Archinect
anchor

can we fix idp? finally? one proposal to do so...

ok - i'm kind of uneasy with the thought of cross posting something from my own blog on archinect (mostly due to the fact that i have no idea how many people actually read those - judging from the comments overall compared to the forums... not nearly as much), but i'm going to make an exception this once. because the structural problems with idp have lingered far too long (since 1993 and the shift away from the once a year exam) and the solutions to truly fix it are exceedingly rare.

 

ever since i got involved with aia 12 years ago - first as a local yaf leader, then emerging professionals director for aia atlanta, then on the national board for yaf - i've been alternately dismayed and fascinated with how wildly inefficient the internship process has become over time. whole conferences have been devoted to slicing, dicing and alternately chopping open idp to figure out how to put it back together. daniel friedman, the dean at u.washington, made one of (to me) the most remarkable proposals back in 2005 or so: scrap the current education and internship system in favor of a 7 year phd. the degree would include gaining enough practical work experience such that idp was fulfilled upon graduation. in other words, idp was baked into the degree and one could sit for the exam directly after graduation. it's a brilliant proposal on several levels (even if it terminated in a masters instead of a phd). i'm not sure if the political realities of the schools, licensing boards, etc. would permit it to happen.

 

so, i've spent the past 10 years or so tinkering with how to fix idp - looking, talking and trying to figure out another way forward. below is a current outline and set of thoughts. none of these are exclusive to me - they're the summation of a lot of thoughts by some far smarter people than i. but, i think it could work. like anything, it needs feedback, probably more than the blog itself will generate. hence, opening up this on the discussion board. my ultimate, personal goal? to pair the crowdsourced version of whatever this becomes with a petition/call to action that's delivered to aia at the national convention in may.  if you just want to bitch about idp, find another post. if you want to create the solution, read and comment on...

below is the meat of my blog post - there's some foreground and background material you may want to look at, but this is the middle:

 

So, enough of what we already know. The real question is: how are we going to start proposing a way out? I’m going to build on a long conversation and propose that there are 3 irreducible needs any revised model has to address:

 

Accountability – not just with the intern, but also with the person/entity overseeing their development. The current system provides no mechanisms for relief if the Supervisor and/or Mentor don't comply with IDP, withhold signing off on experience or fail to provide the opportunities to get the required experience. None. I know, I've been both.


Standardization of Content – we all benefit if the IDP credits cover the same minimum material. If it’s on the test, it has to be known and addressed beforehand. (this wouldn’t restrict ‘how’ this could be done). How would you like to take a final exam covering material that isn't provided ahead of time and is only partially or obliquely addressed during the course itself or in a variety of well-priced study guides? Didn't think so.


Structured Approach – the most important. There has to be some common path that gets people to licensure reasonably quickly and with some reasonable consistency. More importantly, we need a holistic narrative to transmitting this content – a beginning, middle and end. We can’t expect interns to just ‘absorb’ the whole picture while grabbing a few hours of CA or contracts when a firm can squeeze it in.


Yes, there are firms who have taken this burden on themselves out of pure professional obligation. But many haven't, can't or won't. And it shouldn't fall to the arbitrariness of those individual entities to determine the value of professional development. The current system, clearly, can’t be tweaked to accommodate these concerns. And I agree with the notion that there are reasons to look at other professional models for help.

 

One radical proposal would be to create a new model of professional development that leverages the schools, IDP and existing programs.  To accomplish this requires embracing a shift from thinking of IDP and professional development as simply gaining experience, piecemeal, and moving towards a more holistic approach that methodically addresses the technical and managerial aspects of practice. Discussed on many an occasion over the years, is the idea to look at the ‘teaching hospital’ for some guidance. The merits are known: it provides guaranteed training (if and once you can get in) and it provides a structured curriculum that is relatively standardized across the various institutions implementing it. There’s enough flexibility to allow each hospital the opportunity to tweak it to fit their strengths and operations.  You can check off the first three items above – accountability, standardization and  structure.

 

Making a direct translation is problematic. Teaching hospitals are large, complex beasts that rely on combinations of public and private financing, with a fair percentage derived through grants of all sorts. The selection system is brutal: you apply, hope you’ve been accepted to one of your choices and ultimately move to where you’ve been accepted. There’s very little say that the medical interns have during that time (the power structures would make IDP look good) and it’s impossible to obtain any kind of ‘alternative experience’ to forge a path to licensure. So, perhaps our best option is to take the good, leave the rest and forge a hybrid all our own.

 

Some of the criteria that this kind of model could contain:

 

Accountability –

IDP (and I’m going to co-op that term from NCARB for the remainder of this article, considering it the moniker for an integrated development program) would be run through certified providers who would be held accountable for their performance. The question of whether a fixed number of spots is regulated each year is a valid one. We’ll punt on that for the moment.


Programs could be run by Community Design Centers throughout the country. This has 2 structural advantages – being non-profits, CDC’s would be eligible to leverage the grant system to help subsidize expenses. In turn, they can offer reduced fees to qualifying non-profit clients who benefit from the design capabilities. It would also expose many students to a wider realm of potential professional work than they might otherwise.


Firms could qualify as ‘teaching studios’ if they agree to 4 things: an periodic external audit of their program; have the person in charge complete a yearly training course; adoption of and adherence to the curricula and standards (which could be used on their own projects); and a willingness to provide an agreed upon salary for the 2 years the interns are in the program. The firms would benefit by being able to compete to attract the best and brightest to join their firm. While this admittedly works better for larger firms, no one would be prohibited from participating and I’m quite sure many of the best graduates would prefer to work in these firms.


Programs could be provided by specifically created ‘teaching firms’ – firms which maintain a non-profit status but which would not necessarily be a formal CDC. This could be an excellent route for more experimental firms to take when starting up.


Standardization of Content | Customization of approach.

 

A methodical curriculum, building upon the broad categories outlined in the current standards, would need to be developed. Far from proscribing the ‘how’, it would be developed in conjunction with the licensing exam. In other words, the content that has to be covered would be the actual content on the test. It’d be the same group developing both, one alongside each other.


