so i'm looking through the michigan idp stuff and looks like i cant count my hours that i've been on my own as anything.8 years worth....wtf..... unless i get a stamp or something from a higher power.... this sucks.....
yep... you're screwed... unless you were working with/under a licensed architect... i think that you can at least count some of the credits in certain categories... but most of it will be lost if you were working for yourself...
also, leaving michigan won't help... idp sucks the same everywhere... ain't architecture great???
I agree that IDP has its flaws but not in disagreement on this. IDP is meant to be an "apprenticeship" program. The idea is that you gleen knowledge off those with higher powers, AKA, registered architects. Working solo certinaly teaches you things, but in a different way than an apprenticeship.
Not knowing cryzko's situation this is just a generalization of the program. However, having an architect sign off on IDP is pretty much the only checks & balances the system has, and it's still rife with fraud. I'm sure there's a better way, just not sure loosening the rules will help.
exactly, aquapura. idp isn't about being on your own but about being under someone's oversight. not great for you in your situation, cryzko, but impt nonetheless.
many states have a 'broadly experienced architect' category for folks like you (or maybe a few more years of experience). Contact the state board for more details. Typically they interview you and have some sort of verbal exam before authorizing you to test. there may be restrictions on commity with other jursidictions, but once registered one place, you can establish a ncarb file (similar to idp).
There are only a tiny handful of states at this point that don't require standard IDP. The "Broadly Experienced Architect" route is usually only for people who have been licensed in another state - or some states such as NY have similar procedures for people who've been licensed in another country - for a period of time (10 years if you're going for NCARB's BEA certification, but some states have other state-specific rules.)
Only Maine, Arizona, California, and Colorado currently have any rules that will let you bypass standard IDP if you don't already have a license (and those rules vary in those states.)
The problem with getting registered by any of these alternate rules is that you will have problems in many states if you apply for reciprocity. Even NCARB's BEA certificate is not recognized by some states. And getting licensed by an state-specific loophole will bar you from licensure at least a third of the other states in the future (at least until you document standard IDP).
cryzko: email or call NCARB directly and discuss your situation with them. You may be able to get credit for a small amount of your independent experience (probably only about 6 months) by counting it in one of the other acceptable training settings (for example the one that allows you to be working in a "design" setting other than architecture.) If they do allow you to count any experience while you were self-employed they have special forms for that situation. Basically you have to have three licensed architects certify that you were self-employed and that they are familiar with your work.
I can't wait until I can bitch about IDP. Seriously. That's one headache I'm looking forward to. At least I'll be getting paid to do retarded ammounts of work. Right now I'm paying out the nose to have the privaledge of loosing my health and social life.
I'll go ahead and chime in with a pre-emptive "SCREW IDP!!!!"
IDP #%^!ING BLOWS. Seriously, how long does it take to "evaluate" my damn record! I submitted my last hours over a month ago, they finally "processed" 3 days ago, but now it needs to be evaluated which is scheduled a week from now, then it takes 3 weeks to evaluate (thats probably a day per sheet!) AAAAAAARGH!
</RANT>
eh well, more time to study...
you'd think with amount of money they get they can speed this process up a bit...
most design professionals agree that IDP has serious flaws and NCARB is almost totally incompetent administratively.
but, consider this imponderable, please.
once individuals obtain their licenses, 99.99% will turn their backs on IDP and NCARB, with never a return glance. very few professionals with any energy or competence will agree to serve in the volunteer positions available to fix these important aspects of the profession -- much less fight the difficult battles required to right the ship. hence we have a perpetually bad situation.
just like AIA, we are IDP and NCARB ... pogo was right ... "we have met the enemy and he is us" ... there is no "they" here.
in my humble and perhaps naive opinion, the problem is that IDP, when it's all said and done, is based on the honor system...the registered architect's honor
why not develop the culture of apprenticeship further in lieu of IDP, so firms would try to expose their interns to a variety of experiences within their first 5 years after graduation, and then allowing them to take the ARE's at that time!?
my procrastination/laziness feeds off of unecessary bureaucracy...10 years worth of it...
quizzical...i heard the AIA has started to address the relevance of IDP and the lack of interest in recent graduates to become registered///do you know if that's correct?!
NCARB and CLARB need to start a joint-licensure committee for those folks like me that straddle the fence and therefore fall between the floorboards... it double sucks trying to dual licensure...
keep up the good work beta, the interns of the world will someday thank you!
What sucks worse than the IDP is completing the IDP in 2005;
moving to California;
taking over a year for NCARB to transfer your council record to California;
contacting the California Architects Board about beginning exams;
finding out that it takes eight weeks to process the NCARB council record;
and only then being told that even though I completed my IDP out of state, I still have to contact all of my old employers and get written narratives in order to satisfy the CIDP (California IDP) which is different from, and yet puzzlingly almost identical to, the regular IDP.
Of course, there's no document or website that spells all of this out. And when you speak to someone at the California Architects Board office, their only goal in life seems to be to get you off the phone ASAP.
beta -- I bet you're fun in committee meetings. keep up the good work.
simples -- yes, this issue has moved up considerably on the AIA's agenda. can't tell you exactly what's happening because that's not connected to the area where I'm involved. but, I do know it's being addressed as a serious, long-term issue for the profession.
1) The disorganized bureacracy of NCARB itself. It's extremely difficult to get information out of them.
2) The irrelevance of many of the requirements to the way many firms practice. There are as many ways of practicing as there are firms, but the IDP assumes that every firm practices in the same way.
