my advice is usually to invoke the prospect of legal action. i know this sounds drastic and harsh, but it works. you usually don't have to follow through, just allude to the possibility and often other options will magically appear.
ryhane, you should look at your state's licensing requirements. my state, for example, has separate requirements from idp, even though they actually require idp. so it's really confusing. but it seems to me that if your experience meets the state reqs but not the idp reqs, you might be able to make a seious case that ncarb is impeding your advancement. talk to them in terms of 'lost earnings' resulting from the delay of your licensure as these are real quantifiable damages
It really is impeding my advancement. Not being able to report my previous experience has made me less attractive to my current employer.
My boss had hoped I could grow into a resident architect role within the next few years. Turns out I can't gain more than 3500 hours of the 5500 hours required to get licensed, because I am not working at a "traditional" architecture firm. I am working under a licensed architect though. If I could apply even a few of the 4600+ hours that I logged over 2 and a half years (at a traditional firm), then I would be able to earn the rest at my current job. As soon as my boss found out that I wouldn't be able to get licensed while working there, I felt as if my pink slip was already signed. Oh, and guess what? My firm has recently hired an already licensed architect. Thankfully, I think I have proven my skills and made myself nearly indispensable. I want to move up, I NEED to move up, I could move up, but there is a red-tape roadblock in my way.
After explaining my predicament to an NCARB official, he told me that after two years I should probably reevaluate the direction I want to take in my career and that I should probably find another job that would fulfill all of the requirements as set forth in the IDP. I nearly went cross-eyed when I heard that. I thought, "Do you know how long and hard I looked to find the job I currently have?" I also thought, "Why would I want to leave my company when I see tremendous potential for growth there?" How removed is he from the current state of the industry? If I could get licensed, then I could help my company grow its business by being able to take on more comprehensive projects.
A few points I'll offer as a very interested party who's seen the insides of NCARB more closely than I'd like:
a: NCARB really was born out of (and still holds) a very practical but powerful need - that is an ability for registered architects to more smoothly gain a license in another state for the purposes of doing work. In that regard, NCARB has done a very, very good job (now, the fees they charge us to access that ability is another story). You all who are a bit younger have no earthly idea how complicated it was - and yes, the path to making it easier is/was through developing a standardized level of minimum requirements. The states, trust me, had no interest in doing this themselves and the federal government has no jurisdiction over professional licensure (for any profession).
So, along the way to standardization, NCARB realized one of the key components was creating a pathway to getting licensed and then trying to get the states to buy in. Again, in this regard, they've done all of us a huge favor (stay with the big picture here...) In that sense, they turned the US into the EU - one set of common reference points and anyone can virtually practice anywhere much more easily.
Financially, the state's not going to pay NCARB a fee, so that falls to us. And, again, in principle, I'm ok with that. Part of doing business.
Now, here's where NCARB lost their way:
First, they shifted too much of the financial burden onto interns taking the tests, which is really being driven by a piss-poor licensing/contract agreement with Prometric. As much as you all think NCARB is raking in, they're paying a lot back out to Prometric. Regardless, NCARB should be subsidizing this portion of the equation by raising the rates on licensed professionals who stay on as NCARB members.
Second, with regards to IDP - elinor (I think) said it best: "the problem is that so much depends on employers being responsible for your development, and so often this doesn't happen as it should. and the intern has no recourse in the matter." Bingo. The way IDP is currently constructed, there's not only no checks and balances, there's no way for interns to know if the quality of experience they're getting is any good. For all the benefits of a standardized test and checklist of experience to get (and that really is a good thing), there's absolutely zero mechanisms to ensure that the experience being gained is any good. And, honestly, if you're depending on 2/3rd's of the firms out there to provide it, you're already screwed.
I think we can fix that by adopting an equivalent to the medical profession's teaching hospitals - perhaps it's in the form of community design centers or it could be firms that dedicate themselves to being 'teaching firms' (and get some subsidies in return), but there has to be some way to adequately ensure that the people teaching interns know what the hell they're actually doing. It can be boring at times and not the most glamorous work, but it has to be thorough, rigorous, and accountable to the states.
Third (and last for this post) - with regards to the test: my wife took the last 'paper' test before the new electronic version kicked in. 200 bucks, four days, one room somewhere centrally located in the state. only offered one time a year. and you know what? everyone took them right on schedule, because if you skipped, you lost a whole year of opportunity to get that license. you actually studied (and mostly in groups, since online options weren't feasible back then), and you formed a kind of bond with everyone else in your class. Most germane to our discussion, though, was that there was no procrastination because, let me tell you, if you didn't take it on schedule, you'd better be the best thing in the office or your career path there was shot. Didn't have to pass it all, but you had to try.
The problem with the current system is that, while it offers an abundance of convenience, it makes procrastination 100x easier - hence the need for things like the 6 month rule. So, I'd propose going back to the once a year, four day marathon. Do it on computers, that's fine, it'd have to be 10x cheaper to do, since you'd have only one secure local network to set up, pay a couple of administrators for their time, get the AIA to coordinate volunteer 'exam watchers (and they'd do it in a heartbeat if asked) and put some actual value behind getting the license.
This is just a start. I'm sure there's more issues to tackle...
Actually, I'm pretty sure a whole hell of a lot of architects would be down to "mentor" an intern if they could exchange mentorship for continuing education. In that structure, an intern maybe able to work for any number of architects, on contracts et cetera while being able to defer to a single mentor.
