this is getting ridiculous if every word will be attacked if people dont agree with each other
so i give up
yes, i now agree with you all
IDP is worthless and completely useless
I am not sure why it hasnt been changed to meet the very specific ideas people have shown here
the work experience you get in the 3+ years of your internship do absolutely nothing towards preparing you to be an architect in any way
every student who thinks he is brilliant coming out of school should be able to sit for the exam the second they leave graduation
did i forget anything?
i apologize for not coming over to everyones side sooner
i now join you all in thinking we are in a miserable and unfullfilling profession
erase that line out completely from my previous statement, i cant believe how wrong i was and am ashamed of myself
the POINT was the IDP does not give you a license and has no reason to test what you have learned.
the test of what you learned is the ARE
they regulate it by the person who signs off on your hours. now if that person just signs off on anything, the way the system is set up, that can happen. i dont really believe it happens that much, where architects sign off on all the hours needed if they think the intern is incompetant. but it is possible
i just thought it odd that when everyone is complaining about how IDP is so rigid and how it shouldnt even be required to take your tests, then its now stated that there should be a test for your IDP hours.
babs, I'm sorry, but you are rude. Clearly you're portraying yourself here as a high priestess of the architectural establishment, by telling people they're "clueless." And not only that, but "my god, you're clueless!"
Can't we as professionals debate the merits of IDP without insulting each other?
it appears no one is interested in a debate farwest, they all want to state their point and say that is fact
i dont quite understand why architects are so negative about everything. its always, oh this doesnt work at all, we make no money, this persons design sucks
it really gets old and happens a lot on these boards
here is my suggestion, which might be corrupted my naivete, plagued by my idea of common sense, and rotten by my hatred of unnecessary bureaucracy:
eliminate IDP, establish a set time for internship after graduation, under a registed architect who submits his signature at the end of set time stating that such intern has worked under his supervision; then, toughen up the ARE's
the problem i think stems from the fact that people think IDP has no merit at all, and dont accept that not everyone agrees with that
that is fine if that is your opinion. but then why would you come into a discussion where people are talking about the good and bad and what it should include? if you dont have an open mind about it and arent even willing to hear different points of view on it, why even bother posting or participating?
i see this all the time on these boards, where people are discussing something and someone jumps in with a blanket statement and nothing more
if its to add to your number of comments, thats lame, if its because you think you know better than everyone else and dont need to back up anything you say, thats stupid
can someone please explain why that happens here?
and before i get attacked by anyone, my suggestion above, was my personal humble suggestion, and an attempt to shift from arguing, and debating, to just clearly stating my personal thought...
evolution is both a fact and a theory. IDP, ARE, AIA, NCARB and NAAB are facts, theories about how to do IDP and ARE are pointless when you are on the outside - outside = non-licensed - of the discussion, pass the stupid tests, get involved and quit biyatching.
even if your opinion mattered, you can't do anything to change it now, the ship has sailed. when you get involved you can find out how and why things are done, then if things are still not to your liking say something, and do something. make it better for those behind you.
"eliminate IDP, establish a set time for internship after graduation, under a registed architect who submits his signature at the end of set time stating that such intern has worked under his supervision; then, toughen up the ARE's"
isnt that essentially what IDP is? Technically you can just work for a three years at the same place and then have your boss sign off saying you have completed the necessary requirements.
that is a much cleaner way of doing things, i agree with that. a one and done type of situation.
i guess the next question after that is what to do with those who switch jobs during the apprenticeship, but you can just have a standard form and signature to keep in your records saying you worked for so and so during this time type of thing
i dont know much about the ARE's yet, not having begun to study for them or anything, but are they too easy? I havent heard that opinion about them before. I have heard the opposite, that they are hard, but dont know for sure
Beta - I am licensed. And I find it repulsive that you think interns should have no say in the process, especially when the process puts all of the work and consequences squarely on their shoulders. In case you haven't noticed, I am saying something. And just because I don't volunteer on an NCARB board or committee doesn't mean that I am not doing something either. Not all of us have infinite time to spend volunteering on everything that we find important. We all prioritize and put our time where we feel it will be best used. I trust that is what you are doing, and I will continue to do that myself. I, personally, am sick of everyone who thinks that the only way to contribute is to serve on some sort of committee within the profession, to each his own according to his capability,
Marm - As far as I can see, I am the only one to have posted any empirical information that evaluates IDP. My opinion is the only one supported by independent research at this point. According to any study I have seen there is no inherent advantage in doing IDP vs the old way of doing things, ie, simples plan above.
Although even with that said, the AIA is supporting ARE testing concurrent with IDP. For that matter NCARB is the only collateral that hasn't got behind that proposition.
ARE testing concurrent with IDP would ease the burden considerably. I waited six years to start taking my exams, mainly because I couldn't fulfill all of my units at the firm I was at.
I also think NCARB needs to integrate with schools better. When I graduated, I had no awareness of the requirements for getting my license. And it wasn't a particular priority.
