As the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) discusses ceasing to accredit all existing bachelor of architecture programs after 2010, the American Institute of Architecture Students (AIAS) feels that it is important to present the student perspective on these issues. This article—presented on behalf of the AIAS, the nonprofit, student-run organization representing over 5,300 students—represents a compilation of individual members' views.
The AIAS believes that the debate over degree nomenclature and the possible— elimination of the BArch program requires discussion of
• Diversity
• Time
• Cost
• Reputation
• Degree confusion
• The emerging trend of converting BArch programs to MArch programs.

Elimination of the BArch is premature
Although the AIAS has more questions than answers, the group has come to realize that the issues go beyond eliminating the BArch. Therefore, the AIAS believes that at this time the elimination of the BArch degree is premature, and efforts should instead focus on addressing architecture education in a more holistic manner.

The education discussion should be on elevating programs, not degree title. To adjust curriculum and convert programs could consume time and money better spent raising program standards and producing higher caliber graduates. Reevaluation will lead to a natural progression of architecture education programs, most likely including conversion of many programs from BArch to MArch. Indeed, degree conversion should be evolutionary, and NAAB's ceasing to accept applications after October 14, 2000, for new BArch programs may be the first step.

Ultimately, it is the trend of converting five-year BArch programs to five-year MArch programs that most concerns AIAS members. This should be a key discussion for the five collateral organizations [AIA, AIAS, NAAB, National Council of Architecture Registration Boards, and Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture]. The profession and students alike demand a broad education, which becomes less likely under the development of the five-year MArch.

Eliminating the BArch and allowing 5-year BArch programs to switch to 5-year MArch programs are simplistic solutions to a complex problem. The NAAB would better serve architecture education by identifying clear differences in requirements between bachelor's and master's degrees. This is the only way the master of architecture will ever approach the prestige people want it to hold.

The chief benefit of the NAAB action is initiating discussion; the worst possible outcome of the July NAAB meeting is that the discussion ends. Pass or fail, the AIAS hopes this issu—and this article-encourage dialogue and change toward advancing architecture education.

Copyright 2001 The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved.