Can faster paths to advanced degrees and professional licensing preserve necessary rigor while incentivizing participation? Education reform around the U.S. is set to test this idea, with many experts saying these initiatives signal a long-needed overhaul of professional education and credentialing.
Examples of recent developments include:
• Doctors in California will graduate faster, thanks to a law signed in mid-July by Gov. Jerry Brown that allows for an alternate, accelerated track of three years in medical school, not four.
• For budding lawyers, President Barack Obama recently remarked that law school should be two years, not three.
• Aspiring architects are going to see proposals for accelerated, alternate paths to getting licensed, thanks to initiatives announced in June by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, which handles the registration exam and sets standards for licensing adopted by all states.
These proposed adjustments reflect a growing appreciation for how changes in technology, in comprehension capacity, and focus on a more concentrated approach to preparation for licensed professions can protect the health, safety, and well-being of all Americans.
We and other organizations providing the regulatory framework for professional licenses are taking an honest look at traditions and practices, which have gone unchallenged for decades. As the professions we regulate evolve, the paths to licensure must also evolve.
As an example, the three stages of architectural licensure no longer should be thought of as sequential. Education and internship are arguably better utilized when they occur in tandem, so that the classroom and field experiences enrich each other. On the other end of the spectrum, a growing number of jurisdictions allow examination to begin before the conclusion of internship, allowing the marketplace to determine when a candidate is ready to take a test.
These overlaps of education/internship and internship/examination have set the stage for experimenting with a complete integration of education/internship/examination, leading to an option to graduate with a license.
Many students will continue to prefer a more sequential approach to their licensure path, but as institutions and licensing boards experiment with the integrated model it is likely that this additional path will become more attractive. The end result will be a pool of licensed architects who are ready to practice in six years rather than the higher current average, which sees initial licensure occurring when individuals are in their 30s.
Even as we experiment with integrating the licensing elements in a concentrated model, the traditional path is also evolving. Changes in the testing industry are allowing us to apply more agile, computer-based testing platforms for our licensing examination.
This means our future exam design can more closely adhere to the phases of professional practice, and we can eliminate exam tools that are unique to testing and create an unnecessary barrier to the examination process. Technological improvements will allow us to use new tools to demonstrate comprehension, and provide better customer service ranging from instant exam scores to shortened waiting periods to retest.
We also seek to refresh the concept of internship, which is rooted in a tradition of apprenticeship to an architect and pre-dates the emergence of accredited schools of architecture. Many activities that were credited for internship experience in previous decades are no longer part of a modern architect’s daily work. The classroom experience, which at accredited schools seeks to provide a blend of practical skills with learning design and theory concepts, has also evolved. Today’s blend of education and experience is arguably quite different from what the architects of one or more generations ago encountered. Thus we are challenging conventional wisdom regarding the number of internship hours needed to demonstrate minimal competence to practice.
Like many licensed professions, architecture is steeped in tradition including the belief that, “It worked for me, so it should work for today’s aspiring architect.” At NCARB, we are suggesting that it’s past time to openly challenge the traditions that may lack relevance, and continue to preserve rigor in our process only when rigor is necessary.
Michael Armstrong is the executive officer of the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards.