3) The lack of interest (or even outright disdain) that many licensed architects have for the IDP. This means that many employers tend not to support their young employees' efforts to complete IDP—older architects tend to regard it as a nuisance or a joke.
4) The ease with which the requirements can be fudged. Any architect who disdains the IDP process can sign for an employee who hasn't completed all of the requirements. I've seen this happen on numerous occasions.
isnt the point of IDP that you learn under a licensed architect? why would working for yourself before you have a license count? that is the whole point of it. and did you go through those 8 years thinking you were getting credit for everything? you cant complain much now if you are just looking into it
I thought the point of IDP was a professional hazing that raises a barrier to entry that requires anyone who wants to be an architect, to first work for an architect.
I find it hard to believe that the experience required by IDP absolutely can not be acquired by other means. Especially since many of us have done so before IDP was required.
j
but how are you supposed to document this experience by other means? the point of IDP is to have a standard for what it means to be a licensed architect.
if you dont want the license, dont do the IDP stuff
but you certainly will benefit from having your license, so you have to meet their requirements
if it really bothers you so much, get a job with NCARB and change things
There is this funny thing called "the market". It has a funny way of putting unqualified individuals out of a job and unqualified firms out of business. Remember registration doesn't insure that someone is a good architect just that they meet MINIMUM standards to protect the public safety and welfare.
I don't see a need to "document" experience on an hourly basis. If I could hold down a job for 6 months framing buildings, I probably know a bit about framing buildings. If I get fired after a few days or weeks; no dice.
Honestly, If I can hold down a job in an architectural office beyond just being a draftsman, for 3 years, I can probably continue to do that for much longer.
The fact that someone can spend 8 YEARS in the construction business and not get credit for it is seriously flawed.
yeah that probably needs to be updated with the IDP regulations
but still, what did you expect to get from it? did you think you would be able to have all your IDP requirements filled from those 8 years? it wasnt going to complete all your requirements anyway
i would just keep talking with different people from NCARB and see what can be done
i imagine this goes the other way though too
what if an architect after working for a couple years decides he prefers structural engineering? just because he worked in the business for a long time doesnt mean he will automatically be allowed to get his engineering license (whatever the equivilant is, not really sure)
just because you dont see a need to document your experience on an hourly basis, doesnt mean it has no merit
just holding a job down anywhere, even for 8 years doesnt necessarily mean you know a bit about anything
there are several people in my office who have been working for a number of years and they can get very incompetant about a lot of things
there is no shortcut to getting a professional license in any field i imagine, so there shouldnt be one for architects
It isn't a question about a short cut, 8 years of related experience isn't a short cut.
The real question is does IDP even do what people claim it does; from NCARB "Participation in IDP exposes you to the comprehensive training that is essential for competent practice." If it doesn't, as can be seen in many of the posts here, why do we keep limping along with it? All of those incompetent co-worker of yours would probably have no problem getting IDP credit, assuming there is a licensed architect in the house.
j
but that doesnt mean that working construction for 8 years allows you to understand everything you need to work as an architect. yes it allows you to understand construction and building better than most, but there is more you need to be exposed to for competent practice
who is saying that participation doesnt expose you to comprehensive training?
of course you can get a licensed architect to write off that you have been exposed to without it actually being true. but the same can be said for having any experience anywhere. they will never take just your word for it, you will always need someone to vouch for you, be it the contractor you worked for, or the architect.
if done correctly, IDP has you work in a broad number of categories of an architecture firm. is it a bitch to fill out your time? of course it is.
if its so bad, someone please propose a better system
8 years of related experience is just that
"related" experience
there is no reason at all for it to fill your IDP requirements. it should definitely count for some though
--but that doesnt mean that working construction for 8 years allows you to understand everything you need to work as an architect. yes it allows you to understand construction and building better than most, but there is more you need to be exposed to for competent practice--
Yeah, because what do contractors know about change orders, ASI's, liability insurance, billing, paying bills, shop drawings, permits, code compliance, hiring people, etc....
And how do we judge if IDP has been done correctly, anyway? Oh yeah, its called the A.R.E. From NCARB "The objective of the ARE is to reflect the practice of architecture as an integrated whole."
If someone has 8 years of related experience and can pass the ARE; give them a license. Hell, if someone has a degree in architecture and can pass the ARE, give them a license.
oh so you are just saying that if you can pass the ARE give them a license
thats a who different argument than saying related experience should count more than it does currently
i completely agree with that
and remember
contractors may know everything about change orders, ASI's and all that, but that doesnt mean every guy out there putting up stud walls knows anything about that
i am working on a project now that is about to start construction and its going to have a huge crew working on it. not a single one of them besides the contractor will have dealt with any of this other stuff on the project.
if you can document that you did all of those things while working as a contractor, i think you should be able to use that as any of the construction administration requirements. but again, its an ARCHITECTURE license, so you would have had to get the ARCHITECTS of all those projects to sign off on your hours
that is the point of this
--_-- just up and decided he wanted to be an architect. well its like if you worked for a couple years in a firm and didnt document your hours. why should NCARB believe you did shit if you cant prove it?
