NCARB seems to operate under some Oz-like cloud of mystery. They never provide anything informative and seem to enjoy making the process rather confusing, difficult and downright hair pulling. They have lost checks, lied about when the AIT went into effect, and now have decided that ARE 4.0 will roll out in 2009 and that if you have not completed 3.1 by then, you may be forced to retake all of your exams - the ones you currently passed - in the new 4.0 system. They have also seen fit to combine vignettes with multiple choice, and while that seems logical, it also seems as though they have multiplied their efforts into making even more likely that the profession will continue to be declining in membership.
Where and who is responsible for oversight? How can I effect change? How can we send a message that openness rather secretive, behind closed door, back room decisions are the keys to having an engaged membership?
Do you think this organization is serving you, the profession, or the community at large?
I think NCARB should call its "customers" (us) when there is a problem with our record. It would be like what other companies call "customer service", or "doing what they get paid for".
Example: I call them and ask why it's taking so long for me to get my OK to test, at this point it had been about 4 months after I sent in my last completed IDP forms. The NCARB person pulls up my record and says, well it looks like "this" is causing the delay. They tell me the route to correct it and that it will take 30 more days after this correction before they can give me the OK to test. Fine, I correct it. So I call back 31 days later to see why I didn't get my OK to test yet. NCARB person pulls up my record, informs me that another, unrelated issue also needs to be corrected. I am told it will be another 30 days. Are we really going to take care of these one at a time?
Just so you know I'm not a buffon who spelled her name wrong on her forms or something the two issues are as follows:
1. I was employed by Firm A as a summer intern, but did not turn in documentation for it. I did not need the hours for IDP and didn't think I could track them down anyways, so I started my IDP after that. They thought they needed an employment verification form from this employer anyways. When I pointed out that I had not submitted any IDP hours from said employer, they decided that a written note from me stating that I was not going to use any of those hours would correct the problem.
2. One of my employer's signed my paperwork with his license number from another state than the one our office was in (mine were not the first IDP forms he'd signed, he should have known better, but oh well). I needed to track down his instate license number and give it to NCARB. Done.
3. Should I expect something else in 30 days?
Anyways, I find this run around unacceptable and believe I should have been contacted when NCARB stumbled across a problem with my record, via good old customer service protocol of calling the customer.
NCARB has singlehandedly wasted over a year of my time with such delays. For example, it took 8 months to establish my record to begin to record IDP. As I recall, that involved checking my transcripts and cashing my check. It took two weeks to cash the check.
----
I would also like to tell NCARB that their IDP system rewards cheaters, and because these cheaters don't suffer in their career (they still pass exams), it shows how useless IDP actually is, how it is little more than a 3 year waiting period before one can take the exams. There is no detectable difference in technical competency between an intern who meticulously recorded fractions of hours spent in various categories over 5 years, to the intern whose boss turned the other cheek and just signed the forms after 3 years.
SK I am with you, not about bitching but about trying to get them to really offer us some sort of support (as they should be doing, esp. if we are abiding by their code of conduct).
NCARB is only effective to the degree in which your state allows it to be. Unfortounately almost all of them let NCARB handle their affairs. A bigger issue than the testing and record keeping is their insistance on profesional and master degree requirements for licensure. Find who benefits most from NCARB's existance and thats where you'll find your coulprits, and I suspect they're also the ones collecting the tuition checks. We dont need a big washington based machine controling access to our profession. We alreadty have the AIA - we should be on them to lobby the states individualy to end NCARB alignment.
just received my "direct connection" yesterday in the mail. after reading the proposed changes, I have to conclude that the exam will become much more difficult starting next year. of course the "check all that apply" and "fill-in-the-blank" questions are already being implemented for the MEP portion, but they will be spread across the board beginning in 2008. while the vignettes will be a new addition to every exam (now seven as opposed to nine), i personally do not feel like they will pose as much of a problem as the previously mentioned items.
the real kicker is that which stourley alluded to earlier, if you have not completed all sections by July 2009, then you "may" be required to re-take exams that you have already passed as part of ARE 3.1. Of course NCARB did not offer any explanation on what determines whether or not you must re-take an exam, which should be expected.
