I've talked to many older architects who hate what the AIA and NCARB have done to the profession. Why would they want to get involved in a painfully stifling bureaucracy that they rarely have to deal with except when they pay their dues?
Many of these older architects much preferred the old system: school, apprenticeship, and then test. They think the IDP is a joke. I think that's why we don't see more support from the profession ("us")—they didn't ask for it, they think that IDP is inadequate, unnecessary, and a nuisance.
I don't think the old pre-IDP system was that bad. What needs more improvement and monitoring, in my mind, is our educational system. In grad school, I was never required to draw a detail, yet I spent an entire semester in one studio reading Deleuze and making stringy anti-gravity blobs in Maya.
farwest - who do you think makes up the AIA and NCARB?
"they" are "us" - and those among us who pay attention and participate as volunteer leaders are the ones who shape our profession's future, for good or for ill.
those "many older architects" you cite remind me of those many citizens who never vote and then complain bitterly about the government they've got.
maybe they didn't "ask for" IDP, but I remember when it came into being and there was a long, public, open process that led to what we have today -- those "many older architects" had their chance to shape (or even stop) the evolution of internship but probably were too damn busy with their "art" to give a sh*t about what was happening in their own profession.
however, I do agree with you about the educational system -- the schools have little to no understanding of what practice requires and they don't really care how the inadequacies of their curriculum negatively impacts their graduates, or those graduates' employers.
I'm not saying I'm in agreement with these older architects. I'm just reporting on what I've heard. I've had three employers in the last five years who were over fifty, and all of them largely see the AIA and NCARB as a nuisance that gets in the way of their "art"--at least until it gives them an award, or they need a standardized contract or some such.
I don't think it's the AIA, though, that's shaping our profession's future. I think the AIA is scrambling to keep up with where our profession is going. Many architects like having the AIA after their names, but not enough of them participate, because they don't necessarily see what the AIA can do for them.
My fear is that the best people in our profession, the ones who are doing the most revolutionary work from a design, process, and contract standpoint, are not the ones involved in the AIA. I could be wrong, but I don't see Gehry, Mayne, SHoP, and their younger compatriots being that involved.
Ironically, I worked for one corporate firm straight out of school that did very bland, beige work. And all of the partners were heavily involved in the AIA.
The AIA, for better or for worse, has a staid image. And architecture is not a staid profession—it's filled with people with funky eyeglasses who listen to weird electronica.
How do funky eyeglasses and listening to weird electronica result in revolutionary work? That in itself is a stereotype, in my mind, with implications as far reaching as a suit and tie. If you are really going to be revolutionary then you need to take the field head on. No license. No IDP. No internship. Do it really different.
If you are still going to go through the whole process, IDP, Exam,
License, and then call your self revolutionary because you wear funky eyeglasses and listen to electronica, that's a joke.
What has SHoP done that is revolutionary? I would argue nothing. I would argue that they have helped the profession evolve. The all went through the process, got their license and have begun to change the industry as insiders, evolution.
And what is the deal with comparing Architecture to Law and Medicine. Please, do me a favor, and get an identity. Maybe the public doesn't understand the value of Architecture because we can't even tell them what it is.
IDP is a huge waste of time. One of the greatest skills I believed in when studying Architecture was that of the Architect's ability to cross fields and bring huge amounts of information and people together. IDP generally does not encourage this or allow it to happen. IDP further reinforces the idea that the Architect is an island and must document his ability to learn from another.
farwest - "the best people in our profession, the ones who are doing the most revolutionary work from a design, process, and contract standpoint" -- I think it a huge stretch, and an insult to many fine professionals, to suggest that one must be "revolutionary" to be considered "the best people in our profession"
every field of endeavor has a few "stars" who head down their own path and pave new ground -- that's both fine and admirable. however, every profession relies on a vast army of highly competent individuals who every day do good solid work, serve their clients well, and represent their profession with honor and integrity.
construction is a huge sector of our economy -- there are many really good people working hard every day to do their jobs well and to provide their clients a much needed service and to improve their competence from one week to the next. too often here, posters look down their noses at these folks because they aren't famous or don't get published every year or don't win tons of design awards.
While I truly appreciate their artistry, in the context of real life I don't give a hoot in hell for starchitects like Mack Scoggins or Richard Meier or Frank Gehry or Zaha Hadid or the many others celebrated here daily. These people largely are irrelevant to the average citizen, who barely can name an architect other than Frank Lloyd Wright.
In the context of this debate, I stand firmly with Voltaire when he said "The perfect is the enemy of the good" -- our profession's incessant belief that only the "innovative" can be considered "great" injures the entire profession because it devalues the "merely competent" and sends the wrong signals to the broad spectrum of people who hire architects.
You may not give a "hoot in hell" about the work done by architects pushing the envelope. But I do. And your opinion, luckily, is not the only one that matters.
Architecture is diverse. The profession is diverse. As you said, there are many fine professionals doing great work every day.
What you miss is that, although Gehry or Mayne's forms may be innovative and strange, where they're truly revolutionizing is at the level of process and building systems. And SHoP has introduced new models for contracts and financing, becoming business partners on many of their design projects. These are methodologies that many of us could learn from.
The fact that you could give a "hoot in hell" about the work being done by innovators means you probably haven't considered what you can learn from that work, beyond its gestural qualities. I would prefer to learn from everything around me.
pray, please re-read my latest post --- I neither denigrated innovative work nor advocated mediocrity. I merely stated a case suggesting that "revolutionary" thinking is not fundamental to "good" architecture in the real world.
wouldn't the world be a much better place if 95% of the buildings going up truly were "good" -- instead of the current situation where maybe 15% are "really good" or "great" and the rest are considered crap?
yeah, yeah, I know ... we'll never, ever find common ground on the meaning of words like "good" and "great" ... presumably, we can agree on what constitutes "crap".
while i agree that we could all learn from these architects today who are doing revolutionary things
but the idp requirements dont prevent you from studying these people or anything new today. its point is to give you the basic experience in a broad range of categories, in large part to help young architects coming out of school from becoming pigeonholed into being a "renderer" or "model-maker" full time
it allows them to get experience they might not get if they didnt say, oh i need some hours in _____ to help with my IDP stuff
if you work in Ghery's firm, you can fullfil all of your IDP requirements while working on his innovative projects. there is no reason that you couldnt
IDP isnt perfect, but what is it that people want added or taken away from it? its just how the apprenticeship role has evolved. if you dont like it or think it fails, give something that will make it better
i cant think of a category of work or experience that it is missing
let me start counting the ways that IDP 'missing' core architectural practice catagories for the 21st century:
-sustainable design. every intern today should be able to calculate the size of a PC array, calculate the greenhouse gas emissions of a project, find the best building orientation, do daylighting analysis, and spec no VOC ply beyond fulfilling general 'specifications and material research' units. I'm not talking about LEED, but what every architect in the 21st century must know.
-masterplanning. Site analysis & programming doesn't cut it in for pre-design services. if IDP is going to expose an intern to every major facet of practice, then masterplanning is critical.
- technology. this is where I fail to have much interest, but showing a proficiency is advanced computing and fabrication techniques is a key skill. Maybe separate GIS and BIM minimum units are required.
-public speaking. this doesn't have to be a client presentation or public meeting. But getting up in front of an audience and presenting is critical. Crits at school are a fine start, but there is a huge difference between pinning up with no sleep for the final presentation in front of critics and other students, and presenting a professional project to non-professionals.
while we're at it:
-Swinging a hammer or driving a bobcat. CA office and observation only gets you so far. Make interns spend a few hours laying brick, pouring concrete, or framing a roof.
For those of you who think that members of "good" firms don't participate in activities of this nature, the chairman of this committee is the Managing Principal of I.M. Pei's office.
The February 2007 minutes, available at this site, make an interesting read. Take a few minutes to see what these good folks are trying to accomplish when they're not doing their day jobs.
-sustainable design
this one makes sense, and i imagine will be integrated into things, just as sustainable concepts are being integrated into codes
-masterplanning
i would imagine that this falls into site analysis and programming.
we dont need a million different categories when a subject fits in with one currently in place
-technology
this makes sense, but to my knowledge, BIM isnt really a standard in the majority of firms. expecting interns to find a firm that has BIM just to meet this, is very unrealistic. besides, if people have problems getting their firms to participate in IDP to begin with, what do you think will happen when they go to the partner and say, oh i need to work on BIM for my requirements, i know we dont use it here, but can yo get it?
-public speaking
excellent idea, but again, not sure how necessary for basic requirements. this is a skill everyone should have, but i dont know if it falls into the basic requirements.
-actual construction hands on work
again good idea, and this kind of falls into the volunteer work category. a lot of people i know just do something like Habitat for Humanity to fill these hours. how is an architect supposed to sign off on these hours unless he goes to the site with the intern and sees him work? i think it has to fall into that category
a lot of these things you are talking about are good things for architects to learn and know how to do, but to make them part of the IDP requirements seems to make the requirements too specific, and then all of these "alternative" routes will be even harder to come across.
Also take a look at California's Comprehensive IDP PDF requirements that require actual evaluation of an interns work. I also like that the intern has to write up what they learned - this is much more educational then just filling in a time card as NCARB requires.
I wish I could add more to this, but confidentiality agreements as they are. First, design and the innovators we all cite, have nothing to do with being licensed and suggesting they do or should is sidetracking the issue[s]. Second, "Health, Safety and Welfare" and the "Minimally Competent Professional" cannot be over stated enough.
If you were part of what I was part of recently you'd find that, while what certainly makes sense - treekiller's suggestions - is out of the scope of NCARB. If you want to make change, we Alumni of our respective schools needs to force change on the Uni, and NAAB, and perhaps AIA, then and only then will NCARB respond.
Quit complaining and get in the game.
I am now thinking I want to reach to all NJIT Almuni from 1991-2008 and getting them involved in running out the current Dean of the SOA. He's been there for nearly 20 years and has not moved the program forward, and is resistant to new ideas and change.
Please keep in mind the idea that IDP is not intended to produce the "perfect" architect ... it's more about establishing a threshold for the minimum competency required to become a "licensed" architect.
From the NCARB website - note specifically the paragraph below starting "Historically, most interns ...":
"State registration requirements establish the minimum criteria for legally practicing architecture. Currerntly 49 of the Member Boards require participation in IDP for initial registration. Participation in IDP exposes you to the comprehensive training that is essential for competent practice.
IDP Purpose and Objectives
IDP is a profession-wide, comprehensive program that contributes to the development of competent architects who can provide exemplary architectural services.
Historically, most interns were trained by mentors. A daily, working relationship allowed the experienced practitioner to transfer knowledge and skills to the apprentice. However, such a sustained learning environment has become less attainable as architectural practice grew more complex. With the decline of mentorship, interns lack a structured transition between formal education and architectural registration. IDP endeavors to recreate the learning environment.