What would make this whole situation even more sweet is if the architect mentoring the intern could also write off the wasted hours as an "educational expense."
A grand a year plus not having to look at annoying powerpoint presentations would be incentive enough to have someone sit down with an intern and look over their work and time cards.
NCARB is due to re-evaluate their exam methodology in 2012. Now is the time to voice the collective opinion.
Most of Canada (excluding BC) dumped NCARB in 2008 (yes, they were on it) and went with a new system called ExAC. 2 day exam that happens once a year (mostly igloo design). It was great to see a wave of my old classmates get registered in the last few years. Their system seem to work soooo much better. Bad news is that there is no more reciprocation with NCARB land, so if you're registered in states and plan on moving to Canada once Sarah Palin becomes president, be prepared to start from scratch.
"I think we can fix that by adopting an equivalent to the medical profession's teaching hospitals"
I think that's a horrible idea. Scope is all different, and once again, what exact problem is this meant to fix? If you are truly unqualified, you are not going to land a client. Even seasoned professionals have an impossible time switching typologies, say hospitality to health care. Between building codes, contractors, clients, and consultants you'll be hard pressed to execute a project that will endanger life. Doctors have to make life saving decisions on the fly.
"So, I'd propose going back to the once a year, four day marathon."
Completely agree on that one. NCARB can save some face, and everyone would benefit. A realistic idea, I think.
I wish architecture licensure was closer in line to what structural-civil engineers have to go through. For example, in California you need 6 years of experience before writing your exam, BUT you get 4 year credit for going to an accredited institution (only 2 years for international schools), AND up to a year credit for internships. My old college roommate got his license in California just a year after graduating. The licensure comprised of a two-day, 8-hour test.
Architecture used to be much closer to this model. Now it's an egg hunt, with more eggs being hidden in impossible to find places every few years or so. For no discernable reason to boot!
in recent interviews, I mention my IDP has been complete, but getting laid off in this terrible economy put a halt to my plans to take my exams. They always understand this.
greg, thanks for returning this discussion to some sense of civility and making some provocative suggestions. in regards to idp, my wife and i have both gone through idp working at a number of different types of firms of varying sizes. i've yet to come across this nightmare scenario where a superviser refuses to sign paperwork or refuses to listen to an intern's need for greater exposure to the profession. perhaps i've been lucky, but i think more likely these scenarios tend to be the exception and quite far from the rule. my problem with idp however is that it is overly prescribed and out of touch with the specialized nature of much of contemporary practice. idp is fine if you work in a small to medium-sized, jack-of-all-trades type firm, but this type of practice is generally going the way of the dodo with the rise of cm, design-build, and other speciality consulting services. simply because you work in one of these types of firms which are becoming more the norm should not prevent you from licensure and does not make your body of knowledge as a professional any better or worse than that of the more traditional architect. fundementally licensure is there to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public; once that criteria is met the nature of the internship experience can and will vary wildly. ncarb needs to acknowledge that fact and stop trying to explicitly prescribe an out-dated conception of what a professional should be.
I agree on a once-a-year exam. Momentum to prepare for it would build and more people would get licensed, I predict.
I also agree that NCARB, once you get though all the hoops, is super helpful for getting reciprocity in other states and this is a really, really good thing.
This year, I feel my $300 NCARB fee is worth it (even though I don't *really* have a choice), but the $600 AIA membership (totally voluntary) is not, so I'm not AIA at this moment.
I'd mentor an intern in a heartbeat, several of them in fact, and I'd happily be an exam monitor if I got to wear a snappy vest identifying me as such. Maybe carry a stick.
I sent an email to NCARB a year or so ago, after hearing yet more stories of delayed responses, lost addresses, missing files, etc. and told them as a member I was very disappointed in the stories I was hearing from young interns about their frustrations with the system. I did get a nice email back talking about how they were working on their customer service, and when I had an exasperated phone call with them myself this year the woman who on the phone was completely helpful, organized, and polite.
Donna - I'm in the same boat. Even though I'm paying another 395 per to have NCARB send my info around (another complaint for another day).
Rusty - the teaching firm may not be the right vehicle but the problem it would solve is how to more accurately quantify the kinds of experience people are gaining through IDP. Reasoning being this: the purpose of a teaching hospital is to have a standardized checklist of experiences/tasks/whatever that each and every doctor goes through. It's a minimum criteria, just like IDP. It matters because there's no other way to implement the practicum of IDP in a consistent manner. As someone pointed out, you can go through all of IDP doing apartment interiors if you happen to be in NYC. Yet, there's a lot of issues you probably won't have to deal with - exterior envelopes, structures, site design, etc. that are supposed to be part of each 'well rounded' architect's experience level (as dictated by the test). right now, each of us is catching work where we can - if you can't get a firm or experience within a firm that allows you a structured way to gain the experience needed to pass the licensing exam, then I'd argue someone could sue on the grounds that they're being constrained in their trade. I mean, lawyers (and just about everyone else) gets to take their exam directly after school - you fail, then fine. Only A (and E's to be fair) have devised a system where you aren't prepared to take an exam yet don't have a secured path to get there (that's the point of teaching hospitals - they have a slot for everyone - may not get your first choice and probably have to move, but you'll get trained).
also, a teaching firm would force a kind of 3 and done - you only get a slot there for that time. Pass at the end or fail - either way you're done being there. You'd still have your credits and could re-take the exam, but don't you think there'd be an intense pressure to make sure you passed? It would also make marketability much higher for firms - they're not having to take as much risk training interns themselves. To me, it's a win-win, but...
