people are taking anywhere near five years to take a 32-hour exam in the first place?
Beyond these, there are two other interesting news items at the NCARB Annual Meeting. First, the cost of each division of the ARE will increase by $10 in 2006. Just another reason for candidates to quit procrastinating, as NCARB has previously claimed, and get moving on the darn thing.
Which brings up the second interesting item. There is a resolution, opposed by the NCARB Board, for the NCARB Board to acknowledge and respond to something called the CIMG (Collateral Internship Management Group) Report. The CIMG, in fact, was chaired by the NCARB representative to the group. This report is the culmination of four years of collaborative work and represents the promise of the original Collateral Internship Summit. We’ve talked about the importance of that report numerous times, and about how none of the collaterals except for the AIAS have even endorsed it, much less worked toward implementation of its nine recommendations. This resolution was supported unanimously by state boards in the Southern Region of NCARB as a way to get NCARB to engage this important process.
Just another reason for the collateral organizations to quit procrastinating and get moving on the darn thing.
2. 2004 NCARB Prize Honorees Announced
3. Commentary on the AIA Education Honor Awards
4. ARE Five-Year Rolling Clock Resolution
5. Collateral Internship Management Group Resolution
6. State Board Reports
Arch. School Graduates: 6,055
New IDP Candidates: 4,835
New ARE candidates: 6,412
New Licenses Issued: 2,820
Arch. School Graduates: 7,151
New IDP Candidates: 4,157
New ARE candidates: 6,393
New Licenses Issued: 2,470
2. 2004 NCARB Prize Honorees Announced
Year / Submissions
2002: 47 from 39 schools
2003: 50 from 28 schools
2004: 30 from 22 schools
Oklahoma State University has been announced as the $25,000 grand prizewinner of the third annual NCARB Prize for the Creative Integration of Practice & Education in the Academy for its entry titled “Integrated/ Interactive/ Innovative: The Comprehensive Semester.” Five additional finalists will receive awards of $7,500 for their efforts, including:
The California College of the Arts–“Collaborative Teaching with Professional Mentorship”
In all, 30 entries, representing 26 different colleges and universities, were juried this year. By way of comparison, the inaugural NCARB Prize in 2002 elicited 48 entries. The 2004 NCARB Prize jury was comprised of members of the Council’s Practice Education Task Force and six school administrators of NAAB programs chosen by NCARB’s regional leadership.
Rice University–“BW + RH (Rice Building Workshop + Project Row Houses)”
University of Kentucky–“The Comprehensive Project: A Practice-based Studio”
University of Miami–“Interdisciplinary Community Building: Strengthening a Neighborhood”
University of Washington–“Urban Acupuncture/HSW Neighborhood Design-Build Studio”
Entries from Clemson University (“The Borough Project”) and from the University of Kentucky (“Breaking Ground: Partnership & Process as Design Strategy”) received honorable mentions.
Contact Michiel Bourdrez, AIA, by email at email@example.com or phone at 202/879-0528 for more information about the 2004 NCARB Prize winners.
3. Commentary on the AIA Education Honor Awards
“The NCARB Prize is a unique award that cannot be compared with any other educational award program in North America in concept or magnitude.”
—2004 NCARB Practice Education Task Force Report
And yet, in the very next paragraph, the report goes on to compare the NCARB Prize with the AIA Education Honor Awards:
“The AIA Education Honor Awards received 13 entries last year and 21 submittals this year. In the 15 years the AIA program has been active, only 39 NAAB-accredited schools have submitted entries. Because of its decreasing number of submissions, the program was cancelled for several years and reinstituted two years ago after the NCARB Prize was initiated.”
The NCARB Prize is a fabulous program, which is why it’s too bad that this report goes so far out of its way to compare this ‘incomparable program’ to the AIA Education Honor Awards program. What’s worse is that the comparison is wrong factually. The AIA Education Honor Awards were actually reinstituted three years ago, in 2001, and these AIA Education Honor Awards were conferred at the very same ACSA Annual Meeting in New Orleans where the first NCARB Prize Jury was held. They were reinstituted when the AIA Education Department was resurrected within another AIA department, not after the NCARB Prize was initiated.
This is minor stuff to be sure, and it may seem as unnecessary for us to correct as it was for the NCARB Prize report to mention in the first place. What didn’t seem minor, however, is that the NCARB report also fails to mention that the Chair of the 2004 NCARB Prize Jury was herself a former AIA Vice President of Education and was at the helm when the AIA not just suspended the AIA Education Honor Awards Program, but the entire AIA Education Department. And all this is for NCARB to point out that the AIA Education Honor Awards received just 21 submissions last year (an increase of over 50%), while the NCARB Prize received 30 submissions (a decrease of 40%).