Firms, CDC’s or other entities would get and be responsible for transmitting the required information within the given timeframes. They’d be required to have people who are taught how to teach the material. (this could also be a great training ground for future studio instructors). All of the participating entities would have the ability to customize how the curricula is transmitted and integrated. Students will quickly sort out which firms and entities are the most innovative in this approach.


Structured Approach

 

The opportunity to develop an integrated approach to IDP would necessitate creating a holistic approach to the structure, sequence and relative timing of the information. The medical equivalent would be doing rounds in ER, then either neo-natal, pediatrics, etc. Each intern would have to have the opportunity and necessity to demonstrate mastery of the subject areas.


I’d propose that IDP be reconfigured to provide 2 years of structured “in firm” experience, immediately following graduation from a professional degree. The remaining year in the current program would be absorbed within the academic curricula) How that structure is done is a whole other discussion.  One example could be focusing approximately 80% of the time on technical subjects, 20% on managerial.


Entrance into IDP would allow one to begin taking the licensing exams immediately. (Honestly, I’m not sure many people would want to – maybe there’s a portion you take to get in, with the remainder at the end of each year or the end of 2 years? Not sure yet).


The profession benefits because there’s some certainty to how long internship lasts and there’s less concern about having committed professionals waning after 7 years of being an ‘intern’.

 

This is just an outline. It's not nearly complete. But, there is, I hope, enough clear benefit to this kind of restructuring – the profession gives greater certainty to the graduates (though perhaps not all) that they’ll have a chance to complete their license quickly, cohesively and efficiently. It provides for a more comprehensive approach, with real accountability on all parties and provides a way for young practices to flourish more quickly, while providing established firms a pool of talent that (presumably) has a greater capacity to contribute more effectively and quickly. In short, it would help bring us into the next iteration of the profession.

 

 

 
Feb 5, 12 9:26 am

hm... instead of trying to fix something thats not really that great.. why not look at what other countries are doing? I think what the UK/RIBA are doing is a much much better way of licensing. Its much more efficient and comprehensive. It includes one exam, a lengthy report on a real project that you've worked on while under construction, and an actual interview with a board. I think the current idp with its series of standardized testing is just a continuation of the current education system model, which is also shit. why are standardized tests so ramped in education but completely non existent in the real world? Why shouldn't the "exam process" mimic real world scenarios? 

Feb 5, 12 8:35 pm  · 
 · 

james - i agree in part. the riba structure is, like many european countries, has a much easier system. to make that big of a jump here... politically, it'd be nearly impossible. so, if such a radical change is pitched, it's easier to simply dismiss and keep the status quo. 

 

 

Feb 5, 12 9:52 pm  · 
 · 
marmkid

one question i have with trying to mimick (at least in part) the medical licensing process.  Hospitals have guaranteed amount of work based on the profession.  Architecture does not.  Is there enough work to go around for the number of IDP candidates to offset the number of firms who would either be unable or just unwilling to deal with the added stuff required to be a teaching firm?

 

Where i have seen IDP fall apart in firms is when the works gets a little thin, where it just isnt feasible to expect them to put an intern on tasks just because they need IDP hours in it.

In a good economy, it works great.

 

Thats why i have never been comfortable comparing our internship to a medical internship.  They have the benefit of an unending supply of work.  We dont

 

Feb 6, 12 9:04 am  · 
 · 
won and done williams

The cost of implementing a "teaching hospital" model would be astronomical. Existing CDCs are nowhere near capacity to accommodate the number of graduates coming out of the schools. You would essentially have to create an all-new CDC system. If you did that, you then have the problem of CDCs (non-profits) competing with for-profit firms. I think there are simpler ways of addressing the problem.

I agree that greater integration between the schools, the intership process and the ARE is critical. The NAAB and NCARB need to work in lock-step to solve this problem.

In an ideal world (wherever that exists!), a graduate from an accredited school should graduate having completed the internship process and the ARE. The whole process should take no longer than 5 years. We are fundementally deluding ourselves if we actually believe that the knowledge and experience necessary to be an architect takes the 8+ years the current hodgepodge of academics, experience and testing requires.

Feb 6, 12 10:35 am  · 
 · 
x-jla

Gregory, glad you are bringing up this issue and trying to find a solution.  Many people (like myself) are stuck in a difficult situation.  I see the biggest problem being that with little to no experiance it is very difficult to find any position and start IDP in the first place.  IDP only works if we have a job.  No one will hire a new grad with no experiance in this economy when there are people with several years experiance applying for the same jobs.  Any profession that co-mingles licensure with profit is a problem as it burdens firms and removes control and responsibility from the individual; allowing the force of economic circumstance to determine ones fate.  It is unfair and destructive to the profession to allow these outside forces to determine wheter a new professional has a chance to compete.  Some may argue that there is no room for more architects in this economy anyway, and that the system is self regulating in that respect (economy bad = less architects economy good = more architects), but this is unfair and it blocks an infusion of young talent into the profession.  We rely on our future competition to allow us to compete.  This is a problem.  Firms have a vested interest to keep the monopoly as small as possible.  Seems like a conflict of interest. 

I say get rid of the experiance requirements. 

Make the ARE test harder.

Add an optional one year mock firm studio to the M-Arch program (where students can work on a non-profit housing project for the community, or a made up one if the funds cant be found) in a 8 hour a day work environment supervised by a licenced architect.

Feb 6, 12 11:01 am  · 
 · 
toasteroven

 scrap the current education and internship system in favor of a 7 year phd. the degree would include gaining enough practical work experience such that idp was fulfilled upon graduation. in other words, idp was baked into the degree and one could sit for the exam directly after graduation

 

PhD???  Most of what we do in our profession does not require expertise in extensive academic scholarship.  We desperately need graduates who understand how various building systems work, who can read and at least attempt to interpret the zoning and building codes, who have some sense of budgets, some understanding of human behavior, basic understanding of materials, etc... - we've got people graduating from top programs who cannot even do simple grading or framing plans - who basically have the skill set of someone who took a certificate program in rhino and wrote their dissertation on the philosophy of post-structuralist cinema.   Besides, we don't need more post-graduate programs that circumvent traditional means of financial aid to make an already overly expensive degree even more unobtainable.

