Firms/Employers can not cap IDP. IDP has caps in the system of how many hours in specific experience types. That's designed/engineered by NCARB. How employers may limit or slow down your path to licensure is pigeon-holing you into a specific experience such as having you work door and windows details for several years and that is ALL you do at that firm until they decide to provide other opportunities. SOME employers knows this and use this to stifle young interns from becoming licensed by intent but that isn't the whole equation... though.

Once you get so many hours doing schematic design, then you can't get any more IDP training hours doing more schematic design. If you run out of hours in a experience training area, well.... any more hours doing the same thing won't count to IDP. It's work experience but not necessarily complete your IDP. You can't complete IDP by doing door and window details for 3 years.

Employers can do many things but they aren't in total control. They may have some influence on what training experience they provide you and inadvertantly that effects the training hours  you get and what experience areas they are ultimately assigned to by NCARB policy.

Imnop15,

When it comes to what NCARB will accept, it doesn't matter what your colleague thinks. You should always consult NCARB, FIRST about NCARB's policy of IDP. They administrate the program.

There is no NCARB policy (CURRENT POLICY... not 10-20 or 30 years ago), there is no limit on how many hours a day or week you can submit. Sometimes things may look odd and raise flags but if you worked the hours and your employer isn't a dick and denying it, you would receive the hours. You may still get the hours even if your employer denies it if you have records to prove the hours spent. Can be a pain in the butt, though. However, NCARB doesn't have a rule that says you can't earn more than so many hours but there is a point where they might not believe it because it is humanly impossible to complete. You can't work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for like 6 months. IMPOSSIBLE. Biological impossibility will be factors where NCARB may deny IDP credit. Work 5 days with no sleep.... maybe. A tough one but 3+ weeks in a row like that... not going to be believed. Remember that.

You have to be realistic and truthful so don't b.s. or lie on IDP. That is the point... ultimately.

Thanks for clarifying your question. 

The question I have is why or what real gain by having some policy of how many IDP training hours you can gain. They can limit how many hours they have you work. They can even have no moonlighting clauses. 

Limiting how many IDP hours they would approve won't make any sense. If the IDP supervisor is falsifying then that can lead to potential legal ramifications in the court of law because this is where this would get drawn to somewhere in the process. In addition, it would be really dumb and stupid because it would occupy too much of the IDP supervisor's time. It makes no logical or rational sense. 

It has to be remember that these matters have a legal recourse. In addition, the guy would lose employees and such conduct would give the employer a bad reputation and then no one would hire the employer. 

An employer may impose limits of how many hours an employee may work for the company and have new hires sign a no-moonlighting agreement because they want the employee to not be over-worked and be able to perform their job adequately. 

That is not really unethical if the employee is a fulltime employee. Especially if salaried. 

So in effect, the policy may effectively limit how many IDP training hours you can get from the employer. However, you can still gain some IDP training hours that doesn't require the employer to review. 

I have never heard of quite this scenario in ALL of the architecture related forums I have been on.

As far as overtime, if you are paid over a certain level then you are not legally required to be paid overtime because we are a 'white collar' job UNLESS a specific state law says otherwise. The Federal law does not require overtime working in professional/technical jobs like computer/IT, architecture/engineering, etc. if we are paid over a certain level a week. We are not a predominately physical labor job. 

http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/minwage.htm

and

http://www.dol.gov/whd/overtime/fs17d_professional.htm

Read this links ENTIRELY.

This should help you understand the Federal law standards. Of course, each state may apply their own standards. 

In addition, the exemption also applies to building designers like myself. Since this Federal law and rule does not concern itself with state licensing laws nor does it differentiate building design and architecture from the federal perspective and the FLSA.

Janosh,

Don't forget to understand the part of customarily requiring an advanced degree. Also don't forget the exemption also applies to creative professional which includes graphic art.

Frankly an IDP intern is to be involved with a lot more than just doing graphic art, making power point slides and redline. Then again, there is NO LAW that bars a company issuing overtime payrates EVEN if it isn't required as to error on the side of safety.