Okay, it is clear that we are on the same page, mostly. IDP doesn't prepare you to be an architect. So why is it required to be an architect? NCARB should not be required to accept experience that you can't prove. If you are committed to fulfilling IDP than you need to submit to their requirements. I think IDP sucks, so I found a way to get licensed without it, voting with my feet, as it were. The problem is that that option is quickly evaporating, until there is a perfect system in place, there needs to be options and choice. NCARB needs to have a clear appeal procedure that allows individuals like the one that started this discussion to prove their experience meets the intent of the IDP regulations. IF someone can prove competency in any of the IDP areas, they should be able to get credit for it.
j
and lets be honest here, for the vast majority of people, you will need these 3 years worth of working to be able to pass the ARE exams anyway. so for the most part, this isnt holding people back. you just need to document it properly
it appears NCARB needs to allow more for alternative routes. but you cant just appear one day and say, oh i have been in construction for 8 years, let me be an architect now. if you cant document it properly, it shouldnt count.
you cant work as a nurse for years and then decide you want to be a doctor without fulfilling their requirements. the same holds true in architecture, and i havent heard a valid reason for it not to
if IDP had a decent system of logging hours and recieving credit for them quickly and easily, there wouldn't be that much of a problem.
if the goal of IDP & ARE are to prepare you to protect the public's health, safety, and welfare... than the supervision and approval should come from someone who has that responsibility. a person who is stamping the drawings and takin on that liability. perhaps they could be liable if their apprentice screws up... that would make a lot more interns lives miserable...
and to be fair...237am, cryzko, or whatever he's goin by now, should have figured this out a little bit before 8 years... but by the same token, the reference to a stamp by a higher power should still apply, s/he should be able to review the work and allocate experience in the approriate categories. but if s/he were to sit down with an architect, and all they have in the portfolio is models and furniture buildouts, the architect can put the brakes on. (maybe even offer the poor guy a job so he can get the experience needed...)
trace
it isnt that that i have a problem with, its the people who say, oh i have been doing this for 8 years and now i want to be an architect, and it should happen within the next 2 days, otherwise the system is completely stupid and wrong
this guy has been doing this for 8 years, so unless he decided yesterday that he wanted to be an architect, this has probably been on his mind for a little while at least
its an architecture license, so all he should have to do is find a licensed architect to sign off on his stuff. if he has worked for himself for 8 years, i would hope he would have made a decent contact or 2 with a licensed architect, someone who he could work with to back log some of these hours
it sounds like he expects to say, hello, i was a contractor for 8 years and was my own boss. make me an architect now based on no references and little else
seriously now
its not as complicated as everyone is making it out to be
it is not easy or as well organized as it should be, but its not the worst thing in the world
if there are all these "alternative" experiences everyone is doing, that means you are creative, and should be able to find "alternative" ways to get the hours documented.
as long as there was an architect involved in these experiences, and you develop a working relationship with them, this shouldnt be a problem.
if any of you 'alternative paths' to licensure people ever want our profession (PROFESSION! fancy that) to gain any more stature (read: pay) than what we meagerly have, then you'd have argue for even more regulation and more stringent requirements to become an architect.
for a moment, let's set aside idp as the pathway to licensure. that's another beast...
let's instead look to law and medicine, two professions we all agree we pale in comparison to (in terms of pay):
lawyers are actually trained in school (fancy that!!) in the nuts and bolts of how to practice when they graduate, not just the ethereal, esoteric subjective ethical dilemmas they may face. they take their exam immediately upon graduation. the school you graduate from has to be a qualified program in order to sit for the exam. but there is no grey area, no formal 'apprenticeship'. yes, you're still green, you're still doing more menial work, tons of hours, etc., but you are a lawyer. and you have a choice about where you want to work. since there's no formal internship, the firm you're with only has to worry about your billable hours and practical value to them.
doctors, which are more similar to architects than lawyers (in the sense that we have to learn technical applications which have a bearing on health, safety, and welfare), go through an undergrad degree, 4 years of med school, plus 3 years of structured residency before you can claim the title 'doctor'. even more if you pick a specialty like neurosurgery. damn near impossible to survive the 7 years of hell (and every doctor i know says it's worse than what we go through), but you trust them with your very life, correct?
here's the basic problem for us: our internship isn't structured at all. the difference between the 'high' and 'not so high' quality hospitals is much smaller than the architectural equivalent. the other, huge issue, is that intern doctors all go through the same, proscribed set of criteria and all (ALL) doctors go through specific teaching hospitals, geared around training young pups. (and before you go bitching about graduating salaries, consider the average, AVERAGE first year resident pay is 40K. That's right, architects are right in the same ballpark as a first year resident. know why? we're practically as useless.) you don't just go out and find any old hospital or cosmetic surgery practice to train in.
idp, to come back around, suffers because we're caught between these two poles. we expect to implement a program that aspires to be as rigorous as a medical internship, but don't have the infrastructure of teaching firms to implement it. instead, we throw that back on private firms, which vary wildly in their size, composition, focus, etc., and expect them, with no training nor qualification to act as a surrogate teaching institute. it's insane and why pale in comparison to the doctors. not 'everyone' should be able to be an architect, but we treat the profession as if 'everyone' deserves it.
you want to be a true professional or a tradesman? grow up and recognize the rules have a purpose in defending our difficult and hard won turf. i'm all for creating the architectural equivalent of teaching firms - it would be the single best way to reconcile idp and turn out architects who can properly command the respect and wages we all claim to desire.
remember people the point of the exam is: to test the knowledge of the Minimally Competent Professional, not Masterfully Competent, not Completely Competent, not Gehry Competent, but Minimally Competent.
idp as a method of record keeping device sucks for two reasons, the AIA has failed in it's role as mentor - which NCARB has recognized, and NCARB has failed in it's role as efficient collector and evaluator of records, and pulling together a method for relevant testing of the Minimally Competent Professional - which, because of how the process works, is ALL of OUR responsibilities.
so, when you do get licensed, and you get asked to participate in volunteer events for NCARB, and you decide not to help - even when they are held in CA, all expenses paid - you are part of the problem.
get involved, have a voice, and make it better for those behind you.
you must've kept good records of the tasks you have performed during those years. i'm doing 2+ years and i'm relying heavily on memory regardng tasks performed in each of those working days in order to allocate the hours. i have notes on my timesheets but not nearly enough detail.
anyone want to compare license reqs. for other countries?
seems like a good way to see how screwy IDP is...
germany:
you can hold the title of architect after you get your diploma, and can be reigistered after 2 years of relevent experience
spain:
after graduating, register w/ collegio de arquitectos and can start practicing.