A comprehensive internship program is necessary to acquire and reinforce the discipline, integrity, judgment, skills, knowledge, and quest for learning that must serve the registered architect for a lifetime. IDP has five objectives:
1. define areas of architectural practice in which interns should acquire basic knowledge and skills;
2. encourage additional training in the broad aspects of
architectural practice;
3. provide the highest quality information and advice about educational, internship and professional issues and opportunities;
4. provide a uniform system for documentation and periodic assessment of internship activity; and
5. provide greater access to educational opportunities designed to enrich training."
again, if IDP hinges on someone's signature, it's still based on the honor system...therefore, I still believe that if someone graduates from an accredited architectural school, works for a set amount of time for an architectural office (say 5years) and passes the ARE's, should be found minimally competent to perform architecture...
i think that when 70% of grads did not pursue licensure, we should all be able to admit that something is wrong (how much IDP plays a role in that number, is debatable...still)
AIA and state boards need to hold firms accountable - it can be done and is done with learning units - it's a matter of accounting. Then and only then will it move from the honor system to something real.
when they say 70% dont pursue a license, that can mean many things
there are several people in my office who dont have their license and they play prominent roles here. one is our main designer, and another is one of our main project manager type guys
you can work and work successfully for a long time without your license. stats like that can be very misleading, and especially towards IDP. i bet most people dont do it because they are too lazy to find any back hours to send in, and then dont feel like or dont have the time to study for the ARE exams. its not a huge priority for some people
"there are several people in my office who dont have their license and they play prominent roles here. one is our main designer, and another is one of our main project manager type guys"
is another sign something is wrong...and i think THAT is a bigger problem than idp
my point was that these people havent gotten their licenses because of various reasons, and none include IDP. IDP is really easy to get complete as long as you work steadily for a couple years.
i dont know if i really see a problem with someone not getting their license. it offers them less flexibility personally, but no one should force people to get their licenses.
"there are several people in my office who dont have their license and they play prominent roles here. one is our main designer, and another is one of our main project manager type guys"
Further proof that IDP means nothing and achieves nothing in the profession. Scrap it. We would do better with a more comprehensive academic degree program instead.
j
I think the content of the IDP is one thing. It's reasonably comprehensive, and deals with most areas required to generate responsible architects (while still missing things such as sustainability and new technology integration, as treekiller says.)
But my real issue with it is that it's both a ham-handed bureaucracy to deal with as an intern architect, and it's amazingly easy to "cheat." All it takes is a friendly boss who doesn't respect the process.
As treekiller mentioned above, the California IDP does at least require accountability in the sense of requiring candidates to write narratives about their work areas and submit samples of work. But this doesn't help the bureaucracy problem.
Maybe we should collectively brainstorm some ways to improve the IDP here.
The first goal, I think, should be to hold employers more accountable for the process—so that they would integrate the unit areas into the workplace more effectively.
joshcookie -
read my post
that doesnt have anything to do with IDP. none of the people i mention didnt pursue their license because of IDP.
its proof of absolutely nothing
if you dont want to do IDP, then dont
dont put words into other peoples mouths
a more comprehensive academic degree program on the other hand, yes that is needed
that first goal is a good one farwest
it might lead to employers taking even less of a role in the whole internship program, since they would get so anal about putting their name on the line with someone else
do people find that its more smaller offices that have problems with helping interns fullfil the IDP req?
i am in a large office now, and they have a program set up where it helps the interns stay on track
i doubt that is the norm though
dammson
i bet there is a good percentage of the grads leaving for other fields. i know of several from my classmates alone
but now you're bolstering the point of my analogy (which was only that - not to say we are literally like either of those professions):
if we put the implementation of idp back on the employers to integrate, what if your firm (and 50% of the practitioners in the u.s. are sole practitioners and 70% have less than 5 employees) simply can't integrate the requirements into their practice model?
this is why i'm arguing for a teaching firm - ally them with a community development group or make them for-profit, but that way instead of having 10,000 institutions who are responsible for thoroughly training interns, we may have 100. it's either that or you have to make the firms become 'registered' or 'certified' providers of idp and pass some kind of test. that firms may have to embrace for market driven reasons, but otherwise there's no mechanism to force firms to implement idp in a structured manner.
dan friedman, dean out at u. washington in seattle, has an alternate plan that fleshes out how to do licensure upon graduation - basically, it involves 8 years in school, a doctorate upon graduation, and 4 semesters of internship regulated by the academy and ncarb together. all other degree paths would be eliminated. i like it as an alternative to the current mishmash we have going...
My experience is that boutique firms are MUCH less likely to willingly participate in IDP. Corporate firms and larger firms typically go with the flow and set a comprehensive program up, monitor employees' progress, are diligent about training units. etc.
What this means is that the IDP privileges corporate or large-firm experience over small firm experience. An unintentional byproduct of the current system.
so the doctorate would basically become the b.arch essentially, if there was nothing else
the downside of this is that you basically better decide to be an architect right out of school, otherwise you are looking at a serious setback to your career
during my m.arch, there were several people who switched from other fields
this wouldnt have happened if they had to go through 10 years of stuff
interesting concept of the internships being regulated though
basically they could make it a PR nightmare for firms to not participate, which would force the firms to get in line
i like that part of it
Marm-
Didn't mean to put words in your mouth, my apologies.
I was reading your quote as you having competent people practicing within the architecture field with really no pre-requisites at all, no IDP, no license... Once again, sorry, that was how I read it.
I think the idea of a formal internship is antiquated and of little use in modern practice. The reason why IDP doesn't include sustainability and BIM type technologies is because the interns would need to be the one mentoring such subject. In my experience, that has been what I have done, having a Masters with a focus on energy/sustainable design using BIM technology puts me in the teaching position at work more often than the learning position.
I think the best internships are informal and driven by the learner. Although I found a way around the IDP process, I still learned all of the necessary concepts to be minimally competent in protecting the health and safety of the public while studying for the ARE.