I think we can fix that by adopting an equivalent to the medical profession's teaching hospitals - perhaps it's in the form of community design centers or it could be firms that dedicate themselves to being 'teaching firms' (and get some subsidies in return), but there has to be some way to adequately ensure that the people teaching interns know what the hell they're actually doing. It can be boring at times and not the most glamorous work, but it has to be thorough, rigorous, and accountable to the states.
I think something more akin to an independent "support group" - a required occasional check-in bitch session/pro practice/ARE Prep course with other people who are also currently going through IDP... run by a few licensed architects who are trained at teaching and support (they'd probably get paid by NCARB). at least this way you can get a chance to compare your experience with others and get REAL advice from someone who can help you figure out how fill in some of the gaps if your current office can't provide you with certain kinds of experience. I believe NCARB has these online courses you can take, but I think if you're paying for NCARB to maintain your record they should be able to give you a little more. at the very least you'd get a chance to network with your peers.
The co-op architecture schools do some of this, but only a to a certain extent. It also seems that in other professions there is far more comprehensive training and support available than there is in architecture. We have to entirely rely on the AIA for this, and I don't think they do a very good job. I also don't know why we constantly look at the medical profession as this ideal model - there are other professions that have similar internship/licensing processes - like teaching.
Greg, you seem to really like the idea of throwing more regulation on top of the pile. Problem: registration's too inflexible. Solution: make it even more rigid. Empowering certain firms to have mandatory internship status would create a truly horrible, anti-competitive environment. Everyone needs to work for AECOM (or equal) in order to have a career. Shudder...
I agree with One and done about the need for highly specialized professionals being accounted for in IDP.
I agree with Rusty - "teaching firms" sounds like a good idea, but we're not even remotely similar to the medical profession where a single hospital tied to a school (can you imagine a single large firm being tied to a school?).
anyway - if we're making comparisons to licensing processes in other fields, it invariably comes down to the fact that other professions have a much closer link to academia than we do. We also don't ever talk about certain firms as "good organizations" where you have a chance to work with and learn from a team of people who are experts in their respective areas (when was the last time you heard a student talk about wanting to work for X firm because they're strong in a particular building type or are doing innovative detailing?) - it's either about trying to work for someone who we've been told to admire as a creative individual - or just about finding a good job.
Then we're expected to pick up the technical experience needed for a license when it wasn't our priority when we were looking for work in the first place and we have no idea what this is supposed to look like...
I think in some aspects... a teaching firm is a plausible opportunity. There's problems, sure.
I think some architects may find that a teaching firm would unfairly poach their "easy" work. Small items in the public realm like bus stops, parks, small utility buildings, public bathrooms, building renovations generally all require an architect. Conversely, in the private realm, there's also sorts of expansions, renovations [kitchens, bathrooms et cetera], small outbuildings, small homes and what-have-you.
While I may not know much about actual practice, I do know that there's a lot of people on this very board who survive on this so called "low hanging fruit" or cherry work of architecture.
The problem with the "cherry work" is not that it's particularly difficult or demanding... it is just difficult to find and market. Whether its word-of-mouth, yellowpages advertising, waiting by the phone or actively marketing in your community... there's a lot of difficult in actually getting the work.
The biggest problem with say a university or a large college providing these services is that they're massive entities usually well-known and have significant budgets geared towards advertising and public relations.
If a community becomes aware that they can get legal, valid architectural solutions (at a discount), the need for small and independent architects would dwindle. Even if the work produced is subpar, faulty or even overall terrible.
People go to cosmetology schools to get discount haircuts, dental schools for discount dental services, cosmetic surgery schools for discount boob jobs... and the list goes on pretty far.
Corporations are even known to commission engineering and computer departments to help develop and design sophisticated projects being used in the real world.
So really, the only way this would work without a lot of resistance is if the teaching school was located in an area that has a significant demand for architectural services but may not be wholly affordable (New York, San Fransisco, Houston, Chicago).
There's a lot of slum lords in New York who probably need architects. They claim it isn't greed preventing them from doing repairs and rehabilitating their buildings. But rather, they can't afford to fix such buildings without going bankrupt.
I think some architects may find that a teaching firm would unfairly poach their "easy" work. Small items in the public realm like bus stops, parks, small utility buildings, public bathrooms, building renovations generally all require an architect. Conversely, in the private realm, there's also sorts of expansions, renovations [kitchens, bathrooms et cetera], small outbuildings, small homes and what-have-you.
...
The problem with the "cherry work" is not that it's particularly difficult or demanding... it is just difficult to find and market. Whether its word-of-mouth, yellowpages advertising, waiting by the phone or actively marketing in your community... there's a lot of difficult in actually getting the work.
"bread and butter work" is the kind of stuff where you're usually doing a specific non-glamorous service (often not design) you've done a million times before so you don't have to waste a lot of time doing research. This isn't something interns could possibly know how to do, and I think most firms who rely on this kind of work wouldn't really see a "teaching firm" as a threat.
also - if a group of interns want to design a bus stop, they'll discover that it'll take years of public review just to get a design agreed upon - they won't have much competition from small firms that are actually trying to turn a profit.
"designing buildings" is only a very small percentage of what we actually do on a daily basis.