UK:
diploma + 2 years of experience (concurrent w/ parts 1 & 2 of quals) followed by part 3 quals.
the scary part is i can start exams in a few months, but had i gotten my hours signed off for my year abroad, could have started exams 2 years after graduation. even now, i feel ill prepared and were i to get licensed, can't justify cost. i don't plan on signing my own plans for a while.
One glaring difference between medicine/law and architecture is that we are in a relatively subjective field. Doctors train the way they do because there are specific, known ways to treat, say, a heart attack or leukemia. And not abiding by those rules means someone dies.
In law, there's a legal code that lawyers adhere to or work through. This is a relatively objective lens too.
But in architecture, there are so many ways to practice—most of which are entirely subjective. You want to do design/build? Conceptual competitions? Modernist residences? Spec housing? Skyscrapers? Urban planning? Big office detailing flashing? Small office working on site? Medium office doing fancy renderings?
All of this is architecture, and very little of it is truly objective. Sure, a building has to resist gravity, but that's mainly in the camp of the structural engineers. Sure, it has to adhere to codes. But this is a nuanced and, frankly, small part of what we do.
Our profession is in large measure an art. It has its objective, scientific components. But much of what I do on a daily basis is to make subjective, aesthetic decisions. (flush details or expressed? massing? colors? circulation? materials?) It's always seemed weird to me that the IDP accounts for our first three years of practice, but DOESN'T consider that our profession is largely an aesthetic art.
It would be like having a government mandated program for training sculptors. It doesn't make any sense.
Marketing unique skills, a "why firm x is better than firm y" is how you get higher pay. It would be naive to think that every architect will or should get higher pay without offering something that is 'better' than the competition.
The public cares more about quality, skill and talent than the nomenclature associated with licensure. As noted above, this is a subjective field, not a science.
: "There is this funny thing called "the market". It has a funny way of putting unqualified individuals out of a job and unqualified firms out of business."
farwest1: It's always seemed weird to me that the IDP accounts for our first three years of practice, but DOESN'T consider that our profession is largely an aesthetic art. It would be like having a government mandated program for training sculptors. It doesn't make any sense.
The state could care less about architecture as an aesthetic art ... it's concern is to make sure the people who design buildings do so in a way that protects the public's health, safety and welfare. The state is not interested in waiting around for "the market" to drive an unsafe architect out of business.
The public rarely cares about architecture as an aesthetic art ... they want buildings that are functional and affordable and durable and comfortable (i.e. not "weird" looking).
Sadly, to a large extent, only architects care about architecture as an "aesthetic art" on a regular and routine basis.
Babs,
Ah, but the state does wait for the market to drive unsafe architects out of business. Most, if not all, actions to stop an unqualified/unsafe architect from practice are in response to consumer complaints, lawsuits or actual building failure. It is rare for an architects board to have the budget to actively look for people practicing architecture without proper qualification and/or competency.
Also, ALL of my clients come to us for aesthetic reasons. Its a market force that they don't deny, if their project looks better than the one across the street, they win. And the public always comes to the public design review meetings that I have been involved in. I am guessing that you serve a different public than I do in my area.
j
No argument with you there, babs. NCARB is supposedly making sure that architects practice "safely," and yet the IDP is such a foolish requirement in that sense — as I said before:
1) It's an ineffectual bureaucracy to deal with.
2) The checklist for what IDP requires isn't necessarily what the majority of architects do in their daily practice.
3) The IDP is disdained by many licensed architects as an ineffective method for training young architects.
4) The IDP is incredibly easy to cheat.
I also don't believe that "the public" rarely cares about architecture as an aesthetic art. Developers who think only in terms of the bottom line dumb architecture down, and "the public" is left with bad buildings.
As holz.box said, in Europe, you go through school and then you take a test: you're an architect. No ineffective IDP to deal with. And the average buildings in Europe are arguably much better and more aesthetically pleasing than the buildings in the US.
josh: while I do agree with you about the ineffectivenesss of the various state boards of architecture, the fact remains that "unsafe architects" are incredibly rare in the US ... this is, I believe, the result of the internship process required prior to licensure.
having said that, I make no effort whatsoever to defend IDP ... like many aspects of our profession, it's badly broken. however, I do agree with quizzical above in his 04/03/08 10:02 post. we have nobody to blame but ourselves.
idp sucks @#$%^
so i'm looking through the michigan idp stuff and looks like i cant count my hours that i've been on my own as anything.8 years worth....wtf..... unless i get a stamp or something from a higher power.... this sucks.....
get out of michigan... IT sucks..
yep... you're screwed... unless you were working with/under a licensed architect... i think that you can at least count some of the credits in certain categories... but most of it will be lost if you were working for yourself...
also, leaving michigan won't help... idp sucks the same everywhere... ain't architecture great???
