By design, there were no official outcomes of or decisions made during the NAAB Validation Conference, which took place in Santa Fe last week at this time. However, at least three very significant things did happen. First and foremost, the five collateral organizations came together to formally and publicly discuss the future of architectural education and practice. Also, for the first time, groups outside the collateral organizations had an open invitation to attend Validation Conference, and approximately 32 individuals did. Finally, and also for the first time, the specific positions and recommendations presented for consideration were all made public on the NAAB website as well as on the ValidationConference.org website. While any actual decisions were deferred to the NAAB Board of Directors, which meets next week, this Validation Conference demonstrated that active and public engagement among the collateral organizations should happen more, not less often. The Validation Conference and NAAB itself are evidence of the value of collaborative decision-making, from which every aspect of the profession would benefit. For today's issue of ArchVoices, we invited many of the individual "silent observers" to reflect on and share their observations with you by responding to the following four questions:What was the most surprising topic discussed at the Validation Conference (either formally or informally)? How did the Validation Conference challenge or affirm your thoughts on that issue? What do you feel was accomplished as a whole by the participants at the Validation Conference? What will you tell your colleagues about your experience in Santa Fe? Responses to these questions follow and are posted on the ValidationConference.org website. Any subsequent observations will be posted online as they are received. Additionally, today's edition of AIArchitect will include the AIA delegates' reflections on the Validation Conference, and we encourage you to read those as well. And, as always, we look forward to receiving your comments, observations, and thoughts about the future of architectural education or the profession in general. Simply email them to editors@archvoices.org.

James P. Cramer, Hon. AIA Co-Chairman, Design Futures Council Atlanta, GA

What was the most surprising topic discussed at the Validation Conference (either formally or informally)? There was a healthy discussion of the tough problems that we face in the future. What was most surprising was not so much what was discussed however, but what was not discussed. The practitioners and educators in the conference were somewhat lulled by the presentation by Stewart Brand (pictured at right), for instance, which focused on the "long now." Instead, we should see clearly that a revolution is on the near horizon.

How did the Validation Conference challenge or affirm your thoughts on that issue? We must do much more to bring wisdom and speed together at the same time, to make education relevant to the students (whether they are going into professional practice or not.) The future of the profession is loaded with complex challenges. That is why I particularly appreciated Ava Abramowitz's presentation, "Rethinking Architecture Education." I say this because she is implying a strategic resiliency that is life-long. She challenged the conference to "rethink how we educate our students and accredit our schools" and she made sense without scolding the past.

What do you feel was accomplished as a whole by the participants at the Validation Conference? It was a very positive step that NAAB organized the conference in the way that they did. Now, they will have to decide what to implement. Can they approve the DArch without hurting the BArch? Yes, I think so. Can they include the Redesign of the Studio Culture as put forth by the AIAS? Yes, certainly. So, if you take into consideration the two keynote presentations, plus the new light that was shed by the panelists, and mix that together with the bold ideas, then this Validation Conference was a huge success. I guess we won't know until the NAAB Board takes action--or not. But, I'm hopeful.

What will you tell your colleagues about your experience in Santa Fe? That NAAB has solid leadership and that the participatory process they utilized worked. And they must understand that status quo is not acceptable and that it is crucial to invent new processes that raise quality. NAAB working with the other organizations such as NCARB, ArchVoices, AIAS, AIA, and ACSA can harness the collective imagination and expect more, do more, and measure better. They can be one step ahead, rather than the opposite. The future of the profession calls for this collaboration. They are moving in the right direction. I would say to my colleagues: "give these people encouragement--the stakes are very high."

Ted Landsmark, MEvD, JD, PhD, Assoc. AIA President, Boston Architectural Center Boston, MA

"It was edifying to hear extended discussion of the issues surrounding internship experiences in transitioning from the academy into practice; conversations concerning the overlapping and sometimes gapped educational oversight responsibilities of the five collateral organizations; and unresolved debate on the difficulties of collecting, reconciling, and analyzing disparate data generated by the various collateral organizations as they try to track career paths through school and into the profession. It was a bit disappointing to hear virtually no discussion of continuing education and life-long learning strategies for design professionals. The collaterals appear to have focused primarily on structural curricular matters within schools, degree nomenclature, and review procedures implemented during campus accreditation visits. To hear passionate discussions of issues (particularly related to internship) outside NAAB's immediate purview was somewhat surprising, but also rewarding in the richness and obvious methodological grounding of the arguments presented.

It became clear that oversight of internship procedures needs more rigorous focus. The AIA, NAAB, NCARB, and ACSA all play active roles in shaping policies concerning the implementation of internship and mentoring procedures, and AIAS has a strong interest in what happens to design program graduates. Yet, there appears to be little direct support for interns as they struggle to find appropriate professional guidance, and it may be that further investigation of the supports necessary to ease this transition should emerge from the next Internship Summit.