 

A methodical curriculum, building upon the broad categories outlined in the current standards, would need to be developed. Far from proscribing the ‘how’, it would be developed in conjunction with the licensing exam. In other words, the content that has to be covered would be the actual content on the test. It’d be the same group developing both, one alongside each other.

 

many less sexy programs already do this (although they tend not to attract the most talented designers).  IMO - there should be two exams - one after graduation (or a requirement for graduation) that tests basic technical knowledge and writing skills, and a second after a few years in the field that tests skills in contracts, documentation, and administration.  this would at least simplify training so that it's more geared toward teaching interns how to manage projects and apply their design skills - not how to do math or use a ruler.

Feb 6, 12 11:16 am  · 
 · 
x-jla

Why do we need any of this babysitting BS.  If you do the school and pass the test you are an architect.  If you can't figure out contracts, documentation, and administration on your own, then you find a job and learn or go into business with someone who does know.  Most people will not go out and start a firm right away anyway even if they were allowed to (like with lawyers), but if they do then it's on them to either fail or succeed.  Why do we need to learn administration skills prior to being able to call our self an architect?      

 

Feb 6, 12 11:53 am  · 
 · 
x-jla

Also, we need to think about the implications of this long ridgid process on architecture.  Are we keeping out the best people because their personality type has a difficult time following such a ridgid process?  Einstein and Hawkings dropped out of school after all.  According to Jung, INTP personality types are the best suited for architecture but the least likely to follow a long conventional process like IDP.  This may sound silly, but I think it really limits the talent in the profession.

Feb 6, 12 12:02 pm  · 
 · 
marmkid

I agree that the test really should be enough and the rest is little more than babysitting.  But i think it does have value in that it can help, partially at least, a young intern get a broader range of experience than they otherwise would be able to.  Now that isnt an ultimate reason for IDP to remain, but it is a benefit.

The tests, as they are now, I think would need to be modified if they were to be the only judge of your license, because i think they are overall too simplistic.  Someone day 1 out of school could study and have a decent chance of passing.  I think experience plays a role in what makes a good architect, and i dont think you should just be handed a license once you graduate, otherwise it is just your degree.

 

As to limiting the talent in the profession, I think if someone is truly an Einstein or a Hawkings of architecture, they will not forgo the profession because of the IDP and exam process.  Anyone else who chooses another profession claiming this is a reason is full of crap, because the process is not that long as everyone makes it out to be.  I would imagine there are a lot of interns who think they are the Einstein of architecture, and use that as an excuse to not follow the IDP process, but those tend to be the interns who read the Fountainhead a few too many times and then assume because they had a good studio project, that they should be running their own firm from day 1.

 

Besides, if someone really is the Einstein or Hawkings level, they most likely wont be following the normal career path to begin with, so why would we restructure the whole thing for someone who wouldnt be using it anyway?  You cant really create a system based on the needs of the 0.0001% over the needs of the 99.9999%

Feb 6, 12 12:32 pm  · 
 · 

louis - part of what should be addressed is exactly what you describe: you have to get a job to get any experience in IDP, but in times like these, there's a fare more diminished chance. 

 

here's an interesting question then: if we limited the number of people who could get into IDP each year (say 4000 for something random) BUT all of those were guaranteed 2 year internships, with a modest living stipend (look a resident intern in medicine only makes 40k a year in many places), would you take that option, knowing that only 80% of the graduates each year would be accepted? 

 

because we're not going to drop the experience requirement. i agree it's too long - 2 years should be enough if it's structured properly. 

 

won - i don't think cdc's would carry the primary burden of providing slots. but, i do think this kind of structure could give them a huge boost. and, really, i'm not worried about competing against 'for profit' firms for work. there's plenty of pie to go around. when i ran a studio for a CDC, we never, ever ran up against clients that were choosing between us or someone in the 'private sector'. 

 

marmkid - the people who've looked at medical residency models (the one's i know and have had discussions with over the years) are looking to mimic it. what i'm describing is a way to bring the kind of uniform structure that it has over to IDP. because, for better or worse, it produces an overall higher level of skill and competency in the marketplace. for me, that's a pre-requisite to pushing the overall value of the profession up the pay scale. 

Feb 6, 12 12:42 pm  · 
 · 
x-jla

Gregory, I would agree with that, but being part of that 80% cannot be left to a lottery and must be based on academic merit.  I would say that you should identify a cut off point with regard to GPA.  If 80% of grads have a 3.0 or greater GPA, then the cut off should be that.  Below a 3.0 gpa and they are on their own.  Also, if one has a 3.5 or above GPA they should be given more choice in where the internship is.  I like that idea.  I know several people who did really well in school who have not found work and a few who did not do well at all found work due to connections and or prior experiance.  This is not how a profession should work.  Hard work and ability should allow you to move foward with your career.  How would one be guaranteed an internship?  How would firms be required to adopt this system?  What about people who already graduated?     

Feb 6, 12 1:11 pm  · 
 · 
toasteroven

here's an interesting question then: if we limited the number of people who could get into IDP each year (say 4000 for something random) BUT all of those were guaranteed 2 year internships, with a modest living stipend (look a resident intern in medicine only makes 40k a year in many places), would you take that option, knowing that only 80% of the graduates each year would be accepted? 

 

who decides who gets into IDP?  This system could easily lend itself to corruption.

 

Why do we need to learn administration skills prior to being able to call our self an architect?   

 

if you don't know how to administer a contract, how can you practice architecture?  otherwise you're just a designer.

Feb 6, 12 1:25 pm  · 
 · 
marmkid

marmkid - the people who've looked at medical residency models (the one's i know and have had discussions with over the years) are looking to mimic it. what i'm describing is a way to bring the kind of uniform structure that it has over to IDP. because, for better or worse, it produces an overall higher level of skill and competency in the marketplace. for me, that's a pre-requisite to pushing the overall value of the profession up the pay scale.