I agree that IDP has its flaws but not in disagreement on this. IDP is meant to be an "apprenticeship" program. The idea is that you gleen knowledge off those with higher powers, AKA, registered architects. Working solo certinaly teaches you things, but in a different way than an apprenticeship.
Not knowing cryzko's situation this is just a generalization of the program. However, having an architect sign off on IDP is pretty much the only checks & balances the system has, and it's still rife with fraud. I'm sure there's a better way, just not sure loosening the rules will help.
exactly, aquapura. idp isn't about being on your own but about being under someone's oversight. not great for you in your situation, cryzko, but impt nonetheless.
many states have a 'broadly experienced architect' category for folks like you (or maybe a few more years of experience). Contact the state board for more details. Typically they interview you and have some sort of verbal exam before authorizing you to test. there may be restrictions on commity with other jursidictions, but once registered one place, you can establish a ncarb file (similar to idp).
good luck!
There are only a tiny handful of states at this point that don't require standard IDP. The "Broadly Experienced Architect" route is usually only for people who have been licensed in another state - or some states such as NY have similar procedures for people who've been licensed in another country - for a period of time (10 years if you're going for NCARB's BEA certification, but some states have other state-specific rules.)
Only Maine, Arizona, California, and Colorado currently have any rules that will let you bypass standard IDP if you don't already have a license (and those rules vary in those states.)
The problem with getting registered by any of these alternate rules is that you will have problems in many states if you apply for reciprocity. Even NCARB's BEA certificate is not recognized by some states. And getting licensed by an state-specific loophole will bar you from licensure at least a third of the other states in the future (at least until you document standard IDP).
cryzko: email or call NCARB directly and discuss your situation with them. You may be able to get credit for a small amount of your independent experience (probably only about 6 months) by counting it in one of the other acceptable training settings (for example the one that allows you to be working in a "design" setting other than architecture.) If they do allow you to count any experience while you were self-employed they have special forms for that situation. Basically you have to have three licensed architects certify that you were self-employed and that they are familiar with your work.
I can't wait until I can bitch about IDP. Seriously. That's one headache I'm looking forward to. At least I'll be getting paid to do retarded ammounts of work. Right now I'm paying out the nose to have the privaledge of loosing my health and social life.
I'll go ahead and chime in with a pre-emptive "SCREW IDP!!!!"
BEA provision also comes with a hefty price tag $$.
<RANT>
IDP #%^!ING BLOWS. Seriously, how long does it take to "evaluate" my damn record! I submitted my last hours over a month ago, they finally "processed" 3 days ago, but now it needs to be evaluated which is scheduled a week from now, then it takes 3 weeks to evaluate (thats probably a day per sheet!) AAAAAAARGH!
</RANT>
eh well, more time to study...
you'd think with amount of money they get they can speed this process up a bit...
most design professionals agree that IDP has serious flaws and NCARB is almost totally incompetent administratively.
but, consider this imponderable, please.
once individuals obtain their licenses, 99.99% will turn their backs on IDP and NCARB, with never a return glance. very few professionals with any energy or competence will agree to serve in the volunteer positions available to fix these important aspects of the profession -- much less fight the difficult battles required to right the ship. hence we have a perpetually bad situation.
just like AIA, we are IDP and NCARB ... pogo was right ... "we have met the enemy and he is us" ... there is no "they" here.
well, count me in the 00.01% that gives a shit, and is doing something about it.
in my humble and perhaps naive opinion, the problem is that IDP, when it's all said and done, is based on the honor system...the registered architect's honor
why not develop the culture of apprenticeship further in lieu of IDP, so firms would try to expose their interns to a variety of experiences within their first 5 years after graduation, and then allowing them to take the ARE's at that time!?
my procrastination/laziness feeds off of unecessary bureaucracy...10 years worth of it...
quizzical...i heard the AIA has started to address the relevance of IDP and the lack of interest in recent graduates to become registered///do you know if that's correct?!
NCARB and CLARB need to start a joint-licensure committee for those folks like me that straddle the fence and therefore fall between the floorboards... it double sucks trying to dual licensure...
keep up the good work beta, the interns of the world will someday thank you!
i am so glad i am IDP exempt.
What sucks worse than the IDP is completing the IDP in 2005;
moving to California;
taking over a year for NCARB to transfer your council record to California;
contacting the California Architects Board about beginning exams;
finding out that it takes eight weeks to process the NCARB council record;
and only then being told that even though I completed my IDP out of state, I still have to contact all of my old employers and get written narratives in order to satisfy the CIDP (California IDP) which is different from, and yet puzzlingly almost identical to, the regular IDP.
Of course, there's no document or website that spells all of this out. And when you speak to someone at the California Architects Board office, their only goal in life seems to be to get you off the phone ASAP.
beta -- I bet you're fun in committee meetings. keep up the good work.
simples -- yes, this issue has moved up considerably on the AIA's agenda. can't tell you exactly what's happening because that's not connected to the area where I'm involved. but, I do know it's being addressed as a serious, long-term issue for the profession.
There are four issues here that need attention:
1) The disorganized bureacracy of NCARB itself. It's extremely difficult to get information out of them.
2) The irrelevance of many of the requirements to the way many firms practice. There are as many ways of practicing as there are firms, but the IDP assumes that every firm practices in the same way.
3) The lack of interest (or even outright disdain) that many licensed architects have for the IDP. This means that many employers tend not to support their young employees' efforts to complete IDP—older architects tend to regard it as a nuisance or a joke.
4) The ease with which the requirements can be fudged. Any architect who disdains the IDP process can sign for an employee who hasn't completed all of the requirements. I've seen this happen on numerous occasions.
