An analysis of the three main reasons for the suspension of the registration exam for architects in 2016

Thread Content

------ Responsible editor: 555 Hangkao Net. On November 20, 2015, the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security issued Document No. [2015]182, titled “Notice from the Office of the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security regarding the plans for professional and technical personnel qualification exams in 2016 and related matters.” In this document, those two key figures in the construction industry – architects (the leaders in the construction sector) and planners (the key professionals in planning) – were not mentioned at all, which caused outrage within the industry. Why was there no examination schedule for architects and planners in 2016? Will the titles of registered planners and registered architects be abolished? How will their value change after being transferred to associations? Here, we present some different perspectives on this issue. 1. First, **why is it necessary to reform the registration system? There are numerous documents issued by the State Council; the core purpose is to effectively unleash market vitality, stimulate social creativity, increase employment, promote opening up to the outside world, and integrate with the market.** Looking at all **reforms, the goal is to stimulate the market, promote employment, and integrate with international trends—maintaining stability domestically while strengthening position internationally. Now that we know **why reforms are needed, as well as the fact that construction and planning must come first, what is the future of reforms for these two fields? I think the following statement provides the best explanation: [Order No. 167 of the Ministry of Construction of the People’s Republic of China] The State Council has decided to abolish or delegate 58 administrative approval procedures; among these, the authority to approve Chinese registered architects has been transferred to the Chinese Architects Association, in line with the management standards of the American Board of Registered Architects, thereby fostering greater alignment with international practices and facilitating mutual recognition of architects from different countries. In fact, subsequent exams will be correspondingly relaxed for the planning and architect pioneer teams. Planning involves **interest distribution and terrain classification; it is the only registration system authorized by law rather than by administrative regulations or rules. Its marketization is not expected to be fully open like that of architects, as it will be subject to certain protections (the same is true in the West). Thus, it is clear that taking action on planning first, with architects at the core showing determination for reform, is a wise approach akin to cutting through the toughest obstacles first. Therefore, there are no plans for the two-teacher exams in 2015 or 2016. 2. Secondly, why are there no examination plans for architects and planners? As is well known, these two professions have the earliest-established and most mature examination systems, as well as the earliest and most formal legislative and regulatory frameworks (the Architectural Practitioners Ordinance and the Urban and Rural Planning Law; registration is mandated by law). They stand out among other examinations that emerged later; all examinations related to the construction industry are essentially developed in response to the need to address and rectify various detailed issues that arise throughout the development process of architecture and planning. Planning is one of the most effective tools for macro-control, while architecture represents the foundation of the construction industry. It is only because of its long history of maturity that it can be used as a test ground for reforms; so how can builders with numerous flaws be used for such pilot projects? So, why are these two such important certified examinations handed over to the associations? The reason lies in the reform decisions and determination of the central leadership. It is said: “In the process of political reform, the sword lies in the hands of those at the top; the direction in which policies are pursued is determined by those in power.” The ancients understood that reform must proceed from the top down, and that changes must be made at the highest levels (by first altering the laws); this is precisely why architects and planners were the first to undergo reform. Because for reform to succeed, the first blow must be struck at the intersection of powers, and urban planning is undoubtedly at the forefront of this. This sets the stage for the 2016 examination schedule, which currently does not include architects or planners. 3. Finally, will registered planners and registered architects be abolished? What will be their value once responsibilities are delegated to associations? At both the national and local levels, there has never been any intention to abolish the registration system; the role played by this system is fully recognized. The Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development acknowledges the importance of urban planning in matters related to city development and emphasizes the need to foster a positive planning culture as well as skilled planning professionals, which shows the significance of planning at the national level. Therefore, registered architects and registered planners will not be abolished. How will its value change once it is delegated to the association? The quality of the certificate will improve, and its professionalism will increase. Since **the evaluation system will neither be canceled nor implemented. This evaluation is completely inconsistent with the goal of reforming to produce talents for international deployment; rather, greater specialization is the goal of the reform. Therefore, the State Council has requested that registration powers be delegated to associations, achieving two goals at once: it frees up the **’s resources (as it is the associations that handle exams and grading), and it also enables the development of skilled professionals through the associations’ expertise. Therefore, we can predict that future reforms will move toward a more professional and market-oriented level of integration with the international standards; the value of such qualifications will increase, but it is undeniable that the difficulty of the exams will rise. For more information on the construction industry, please follow 555 Registration Network – insights on registration!