Improving the transition from education to architectural practice in the United States is clearly a significant challenge. With more than 100 very unique accredited schools, more than 50 not-so-standardized licensing jurisdictions, 5 national governing bodies, and more than 100,000 American architects with strongly held and often conflicting opinions about how new members should join their ranks, it's understandable that any changes will require both tremendous will and political savvy. Added to those challenges are concerns about the compensation, public opinion, and diversity of our profession in relation to others. As designers, we should be excited, not frightened, by such a difficult, multi-faceted problem—I know I am.

Other learned and licensed professions, like accounting, law, and medicine provide important benchmarks in identifying both strengths and weaknesses in our own system of professional education and licensure. As a student currently pursuing degrees in both architecture and law, I have spent some time considering the different processes for entering these professions. Having come first to architecture, I was surprised to discover in my first year of law school an article (from the early 1990s) urging the American legal profession to adopt a system of internship similar to NCARB’s IDP! I realized then that my inside perspective had made it difficult to see the advantages of the
architectural internship system as it exists.

An internship system does provide many clear advantages over the “sink or swim” process of entry to the legal profession in force in most if not all American jurisdictions. The process of internship (called “articling”), which is part of the process of legal licensure in Canadian provinces,* however, provides what I believe is a better model still.

I propose the following licensure process for American architects based on this Canadian model:

Professional education is to be followed immediately by a standardized, national examination (equivalent to most, if not all, of the ARE). This will lead schools to more fully and uniformly integrate professional content into their curricula. The exam should also cover ethics and professional responsibility. (Per Boyer Report.)

After successful completion of education and examination, prospective architects (“interns”) must complete a fixed-length 10-12 month internship under the guidance of a pre-certified professional mentor within 2 years. Mentors will be pre-certified based on their experience and professional record. The internship will be conducted under the terms of a “Learning Plan” prepared by the intern and mentor and pre-approved by a licensing authority, outlining how the intern will gain experience in predefined practice areas selected based on the mentor’s strengths and the intern’s interests. The internship will be evaluated in relation to the “Learning Plan” at the midpoint and conclusion of the process by both participants.

Some concluding examination may be required, or successful completion of the internship may be the final step toward licensure.

I believe that such a system would go a long way toward more evenly balancing the responsibility of internship between interns and current members of the profession.

* See http://www.canadian-universities.net/Law-Schools/Law_Articling.html and
http://education.lsuc.on.ca/Assets/PDF/apo/polHandbook.pdf (Ontario) for more info.