These five collaterals oversee design education, but rarely meet as a unified group to comprehensively coordinate educational policies. When they do meet, discussions appear to focus more on structural and institutional issues than on matters related to curricular content, studio culture, or learning outcomes. While many schools have recently been criticized, for example, for failing to meet standards for providing sound education in non-Western design traditions, there was no discussion here of how to enable schools to meet this standard. Perhaps a closer feedback process between NAAB and the ACSA would help close the gap between accreditor expectations and educator efforts to apply these expectations to the benefit of students. Observers were focused and active participants. John McRae's facilitation was fair, open and effective, and offered opportunities to all to comment on particular issues. Everyone left feeling that they had been given opportunities to be heard. The focused presentations were thought-provoking and useful in shaping discussions. The conference surfaced many important issues without having the time to address them in sufficient detail, and without the benefit of discussion of a future schedule that might address these issues. The conference underlined how views of multiple organizations must be heard in a representative environment, and how hard it is to recognize and follow creative leadership where five overlapping entities advocate positions of their perceived constituencies. The interminably lingering, decade-long discussion of degree nomenclature was, for example, evidence of an inter-organizational inability to assert leadership that could arrive at decisions without being thwarted by inertia and self-interest. The difficulties of coordinating policies across five organizations became apparent to the silent observers, suggesting that a more consolidated educational oversight structure might expedite decision-making on behalf of students and the profession. The group was collegial and thoughtful, and while some suggested that these conferences might better occur every four years (rather than every three years as is now the case), it is clear that the issues confronting our schools would benefit from more discussion among the organizations and individuals here. Networking was vigorous, and it was clear that a longer conference, with detailed discussion of accreditation expectations in a perilous economy for many design schools, would have been welcomed by a number of those present. Overall, this was an extremely valuable experience."

Ava Abramowitz, Esq., Hon. AIA Waterford, VA What was the most surprising topic discussed at the Validation Conference (either formally or informally)? This Validation Conference was such a major improvement over the previous. The pre-conference reading material was as thoughtful as it was extensive, and all participants seemed conversant with it. Conversations evolved logically as everyone listened and thought about what was being said. And everyone was on the same page; gathered together to keep the best of what we have now and encourage the profession and the academy into the future. Much of the Conference's success was due to Donna Robertson (NAAB President), Sharon Matthews (NAAB Executive Director), and John McRae (Facilitator), but the participants stepped up to the bat often and well. How did the Validation Conference challenge or affirm your thoughts on that issue? I have always believed in the power and strength of the profession and its academy, and I walked away being more excited about their future than ever. The willingness to challenge basic premises, the openness to experimentation, and the desire to build upon useful precedents in creating new opportunities is always a pleasure to see. What do you feel was accomplished as a whole by the participants at the Validation Conference? Twenty years ago, academics and practitioners had a hard time even talking to each other. Those problems are long gone. Serious people explored serious issues together. That commitment and energy can be built on to address other critical, cross collateral issues such as IDP, and it should be. As to specifics, I hope that NAAB will permit well-tested schools to experiment with alternative criteria with the goal of assessing the validity of those criteria in helping schools produce the practitioners students want to become. Additionally, I should hope that schools will begin teaching negotiation and persuasion skills so that architecture graduates will not be at a disadvantage when called upon to negotiate with MBAs and JDs who have all been schooled in the art and science of negotiation.

What will you tell your colleagues about your experience in Santa Fe? I have seen the profession struggle with its future. We have a lot to look forward to.

Paul Nakazawa, AIA Nakazawa Consultants Wellesley Hills, MA "I believe the conference to be very worthwhile if for no other reason than the express commitment of the five collateral organizations to discuss issues deemed to be significant and to do so within a framework of mutual respect and cooperation. It is a sign of health that there were disagreements amongst the parties on a couple of issues. The goodwill and earnestness in the room was inspiring."

David Mohney, AIA Dean, University of Kentucky College of DesignLexington, KY "I was most surprised by the clear advocacy on the part of the students and interns for resolution of the nomenclature issue. I thought it prodded the NAAB Board, in particular, to address the issue. Nomenclature is a thorny issue, and has been for over a decade. Programs have differing interests and constituencies. At the same time, I worry that there is a lot of fragmentation in the near future, and if we don't come to some consensus about the nature of being a professional, everyone who cares about architecture will suffer.

On the few occasions when the five collaterals meet together, their shared interests in furthering the profession of architecture rise to the top (witness the Building Community report, and the Internship Summits). We need to keep the five organizations focused on working together. I believe it's time to reconstitute the Boyer Collateral Task Force, and see what these five organizations can work on together."

David Covo, FRAIC President & Director, McGill University School of Architecture Montreal, Quebec, Canada

What was the most surprising topic discussed at the Validation Conference (either formally or informally)? I think that there were, in fact, two topics that took me by surprise. The first was the notion of the "teaching office," which emerged, unexpectedly, in the discussion following the panel presentation on studio culture. The second was the suggestion, in the discussion following the panel discussion on the "Student Performance Criteria," that performance might be measured in two different ways, that programs could be constructively evaluated against two different sets of criteria.