I agree completely that a medical residency type model is one that works very well.  Unfortunately it is just such a different market, that I don’t think you can guarantee the amount of experience necessary in architecture, the way you can with hospitals, for example.
Architectural firms open and close much more frequently than hospitals do.

You are correct in saying that type of system would produce a high level of skill and competency.  I am just saying that the industries are so vastly different.  Hospitals aren’t hurting for work the way architecture firms are.  There needs to be a way around that.

 

I would agree with that, but being part of that 80% cannot be left to a lottery and must be based on academic merit.  I would say that you should identify a cut off point with regard to GPA.  If 80% of grads have a 3.0 or greater GPA, then the cut off should be that.  Below a 3.0 gpa and they are on their own.  Also, if one has a 3.5 or above GPA they should be given more choice in where the internship is.  I like that idea. 

Here’s my issue with that.  Academics have so little to do with the real world, to then base interns possibilities on getting a job on that seems to not make sense.  I went to grad school, and there were many students who, if they didn’t get an A, would go complain at the end of the semester until their grade was changed.  That would increase incredibly this way.  And also, why should firms let some outside organization place someone in their company who they have to pay?  Getting a job is about more than just what sort of gpa you can achieve.  It’s about networking, relating to your potential employer, and other outside skills that you can bring to the firm.  Narrowing it down to your gpa seems to limit it, and part of the complaints I constantly hear is that IDP is already too limiting.  Now we are just expanding our restrictions towards who a firm can employ?


I know several people who did really well in school who have not found work and a few who did not do well at all found work due to connections and or prior experiance.  This is not how a profession should work.  Hard work and ability should allow you to move foward with your career.  How would one be guaranteed an internship?  How would firms be required to adopt this system?  What about people who already graduated?  

This is how the real world works though.  Firms can win jobs not always because of their hard work, but because of their connections or prior experience.  A lot of jobs are found through connections.  I don’t see what is wrong with that
 

Feb 6, 12 1:55 pm  · 
 · 
x-jla

Thats why I would prefer to get rid of an experiance requirement all together and integrate more practice centric subjects into school.  I would have rather done an extra year and taken a harder ARE.  The problem is the disconnect between the professional world and university world.  In law school you graduate take a test and your a lawyer, why can't we do this? 

if you don't know how to administer a contract, how can you practice architecture?  otherwise you're just a designer.

Who cares.  Leave it up to that person to figure out.  If they fuck up, then they get sued.  There are plenty of people who did IDP that can't write a contract I am sure.   

Feb 6, 12 2:33 pm  · 
 · 

 

Excuse the oversimplified image example.

But what about IDP merely being a stack of workbooks with perhaps a number of tasks required from basic details to more advanced schematics to floor plans to city block plans?

Say you have 300 or so of these tasks. In order to received credit for these tasks, each problem's solution (more than likely) drawings, photographs et cetera is stamped with a Registered Architect's stamped, initialed and dated.

After completing all the tasks, there's a short interview process with a charrette where the applicant then receives a small project idea given to them by a panel. The applicant then has to place the object within a hypothetical city block, draw a few basic floor plans, draw a rudimentary structure, describe the construction or fabrication process and then state how the project will more than likely be administrated.

The workbooks cover all the technical aspects in detail.

The interview and whiteboard-exam cover pro-practice, site planning, a nod at fire codes (circulation, barriers, equipment placement, construction administration and marketing.

Once approved by a council of his or her peers after passing the charette, the architect is given a probationary license allowing them to design most but not all buildings. After the probationary period,, the working architects submitted drawings will be evaluated and the architect will be granted a full architectural license.

Feb 6, 12 3:01 pm  · 
 · 

i'm just curious to see how people react to the idea of a max number of slots that would be available vs. the current model where you can have crazy amounts of over-supply (like we do now). it helps, for me, to keep the schools honest for some of the reasons outlined - if you can't get your grads into the program, why would anyone apply to your program? 

 

any kind of a fixed entry is done on merit (and, btw, that is what the medical field does. every year - there's a fixed number of residency slots and you aren't guaranteed to get in). 

 

in the end, the numbers are small enough, that i'd be less worried about whether or who administers the IDP part - the 'guarantee' part is that you can't get kicked out due to the economics of the firm. Firms would have to submit to audits and apply to get to do this. It's like most selections - the cream will rise to the top and competition would be stiff (i mean, you're getting a 2 year look to see who the best of the best is). but that's why CDC's and/or specific teaching firms could be created. if you want to host IDP, you have to agree to teach the curricula and find projects to put into it. otherwise, you don't do it.

 

i'm surprised no one's picked up on the other benefit - the exploitation of interns would be dramatically cut. because you'd go straight through, you're licensed on the other side. being abused by your firm (as an freshly licensed architect)?  you have the ability and option to start your own firm...

Feb 6, 12 3:07 pm  · 
 · 

My plan allows people to subcontract, work at multiple firms and even work in "non-traditional" architecture firms. And it places the bulk of the program flow and burden on the intern rather than on the firm.

That way "non-traditional" intern architects working at say an engineering company, interior design company or even with a corporation with in house architects can earn their IDP credits. This system since its depends on work, rather than time, rewards those who wish to work faster and allows people to complete IDP at their own pace.

And as long as someone can do the actual work competently (i.e., building technologists, art historians/historic preservation, urban designers/planners, engineers, contractors, drafters) can at least work their way up to a probationary license as long as they can work with, under or subcontract to a licensed and registered architect.

Feb 6, 12 3:07 pm  · 
 · 
x-jla

James, I like that idea alot! 

Feb 6, 12 3:12 pm  · 
 · 
marmkid

That way "non-traditional" intern architects working at say an engineering company, interior design company or even with a corporation with in house architects can earn their IDP credits. This system since its depends on work, rather than time, rewards those who wish to work faster and allows people to complete IDP at their own pace.

I think right now, if you are working in an engineering firm who has their own in house architect, you can still get those hours signed off assuming the in house architect is licensed.  So that would still be the traditional route, wouldn’t it?

