Archinect
anchor

IDP 2.0 rant thread

Jan 10 '12 13 Last Comment
Barry LehrmanBarry Lehrman
Jan 10, 12 5:18 pm

Not that I'm actively pursuing architectural licensure any more (for those who don't know, I'm a licensed landscape architect who is teaching at this point), but the transition to IDP 2.0 seems to be penalizing interns with lots of experience. 

Here are my IDP1.0 units and how they translate to IDP2.0 hours:

So I go from needing 203.2 to finish, to 554.73 hours - an increase of 273%. Note that I already have logged 7272 hours - twice what is supposed to be required to complete IDP 1.0. As ranted elsewhere, how come my experience (and specialization) doesn't matter? How come there are no alternative processes to completing IDP without paying a huge bribe* to NCARB?

Another thing, why is work setting F limited to NAAB/CACB accredited programs - lots of architects teach in other disciplines too!

 

* the fee for consideration as a 'broadly experienced architect' is $7000 or more!

 

Donna SinkDonna Sink
Jan 11, 12 8:04 am

Barry, is there no grandfathering allowing you to complete your hours under the same system you began them?

lletdownl
Jan 11, 12 9:56 am

I think the grandfathering ended quite a while ago, there was a 6 month grace period ( i believe ending last july? or maybe it was july 2010) where people from the old system could submit all their hours before the rules change.

 

man im glad im not doing IDP anymore....

marmkid
Jan 11, 12 10:47 am

it seems like you are counting all hours as equal, when they require different categories of hours.  The reason they do that is so each candidate has a broad range of experience and isnt just spending 3 years doing the same thing over and over again.  I am not sure why that is really unreasonable

 

 

just out of curiosity, since i am not going through this anymore, when you have already started the old version, and are now switching to the 2.0 requirements, who redistributes your hours into the new categories?  is it done automatically online?

you seemed to have a ton of project management hours approved.  From that many hours, i would imagine there would have been some overlap with other categories you were lacking hours in.

 

Another thing, why is work setting F limited to NAAB/CACB accredited programs - lots of architects teach in other disciplines too!

 I would say this is so they know the base minimum standards of the school you are teaching at already.  Otherwise, they would need to research every single school on an individual basis every time someone spent a semester as a visiting professor.  I imagine that could get very time consuming, and costly, which would raise the IDP fees even more

Barry LehrmanBarry Lehrman
Jan 11, 12 10:48 am

One of my problem is that the rule have changed mid-enrollment. NCARB could have just allowed folks enrolled under IDP1.0 to finish up under that system and bring all new interns into IDP2.0. But no. I'm sure there are dozens of other talented folks who have taken hiatus(s) from practicing architecture with a similar level of (over)completion who are getting one more obstacle thrown up.

If NCARB was up front with statistics of the impact of the transition (which I haven't found yet), perhaps they have a legitimate case.

What is really needed is an alternative path to completing IDP based on say total hours/years of experience. In my dream, NCARB would accept specialization and alternative career paths after perhaps twice the minimum number of hours if substantial completion of the core IDP areas can be documented. What is needed is a system with shades of gray, not black and white, either/or criteria that reflect the realities of practicing architecture today. Otherwise, the profession looses valuable talent and relevance as the marginalized folks (like me) turn our back on practice.

marmkid
Jan 11, 12 11:09 am


One of my problem is that the rule have changed mid-enrollment. NCARB could have just allowed folks enrolled under IDP1.0 to finish up under that system and bring all new interns into IDP2.0. But no. I'm sure there are dozens of other talented folks who have taken hiatus(s) from practicing architecture with a similar level of (over)completion who are getting one more obstacle thrown up.

I agree, those who started under the original system should be allowed to finish under the old rules, and anyone starting new goes in the new rules.  With obviously some kind of time frame allowed, so 1.0 doesn’t linger on forever.

What is really needed is an alternative path to completing IDP based on say total hours/years of experience. In my dream, NCARB would accept specialization and alternative career paths after perhaps twice the minimum number of hours if substantial completion of the core IDP areas can be documented. What is needed is a system with shades of gray, not black and white, either/or criteria that reflect the realities of practicing architecture today.

