After reading new information regarding the Architectural Registration Exam (ARE) here in the United States and possible concerns throughout the world regarding the education of Architects, wouldn't it be a good idea to incorporate the LEED exam as part of the ARE?

Our environment and the knowledge of materials we use as designers have a substantial impact on the quality of everyday life.

The traditional path here in the US is to attend an accredited architectural school, graduate, seek employment, enter the Intern Development Program (IDP), meet IDP requirements and then set forth to pass the ARE. The LEED exam is a separate option for any designer, should it be a requirement to practice Architecture?

info on the ARE process
www.ncarb.org/are (http://www.ncarb.org/are)

info on IDP
www.ncarb.org/IDP (http://www.ncarb.org/IDP)

info on LEED
www.usgbc.org/LEED (http://www.usgbc.org/LEED)

as someone who is studying for the test (hoping to take it in march), this is a difficult question so I will add more information to the topic.

Sustainability can be a goal with or without LEED. However, the benefits of LEED that I agree with (as some Harvard educators spoke of at Greenbuild) are:

1. Accountability. You choose to go the sustainable route and with LEED and cannot simply discard sustainability in the process of design without a price.

2. Records. Through documentation, you can always go back and see everything from past submittals as it has been thoroughly documented.

The firm I work for (and many others) has practiced sustainability for years just without the official LEED tag on it. So, it is already easily integrated into firm culture with or without LEED necessity.

In the sense that the ARE is about the health, safety, and welfare of people, LEED would be a great mandate in the terms of future health and welfare of communities. I'd love to see a mandate in that sense.

However, I'm not so sure that LEED hasn't quite arrived yet, in the sense that it still is cumbersome and has many kinks to wrestle with. I would say that given 5 years, LEED could very well be part of the process.

read the paper criticizing LEED as additive and not holistic

it swank-e would stop deleting it when i post it.

I think this is a great question InArch. Keep in mind that I have yet to take my test. I am not speaking from experience, but here it goes:

There are some design aspects of the ARE testing, but in general it's about responisibilty, yes? I guess that point is debatable, but life safety, history lessons, professional liability and responsability as it relates to contracts, etc. is a major aspect of the testing.

So, the more we find out about 'green products, and 'green design', isn't it our responsibility to learn and advance this aspect of our professional lives. We are professionals in the true sense. We are one of the few careers that take it upon ourselve to critique and improve the profession as a whole. Much like doctors and lawyers. Yes, alot can be said for shitty doctors, lawyers (and architects), but we all have boards and reviews and continueing education so that we are, in theory, always striving to better or fileds. I think that the health and welfare aspects of 'green' are imparative in advancing our profession. We are learning that we can make buildings healthier for the end users. Isn't it our responsibility to do so?

Someone can correct me, but I remember reading somewhere that sustainable/green design content will begin to be included throughout each section of the exam. In other words, they will include a limited amount of material in each section to test if you have a grasp of sustainable concepts.

As far as requiring the whole LEED exam as part of the test, IMHO that would be too focused for what the test is designed for.

Just my 2 cents.

As far as requiring the whole LEED exam as part of the test, IMHO that would be too focused for what the test is designed for.

Just my 2 cents.


I have to ask what does an exam have to do with architecture? IMO it is a vehicle to limit competition mainly and a tool to ensure public safety to a lesser extent. In the end, it has absolutely no bearing on how buildings are created.

I don't think LEED should be used, but rather a set of minimum performance criteria for buildings. Similar to standards for the automotive industry. LEED, though I agree with the vision, seems to add a lot of expense in the certification process. (feel free to correct me if I am wrong) Money that would be much better spent on other green strategies or in green education.

I have to ask what does an exam have to do with architecture? IMO it is a vehicle to limit competition mainly and a tool to ensure public safety to a lesser extent. In the end, it has absolutely no bearing on how buildings are created.

You're right. My own experience, as well as others in our office, is that the ARE is very good at testing how well you can take a test and little else.

I don't think LEED should be used, but rather a set of minimum performance criteria for buildings. Similar to standards for the automotive industry. LEED, though I agree with the vision, seems to add a lot of expense in the certification process. (feel free to correct me if I am wrong) Money that would be much better spent on other green strategies or in green education.