I'm submitting 8 months worth of credits tomorrow. Yes, it sucks.
i did it for 5 yrs worth...oh the joy
isnt the point of IDP that you learn under a licensed architect? why would working for yourself before you have a license count? that is the whole point of it. and did you go through those 8 years thinking you were getting credit for everything? you cant complain much now if you are just looking into it
I thought the point of IDP was a professional hazing that raises a barrier to entry that requires anyone who wants to be an architect, to first work for an architect.
I find it hard to believe that the experience required by IDP absolutely can not be acquired by other means. Especially since many of us have done so before IDP was required.
j
but how are you supposed to document this experience by other means? the point of IDP is to have a standard for what it means to be a licensed architect.
if you dont want the license, dont do the IDP stuff
but you certainly will benefit from having your license, so you have to meet their requirements
if it really bothers you so much, get a job with NCARB and change things
There is this funny thing called "the market". It has a funny way of putting unqualified individuals out of a job and unqualified firms out of business. Remember registration doesn't insure that someone is a good architect just that they meet MINIMUM standards to protect the public safety and welfare.
I don't see a need to "document" experience on an hourly basis. If I could hold down a job for 6 months framing buildings, I probably know a bit about framing buildings. If I get fired after a few days or weeks; no dice.
Honestly, If I can hold down a job in an architectural office beyond just being a draftsman, for 3 years, I can probably continue to do that for much longer.
The fact that someone can spend 8 YEARS in the construction business and not get credit for it is seriously flawed.
j
yeah that probably needs to be updated with the IDP regulations
but still, what did you expect to get from it? did you think you would be able to have all your IDP requirements filled from those 8 years? it wasnt going to complete all your requirements anyway
i would just keep talking with different people from NCARB and see what can be done
i imagine this goes the other way though too
what if an architect after working for a couple years decides he prefers structural engineering? just because he worked in the business for a long time doesnt mean he will automatically be allowed to get his engineering license (whatever the equivilant is, not really sure)
just because you dont see a need to document your experience on an hourly basis, doesnt mean it has no merit
just holding a job down anywhere, even for 8 years doesnt necessarily mean you know a bit about anything
there are several people in my office who have been working for a number of years and they can get very incompetant about a lot of things
there is no shortcut to getting a professional license in any field i imagine, so there shouldnt be one for architects
It isn't a question about a short cut, 8 years of related experience isn't a short cut.
The real question is does IDP even do what people claim it does; from NCARB "Participation in IDP exposes you to the comprehensive training that is essential for competent practice." If it doesn't, as can be seen in many of the posts here, why do we keep limping along with it? All of those incompetent co-worker of yours would probably have no problem getting IDP credit, assuming there is a licensed architect in the house.
j
thats completely true
but that doesnt mean that working construction for 8 years allows you to understand everything you need to work as an architect. yes it allows you to understand construction and building better than most, but there is more you need to be exposed to for competent practice
who is saying that participation doesnt expose you to comprehensive training?
of course you can get a licensed architect to write off that you have been exposed to without it actually being true. but the same can be said for having any experience anywhere. they will never take just your word for it, you will always need someone to vouch for you, be it the contractor you worked for, or the architect.
if done correctly, IDP has you work in a broad number of categories of an architecture firm. is it a bitch to fill out your time? of course it is.
if its so bad, someone please propose a better system
8 years of related experience is just that
"related" experience
there is no reason at all for it to fill your IDP requirements. it should definitely count for some though
--but that doesnt mean that working construction for 8 years allows you to understand everything you need to work as an architect. yes it allows you to understand construction and building better than most, but there is more you need to be exposed to for competent practice--
Yeah, because what do contractors know about change orders, ASI's, liability insurance, billing, paying bills, shop drawings, permits, code compliance, hiring people, etc....
And how do we judge if IDP has been done correctly, anyway? Oh yeah, its called the A.R.E. From NCARB "The objective of the ARE is to reflect the practice of architecture as an integrated whole."
If someone has 8 years of related experience and can pass the ARE; give them a license. Hell, if someone has a degree in architecture and can pass the ARE, give them a license.
j
IDP is the worst possible way to prepare a young professional to be an architect ... except for all the rest.
oh so you are just saying that if you can pass the ARE give them a license
thats a who different argument than saying related experience should count more than it does currently
i completely agree with that
and remember
contractors may know everything about change orders, ASI's and all that, but that doesnt mean every guy out there putting up stud walls knows anything about that
i am working on a project now that is about to start construction and its going to have a huge crew working on it. not a single one of them besides the contractor will have dealt with any of this other stuff on the project.
if you can document that you did all of those things while working as a contractor, i think you should be able to use that as any of the construction administration requirements. but again, its an ARCHITECTURE license, so you would have had to get the ARCHITECTS of all those projects to sign off on your hours
that is the point of this
--_-- just up and decided he wanted to be an architect. well its like if you worked for a couple years in a firm and didnt document your hours. why should NCARB believe you did shit if you cant prove it?