i heard reed kroloff speak regarding the state of the profession a few years back (just after he left Architecture mag), and he offered some very grave statistics on the number of intern architects who taking the exam. i guess one could view this very real drop-off as a positive for those who actually make it to the end, for there will be less competition among practicing architects. However, one could also see this drop-off as very dangerous for the profession that is already under attack from contractors and engineers who want to do away with the need for architects altogether. At a time when the profession needs more and more architects to come on board, it appears that steps are being taken which will ultimately result in perhaps fewer numbers of architects being licensed.
oh, one more thing, has anyone else had difficulty in retrieving exam scores from Prometric? In the age of instant transmission, it takes my state board an average of four weeks to receive grades from Prometric. Just wondering if this is an isolated problem in my state or if others have had difficulties.
Dealing with NCARB is a constant battle. I am relatively new to the process, only having submitted about one year's worth of hours and I'm already supremely frustrated with them. I have to regularly check in with my record online because there is frequently a problem with it. As Strawbeary said... it seems as if as soon as I correct one issue, another arises.
Today for example, my entire record says "Status Unknown" apparently because I have sent them no information in over 6 months. I sent information to them in October, only 5 months ago, AND called them to work out other issues less than 2 weeks ago! Changes were made to my record, and updated on the website yet today my status is unknown due to inactivity. awesome.
thanks for the insight squirrel. i guess Prometric is simply overloaded with every exam known to mankind and cannot get their act together.
anyway, if you have already begun the exams, it appears that 2009 is a good target year for completion. at the rate i am going, 2011 is looking more realistic.
i completed IDP about three years ago and had all of the same problems. here is one suggestion: call the idp office in DC and get the name and direct number of the person to which you are speaking. after many calls myself, i finally found a guy who could sympathize with my troubles, so I got his name and number, and every time i had a problem from that moment forward, i called him directly and he took care of things. as much as you want to curse the organization and the people in charge, it pays to be nice when you finally find someone who can help you.
it helps to keep things in perspective ..... which is that IDP is simply another hoop "we" much jump through in order to finally become licensed. it's a damn shame!
What!? So if I don't finish the ARE by 2009 I'll have to start over!?! Now that's reason enough for a personal trip to DC so I can bitch in person. I thought the rolling clock was the only thing to worry about? Now I have to seriously get it in gear.
And I agree with Strabeary about the rampant cheating in IDP. Several recent grads I've spoke with think IDP is nothing more than a 3 year waiting period. I actually had no problems with my IDP but I did it legit and took 4+ years doing it. So those cheaters are like a slap in the face to people like myself, especially if it got them in early enough to not get fucked by the 4.0 cancelling out passed exams in the 3.1 ver.
Honestly they should leave the ARE alone. Even the rolling clock seems excessive. On the other hand, IDP is seriously flawed and needs an overhaul. Make that harder and make people finish IDP before the ARE and leave well enough alone for the ARE.
vado, yes! I won't even need my degree after awhile because you can sit for the exams in CO after 9 years experience with no degree, 7 years if you got an unrelated bachelor's.
aqua .... have you ever tried to shoot a moving target? pretty damn difficult. as evident by these latest changes, that is what one can expect starting '08 with Version 4.0. can one file suit against NCARB for breach of contract or something like that?
tenn is right -- get a name and extension number of someone in the DC office and run all of your questions directly through that person.
When i did the testing about 3-4 years ago, there was a woman there (sorry, no longer have her name/number) who was really helpful -- she would even give exam results over the phone, weeks before the little slip of paper would show up in the mail.
That was about the only perk of the interning/testing for me -- otherwise, it was long, tedious, expensive, and thankless.
Call your local board, they are the ones endowed to adopt or not adopt NCARB recommendations. If you can convince your state to delay adoption of 4.0 or to at least not make you repeat, then you won't have to. NCARB is enabled by the state boards, the state boards should respond to the local professionals. I have already written letters and plan to continue...
...what i forgot to point out is the fact that NCARB with the release of 3.0 or 3.1 said to us interns that once we had passed our first exam a 5 year rolling clock would start, you know we had 5 years to pass all of the exams. what happened to that or was that another lie?
it seems that this rather annoying group of individuals have no problem adopting and changing policies at the whim of a directors fart, but when it comes time to consider a title change other than being called interns, they become sedentary sticks in the mud.
