In response to a FOIA request, NY State recently provided data on the 15,088 licensed architects in the state, showing the date of graduation, school, and date of licensure as an architect.

In 1983 more than half of newly-licensed (state resident) architects obtained their license in less than 5 years; since then the average has declined -- in 2009 the average time was 11.06 years; the median time was 9.96 years.

Charts of this information are posted at:

http://www.stairwaytoarchitecture.com/images/NY_STATE_REPORT.pdf

other charts of related data are also posted at stairwaytoarchitecture.com.

I'm hoping the data speaks for itself, comments and questions are welcome.

-- Matt Arnold

perhaps the test format had a lot to do with the results.

a single 4 day exam v.s. 7-9 parts, taking 1 at a time, stretch it however long you wanted.

the decline has been incremental and regular, this is obvious from the chart.

this is a nice piece of work -- thanks for doing it. Have you considered longer range data?

The ARE was introduced it looks like during the deep recession of the early 90s. Maybe the correlation has more to do with the lingering effects of that shock to the profession more then the exam format. Despite the rosey report the AIA put out saying salaries are up for architects over the last 15 years, they are not. The earning and buying power of staff architects and interns ( Jounior Architects ) just isnt what it was and it shouldnt be a surprise that the best and brightest simply go where the money is. Honestly, you simply could not raise a family in a place like NY on an architect's salary, so is it any wonder people disappear around their 30th birthday ehen they would be taking the exams?

mespellrong -- I've charted everything I've been able to get my hands on. That chart goes back to 1947. What do you have in mind.

Jack -- the ARE was formally put in place in 1983. The trend you see since then is consistent across economic ups and downs.

So after 1983 you didnt have to sit in a room for a long test?

Well I cant explaine the decline ( or increase in years toput it another way) other than maybe licensure has become less important for career advancement early on.? An office usually only has 1 or 2 stamps so to get licensed looks good for marketing and to the client but really makes little difference to the architect unless they go out on their own.

could one factor be that the education of an architect has become so diverse as to allow graduates entry into other possible endeavors? another factor could be is that becoming a PM does not require a license, and coupled with the fact that their seem to be less interest in becoming a principle or owner of a firm?

Actually I think Beta may be on to something. When I was in school before a lot of you were born, you went to school to be an architect. You didnt go to 4 or 5 years in biology then transfer into architecture. Some did but it was rare. People who set out to become architects were usually good at math, like to draw and wore pocket protectors. Most were men. So yes, maybe the educational filter has just been changing the makeup of the potentates.

funny thing about the theories about education changing the talent pool is that these statistics are only the people who actually became licensed. Those who chose other career paths aren't reflected in these totals at all.

Keep in mind that the only reason to attend an accredited program in architecture is if your goals include becoming a licensed architect -- that's the reason there's such a thing as accreditation.

But did the education system change at the exact same time? Accredited degrees used to include 4 year BARCH if Im not mistaken. I dont believe this is the case anymore. Im not sure when it changed. Certainly there is a clear difference in the Architects who graduated in the 1950s,60s and 70s ( do their own calculations for all disciplines often ) versus the 80s ( Marketing and sales experts it seems ). Then again a different type of architect who graduated in the 90s and 00's ( Conceptual Design Oriented ). I mean how many architects except us old fogeys still do their own structural calcs or write their own contracts? An accredited masters is 3 years of study whereas a 4 year or 5 year is a longer duration of study often with work experience at the same time. So if more people are getting 3 year masters they are a few years behind the learning curve to licensure.

It could also be that less project architect positions open up so there's less need to get licensed until you've been in line at a firm for 10 years.

Its a very interesting pattern the data exposes.

It is interesting. I was very surprised at the consistency of it, across more than 25 years. There are almost 7,000 in-state resident licensed architects represented there.

I am hoping to get data from at least two other states -- Nebraska and Oregon -- very soon. The other states have uniformly told me that they rely on NCARB to maintain the data. NCARB has not responded to my requests for substantive data. They do publish an annual IDP survey in affiliation with AIA and NAAB.

It will be interesting to compare the trends in the other data. I'll be sure to post an update here and at the stairwaytoarchitecture.com site & on twitter @stair2arch.

:/ ...still getting the hang of twittering. the correct tweeter is @stairway2arch..

matthew, my point about the education and career path does not change the narrative all that much. i know many of my friends have yet to get licensed or have just been licensed, they graduated in 96, and a lot of them have done different things in animation, rendering, marketing, design and other areas, but are often led back to architecture. the larger point however might be that there are other distractions, as they might be called, and thus a lack of internal motivation or lack of incentive by those in charge to give a potential candidate a sense of purpose.

in short, if you're looking for a scientific answer there will be none.

I'm only trying to get an actual picture of what is really happening. Policies that are based on fiction are unlikely to be successful. You can't improve what you can't measure. Whatever the reasons for this trend are (and I am sure there are many) we can improve the results (however we define 'improvement') only if we know where we are starting from.

I don't know if IDP is working as designed, but it certainly is not working as advertised, at least not in New York.

idp will never work as designed, it places all of the responsibility on the applicant and none on the owner/principal. so long as there is a lack of any punitive response from the aia. now ncarb has moved one step further by placing arbitrary punishments on applicants, and yet again the owner/principals skate by.