Incidentally, the same NCARB Prize report claims that there are 114 NAAB-accredited programs, but the NAAB website actually lists 118 in the U.S. and 10 more in Canada. And while the NCARB report says they have received entries from 61 accredited schools, it then says they got submissions from 39 the first year, 13 new schools the second year, and 5 more new schools this year. Those numbers add up to 57. Not a big deal, but these are relatively small whole numbers, being touted as evidence of the program’s success.
Again, the NCARB Prize is a tremendous commitment to education and to the future of the profession. But whether or not it truly “cannot be compared” with any other educational award program, perhaps it’s just better if it isn’t compared at all.
4. NCARB Resolution 04-2: Rolling clock on the ARE
Supported unanimously by the NCARB Board of Directors
“Resolved, that the second paragraph of Chapter 4 of the Handbook for Interns and Architects be amended to read as follows:
To pass the ARE, an applicant must achieve a passing grade on each division. A passing grade for any division of the ARE shall be valid for five years, after which time the division must be retaken unless all divisions have been passed. NCARB may allow a reasonable extension of such period in circumstances where completion of all divisions is prevented by a medical condition, by active duty in military service, or by like causes.
The transitional rules are as follows:
(1) For applicants who have passed all divisions of the ARE by January 1, 2006, regardless of the time taken, such applicants will have passed the ARE.
(2) For applicants who have passed one or more but not all divisions of the ARE by January 1, 2006, such applicants will have five years to pass all remaining divisions. A passing grade for any remaining division shall be valid for five years, after which time the division must be retaken if the remaining divisions have not been passed. The five year period shall commence after January 1, 2006, on the date when the first passed exam is administered.”
Sponsors’ Statement of Support:
“Various states have different forms of “rolling clock” requirements for time periods within which applicants for registration in their states must complete the ARE. At present, there is no NCARB time limit on passing all divisions of the ARE, and some individuals have taken many years to pass all divisions. In response to a charge, the Committee on Procedures and Documents is recommending that passing grades for any division of the ARE remain valid for five years. This means that an applicant not passing all divisions within five years of passing the first division would have to retake the first division because the passing grade for the first division would no longer be valid. Transition rules are proposed to treat equitably those who have already passed one or more divisions of the ARE. January 1, 2006, is proposed as the effective date to allow for orderly implementation. Five years appears to be both reasonable and the most customary time chosen by states with individual “rolling clocks.” The Committee believes this change will address several valid concerns. The practice of architecture changes over time as does the examination’s content, format, and method of administration. Requiring that all divisions be passed within a reasonable period will better assure that the ARE remains a valid measure of the level of competence necessary to independently practice architecture. While some changes may occur within any five year period, there is a lower likelihood that applicants will be tested under different forms of administration and methodologies than is the case currently with applicants having unlimited time in which to pass all divisions. States that do not now have a “rolling clock” will not have to do anything since this change to the requirements for passing the ARE will itself implement a uniform standard for all jurisdictions and thus facilitate reciprocity. States now having their own “rolling clocks” can eliminate their separate requirements and be relieved of some record-keeping burdens.”
5. Collateral Internship Management Group Resolution
“NCARB Resolution 04-8: Acknowledge and respond to the Final Report of the Collateral Internship Management Group
Opposed by the NCARB Board 3-9-0
“Resolved, that the NCARB Board of Directors acknowledges the Collateral Internship Management Group (CIMG) report dated May 2003. And that the NCARB Board of Directors shall prepare responses to each of the nine recommendations in a published report distributed to each Member Board and to each of the other architectural collateral organizations no later than November 2004.”
Sponsors Statement of Support:
“In April 1999, the Five Presidents Council, comprising NCARB, AIA, ACSA, NAAB and AIAS, created a Collateral Internship Task Force to review and refine the objectives defined in the Summit on Architectural Internship. The final CITF report was presented to the Five Presidents Council in January 2001 and was accepted “with appreciation.”
In May 2001, the Five Presidents Council reconstituted the CITF into the Collateral Internship Management Group (CIMG) and charged it with:
(1) Reviewing/validating the nine recommendations contained in the CITF final report;
(2) Summarizing each of the collaterals’ efforts to address the nine recommendations;
(3) Suggesting future actions by each collateral to achieve the nine recommendations’ goals; and
(4) Revisiting the “Ideal” internship system advanced by the 1999 Internship Summit and proposing a revised Education/Experience/Examination continuum based on achieving the recommendations’ goals.
The CIMG issued its final draft report to the Five Presidents Council in May 2003. This resolution is unanimously supported by Region 3.”
6. State Board Reports
To link to all 55 jurisdiction boards, visit http://www.ncarb.org/stateboards/index.html
“The board gave $30,000 to the state’s schools of architecture to promote public safety.”
“A proposed bill requiring the board to certify interior designers has also been drafted…. This bill to date has not been assigned a number and does not appear to have enough support in the interior design community to even attract a sponsor.”
