Ned Cramer, Assoc. AIA
Editor-in-chief
ARCHITECT
By email to ncramer@hanleywood.com

Dear Ned,

Aaron Betsky’s October 29 column, The ACSA and NAAB Merger, deserves clarifications. First, ACSA and NAAB are not merging. The talks announced a year ago have evolved to include all of the organizations that fund NAAB’s accreditation activities and nominate 11 of NAAB’s 13 directors. Representatives from all five collaterals (including AIA, NCARB, and AIAS) formed a joint task force to explore multiple options for the funding, organizational structure, and governance of NAAB. This fall and winter, the participating organizations will review the task force recommendations and determine future action.

Second, the “fast-track” option is an independent initiative by NCARB—one that the ACSA board endorses—to assist schools in offering additional options for students to complete some or all licensure requirements in school. Although Dean Betsky implies that NCARB’s initiative and the ACSA/NAAB partnership will lead to a narrowing of the scope of education, the ACSA’s goal is to do the opposite.

Betsky rightly identifies some fundamental issues being discussed by the collateral task force. What is the role and purpose of architectural education? What is the role and purpose of accreditation? While there may not be a merger, the task force and the collateral organizations continue to discuss how the collaterals should invest money and resources to advance architectural education.     

The ACSA maintains that an ACSA/NAAB partnership would empower both organizations to carry out their independent missions more effectively, without compromising their integrity and values. NAAB’s mission is to set minimum standards for professional architectural education. The ACSA, through its membership, offers programs and opportunities that promote excellence across the spectrum of architectural education.

An ACSA/NAAB partnership could also address the reality that accreditation is more costly in architecture than in our peer professions, and that architecture schools must continue to invest resources in research and teaching, beyond the professional curriculum. This does not have to impact the diversity of approaches to education that are a hallmark of the ACSA membership. In fact, the ACSA will strive never to allow this to happen. 

Marilys R. Nepomechie, FAIA
ACSA President