The same issue with tests changing and some people having to retake some happened back in the late 1990s too. The older test had a different configuration and some people had to retake some combination of the 3 graphic exams if they hadn't passed a certain combo of tests yet in the previous version.
Do write to your state board, and do make your concerns known.
But also be aware that the only reason you'd have to take any tests over again in 4.0 is if you have not yet passed Building Technology or Site Planning in 3.1 or before AND you had already passed the multiple choice exams directly affected by these two tests. These are the only ones that correspond to more than one test in 4.0 (not passing BT could result in having to re-take as many as 4 tests.)
If you're currently testing in version 3.1 you have until July 2009 to keep testing in 3.1. As long as you pass BT and SP before then there's no way that you'll have to re-take any tests in 4.0 that you've already passed.
Remember also that your voice is actually more powerful when you actually become licensed. it also helps to (gasp) join the local AIA where there already exists a profesional peer group dedicated to debating and influencing these very topics. You may not agree with them today but imagine what the AIA could do for the future, if only you got involved.
Bloopox - where did you hear that about BT & SP? I believe you and will make those my priority, but just want to be 100% sure. Was planning on taking all graphics portions before those, but guess NCARB wan't me to take them in a different order.
Wait, what is ARE 4.0?? Are they overhauling all the tests? If so, I want to get them done in the current version before all the study guides/forums full of tips/my friends' flashcards become obsolete!
personally, I'd rather take structures/lateral forces at the same test. less questions and studying. The other changes don't seem to make a difference to me, but I do have all the old study materials. Maybe they will roll out the option to take 4.0 sooner then 2009. I don't want to wait and I expect to finish the AREs by that point.
Is the shift a scam to make more money for the publishers of the study guides?
aquapura: there's a "transition chart" on NCARB's website that shows which tests in 3.1 correspond to which in 4.0. Except for BT and SP there is a one-to-one correspondence of each test to another in 4.0 - meaning you won't be "losing" tests that you've already taken and passed. But with BT and SP there is more than one test that you'd have to take in 4.0, some of which could mean repeating tests that are substantially similar to multiple choice tests you may have already taken and passed...
With the structures and lateral forces exams, if you haven't already passed both in 3.1 you'd have to pass the combined one in 4.0. But that's not really the same as "losing" the one you've already taken and passed, because you're still only having to take one more test (for example if you pass LF in 3.1 but haven't taken or passed GS then you'll have to take the combined structures test in 4.0 - but you would have had to take GS anyway in 3.1, so you're not losing a test or having to take more tests that you originally would have had to take - though you may be encountering some redundant material.)
Why is NCARB so screwed up (as far as we are concerned)? Take a look at their mission statement:
"The NCARB Mission
Two equally important responsibilities comprise the mission of the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards:
* to work together as a council of member boards to safeguard the health, safety, and welfare of the public and
* to assist member boards in carrying out their duties."
No mention of serving architects or interns - their entire responsibility is to the member boards. Then, if you look at your State Board's mission, you'll probably see something similar to this one from California:
"The mission of the California Architects Board is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare through the regulation of the practice of architecture and landscape architecture in the state by:
• Ensuring that those entering the practice meet standards of competency by way of education, experience, and examination;
• Establishing standards of practice for those licensed to practice;
• Requiring that any person practicing or offering to practice architecture be licensed;
• Protecting consumers and users of architectural services;
• Enforcing the laws, codes, and standards governing architectural practice in a fair, expeditious, and uniform manner;
• Empowering consumers by providing information and educational materials to help them make informed decisions; and
• Overseeing the activities of the Landscape Architects Technical Committee to ensure it regulates the practice of landscape architecture in a manner which safeguards the well being of the public and the environment."
Again, no mention of serving interns or architects - you get the feeling that we are something villainous and it might be easier to protect the public from us if there weren't any interns or architects at all. Given the target that they are shooting for, I wonder if they aren't as an organization fulfilling their goals almost perfectly. Keeping us happy is only important to the degree that it lessens angry phone calls and improves productivity within NCARB.