But if I'd been handed a kind of "Next Steps" packet, the road would have been much clearer.
there is no proof one way or the other if IDP is worthwhile or not. i dont know how there could be
every persons experience is different. my independent research has been done through fellow workers hearing about their experiences with this. I have found that because of IDP requirements, i and several other interns have done work they would not have done otherwise, due to a lack of experience. But because we said, i havent worked on such and such yet in my time here, and need it for IDP hours, we were given a chance to work on something new. and its not even been to work on something, just exposure to it as well.
then on the other hand, there are those i mentioned earlier, who have no interest in pursuing a license now, and are very successful at what they are doing. IDP isnt needed for them currently, and if they ever do want their license, they have more than enough experience in everything required, where there will be no question from a principal here to sign off on the hours.
there are several examples in favor of and not in favor of the worthiness of IDP requirements
that is just based on people i know
i dont think i am an isolated case by any means, so my opinion is that there is no definite answer
yeah i agree farwest
i think thats the schools responsibility to give to its students, and i know mine didnt help with that at all
NCARB isnt the easiest thing to navigate when its not required at school and you can work without it
that is something that should definintely be looked at by both schools and NCARB
jc, get off your sanctimonious high horse. how are you doing anything about anything? in this particular arena, you have to get involved in the process to change the process.
i care about three things in my life; my wife, my ideas, and my profession. i make time for what i can and do what i can to make sure those behind me have a more equitable shake at the tests, and that it is more relevant to the profession.
you want to do something? join a state board, raise holy hell in the AIA. don't snip from the sidelines.
beta, I am in the process of setting up a co-operative in our area that provides mutual support and ideas to young professionals and sole practitioners. Its micro scale, you are doing macro scale. You work for some unnammed future architect, I work with a tight knit group of young architects and future architects in my town. I am sure we are both sincere and simply working at different levels with different ideas on how to move forward. I am not trying to be sanctimonious. I am just saying there area many ways to skin a cat. You use yours I will use mine: www.thearchitecturefront.com
I did the ARE concurrent with my internship. It works really well, because you can test in what you are actually doing at work at the time, while it is really fresh. My required work experience was finished about 1 month after I completed the ARE exams.
that's how you work though jc
why does your path have to be the only one that works?
i agree that you should be able to have the choice, but to dismiss IDP because you liked to do it your own way isnt very reasonable
and to be honest, if you would have said any of your last post before, no one would have had a reason to question you when you talked about your research and anything you were doing on your own. it sounded like all you were doing was bitching on archinect
beta's always a tad more militant than I might be on such matters, but I think his heart and mind generally are in the right place ... I recognize that not everybody can be as actively involved in these professional endeavors as I choose to be ... it's all a matter of priorities and it does take some time away from other things you might want to do.
however, I do share with beta a concern about the constant and chronic sniping "from the sidelines" -- someone I know well and respect very much always took the attitude that "you don't have the right to complain if you're not actively working to make things better" -- I recognize that's not a universally held view (especially here on Archinect) but it does have resonance with me.
99% of the professionals I've met doing volunteer committee work in AIA, NCARB and NAAB over the years are dedicated, smart and well meaning individuals. You almost never see any sort of hidden agenda or effort at self-aggrandizement. All they want to do - as beta says - is 'make sure those behind me have a more equitable shake" -- and perhaps learn a little something in the process.
when you sacrifice as much personal time as volunteer leadership requires and make a genuine effort to make the practice environment better, it gets a little demoralizing to read the constant carping that takes place here. usually, that carping is coming from a woefully uninformed place.
some of you guys might want to consider lightening up a little bit and consider that maybe you don't really have it all figured out in your own head. there are other points of view out there and often those other viewpoints are much more well informed. those alternate views deserve courtesy, if not respect.
Thanks Quiz, On that note, my first job was answering telephones for a credit card company. I learned very quickly that all feedback, sniping and all, is good feedback. Most of the sniping at NCARB, AIA, et al. has some founding in someone's experience. I fear silence more than snark for that reason. When people stop sniping and bitching, then not only will they not do anything, but they no longer care either.
Simples,
Not so long ago, there was an active forum called Archvoices. I followed it very closely. They list the AIA Board as adopting the position in 1999 that any graduate of an NAAB accredited program should be able to take the ARE immediately upon graduation.
I haven't checked the source but that was the policy listed by Archvoices.
I'd also suspect that many of the people who designed the IDP have never actually gone through the process. I'm sure NCARB consults with IDP veterans, but don't you think it's important to hear the voices of people actually going through (and being frustrated by) the process?
some choose to get involved, some endure the process and move on, but may still hold bitter feelings if their experience was a bad one. can't fault them for that. i think it's important for everyone here to remember (and this includes the staunchest ncarb/aia supporters) that there are many ways of practicing and many ways of participating in our profession. the idp process at this point is a unifier, something we all must do to become registered. it becomes a very quick introduction to one particular path, though not at all representative of all paths, through our professional careers. i think that's where a lot of the bitterness may stem from. not everyone wants to spend their careers tinkering with the often convoluted intracacies of the registration process, but can still be very dedicated professionals in their own right.
the idp process, in the words of a great aia member i once knew, is what it is.
