MiAK-MAK ACCREDITATION CONDITIONS (2025)
(For Bachelor of Architecture Programs)
(Accepted at MiAK Board of Directors on 15.02.2021. Revision: 06.11.2025 MiAK 3rd Term 6th Board of Directors Decision No. 1)
FOREWORD
“MiAK-MAK Accreditation Conditions” and “MiAK-MAK Accreditation Processes” define the requirements that the architecture program to be accredited is expected to fulfill, and the minimum conditions and process steps that must be followed by the Visiting Team and program Coordinators. For this reason, “MiAK-MAK Accreditation Conditions” and “MiAK-MAK Accreditation Processes” must be evaluated together, taking the scope of the other into consideration.
MiAK expects an architecture program seeking accreditation to develop an educational approach that satisfies the MiAK-MAK Accreditation Conditions and to provide education in a manner that will ensure the “Knowledge, Skills, and Competencies to be Acquired by Graduates.”
The manner and extent of fulfillment of the MiAK-MAK Accreditation Conditions vary depending on the programs that are accredited or are to be accredited. The way these conditions are met, and the requirements are reported may also differ. Furthermore, the programs are obliged to demonstrate their compliance with the MiAK-MAK Accreditation Conditions by providing complete and accurate information.
PROGRAM’S SELF-EVALUATION
The Program’s Self-Evaluation Report is the primary source for the accreditation process. This report must be prepared in Turkish. However, the program may also submit documents in another language when deemed necessary.
The Self-Evaluation Report consists of two sections: “General Information About the Program” and “Teaching and Learning Characteristics of the Program.” At the end of each section, topics are examined in the context of “critique, evaluation, and objectives.”
The program’s Self-Evaluation includes objective data, critical insights, evaluations, and projections that will serve to identify the program’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.
The program's Self-Evaluation includes objective data, critical insights, evaluations, and projections that serve to identify the program's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.
Programs Applying to MiAK for the First Time:
MiAK may evaluate undergraduate programs awarding an architecture professional degree together with programs awarding graduate and doctoral degrees in an integrated manner.
The program must satisfy the criteria specified pursuant to Article 2.1 of the MiAK-MAK Processes Document. These criteria are:
Being recognized by the Council of Higher Education (YÖK) and included in central placement by the Measurement, Selection and Placement Center (ÖSYM) of the Republic of Turkey,
Being a Bachelor’s and/or Graduate Architecture Program,
The language of application and correspondence for accreditation being Turkish or English,
Having a sufficient number of students to allow Evaluation and comparison at every level. (This condition does not apply to programs in the process of closing.)
Having provided uninterrupted education for at least 6 (six) years with the current or equivalent course curriculum and having graduated at least 60 students.
A program whose application is accepted first prepares the Self-Evaluation Report and the Remote Access Folder.
Programs Previously Accredited by MiAK:
For re-accreditation, the program must monitor the expiry of its own accreditation period and the application and completion dates of the accreditation process according to the MiAK-MAK Accreditation Calendar, and submit its letter of intent to MiAK.
The appendix to an accredited program’s Self-Evaluation Report must include a copy of the previous Visiting Team Final Report (APPENDIX 5) and copies of the Annual Reports sent to MiAK-MAK following the previous visit along with the MiAK-MAK evaluations of those reports (APPENDIX 6).
The Self-Evaluation Report that the program will submit to MiAK-MAK following its renewal application must also contain explanations addressing the “deficiencies,” “problematic” situations, and “flagged” conditions in the previous Visiting Team Final Report.