IDP doesnt prepare you to be an architect. the firm you work at prepares you to be an architect
Okay, it is clear that we are on the same page, mostly. IDP doesn't prepare you to be an architect. So why is it required to be an architect? NCARB should not be required to accept experience that you can't prove. If you are committed to fulfilling IDP than you need to submit to their requirements. I think IDP sucks, so I found a way to get licensed without it, voting with my feet, as it were. The problem is that that option is quickly evaporating, until there is a perfect system in place, there needs to be options and choice. NCARB needs to have a clear appeal procedure that allows individuals like the one that started this discussion to prove their experience meets the intent of the IDP regulations. IF someone can prove competency in any of the IDP areas, they should be able to get credit for it.
j
and lets be honest here, for the vast majority of people, you will need these 3 years worth of working to be able to pass the ARE exams anyway. so for the most part, this isnt holding people back. you just need to document it properly
it appears NCARB needs to allow more for alternative routes. but you cant just appear one day and say, oh i have been in construction for 8 years, let me be an architect now. if you cant document it properly, it shouldnt count.
you cant work as a nurse for years and then decide you want to be a doctor without fulfilling their requirements. the same holds true in architecture, and i havent heard a valid reason for it not to
if IDP had
simples - last I knew, 70% of grads did not pursue licensure. This coudl be off by now, I suppose.
marm - the gripe is that some of us pursue more alternative/entrepreneurial ventures and will never fit their mold.
I think jc has it right, there needs to be alternatives and options available for getting licensed.
oh butterfingers...
if IDP had a decent system of logging hours and recieving credit for them quickly and easily, there wouldn't be that much of a problem.
if the goal of IDP & ARE are to prepare you to protect the public's health, safety, and welfare... than the supervision and approval should come from someone who has that responsibility. a person who is stamping the drawings and takin on that liability. perhaps they could be liable if their apprentice screws up... that would make a lot more interns lives miserable...
and to be fair...237am, cryzko, or whatever he's goin by now, should have figured this out a little bit before 8 years... but by the same token, the reference to a stamp by a higher power should still apply, s/he should be able to review the work and allocate experience in the approriate categories. but if s/he were to sit down with an architect, and all they have in the portfolio is models and furniture buildouts, the architect can put the brakes on. (maybe even offer the poor guy a job so he can get the experience needed...)
i don't know... just thinkin out loud
Or the system has to be made super-rigorous and better integrated with the daily practice of architecture.
trace
it isnt that that i have a problem with, its the people who say, oh i have been doing this for 8 years and now i want to be an architect, and it should happen within the next 2 days, otherwise the system is completely stupid and wrong
this guy has been doing this for 8 years, so unless he decided yesterday that he wanted to be an architect, this has probably been on his mind for a little while at least
its an architecture license, so all he should have to do is find a licensed architect to sign off on his stuff. if he has worked for himself for 8 years, i would hope he would have made a decent contact or 2 with a licensed architect, someone who he could work with to back log some of these hours
it sounds like he expects to say, hello, i was a contractor for 8 years and was my own boss. make me an architect now based on no references and little else
seriously now
its not as complicated as everyone is making it out to be
it is not easy or as well organized as it should be, but its not the worst thing in the world
postal
you have some good ideas there
if there are all these "alternative" experiences everyone is doing, that means you are creative, and should be able to find "alternative" ways to get the hours documented.
as long as there was an architect involved in these experiences, and you develop a working relationship with them, this shouldnt be a problem.
if any of you 'alternative paths' to licensure people ever want our profession (PROFESSION! fancy that) to gain any more stature (read: pay) than what we meagerly have, then you'd have argue for even more regulation and more stringent requirements to become an architect.
for a moment, let's set aside idp as the pathway to licensure. that's another beast...
let's instead look to law and medicine, two professions we all agree we pale in comparison to (in terms of pay):
lawyers are actually trained in school (fancy that!!) in the nuts and bolts of how to practice when they graduate, not just the ethereal, esoteric subjective ethical dilemmas they may face. they take their exam immediately upon graduation. the school you graduate from has to be a qualified program in order to sit for the exam. but there is no grey area, no formal 'apprenticeship'. yes, you're still green, you're still doing more menial work, tons of hours, etc., but you are a lawyer. and you have a choice about where you want to work. since there's no formal internship, the firm you're with only has to worry about your billable hours and practical value to them.
doctors, which are more similar to architects than lawyers (in the sense that we have to learn technical applications which have a bearing on health, safety, and welfare), go through an undergrad degree, 4 years of med school, plus 3 years of structured residency before you can claim the title 'doctor'. even more if you pick a specialty like neurosurgery. damn near impossible to survive the 7 years of hell (and every doctor i know says it's worse than what we go through), but you trust them with your very life, correct?
here's the basic problem for us: our internship isn't structured at all. the difference between the 'high' and 'not so high' quality hospitals is much smaller than the architectural equivalent. the other, huge issue, is that intern doctors all go through the same, proscribed set of criteria and all (ALL) doctors go through specific teaching hospitals, geared around training young pups. (and before you go bitching about graduating salaries, consider the average, AVERAGE first year resident pay is 40K. That's right, architects are right in the same ballpark as a first year resident. know why? we're practically as useless.) you don't just go out and find any old hospital or cosmetic surgery practice to train in.
idp, to come back around, suffers because we're caught between these two poles. we expect to implement a program that aspires to be as rigorous as a medical internship, but don't have the infrastructure of teaching firms to implement it. instead, we throw that back on private firms, which vary wildly in their size, composition, focus, etc., and expect them, with no training nor qualification to act as a surrogate teaching institute. it's insane and why pale in comparison to the doctors. not 'everyone' should be able to be an architect, but we treat the profession as if 'everyone' deserves it.
you want to be a true professional or a tradesman? grow up and recognize the rules have a purpose in defending our difficult and hard won turf. i'm all for creating the architectural equivalent of teaching firms - it would be the single best way to reconcile idp and turn out architects who can properly command the respect and wages we all claim to desire.