By Jaclyn S. Toole, Assoc. AIA, 2007 NAC Chair
In order to ensure that an intern is progressing through the Intern Development Program (IDP) and completing all required training activities in a timely fashion, the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) has put forth Draft Resolution “07-I”, Proposed Six-Month Requirement for Documenting IDP Training Activity". It will require all, new IDP record holders to submit training unit reports at a maximum of once every six months. Similar to the “5-year rolling clock”, any training units that are acquired and not reported prior to the six-month period will begin to “roll off” and no longer be deemed valid to count toward IDP requirements. As written, this new requirement would affect all new IDP record holders that enroll after July 1, 2009.
Look for a full article discussing this Draft Resolution in next week's AIArchitect.
This along with ARE Timing will be voted on at NCARB’s Annual Meeting in June. Until then, let your position be known to your State Licensing Board by writing a letter or attending a meeting to show your support of the AIA’s Position on ARE Timing.
PLEASE LET YOUR LOCAL ARCHITECTURE BOARD KNOW HOW AWFUL THIS PROPOSAL WILL MAKE THE INTERN EXPERIENCE AND THAT THEY SHOULD NOT SUPPORT THIS RESOLUTION - help save the internship process!!!!!! this is our only hope to stop NCARB from screwing us interns even more!
let me just tell all of you (since most of you sound like you're interns), it doesn't get much better once you get registered and have to do reciprocity to pick up a license in another state. it took my wife 1 year, 10 letters, countless phone calls, a misidentification, a letter telling her to stop bothering them (!), and, literally immediately after that an apology letter, for her to have her council record transmitted to the state board she wanted to apply to....
all that said, i'm going to go on record and say the single biggest reason there are so many problems with exam (and by extension how ncarb is forced to run the exam) is that it is now broken up into 9 parts and can be taken whenever, wherever. this current system being compared to the 'olden days' when you took the exam over 3 days and it was offered only once a year (except for the graphics, which was offered twice a year).
some huge advantages of the old system:
1. you had a very defined peer group that was going to take the exam with you at the same time. you all knew when it was going to happen, you all crammed together, you all got your results at the same time. the peer pressure alone to take the exam as soon as you could was much, much more palpatable than anything i see these days. now, even with this 'rolling clock', you can blow off a section if you don't feel totally prepared. it's just not the same.
2. the test was very integrated - the sections all related to each other better and by studying them all at the same time, you got a much more well rounded understanding of the 'real-world' applications. now, you all are basically just trying to memorize chunks of very discrete information, (as well as obtain credits in chunks) - i don't think you're learning how all this interrelates as well as your predecessors.
3. the firms had a much easier time assisting in the preparation of interns who were going to take the test. again, they all knew when the test was coming up. they knew you were going to be tested on everything and it was easier to provide in-house assistence or loop people into study groups if they hadn't found any. now, you can have (in a firm of 100 or so) 20 people who are in different stages of the testing process, all taking different topics - seriously, who can possibly be expected to stay on top of that, much less help in the preparation?
4. ncarb could 'gear up' for the exam season and seemingly process 50 times the volume they do now, and still get the grades back in a reasonable time. in that vein, one of the main advantages you'd think they'd have now is the ability to more 'instantly' report grades - certainly the computer is reporting the multiple choice grades instantly (like the leed exam does). why it takes 3-4 weeks to verify the score is kind of crazy.
if i could change anything about the exam (and if i was so inclined to lobby ncarb for changes), it would be to put it back to once a year. i am absolutely convinced we'd see better prepared interns, more people passing the test, and more licensed architects.
I don't think you'd see higher pass rates if you put the test back to once a year. The first-time pass rate in the pencil-paper days was usually only about 35% (according to the esteemed "Professor Dorf" over at the are.forum). My partner took the test in the old pencil-paper days and was one of only 5 people in the state who passed the whole thing on the first try that year, out of about 30 who tried.
I don't understand the weeks-long delay in reporting multiple choice scores either. I think that's something else that should be remedied by pressure from the state boards.
Apr 10, 07 11:23 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.
POLL: Is NCARB Everything It Should Be?
NCARB seems to operate under some Oz-like cloud of mystery. They never provide anything informative and seem to enjoy making the process rather confusing, difficult and downright hair pulling. They have lost checks, lied about when the AIT went into effect, and now have decided that ARE 4.0 will roll out in 2009 and that if you have not completed 3.1 by then, you may be forced to retake all of your exams - the ones you currently passed - in the new 4.0 system. They have also seen fit to combine vignettes with multiple choice, and while that seems logical, it also seems as though they have multiplied their efforts into making even more likely that the profession will continue to be declining in membership.