Feb 6, 12 3:14 pm  · 
 · 

Perhaps. It was an idea I had come up with when I was working on some portfolio work while reading an architecture graphics standards book. It made me think I'm possibly not the only person who reaches for a book when being approached by a drawing or situation I'm unfamiliar with.

Then I thought, why can't IDP be just a series of workbooks you have to complete.

To put the advantage and fairness back towards those in school for architects, maybe those with B.Archs and M.Archs get to bypass the probationary period altogether and maybe able to use their schoolwork for their IDP work books.

The idea, though, I'm thinking would require at the absolute minimum of having a bachelor's degree in the arts and sciences. And perhaps, like a graduate school, you'd have to submit some kind of work examples and a portfolio demonstrating that you have a competent or trainable skill for architecture.

That way the progression would look like this:

College -> IDP -> Test -> Probation (or straight to full license if M.Arch or B.Arch) -> Full License after a clean practice history in probationary period

This would also benefit those who work for instance in paper architecture, non-profits, various designer-types and researchers the ability to get IDP through an unaffiliated registered architect, i.e. you don't even need to be paid by the architect who stamps your drawings, concepts or models.

That way say an architecture graduate working at Starbucks could use an AIA contact to get a sponsor architect to stamp their drawings without necessarily burdening the sponsor architect with an unprofitable office placement.

Feb 6, 12 3:29 pm  · 
 · 
Wilma Buttfit

There is a workbook you can do for IDP credit. I did it.

Feb 6, 12 4:17 pm  · 
 · 

jjr - the aia does have the emerging professionals companion (or did) that you could indeed get idp credit for completing.

but, in a way, our approaches aren't incompatible. we're both we're looking for some kind of more uniform, structured transmission of the knowledge. i'll argue there's value in actually "doing" the work that doesn't come through reading books. and that could be due as much to the way you and i (and each of us) learns best. i'm a dewey guy...

 

personally, i don't think a probationary period or something similar would have a gnats chance of passing through the powers that be. and that's one thing to keep in mind - proposing what's ideal (but impossible to get through) is different than proposing something that political support can be built around. i (personally) don't think we're going to be able to do some of the things here - dropping the experience requirement, a probationary period - and there's some things in my own thoughts that probably don't have a chance. but... if a cohesive approach is presented, it's harder to poke fatal holes in than the non-starters. 

 

so, we're not going to get the european model anytime soon - too many moving parts to change - but we can get something better. i'm aiming for that.

Feb 6, 12 9:12 pm  · 
 · 
toasteroven

I think having the exam or half of the exam immediately after school (or maybe during the final year) would do a lot to change arch school curricula.

 

maybe you get a license to do small projects immediately after school (one exam, no or little experience), then you go through internship and take another exam to get to do bigger projects.

Feb 7, 12 8:10 am  · 
 · 
won and done williams

I still don't understand why the internship can't be a mandatory part of the school's curriculum (a co-op system as some schools have them). It would do two things: expedite the licensing process; provide a small stipend/income to offset educational expenses. That's a win-win. Again, NCARB must be on the same page with NAAB to make it work. (Can't these organizations be merged?)

Feb 7, 12 8:21 am  · 
 · 

won - incorporating it into the curricula is exactly what daniel friedman is proposing (along with the phd, but i can live with just a plain masters). 

 

NCARB, surprisingly, doesn't care either way (or they didn't when this was first proposed). NAAB.... not the same story. different constitutency (and, ironically, naab is "independent" but is made up of representatives from aia, ncarb and acsa.)

 

so, to make your scenario happen, you'd have to convert the schools. to me (again personally), that's a harder proposition - you're talking about changing umpteen institutions vs. having 1 or maybe 2 (the aia and/or ncarb) come in and make the change from the top.

 

now, what i'm proposing could be a bridge to get to what you're describing....

Feb 7, 12 8:49 am  · 
 · 
Center for Ants

So this doesn't address a few disconnects and issues I take with the system. 

The first is that IDP is rigid. It assumes that everyone needs the same training to become an "architect". As I see it, the work that architects do is diversifying and specializing. We tend to think of ourselves as generalists but the problem is that the work that one firm may be performing in the capacity of an "architect" can vary drastically from another. IDP attempts to train architects with practical experience (which I do think is valuable) in a one-size-fits all method.

Secondly, especially given the economic climate the work many designers are performing are miles away from what they want to be doing. IDP punishes them for this and relegates them to a career path that is merely an extrapolation of their current situation. Often, many firms that are practicing for all intents and purposes as an architecture firm but has no licensed staff can only offer partial IDP credit. 

While IDP is a flawed system, the greater one is the professions reluctance to admit that the institution has a very narrow view of what kind of architect one should become.

Feb 7, 12 9:26 am  · 
 · 

center - interesting second thought. where do we draw that line then? between being 'licensed' or not? i'd argue that there's a minimum professional 'core competency' that everyone who wishes to call themselves a licensed architect should be able to demonstrate a mastery of.

 

after that....go off and do whatever pleases you to whatever end. i'd argue that if you allow everyone to create their own path to licensure, based on doing whatever they want, how will the public have any confidence that there's a minimum professional standard?

 

so, yeah, idp needs to be rigid, to get you through a minimum core. after that, diversify and specialize and then revise the core to reflect changes in the profession. but what i'm proposing would actually create a more coherent approach overall, no? the reason it varies so wildly from firm to firm right now is that there's no accountability.

 

and, yeah, i don't have much sympathy for firms who want to practice architecture but can't seem to get around to actually getting a license to do so. sorry - it's that 'minimum competency' thing again.

Feb 7, 12 9:38 am  · 
 · 
alec1313

There are only a few issues that I seem to have with IDP right now, since I am going through it. The company I work for now (after 4.5 months of unemployment) is an architecture firm, but we do 95% of our work as restaurant remodels. While I am still assisting in the preparation of CD's to be permitted, I can never get the hours I need in cost estimating, site analysis, meps coordination, specs, or bidding and contract negotiation.

Cost estimating/contract negotiation: most of the time, our work is a large, contintuing contract with a large chain franchisee who has all of their designs done by corporate and handed down just to be implemented and the franchisee usually has a contractor they use for every project and has pre-determined costs worked out.

