What is the logic behind the ARE testing process?
After going to an accredited architecture school for 6 years and graduating with a "Professional" degree, I thought the courses and testing portion of my education would be completed. If NCARB so strongly believes that the ARE tests are such an imperative part of becoming an Architect, shouldn't the material and tests be incorporated and administered as part of the required curriculum for accredited architecture schools around the Country?
I have been working professionally in an architecture office for 13 years and I still can't make sense of the reasoning for the ARE testing process. I do agree with the requirements for IDP. I think that practical experience should definitely be required before obtaining a license. But passing tests only proves your ability to be a good test taker, not the ability to practice and be a good and responsible Architect. There are plenty of licensed Architects out there that still don't know what they are doing in the real world, but have the ability to sign & seal documents because they past the tests. And yet, there are others that may have not gotten around to taking the ARE due to either the cost of the exams & study material (on top of the high student loans they already owe), or because of the lack of time left between actually working and raising families, etc.
Is there any consideration from NCARB to make the licensing tests a part of the architecture school programs for future generations?
-
While I think it would be a benefit to have some overlap with education curriculum, it cannot be a pre-requisite.
You can start counting AXP hours the day after you graduate high school (if working under a licensed architect), and a professional degree is not required to sit for the A.R.E. exams.
-
I'm not suggesting that the ARE be a pre-requisite in school. Many people that go to architecture school don't end up practicing architecture, or have any interest in ever getting licensed. But for those of us who are seeking licensure, the ARE should be available as elective courses tied to NCARB for verification purposes.
Again, the point is that testing, additional fees, and time to prepare for tests should be done by the time you graduate from school (like it is for architects in the rest of the world). It is an unfair and unjustifiably expensive process all around.
-
NCARB does not require a professional degree for licensure. I am not disagreeing that universities could include the testing and study for the exams as part of an accredited curriculum, but eliminating the exams as a path to becoming licensed would discredit many licensed professionals from being licensed. Perhaps and either or? Either you go to an accredited program that includes the exam content in your coursework or you take the exams outside of school as an alternative path to licensure?
I am 100% on board with making licensure easier. On average it takes over 12 years for an individual to become a licensed architect which is equivalent to the time it takes to become a doctor. So I feel that our profession is underpaid/ undervalued or the path to get there is too hard.
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
3 comments