I'll butcher Akum's razor on this, " given equal outcomes, the simplest process is best"
j
Oy. I would have dropped out of architecture long ago if either Friedman's proposal or your "teaching firm" proposal were implemented. And I bet lots of good architects would have dropped out.
We're not lawyers or doctors, folks. We're creative professionals. We need a system that more effectively monitors the work we do, WITH FLEXIBILITY and allowing for the unique and diverse ways people practice.
michigan doesn't have its own idp requirements, it's through ncarb like everywhere else. i hate to say it dude, but the fact you can't work on your own or on contract time is pretty much common knowledge.
josh
"I was reading your quote as you having competent people practicing within the architecture field with really no pre-requisites at all, no IDP, no license..."
that is what i was saying. my point was that that has no correlation at all to IDP meaning nothing and achieving nothing in the profession. its certainly not proof of that
people need to be self-sufficient in their careers. IDP will not do everything for you, neither will the ARE's. they are just baseline standards, which, if that is all you know or do, then you really wont be a good architect. you need to have some ambition and desire to learn things, as you do with any career choice. but there really isnt a reason that architects need to have their hands held every step of the way. IDP certainly doesnt do that, and really shouldnt
farwest
i agree. it should be optional at most, and could be helpful to some people, but there isnt a reason why it needs to be required by everyone. it could be good for someone coming directly out of school or someone looking for their first job while in school. they can make sure they dont get stuck being solely a renderer
hmmm, maybe the insurance companies can institute change the system. It seems to be in their interest to have the most competent and well trained architects/interns working on each project to minimize liability and e&o claims. So what if they start charging more for firms that have low IDP participation rate and lots of unlicensed para-professional doing most of the work?
Not that we want the insurance companies running the profession, but they might have higher standards then state boards or be in a position to leverage change for the better.
Beta-
if protecting the HSW of the public is the reason why architects have to be licensed, then how can NCARB abdicate on being responsible for ensuring that interns learn this stuff in IDP???
just find a state that don't use the idp. get a po box there and a vonage phone number with that area code. go down and get a drivers license there if need be and take the tests. its not rocket science.
Actually, I can't get into specifics, but let me say there is 3 types of "knowledge" that NCARB uses to evaluate "Minimally Competent Professionals," and certain things fall into certain categories. We don't ask interns to understand the inner workings of every M+E system, we ask that they understand certain things about said systems. It goes from the understanding of what they "should" know to what they "would" know based on the nature of typical office experience.
beta -- it's refreshing to see someone who doesn't just carp irresponsibly from the sidelines, but who actually invests something of himself to improve the conditions of professional practice for all.
It's sad that an institution responsible for the PUBLIC welfare is so secretive that it won't release what it finds to be the most important types of knowledge for an architect to have. let's have a little more transparency on these issues, before someone tries to do a South Africa on us all...
Best of luck beta.
jc ... the NCARB website provides extensive guidance about its current thinking on the kinds of knowlege important to the effective practice of architecture. Additionally, AIA and NCARB publish (for free) the The Emerging Professional's Companion which supplements the NCARB website.
I'm pretty sure beta's referring to a "work in progress" that's still under discussion and development ... sometimes, releasing such information before it's cooked creates many more problems than it solves. I'm sure NCARB will make this work available for public review and comment before it is finalized.
Sometimes a little research totally negates the knee jerk reactions and conspiracy theories seemingly so prevalent here.
yes beta, you should reveal every single thing you have ever heard regarding NCARB regardless of any sort of personal consequences to yourself
didnt you hear? joshcookie doesnt like NCARB and needs some reassurance that they arent trying to screw over every architect in the country. so its up to everyone else to make him feel better
no one is trying to "do anything" to you or anyone here joshcookie
can there ever be a discussion on these boards that doesnt turn into a complete architect bitchfest? the way people talk around here you would think architect's make zero money and have to go to hell and back to get their license. when in actuality all you have to do is work for a couple of years and get some forms filled out
As I said before: Maybe we should collectively brainstorm some ways to improve the IDP here, instead of simply complaining (though complaining is fun too!)
Obviously there are people involved in the process who are listening and who might be receptive.
All right, I'll minimize my complaining (with a title like "IDP SUCK ..." you would think it is all you reasonable people hijacking our Bitchfest).
How about IDP focusing on competency instead of duration? Some people will take 500 hours to learn XYZ while others will take 1000 hrs or even just 10 hrs. CIDP requires both, fulfill the hours and then prove you know what you are doing. Can we accept proof of competency in lieu of a set duration?
that's a good point, joshcookie. i've learned a ton in idp, but i'm not sure it can be quanitfied so easily in credits and categories. i think this is where a lot of the right brain types really have a problem with idp. it's overly bureaucratic from its conception to its management. it was definitely developed by people who see the world in checklists. certainly these organizational skills are worth having and a trait that the idp process teaches an intern in spades, but at the same time, it makes the profession stiff and dogmatic. quite honestly, for me, it's taken a lot of the creative joy out of architecture; i'm beginning to see the world in checklists too. unfortunately i don't have a solution, and i'm grinding it out like everyone else who wants to become an architect.
jc, competency IS focused on, the exams TEST competency.
Keep in mind NCARB represents state architectural boards, and provides a test for and based on certain national standards - i think - although some states obviously stipulate or require other "tests" or req's in order to get a license.
I'll say it again, and hopefully for the last time; get involved, even if minimally, volunteer when NCARB asks, go and do the pretesting and writing of the exams - they are not asking you to suspend your Gehry-like ability - and when you understand the process, do something about. The people there are the people in charge at NCARB, so shiite gets done.
