This article deals with continuity and administration of transit between academic education and field practices in architecture, and the question about its continuity, with main focus on the cases in the United States. At present, accreditation of architectural education is soundly in effect in many countries including the United States. This article intends to provide a momentum to compare and examine architectural accreditation system in Korea which started only recently to that of the United States which has over 100-years’ history.
The architectural education accreditation in the United States has progressed through nearly 100 years of history. NAAB(National Architectural Accrediting Board) of the United States was officially established in 1940, but the architectural accreditation in the United States practically started at the end of the 19th century when architecture was considered as a professional occupation requiring a pre-qualification and hence the attempt to make related institutionalization. It was not a simple task to set up a common unified system in the United States where each state had its own legislative system with its own strong self-governing authority. It required a complicated arrangement to establish an unified, common conditions and minimum criteria yet with connotation of respect for diversification and subsequent practical requirements. AIA(American Institute of Architects) was already in existence in the 19th century and ACSA(Association of College Schools of Architecture) was established early 20th century. Both institutions respectively played central roles in practices, education and human resources. As the licensing of professional architects became nationwide system in the United States and because there arouse the need of role of intermediary to serve the link between education and practice, NCARB(National Council of Architectural Registration Board) was founded. With the establishment of NCARB, two existing representative organizations got relieved of burden of architectural accreditation responsibility and thus became able to devote more to their own missions and development. This system of architecture education which was cooperatively administered by these three institutions experienced another turning point by the establishment of NAAB in 1940. The authority and the implementation of national standards in architectural education that had been under ACSA’s responsibility was transferred to NAAB. The NAAB founding agreement of 1940 announced its intention to create an integrated system of architecture education that would allow schools with varying resources and circumstances to develop according to their particular needs. Therefore NAAB does not intend to be responsible for maintaining uniform standardization of architectural education and programs, but its mission is rather weighted toward fostering of rich human resources pool who can provide flawless links between design and practice of architecture. Thus we can understand that NAAB criteria maintain the ‘minimal’ standards.
This system has been in effect in the United States up to the present without major changes. Among those four institutions, NAAB and NCARB function as legal authorities, while AIA and ACSA provide symbolic effect. The accreditation system in the United States at the beginning stages was mainly focused on the undergraduate program but soon was expanded into the graduate programs. Now there are largely three main types of university. The first and the most abundant type is the universities providing five-year Bachelor of Architecture program plus 2-3 year Master of Architecture program. The second type is the universities that are granting either bachelor’s degree or master’s degree. The third type is universities providing 4+2 integrated bachelor/master degree program. Because this structure has been in effect for a longtime, the number of the accredited schools has remained unchanged since 2006, and thus the role of accreditation agency is focused more on the re-accreditation rather than new accreditation.
Even though there has been no significant changes during these days, the accreditation system and the related institutions in the United States still play an important role of infrastructure for generating valuable database for American construction industry, and also function as ‘consulting organization’ with more flexibility for various and customized architectural education programs in accordance with this rapidly-changing era.