The AIA's position is that testing concurrent with IDP should be allowed. NCARB developed a similar policy in 2007. But, as with every NCARB policy, it is up to each individual state board to decide whether or not to adopt that policy. There were already 7 states that allowed concurrent testing. Since the NCARB and AIA policies were developed a few more states have begun to allow concurrent testing (Massachusetts is one that recently adopted the policy.) States can be slow to study and adopt new policies. It's likely that many other states will adopt this policy over the next several years.
I suspect the truth is that the folks who designed IDP were reacting to an internship model that wasn't working very well back then and needed to be changed.
nobody ever can design the future based on their personal knowledge of the future. all you can do is make your best effort and apply what you know ... and then be open to whatever changes might become warranted later.
Concurrent testing, will probably see develop the same way IDP did. IDP was first required by a state in 1982, 26 years later and it still is not universally adopted by the states and territories. This profession has a lot of inertia.
j
Yes, quizzical, but this thread was started based on one young architect's first-hand experience of the IDP. This negative experience has since been corroborated by many of us.
So in a sense, this is the "personal knowledge" that you're looking for. Forums like this are a way of polling the success of the IDP with a group who's currently going through it. So we shouldn't be so quick to discount it as "carping".
i dont think its just this profession, either
to get something this large to be coordinated universally, it will take some time
especially in a profession where building methods can vary so much due to location
think of how different it is to be an architect in every city and every state across the country
to make requirements universally accepted cant be done overnight
this may be the "personal knowledge" farwest, but when its on a thread titled in this way, who's job should it be to sift through the people giving honest opinions and trying to help and those who are venting and exagerrating everything to sound a lot worse than it is
i doubt this is the only architecture forum
but if you think speaking here is a direct way to be heard, thats a little unrealistic
we happen to have a couple people posting now who are working with the regulations
i dont think anyone originally posting here did so thinking NCARB was looking and waiting for their opinion (i know i wasnt)
and usually, with a lot of things in life, you tend to only hear the negatives. far more people will complain about something than praise something they think is working fine
so if you look at things based on what people write about on messageboards, it should be taken into account that these are not necessarily universal opinions held by all
fw ... this thread actually was started by an individual who made a personal choice to ignore his home state's requirements with respect to what's required for licensure in that state ... and then decided he somehow was getting screwed.
i wonder what the general opinion is of other professions with regards to the paths to get your license.
i would think that there are always people who will decide to switch careers and take an alternate path in a career. do you think its as bitched about, with regards to what is required to get a license?
just curious, not saying its wrong to question the process at all. i just wonder if since architecture is a bit more liberal than say becoming an accountant or a lawyer or anything else where you need a license to work.
I have a Masters in Architecture (1989) and have worked for over twenty years for Architects and Engineers designing a multitude of varies projects, about $430 Million worth in the Educational (7 years), Commercial (6 years), Industrial (3 years), and Criminal Justice (6 years) fields. But since I did not record this experience according to the IDP "six month rule", not one hour of the more than 44,000 hours of experience I have will count. A complete waste of time according to IDP.
I do not understand this overly strict and arbitrary method to determine work experience. The people who have developed this system certainly do in not have the best interest of the Architectural profession at heart.
I have trained countless young intern architects in CAD, Building Systems, Energy Design, Construction Documents, Construction Adminstration, etc. during my 22 years and I think that mentoring these professions was very important and helped improve the firms personnel. But to put meaningless time limits on reporting just does not make much sense and will discourage alot of well qualified individuals from preceding further in this profession. At this point me being one.
Also, the people that ran IDP, when I start working in 1989 in Michigan were very rude and unprofessional, which explained why over half the new interns I knew at the time did not join and or were waiting to join later.
IDP may be a huge pain... we might argue against it in many rational ways, and we might be ( ...probably are...) correct in doing so.
But IDP is not secretive. We have known for years that we have to document our hours in a certain way. That we have to find a mentor to sign off on those hours, and that eventually, this 6 month rule was going to come into effect. They have been talking about implementing the 6 Month rule for years.
I am sorry some people got burned by that, but i dont know if IDP deserves any blame... seems to me they were exceedingly cautious in the rules implementation, and anyone paying even slight attention to licensure should have taken action to make sure they weren't burned...
david.. at what point are you responsible for not turning in your hours? i mean..you should have been done with the process 17 years ago.. hard to see how you have an excuse here.. but maybe that's just me.. plus. saying that you may not join the IDP now because of this? if you've worked for 22 years without doing it..i'm pretty sure you never planned on it.. but that's just a guess.
its not really arbitrary, they have the 6 month rule so someone doesnt try to submit hours from 20 years ago
Speaking with a rude customer service person on the phone shouldnt really be an excuse to delay submitting your hours for 20 years. And besides, the 6 month rule was announced well in advance of it taking effect. you had plenty of time to submit all your required hours all at once, several times even, if you had any issues
I have never understood the big deal with submitting IDP hours. It's like trying to contact Verizon or Comcast for customer service. you know it will most likely be a mind numbing experience and incredibly annoying. But really, the way its set up online now, it is slowly becoming more streamlined and manageable. Part of the issue previously, i would imagine, is that there are these enormous chunks of hours all being submitted at once and from basically any time period in the past. That definitely slowed things up and caused issues.
Now, all an intern needs to do is get in the habit of submitting their hours twice a year or more. Having a much smaller size should hopefully make approving hours more reasonable.
Will it eliminate all the problems? Heck no. Their customer service is still terrible and there will probably be the occasional chunks of hours lost and not approved. Hopefully though you wont be sitting there expecting to be done waiting on 3 years of hours all at once and have to start over though
OK so David T didn't submit his hours. Does that mean what he learned is negated because he didn't fill out some paperwork? One of the things I hate about modern life is there are so many people in charge who have a stick up their butt. No one has the back bone or to step back and make a judgement call. They just apply a rule to the situation. No thinking necessary. It goes beyond this situation and is unfortunately present in many areas of life.
I remember hearing the change to the six month rule being discussed by upper classmen around school. David must take some responsibility for not following the bureaucratic rules. This isn't a small issue though. The license controls the mans ability to open his own office. The remedy isn't small either. 3 more years or roughly SIX THOUSAND hours of work under the IDP rules. Does the punishment fit the crime? Is someone with 22 years experience who can pass AREs a likely threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the public? WAIT don't think about that. Just apply the rule.
well..jbushkey..think about it from the other way around... EVERYONE goes through this process (more or less) to become registered. David knew the process and has been avoiding taking care of it for 22 years (which is utterly ridiculous if you think about it). He also knew he had a closing window to submit his hours..and for whatever reason avoided submitting his countless hours at that point either...WHY? so he could complain about how unfair the process is now?
Yes it is obvious that he should be able to work as an architect once he takes the test... but i'm guessing that if he hasn't gotten registered at this point that he's never going to...and if he is.. another three years isn't going to kill him.
also..if he can't follow the simple rule of submitting his hours in a timely manner.. who knows.. maybe he isn't following those stupid rules called the Building Code..after all those are just bureaucratic guidelines that get in the way of him creating great architecture..why should he have to follow them when everyone else does?
i dont think you'd find many who would argue against you, but the bottom line is, the current system is the 6 month rule. It has been for a while, it will be for a long time. It was common knowledge...
Rail against it if you want... i dont really see what the point is... pick your battles, do what you have to do, and get it over with. its really not so difficult...
From what we have heard, 22 years ago, the customer service rep was rude, so he didnt bother wasting his time submitting his hours. He then waits 22 years for what, stellar customer service? And then, after the entire process has turned digital enabling him to submit all the hours he would ever want to at once and never having to speak with anyone there directly, and having the 6 month rule announced for a really really long time almost specifically to scream to anyone in his position "hey, submit all your hours now all at once or lose them", he does nothing at all, waits for his chance to pass, and then decides to complain
This is an incredibly minor process to go through. It has nothing to do with whether or not he can pass the exams. It has everything to do with that he refused to follow the rules in place.
He is not being punished for anything beyond his own laziness. Architects need to take responsibility for their own careers
Should there be an alternate path for those who dont necessarily work in the traditional firm? Absolutely. I would hope that is being worked on (though i wont hold my breath)
Should there be an alternate path for those older architects who just didnt get their license instantly out of school? Absolutely. It is called that year or 2 after the 6 month rule was announced and everyone was still able to submit as many hours as they wanted all at once.
The grace period should not continue forever. The whole point is to streamline the approval process, which had been bogged down forever with people submitting 3 years worth of hours from 10 years ago all at once.
"But to put meaningless time limits on reporting just does not make much sense and will discourage alot of well qualified individuals from preceding further in this profession. "
So you just expect them to take your word for it that you are a well qualified individual? This is how it is verified, by taking 5 minutes every 6 months to submit your hours online. Why everyone makes the process out to be so hard or time consuming baffles me
My point is I am sick and tired of everyone's holy than thou- FU I got mine attitude, in day to day life much more than this one thread in the forum. I hate the black and white absolute rules we have to all suffer under because people are too lazy or incompetent to think about the situation and come up with a solution Have you ever done something not smart? Has your situation ever suddenly changed?
Maybe David never planned on having his own firm, but now finds himself laid off and is looking for some income to put food on his table. Whatever happened to giving good people the benefit of the doubt instead of just throwing the rule book at them? Would it really be that hard or time consuming to make him write about his learning experiences?
I am done with this argument because lletdownl made a good point that it isn't my battle and I have done something dumb, procrastinating, and have a ton of math to do in the next couple of days.
idp sucks @#$%^
its not an IDP license is it?
no --- in the US, licenses to practice architecture are issued by the individual states.
this is getting ridiculous if every word will be attacked if people dont agree with each other
so i give up
yes, i now agree with you all
IDP is worthless and completely useless
I am not sure why it hasnt been changed to meet the very specific ideas people have shown here
the work experience you get in the 3+ years of your internship do absolutely nothing towards preparing you to be an architect in any way
every student who thinks he is brilliant coming out of school should be able to sit for the exam the second they leave graduation
did i forget anything?
i apologize for not coming over to everyones side sooner
i now join you all in thinking we are in a miserable and unfullfilling profession
thank you for enlightening me babs
because by that one point which you thankfully pointed out as clueless, everything else i had to say meant nothing
AIA is a PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION representing Architects, much like the ABA or the AMA. States regulate professional licensure.
not my point at all
but again, thank you
erase that line out completely from my previous statement, i cant believe how wrong i was and am ashamed of myself
the POINT was the IDP does not give you a license and has no reason to test what you have learned.
the test of what you learned is the ARE
they regulate it by the person who signs off on your hours. now if that person just signs off on anything, the way the system is set up, that can happen. i dont really believe it happens that much, where architects sign off on all the hours needed if they think the intern is incompetant. but it is possible
i just thought it odd that when everyone is complaining about how IDP is so rigid and how it shouldnt even be required to take your tests, then its now stated that there should be a test for your IDP hours.
babs, I'm sorry, but you are rude. Clearly you're portraying yourself here as a high priestess of the architectural establishment, by telling people they're "clueless." And not only that, but "my god, you're clueless!"
Can't we as professionals debate the merits of IDP without insulting each other?
it appears no one is interested in a debate farwest, they all want to state their point and say that is fact
i dont quite understand why architects are so negative about everything. its always, oh this doesnt work at all, we make no money, this persons design sucks
it really gets old and happens a lot on these boards
here is my suggestion, which might be corrupted my naivete, plagued by my idea of common sense, and rotten by my hatred of unnecessary bureaucracy:
eliminate IDP, establish a set time for internship after graduation, under a registed architect who submits his signature at the end of set time stating that such intern has worked under his supervision; then, toughen up the ARE's
the problem i think stems from the fact that people think IDP has no merit at all, and dont accept that not everyone agrees with that
that is fine if that is your opinion. but then why would you come into a discussion where people are talking about the good and bad and what it should include? if you dont have an open mind about it and arent even willing to hear different points of view on it, why even bother posting or participating?
i see this all the time on these boards, where people are discussing something and someone jumps in with a blanket statement and nothing more
if its to add to your number of comments, thats lame, if its because you think you know better than everyone else and dont need to back up anything you say, thats stupid
can someone please explain why that happens here?
error - corrupted BY my naivete -
and before i get attacked by anyone, my suggestion above, was my personal humble suggestion, and an attempt to shift from arguing, and debating, to just clearly stating my personal thought...
evolution is both a fact and a theory. IDP, ARE, AIA, NCARB and NAAB are facts, theories about how to do IDP and ARE are pointless when you are on the outside - outside = non-licensed - of the discussion, pass the stupid tests, get involved and quit biyatching.
even if your opinion mattered, you can't do anything to change it now, the ship has sailed. when you get involved you can find out how and why things are done, then if things are still not to your liking say something, and do something. make it better for those behind you.
"eliminate IDP, establish a set time for internship after graduation, under a registed architect who submits his signature at the end of set time stating that such intern has worked under his supervision; then, toughen up the ARE's"
isnt that essentially what IDP is? Technically you can just work for a three years at the same place and then have your boss sign off saying you have completed the necessary requirements.
that is a much cleaner way of doing things, i agree with that. a one and done type of situation.
i guess the next question after that is what to do with those who switch jobs during the apprenticeship, but you can just have a standard form and signature to keep in your records saying you worked for so and so during this time type of thing
i dont know much about the ARE's yet, not having begun to study for them or anything, but are they too easy? I havent heard that opinion about them before. I have heard the opposite, that they are hard, but dont know for sure
Beta - I am licensed. And I find it repulsive that you think interns should have no say in the process, especially when the process puts all of the work and consequences squarely on their shoulders. In case you haven't noticed, I am saying something. And just because I don't volunteer on an NCARB board or committee doesn't mean that I am not doing something either. Not all of us have infinite time to spend volunteering on everything that we find important. We all prioritize and put our time where we feel it will be best used. I trust that is what you are doing, and I will continue to do that myself. I, personally, am sick of everyone who thinks that the only way to contribute is to serve on some sort of committee within the profession, to each his own according to his capability,
Marm - As far as I can see, I am the only one to have posted any empirical information that evaluates IDP. My opinion is the only one supported by independent research at this point. According to any study I have seen there is no inherent advantage in doing IDP vs the old way of doing things, ie, simples plan above.
Although even with that said, the AIA is supporting ARE testing concurrent with IDP. For that matter NCARB is the only collateral that hasn't got behind that proposition.
j
what's wrong with experience for experience sake?
ARE testing concurrent with IDP would ease the burden considerably. I waited six years to start taking my exams, mainly because I couldn't fulfill all of my units at the firm I was at.
I also think NCARB needs to integrate with schools better. When I graduated, I had no awareness of the requirements for getting my license. And it wasn't a particular priority.
But if I'd been handed a kind of "Next Steps" packet, the road would have been much clearer.
there is no proof one way or the other if IDP is worthwhile or not. i dont know how there could be
every persons experience is different. my independent research has been done through fellow workers hearing about their experiences with this. I have found that because of IDP requirements, i and several other interns have done work they would not have done otherwise, due to a lack of experience. But because we said, i havent worked on such and such yet in my time here, and need it for IDP hours, we were given a chance to work on something new. and its not even been to work on something, just exposure to it as well.
then on the other hand, there are those i mentioned earlier, who have no interest in pursuing a license now, and are very successful at what they are doing. IDP isnt needed for them currently, and if they ever do want their license, they have more than enough experience in everything required, where there will be no question from a principal here to sign off on the hours.
there are several examples in favor of and not in favor of the worthiness of IDP requirements
that is just based on people i know
i dont think i am an isolated case by any means, so my opinion is that there is no definite answer
yeah i agree farwest
i think thats the schools responsibility to give to its students, and i know mine didnt help with that at all
NCARB isnt the easiest thing to navigate when its not required at school and you can work without it
that is something that should definintely be looked at by both schools and NCARB
jc, get off your sanctimonious high horse. how are you doing anything about anything? in this particular arena, you have to get involved in the process to change the process.
i care about three things in my life; my wife, my ideas, and my profession. i make time for what i can and do what i can to make sure those behind me have a more equitable shake at the tests, and that it is more relevant to the profession.
you want to do something? join a state board, raise holy hell in the AIA. don't snip from the sidelines.
beta, I am in the process of setting up a co-operative in our area that provides mutual support and ideas to young professionals and sole practitioners. Its micro scale, you are doing macro scale. You work for some unnammed future architect, I work with a tight knit group of young architects and future architects in my town. I am sure we are both sincere and simply working at different levels with different ideas on how to move forward. I am not trying to be sanctimonious. I am just saying there area many ways to skin a cat. You use yours I will use mine: www.thearchitecturefront.com
I did the ARE concurrent with my internship. It works really well, because you can test in what you are actually doing at work at the time, while it is really fresh. My required work experience was finished about 1 month after I completed the ARE exams.
j
"the AIA is supporting ARE testing concurrent with IDP" - i heard this was still being studied, and not yet implemented -
that's how you work though jc
why does your path have to be the only one that works?
i agree that you should be able to have the choice, but to dismiss IDP because you liked to do it your own way isnt very reasonable
and to be honest, if you would have said any of your last post before, no one would have had a reason to question you when you talked about your research and anything you were doing on your own. it sounded like all you were doing was bitching on archinect
josh, that sounds great! let me know if i can help, seriously.
beta's always a tad more militant than I might be on such matters, but I think his heart and mind generally are in the right place ... I recognize that not everybody can be as actively involved in these professional endeavors as I choose to be ... it's all a matter of priorities and it does take some time away from other things you might want to do.
however, I do share with beta a concern about the constant and chronic sniping "from the sidelines" -- someone I know well and respect very much always took the attitude that "you don't have the right to complain if you're not actively working to make things better" -- I recognize that's not a universally held view (especially here on Archinect) but it does have resonance with me.
99% of the professionals I've met doing volunteer committee work in AIA, NCARB and NAAB over the years are dedicated, smart and well meaning individuals. You almost never see any sort of hidden agenda or effort at self-aggrandizement. All they want to do - as beta says - is 'make sure those behind me have a more equitable shake" -- and perhaps learn a little something in the process.
when you sacrifice as much personal time as volunteer leadership requires and make a genuine effort to make the practice environment better, it gets a little demoralizing to read the constant carping that takes place here. usually, that carping is coming from a woefully uninformed place.
some of you guys might want to consider lightening up a little bit and consider that maybe you don't really have it all figured out in your own head. there are other points of view out there and often those other viewpoints are much more well informed. those alternate views deserve courtesy, if not respect.
sorry for the lecture.
Thanks Quiz, On that note, my first job was answering telephones for a credit card company. I learned very quickly that all feedback, sniping and all, is good feedback. Most of the sniping at NCARB, AIA, et al. has some founding in someone's experience. I fear silence more than snark for that reason. When people stop sniping and bitching, then not only will they not do anything, but they no longer care either.
j
Simples,
Not so long ago, there was an active forum called Archvoices. I followed it very closely. They list the AIA Board as adopting the position in 1999 that any graduate of an NAAB accredited program should be able to take the ARE immediately upon graduation.
I haven't checked the source but that was the policy listed by Archvoices.
I will say this; it's because of quiz, oldfogey, LB, Steven Ward, and Orhan, that I got involved.
I am determined, and will not be detered.
I'd also suspect that many of the people who designed the IDP have never actually gone through the process. I'm sure NCARB consults with IDP veterans, but don't you think it's important to hear the voices of people actually going through (and being frustrated by) the process?
some choose to get involved, some endure the process and move on, but may still hold bitter feelings if their experience was a bad one. can't fault them for that. i think it's important for everyone here to remember (and this includes the staunchest ncarb/aia supporters) that there are many ways of practicing and many ways of participating in our profession. the idp process at this point is a unifier, something we all must do to become registered. it becomes a very quick introduction to one particular path, though not at all representative of all paths, through our professional careers. i think that's where a lot of the bitterness may stem from. not everyone wants to spend their careers tinkering with the often convoluted intracacies of the registration process, but can still be very dedicated professionals in their own right.
the idp process, in the words of a great aia member i once knew, is what it is.
The AIA's position is that testing concurrent with IDP should be allowed. NCARB developed a similar policy in 2007. But, as with every NCARB policy, it is up to each individual state board to decide whether or not to adopt that policy. There were already 7 states that allowed concurrent testing. Since the NCARB and AIA policies were developed a few more states have begun to allow concurrent testing (Massachusetts is one that recently adopted the policy.) States can be slow to study and adopt new policies. It's likely that many other states will adopt this policy over the next several years.
I suspect the truth is that the folks who designed IDP were reacting to an internship model that wasn't working very well back then and needed to be changed.
nobody ever can design the future based on their personal knowledge of the future. all you can do is make your best effort and apply what you know ... and then be open to whatever changes might become warranted later.
Concurrent testing, will probably see develop the same way IDP did. IDP was first required by a state in 1982, 26 years later and it still is not universally adopted by the states and territories. This profession has a lot of inertia.
j
Yes, quizzical, but this thread was started based on one young architect's first-hand experience of the IDP. This negative experience has since been corroborated by many of us.
So in a sense, this is the "personal knowledge" that you're looking for. Forums like this are a way of polling the success of the IDP with a group who's currently going through it. So we shouldn't be so quick to discount it as "carping".
i dont think its just this profession, either
to get something this large to be coordinated universally, it will take some time
especially in a profession where building methods can vary so much due to location
think of how different it is to be an architect in every city and every state across the country
to make requirements universally accepted cant be done overnight
this may be the "personal knowledge" farwest, but when its on a thread titled in this way, who's job should it be to sift through the people giving honest opinions and trying to help and those who are venting and exagerrating everything to sound a lot worse than it is
i doubt this is the only architecture forum
but if you think speaking here is a direct way to be heard, thats a little unrealistic
we happen to have a couple people posting now who are working with the regulations
i dont think anyone originally posting here did so thinking NCARB was looking and waiting for their opinion (i know i wasnt)
and usually, with a lot of things in life, you tend to only hear the negatives. far more people will complain about something than praise something they think is working fine
so if you look at things based on what people write about on messageboards, it should be taken into account that these are not necessarily universal opinions held by all
fw ... this thread actually was started by an individual who made a personal choice to ignore his home state's requirements with respect to what's required for licensure in that state ... and then decided he somehow was getting screwed.
i wonder what the general opinion is of other professions with regards to the paths to get your license.
i would think that there are always people who will decide to switch careers and take an alternate path in a career. do you think its as bitched about, with regards to what is required to get a license?
just curious, not saying its wrong to question the process at all. i just wonder if since architecture is a bit more liberal than say becoming an accountant or a lawyer or anything else where you need a license to work.
I have a Masters in Architecture (1989) and have worked for over twenty years for Architects and Engineers designing a multitude of varies projects, about $430 Million worth in the Educational (7 years), Commercial (6 years), Industrial (3 years), and Criminal Justice (6 years) fields. But since I did not record this experience according to the IDP "six month rule", not one hour of the more than 44,000 hours of experience I have will count. A complete waste of time according to IDP.
I do not understand this overly strict and arbitrary method to determine work experience. The people who have developed this system certainly do in not have the best interest of the Architectural profession at heart.
I have trained countless young intern architects in CAD, Building Systems, Energy Design, Construction Documents, Construction Adminstration, etc. during my 22 years and I think that mentoring these professions was very important and helped improve the firms personnel. But to put meaningless time limits on reporting just does not make much sense and will discourage alot of well qualified individuals from preceding further in this profession. At this point me being one.
Also, the people that ran IDP, when I start working in 1989 in Michigan were very rude and unprofessional, which explained why over half the new interns I knew at the time did not join and or were waiting to join later.
Im with quizzical on this one...
IDP may be a huge pain... we might argue against it in many rational ways, and we might be ( ...probably are...) correct in doing so.
But IDP is not secretive. We have known for years that we have to document our hours in a certain way. That we have to find a mentor to sign off on those hours, and that eventually, this 6 month rule was going to come into effect. They have been talking about implementing the 6 Month rule for years.
I am sorry some people got burned by that, but i dont know if IDP deserves any blame... seems to me they were exceedingly cautious in the rules implementation, and anyone paying even slight attention to licensure should have taken action to make sure they weren't burned...
david.. at what point are you responsible for not turning in your hours? i mean..you should have been done with the process 17 years ago.. hard to see how you have an excuse here.. but maybe that's just me.. plus. saying that you may not join the IDP now because of this? if you've worked for 22 years without doing it..i'm pretty sure you never planned on it.. but that's just a guess.
wow ... this is a blast from the past ... thread started July, 2007.
its not really arbitrary, they have the 6 month rule so someone doesnt try to submit hours from 20 years ago
Speaking with a rude customer service person on the phone shouldnt really be an excuse to delay submitting your hours for 20 years. And besides, the 6 month rule was announced well in advance of it taking effect. you had plenty of time to submit all your required hours all at once, several times even, if you had any issues
I have never understood the big deal with submitting IDP hours. It's like trying to contact Verizon or Comcast for customer service. you know it will most likely be a mind numbing experience and incredibly annoying. But really, the way its set up online now, it is slowly becoming more streamlined and manageable. Part of the issue previously, i would imagine, is that there are these enormous chunks of hours all being submitted at once and from basically any time period in the past. That definitely slowed things up and caused issues.
Now, all an intern needs to do is get in the habit of submitting their hours twice a year or more. Having a much smaller size should hopefully make approving hours more reasonable.
Will it eliminate all the problems? Heck no. Their customer service is still terrible and there will probably be the occasional chunks of hours lost and not approved. Hopefully though you wont be sitting there expecting to be done waiting on 3 years of hours all at once and have to start over though
wait, let me wrap my pea brain around this; you've got a MArch, from 22 years ago, and you think NCARB is strict? on what planet were you employed?
OK so David T didn't submit his hours. Does that mean what he learned is negated because he didn't fill out some paperwork? One of the things I hate about modern life is there are so many people in charge who have a stick up their butt. No one has the back bone or to step back and make a judgement call. They just apply a rule to the situation. No thinking necessary. It goes beyond this situation and is unfortunately present in many areas of life.
I remember hearing the change to the six month rule being discussed by upper classmen around school. David must take some responsibility for not following the bureaucratic rules. This isn't a small issue though. The license controls the mans ability to open his own office. The remedy isn't small either. 3 more years or roughly SIX THOUSAND hours of work under the IDP rules. Does the punishment fit the crime? Is someone with 22 years experience who can pass AREs a likely threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the public? WAIT don't think about that. Just apply the rule.
well..jbushkey..think about it from the other way around... EVERYONE goes through this process (more or less) to become registered. David knew the process and has been avoiding taking care of it for 22 years (which is utterly ridiculous if you think about it). He also knew he had a closing window to submit his hours..and for whatever reason avoided submitting his countless hours at that point either...WHY? so he could complain about how unfair the process is now?
Yes it is obvious that he should be able to work as an architect once he takes the test... but i'm guessing that if he hasn't gotten registered at this point that he's never going to...and if he is.. another three years isn't going to kill him.
also..if he can't follow the simple rule of submitting his hours in a timely manner.. who knows.. maybe he isn't following those stupid rules called the Building Code..after all those are just bureaucratic guidelines that get in the way of him creating great architecture..why should he have to follow them when everyone else does?
jbushkey, its a really good point...
i dont think you'd find many who would argue against you, but the bottom line is, the current system is the 6 month rule. It has been for a while, it will be for a long time. It was common knowledge...
Rail against it if you want... i dont really see what the point is... pick your battles, do what you have to do, and get it over with. its really not so difficult...
From what we have heard, 22 years ago, the customer service rep was rude, so he didnt bother wasting his time submitting his hours. He then waits 22 years for what, stellar customer service? And then, after the entire process has turned digital enabling him to submit all the hours he would ever want to at once and never having to speak with anyone there directly, and having the 6 month rule announced for a really really long time almost specifically to scream to anyone in his position "hey, submit all your hours now all at once or lose them", he does nothing at all, waits for his chance to pass, and then decides to complain
This is an incredibly minor process to go through. It has nothing to do with whether or not he can pass the exams. It has everything to do with that he refused to follow the rules in place.
He is not being punished for anything beyond his own laziness. Architects need to take responsibility for their own careers
Should there be an alternate path for those who dont necessarily work in the traditional firm? Absolutely. I would hope that is being worked on (though i wont hold my breath)
Should there be an alternate path for those older architects who just didnt get their license instantly out of school? Absolutely. It is called that year or 2 after the 6 month rule was announced and everyone was still able to submit as many hours as they wanted all at once.
The grace period should not continue forever. The whole point is to streamline the approval process, which had been bogged down forever with people submitting 3 years worth of hours from 10 years ago all at once.
"But to put meaningless time limits on reporting just does not make much sense and will discourage alot of well qualified individuals from preceding further in this profession. "
So you just expect them to take your word for it that you are a well qualified individual? This is how it is verified, by taking 5 minutes every 6 months to submit your hours online. Why everyone makes the process out to be so hard or time consuming baffles me
My point is I am sick and tired of everyone's holy than thou- FU I got mine attitude, in day to day life much more than this one thread in the forum. I hate the black and white absolute rules we have to all suffer under because people are too lazy or incompetent to think about the situation and come up with a solution Have you ever done something not smart? Has your situation ever suddenly changed?
Maybe David never planned on having his own firm, but now finds himself laid off and is looking for some income to put food on his table. Whatever happened to giving good people the benefit of the doubt instead of just throwing the rule book at them? Would it really be that hard or time consuming to make him write about his learning experiences?
I am done with this argument because lletdownl made a good point that it isn't my battle and I have done something dumb, procrastinating, and have a ton of math to do in the next couple of days.
Honestly, if you're not registered within 5 years of graduating, you're not trying hard enough.
I'm not seeing the controversy.
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.