So the purpose of IDP is experience for experiences sake. Great...
I am pretty well versed in the history of NCARB and IDP. The tests are not based on national standards so much as national surveys of professionals and others (if you want to call that a standard, fine I wont argue that point much). California states that there are 33 areas of core competency that need to be addressed to meet minimum safety to the public as an architect, as established in its regular surveys of the professionals in California. It believes that the ARE addresses 11 of those sufficiently. Thus the reason why in California we also take an oral exam to test us in the other 22 areas of core competency.
I studied the different internship routes before deciding to find a way to get my experience under the old system. I looked at the studies of Beth Quinn. As far as I know they are the only ones to really compare IDP to a traditional unstructured internship. What do they recommend, I bet you can't guess.
The discussion under the structural limitations of the profession and her conclusions are revealing and virtually ignored. 5 years on, and if anyone suggests that we scrap IDP, they are having a bitchfest or are "knee jerking". IDP isn't just an inconvenience, its built upon the dubious assumption that the profession can support an effective structured internship.
If someone can prove competency by exam, why does it matter how long they have been in the field? If the tests really do establish minimum competency to practice architecture, anyone who can pass the test should be able to practice architecture. Until IDP or any other internship can be linked to actually establishing some core competency it will still be nothing more than experience for experience sake.
You don't have to join the army to argue for peace, and you don't have to volunteer for NCARB to question the need for IDP.
In my unreasonable ranting, knee jerk, bitchfest opinion, that is.
j
you dont pass anything after IDP, it isnt a testing board, and i dont think is meant to be
that is what the ARE's are for. you prove you learned everything you should have from your IDP hours and requirements by PASSING the test. if you dont pass, you know you didnt learn everything you should. that is how it is linked to core competancy
if you dont pass the ARE's, you didnt learn what you should.
we arent in school anymore, there doesnt need to be a teacher holding our hands before we take the ARE's.
The AIA is who's license you get. Why is it a problem for them to say, we want people to have this minimum level of experience before granting them a license? Just because you dont agree with that, doesnt mean you are right. It's not your license to give out.
and seriously, you can practice architecture, lets not make it out like you are stuck in a hole until your 3 years internship is done
"Until IDP or any other internship can be linked to actually establishing some core competency it will still be nothing more than experience for experience sake."
are you seriously trying to say that working in the areas required for IDP doesnt give you core competancy?
how else do you get competant besides working?
i'd love to hear how
idp sucks @#$%^
I just re-read quizzical's post.
I've talked to many older architects who hate what the AIA and NCARB have done to the profession. Why would they want to get involved in a painfully stifling bureaucracy that they rarely have to deal with except when they pay their dues?
Many of these older architects much preferred the old system: school, apprenticeship, and then test. They think the IDP is a joke. I think that's why we don't see more support from the profession ("us")—they didn't ask for it, they think that IDP is inadequate, unnecessary, and a nuisance.
I don't think the old pre-IDP system was that bad. What needs more improvement and monitoring, in my mind, is our educational system. In grad school, I was never required to draw a detail, yet I spent an entire semester in one studio reading Deleuze and making stringy anti-gravity blobs in Maya.
what are some things they think are lacking from IDP? because the list seems to me like an extensive set of fundamental skills...
farwest - who do you think makes up the AIA and NCARB?
"they" are "us" - and those among us who pay attention and participate as volunteer leaders are the ones who shape our profession's future, for good or for ill.
those "many older architects" you cite remind me of those many citizens who never vote and then complain bitterly about the government they've got.
maybe they didn't "ask for" IDP, but I remember when it came into being and there was a long, public, open process that led to what we have today -- those "many older architects" had their chance to shape (or even stop) the evolution of internship but probably were too damn busy with their "art" to give a sh*t about what was happening in their own profession.
however, I do agree with you about the educational system -- the schools have little to no understanding of what practice requires and they don't really care how the inadequacies of their curriculum negatively impacts their graduates, or those graduates' employers.
I'm not saying I'm in agreement with these older architects. I'm just reporting on what I've heard. I've had three employers in the last five years who were over fifty, and all of them largely see the AIA and NCARB as a nuisance that gets in the way of their "art"--at least until it gives them an award, or they need a standardized contract or some such.
I don't think it's the AIA, though, that's shaping our profession's future. I think the AIA is scrambling to keep up with where our profession is going. Many architects like having the AIA after their names, but not enough of them participate, because they don't necessarily see what the AIA can do for them.
My fear is that the best people in our profession, the ones who are doing the most revolutionary work from a design, process, and contract standpoint, are not the ones involved in the AIA. I could be wrong, but I don't see Gehry, Mayne, SHoP, and their younger compatriots being that involved.
Ironically, I worked for one corporate firm straight out of school that did very bland, beige work. And all of the partners were heavily involved in the AIA.
The AIA, for better or for worse, has a staid image. And architecture is not a staid profession—it's filled with people with funky eyeglasses who listen to weird electronica.
How do funky eyeglasses and listening to weird electronica result in revolutionary work? That in itself is a stereotype, in my mind, with implications as far reaching as a suit and tie. If you are really going to be revolutionary then you need to take the field head on. No license. No IDP. No internship. Do it really different.
If you are still going to go through the whole process, IDP, Exam,
License, and then call your self revolutionary because you wear funky eyeglasses and listen to electronica, that's a joke.
What has SHoP done that is revolutionary? I would argue nothing. I would argue that they have helped the profession evolve. The all went through the process, got their license and have begun to change the industry as insiders, evolution.