Wow - lots of action on the teaching firm while I'm out trying to make a buck...
I'm not personally wed to the teaching firm idea - what was driving it was to find some ways to bring accountability and uniformity to the training period. big picture thoughts here - if anyone's got an alternative, by all means share with the class. because what we have right now is pretty broken...
i was working all day and unable to give this an appropriate amount of thought, but my short initial observations are that:
-adding more education/bureaucracy, in the form of 'teaching firms' or additional credentials would serve to further overburden interns...the last thing they need are more hoops to jump through, and teaching firms probably wouldn't function too well as businesses...
-a yearly exam seems like a good idea, especially since it would focus resources and the attention of prospective licensees
and, personally speaking,
-in my experience, ncarb doesn't do a very good job, either in the areas that you define as their core mission, or in administering the exams. there are so many people who were caught in the ARE transition, told they were on a 5 yr rolling clock which suddenly turned into 1.5 years. there were also test-takers ( i was one) who waited 3-4 months for the results of their last exams (100% graded by computer!), missing opportunities for raises, promotions, or the ability to do independent work in the meantime.
...and i'll add my personal ncarb straw-that-broke-my-back---paying them the reciprocity fee only to find that, four months later, they hadn't gotten around to mailing my paperwork...during which time both state boards were helpful in helping me resolve the situation ...surely in 4 months i would have been able to take care of this myself while keeping the $400 for my own use...
from now on i'm going through the states directly and keeping my money.
i don't doubt that this is all a bureaucratic nightmare, but i do think that the lack of competition keeps them from doing a better job...maybe someone should put together an ncarb alternative? :)
However, bureaucracy is not always evil nor is it ever really that bad. In fact, bureaucracy can be quite good. The reason bureaucracy exists in the first place is because people simply can't be motivated to do anything at all.
Donna posted the graphic that shows the need for some stress is optimal with too little stress and too much stress causing problems.
If everyone could do anything they wanted to without bureaucracy, people would either:
A)Do too much
B)Do nothing at all.
Filling out time cards, taking a few tests and having to put up with advisers maybe twice a semester is literally nothing compared to the bulk of ISO standards and the International Building Code.
And bureaucracy must do two things-- they must perform optimally (51% approval if you want a generic concept of optimal) and they must interact with you. NCARB, as a bureaucracy and Quasi-NGO, has to do both these things.
Unlike a private organization, they can't avoid you.
If you have problems, call back everyday, e-mail everyday and write letters if necessary.
Your license is your livelihood!
If they don't immediately fulfill requests, it's up to you to call them and remind them. If they still don't fulfill your requests, take your complaints to the state attorney, your state department responsible for licensing et cetera!
And lastly, NCARB as a bureaucracy has to deal with other bureaucracies.
Your reciprocation might have been delayed because Pennsylvania or Vermont or Oregon's bureaucracy might be incredibly slow in issuing paperwork, they might be a bureaucracy that requires triplicates of triplicates and they might require that all of those things either be filled out in person or all correspondence done through mail.
no, bureaucracy is not evil. too much though, slows things down to the point where not much can happen.
my process was not delayed because of the state boards, but because ncarb failed to act. simple oversight, error, computer malfunction...who knows why? they probably process hundreds of these that go through just fine, but this one didn't. and after the other mishaps i had with them, i just had enough.
"If you are in a crappy situation, stuck doing the same thing over and over again and then realize your IDP hours arent being filled despite having a steady job, well, thats not really IDP or NCARB's fault, and there doesnt need to be legislation forcing jerk architects to make sure their employees are getting spread out over all the hours they need. If nothing else, it will just make them bigger jerks. Those are situations where you just need to find a new job"
I like how you guys say these things, then complete forget how difficult it can be right now to find a new job...
The 6-month rule only is an issue for those that are trying to get backlogged hours; otherwise it's not that bad - you can always log in shorter intervals to help keep track. The upkeep fee is a tad weird, for landscape architecture the requirement is length of employment and a sign off from your employers to cover basic 7-categories (that you were involved, not logging in hours) - seems reasonable enough.
The IDP process makes me feel that architects are a) too nit picky and/or b) untrustworthy (don't trust each other) - in engineering the process is simple, and trusts that the candidate and supervisor(s) are making the appropriate decision by getting/supporting the applicant.
I'm a year into my IDP. I'm flying through most categories and generally feel like I'm learning quite a bit. My biggest concern so far is the further breakdown of categories and the increase in Project Management hours.
Project Management Experience Areas:
3A. Bidding and Contract Negotiation (120 hours)
3B. Construction Administration (240 hours)
3C. Construction Phase: Observation (120 hours)
3D. General Project Management (240 hours = total 720 hours.
I've registered 73 so far in year one with only 4 in construction observation and bidding contract. This is quite ridiculous to me. I do not feel like I'm being held back at my firm necessarily but there is constant pressure to be producing drawings at your desk, so site visits have been limited. I also realize I should be given more responsibility later for project management work. All of this leads me to two conclusions; mentor ship is crucial and mine is currently lacking, and these are frankly too many hours.I would have to average 6 hours a month in Construction Phase observation to make the 3 year mark for completing IDP.
Are there actually firms out there willing to give an intern this many project management hours?
Not sure who looks at this post anymore also I didn't read every post so maybe this will be redundant, however, NCARB made an amendment in June 2014 stating that you will now have 8 months to document your experience reports for full credit and a 5 year window following that to receive 50% for all experience completed between the most recent 8 months out to 5 years.
