Accreditation Report: Architecture Curricula Are Full
ACSA has submitted its report this week for the 2013 National Architectural Accrediting Board Accreditation Review Conference (ARC), where the minimum standards for architectural degree programs will be revised. In the report ACSA emphasized that although the architecture profession is in a very different place than it was at the last ARC in July 2008, the fundamental challenges facing architecture schools remain the same: increased accountability for programs, tightening budgets, and the need to be entrepreneurial to take advantage of opportunities in a shifting marketplace for students and for graduates.
The 2009 NAAB Conditions increased accountability for ACSA schools, the report noted, but no clear understanding exists of the impact of the changes on schools, graduates, and the profession. For this reason ACSA advocated for refinements to the existing Conditions that reduce the number of standards and Student Performance Criteria while raising levels of expectation for program engagement with the realities of professional practice.
Schools need flexibility in meeting accreditation standards, the report says, and a holistic review of programs that avoids a checklist of technical skills will facilitate this. The report also suggested the NAAB explore other models for the composition of visiting teams. Currently a typical team has two practitioners, one educator, and a student, while peer professions include more educators.
Read the full report and its recommendations here.
Share Your Thoughts
As we prepare for the 2013 NAAB Accreditation Review Conference, the ACSA Board of Directors would like to hear your thoughts on some of the most pressing issues regarding conditions and procedures. Every week leading up to the Administrators Conference in Austin, we will ask one question for your feedback. Please share these with your colleagues and keep the conversation going.
August 24, 2012
Evolution or Revolution
How much should we change the Conditions?
August 31, 2012
What can we ditch?
Can we eliminate all criteria beyond the descriptions of the realms? Why do we need that faculty matrix?
September 7, 2012
The One and the Many
All these SPC’s in one project? How about 2 or more? Student teams? With Comprehenisve Design becoming the dominant SPC, what changes should be made to how student mastery of multiple SPC’s is documented and reviewed?
B. 6. Comprehensive Design: Ability to produce a comprehensive architectural project that demonstrates each student’s capacity to make design decisions across scales while integrating the following SPC:
- A.2. Design Thinking Skills
- A.4. Technical Documentation
- A.5. Investigative Skills
- A.8. Ordering Systems
- A.9. Historical Traditions and Global Culture
- B.2. Accessibility
- B.3. Sustainability
- B.4. Site Design
- B.5. Life Safety
- B.8. Environmental Systems
- B.9. Structural Systems
September 14, 2012
Paperless Team Room
Should we advocate fully digital representation of student work for interested schools?
September 21, 2012
Project Based Learning?
What if SPC’s were shown only in projects (no notebooks)?
September 28, 2012
What Happened to the 4+2?
Should there be a standard way to document advanced standing and preprofessional work? How can we make this clearer and easier?