Part I: Organizational Problem

This part of the study examines the structure of the architecture licensure process and the key players in four US states as of 2018. This multi-site study uses both official public and private entity records for purposeful sampling; thus the selected states contain the largest population of licensure candidates or applicants. A descriptive case-study method is used to compile data on the qualifications and affiliations of each board member in all fifty state boards of architectural examiners to support the hypothesis posed in the introduction. For reliability, the following internet searches were performed: (a) state board websites; (b) state board of examiners’ business or personal websites; (c) social media accounts, such as LinkedIn or Facebook, created by the board members; (d) letters, memos, or meeting minutes issued by the state board, exam vendor, and accreditor indicating a potential bias or collusion to hinder competition; and (e) government documents available for public scrutiny.

The themes identified support the following case study: the architecture licensure process is a state-sponsored monopoly (cause) compromising public safety and candidate interest (effect). In order to frame the current structure of the architecture licensure process, the next section introduces the history in the development of the profession.

Part II: Literature Review

Vitruvius is the first known educational theorist to propose an educational epistemology for architects in the first century B.C. (Vitruvius, 1486/1960). In his Ten Books of Architecture, Vitruvius proposes the need for a skillful and knowledgeable architect. He states that an architect must be familiar with an array of knowledge areas: (a) two-dimensional representation of buildings; (b) geometry; (c) history; (d) philosophy; (e) music; (f) medicine; (g) astronomy; (h) law. Vitruvius’ writings now serve as the first quasi-accreditation standard for architecture schools.

In 1485, Alberti became the first to establish the need for oversight over the practice of architecture. He also introduces the concept of ethics which is translated into a code of conduct adopted by most boards of examiners today (Wasserman, Sullivan, & Palermo, 2000). Alberti states that an ethical architect must possess professional experience. Today the state boards of examiners require mandatory completion of experience hours to qualify for licensure (CAB, 2017). Alberti further added to the precedent set by Vitruvius by stressing that an architect must: (a) perform structural stability testing through three-dimensional model; (b) receive advice through critique from other architects. Both of these principles are mandatory components of architecture curricula today (Alberti, 1755/1987).

While Vitruvius and Alberti further focused on materials and methods of construction in their respective books, Palladio became the first author to publish standards for building construction with a strict set of rules for scale and dimensions. These rules serve as a model for the modern-day building codes which govern the architecture profession (Palladio, 1570/2002). Table 1 summarizes the development of the architecture profession.

In 1857, following the industrial revolution, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) was formed in Illinois by a group of practicing architects seeking to standardize the profession. According to the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA, 2012), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) became the first university to establish a formal architecture degree program in the US soon thereafter in 1865. Instead of gaining inspiration from the industrial revolution, the first three American school models were based on the École des Beaux-Arts of 1648, a French movement that valued arts and crafts above engineering and mathematics; thus the latter was never incorporated in the US curricula (Draper, 1977). Subsequently, the most influential architects of the time were running an apprentice-based training of architects in their office. Such was the training of Frank Lloyd Wright, who trained under Louis Sullivan (Wright & Walker, 1963). The apprenticeship concept was embraced by architecture schools and became the core component of school curricula (ACSA, 2012). A summary of the first schools of architecture in the US is provided in Table 2.

Part III: Organizational Theory

Soon after formation of architecture degree programs, the licensure process was established. The Illinois Architecture Licensing Board became the first board of examiners to grant a credential-based architect license in 1897. Enumeration of the first three architecture boards is provided in Table 3. The AIA led the path to licensing and accreditation with the forming of the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) and the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) as affiliate organizations. Table 4 breaks down this organizational structure.

At the time of this study NCARB serves as the sole exam vendor and NAAB as the sole accrediting body of architecture schools as part of this affiliate relationship (Wasserman, Sullivan, & Palermo, 2000). State board of examiner seats were strategically nabbed by the affiliate organizations, creating the leading monopoly on the profession. An analysis of member qualifications and affiliation for the three state boards with the largest population of licensed architects is presented in Table 5.