While I agree with the theory, I have yet to hear of someone come up with a system that wouldn’t increase the amount of NCARB manpower needed to allow the many architects going through this route.  From what I can tell, everyone seems to be outraged at what the fees currently are set at.  Increasing it more will just be met negatively.  And not for nothing, but as someone who went through the system normally, all online, I would be a little annoyed if my fees went up for those architects not following the system.
Perhaps if it were a completely separate division set up, where the fees went specifically to which route you chose, then we would have a fee structure dependent on what path you choose.  I am going to guess, for all the individual  verification required, it seems like it could be costly.
Your idea of doubling the hours, or some incremental increase, could be workable.  I think though its not the hours, it’s having someone signing off on them that would hold up the issue.  I still agree with the idea that, to get their license, the hours should be signed off by someone who has their license.  Otherwise it can become such a headache for who is allowed to sign off on hours, what makes them qualified, etc.

Otherwise, the profession looses valuable talent and relevance as the marginalized folks (like me) turn our back on practice.

Are people really walking away from architecture though, or are they just not getting licensed and working around it?
 

Donna SinkDonna Sink
Jan 11, 12 11:41 am

Otherwise, the profession looses valuable talent and relevance as the marginalized folks (like me) turn our back on practice.

This is relevant to the question I have for lletdownl: did you get licensed, or are you deciding not to do it?

Brian HenryBrian Henry
Jan 11, 12 12:04 pm

Oops! Scrolling through the thread on my iPhone and I accidentally 'flagged' one of Donna's comments above. Anyone know if you can 'unflag' a comment?

Brian HenryBrian Henry
Jan 11, 12 12:11 pm

I'd be in favor of a grandfather clause that would allow those who were actively working through IDP 1.0 to finish with that system. I'd add that there should probably be a cutoff though for who could take that route; something along the lines of you'd need to have x number of hours already completed.

Barry LehrmanBarry Lehrman
Jan 11, 12 12:30 pm

From my observation LAAB and NAAB accreditation requirements are very similar. it would take minimal effort to compare the two systems and accept LAAB accredited programs as equivalent to NAAB accredited programs for work setting F.

 

marmkid
Jan 11, 12 12:47 pm

From my observation LAAB and NAAB accreditation requirements are very similar. it would take minimal effort to compare the two systems and accept LAAB accredited programs as equivalent to NAAB accredited programs for work setting F.

That seems to make sense, just expanding the requirement for NAAB accredited schools.  I suppose it just takes enough people who are teaching in LAAB schools who want their hours to count for it to be worth it for NCARB to spend the time and money to review the requirements and make a decision.

 

I'd imagine that once this door got opened, then there would be a floodgate of other schools that would want to be included by individuals.  Interior design schools seems a logical one that architects might teach at as well.

Barry LehrmanBarry Lehrman
Jan 11, 12 12:55 pm

the question for NCARB and the profession of architecture is do they want to expand the definition and scope of practice or create arbitrary boundaries that limit the future roles of architects?

 

marmkid
Jan 11, 12 1:12 pm

I dont know if this limites the future roles of architects.  There are many different routes that an architecture career can take.  The license can hardly cover every single option perfectly.

you offered just a very specific solution to your individual situation though.  Yes, I am sure everyone wants a universal perfect system that enables all our hours that we deem valid to be accepted.  But when you have a governing body in charge of the license, they need to have requirements based on something defineable.  Can that be expanded?  Absolutely.  And it seems that the new system (though i admittedly am looking at the categories for the first time in this post) are a little more broad overall.  I assume they still require a licensed architect to sign off on them though, which appears to be everyone's sticking point.

 

I have yet to hear a viable alternative offered by someone who wants to get their hours signed off by someone who is not licensed.  And to be honest, I cant think of one either

jplourde
Jan 12, 12 10:01 pm

I think the path from high school to licensure in the US is fundamentally flawed.  It's a bloated, expensive, tedious, time consuming, bureaucratic nightmare.  Is it really a good thing that the average time in New York State from graduation to licensure is 11 years?  Is there a reason that a European model wouldn't work in the US?  [In broad terms, the European model places academic and professional exams much closer together and in some cases even combines them.]  It doesn't seem to me that Europe has any lack whatsoever of talented, professional, energetic young qualified architects.

  • ×Search in:


Please wait... loading
Please wait... loading