What exactly does your firm have interns with less than 2-3 of post degree experience. Why would anyone pay someone with a 5 year PROFESSIONAL degree of Architecture  to make powerpoint slides. Anyone with a 1 year certificate (undergrad not graduate-level) in a program that requires someone to learn a significate amount of powerpoint courses and some public speaking and presentation courses. It's a waste of money to pay someone $15/hour to do when you can pay $1 above minimum wage to do. Which is the averaging going rates for someone of that level. If the person has also a certificate or associates degree in CAD/Drafting (Architectural oriented) should be more than capable to doing redline corrections especially with little bit of 'office training' for freshly new hires.

Even then, entry level for someone with 2-3 years of educational studies in drafting and office & presentation skills. 

Who the heck is applying for your inten jobs to not be able to exercise judgment and discretion (although you the design professional of responsible charge would have ultimate responsible supervision, direction and control) but it isn't the intent of the licensing laws that you have to babysit and hand hold an intern with an NAAB accredited degree.

I can understand the role you described being handed to someone with less than 3 years experience if they have no architectural education (demonstrated knowledge of architecture reasonably comparable to someone with an architecture degree or architecture school student interning. 

Just some things to think about. Anyway, it is your firm's business not my own. If someone with an NAAB accredited architecture degree or even a decent 4 year Architecture program from a school that offers a 4+2 program isn't readibly capable of using "... advanced knowledge to analyze, interpret or make deductions from varying facts or circumstances" therefore exercising discretion and judgment under the responsible supervision and control of the supervising architect. The intent of the Federal law isn't meant to imply a "professional employee" (as defined by FLSA policy) isn't under responsible supervision and control of their own supervisors recognizing a corporate scale chain of command. If graduates of an NAAB accredited program isn't capable of exercising discretion and judgment (although under responsible supervision and control of the architect of record) then how can we call an NAAB accredited program a 'PROFESSIONAL DEGREE'. Makes one scratch their head. Such is life. 

However on an ethical basis, I can understand paying overtime rate for these positions. Some states in fact may require overtime for all employees, anyway. 

NOTE: JUST TO CLARIFY ANY CONFUSION OVER THE DIALOGUE, I AM NOT SUGGESTING EMPLOYERS TO NOT PAY OVERTIME IF THEY AREN'T REQUIRED BY LAW. THAT FALLS INTO AN ETHICS DISCUSSION WHICH IS NOT THE POINT. WHETHER OR NOT TO PAY OVERTIME WHEN NOT REQUIRED TO (OR POTENTIALLY) IS ENTIRELY UP TO THE EMPLOYER AS FAR AS I AM CONCERN.

Janosh,

Interns need not know exactly what the code requirements are. They change all the time and vary from location to location. They need to know how to research building codes. It is amazing that the schools don't prepare students well enough to know the difference between building codes and zoning code (sometimes called Land Use code). Zoning defines what kinds of uses can be done on the property, height limits, buildable area limits and so forth. 

Building codes defines a building or portion of the building's uses/occupancy classification, the load requirements, egress requirements, and many more that defines the life, safety, sanitation and other requirements of buildings. For example, whether a fire rated wall is required. That's a building code. Building heights based on occupancy type and construction type which is a seperate requirement while zoning requirements may limit height in area to preserve view of neighboring properties. Long story, graduates from the schools should have a good sense of knowing the difference between zoning and building codes when in practice.

However, it is RESEARCHING for the information needed and skill to find the information that is more important than memorize specific requirements of building codes or zonng codes. They should know how to find the info they need for the project.

My point is if you are having an architecture school graduate just prepare powerpoint presentations, and making redlined correction to something else which is brainless because A) the architect drew the redlines and B) the drafter just needs to make a clean correction to the vector drawing precisely to what the redlining indicates. The redline might not have perfectly straight lines so the drafter just needs to make clean line correction from the redlined info. 

My point is that it would be a waste of the employers money and waste of student's actual knowledge and skills. If they graduated from an accredited program, they have the knowledge and skills. If they don't then the school may need to lose accreditation. We don't have this extent of problem with medical school or law school if what you say is true? 

How can a person who spends 5 years for a professional degree in architecture and graduated not be professionally prepared for working in the profession?

