Do We Really Need NAAB Accreditation?

Do we really need National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) Accreditation? Is it to ensure that the thousands of Dollars we spend every year to get an education is really worth it? If so OK, but really its not what it is for, most states require a NAAB accredited degree for application for licensure (as mentioned on NAAB website), but why. As a profession and society, we have determined that the minimum requirement for becoming a licensed architect is to pass the Architectural Registration Exam (ARE). Does graduating from a NAAB accredited program make you better suited to become an architect than someone who did not, I do not believe so on multiple points. First, if as a profession and society we determine the minimum requirement is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public, which is determined through the ARE than why is any education accreditation required?

Secondly, any seasoned architect will tell you that experience is worth way more than anything that you will ever learn in school. There are individuals that have worked in the profession for twenty plus years, but are not able to become licensed architects because they have not graduated from a NAAB accredited program, however a young student who recently graduated, with very little experience can become licensed. Who is better to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, most would argue the person who has been working in the profession rather than a new student directly out of school.

Third, is a program that is not accredited, much different from a program that is? The NAAB website specifically states that "The... societies creating this accrediting board here record their intent not to create conditions nor to have conditions create that will tend toward standardization of education philosophies or practices but rather to create and maintain conditions that encourage the development of practices suited to the conditions which are special to the individual school." Since NAAB is not setting a standard of education but rather encourages development of practices suited for the conditions, then really every architectural program could become accredited if the program chose to go through the process. However, NAAB accreditation cost thousands of dollars and man hours to become accredited, so for schools who what to control cost accreditation is not a focal point, even though it could become accredited. So at that point, is NAAB only about Money? What if a school who was accredited, but because of cost chose not to renew or drop their accreditation, (similar to my situation) nothing in their program has changed, only that they did not spend the thousands of dollars or man hours to go through the accreditation process. Is that school any different than it was before or from the other accredited schools?

Since, we already have a minimum requirement to become a licensed architect the ARE, experience is worth way more than education, and the accreditation is not standardized; I pose the question again, do we really need the National Architectural Accrediting Board Accreditation?