IDP / NCARB six-month rule got you down?
my advice is usually to invoke the prospect of legal action. i know this sounds drastic and harsh, but it works. you usually don't have to follow through, just allude to the possibility and often other options will magically appear.
ryhane, you should look at your state's licensing requirements. my state, for example, has separate requirements from idp, even though they actually require idp. so it's really confusing. but it seems to me that if your experience meets the state reqs but not the idp reqs, you might be able to make a seious case that ncarb is impeding your advancement. talk to them in terms of 'lost earnings' resulting from the delay of your licensure as these are real quantifiable damages
elinor,
It really is impeding my advancement. Not being able to report my previous experience has made me less attractive to my current employer.
My boss had hoped I could grow into a resident architect role within the next few years. Turns out I can't gain more than 3500 hours of the 5500 hours required to get licensed, because I am not working at a "traditional" architecture firm. I am working under a licensed architect though. If I could apply even a few of the 4600+ hours that I logged over 2 and a half years (at a traditional firm), then I would be able to earn the rest at my current job. As soon as my boss found out that I wouldn't be able to get licensed while working there, I felt as if my pink slip was already signed. Oh, and guess what? My firm has recently hired an already licensed architect. Thankfully, I think I have proven my skills and made myself nearly indispensable. I want to move up, I NEED to move up, I could move up, but there is a red-tape roadblock in my way.
After explaining my predicament to an NCARB official, he told me that after two years I should probably reevaluate the direction I want to take in my career and that I should probably find another job that would fulfill all of the requirements as set forth in the IDP. I nearly went cross-eyed when I heard that. I thought, "Do you know how long and hard I looked to find the job I currently have?" I also thought, "Why would I want to leave my company when I see tremendous potential for growth there?" How removed is he from the current state of the industry? If I could get licensed, then I could help my company grow its business by being able to take on more comprehensive projects.
A few points I'll offer as a very interested party who's seen the insides of NCARB more closely than I'd like:
a: NCARB really was born out of (and still holds) a very practical but powerful need - that is an ability for registered architects to more smoothly gain a license in another state for the purposes of doing work. In that regard, NCARB has done a very, very good job (now, the fees they charge us to access that ability is another story). You all who are a bit younger have no earthly idea how complicated it was - and yes, the path to making it easier is/was through developing a standardized level of minimum requirements. The states, trust me, had no interest in doing this themselves and the federal government has no jurisdiction over professional licensure (for any profession).
So, along the way to standardization, NCARB realized one of the key components was creating a pathway to getting licensed and then trying to get the states to buy in. Again, in this regard, they've done all of us a huge favor (stay with the big picture here...) In that sense, they turned the US into the EU - one set of common reference points and anyone can virtually practice anywhere much more easily.
Financially, the state's not going to pay NCARB a fee, so that falls to us. And, again, in principle, I'm ok with that. Part of doing business.
Now, here's where NCARB lost their way:
First, they shifted too much of the financial burden onto interns taking the tests, which is really being driven by a piss-poor licensing/contract agreement with Prometric. As much as you all think NCARB is raking in, they're paying a lot back out to Prometric. Regardless, NCARB should be subsidizing this portion of the equation by raising the rates on licensed professionals who stay on as NCARB members.
Second, with regards to IDP - elinor (I think) said it best: "the problem is that so much depends on employers being responsible for your development, and so often this doesn't happen as it should. and the intern has no recourse in the matter." Bingo. The way IDP is currently constructed, there's not only no checks and balances, there's no way for interns to know if the quality of experience they're getting is any good. For all the benefits of a standardized test and checklist of experience to get (and that really is a good thing), there's absolutely zero mechanisms to ensure that the experience being gained is any good. And, honestly, if you're depending on 2/3rd's of the firms out there to provide it, you're already screwed.
I think we can fix that by adopting an equivalent to the medical profession's teaching hospitals - perhaps it's in the form of community design centers or it could be firms that dedicate themselves to being 'teaching firms' (and get some subsidies in return), but there has to be some way to adequately ensure that the people teaching interns know what the hell they're actually doing. It can be boring at times and not the most glamorous work, but it has to be thorough, rigorous, and accountable to the states.
Third (and last for this post) - with regards to the test: my wife took the last 'paper' test before the new electronic version kicked in. 200 bucks, four days, one room somewhere centrally located in the state. only offered one time a year. and you know what? everyone took them right on schedule, because if you skipped, you lost a whole year of opportunity to get that license. you actually studied (and mostly in groups, since online options weren't feasible back then), and you formed a kind of bond with everyone else in your class. Most germane to our discussion, though, was that there was no procrastination because, let me tell you, if you didn't take it on schedule, you'd better be the best thing in the office or your career path there was shot. Didn't have to pass it all, but you had to try.
The problem with the current system is that, while it offers an abundance of convenience, it makes procrastination 100x easier - hence the need for things like the 6 month rule. So, I'd propose going back to the once a year, four day marathon. Do it on computers, that's fine, it'd have to be 10x cheaper to do, since you'd have only one secure local network to set up, pay a couple of administrators for their time, get the AIA to coordinate volunteer 'exam watchers (and they'd do it in a heartbeat if asked) and put some actual value behind getting the license.
This is just a start. I'm sure there's more issues to tackle...