I am not sure you what you are getting entirely in the last part. However, if you are not utilizing the person's education and skills by only utilizing skills that some of the folks I am talking to WILL do it faster, cheaper, and better than the person who went to 5 years of architecture school. A person who's education in drafting will know more about how to draft and do drafting cheaper and faster. 

Don't waste the talent on just doing crap they could have only spent 1 to 2 years at college instead of 5 years.

That is what I am trying to get at.

I can understand investing in the people that will become your project designers, job captains, project leads, etc. My point is don't waste the talent's time and the money on b.s. tasks that can be done by those at minimum wage or a dollar or two above minimum wage, potentially faster. Considering a CADD drafter will know CADD better and more so than an architecture student because they spend more time dedicated to learning and gaining proficiency in the tools. A person who spends 24 to 30 term credits in powerpoint is going to have more education proficiency with powerpoint than an architecture school graduate would be.

Would you have your architecture school intern build and administer your firm's computer network or would you have a IT professional whom maybe paid $12/hr. do it and probably would do it better than your IDP intern (unless the person has background in computer IT). Don't waste your hired talent.... is my point.

I don't know of any firm that actually does anything explicitly in capping IDP hours that would be approved. Employers may limit how many hours an intern/employee may work and may prohibit moonlighting as a condition to employment. 

I've heard of those. Never heard of any employer that has deliberately and intentionally have some cap on how many IDP training hours they would be approving. 

I heard of some employers limiting or stifling interns by not providing certain types of required IDP training hours in order to slow down their path to licensure. 

So yes, there are a--holes employers. Ugly truth but I doubt all employers are that way.

Yep, 

Stone, that is why I said "some". It is good that your firm and most others in your area supports the growth of interns. 

As for reluctance of young professionals to step up to responsibility.... is an interesting point. Why is the young person afraid. Why is the young emerging professional intimidated or afraid to ask and take on more? 

Are they afraid they will be laid off or fired if they exceed their job description? 

Great point that you bring.

I think employers seek people who are willing to outright and upfront ask for more responsibilities and subsequently perform the tasks. Employers don't ask, "do you want to go to a building department meeting" or construction site. Part of it is that interns needs to be proactively and outwardly express interest in more responsibility. If they don't and just sit quietly then they aren't going to exercise take the time to consider for more responsibility because they don't have the outward expression of passion and interest.

Those just sitting on their laurels waiting for an invite misses the point because the employers wants to deal with the ones with the 'fire inside' to go out and expression to do the work. 

My point isn't necessarily an employer being an a--hole or not. There are many factors and many times there is big financial implications with employees. If you don't present an employer what they need to see your worth.

Lets remember that things at employment is a relationship between employee and employer. In the real world, there is employer and employee not employer, employee, IDP intern, etc. An IDP intern is simply an employee when you get right down to it.

I don't mean to imply the employer was an a--hole or not. I don't know your specific individual story enough to say one way or another. I have to have his/her side of the story not just your own. However, employers are going to be hesitant in placing trust in people without trust being earned and a sort of 'fire' or passion to better yourself. The shy is overlooked often because they don't 'project' . Try to understand my essential point. 

Interns have to put an effort on their part to be NOTICED (positively, of course). It is something you have to continuously do. Relationship is developed. Trust is earned.

I speak about two sides of the story and at points I do criticize both employer and employee when there is a failure in developing a relationship condusive for positive growth of a firm. It isn't meant to point at any one party here... personally.

stone,

Thanks for adding a point of "weak initiative'. Sometimes it is because of fear in form. What causes the weak initiative? 

You brought out some good points. I am glad you bring out some points. I'm not trying to paint all firms as mean and evil-spirited. I hope my previous posts were not taken to paint such a picture. It is hard at times to cover every angle in a single post.

I agree that most firms are more aligned similar to how your firm works but I am sure employers are only going to try to 'push' so long on an employee. 

Employers needs to see employees demonstrate initiative... that 'fire' that I am talking about. Failure somewhere happens on both sides (employer and employee). It is a relationship. 

I frame it that way because really it is that. Trust is a two way road as is relationship.