“The Arkansas board is considering its rules and regulations that deal with dates that a NAAB degree is required; a provision to allow the Broadly Experienced Architect process; implementing a ‘rolling window’ for ARE passage; the option for candidates to sit for the ARE prior to completion of IDP; and the requirement for construction contract administration.”
“Throughout 2002-2003, the board and its committees and task forces have been pursuing regulatory changes and research necessary to implement completion of IDP as a requirement for licensure in California. The board came to this decision in May 2000, after more than a decade of consideration. To complement IDP, the board has developed an overlay documentation system called the Comprehensive Intern Development Program (CIDP) to ensure that architectural internship is effective and comprehensive. Administered by the board at no additional cost to the intern, CIDP is an evidence-based documentation of an intern’s experience through work samples and written narratives that are discussed by the intern and his or her supervisor. In addition, CIDP requires interns to gain practical experience by performing specific key functions in the practice of architecture. The board hopes that CIDP will contribute to a more meaningful internship by fostering a stronger dialogue between the intern and the supervisor. CIDP does not impact reciprocity because California candidates will also be required to complete IDP as administered by NCARB and required by most other states. In addition, architects from other states who apply for reciprocal licensure in California will be exempt from the CIDP requirement. Pending approval of the necessary regulatory changes, the IDP requirement will go into effect January 1, 2005.”
“The Board is in the process of modifying its regulations to allow architects who are registered in another jurisdiction, but not licensed in-state, to come to Connecticut and interview for a project…. As a separate but related matter, the board is discussing whether or not to allow these same out-of-state architects to submit proposals for competitions.”
District of Columbia
“The board is looking to change the ‘rolling clock’ for taking the exam from eight years to five; this would be in line with NCARB’s current view.”
“Florida is also studying the possibility of implementing a ‘rolling clock’ for ARE passage.”
In-state licenses: 455
Exam candidates: 62
Candidates testing in 2003: 14
Licenses by examination in 2003: 14
“Interior design examining board legislation was passed. The Iowa Board opposes this and will continue to express its opposition.”
ARE Exam Statistics:
Year / Number of people licensed by taking the ARE
2004: 1 (YTD)
“Our board has dropped the ‘rolling clock’ for candidates taking the ARE…. We are beginning to explore the possibility of continuing education requirements for licensing. At this point, we are polling neighboring states to test the waters.”
“Maine currently has a three-year rolling clock to complete the ARE.”
“One proposed bill will permit engineers to design buildings under a certain square footage. The premise for this bill reportedly is based on a lack of architects in the western part of the state.”
“In fiscal year 2003, the board received 10 complaints and resolved 21 complaints from this and previous fiscal years.”
“Legislation to change interior design certification to licensure has been proposed and will be on the agenda during the next two-year cycle.”
“Direct Registration through NCARB has been implemented, and a new Rule requires that all applicants obtain an NCARB Certificate and Record.”
“The board has created a non-voting student observer position who serves on a yearly basis. The student observer represents the interests and concerns of architectural students in New Mexico and comes from the university population.”
“For 2003, there were 606 new licenses issued, so the total number of licensed architects in New York was 14,629, of which 6,691 were residents.”
“There are 127 resident architects and 463 non-resident architects registered to practice architecture in the state. We have 21 ARE applicants currently registered.”
“We have a proposed hearing for Rule changes in May. The Rules are mostly housekeeping; the only architectural change will be that South Dakota is going to allow NCARB to proceed with Direct Registration to allow candidates to complete the ARE with NCARB before South Dakota will license them.”
“Rhode Island has a four-year rolling clock for completion of the ARE.”
“Tennessee has begun discussing the time frame of exactly when the ARE can be taken. Reacting to the momentum of jurisdictions’ evaluating the ability of candidates to take the exam prior to the completion of IDP, Tennessee is hoping that its study of the matter will allow the state to better serve candidates…. Tennessee exam applicants now have five years in which to pass the ARE; otherwise, they have to reapply and start over in the process.”
“Landscape architects are currently seeking legislation to require licensing. The Vermont board has been asked to review the proposed legislation and provide feedback on how the practice of landscape architecture may affect the public health, safety and welfare.”
“To clarify the term ‘public welfare,’ the board adopted the following definition: ‘Public welfare means that architects shall promote the enhancement of both the natural and the built environment. These enhancements shall be functional, aesthetically pleasing, sustainable, and cost effective. The result of an architect’s professional service shall contribute to the physical, socio-cultural, and emotional well-being of the public.'”
“Legislation will be sought to increase qualification requirements for licensure based on evidence of graduation from a school of architecture approved by the board; at least three years of practice; and satisfactory character. Having a specified record of at least ten years of equivalent experience would also qualify.”
As always, we welcome your thoughts by email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
ArchVoices is an independent, nonprofit organization and think tank on architecture education and internship…