Actually, I'm pretty sure a whole hell of a lot of architects would be down to "mentor" an intern if they could exchange mentorship for continuing education. In that structure, an intern maybe able to work for any number of architects, on contracts et cetera while being able to defer to a single mentor.
What would make this whole situation even more sweet is if the architect mentoring the intern could also write off the wasted hours as an "educational expense."
A grand a year plus not having to look at annoying powerpoint presentations would be incentive enough to have someone sit down with an intern and look over their work and time cards.
Thanks Greg. Just to add a few things,
NCARB is due to re-evaluate their exam methodology in 2012. Now is the time to voice the collective opinion.
Most of Canada (excluding BC) dumped NCARB in 2008 (yes, they were on it) and went with a new system called ExAC. 2 day exam that happens once a year (mostly igloo design). It was great to see a wave of my old classmates get registered in the last few years. Their system seem to work soooo much better. Bad news is that there is no more reciprocation with NCARB land, so if you're registered in states and plan on moving to Canada once Sarah Palin becomes president, be prepared to start from scratch.
"I think we can fix that by adopting an equivalent to the medical profession's teaching hospitals"
I think that's a horrible idea. Scope is all different, and once again, what exact problem is this meant to fix? If you are truly unqualified, you are not going to land a client. Even seasoned professionals have an impossible time switching typologies, say hospitality to health care. Between building codes, contractors, clients, and consultants you'll be hard pressed to execute a project that will endanger life. Doctors have to make life saving decisions on the fly.
"So, I'd propose going back to the once a year, four day marathon."
Completely agree on that one. NCARB can save some face, and everyone would benefit. A realistic idea, I think.
One more thing,
I wish architecture licensure was closer in line to what structural-civil engineers have to go through. For example, in California you need 6 years of experience before writing your exam, BUT you get 4 year credit for going to an accredited institution (only 2 years for international schools), AND up to a year credit for internships. My old college roommate got his license in California just a year after graduating. The licensure comprised of a two-day, 8-hour test.
Architecture used to be much closer to this model. Now it's an egg hunt, with more eggs being hidden in impossible to find places every few years or so. For no discernable reason to boot!
in recent interviews, I mention my IDP has been complete, but getting laid off in this terrible economy put a halt to my plans to take my exams. They always understand this.
glitter cantaur,
People on archinect know I am not a Rem Fanatic, but that picture was really disturbing, it could be in a horror flick easy.
greg, thanks for returning this discussion to some sense of civility and making some provocative suggestions. in regards to idp, my wife and i have both gone through idp working at a number of different types of firms of varying sizes. i've yet to come across this nightmare scenario where a superviser refuses to sign paperwork or refuses to listen to an intern's need for greater exposure to the profession. perhaps i've been lucky, but i think more likely these scenarios tend to be the exception and quite far from the rule. my problem with idp however is that it is overly prescribed and out of touch with the specialized nature of much of contemporary practice. idp is fine if you work in a small to medium-sized, jack-of-all-trades type firm, but this type of practice is generally going the way of the dodo with the rise of cm, design-build, and other speciality consulting services. simply because you work in one of these types of firms which are becoming more the norm should not prevent you from licensure and does not make your body of knowledge as a professional any better or worse than that of the more traditional architect. fundementally licensure is there to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public; once that criteria is met the nature of the internship experience can and will vary wildly. ncarb needs to acknowledge that fact and stop trying to explicitly prescribe an out-dated conception of what a professional should be.
I agree on a once-a-year exam. Momentum to prepare for it would build and more people would get licensed, I predict.
I also agree that NCARB, once you get though all the hoops, is super helpful for getting reciprocity in other states and this is a really, really good thing.
This year, I feel my $300 NCARB fee is worth it (even though I don't *really* have a choice), but the $600 AIA membership (totally voluntary) is not, so I'm not AIA at this moment.
I'd mentor an intern in a heartbeat, several of them in fact, and I'd happily be an exam monitor if I got to wear a snappy vest identifying me as such. Maybe carry a stick.
I sent an email to NCARB a year or so ago, after hearing yet more stories of delayed responses, lost addresses, missing files, etc. and told them as a member I was very disappointed in the stories I was hearing from young interns about their frustrations with the system. I did get a nice email back talking about how they were working on their customer service, and when I had an exasperated phone call with them myself this year the woman who on the phone was completely helpful, organized, and polite.
Donna - I'm in the same boat. Even though I'm paying another 395 per to have NCARB send my info around (another complaint for another day).
Rusty - the teaching firm may not be the right vehicle but the problem it would solve is how to more accurately quantify the kinds of experience people are gaining through IDP. Reasoning being this: the purpose of a teaching hospital is to have a standardized checklist of experiences/tasks/whatever that each and every doctor goes through. It's a minimum criteria, just like IDP. It matters because there's no other way to implement the practicum of IDP in a consistent manner. As someone pointed out, you can go through all of IDP doing apartment interiors if you happen to be in NYC. Yet, there's a lot of issues you probably won't have to deal with - exterior envelopes, structures, site design, etc. that are supposed to be part of each 'well rounded' architect's experience level (as dictated by the test). right now, each of us is catching work where we can - if you can't get a firm or experience within a firm that allows you a structured way to gain the experience needed to pass the licensing exam, then I'd argue someone could sue on the grounds that they're being constrained in their trade. I mean, lawyers (and just about everyone else) gets to take their exam directly after school - you fail, then fine. Only A (and E's to be fair) have devised a system where you aren't prepared to take an exam yet don't have a secured path to get there (that's the point of teaching hospitals - they have a slot for everyone - may not get your first choice and probably have to move, but you'll get trained).
also, a teaching firm would force a kind of 3 and done - you only get a slot there for that time. Pass at the end or fail - either way you're done being there. You'd still have your credits and could re-take the exam, but don't you think there'd be an intense pressure to make sure you passed? It would also make marketability much higher for firms - they're not having to take as much risk training interns themselves. To me, it's a win-win, but...
