by Suzanna Wight, AIA
Emerging Professionals Director

During the recent Designing Tomorrow’s Architect: The 2005 Internship Conference, the AIA presented two studies from its ongoing research on registration trends: the AIA’s Architecture Registration Exam (ARE) Timing Study and research conducted as a result of The Institute’s Resolution 05–01, which calls for an annual study of newly licensed architects.

The AIA’s ARE Timing Study
Conducted in 2004, the ARE Timing Study was a three-pronged initiative including a survey of AIA firm leaders, a comparative analysis of data from state boards, and the 2005 Internship & Career Survey. The goal of this study was to gather sufficient data to inform AIA’s position concerning the timing of eligibility to sit for the ARE.

The information gathered by the firm leaders survey provided knowledge about the opinions of the members, specifically the perceptions and actions of AIA members are important to inform the decision-making process. The firm leaders’ survey was conducted from November 30 to December 13, 2004, and was sent to over 5,000 e-mails; 1,694 usable responses were received (response rate of 34 percent). The survey distribution was matched with the geographical distribution of architects across the nation.

The typical respondent profile for firm leaders included the following characteristics: AIA membership, an average licensure date of 1982–83, 90 percent male, and 91 percent white. Interestingly, these demographics when compared to the respondent profile of the 2005 Internship & Career Survey, reveal changes in diversity. Emerging Professional respondents were only 61 percent male and also somewhat more ethnically diverse with 77 percent respondents reporting their ethnicity as white.

Many respondents were skeptical of licensure requirement’s ability to prepare a candidate for independent practice and architecture education’s ability to prepare candidates to pass the ARE.

Seventy one percent of respondents did not believe that successfully completing all requirements for licensure indicates that a candidate is prepared for independent practice.

Seventy-six percent of respondents reported they do believe that today’s internship adequately prepares candidates to pass the ARE.

When considering the timing of the exam, it is important to consider both the relevancy of education and internship in the preparation for examination. The National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) designs the exam to be practice-based. Indeed, firm leaders also perceive that education alone does not adequately prepare candidates to pass the ARE (31 percent). In addition, they do not feel the newly licensed architects are prepared for independent practice (71 percent). One question asked:

“In some states and territories, interns are allowed to begin taking the ARE following graduation and concurrent with a formal internship experience. Do you believe this negatively affects the protection of the public’s health safety and welfare?”

When looking at the total responses, the results were divided nearly equally (yes, 42 percent; no, 58 percent). But an interesting trend emerges when analyzing the respondents based on the next question:

“Do you believe that state architecture licensing boards should allow the ARE to be taken upon graduation, concurrent with a formal internship experience?”

The response showed a deep divide on this issue. Only 4 percent of supporters of the concurrent ARE model felt that this alternative poses a risk to the public; however, 79 percent of opponents of the concurrent ARE model felt that this alternative poses a risk.

As part of their preparation for the 2005 Internship Conference, the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA) surveyed its membership in April and May 2005 concerning the ARE. The survey revealed similar responses to the AIA Firm Leaders Survey. Details of that study can be found in the September 2005 issue of ACSANews.

The second part of this study was a comparative analysis of data collected directly from state registration boards. The intention was to compare statistics from traditional licensure path states to those seven (at the time) states that offered concurrent internship and examination models, looking for trends in length of time and pass rates. This portion of the study was conducted November 29, 2004, to January 4, 2005. The survey was distributed to 55 jurisdictions, however only 17 responses were received, many of which were incomplete. Because of the low response rate, data were too sparse for meaningful analysis.

During the course of this portion of the study, there were many lessons learned. Overwhelmingly, staff time was at a premium and member board executives were unable to handle data collection requests. In fact, many state boards are actually not exclusively serving architects—they include other professions—and staff time must be spread across many competing priorities. Additionally, some information that would be useful in understanding trends in ARE timing is not currently collected. For example, many state boards do not currently collect data such as number of IDP candidates vs. non-IDP candidates, which could be useful in studying various trends such as, is there a difference in the data for a candidate who participates in a structured internship program versus one who does not; do they become eligible for the exam sooner; or are the pass rates higher? Finally, many state boards are required to destroy records after seven years. Longterm trending, therefore, and any meaningful statistical comparison between the paper and pencil exam and the electronic exam (initiated in 1997) is waning, if not impossible.

The final segment of this study, the 2005 Internship & Career Survey, was conducted by the AIA National Associates Committee in conjunction with NCARB and ArchVoices. A final report of that survey will be posted shortly at www.aia.org/nac.

The results of the AIA ARE Timing Survey were presented to the AIA Board of Directors. Discussions at the Board meetings concerning the timing of the ARE have been at the forefront during previous meetings. On September 10, 2005, the AIA Board adopted the following position statement:

“The AIA supports architectural registration boards’ allowing interns for licensure candidacy to take the ARE following their graduation from a NAAB-accredited degree program and concurrent with enrollment in the Intern Development Program (IDP).”

Resolution 05-01
At the 2005 AIA National Convention in Las Vegas, Resolution 05-01, “The Health, Safety, and Welfare of the Public, Profession, and Institute” put forward by AIA California Council, the Boston Society of Architects/AIA, and AIA Massachusetts called for a study on the effects of potential decline in registration rates across the country. It was passed and ratified by the AIA Board of Directors at their last meeting.

Excerpt of Resolution 05-01
The Health, Safety, and Welfare of the Public, Profession, and Institute

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the AIA work collaboratively with NCARB and directly with individual state boards to conduct a comprehensive survey of the number of newly licensed architects over the past ten years, to be updated annually in the future; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a preliminary report of the aforementioned survey of newly licensed architects be completed for review and reference by the time of the 2005 Internship Conference, this September; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the AIA initiate a parallel study to assess and measure the short- and long-term impact (if any) related to the decline in the number of newly licensed architects on the advocacy efforts, financial health, membership structure, and overall governance of the Institute; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the results of both studies be reported to the AIA 2006 National Convention delegates, during the annual business session.

Following the convention, the AIA contacted NCARB to ask for assistance in gathering data. Positive relationships had been forged during the Diversity Data Collection project that began in 2004 among all of the collateral organizations and there was a great deal of willingness to support the effort. Learning from our lessons with the ARE timing study, it was known that the state boards did not have the resources to conduct this research on their own. Therefore, the AIA hired temporary staff to work with the state boards in focusing their data collection efforts as well as to gather data on direct registration states housed at NCARB. This data collection is ongoing and has already significantly exceeded the amount collected with the state boards comparative analysis conducted in 2004.

At the end of this year, it is our hope that there will be sufficient data from most of the 55 jurisdictions to move forward to the next level of study. The AIA plans to contract with a third party consultant to perform this analysis in early 2006. A presentation will be made at the AIA Convention in Los Angeles reporting on the results of this effort.

The future: data collection and the profession of architecture
In 2004, the AIA began in earnest a meaningful investigation into the perceptions, trends, and impact surrounding registration. Collecting data is only the first step. The AIA, in partnership with the collateral organizations, hopes to develop recommended uniform standards for data collection in the future so that contributions to a central database become routine, and knowledge can be shared across collaterals and even beyond our profession to inform decision making in the future.

Copyright 2005 The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. Home Page