remember people the point of the exam is: to test the knowledge of the Minimally Competent Professional, not Masterfully Competent, not Completely Competent, not Gehry Competent, but Minimally Competent.
idp as a method of record keeping device sucks for two reasons, the AIA has failed in it's role as mentor - which NCARB has recognized, and NCARB has failed in it's role as efficient collector and evaluator of records, and pulling together a method for relevant testing of the Minimally Competent Professional - which, because of how the process works, is ALL of OUR responsibilities.
so, when you do get licensed, and you get asked to participate in volunteer events for NCARB, and you decide not to help - even when they are held in CA, all expenses paid - you are part of the problem.
get involved, have a voice, and make it better for those behind you.
you must've kept good records of the tasks you have performed during those years. i'm doing 2+ years and i'm relying heavily on memory regardng tasks performed in each of those working days in order to allocate the hours. i have notes on my timesheets but not nearly enough detail.
two words.
Enron Accounting
anyone want to compare license reqs. for other countries?
seems like a good way to see how screwy IDP is...
germany:
you can hold the title of architect after you get your diploma, and can be reigistered after 2 years of relevent experience
spain:
after graduating, register w/ collegio de arquitectos and can start practicing.
UK:
diploma + 2 years of experience (concurrent w/ parts 1 & 2 of quals) followed by part 3 quals.
the scary part is i can start exams in a few months, but had i gotten my hours signed off for my year abroad, could have started exams 2 years after graduation. even now, i feel ill prepared and were i to get licensed, can't justify cost. i don't plan on signing my own plans for a while.
laru,
One glaring difference between medicine/law and architecture is that we are in a relatively subjective field. Doctors train the way they do because there are specific, known ways to treat, say, a heart attack or leukemia. And not abiding by those rules means someone dies.
In law, there's a legal code that lawyers adhere to or work through. This is a relatively objective lens too.
But in architecture, there are so many ways to practice—most of which are entirely subjective. You want to do design/build? Conceptual competitions? Modernist residences? Spec housing? Skyscrapers? Urban planning? Big office detailing flashing? Small office working on site? Medium office doing fancy renderings?
All of this is architecture, and very little of it is truly objective. Sure, a building has to resist gravity, but that's mainly in the camp of the structural engineers. Sure, it has to adhere to codes. But this is a nuanced and, frankly, small part of what we do.
Our profession is in large measure an art. It has its objective, scientific components. But much of what I do on a daily basis is to make subjective, aesthetic decisions. (flush details or expressed? massing? colors? circulation? materials?) It's always seemed weird to me that the IDP accounts for our first three years of practice, but DOESN'T consider that our profession is largely an aesthetic art.
It would be like having a government mandated program for training sculptors. It doesn't make any sense.
Marketing unique skills, a "why firm x is better than firm y" is how you get higher pay. It would be naive to think that every architect will or should get higher pay without offering something that is 'better' than the competition.
The public cares more about quality, skill and talent than the nomenclature associated with licensure. As noted above, this is a subjective field, not a science.
the process of licensure is probably just as important a test as the content...
: "There is this funny thing called "the market". It has a funny way of putting unqualified individuals out of a job and unqualified firms out of business."
farwest1: It's always seemed weird to me that the IDP accounts for our first three years of practice, but DOESN'T consider that our profession is largely an aesthetic art. It would be like having a government mandated program for training sculptors. It doesn't make any sense.
The state could care less about architecture as an aesthetic art ... it's concern is to make sure the people who design buildings do so in a way that protects the public's health, safety and welfare. The state is not interested in waiting around for "the market" to drive an unsafe architect out of business.
The public rarely cares about architecture as an aesthetic art ... they want buildings that are functional and affordable and durable and comfortable (i.e. not "weird" looking).
Sadly, to a large extent, only architects care about architecture as an "aesthetic art" on a regular and routine basis.
Babs,
Ah, but the state does wait for the market to drive unsafe architects out of business. Most, if not all, actions to stop an unqualified/unsafe architect from practice are in response to consumer complaints, lawsuits or actual building failure. It is rare for an architects board to have the budget to actively look for people practicing architecture without proper qualification and/or competency.
Also, ALL of my clients come to us for aesthetic reasons. Its a market force that they don't deny, if their project looks better than the one across the street, they win. And the public always comes to the public design review meetings that I have been involved in. I am guessing that you serve a different public than I do in my area.
j
No argument with you there, babs. NCARB is supposedly making sure that architects practice "safely," and yet the IDP is such a foolish requirement in that sense — as I said before:
1) It's an ineffectual bureaucracy to deal with.
2) The checklist for what IDP requires isn't necessarily what the majority of architects do in their daily practice.
3) The IDP is disdained by many licensed architects as an ineffective method for training young architects.
4) The IDP is incredibly easy to cheat.
I also don't believe that "the public" rarely cares about architecture as an aesthetic art. Developers who think only in terms of the bottom line dumb architecture down, and "the public" is left with bad buildings.
As holz.box said, in Europe, you go through school and then you take a test: you're an architect. No ineffective IDP to deal with. And the average buildings in Europe are arguably much better and more aesthetically pleasing than the buildings in the US.
josh: while I do agree with you about the ineffectivenesss of the various state boards of architecture, the fact remains that "unsafe architects" are incredibly rare in the US ... this is, I believe, the result of the internship process required prior to licensure.
having said that, I make no effort whatsoever to defend IDP ... like many aspects of our profession, it's badly broken. however, I do agree with quizzical above in his 04/03/08 10:02 post. we have nobody to blame but ourselves.
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.