Where and who is responsible for oversight? How can I effect change? How can we send a message that openness rather secretive, behind closed door, back room decisions are the keys to having an engaged membership?
Do you think this organization is serving you, the profession, or the community at large?
What should it be?
Is this a bitch fest or would you compile complaints to send to NCARB? None of the above?
no bitchfest, i really want to send them a message.
I think NCARB should call its "customers" (us) when there is a problem with our record. It would be like what other companies call "customer service", or "doing what they get paid for".
Example: I call them and ask why it's taking so long for me to get my OK to test, at this point it had been about 4 months after I sent in my last completed IDP forms. The NCARB person pulls up my record and says, well it looks like "this" is causing the delay. They tell me the route to correct it and that it will take 30 more days after this correction before they can give me the OK to test. Fine, I correct it. So I call back 31 days later to see why I didn't get my OK to test yet. NCARB person pulls up my record, informs me that another, unrelated issue also needs to be corrected. I am told it will be another 30 days. Are we really going to take care of these one at a time?
Just so you know I'm not a buffon who spelled her name wrong on her forms or something the two issues are as follows:
1. I was employed by Firm A as a summer intern, but did not turn in documentation for it. I did not need the hours for IDP and didn't think I could track them down anyways, so I started my IDP after that. They thought they needed an employment verification form from this employer anyways. When I pointed out that I had not submitted any IDP hours from said employer, they decided that a written note from me stating that I was not going to use any of those hours would correct the problem.
2. One of my employer's signed my paperwork with his license number from another state than the one our office was in (mine were not the first IDP forms he'd signed, he should have known better, but oh well). I needed to track down his instate license number and give it to NCARB. Done.
3. Should I expect something else in 30 days?
Anyways, I find this run around unacceptable and believe I should have been contacted when NCARB stumbled across a problem with my record, via good old customer service protocol of calling the customer.
NCARB has singlehandedly wasted over a year of my time with such delays. For example, it took 8 months to establish my record to begin to record IDP. As I recall, that involved checking my transcripts and cashing my check. It took two weeks to cash the check.
----
I would also like to tell NCARB that their IDP system rewards cheaters, and because these cheaters don't suffer in their career (they still pass exams), it shows how useless IDP actually is, how it is little more than a 3 year waiting period before one can take the exams. There is no detectable difference in technical competency between an intern who meticulously recorded fractions of hours spent in various categories over 5 years, to the intern whose boss turned the other cheek and just signed the forms after 3 years.
Sorry to hear Strawbeary...
SK I am with you, not about bitching but about trying to get them to really offer us some sort of support (as they should be doing, esp. if we are abiding by their code of conduct).
NCARB is only effective to the degree in which your state allows it to be. Unfortounately almost all of them let NCARB handle their affairs. A bigger issue than the testing and record keeping is their insistance on profesional and master degree requirements for licensure. Find who benefits most from NCARB's existance and thats where you'll find your coulprits, and I suspect they're also the ones collecting the tuition checks. We dont need a big washington based machine controling access to our profession. We alreadty have the AIA - we should be on them to lobby the states individualy to end NCARB alignment.
just received my "direct connection" yesterday in the mail. after reading the proposed changes, I have to conclude that the exam will become much more difficult starting next year. of course the "check all that apply" and "fill-in-the-blank" questions are already being implemented for the MEP portion, but they will be spread across the board beginning in 2008. while the vignettes will be a new addition to every exam (now seven as opposed to nine), i personally do not feel like they will pose as much of a problem as the previously mentioned items.
the real kicker is that which stourley alluded to earlier, if you have not completed all sections by July 2009, then you "may" be required to re-take exams that you have already passed as part of ARE 3.1. Of course NCARB did not offer any explanation on what determines whether or not you must re-take an exam, which should be expected.
i heard reed kroloff speak regarding the state of the profession a few years back (just after he left Architecture mag), and he offered some very grave statistics on the number of intern architects who taking the exam. i guess one could view this very real drop-off as a positive for those who actually make it to the end, for there will be less competition among practicing architects. However, one could also see this drop-off as very dangerous for the profession that is already under attack from contractors and engineers who want to do away with the need for architects altogether. At a time when the profession needs more and more architects to come on board, it appears that steps are being taken which will ultimately result in perhaps fewer numbers of architects being licensed.
oh, one more thing, has anyone else had difficulty in retrieving exam scores from Prometric? In the age of instant transmission, it takes my state board an average of four weeks to receive grades from Prometric. Just wondering if this is an isolated problem in my state or if others have had difficulties.