LEED does seem to be pricy to me, but that's just another opportunity for someone to make money from architecture, besides the architects, that is. :rolleyes:

I have to ask what does an exam have to do with architecture? IMO it is a vehicle to limit competition mainly and a tool to ensure public safety to a lesser extent. In the end, it has absolutely no bearing on how buildings are created.

So what is the solution?

I don't think LEED should be used, but rather a set of minimum performance criteria for buildings. Similar to standards for the automotive industry.

Didn't you read the second paragraph?

Didn't you read the second paragraph?

no, no, no...testing. you're saying the ARE nor LEED testing is not the proper way to "prove" that you are ready for the task at hand. if you're saying it is all about minimum criteria, what would those be if testing is not the answer?

maybe I am not understanding what you are saying in your first paragraph? gaffaman alluded to it as well: that the ARE is not the way to do things.

Sorry, I don't mean to take a tangent, but it may be applicable here...

no, no, no...testing. you're saying the ARE nor LEED testing is not the proper way to "prove" that you are ready for the task at hand. if you're saying it is all about minimum criteria, what would those be if testing is not the answer?

maybe I am not understanding what you are saying in your first paragraph? gaffaman alluded to it as well: that the ARE is not the way to do things.

Sorry, I don't mean to take a tangent, but it may be applicable here...

I guess the short answer is experience. Just minimum experience. Five years in a firm and you are an architect. It is possible that the tests could weed out people that should not be architects, but maybe the opposite is true as well. I just don't really believe in the effectiveness of standardized testing, but maybe it's the best model we have right now.

This brings an interesting question to this topic. For example if an Intern becomes affected by ADD (attention deficient disorder) and is not capable of passing such an exam as the ARE, does it mean this person will never become an Architect?
And just for the sake of conversation let's assume the following: 10 years professional experience (top firms), 3.8 GPA during college, highly regarded as a talent, etc

no, no, no...testing. you're saying the ARE nor LEED testing is not the proper way to "prove" that you are ready for the task at hand. if you're saying it is all about minimum criteria, what would those be if testing is not the answer?

maybe I am not understanding what you are saying in your first paragraph? gaffaman alluded to it as well: that the ARE is not the way to do things.

Sorry, I don't mean to take a tangent, but it may be applicable here...

I'm not sure what the answer is. I just know that the current system of education and testing is narrow and not a good indicator of whether a person is capable of being an architect. The profession is simply too large and the knowlege base required is too big to effectivly test for, even though that's what the ARE is supposed to do.

You have to wonder about a system that would exclude talents like Frank Lloyd Wright, Louis Sullivan, and Bruce Goff. None of these people would be able to get a license today, so obviously you have to wonder who's being excluded that would be an asset to the profession.

I agree with where Imasayer is headed. The people who would be best qualified to decide if you should be an architect would be the people you work for, or the architectural community you practice in. Maybe a greater emphasis on IDP type training and less on a test. Maybe the test should be for your employer, "Would you trust this person with the work of your firm?"

Just because someone can pass a test, doesn't mean I would trust them with my health, safety or welfare. (Or the environment.)

For example if an Intern becomes affected by ADD (attention deficient disorder) and is not capable of passing such an exam as the ARE, does it mean this person will never become an Architect?

Yes, sadly it does.

And just for the sake of conversation let's assume the following: 10 years professional experience (top firms), 3.8 GPA during college, highly regarded as a talent, etc

I think that would be as good or better than the system we have now.

This brings an interesting question to this topic. For example if an Intern becomes affected by ADD (attention deficient disorder) and is not capable of passing such an exam as the ARE, does it mean this person will never become an Architect?
And just for the sake of conversation let's assume the following: 10 years professional experience (top firms), 3.8 GPA during college, highly regarded as a talent, etc

My wife teaches some engineering courses at TAMU and they make some very big allowances for ADD during tests (but I do not know about ARE)

I think the problem with the old system was that there was no way to evaluate the quality of the apprenticeship. The test at least gives you some kind of baseline even if it is just a measure of someones ability to take tests. Regardless of either system the real world does tend to weed out folks with lesser abilities.

oh as to the subject, I'm not a big fan of LEED but I sure think that these (green) issues should be addressed in our education system.

I'm not sure what the answer is. I just know that the current system of education and testing is narrow and not a good indicator of whether a person is capable of being an architect. The profession is simply too large and the knowlege base required is too big to effectivly test for, even though that's what the ARE is supposed to do.