How did the Validation Conference challenge or affirm your thoughts on that issue? The short discussion on the concept of the teaching office focused my own recent thinking on the different roles that can be played by practitioners and practices in the academy. One of the ideas that emerges--as a result of the discussion in Santa Fe and recent conversations with colleagues--is an image of the teaching office as a reflective practice (ACSA President Geraldine Forbes' expression) that becomes involved in education on a variety of levels. The teaching office accommodates summer students and interns; it 'lends' professional staff who contribute significantly to our programs as critics and part-time faculty; and occasionally, it carries the responsibility, as a practice, for a course or design studio that may even, for a semester, move into the office itself. As a strategy, the teaching office provides an interesting and adventurous model for new bridges between the profession and the academy.

As for the notion of two measuring sticks against one program, it seems to me, as several participants observed, that it's a good way to test different concepts of performance criteria, not only acknowledging but even promoting diversity. In the process, we acquire a little experience and, hopefully, a better understanding of the complex relationship between the instrument of measurement and the thing being measured.

What do you feel was accomplished as a whole by the participants at the Validation Conference? The conference defined common ground and unity of purpose (and, of course, provided a terrific venue for the usual, and very important, downtime networking and schmoozing?).

What will you tell your colleagues about your experience in Santa Fe? Stimulating and energizing.

W.S. Raymond Yeh, FAIA Dean, University of Hawai`i School of Architecture Manoa, HI What was the most surprising topic discussed at the Validation Conference (either formally or informally)? No topic was all that surprising but some were more refreshing than others. I enjoyed Stewart Brand's keynote presentation, which focused on the word "CHANGE." Architects should do better in anticipating changes in the buildings we design, changes in our practice, and, most importantly, our evolving role in the context of a changing society. Paul Nakazawa's keynote presentation was a good follow up to that in clarifying the real global context of our work and the expanded possibilities of our profession. Quite inspiring, indeed.

How did the Validation Conference challenge or affirm your thoughts on that issue? The other, more mundane, sessions related to coping with changes in the profession...diversity, need for collaboration, etc., but they ended short of specific strategies. The focus on the regulatory concerns for education and training of future architects directed the conference discussions away from critical thinking level to dealing with the mechanics of enforcement of minimum student performance standards and defining program expectation. The discussions, formal and informal, were interesting, but worrisome as well, in that a question consistently raised was whether we, as a profession, can effectively and confidently cope with any real scenarios that might require letting go of a great deal of familiarity. Are architects, by nature, romantics of the past?

What do you feel was accomplished as a whole by the participants at the Validation Conference? The conference did accomplish the task of bringing together regulatory agencies of the profession in a discussion of common concerns. It also pointed out the complexities of having so many collateral organizations for a profession so small in number. The tendency to over-regulate and over-extend common criteria for all should be a concern for our creative profession which strives to have unique individuals. A clear desire was expressed to have more collaboration between the schools and the professional offices on behalf of the students. Much more could be done on that, but the schools in general lacked incentives, it seems, as many had been in a mode of fighting for survival.

What will you tell your colleagues about your experience in Santa Fe? The facilitation and the organization of the conference were very good, however, for the purpose. And, I enjoyed Santa Fe.

Clark E. Llewellyn, AIA Director, Montana State University School of ArchitectureBozeman, MT What was the most surprising topic discussed at the Validation Conference (either formally or informally)? The most surprising was ACSA's new proposal (the third) for degree nomenclature. Though I, and many others, strongly disagreed with the proposal presented at the national ACSA Conference, I was again surprised by their latest proposal allowing 3 ½-year MArch programs to be the only DArch.

An additional surprising event was the apparent interest in "possible experimentation" with architectural curriculums by a limited number of participating schools. That was both intriguing and surprising. I am delighted to hear such possible options may be considered within the, hopefully, not so distant future.

How did the Validation Conference challenge or affirm your thoughts on that issue? The Validation Conference confirmed my optimistic view that the ACSA governing body truly does care about the diversity within its membership and will do all it can not to harm its individual members because of nomenclature. What may appear to others as "indecision" by the ACSA is actually a case of recognizing the complexity of the issue before them and knowing that there is no "quick-fix" or "one-size-fits-all." However, it is also my belief that their proposal to allow the current 3 ½-year MArch to be the only accredited DArch is very perplexing and without reasonable justification.

What do you feel was accomplished as a whole by the participants at the Validation Conference? There was some discussion about the need for a validation conference every three years. As an observer, I found it to be extremely enriching that the collateral organizations gather to discuss architectural education--and one worthy of continuing on a regular basis. However, each conference need not necessarily work on the immediate change but could focus more long range on developing an architectural model for learning that is more inclusive of the IDP and "life long learning."

What will you tell your colleagues about your experience in Santa Fe? I have already spoken glowingly of the conference and of the people I had the opportunity to meet. I am hoping that we are able to invite a number of participants from the Validation Conference to Montana State University for a retreat with our faculty to consider the future of architectural education. Hopefully, we can all be inspired by considering our future playing an active role in its determination.

As a concluding remark, I continue to support the principles that the studio (actually, all of education) should be a place for optimism, respect, sharing, engagement and innovation!

As always, we welcome your thoughts by email at editors@archvoices.org.

ArchVoices is an independent, nonprofit organization and think tank on architecture education and internship...

To unsubscribe from ArchVoices newsletter, click here.