Strawbeary:
how did ncarb find out you were employed at a place where you didn't submit the hours?
tenn.....at least for California, the same thing applies with regards to the tests scores and NCARB sending you the pass/fail letter.
It's simply ridiculous, unless they have a valid explanation for this "processing" time, which I think is rubbish!
Dealing with NCARB is a constant battle. I am relatively new to the process, only having submitted about one year's worth of hours and I'm already supremely frustrated with them. I have to regularly check in with my record online because there is frequently a problem with it. As Strawbeary said... it seems as if as soon as I correct one issue, another arises.
Today for example, my entire record says "Status Unknown" apparently because I have sent them no information in over 6 months. I sent information to them in October, only 5 months ago, AND called them to work out other issues less than 2 weeks ago! Changes were made to my record, and updated on the website yet today my status is unknown due to inactivity. awesome.
thanks for the insight squirrel. i guess Prometric is simply overloaded with every exam known to mankind and cannot get their act together.
anyway, if you have already begun the exams, it appears that 2009 is a good target year for completion. at the rate i am going, 2011 is looking more realistic.
bryan, not sure, but I think I when I established my council record I filled out an employment history where I listed it.
one should be able to take the exam after three years of working period.
hey guys:
i completed IDP about three years ago and had all of the same problems. here is one suggestion: call the idp office in DC and get the name and direct number of the person to which you are speaking. after many calls myself, i finally found a guy who could sympathize with my troubles, so I got his name and number, and every time i had a problem from that moment forward, i called him directly and he took care of things. as much as you want to curse the organization and the people in charge, it pays to be nice when you finally find someone who can help you.
it helps to keep things in perspective ..... which is that IDP is simply another hoop "we" much jump through in order to finally become licensed. it's a damn shame!
What!? So if I don't finish the ARE by 2009 I'll have to start over!?! Now that's reason enough for a personal trip to DC so I can bitch in person. I thought the rolling clock was the only thing to worry about? Now I have to seriously get it in gear.
And I agree with Strabeary about the rampant cheating in IDP. Several recent grads I've spoke with think IDP is nothing more than a 3 year waiting period. I actually had no problems with my IDP but I did it legit and took 4+ years doing it. So those cheaters are like a slap in the face to people like myself, especially if it got them in early enough to not get fucked by the 4.0 cancelling out passed exams in the 3.1 ver.
Honestly they should leave the ARE alone. Even the rolling clock seems excessive. On the other hand, IDP is seriously flawed and needs an overhaul. Make that harder and make people finish IDP before the ARE and leave well enough alone for the ARE.
vado, yes! I won't even need my degree after awhile because you can sit for the exams in CO after 9 years experience with no degree, 7 years if you got an unrelated bachelor's.
aqua .... have you ever tried to shoot a moving target? pretty damn difficult. as evident by these latest changes, that is what one can expect starting '08 with Version 4.0. can one file suit against NCARB for breach of contract or something like that?
aqua, yeh, I didn't cheat on my IDP either, it took me almost 5 years to get all the hours in the right categories.
not in AZ
tenn is right -- get a name and extension number of someone in the DC office and run all of your questions directly through that person.
When i did the testing about 3-4 years ago, there was a woman there (sorry, no longer have her name/number) who was really helpful -- she would even give exam results over the phone, weeks before the little slip of paper would show up in the mail.
That was about the only perk of the interning/testing for me -- otherwise, it was long, tedious, expensive, and thankless.
Call your local board, they are the ones endowed to adopt or not adopt NCARB recommendations. If you can convince your state to delay adoption of 4.0 or to at least not make you repeat, then you won't have to. NCARB is enabled by the state boards, the state boards should respond to the local professionals. I have already written letters and plan to continue...
j
...what i forgot to point out is the fact that NCARB with the release of 3.0 or 3.1 said to us interns that once we had passed our first exam a 5 year rolling clock would start, you know we had 5 years to pass all of the exams. what happened to that or was that another lie?
it seems that this rather annoying group of individuals have no problem adopting and changing policies at the whim of a directors fart, but when it comes time to consider a title change other than being called interns, they become sedentary sticks in the mud.