You have to wonder about a system that would exclude talents like Frank Lloyd Wright, Louis Sullivan, and Bruce Goff. None of these people would be able to get a license today, so obviously you have to wonder who's being excluded that would be an asset to the profession.

I agree with where Imasayer is headed. The people who would be best qualified to decide if you should be an architect would be the people you work for, or the architectural community you practice in. Maybe a greater emphasis on IDP type training and less on a test. Maybe the test should be for your employer, "Would you trust this person with the work of your firm?"

Just because someone can pass a test, doesn't mean I would trust them with my health, safety or welfare. (Or the environment.)

Then does it become a popularity contest? I understand what you are saying, but there isn't a good system. Sooo...get rid of licensure all together.

Then does it become a popularity contest? I understand what you are saying, but there isn't a good system. Sooo...get rid of licensure all together.

Yeah, if it was up to my first employer, I would have never been able to get a license (b*stard!). But if we get rid of licensure entirely, then who will safegard the public safety and welfare? I've seen some non-architects pull some crazy stunts with buildings that were just plain dumb, not to mention dangerous (and illegal).

That is the problem: the current system has terrible flaws, but it seems any alternatives have problems as well.

I've held off on the exam for the last 10 years thinking the structure would change, but apparently it has not. As a general exam, anyone with good study habits could possibly pass. It would just make more sense to cover architectural experience with actual working experience and a review of work and just not resume. To me becoming an Architect happened a long time ago, why can't this be distinguished from someone with just the 3 year minimum experience necessary to take the exam?

Yeah, if it was up to my first employer, I would have never been able to get a license (b*stard!). But if we get rid of licensure entirely, then who will safegard the public safety and welfare? I've seen some non-architects pull some crazy stunts with buildings that were just plain dumb, not to mention dangerous (and illegal).

That is the problem: the current system has terrible flaws, but it seems any alternatives have problems as well.


I have heard the public safety argument a lot. I just don't buy it. What does that have to do with a test. Does taking the test ensure public safety? As InArch said, "As a general exam, anyone with good study habits could possibly pass." I totally agree. It is up to local municipalities to ensure the safety of buildings, the permit process is based on the code. If you can meet the requirements of the code then that is all that should be required. After that it is up to the lawyers and building designer's fear of them. Li censure is there to justify the architects existence and limit competition.

On a side note, I do intend to get my license. I don't see the system changing, so it is really the only way at the moment.

i think LEED ideas should be a requirement for all building on earth not just part of a test to become a architect.

7th generation, wise thinking

I have heard the public safety argument a lot. I just don't buy it. What does that have to do with a test. Does taking the test ensure public safety? As InArch said, "As a general exam, anyone with good study habits could possibly pass." I totally agree. It is up to local municipalities to ensure the safety of buildings, the permit process is based on the code. If you can meet the requirements of the code then that is all that should be required. After that it is up to the lawyers and building designer's fear of them. Li censure is there to justify the architects existence and limit competition.

On a side note, I do intend to get my license. I don't see the system changing, so it is really the only way at the moment.

To play devil's advocate to myself...

Maybe there is something to be said for people who care enough to take the time to study and sit for the exam. Just like there is something to be said for those who have the dedication to get a degree. I mean if they care enough to do the work, maybe they are going to care more about public safety and quality buildings.

there is much to be said about people who care about the earth and passing it on better than they found it.

I don't want to get into the argument but the fact is Franz, there doesn't seem to be much point in writing stuff that's falling on non receptive ears as you're not going to change anyones opinion, well not here anyway. Your purpose may be to irritate and annoy people, but if someone writes something that irritates me I just tend to ignore them from then on. It's your right to express your political views, but it seems a bit pointless in this forum as it's meant to share views on design and share (architectural) information.

If experience is the criteria for licensure, then we wouldn't have to attend architecture school, yes? IMHO, very little that is taught in school is applicable to the profession of architecture, outside of basic design guidelines. Proportion, scale, etc.

I am not advocating this last staement. I am just continueing a thought that the test is not effective.

I think that school and the test are about completing something on a big scale to prove your commitment. You are required to learn alot on the way to completing that commitment, or you won't have a job. The test is the final event, only. It's not supposed to be the most difficult part of the trip, just the end.

Back on track: I think the test should include LEED.

I think that school and the test are about completing something on a big scale to prove your commitment. You are required to learn alot on the way to completing that commitment, or you won't have a job. The test is the final event, only. It's not supposed to be the most difficult part of the trip, just the end.