I think something more akin to an independent "support group" - a required occasional check-in bitch session/pro practice/ARE Prep course with other people who are also currently going through IDP... run by a few licensed architects who are trained at teaching and support (they'd probably get paid by NCARB). at least this way you can get a chance to compare your experience with others and get REAL advice from someone who can help you figure out how fill in some of the gaps if your current office can't provide you with certain kinds of experience. I believe NCARB has these online courses you can take, but I think if you're paying for NCARB to maintain your record they should be able to give you a little more. at the very least you'd get a chance to network with your peers.
The co-op architecture schools do some of this, but only a to a certain extent. It also seems that in other professions there is far more comprehensive training and support available than there is in architecture. We have to entirely rely on the AIA for this, and I don't think they do a very good job. I also don't know why we constantly look at the medical profession as this ideal model - there are other professions that have similar internship/licensing processes - like teaching.
Greg, you seem to really like the idea of throwing more regulation on top of the pile. Problem: registration's too inflexible. Solution: make it even more rigid. Empowering certain firms to have mandatory internship status would create a truly horrible, anti-competitive environment. Everyone needs to work for AECOM (or equal) in order to have a career. Shudder...
I agree with One and done about the need for highly specialized professionals being accounted for in IDP.
I agree with Rusty - "teaching firms" sounds like a good idea, but we're not even remotely similar to the medical profession where a single hospital tied to a school (can you imagine a single large firm being tied to a school?).
anyway - if we're making comparisons to licensing processes in other fields, it invariably comes down to the fact that other professions have a much closer link to academia than we do. We also don't ever talk about certain firms as "good organizations" where you have a chance to work with and learn from a team of people who are experts in their respective areas (when was the last time you heard a student talk about wanting to work for X firm because they're strong in a particular building type or are doing innovative detailing?) - it's either about trying to work for someone who we've been told to admire as a creative individual - or just about finding a good job.
Then we're expected to pick up the technical experience needed for a license when it wasn't our priority when we were looking for work in the first place and we have no idea what this is supposed to look like...
I think in some aspects... a teaching firm is a plausible opportunity. There's problems, sure.
I think some architects may find that a teaching firm would unfairly poach their "easy" work. Small items in the public realm like bus stops, parks, small utility buildings, public bathrooms, building renovations generally all require an architect. Conversely, in the private realm, there's also sorts of expansions, renovations [kitchens, bathrooms et cetera], small outbuildings, small homes and what-have-you.
While I may not know much about actual practice, I do know that there's a lot of people on this very board who survive on this so called "low hanging fruit" or cherry work of architecture.
The problem with the "cherry work" is not that it's particularly difficult or demanding... it is just difficult to find and market. Whether its word-of-mouth, yellowpages advertising, waiting by the phone or actively marketing in your community... there's a lot of difficult in actually getting the work.
The biggest problem with say a university or a large college providing these services is that they're massive entities usually well-known and have significant budgets geared towards advertising and public relations.
If a community becomes aware that they can get legal, valid architectural solutions (at a discount), the need for small and independent architects would dwindle. Even if the work produced is subpar, faulty or even overall terrible.
People go to cosmetology schools to get discount haircuts, dental schools for discount dental services, cosmetic surgery schools for discount boob jobs... and the list goes on pretty far.
Corporations are even known to commission engineering and computer departments to help develop and design sophisticated projects being used in the real world.
So really, the only way this would work without a lot of resistance is if the teaching school was located in an area that has a significant demand for architectural services but may not be wholly affordable (New York, San Fransisco, Houston, Chicago).
There's a lot of slum lords in New York who probably need architects. They claim it isn't greed preventing them from doing repairs and rehabilitating their buildings. But rather, they can't afford to fix such buildings without going bankrupt.
...
The problem with the "cherry work" is not that it's particularly difficult or demanding... it is just difficult to find and market. Whether its word-of-mouth, yellowpages advertising, waiting by the phone or actively marketing in your community... there's a lot of difficult in actually getting the work.
"bread and butter work" is the kind of stuff where you're usually doing a specific non-glamorous service (often not design) you've done a million times before so you don't have to waste a lot of time doing research. This isn't something interns could possibly know how to do, and I think most firms who rely on this kind of work wouldn't really see a "teaching firm" as a threat.
also - if a group of interns want to design a bus stop, they'll discover that it'll take years of public review just to get a design agreed upon - they won't have much competition from small firms that are actually trying to turn a profit.
"designing buildings" is only a very small percentage of what we actually do on a daily basis.
Wow - lots of action on the teaching firm while I'm out trying to make a buck...
I'm not personally wed to the teaching firm idea - what was driving it was to find some ways to bring accountability and uniformity to the training period. big picture thoughts here - if anyone's got an alternative, by all means share with the class. because what we have right now is pretty broken...
greg, thanks for the informative post!
i was working all day and unable to give this an appropriate amount of thought, but my short initial observations are that:
-adding more education/bureaucracy, in the form of 'teaching firms' or additional credentials would serve to further overburden interns...the last thing they need are more hoops to jump through, and teaching firms probably wouldn't function too well as businesses...