The same issue with tests changing and some people having to retake some happened back in the late 1990s too. The older test had a different configuration and some people had to retake some combination of the 3 graphic exams if they hadn't passed a certain combo of tests yet in the previous version.
Do write to your state board, and do make your concerns known.
But also be aware that the only reason you'd have to take any tests over again in 4.0 is if you have not yet passed Building Technology or Site Planning in 3.1 or before AND you had already passed the multiple choice exams directly affected by these two tests. These are the only ones that correspond to more than one test in 4.0 (not passing BT could result in having to re-take as many as 4 tests.)
If you're currently testing in version 3.1 you have until July 2009 to keep testing in 3.1. As long as you pass BT and SP before then there's no way that you'll have to re-take any tests in 4.0 that you've already passed.
Remember also that your voice is actually more powerful when you actually become licensed. it also helps to (gasp) join the local AIA where there already exists a profesional peer group dedicated to debating and influencing these very topics. You may not agree with them today but imagine what the AIA could do for the future, if only you got involved.
Bloopox - where did you hear that about BT & SP? I believe you and will make those my priority, but just want to be 100% sure. Was planning on taking all graphics portions before those, but guess NCARB wan't me to take them in a different order.
Wait, what is ARE 4.0?? Are they overhauling all the tests? If so, I want to get them done in the current version before all the study guides/forums full of tips/my friends' flashcards become obsolete!
fresh from ncarb.com what's different
personally, I'd rather take structures/lateral forces at the same test. less questions and studying. The other changes don't seem to make a difference to me, but I do have all the old study materials. Maybe they will roll out the option to take 4.0 sooner then 2009. I don't want to wait and I expect to finish the AREs by that point.
Is the shift a scam to make more money for the publishers of the study guides?
aquapura: there's a "transition chart" on NCARB's website that shows which tests in 3.1 correspond to which in 4.0. Except for BT and SP there is a one-to-one correspondence of each test to another in 4.0 - meaning you won't be "losing" tests that you've already taken and passed. But with BT and SP there is more than one test that you'd have to take in 4.0, some of which could mean repeating tests that are substantially similar to multiple choice tests you may have already taken and passed...
With the structures and lateral forces exams, if you haven't already passed both in 3.1 you'd have to pass the combined one in 4.0. But that's not really the same as "losing" the one you've already taken and passed, because you're still only having to take one more test (for example if you pass LF in 3.1 but haven't taken or passed GS then you'll have to take the combined structures test in 4.0 - but you would have had to take GS anyway in 3.1, so you're not losing a test or having to take more tests that you originally would have had to take - though you may be encountering some redundant material.)
Why is NCARB so screwed up (as far as we are concerned)? Take a look at their mission statement:
"The NCARB Mission
Two equally important responsibilities comprise the mission of the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards:
* to work together as a council of member boards to safeguard the health, safety, and welfare of the public and
* to assist member boards in carrying out their duties."
No mention of serving architects or interns - their entire responsibility is to the member boards. Then, if you look at your State Board's mission, you'll probably see something similar to this one from California:
"The mission of the California Architects Board is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare through the regulation of the practice of architecture and landscape architecture in the state by:
• Ensuring that those entering the practice meet standards of competency by way of education, experience, and examination;
• Establishing standards of practice for those licensed to practice;
• Requiring that any person practicing or offering to practice architecture be licensed;
• Protecting consumers and users of architectural services;
• Enforcing the laws, codes, and standards governing architectural practice in a fair, expeditious, and uniform manner;
• Empowering consumers by providing information and educational materials to help them make informed decisions; and
• Overseeing the activities of the Landscape Architects Technical Committee to ensure it regulates the practice of landscape architecture in a manner which safeguards the well being of the public and the environment."
Again, no mention of serving interns or architects - you get the feeling that we are something villainous and it might be easier to protect the public from us if there weren't any interns or architects at all. Given the target that they are shooting for, I wonder if they aren't as an organization fulfilling their goals almost perfectly. Keeping us happy is only important to the degree that it lessens angry phone calls and improves productivity within NCARB.