Back on track: I think the test should include LEED.

I agree with you, and that is what I am getting at in my last post.

As far as LEED on the test goes, I think there should be general sustainability questions on the test, but not necessarily LEED. I am just concerned with LEED certification becoming a big expense in buildings that are already dealing with tight budgets, when the principals are free.

I am just concerned with LEED certification becoming a big expense in buildings that are already dealing with tight budgets, when the principals are free.


Being LEED certified by means of the ARE would not constitute LEED expenses on projects? I only think LEED understanding would substantially bring down the cost of intelligent energy conservation on a multitude of projects, even the ones that are not designed to be LEED certified. What we need in our profession is growth in energy knowledge so that we all can conduct better decisions and not rely on the politicians to dictate design and expense.

I agree with you, and that is what I am getting at in my last post.

As far as LEED on the test goes, I think there should be general sustainability questions on the test, but not necessarily LEED. I am just concerned with LEED certification becoming a big expense in buildings that are already dealing with tight budgets, when the principals are free.

FYI, the USGBC is working towards lower costs: their initiative for the folks that go all out for LEED platinum: USGBC fees and registration costs are waived. So any building committed to being as green as possible has only the costs of sustainable ideas initiated in the project. I think once it is automated enough (as submittals are now online) costs will go down further.

Also, LEED accreditation doesn't necessarily mean that all buildings have to be LEED certified.

I have not taken the LEED certification exam but my impression is that it is only about basic green knowledge and more about how to get a building through the program.

As far as energy efficiency and sustainability goes I think the Build America and the Energy Star programs are better approaches. Give the designers and consumers the tools and information they need to build better and make better choices. I have not seen any real useful information coming from LEED and I certainly could not justify the cost of certification when the money can be better spent on the building.

As long as the government does not acknowledge the need and does not create disincentives to wasting energy it is hard to make much headway in that direction.

Moved to new thread: Architectural Education

info on the ARE process
www.ncarb.org/are (http://www.ncarb.org/are)

info on IDP
www.ncarb.org/IDP (http://www.ncarb.org/IDP)

info on LEED
www.usgbc.org/LEED (http://www.usgbc.org/LEED)

Just in case you are not familiar with the procedures, please review the appropriate information before posting. Also regarding LEED, let's maintain a basic understanding that as a LEED accredited professional it marks a basic understanding of energy conserving principles and not a full awareness of construction technologies and expenditures. Just like design, it would take a person years of experience to achieve a significant understanding in mastering LEED concepts.

The initial question is regarding integrating LEED into the ARE and perhaps gaining awareness by it's inclusion that could lead to better practice as an Architect. Would this be a good idea?

"Just in case you are not familiar with the procedures"

If your intention is to keep this thread completely on track you should have started on the first page. Part of this discussion was about education from the beginning and I was only continuing ideas started by other people in this thread.

I think everyone who has commented on the exact question has basically said no. Green ideas should be a part of education and part of the ARE exam but LEED certification in particular should not.

please excuse my (once again) inappropriate post, I will move it to a new thread.

Chris, just the opposite your comment is well taken. I just feel that many professionals don't clearly understand LEED and by making it a part of the ARE this would decrease the mystery and perhaps increase awareness.

Well I might be misinterpreting everyones comments but my feeling is that we all agree that green issues should be part of the education.

I do see your point that forcing people to become aware of the LEED program by making it part of the test would help make the LEED system be the de facto standard.

I just don't think the LEED system is the best coarse of action for the industry in general and so I see no great value in requiring it. I think our time and resources are best used in other ways.

The big question is if LEED covers all the bases that need to be covered from a designers perspective. It is certainly good that it increases general awareness among both architects and clients, but making it a part of the ARE seems like giving it a bit too much credit as "THE" standard.

In a previous discussion with the environmental engineers on a project I was working on I was suprised to find that they were very negative to LEED in principle because it is an additive system. It is in theory possible to "buy" a good score for buildings based on poor site planning by adding on features to a basically flawed plan. While I think it's great that LEED is a way to get clients interested in sustainable issues - it seems that as designers we should be looking at ways to create sustainable designs in the beginning of the design process, not by tacking on items on a checklist underway.

The topic question is if LEED should be a requirement, Based upon my current understanding I'd say no.