And what is the deal with comparing Architecture to Law and Medicine. Please, do me a favor, and get an identity. Maybe the public doesn't understand the value of Architecture because we can't even tell them what it is.
IDP is a huge waste of time. One of the greatest skills I believed in when studying Architecture was that of the Architect's ability to cross fields and bring huge amounts of information and people together. IDP generally does not encourage this or allow it to happen. IDP further reinforces the idea that the Architect is an island and must document his ability to learn from another.
how is not doing anything revolutionary? anyone can not do anything. it doesn't take much to break rules.
farwest, i think those 50 year old bosses don't have 'art' to begin with and just want to blame their lack of 'art' in something.
you can still cross fields and bring huge amounts of information and people together with or without idp...
farwest - "the best people in our profession, the ones who are doing the most revolutionary work from a design, process, and contract standpoint" -- I think it a huge stretch, and an insult to many fine professionals, to suggest that one must be "revolutionary" to be considered "the best people in our profession"
every field of endeavor has a few "stars" who head down their own path and pave new ground -- that's both fine and admirable. however, every profession relies on a vast army of highly competent individuals who every day do good solid work, serve their clients well, and represent their profession with honor and integrity.
construction is a huge sector of our economy -- there are many really good people working hard every day to do their jobs well and to provide their clients a much needed service and to improve their competence from one week to the next. too often here, posters look down their noses at these folks because they aren't famous or don't get published every year or don't win tons of design awards.
While I truly appreciate their artistry, in the context of real life I don't give a hoot in hell for starchitects like Mack Scoggins or Richard Meier or Frank Gehry or Zaha Hadid or the many others celebrated here daily. These people largely are irrelevant to the average citizen, who barely can name an architect other than Frank Lloyd Wright.
In the context of this debate, I stand firmly with Voltaire when he said "The perfect is the enemy of the good" -- our profession's incessant belief that only the "innovative" can be considered "great" injures the entire profession because it devalues the "merely competent" and sends the wrong signals to the broad spectrum of people who hire architects.
You may not give a "hoot in hell" about the work done by architects pushing the envelope. But I do. And your opinion, luckily, is not the only one that matters.
Architecture is diverse. The profession is diverse. As you said, there are many fine professionals doing great work every day.
What you miss is that, although Gehry or Mayne's forms may be innovative and strange, where they're truly revolutionizing is at the level of process and building systems. And SHoP has introduced new models for contracts and financing, becoming business partners on many of their design projects. These are methodologies that many of us could learn from.
The fact that you could give a "hoot in hell" about the work being done by innovators means you probably haven't considered what you can learn from that work, beyond its gestural qualities. I would prefer to learn from everything around me.
I am with fw on this one. "Normal" or mediocre does not equal "great" simply due to number.
pray, please re-read my latest post --- I neither denigrated innovative work nor advocated mediocrity. I merely stated a case suggesting that "revolutionary" thinking is not fundamental to "good" architecture in the real world.
wouldn't the world be a much better place if 95% of the buildings going up truly were "good" -- instead of the current situation where maybe 15% are "really good" or "great" and the rest are considered crap?
yeah, yeah, I know ... we'll never, ever find common ground on the meaning of words like "good" and "great" ... presumably, we can agree on what constitutes "crap".
while i agree that we could all learn from these architects today who are doing revolutionary things
but the idp requirements dont prevent you from studying these people or anything new today. its point is to give you the basic experience in a broad range of categories, in large part to help young architects coming out of school from becoming pigeonholed into being a "renderer" or "model-maker" full time
it allows them to get experience they might not get if they didnt say, oh i need some hours in _____ to help with my IDP stuff
if you work in Ghery's firm, you can fullfil all of your IDP requirements while working on his innovative projects. there is no reason that you couldnt
IDP isnt perfect, but what is it that people want added or taken away from it? its just how the apprenticeship role has evolved. if you dont like it or think it fails, give something that will make it better
i cant think of a category of work or experience that it is missing
marm-
let me start counting the ways that IDP 'missing' core architectural practice catagories for the 21st century:
-sustainable design. every intern today should be able to calculate the size of a PC array, calculate the greenhouse gas emissions of a project, find the best building orientation, do daylighting analysis, and spec no VOC ply beyond fulfilling general 'specifications and material research' units. I'm not talking about LEED, but what every architect in the 21st century must know.
-masterplanning. Site analysis & programming doesn't cut it in for pre-design services. if IDP is going to expose an intern to every major facet of practice, then masterplanning is critical.
- technology. this is where I fail to have much interest, but showing a proficiency is advanced computing and fabrication techniques is a key skill. Maybe separate GIS and BIM minimum units are required.
-public speaking. this doesn't have to be a client presentation or public meeting. But getting up in front of an audience and presenting is critical. Crits at school are a fine start, but there is a huge difference between pinning up with no sleep for the final presentation in front of critics and other students, and presenting a professional project to non-professionals.
while we're at it:
-Swinging a hammer or driving a bobcat. CA office and observation only gets you so far. Make interns spend a few hours laying brick, pouring concrete, or framing a roof.
For those of you who think that members of "good" firms don't participate in activities of this nature, the chairman of this committee is the Managing Principal of I.M. Pei's office.
The February 2007 minutes, available at this site, make an interesting read. Take a few minutes to see what these good folks are trying to accomplish when they're not doing their day jobs.
i see what you're saying treekiller
-sustainable design
this one makes sense, and i imagine will be integrated into things, just as sustainable concepts are being integrated into codes
-masterplanning
i would imagine that this falls into site analysis and programming.
we dont need a million different categories when a subject fits in with one currently in place
-technology
this makes sense, but to my knowledge, BIM isnt really a standard in the majority of firms. expecting interns to find a firm that has BIM just to meet this, is very unrealistic. besides, if people have problems getting their firms to participate in IDP to begin with, what do you think will happen when they go to the partner and say, oh i need to work on BIM for my requirements, i know we dont use it here, but can yo get it?