Well said Janosh. You should send that into the state boards and NCARB.
From Associates Newsletter
By Jaclyn S. Toole, Assoc. AIA, 2007 NAC Chair
In order to ensure that an intern is progressing through the Intern Development Program (IDP) and completing all required training activities in a timely fashion, the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) has put forth Draft Resolution “07-I”, Proposed Six-Month Requirement for Documenting IDP Training Activity". It will require all, new IDP record holders to submit training unit reports at a maximum of once every six months. Similar to the “5-year rolling clock”, any training units that are acquired and not reported prior to the six-month period will begin to “roll off” and no longer be deemed valid to count toward IDP requirements. As written, this new requirement would affect all new IDP record holders that enroll after July 1, 2009.
Look for a full article discussing this Draft Resolution in next week's AIArchitect.
This along with ARE Timing will be voted on at NCARB’s Annual Meeting in June. Until then, let your position be known to your State Licensing Board by writing a letter or attending a meeting to show your support of the AIA’s Position on ARE Timing.
PLEASE LET YOUR LOCAL ARCHITECTURE BOARD KNOW HOW AWFUL THIS PROPOSAL WILL MAKE THE INTERN EXPERIENCE AND THAT THEY SHOULD NOT SUPPORT THIS RESOLUTION - help save the internship process!!!!!! this is our only hope to stop NCARB from screwing us interns even more!
These guys are so Orwellian.......Just had to say this! Rise up take the rain...AIA!
let me just tell all of you (since most of you sound like you're interns), it doesn't get much better once you get registered and have to do reciprocity to pick up a license in another state. it took my wife 1 year, 10 letters, countless phone calls, a misidentification, a letter telling her to stop bothering them (!), and, literally immediately after that an apology letter, for her to have her council record transmitted to the state board she wanted to apply to....
all that said, i'm going to go on record and say the single biggest reason there are so many problems with exam (and by extension how ncarb is forced to run the exam) is that it is now broken up into 9 parts and can be taken whenever, wherever. this current system being compared to the 'olden days' when you took the exam over 3 days and it was offered only once a year (except for the graphics, which was offered twice a year).
some huge advantages of the old system:
1. you had a very defined peer group that was going to take the exam with you at the same time. you all knew when it was going to happen, you all crammed together, you all got your results at the same time. the peer pressure alone to take the exam as soon as you could was much, much more palpatable than anything i see these days. now, even with this 'rolling clock', you can blow off a section if you don't feel totally prepared. it's just not the same.
2. the test was very integrated - the sections all related to each other better and by studying them all at the same time, you got a much more well rounded understanding of the 'real-world' applications. now, you all are basically just trying to memorize chunks of very discrete information, (as well as obtain credits in chunks) - i don't think you're learning how all this interrelates as well as your predecessors.
3. the firms had a much easier time assisting in the preparation of interns who were going to take the test. again, they all knew when the test was coming up. they knew you were going to be tested on everything and it was easier to provide in-house assistence or loop people into study groups if they hadn't found any. now, you can have (in a firm of 100 or so) 20 people who are in different stages of the testing process, all taking different topics - seriously, who can possibly be expected to stay on top of that, much less help in the preparation?
4. ncarb could 'gear up' for the exam season and seemingly process 50 times the volume they do now, and still get the grades back in a reasonable time. in that vein, one of the main advantages you'd think they'd have now is the ability to more 'instantly' report grades - certainly the computer is reporting the multiple choice grades instantly (like the leed exam does). why it takes 3-4 weeks to verify the score is kind of crazy.
if i could change anything about the exam (and if i was so inclined to lobby ncarb for changes), it would be to put it back to once a year. i am absolutely convinced we'd see better prepared interns, more people passing the test, and more licensed architects.
I don't think you'd see higher pass rates if you put the test back to once a year. The first-time pass rate in the pencil-paper days was usually only about 35% (according to the esteemed "Professor Dorf" over at the are.forum). My partner took the test in the old pencil-paper days and was one of only 5 people in the state who passed the whole thing on the first try that year, out of about 30 who tried.
I don't understand the weeks-long delay in reporting multiple choice scores either. I think that's something else that should be remedied by pressure from the state boards.
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.