According to Wasserman (2000), all fifty US state boards of examiners are now members of NCARB, supporting licensing exams solely offered by this vendor. Furthermore, all fifty states have recognized NAAB as the only accreditor of architecture programs (Wasserman, Sullivan, & Palermo, 2000). Due to accreditation’s interstate nature, the US Department of Education serves as oversight over accreditation bodies. Accreditors recognized by the Secretary of Education have met compliance with the Higher Education Act through a rigorous multi-step review process conducted by the USDOE. NAAB is not listed on the USDOE website database as a recognized accreditor. As the state board members are agents of NAAB, a state-sponsored monopoly exists in accordance with antitrust laws enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (Weber, 2012).

Without state or federal oversight, antitrust violations are inherent in this type of organizational structure (Weber, 2012). NCARB’s tax documents with the US Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service indicate licensing exams are their primary source of revenue (IRS, 2012). According to NCARB (2016), an architecture license is taking an average of twelve years to obtain from the start of professional education.

Licensing candidates surveyed as part of this study express frustration over stringent exam grading practices, low pass rates, and lack of transparency. The results of the survey are divided by NCARB practice areas and presented in Table 6. These practice areas will be discussed in another study. According to this survey, NAAB-accredited school graduates lack knowledge on topics posed on the licensing exams.

Although AIA and its affiliate organizations publish annual reports, the only independent study on the state of architecture schools as they relate to the profession was conducted by the Carnegie Foundation in 1994. This report is informally referred to as the Boyer Report. The report indicated a lack of alignment between practice and NAAB-accredited degree programs (Boyer & Mitgang, 1996). Meunier echoes this sentiment by calling for a drastic shift in school paradigm to align with the evolving practice of architecture. He believes stagnancy in architecture schools is a direct result of faculty focus on theoretical constructs rather than reality (Meunier, 1987). This study’s initial hypothesis is that architecture schools suffer from minimally qualified instructors holding at most a graduate-level terminal degree. The study further hypothesizes that a lack of doctorate-level educators in architecture schools has resulted in scarce academic research as a means to advance curricula through innovation over time.

Part IV: Recommendation

Policy. Recommendation for systematic policy changes: (a) a competitive accreditation process with federal oversight must be introduced into architecture schools. Only through competition, hence innovation, can destratification of curricula occur; (b) ethics must be placed at the forefront of all public policy decisions. For this, removal of the exam vendor, accreditation body, and their affiliate organization from public office is essential (NCARB, 2009). Furthermore, policy revisions must outlaw state-sponsored monopolization of architecture by any private groups. Licensure must become a state affair for the professionals by the professionals of each state; (c) federal funding must be allocated to encourage doctorate-level research in architecture schools. Architecture must be listed as a Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) degree on the federal roster; and (d) focus must be given to reprofessionalization of the architecture industry. Policy must be put into place at a state level to hold architecture schools accountable for graduating reasonably qualified and skilled architects, not artists or interns.

Architecture graduates must be accepted into the profession with open arms upon acceptance into a degree program. Internship titles must only be used concurrently with a collegiate setting. Institutions must revise their curriculum in consultation with educators trained specifically in the licensure process of the decade to ensure all facets of the profession are addressed not just once but in a repetitive manner throughout the curriculum. Graduates must graduate as licensed architects. Licensure Upon Graduation (L.U.G.) must become the norm for architecture schools (Hanlon, 2012).

Research. Extensive research on other cognitive intelligence types identified by Gardner, besides spatial intelligence, must be conducted to identify other dominant intelligence types present in architecture students, if any. Such research should guide the development of thought-based architecture curricula in place of art-based curricula that currently exist. Causal-effect analysis of such curricular revision should be conducted through predictive models to ensure reprofessionalization of the architecture profession on an ongoing basis. For architects to thrive once again, public perception of architecture must shift away from pure art and veer towards building science.