For decades, architectural educators and practitioners have disagreed on what knowledge and skills should be taught in school, versus what should be taught through on-the-job training. A new independent study by RAND released in March 2025 shows that the divide between academia and practice is as strong as ever. In the report, students, emerging professionals, and architects call for a stronger emphasis on practical, technical skills as part of college curricula.
The outcome of data collected through surveys and focus groups with architecture students, faculty, and practitioners, the Building Impact report provides key insights into the accessibility, affordability, and applicability of architectural education. The study was commissioned by the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and NCARB, with support from the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA), to better understand the current relationship between education and practice.
The Building Impact report is a direct follow-up to the 1996 Building Community report (also known as the “Boyer Report”), which identified several areas where education was misaligned with practice at the time and provided recommendations to build a stronger relationship between the two. Now, nearly 30 years later, the findings of the Building Impact report demonstrate that many of those gaps still exist.
Key Findings
Key findings from RAND’s Building Impact report include:
- Architecture program application processes, requirements, and costs—as well as post-graduation licensure requirements—create barriers that keep students from pursuing a career in architecture. Establishing more accessible entry points is essential to reducing the burden on students and increasing interest in the profession for years to come.
- Both students and practitioners indicate a desire to incorporate a greater emphasis on technical skills and hands-on experience during architecture school. Current tensions between what should be taught at school versus on the job leave graduates underprepared to make the transition from student to working professional.
- Architecture programs lack key resources, such as funding and time, to implement strong, lasting partnerships with architecture firms. Supporting these partnerships could lead to improvements like stronger research efforts and mentorship systems.
Over the next several weeks, NCARB will dive deeper into the report to share findings of interest to specific audiences and explore how recommendations to address these findings could lead to a more accessible, flexible architectural education that better prepares graduates to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
Read the full report at www.ncarb.org/RAND.
