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?

"If you don't engage in social issues you're just comparing shapes"

Though this article was focused on a panel of who's who in NY architectural criticism, and the role of their work in a changing world, there were several points that jumped out at me in light of yesterday's discussion.



Gehry to Playboy Jan 2012



"Julie Iovine, executive editor of The Architect’s Newspaper and moderator of the panel, spoke of a “sea change,” the move away from starchitects to a focus on affordability, sustainability and context."

Unfortunately for us, the writer did not delve into his seemingly throw-away statement,

"But while New York sees no end of the trophy -- Christian de Portzamparc’s One57 will soon be the tallest new example -- the rest of the world has seemingly moved on.

Moved on, indeed. Please tell me more!

 

How about something we can work with (in considering what we want our voice to say) ....

The following statement by the author hits home our point about the "other 90%" who don't necessarily consider Architecture at all: 

"And while typical readers of New York magazine may not know the difference between Art Deco and Postmodern, they notice absences and new arrivals."

Individual realities are shaped and informed by past experience.  Until we can provide a clear experience of architecture, it's history and impact, those who do not have the educational or experiential background of an architect will never see the world as we do.  And I don't think they necessarily should - we make awful clients the same way doctors are the worst patients.  

I think our challenge is to clearly and concisely demonstrate that humans are indeed affected by their environments and vice versa - without relying on our beloved archi-speak which only serves to further set us apart.

On a side note, while we're speaking of context.... 

Has Starchitecture Lost its Luster?

Be sure to peruse the first dozen reader responses.  I especially like the chime-in from the real estate agent who can't sell the brand new starchitect condos because the kitchens are pathetic and the "master" bedrooms can't even accommodate a queen-size bid!  It's gotta work, people!  

The Death of Starchitecture? Critics Move to the Small Scale

Oh the many hats we can wear. Who knew? Maybe we should tell someone...

How do we advocate our profession to include more than just bricks and sticks and giving someone walls and a roof? Architects are inherently extremely intelligent individuals. We are naturally very good problem solvers. How else can we help our world? Think outside the box. I encourage everyone to brainstorm about all the hats and roles that architects can play other than the "Michael Brady" role. I love the quotes that Jeff revisited in his previous post. Below are the quotes that explain why we really need to do something about the current state and perception of our profession, or should I say calling. I found these quotes while reading another architect's blog. While I certainly chuckled when reading some of them, it is disturbing that much of what the say is true. Something needs to change:

Architecture (noun): the act of artfully placing complex forms in remote locations to be photographed for magazine covers.

Architecture (noun): the memory of that which could have been, that is invoked by the residual form remaining after extensive value engineering.

Architecture (noun): Public disinterest derived from a combination of self importance and greed.

Architecture (noun): The compromise arrived at by the client and the designers after the president of the firm and the client played golf yesterday.

Architecture (noun): The hard metallic outer shell surrounding confused school children pointing at the large early period Calder mobile hanging from the ceiling.

Architecture (noun): The space between 4 or more glass walls, wherein wealthy people shower.
Architecture (noun): Profession wherein ones salary is amusing to the majority of other professionals.
Architecture (noun): The homes that hipsters admire.

Architecture (noun): Structure approved by banks.

Architecture (noun): The touch, the feel of titanium. The fabric of our lives.
 
Architecture (noun): creativity plus financing minus creativity

Architecture (noun): The solid form of angst