MEPS coordination: its mostly finishes, millwork, and a few walls here and there. if there is any MEPS work to be done, its swapping out fixtures.

Site analysis: once and a while I'll get to go do field measurements to verify, but most of the work is out of state and all over the country and they aren't going to send an "intern" to meet with the corporate people just to see these places. Also, most of the franchisees have full sets of CDs from when their stores were built that we just use to re-draw and go from those.

To me, while I've been in the field since graduating in '09...I have found very few firms that are willing to hire someone to train (especially in this economy) because they need to turn projects around FAST instead of taking the time to explain them. They want a fresh, new grad that is cheap and knows CAD, or someone with 5+ years experience who can run a project from the start. The IDP process and taking the exams right now really worry me, to be honest. As far as price estimating (especially), a lot of the architects i know and have talked to about getting my license have said that they don't really do a lot of cost estimating because it's all covered through bidding, or the owner and contractor have worked things out on their own and we just do the drawings for them. I'm not sure how to feel about all this.

Feb 7, 12 10:18 am  · 
 · 

alec - so, how would you propose to solve those issues? because i'll guarantee you're not alone with that problem. the only way i can think of, within the framework that there's some form of IDP, is to have an actual training 'arc' that the firms would be accountable to implement. 

 

i'm really interested to hear your thoughts -

Feb 7, 12 10:38 am  · 
 · 
marmkid

those seem like very common problems, and not ones that can really be forced on firms to do, because how can you force them to have a specific type of work.  I'm sure they would love to have more of it.

 

one way to help get those though, is to go through your local AIA office, as a lot of times they have construction site visits and tours that can count towards your IDP.  It's not much, but it can help a little bit at least, to get out into the field.

Feb 7, 12 10:50 am  · 
 · 
toasteroven

won - BAC style concurrent or cincinnatti style co-op?  the problem with these programs in Boston (which also include NEU, wentworth) is that their co-ops aren't very well integrated into their curricula.  The BAC at least attempts to regularly check in with students to see how the practice component is going, but it's still almost completely separate from their academic side.  I'm not sure how successful cinci is, but I think without regular reflection and support this model is only marginally better at preparing students for practice. I also think that concurrency does not work very well for undergrads, but it can be beneficial for grad students (especially if they already have a degree in design and some experience).  IMO co-op works better for undergrads.

Feb 7, 12 10:53 am  · 
 · 
alec1313

I honestly don't know that there is an answer. I'm not going to say the place I work now isn't real architecture, because it is - just not every building is a ground-up or fully-gutted remodel.

I would like to see some kind of tag-team with RSMeans for cost estimating if possible. Say, a 2-hr credit would be given for watching a short webinar on how to actually use their software and/or books, followed by a worksheet type problem where you actually figure out the cost of a small project (like the good old word problems, if so and so needs a 15' wall that's 12' high and 24' long with electrical outlets 8' o.c., etc etc.). Then the supervising architect could sign off on it, stamp it, whatever as a proof that the work is correct.

As far as bidding/contract negotiation is concerned, I really am at a loss. I actually work as freelance, so I pick up a few side jobs here and there where I can, but I am a poor judge in my own wages, I've been told I always undersell myself. In Ohio, a license is not needed for residential work, so with my experience and education in architecture, I know HOW to design a remodel (or even ground up), but really have no experience estimating how much it would cost for the project budget, or even my fee for it.

The firms I have worked with have usually kept their financial records somewhat confidential, so as we work on it, it goes out to bid, we have no idea how much it actually costs, or what their fees are, all we know is that the firm is making enough to cover their costs (and make a profit) but by what margins? no idea. I understand the need for some confidentiality in companies as far as their finances, but it does those of us learning the profession and what it takes to run a firm no good.

I'd love to get some feedback on this as well. Thanks!

Feb 7, 12 10:57 am  · 
 · 
won and done williams

toaster, I don't know the particular programs well enough to advocate for one school's model over another's. However, conceptually, the model that makes sense to me is a five-year (undergrad) program that includes the conventional studio process, but augments that with skills to prepare students for summer internships. After 4-5 years of summer internships, most students would have the practical experience to sit for the exams. Clearly this would take genuine and meaningful collaboration between NCARB and NAAB (and the AIA), but beyond petty political differences, I can't understand why this would not be possible. I think it would also find support from firms who would essentially know what they are getting with a first-year, a second-year, a third-year summer intern. The stipend would generally be easy to establish based on a student's experience, and the schools would be graduating students who have the skills to immediately enter the workforce. From my point of view, it's sadly too obvious to ever happen.

Feb 7, 12 11:56 am  · 
 · 
x-jla

Here's a thought, maybe too grand of a scheme to become reality, but it would offer an alternative path without having to re-invent IDP altogether.  What if, with the support of the AIA, NAAB, and NCARB, a post-graduate career training program was offered.  It would be set up like an NPO, and all the work done would be necessary pro-bono work creating disaster relief, affordable housing, turning brownfields into parks, etc... Architects could volunteer a few hours of time a week to fill in as the "supervisor" so that there is always an architect on staff.  Interns could fulfill all IDP requirements there, or just the ones that their firm cannot provide to them.  The work would be on a volunteer basis, but at least we could be doing something meaningful and not be on our ass during times of unemployment.  It would also help to create a point at which all three of these organizations intersect as well as engage them with the local community.  Think architecture for humanity type work.  It could be funded by grants, by willing AIA members and by public donations.  Of course someone would need to start it up.  If no actual project is available at any given time, the studio can work on theoretical projects or on planning for and finding future projects.  There could be a chapter in each city.  I myself would use this as a way to gain experiance and work at night for money. 

Feb 7, 12 12:11 pm  · 
 · 
x-jla

My sister who is a lawyer did this kind of thing for a pro-bono organization in law school that helped people with immigration.  She got alot of experiance and was able to put it on her resume when applying for jobs.  This NPO would be a bridge between the community and the Architecture world and may even result in government connections that could help architects get paid work like building schools.  The program would have to be set up so that each category of IDP could be fulfilled, and interns could move free between each.  