-public speaking
excellent idea, but again, not sure how necessary for basic requirements. this is a skill everyone should have, but i dont know if it falls into the basic requirements.
-actual construction hands on work
again good idea, and this kind of falls into the volunteer work category. a lot of people i know just do something like Habitat for Humanity to fill these hours. how is an architect supposed to sign off on these hours unless he goes to the site with the intern and sees him work? i think it has to fall into that category
a lot of these things you are talking about are good things for architects to learn and know how to do, but to make them part of the IDP requirements seems to make the requirements too specific, and then all of these "alternative" routes will be even harder to come across.
Also take a look at California's Comprehensive IDP PDF requirements that require actual evaluation of an interns work. I also like that the intern has to write up what they learned - this is much more educational then just filling in a time card as NCARB requires.
I wish I could add more to this, but confidentiality agreements as they are. First, design and the innovators we all cite, have nothing to do with being licensed and suggesting they do or should is sidetracking the issue[s]. Second, "Health, Safety and Welfare" and the "Minimally Competent Professional" cannot be over stated enough.
If you were part of what I was part of recently you'd find that, while what certainly makes sense - treekiller's suggestions - is out of the scope of NCARB. If you want to make change, we Alumni of our respective schools needs to force change on the Uni, and NAAB, and perhaps AIA, then and only then will NCARB respond.
Quit complaining and get in the game.
I am now thinking I want to reach to all NJIT Almuni from 1991-2008 and getting them involved in running out the current Dean of the SOA. He's been there for nearly 20 years and has not moved the program forward, and is resistant to new ideas and change.
Please keep in mind the idea that IDP is not intended to produce the "perfect" architect ... it's more about establishing a threshold for the minimum competency required to become a "licensed" architect.
From the NCARB website - note specifically the paragraph below starting "Historically, most interns ...":
"State registration requirements establish the minimum criteria for legally practicing architecture. Currerntly 49 of the Member Boards require participation in IDP for initial registration. Participation in IDP exposes you to the comprehensive training that is essential for competent practice.
IDP Purpose and Objectives
IDP is a profession-wide, comprehensive program that contributes to the development of competent architects who can provide exemplary architectural services.
Historically, most interns were trained by mentors. A daily, working relationship allowed the experienced practitioner to transfer knowledge and skills to the apprentice. However, such a sustained learning environment has become less attainable as architectural practice grew more complex. With the decline of mentorship, interns lack a structured transition between formal education and architectural registration. IDP endeavors to recreate the learning environment.
A comprehensive internship program is necessary to acquire and reinforce the discipline, integrity, judgment, skills, knowledge, and quest for learning that must serve the registered architect for a lifetime. IDP has five objectives:
1. define areas of architectural practice in which interns should acquire basic knowledge and skills;
2. encourage additional training in the broad aspects of
architectural practice;
3. provide the highest quality information and advice about educational, internship and professional issues and opportunities;
4. provide a uniform system for documentation and periodic assessment of internship activity; and
5. provide greater access to educational opportunities designed to enrich training."
again, if IDP hinges on someone's signature, it's still based on the honor system...therefore, I still believe that if someone graduates from an accredited architectural school, works for a set amount of time for an architectural office (say 5years) and passes the ARE's, should be found minimally competent to perform architecture...
i think that when 70% of grads did not pursue licensure, we should all be able to admit that something is wrong (how much IDP plays a role in that number, is debatable...still)
AIA and state boards need to hold firms accountable - it can be done and is done with learning units - it's a matter of accounting. Then and only then will it move from the honor system to something real.
when they say 70% dont pursue a license, that can mean many things
there are several people in my office who dont have their license and they play prominent roles here. one is our main designer, and another is one of our main project manager type guys
you can work and work successfully for a long time without your license. stats like that can be very misleading, and especially towards IDP. i bet most people dont do it because they are too lazy to find any back hours to send in, and then dont feel like or dont have the time to study for the ARE exams. its not a huge priority for some people
marmkid...
"there are several people in my office who dont have their license and they play prominent roles here. one is our main designer, and another is one of our main project manager type guys"
is another sign something is wrong...and i think THAT is a bigger problem than idp
my point was that these people havent gotten their licenses because of various reasons, and none include IDP. IDP is really easy to get complete as long as you work steadily for a couple years.
i dont know if i really see a problem with someone not getting their license. it offers them less flexibility personally, but no one should force people to get their licenses.
why is that a big problem simples?
marmkid...
"there are several people in my office who dont have their license and they play prominent roles here. one is our main designer, and another is one of our main project manager type guys"
Further proof that IDP means nothing and achieves nothing in the profession. Scrap it. We would do better with a more comprehensive academic degree program instead.
j
I think the content of the IDP is one thing. It's reasonably comprehensive, and deals with most areas required to generate responsible architects (while still missing things such as sustainability and new technology integration, as treekiller says.)
But my real issue with it is that it's both a ham-handed bureaucracy to deal with as an intern architect, and it's amazingly easy to "cheat." All it takes is a friendly boss who doesn't respect the process.
As treekiller mentioned above, the California IDP does at least require accountability in the sense of requiring candidates to write narratives about their work areas and submit samples of work. But this doesn't help the bureaucracy problem.
Maybe we should collectively brainstorm some ways to improve the IDP here.
