2023-2024 ACSA Budget and Enrollment Survey Results

Half of the participating respondents noted no changes in their travel budgets. However, there appears to be more movement in the percent of schools that reported either an increase or a decrease. Projections for the 2024-25 school year are expected to mimic pre-COVID-19 pandemic numbers with an increase in schools reporting no change.

Similar to travel budgets, the majority of schools report no change in discretionary budgets from the 2022-23 to the 2023-24 academic year. Overall the little movement suggest stability in architecture program budgets as indicated by responses over the last 3 years.

The majority of B.Arch programs reported an increase in applications and enrollment. When compared to all the architecture program types, B.Arch programs reported the most significant increase of applicants (72%) and admits (68%) who identify as Black, Indigenous, or other racialized people group. The B.Arch programs were also most likely to report an increase in total enrollment (74%) but did not see the same returns in total applications.

With moderate increases in M.Arch applications and enrollment, this is a stable year for M.Arch programs. Admission metrics for BIPOC, International, and total populations have a very narrow margin and there does not seem to be congruence around whether programs are seeing increases or decreases of either metric. The strongest metric reported this year is the 49% of schools reporting an increase in applications.

Overall, post-professional programs reported International enrollment, total applications, and total enrollment with 44% of programs reporting decreases. BIPOC student applications and enrollments reported no change as the most frequently selected option for programs and less than 20% of respondents in either category reporting an increase. This degree type is often the hardest to gather data for because the metrics are not collected by the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB). Nevertheless, the numbers reporting increase, decrease and no change indicate waning numbers in admissions across the board.

Mimicking a larger survey of higher education on the topic of curricular changes, we asked respondents to identify the most significant challenges to changes in curriculum. Interestingly, there was little congruence among the 5 most popular responses. It does not appear that curriculum change is hard because faculty are resistant, students aren’t ready, or issues of access and resources, but rather because it causes a chain reaction of events that require everything, faculty, students, and spaces, to adapt. That being said, slightly more than half (52%) reported a major challenge being the need for “diverse and different pedagogical and assessment strategies.”

Finally, we asked program administrators about whose duty it is to lead efforts to change and revise curricula at the school. While 23% noted this was the responsibility of the Dean, the majority of respondents (57%) reported curriculum changes as being led by Department level administrators, followed by other tenured faculty (39%) and program chairs (37%). In future iterations, it would be apt to draw a greater distinction between curriculum leadership and curriculum involvement which might lead to more program administrators citing students (1%).