Feb 7, 12 12:21 pm  · 
 · 
mespellrong

How abut a market-based solution? Replace the pointless continuing education requirements for professionals with a requirement to provide a number of hours of educational, training, or mentoring activity. If it takes fifteen years of education and training to enter, and the average practitioner is going to work in the profession for thirty years, and the average educator can manage six students at a time, then we should be asking every licensed individual for about 100 hours a year.

 

You don’t have to do it yourself – you can buy credits through a regulated exchange (perhaps an educational institution, perhaps something more like a residency or co-op). The exchanges can sell credits on the basis of the proportion of the individuals who matriculate that actually earn the license. 

Because essentially what we have with the failure of IDP is a brokerage problem. Too much demand for an asset (license) without enough supply, creating artificial scarcity. If you could close market, it would solve the problem with a great big wad of cash.

 

Actually, given the number of stories I’ve heard recently about architects with 25 years of experience making 25k a year, I’m surprised that there aren’t people setting up these brokerages. You could call them “fellowships” and make “fellows” cover the cost of their minimum wage compensation plus overhead and income for a firm that produces no real work. In return for an additional two years of Stafford loans, students are guaranteed a license at the end of eighteen months.
 

Feb 7, 12 12:49 pm  · 
 · 

mespellwrong - you had me up to the exchanges...

Feb 7, 12 1:15 pm  · 
 · 
pale shelter

EPC has helped supplement some of my req'd IDP hours. <http://www.epcompanion.org/>. You can get an enormous amount of hours here if you wish.

At my school, many of us, perhaps 3:4 had (2) internships during college. By the time you graduated, and addition to 2.5 years of experience after school, and addition to being conscience of the hours, you could easily (if motivated) satisfy IDP in your middle-20s. What I have found is: many are lazy about recording hours,  and/or many realized getting licensed had little effect on pay increases or responsibility which belittled the efforts at completing IDP and A.R.E.

I have classmates who were 25 when registered and many like myself currently age 27-28 near registration. It is no coincidence to me that those who wanted their license early, got their license early. With all do respect, I hardly have the patience to read the endless paragraphs above when the system is not as cumbersome as we make it out to be. It's very legible and easier than ever (like getting hours thru competitions, hours being in masters programs, verification online is easy!, and the EPC)...

It starts with a commitment in college with internships, and then getting job(s). 25-28 could be the range of licensing age (like it used to be) and not the current trend of +/- 32.

Feb 7, 12 1:46 pm  · 
 · 
x-jla

What school and what year?

"and then getting job(s)." 

here lies the problem paleshelter. 

Feb 7, 12 2:07 pm  · 
 · 

I don't think architecture is such a complicated process and practice that you need extensive education beyond related degree, B.arch or masters degree (PhD..? No.) followed by arduous IDP, just to qualify or pass ARE..

It was just about reasonable when you worked in architect's office under the direct supervision of a licensed architect for three years or worked in construction related activity for less percentage credit that combined with five years or more degree and you qualified for and passed ARE, you were licensed architect. Are the architects who went through that process less competent? No. In fact, most architects doing most of the projects these days are those who went to same process to get their license or registration. IDP is putting off young architecture graduates and in many cases making them not want to pursue architecture altogether.

Eliminate IDP and save people from Kafkaesque process and complications which take long time to fulfill. It burns and smokes young people.

Feb 7, 12 3:38 pm  · 
 · 
pale shelter

Louis Arleo: the problem in-lies with the idea that my comments and facts about fulfilling IDP are fallable dependent on whether or not one has a job , as you implied. (So do we restructure IDP every time we poor architects go thru large unemployment periods?) Make it easier?

(Ok, so I was unemployed for a year 2009-2010, so to re-calculate, I would have been done with IDP and ARE a year earlier = 2.5 years out of college)

Orhan Ayyüce: if you think that college prepares us enough for the real world of building;  bidding, proposals, energy code, contracts, water proofing, spec books, budgets, clients, city approvals, etc... and IDP is unnecessary, you simply haven't practiced enough. College needs to prepare us much better... in the meantime, IDP is there as a safety net so that we're fckn competent enough.

Feb 7, 12 4:19 pm  · 
 · 
marmkid

I think this idea that IDP is making young architects leave the profession is a bit overblown.  If that is your reason for leaving the profession completely, then you were not going to stay in it to begin with.  IDP may be a reason young architects just don’t get licenses, but leave the profession completely?  I don’t see that

If you set up your record, track your hours, and reasonably ask someone in your firm to sign off on them, you should have very little problem.  If you, with 2 days left on your 6 month time period, decide you want to log the hours and need it signed off on instantly, you may not get a favorable response, and honestly, you shouldn’t.  Getting your hours logged is 100% your responsibility, not your firms.  Give them a reasonable amount of time to look it over, with everything organized and set up, and then you should be fine.  If you show yourself to be organized and in charge of your own career, you will be taken more seriously when you ask for more work in certain areas where you need more hours.
And you should be able to figure out who in your firm will reasonably sign off on the hours on time.


Now this doesn’t mean the IDP system is perfect at all.  But it isn’t this impossible plague it is made out to be.  And it’s all online now, which, when I finished my hours was just beginning.  I think there are tweaks available that can help, but to completely overhaul the whole system is unnecessary and impossible in a world where there is no guarantee of steady work.

As for the question about if your firm never does any site visits or MEP coordination because of the type of jobs you get.  That is a tough one, but not insurmountable.  You should have reasonable access to the MEP drawings for the projects you work on, I assume?  Spend some time reviewing them and go over them with an architect in your firm.  You won’t fill up the hours instantly, but it is a start.  Go to AIA construction tours to get some site visits in.  There are other avenues beyond just a specific job you are working on to get the experience.
But to be perfectly honest, if there is never an opportunity for you to ever look at any MEP drawings, visit a site, or do any sort of bidding/ contract stuff, I don’t think you should be allowed to get your license.  The required hours are there for a reason, and the license is more than just passing the exams, it’s about having a base level of actual experience.  So if you don’t have that, and have no possible way of ever attaining it at your current job (which I am dubious about), then you shouldn’t be eligible for the license.

