Frankly I am not sure I agree that we would have no functioning practice without NCARB. We had one before them and we would continue to without them - everyone and everything can and will be replaced (and everyone and everything eventually is).
Comparing licensure tracks to the 80's, one thing is apparent - we have made it far more difficult and expensive to become and remain an Architect (particularly to become one - the total investment required in the IDP is substantial). The question I have is whether we are minting better Architects than we did under the old schemes. I don't know how one might measure that progress, but unless we are convinced that a new graduate who successfully runs the administrative and financial gauntlet now standing between them and licensure is better than his or her counterpart from 30 years ago who didn't face those obstacles, we have to question whether those obstacles should remain
As to reciprocity,we now have a national building code, and our other regional differences (which were once the basis for the reciprocity schemes in the first instance) have largely melted away. Reciprocity isn't at all the issue we make it out to be, but then again, maintaining it as an issue does militate in favor of NCARB (or something like it). That aside, one must indeed question whether the reciprocity question is as weighty as we sometimes mistake it to be. Here in SE Michigan, were I to seek to cross over the border and practice in Toledo Ohio (about 50 miles away) the reality is I am as competent there as here, without the need to maintain a separate file service, the need to evaluate and verify my education, etc. That is true for all of us with a limited number of regional exceptions where certain design criteria come into play that we may not be familiar with in our immediate locale (for example, here in SE Michigan we don't worry about hurricanes and they don't affect building design - yet I can get full reciprocity in Florida, where they do worry about them and where they do affect building design, without any additional steps other than transmitting my file). Reciprocity is the life blood of NCARB so they of course argue it is of critical import. In reality? Perhaps not quite so much . . . .
I realize NCARB was created for a valid set of reasons. I wonder today whether NCARB remains true to those founding reasons or whether they have become accustomed to growing largess and have crossed over into a realm not of service to state boards, but self aggrandizement and self perpetuation.
Everything must be periodocally re-evaluated or it gets stale. Perhaps it is time for that to occur with NCARB
-------------------------------------------
Frederick Butters FAIA, Esq.
Attorney
Southfield MI
------------------------------------------