´óÏóÊÓƵ

On September 14, 2026, ACSA President June Williamson sent a letter to the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) 2028 Standards Revision Committee Chair, urging caution about changing the degree credit minimum for B.Arch. programs without an open discussion with ACSA members. As the voice of architectural education, ACSA encourages NAAB to work alongside our organization, along with Architectural Alliance partners, to ensure that the perspectives and interests of architectural education programs are considered in the decision-making process.

​

The letter reads as follows:

September 14, 2026

Via email

Jeffrey L. Day, FAIA, NCARB

Chair, 2028 Standards Revision Committee

National Architectural Accrediting Board

Dear Chair Day and Members of the NAAB 2028 Standards Revision Committee:

ACSA is the voice of architectural education. We convene and advocate for our field for the benefit of our members and the built environment. Our full members include most schools with accredited professional degree programs in the United States and Canada, some 7,000 faculty members who educate more than 40,000 students.

ACSA believes that a professional degree in architecture prepares graduates for licensure and practice, and for much more: designing the places where people live, stewarding resources, working in the public interest, and pursuing careers of contribution that often take forms no one could anticipate at graduation. The shared values named in the 2020 Conditions accurately describe the field. The responsibility to manage risks to the public is only part of what architects and designers do. 

On behalf of our members, the ACSA Board writes to urge caution in proposing any changes to the degree credit minimum for B.Arch. programs in the 2028 Standards. We understand that the Committee has received considerable pressure on this issue. As an accrediting body, NAAB will understand that universities that house architectural programs must also meet a range of criteria of which credit hour minimums are only one; any change in required degree program credit hour minimums could impact university standings, student loan and scholarship eligibility, as well as program funding models.

Pursuing such a change without extensive direct consultation with the diverse schools most directly affected would be ill-advised. A potentially consequential change of this magnitude should not be driven by the ARC timeline. We urge the Committee to resist the narrowing of purpose that has entered these discussions from some of NAAB’s other stakeholders.

ACSA would like to partner with the NAAB on such a consultation effort, as almost all programs directly affected are at our member schools, which collectively encompass the breadth of professional architectural education. Respectfully, our Architectural Alliance partners are important stakeholders, but ACSA is the voice of those directly responsible for architectural education.

Access to opportunities to enter the profession matters deeply to us, as do solutions that address higher education costs directly, including and improved transfer pathways from community colleges. Student debt is a real concern. What is missing from some recent statements and proposals is evidence that a shortened academic path would meaningfully reduce costs or even time for students on their overall journeys to the profession.

of higher education in advancing socioeconomic mobility. Median wages for architects have continued to rise and remain roughly double the median across all occupations according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. At the same time, average net tuition and fees, what students actually pay, have over the past decade in inflation-adjusted terms, particularly at public institutions.

Permitting the shortening of accredited degree programs risks underpreparing students for the full scope of future practice. Without clear expectations for first professional degree requirements, students will be less informed about their educational and career options and become increasingly dependent on employers for training and advancement. Accreditation serves as a safeguard against a training marketplace driven primarily by incentives that may not align with the public-interest missions of higher education.

We trust the Committee remains focused on the core objectives: clear, precise language in the standards; eliminating redundancy across criteria; more room for innovation, not less; and procedures that reduce the costs of compliance.

Sincerely,

June P. Williamson, AIA LEED-AP

CC: NAAB President Mark Mistur, Executive Director Tanya Tamarkin