If the argument is to just get rid of IDP altogether and all you need to do is pass the exams to get your license, then that is one thing.  It changes the idea behind the license.  But with IDP in place, getting your license sets up a standard of competency based on the exam material and work experience (based on the hours and categories required).  How you get that experience I think should be on you, not all other firms.  It’s a first way to begin to build professional relationships, which is a good skill to have.
 

Feb 7, 12 4:54 pm  · 
 · 
x-jla

the problem in-lies with the idea that my comments and facts about fulfilling IDP are fallable dependent on whether or not one has a job , as you implied. (So do we restructure IDP every time we poor architects go thru large unemployment periods?) Make it easier?

Not make it easier, make it more accessable and autonomous.  The problem is not that our careers are being disrupted by the economy, that will happen and is part of life, but rather that our ability to get into this career is being blocked by the economy, and the way that others are hiring. Once you get to the starting line its all about outside forces, but ones ability compete in the race should be 100% in their hands.   Like I have said before, there are young lawyers that come out of law school pass a bar exam and start a firm.  They never got training in how to keep books or advertise, they figure it out on their own, and if they fail its on them.  But every once in a while one of them is able to start a really successful firm and outcompete all of the older firms.      

Feb 7, 12 4:59 pm  · 
 · 

I am for professional degree, three years (or more, if you have a four year degree) verified and balanced experience under the supervision and guidance of an architect mentor and successfully completing the ARE. You can update ARE, it is inadequate and infested with irrelevant material in today's practice.

And, you should demand more from your schools to prepare you with more relevant education instead of pumping your false genius grade designer ego which will quickly deflated as soon as start working in an office. 

Here is a new idea: architects who mentor interns should get paid from a pool of ARE fees or new license fee schedule established just for that. There shouldn't be an unpaid mentoring as there shouldn't be an unpaid internship. It takes a lot of effort and billable time to teach an intern just out of school.

 

Feb 7, 12 5:25 pm  · 
 · 
VanillaBrice

Interesting thoughts. I  didn't read through all of the comments but the proposal from Mr. Friedman seems more in line with the law profession than the medical profession: Get into law school, work your butt off there, take the Bar Exam after graduating. Get into a NAAB accredited program, work your butt off, take the ARE after graduating. Firms then hire based on academic thesis focus (housing, urban design, healthcare, starchitect track, retail, commercial etc.). Although, that would mean your thesis has much more bearing on the trajectory of your career. 

 
Feb 8, 12 3:22 pm  · 
 · 
toasteroven

I am starting to agree that the ARE should be taken immediately after graduation.  not only would firms be relatively assured of a consistent base skill set of the entering workforce, I think recent graduates would also be far more confident in their own abilities and create more opportunities for leadership earlier in their careers - something we desperately need to move our profession forward.

 

I also think if you add the motivation of the exam immediately after school suddenly you have a very different set of expectations on part of the student - schools wouldn't necessarily have to change their pedagogy and research focus, but I think students would collectively be in a better position to engage in understanding (and challenging) the curricula.  I think many students tend to see the exam as something very far in the future so it might not register as something they need to start preparing for while in school.  I'm not sure it's on most professors' radar at all...  the exam isn't that difficult, quite frankly, and there's really no need for someone with a professional degree to have to work their way up from office bitch.  leave those kinds of jobs to the summer interns.

 

this still doesn't solve the problem that there are some skills that can only be gained through experience in the field  - but I think pushing more of the burden onto the schools is the right direction.

Feb 8, 12 5:54 pm  · 
 · 

Correct me if I'm wrong but depending on your registration board requirements you potentially could take the exams immediately after graduation (I believe that most allow you to take the exams while working on IDP so if you've established your record you could take the AREs).

I think the problem with that lies in what toasteroven mentioned about recent graduates being more confident in their abilities. Right now the mind set is that the AREs are years of experience away from the point of graduation so recent grads aren't willing to pay the money to fail the exams.

Either way, I agree with what toaseroven said. Motivate recent grads to take the exams early and gain some confidence, and show potential employers you've got what it takes from the start.

Feb 8, 12 7:06 pm  · 
 · 

What that changes for IDP? I'm not really sure.

Feb 8, 12 7:12 pm  · 
 · 
gwharton

Let's be frank. The only way to reform the internship system is to do away with it. So too with the educational and licensing requirements. They're all predicated on a set of false assumptions about what architecture is and what architects do, stemming from an attempt many decades ago to create a professional cartel system akin to the medical and legal professions.

The AIA was not the AMA, however, and architects turn out not to be as necessary as doctors to the day-to-day functioning of our society, nor do we control the system of laws and legal judgment. When the DOJ threatened the AIA, it rolled over and exposed its belly, cowering and granting the Consent Decree which has encumbered us ever since. Internship and licensure is an archaic remnant of a cartel system that failed. Without the cartel, the internship and lincensing requirements are worse than useless.

There is still a cartel at work here, of course, but it is preying on the profession, not serving it. That cartel is the university system, which has obtained a monopoly on entrance credentials to the profession. The universities then reap the rewards of charging astronomical rates for an accredited degree to aspiring architects, and then putting all the real-world training requirements on practicioners via internship. The profession has tried to sew a silk purse from this sow's ear by using internship to provide an endless flood of cheap labor while we race one another to the bottom in fee competition.

So, to really fix the problem, we would a the very least have to break one cartel (the university credential system), and at best establish another (transitioning back toward a master-apprentice/patron-client system akin to the old guilds). The former is unlikely, since the universities are an established part of the elite power structure in the USA, and the latter is nearly impossible under existing law.

However, any proposed reforms to internship and licensure should have, as their first priority, the weakening of university control over architectural accreditation and credentials.

Feb 8, 12 10:06 pm  · 
 · 

gwharton, your my new hero, if you think of running for office over here let me know, I'll set up a Super PAC.

Feb 8, 12 10:17 pm  · 
 · 

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.

  • ×Search in: