Honestly, if you're not registered within 5 years of graduating, you're not trying hard enough.
There was that recent thread about how becoming licensed is averaging 10 years, nationwide, after graduation. I think it would be difficult to prove your argument that a majority of graduates are "not trying hard enough" to raise the average to 10 years. We all know how tough arch school can be and these are people who completed it successfully and found employment. I am going to disagree with your statement that people are not trying hard enough.
Let's be conservative and assume you work for 40 hours a week:
1) IDP requires 5,600 hours, or approximately 2.8 years of work.
2) In most jurisdictions, you can start the AREs whenever you want, including before you graduate. You can fail each exam at least once and still finish within 2 years.
The total time needed is maximum 5 years. Since IDP and AREs can overlap, you can finish both in as little as 3-4 years. If you are laid off, then things take a little longer, but you can still take AREs and get IDP hours.
I know dozens of architects who cranked this out in less than 5 years, including unemployed architects. They aren't super exceptional people, they're just generally motivated.
You are right sectional. Your anectdotal stories about people you know presents a much stronger and more complete argument than the research Matt_A has been working on for a few years and posted here:
B People who get through arch school mysteriously turn into slackers when they graduate or possibly just burned out
C The numbers are skewed by people who never get licensed(i don't think they were included) or inaccurate in some other way
D something I haven't thought of
Why is it when you quote research someone usually responds back about the people they personally know? Like a survey of a few dozen people is as accurate as a survey of thousands.
There also must be some truth to why sectional and company were able to get it done. As someone yet to go through the process I only have that other thread to go by, but it seemed thorough and well documented.
wow jbushkey..you need to relax.. but on your survey i'm going with 'D'...it totally makes sense if you're arguing this passionately that you haven't gone through the process yet. once you actually know what you're talking about it will be a lot clearer why people are saying david is lazy and why the system is more or less fine the way it is. he's not getting the rulebook thrown at him...unless you can imagine that rulebook getting thrown in slow motion over a number of years..and even though he saw it coming he refused to take any action.
i agree with sectional..it is VERY easy to get registered within 5 years of graduating. the number one reason i would imagine most people don't..which isn't on your list... is that you don't need to be registered to practice... i have thirteen years of experience..finished the IDP in 2003 or so...i've even forwarded my council record to my state board...just have to start taking the tests at some point...and i've never needed my own stamp or had that held against me.
once you're registered you have to maintain your license...this is actually almost harder than the IDP...you have to attend classes out of work usually to get credits..you also have to pay dues. two simple reasons right there.
until you actually have to stamp a drawing (and thus become liable for that drawing also) you don't really need a stamp...and there's a lot of ways to make a living without having one...and a lot of side jobs you can perform without having one.
once you start the process i think you'll understand a bit better what people are talking about.
E. graduates realize they do not need their license to move their career forward for the beginning of their career
it is almost a catch 22 with getting your license. When its easiest to get it (generally speaking, being early in your career before other of life's demands pile up), you dont really need it to make a living. So you really kind of have to be proactive with your career thinking 10-20 years down the line where you want to be.
If i stay at my current firm, which i have been for 5+ years now, once i get my license (only 3 more exams to go), i wont actually stamp any drawings for a long time. I think only principals in the firm are actually architect of record for our projects.
So really, I dont need my license any time soon. But it is a million times easier to get it done now rather than waiting until i actually need it.
marmkid's right ... the single best reason to get your license as early as possible is so you will have it available when you actually need it. I suspect the guy who resurrected this thread was one of those who had a decent job with a firm for a long time and who never really thought he'd need the license ... then, this damn recession hit and, whoa, the world changed and, boy, it'd really be useful to have that thing now, wouldn't it?
I never "needed" my license until I was out of school about 30 years and became a principal in our firm ... nevertheless, I couldn't wait to get my license as soon after graduation as I could make it happen ... I wanted to call myself an Architect, without having to get all involved in the silly symantic exercises we love to have here.
Come on boys and girls -- it isn't that hard to complete the ARE if you're motivated, and it isn't expensive to maintain the license once you have it ... I pay less than $100 every two years to keep mine active. Continuing ed is required, but hey - if you want to be current in your profession, you should be doing that anyway.
I am relaxed I just like to push the issue so we can move towards resolution. It seems some other people are in agreement with sectional. Maybe I will shut up now :D
it doesn't take 10 years because it's difficult or keeping someone from their dreams? (WTF does that even mean?)
it's a simple process if you want to complete it...it very often takes three years to complete the IDP...and sometimes to take the tests if your state allows you to take them concurrently..and if you're a dreamer with diligence you can very easily complete the process in less than 10 years...let alone 5. most of my college class was registered within 5 years. and 10 years out already had their own firms.
the pursuit of the IDP is not making this profession mediocre...i don't agree with you there either..either that the IDP would be a reason or that the profession is mediocre.
you know better than this rusty. you actually have experience... not completing the IDP does not limit your opportunities..and if you want to complete it it is not hard to get it done.
the average may be 10 years, but as has been said here, there are many reasons for that being the case. Most being just the actual motivation to get something that doesnt have benefits for many many years, if at all depending on what type of career path you choose.
Most times, its only 10 years because someone lets it be that long. If it is truly your dream to have that license, you can get it very quickly. I have never actually heard it put that way, but hey, to each his own
if anything killing 'the dream' of architecture.. it's building code restrictions and the length of time and number of required forms, drawings, etc that it takes to file the simplest project at the DOB. and not knowing how long that will take so you can effectively explain that to your client when the whole process begins.
oh lars. I was using short form to sound in on a topic that I've blah blah blah'ed too much on in the past.
Places like Japan and the Netherlands have the accreditation process built into their education process. By the time you graduate, you are registered. I find the work coming out of those countries to be far superior than ours. It keeps older architects on their toes as they can't just consider the new wave of graduates as but a source of cheap labor. Ability to quickly register also increases competition among architects, but in a good way. It weeds out professionals who rely on protectionism ("I'm an architect and you're not") but who offer little else in quality.
The fact that it's possible to register in 3 years is a moot point. Registration heavily favors those that accept a bland corporate environment as a fact of architectural life. Those more adventurous, willing to travel a bit, take up odd jobs, even work for themselves are heavily penalized. It really shouldn't be so.
An architectural education presents to you a very dynamic, hands-on, studio environment that inspires creativity. Between that period and finally being allowed to call your self an architect, you just may get all your creative juices completely squeezed out of you.
Just to add my own survey of half dozen people I know: They are all pretty close to getting registered. Their number one goal post-registration is to find a new job. In the meantime they feel stuck at positions they hate. It shouldn't be like that.
Returning to a single 2 day test would be a step in the right direction.
So the 10 years is largely due to most people seeing little benefit to licensure therefore taking their time after graduation, right? I was so focused on getting the license as one of my main goals. It never sunk in that many are indifferent towards it or do not need it in their career path.
The 2005 AIA Salary Report pretty much states that only 69% of firms give a salary increase upon licensure. Of that 66%, 85% only give compensation increases of 0.1-9%. Only 15% of firms give raises of 10% or more.
Coincidentally, larger firms are less likely to give raises for becoming licensed. However, large firms usually pay between 10-20% higher (firms over 50 employees) than smaller firms.
I had a suggestion in another thread. But I will post a new suggestion.
What if you had to take the ARE before internship and the ARE was open to anyone to take? Then anyone who could pass the ARE would be considered a competent enough person to work in a practice and you could still have a few years of a buffer period of before they become fully-licensed architects.
Firms would get legally competent employees and the labor pool could be both expand and prequalified.
do they also finish school in five years? my counterpoint to yours would be that during their education they aren't allowed to think solely about design as much as we are since they're already learning about building systems, detailing, more pragmatic qualities of design that we learn about in our first three to five years or so. if anything they get their creative juices squeezed out of them before they leave school. that and the process of going to school for 8 years or so here would put you in far greater debt than there.
simply stating that it's because of the IDP or education is also sorta silly don't you think?
if anything i think the level of construction ability (and consequently the pricing of labor required to accomplish 'complex' details), quality of materials and quality of products has a lot more to do with the quality of what gets built here.
if anything i think you're showing either naivete or a lack of imagination. there are plenty of people that are able to do creative work within the strictures of the current system here. maybe not where you're at.. and maybe you have to live in certain cities to make that happen..but i think if you try even a little bit you can work on some pretty nice projects.
i'd be interested to see how many of those people coming out of school over there are really ready (and able) to practice on their own.
"my counterpoint to yours would be that during their education they aren't allowed to think solely about design as much as we are since they're already learning about building systems, detailing, more pragmatic qualities of design that we learn about in our first three to five years or so. if anything they get their creative juices squeezed out of them before they leave school."
That just sounds logically backwards to me. No?
"i'd be interested to see how many of those people coming out of school over there are really ready (and able) to practice on their own."
It doesn't matter. Your ability to land a client will be proportional with your ability to perform the work you are hired to do. Certain projects may require very little experience, and some will require decades. Being registered is an artificial hurdle that's just thrown in the mix.
I know plenty of registered architects whom I wouldn't let design a walk-in closet, let alone any free standing structure. Passing tests and jumping through hoops is hardly a surefire way to assure competency. I would generally not trust an architect with less than 15 years of experience to administer front end documents for a large project. Do we need an additional accreditation for that too?
ARE tests you on stuff that every architect needs to know. No question about that. Logging few years of hours before calling yourself an architect? Sure, why not.
lars, the only thing we really disagree is the execution. You think it works the way it is, I think it's a bureaucratic nightmare that will only become more convoluted over the coming years. Sometimes non-profit agencies like to make up shit in order to justify their own existence.
"if anything i think you're showing either naivete or a lack of imagination."
Yes on both accounts. It's 'obtuse tuesdays' after-all :)
well..i thought your point was that the first few years of working zapped students creativity and that the ideal school was where creativity was allowed to flow freely...no? as far as i remember school..the more realistic it became and the more restrictions that were placed on it the less freely i thought and the less creative i felt... the best part of school was that there were no restrictions and i could really do whatever i wanted...
i edited and added to that comment but apparently it didn't stick.
basic point in addition is that the difference between adding 4 years to your education and getting paid to get that education can be significant monetarily.
there are ways of working without a stamp...it's not difficult to get a stamp...i guess i'm trying to figure out what the major problem is.
also..the tests and idp are a way of determining base competency. it's really up to the individual to determine whether or not they should go out on their own..and the major test they will have to pass is whether or not they get sued.
smart ones will do peer reviews on projects that they're not familiar with or on project sizes that they haven't done before or they're uncomfortable with...
the tests and idp aren't the problem imo. we're essentially doing what every other profession does...the bar, residency and the USMLE for example..
Yes but things like the USMLE are part of a requirement of graduation of most, if not all, universities. Even many colleges of engineering require one to pass the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam prior to starting any sort of professional or internship work.
After you pass the FE exam and finally receive your diploma, you have to work for 4 years to qualify to sit to become a Professional Engineer.
Get the idea here? This arrangement prequalifies the student to competently (and legally) work in their profession. Architecture is the exact opposite. You have to technically practice, whether you were legally allowed to or not, with very little gaurantee of any competency. As rusty points out and similar to many colleges of engineering... if you don't pass, you don't graduate.
The bar exam on the other hand is interesting because one could become a lawyer simply by attending a university-- known as diploma privilege. However, it is usually not necessary to work or perform an internship in order to sit for the bar exam. It's also possible to become a lawyer with as little as 4 years of internship and no education.
You are right James, except for the 4 years needed to be a PE. It varies from state to state, but you get credits for attending accredited undergrad and grad and internships. It took my friend less than a year of working after school to become PE in California for instance.
lars, you seem very passionate about this topic. To me it's an issue of flexibility, and find IDP less than accommodating in many circumstances. That is all.
I guess one positive is that IDP is at least attempting to make changes, when it seems it wouldnt for a long time. It seems they had a system in place forever and would not change despite its flaws.
Now at least they are moving in that direction. Hopefully they will continue to do so.
In my experience, I began in 2005 with the paper submitting of hours, which was a gigantic pain. Then when they switched to the online submitting, it was much better, despite the stories of still losing big chunks of hours. Thankfully none of mine were ever rejected.
Hopefully the 6 month rule will be even more effective with not losing out on hours. It seems like it should help, since for the most part, you will be submitting hours regularly based on a job you are still at. More so than if you are submitting hours from 2 years ago
I really would be interested to hear how medical licenses and the process for the bar are run. Are there people complaining about there not being an alternate route for them to take? Or do they all just conform to the system in place more than architects do?
I would just like say that I found most of the comments most interesting.
First, I have never ever been called lazy before. That's a new one.
But the real reason I was writing about was the issue of experience, and how it is recorded. The fact is that this is a mentoring process that requires a close relationship between a mentor and intern and I think should be required.. This relationship is quite different than a academic setting, and should be honorable and long lasting to truely be beneficial. I have been lucky over the course of my career to have had a several of these relationships and they all continue to this day. So, I guese that I find the IDP's way of documenting this quite rigid and some what indifferent to the actual purpose of this requirement. That is all.
Also, I would only seek documentation for the last three years, not any time 20 years ago. The reason for this is that I have been manging a five-person firm for the last six years and the Architect/Owner is retiring and would like me to take ownship ASAP.
I think you make a lot of sense about the mentoring aspect of the profession, though I think that is something that would be tough to regulate even if the IDP process was perfect. Being a mentor to an intern is something that the mentor would want to do, otherwise it is worthless. Do you have any thoughts on how this could actually be enforced?
One way I suppose would be to make your license contingent on you mentoring someone else, in the same way you need a certain number of continuing education credits to upkeep your license. Though that kind of assumes that every firm is reasonably large with enough interns as well as enough work to go around. What about 1 man firms? Should they then lose their license because they are not mentoring? So that doesn’t work.
I also have been lucky enough to work with some good mentors, and I agree completely that it is very valuable. I don’t know how to enforce that though, its so personal, and dependent on the mentor and intern themselves.
I think the only thing the IDP process can really do is have someone who already has met their baseline requirements sign off on an interns’ hours. That way, there at least is a baseline being met. That doesn’t mean there are not other very good architects who have meaningful experiences. Just the amount of time required to verify everything on an individual basis is beyond their capabilities, unless we want each exam to cost about $1,000 and have incredibly high yearly dues. I already feel like I get next to nothing for what I have paid in dues, so to see it increase would be annoying to say the least.
I think interns need to look at IDP as nothing more than a minimum baseline to start at. Like building codes. You shouldn’t pat yourself on the back because your building meets all building codes. That should be a given.
Perhaps its how they word their mentoring aspect of the requirements that is off, because I do agree, it sounds different than it is in reality.
As to your specific situation…Is this a sudden retirement that you didn’t know was coming? I think most people’s question would be why didn’t you submit the 3 years worth of hours during the grace period before the 6 month rule came into effect?
if you work for an unlicensed architect, it will take longer
and if you are honest about logging your time, hour by hour, it will certainly take more than 3 years. many interns aren't even allowed to perform some of the tasks required to be logged by NCARB until well after their first 3 years. i have 6 years of experience, not counting being unemployed, and i'm just turning in my time now. it only takes 3 years if you are allowed to use every second of time, and it doesn't work that way if you are honest with yourself about what you are doing. three years of experience isn't nearly enough imho.
the system is flawed. most senior architects aren't even familiar with the IDP categories. I requested hours till I'm blue in the face...still not done and definitely motivated. I'm skeptical those claiming to finish IDP in less than 3 years are really following the guidelines to a tee unless they lucked out and saw a project through from being to end, which from what I've observed isn't most people straight out of school. If you're honest about hours I could see it easily taking 10 years in some cases. They seem to think an occasional "tour of a construction site" or "punchlist" will make a dent in CA time. Yet they're the ones filling out staffing schedules.
IDP is not at all difficult. In fact it is a logical framework in which to guide your development. If you cant handle IDP you will never be able to handle the seemingly endless paperwork requirements for running a construction and design project. The rules for IDP are perfectly clear and easy to follow. If your grievance is with NCARB, please separate it from the IDP process. It is NCARB that is bloated and slow, not IDP. It is NCARB that is artificially inflating school requirements and thus your debt, not IDP. And overall it is the economy that is standing in the way of getting your hours in an office, not IDP.
idp sucks @#$%^
Honestly, if you're not registered within 5 years of graduating, you're not trying hard enough.
There was that recent thread about how becoming licensed is averaging 10 years, nationwide, after graduation. I think it would be difficult to prove your argument that a majority of graduates are "not trying hard enough" to raise the average to 10 years. We all know how tough arch school can be and these are people who completed it successfully and found employment. I am going to disagree with your statement that people are not trying hard enough.
Let's be conservative and assume you work for 40 hours a week:
1) IDP requires 5,600 hours, or approximately 2.8 years of work.
2) In most jurisdictions, you can start the AREs whenever you want, including before you graduate. You can fail each exam at least once and still finish within 2 years.
The total time needed is maximum 5 years. Since IDP and AREs can overlap, you can finish both in as little as 3-4 years. If you are laid off, then things take a little longer, but you can still take AREs and get IDP hours.
I know dozens of architects who cranked this out in less than 5 years, including unemployed architects. They aren't super exceptional people, they're just generally motivated.
You are right sectional. Your anectdotal stories about people you know presents a much stronger and more complete argument than the research Matt_A has been working on for a few years and posted here:
http://archinect.com/forum/thread/105315/concerning-licensure
So what are you saying?
A Matts research is flawed
B People who get through arch school mysteriously turn into slackers when they graduate or possibly just burned out
C The numbers are skewed by people who never get licensed(i don't think they were included) or inaccurate in some other way
D something I haven't thought of
Why is it when you quote research someone usually responds back about the people they personally know? Like a survey of a few dozen people is as accurate as a survey of thousands.
There also must be some truth to why sectional and company were able to get it done. As someone yet to go through the process I only have that other thread to go by, but it seemed thorough and well documented.
wow jbushkey..you need to relax.. but on your survey i'm going with 'D'...it totally makes sense if you're arguing this passionately that you haven't gone through the process yet. once you actually know what you're talking about it will be a lot clearer why people are saying david is lazy and why the system is more or less fine the way it is. he's not getting the rulebook thrown at him...unless you can imagine that rulebook getting thrown in slow motion over a number of years..and even though he saw it coming he refused to take any action.
i agree with sectional..it is VERY easy to get registered within 5 years of graduating. the number one reason i would imagine most people don't..which isn't on your list... is that you don't need to be registered to practice... i have thirteen years of experience..finished the IDP in 2003 or so...i've even forwarded my council record to my state board...just have to start taking the tests at some point...and i've never needed my own stamp or had that held against me.
once you're registered you have to maintain your license...this is actually almost harder than the IDP...you have to attend classes out of work usually to get credits..you also have to pay dues. two simple reasons right there.
until you actually have to stamp a drawing (and thus become liable for that drawing also) you don't really need a stamp...and there's a lot of ways to make a living without having one...and a lot of side jobs you can perform without having one.
once you start the process i think you'll understand a bit better what people are talking about.
I think there is an E, Jbushkey
E. graduates realize they do not need their license to move their career forward for the beginning of their career
it is almost a catch 22 with getting your license. When its easiest to get it (generally speaking, being early in your career before other of life's demands pile up), you dont really need it to make a living. So you really kind of have to be proactive with your career thinking 10-20 years down the line where you want to be.
If i stay at my current firm, which i have been for 5+ years now, once i get my license (only 3 more exams to go), i wont actually stamp any drawings for a long time. I think only principals in the firm are actually architect of record for our projects.
So really, I dont need my license any time soon. But it is a million times easier to get it done now rather than waiting until i actually need it.
marmkid's right ... the single best reason to get your license as early as possible is so you will have it available when you actually need it. I suspect the guy who resurrected this thread was one of those who had a decent job with a firm for a long time and who never really thought he'd need the license ... then, this damn recession hit and, whoa, the world changed and, boy, it'd really be useful to have that thing now, wouldn't it?
I never "needed" my license until I was out of school about 30 years and became a principal in our firm ... nevertheless, I couldn't wait to get my license as soon after graduation as I could make it happen ... I wanted to call myself an Architect, without having to get all involved in the silly symantic exercises we love to have here.
Come on boys and girls -- it isn't that hard to complete the ARE if you're motivated, and it isn't expensive to maintain the license once you have it ... I pay less than $100 every two years to keep mine active. Continuing ed is required, but hey - if you want to be current in your profession, you should be doing that anyway.
I am relaxed I just like to push the issue so we can move towards resolution. It seems some other people are in agreement with sectional. Maybe I will shut up now :D
I'm just checking in to say I agree with jbush 100%.
If you put a 10 year gap between a dreamer and his dreams, you should expect mediocre results. Which is the overall case for our profession.
Even if something can be done in 3 years, if the overall average is 10, you are bound to see less opportunities around you.
well.. once again you've said nothing..
it doesn't take 10 years because it's difficult or keeping someone from their dreams? (WTF does that even mean?)
it's a simple process if you want to complete it...it very often takes three years to complete the IDP...and sometimes to take the tests if your state allows you to take them concurrently..and if you're a dreamer with diligence you can very easily complete the process in less than 10 years...let alone 5. most of my college class was registered within 5 years. and 10 years out already had their own firms.
the pursuit of the IDP is not making this profession mediocre...i don't agree with you there either..either that the IDP would be a reason or that the profession is mediocre.
you know better than this rusty. you actually have experience... not completing the IDP does not limit your opportunities..and if you want to complete it it is not hard to get it done.
the average may be 10 years, but as has been said here, there are many reasons for that being the case. Most being just the actual motivation to get something that doesnt have benefits for many many years, if at all depending on what type of career path you choose.
Most times, its only 10 years because someone lets it be that long. If it is truly your dream to have that license, you can get it very quickly. I have never actually heard it put that way, but hey, to each his own
if an architect's salary doubled upon registration, i guarantee that 10 year average would drop to 4 years instantly.
if anything killing 'the dream' of architecture.. it's building code restrictions and the length of time and number of required forms, drawings, etc that it takes to file the simplest project at the DOB. and not knowing how long that will take so you can effectively explain that to your client when the whole process begins.
oh lars. I was using short form to sound in on a topic that I've blah blah blah'ed too much on in the past.
Places like Japan and the Netherlands have the accreditation process built into their education process. By the time you graduate, you are registered. I find the work coming out of those countries to be far superior than ours. It keeps older architects on their toes as they can't just consider the new wave of graduates as but a source of cheap labor. Ability to quickly register also increases competition among architects, but in a good way. It weeds out professionals who rely on protectionism ("I'm an architect and you're not") but who offer little else in quality.
The fact that it's possible to register in 3 years is a moot point. Registration heavily favors those that accept a bland corporate environment as a fact of architectural life. Those more adventurous, willing to travel a bit, take up odd jobs, even work for themselves are heavily penalized. It really shouldn't be so.
An architectural education presents to you a very dynamic, hands-on, studio environment that inspires creativity. Between that period and finally being allowed to call your self an architect, you just may get all your creative juices completely squeezed out of you.
Just to add my own survey of half dozen people I know: They are all pretty close to getting registered. Their number one goal post-registration is to find a new job. In the meantime they feel stuck at positions they hate. It shouldn't be like that.
Returning to a single 2 day test would be a step in the right direction.
Thanks Rusty.
So the 10 years is largely due to most people seeing little benefit to licensure therefore taking their time after graduation, right? I was so focused on getting the license as one of my main goals. It never sunk in that many are indifferent towards it or do not need it in their career path.
The 2005 AIA Salary Report pretty much states that only 69% of firms give a salary increase upon licensure. Of that 66%, 85% only give compensation increases of 0.1-9%. Only 15% of firms give raises of 10% or more.
Coincidentally, larger firms are less likely to give raises for becoming licensed. However, large firms usually pay between 10-20% higher (firms over 50 employees) than smaller firms.
I had a suggestion in another thread. But I will post a new suggestion.
What if you had to take the ARE before internship and the ARE was open to anyone to take? Then anyone who could pass the ARE would be considered a competent enough person to work in a practice and you could still have a few years of a buffer period of before they become fully-licensed architects.
Firms would get legally competent employees and the labor pool could be both expand and prequalified.
rusty.
do they also finish school in five years? my counterpoint to yours would be that during their education they aren't allowed to think solely about design as much as we are since they're already learning about building systems, detailing, more pragmatic qualities of design that we learn about in our first three to five years or so. if anything they get their creative juices squeezed out of them before they leave school. that and the process of going to school for 8 years or so here would put you in far greater debt than there.
simply stating that it's because of the IDP or education is also sorta silly don't you think?
if anything i think the level of construction ability (and consequently the pricing of labor required to accomplish 'complex' details), quality of materials and quality of products has a lot more to do with the quality of what gets built here.
if anything i think you're showing either naivete or a lack of imagination. there are plenty of people that are able to do creative work within the strictures of the current system here. maybe not where you're at.. and maybe you have to live in certain cities to make that happen..but i think if you try even a little bit you can work on some pretty nice projects.
i'd be interested to see how many of those people coming out of school over there are really ready (and able) to practice on their own.
"my counterpoint to yours would be that during their education they aren't allowed to think solely about design as much as we are since they're already learning about building systems, detailing, more pragmatic qualities of design that we learn about in our first three to five years or so. if anything they get their creative juices squeezed out of them before they leave school."
That just sounds logically backwards to me. No?
"i'd be interested to see how many of those people coming out of school over there are really ready (and able) to practice on their own."
It doesn't matter. Your ability to land a client will be proportional with your ability to perform the work you are hired to do. Certain projects may require very little experience, and some will require decades. Being registered is an artificial hurdle that's just thrown in the mix.
I know plenty of registered architects whom I wouldn't let design a walk-in closet, let alone any free standing structure. Passing tests and jumping through hoops is hardly a surefire way to assure competency. I would generally not trust an architect with less than 15 years of experience to administer front end documents for a large project. Do we need an additional accreditation for that too?
ARE tests you on stuff that every architect needs to know. No question about that. Logging few years of hours before calling yourself an architect? Sure, why not.
lars, the only thing we really disagree is the execution. You think it works the way it is, I think it's a bureaucratic nightmare that will only become more convoluted over the coming years. Sometimes non-profit agencies like to make up shit in order to justify their own existence.
"if anything i think you're showing either naivete or a lack of imagination."
Yes on both accounts. It's 'obtuse tuesdays' after-all :)
well..i thought your point was that the first few years of working zapped students creativity and that the ideal school was where creativity was allowed to flow freely...no? as far as i remember school..the more realistic it became and the more restrictions that were placed on it the less freely i thought and the less creative i felt... the best part of school was that there were no restrictions and i could really do whatever i wanted...
argh..
i edited and added to that comment but apparently it didn't stick.
basic point in addition is that the difference between adding 4 years to your education and getting paid to get that education can be significant monetarily.
there are ways of working without a stamp...it's not difficult to get a stamp...i guess i'm trying to figure out what the major problem is.
also..the tests and idp are a way of determining base competency. it's really up to the individual to determine whether or not they should go out on their own..and the major test they will have to pass is whether or not they get sued.
smart ones will do peer reviews on projects that they're not familiar with or on project sizes that they haven't done before or they're uncomfortable with...
the tests and idp aren't the problem imo. we're essentially doing what every other profession does...the bar, residency and the USMLE for example..
Yes but things like the USMLE are part of a requirement of graduation of most, if not all, universities. Even many colleges of engineering require one to pass the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam prior to starting any sort of professional or internship work.
After you pass the FE exam and finally receive your diploma, you have to work for 4 years to qualify to sit to become a Professional Engineer.
Get the idea here? This arrangement prequalifies the student to competently (and legally) work in their profession. Architecture is the exact opposite. You have to technically practice, whether you were legally allowed to or not, with very little gaurantee of any competency. As rusty points out and similar to many colleges of engineering... if you don't pass, you don't graduate.
The bar exam on the other hand is interesting because one could become a lawyer simply by attending a university-- known as diploma privilege. However, it is usually not necessary to work or perform an internship in order to sit for the bar exam. It's also possible to become a lawyer with as little as 4 years of internship and no education.
You are right James, except for the 4 years needed to be a PE. It varies from state to state, but you get credits for attending accredited undergrad and grad and internships. It took my friend less than a year of working after school to become PE in California for instance.
lars, you seem very passionate about this topic. To me it's an issue of flexibility, and find IDP less than accommodating in many circumstances. That is all.
I guess one positive is that IDP is at least attempting to make changes, when it seems it wouldnt for a long time. It seems they had a system in place forever and would not change despite its flaws.
Now at least they are moving in that direction. Hopefully they will continue to do so.
In my experience, I began in 2005 with the paper submitting of hours, which was a gigantic pain. Then when they switched to the online submitting, it was much better, despite the stories of still losing big chunks of hours. Thankfully none of mine were ever rejected.
