The US Government’s decision to remove architecture from its list of “professional” degrees has sparked a much-needed conversation about the role and value of licensing, write Andrea Dietz and Peggy Deamer.
On November 21, the US Department of Education (DOE) announced a narrower internal definition of “professional degree”. As a result, fields including architecture will face stricter borrowing limits, which will significantly reduce access to federal student loans starting July 2026.
Becoming an architect will still require a license, and obtaining that license will still demand an accredited architecture degree. However, aspiring architects will have less financial assistance available to them, adding yet another hurdle to entering the profession.
Since professionalism was introduced in the 19th century, it has been under political attack from both right and left
This decision is a serious setback. It underscores the lack of regard the MAGA administration holds for the architectural profession and threatens to make a “professional” architecture education even more exclusive.
Yet, for many who have critiqued a discipline that is often underpaid and increasingly sidelined, this moment is also an opportunity. It forces a long-overdue reexamination of what it means to be an architect and what is truly gained from professional licensure.
Professions like architecture are defined by extensive education and specialized expertise, granting those who achieve them a certain elite status and privilege.
Since the 19th century, the notion of professionalism has been politically contested from both conservative and progressive perspectives. Free-market proponents often see professions as monopolistic and anti-competitive, while neo-Marxist critics argue that professions reinforce class divisions and privilege.
Today, calls for innovation increasingly challenge the compartmentalization of knowledge maintained by professional boundaries. More than ever, our society needs open, collaborative expertise rather than siloed professions.
In the US, professional fields have gradually lost their exceptional status. Before the era of neoliberalism, professions were exempt from antitrust rules because their ethical codes—prioritizing social responsibility and quality—were considered incompatible with cost-cutting business practices.
It is ironic (or not?) that Trumpism has initiated a process that many of us architects want to encourage
However, in the 1970s, the Department of Justice targeted professions, requiring them to act like standard businesses and compete on pricing. For architecture, this meant the end of standard fee schedules based on project size and complexity.
This shift triggered a “race to the bottom” among architecture firms, eroding the profession’s ethical code and limiting architects’ ability to address needs in the built environment that were not supported by market forces.
Beyond antitrust pressures, the profession itself has contributed to its predicament. After a series of lawsuits in the 20th century that held architects liable for planning and construction errors, the field began to distance itself from broader responsibilities in programming and construction to manage risk, further narrowing its role.