-a yearly exam seems like a good idea, especially since it would focus resources and the attention of prospective licensees
and, personally speaking,
-in my experience, ncarb doesn't do a very good job, either in the areas that you define as their core mission, or in administering the exams. there are so many people who were caught in the ARE transition, told they were on a 5 yr rolling clock which suddenly turned into 1.5 years. there were also test-takers ( i was one) who waited 3-4 months for the results of their last exams (100% graded by computer!), missing opportunities for raises, promotions, or the ability to do independent work in the meantime.
...and i'll add my personal ncarb straw-that-broke-my-back---paying them the reciprocity fee only to find that, four months later, they hadn't gotten around to mailing my paperwork...during which time both state boards were helpful in helping me resolve the situation ...surely in 4 months i would have been able to take care of this myself while keeping the $400 for my own use...
from now on i'm going through the states directly and keeping my money.
i don't doubt that this is all a bureaucratic nightmare, but i do think that the lack of competition keeps them from doing a better job...maybe someone should put together an ncarb alternative? :)
judging by your tone...
bureaucracy = evil.
However, bureaucracy is not always evil nor is it ever really that bad. In fact, bureaucracy can be quite good. The reason bureaucracy exists in the first place is because people simply can't be motivated to do anything at all.
Donna posted the graphic that shows the need for some stress is optimal with too little stress and too much stress causing problems.
If everyone could do anything they wanted to without bureaucracy, people would either:
A)Do too much
B)Do nothing at all.
Filling out time cards, taking a few tests and having to put up with advisers maybe twice a semester is literally nothing compared to the bulk of ISO standards and the International Building Code.
And bureaucracy must do two things-- they must perform optimally (51% approval if you want a generic concept of optimal) and they must interact with you. NCARB, as a bureaucracy and Quasi-NGO, has to do both these things.
Unlike a private organization, they can't avoid you.
If you have problems, call back everyday, e-mail everyday and write letters if necessary.
Your license is your livelihood!
If they don't immediately fulfill requests, it's up to you to call them and remind them. If they still don't fulfill your requests, take your complaints to the state attorney, your state department responsible for licensing et cetera!
And lastly, NCARB as a bureaucracy has to deal with other bureaucracies.
Your reciprocation might have been delayed because Pennsylvania or Vermont or Oregon's bureaucracy might be incredibly slow in issuing paperwork, they might be a bureaucracy that requires triplicates of triplicates and they might require that all of those things either be filled out in person or all correspondence done through mail.
no, bureaucracy is not evil. too much though, slows things down to the point where not much can happen.
my process was not delayed because of the state boards, but because ncarb failed to act. simple oversight, error, computer malfunction...who knows why? they probably process hundreds of these that go through just fine, but this one didn't. and after the other mishaps i had with them, i just had enough.
ps--my 'tone' might have more to do with the fact that i was writing after friday happy hour...............
"If you are in a crappy situation, stuck doing the same thing over and over again and then realize your IDP hours arent being filled despite having a steady job, well, thats not really IDP or NCARB's fault, and there doesnt need to be legislation forcing jerk architects to make sure their employees are getting spread out over all the hours they need. If nothing else, it will just make them bigger jerks. Those are situations where you just need to find a new job"
I like how you guys say these things, then complete forget how difficult it can be right now to find a new job...
The 6-month rule only is an issue for those that are trying to get backlogged hours; otherwise it's not that bad - you can always log in shorter intervals to help keep track. The upkeep fee is a tad weird, for landscape architecture the requirement is length of employment and a sign off from your employers to cover basic 7-categories (that you were involved, not logging in hours) - seems reasonable enough.
The IDP process makes me feel that architects are a) too nit picky and/or b) untrustworthy (don't trust each other) - in engineering the process is simple, and trusts that the candidate and supervisor(s) are making the appropriate decision by getting/supporting the applicant.
I'm a year into my IDP. I'm flying through most categories and generally feel like I'm learning quite a bit. My biggest concern so far is the further breakdown of categories and the increase in Project Management hours.
Project Management Experience Areas:
3A. Bidding and Contract Negotiation (120 hours)
3B. Construction Administration (240 hours)
3C. Construction Phase: Observation (120 hours)
3D. General Project Management (240 hours = total 720 hours.
I've registered 73 so far in year one with only 4 in construction observation and bidding contract. This is quite ridiculous to me. I do not feel like I'm being held back at my firm necessarily but there is constant pressure to be producing drawings at your desk, so site visits have been limited. I also realize I should be given more responsibility later for project management work. All of this leads me to two conclusions; mentor ship is crucial and mine is currently lacking, and these are frankly too many hours.I would have to average 6 hours a month in Construction Phase observation to make the 3 year mark for completing IDP.
Are there actually firms out there willing to give an intern this many project management hours?
Not sure who looks at this post anymore also I didn't read every post so maybe this will be redundant, however, NCARB made an amendment in June 2014 stating that you will now have 8 months to document your experience reports for full credit and a 5 year window following that to receive 50% for all experience completed between the most recent 8 months out to 5 years.
See official link here:
http://www.ncarb.org/News-and-Events/News/2014/06-ReportingRule.aspx
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.