Hopefully the 6 month rule will be even more effective with not losing out on hours. It seems like it should help, since for the most part, you will be submitting hours regularly based on a job you are still at. More so than if you are submitting hours from 2 years ago
I really would be interested to hear how medical licenses and the process for the bar are run. Are there people complaining about there not being an alternate route for them to take? Or do they all just conform to the system in place more than architects do?
I would just like say that I found most of the comments most interesting.
First, I have never ever been called lazy before. That's a new one.
But the real reason I was writing about was the issue of experience, and how it is recorded. The fact is that this is a mentoring process that requires a close relationship between a mentor and intern and I think should be required.. This relationship is quite different than a academic setting, and should be honorable and long lasting to truely be beneficial. I have been lucky over the course of my career to have had a several of these relationships and they all continue to this day. So, I guese that I find the IDP's way of documenting this quite rigid and some what indifferent to the actual purpose of this requirement. That is all.
Also, I would only seek documentation for the last three years, not any time 20 years ago. The reason for this is that I have been manging a five-person firm for the last six years and the Architect/Owner is retiring and would like me to take ownship ASAP.
I think you make a lot of sense about the mentoring aspect of the profession, though I think that is something that would be tough to regulate even if the IDP process was perfect. Being a mentor to an intern is something that the mentor would want to do, otherwise it is worthless. Do you have any thoughts on how this could actually be enforced?
One way I suppose would be to make your license contingent on you mentoring someone else, in the same way you need a certain number of continuing education credits to upkeep your license. Though that kind of assumes that every firm is reasonably large with enough interns as well as enough work to go around. What about 1 man firms? Should they then lose their license because they are not mentoring? So that doesn’t work.
I also have been lucky enough to work with some good mentors, and I agree completely that it is very valuable. I don’t know how to enforce that though, its so personal, and dependent on the mentor and intern themselves.
I think the only thing the IDP process can really do is have someone who already has met their baseline requirements sign off on an interns’ hours. That way, there at least is a baseline being met. That doesn’t mean there are not other very good architects who have meaningful experiences. Just the amount of time required to verify everything on an individual basis is beyond their capabilities, unless we want each exam to cost about $1,000 and have incredibly high yearly dues. I already feel like I get next to nothing for what I have paid in dues, so to see it increase would be annoying to say the least.
I think interns need to look at IDP as nothing more than a minimum baseline to start at. Like building codes. You shouldn’t pat yourself on the back because your building meets all building codes. That should be a given.
Perhaps its how they word their mentoring aspect of the requirements that is off, because I do agree, it sounds different than it is in reality.
As to your specific situation…Is this a sudden retirement that you didn’t know was coming? I think most people’s question would be why didn’t you submit the 3 years worth of hours during the grace period before the 6 month rule came into effect?
addressing some of the above comments
if you are unemployed, it will take longer
if you go to grad school, it will take longer
if you work for an unlicensed architect, it will take longer
and if you are honest about logging your time, hour by hour, it will certainly take more than 3 years. many interns aren't even allowed to perform some of the tasks required to be logged by NCARB until well after their first 3 years. i have 6 years of experience, not counting being unemployed, and i'm just turning in my time now. it only takes 3 years if you are allowed to use every second of time, and it doesn't work that way if you are honest with yourself about what you are doing. three years of experience isn't nearly enough imho.
the system is flawed. most senior architects aren't even familiar with the IDP categories. I requested hours till I'm blue in the face...still not done and definitely motivated. I'm skeptical those claiming to finish IDP in less than 3 years are really following the guidelines to a tee unless they lucked out and saw a project through from being to end, which from what I've observed isn't most people straight out of school. If you're honest about hours I could see it easily taking 10 years in some cases. They seem to think an occasional "tour of a construction site" or "punchlist" will make a dent in CA time. Yet they're the ones filling out staffing schedules.
IDP is not at all difficult. In fact it is a logical framework in which to guide your development. If you cant handle IDP you will never be able to handle the seemingly endless paperwork requirements for running a construction and design project. The rules for IDP are perfectly clear and easy to follow. If your grievance is with NCARB, please separate it from the IDP process. It is NCARB that is bloated and slow, not IDP. It is NCARB that is artificially inflating school requirements and thus your debt, not IDP. And overall it is the economy that is standing in the way of getting your hours in an office, not IDP.
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.