The first goal, I think, should be to hold employers more accountable for the process—so that they would integrate the unit areas into the workplace more effectively.
joshcookie -
read my post
that doesnt have anything to do with IDP. none of the people i mention didnt pursue their license because of IDP.
its proof of absolutely nothing
if you dont want to do IDP, then dont
dont put words into other peoples mouths
a more comprehensive academic degree program on the other hand, yes that is needed
how much of that 70% are grads leaving architecture and pursuing other [design] fields?
that first goal is a good one farwest
it might lead to employers taking even less of a role in the whole internship program, since they would get so anal about putting their name on the line with someone else
do people find that its more smaller offices that have problems with helping interns fullfil the IDP req?
i am in a large office now, and they have a program set up where it helps the interns stay on track
i doubt that is the norm though
dammson
i bet there is a good percentage of the grads leaving for other fields. i know of several from my classmates alone
farwest -
but now you're bolstering the point of my analogy (which was only that - not to say we are literally like either of those professions):
if we put the implementation of idp back on the employers to integrate, what if your firm (and 50% of the practitioners in the u.s. are sole practitioners and 70% have less than 5 employees) simply can't integrate the requirements into their practice model?
this is why i'm arguing for a teaching firm - ally them with a community development group or make them for-profit, but that way instead of having 10,000 institutions who are responsible for thoroughly training interns, we may have 100. it's either that or you have to make the firms become 'registered' or 'certified' providers of idp and pass some kind of test. that firms may have to embrace for market driven reasons, but otherwise there's no mechanism to force firms to implement idp in a structured manner.
dan friedman, dean out at u. washington in seattle, has an alternate plan that fleshes out how to do licensure upon graduation - basically, it involves 8 years in school, a doctorate upon graduation, and 4 semesters of internship regulated by the academy and ncarb together. all other degree paths would be eliminated. i like it as an alternative to the current mishmash we have going...
My experience is that boutique firms are MUCH less likely to willingly participate in IDP. Corporate firms and larger firms typically go with the flow and set a comprehensive program up, monitor employees' progress, are diligent about training units. etc.
What this means is that the IDP privileges corporate or large-firm experience over small firm experience. An unintentional byproduct of the current system.
thats an interesting proposal from friedman, laru
so the doctorate would basically become the b.arch essentially, if there was nothing else
the downside of this is that you basically better decide to be an architect right out of school, otherwise you are looking at a serious setback to your career
during my m.arch, there were several people who switched from other fields
this wouldnt have happened if they had to go through 10 years of stuff
interesting concept of the internships being regulated though
basically they could make it a PR nightmare for firms to not participate, which would force the firms to get in line
i like that part of it
Marm-
Didn't mean to put words in your mouth, my apologies.
I was reading your quote as you having competent people practicing within the architecture field with really no pre-requisites at all, no IDP, no license... Once again, sorry, that was how I read it.
I think the idea of a formal internship is antiquated and of little use in modern practice. The reason why IDP doesn't include sustainability and BIM type technologies is because the interns would need to be the one mentoring such subject. In my experience, that has been what I have done, having a Masters with a focus on energy/sustainable design using BIM technology puts me in the teaching position at work more often than the learning position.
I think the best internships are informal and driven by the learner. Although I found a way around the IDP process, I still learned all of the necessary concepts to be minimally competent in protecting the health and safety of the public while studying for the ARE.
I'll butcher Akum's razor on this, " given equal outcomes, the simplest process is best"
j
Oy. I would have dropped out of architecture long ago if either Friedman's proposal or your "teaching firm" proposal were implemented. And I bet lots of good architects would have dropped out.
We're not lawyers or doctors, folks. We're creative professionals. We need a system that more effectively monitors the work we do, WITH FLEXIBILITY and allowing for the unique and diverse ways people practice.
michigan doesn't have its own idp requirements, it's through ncarb like everywhere else. i hate to say it dude, but the fact you can't work on your own or on contract time is pretty much common knowledge.
josh
"I was reading your quote as you having competent people practicing within the architecture field with really no pre-requisites at all, no IDP, no license..."
that is what i was saying. my point was that that has no correlation at all to IDP meaning nothing and achieving nothing in the profession. its certainly not proof of that
people need to be self-sufficient in their careers. IDP will not do everything for you, neither will the ARE's. they are just baseline standards, which, if that is all you know or do, then you really wont be a good architect. you need to have some ambition and desire to learn things, as you do with any career choice. but there really isnt a reason that architects need to have their hands held every step of the way. IDP certainly doesnt do that, and really shouldnt
farwest
i agree. it should be optional at most, and could be helpful to some people, but there isnt a reason why it needs to be required by everyone. it could be good for someone coming directly out of school or someone looking for their first job while in school. they can make sure they dont get stuck being solely a renderer
hmmm, maybe the insurance companies can institute change the system. It seems to be in their interest to have the most competent and well trained architects/interns working on each project to minimize liability and e&o claims. So what if they start charging more for firms that have low IDP participation rate and lots of unlicensed para-professional doing most of the work?
Not that we want the insurance companies running the profession, but they might have higher standards then state boards or be in a position to leverage change for the better.
Beta-
if protecting the HSW of the public is the reason why architects have to be licensed, then how can NCARB abdicate on being responsible for ensuring that interns learn this stuff in IDP???
just find a state that don't use the idp. get a po box there and a vonage phone number with that area code. go down and get a drivers license there if need be and take the tests. its not rocket science.
Actually, I can't get into specifics, but let me say there is 3 types of "knowledge" that NCARB uses to evaluate "Minimally Competent Professionals," and certain things fall into certain categories. We don't ask interns to understand the inner workings of every M+E system, we ask that they understand certain things about said systems. It goes from the understanding of what they "should" know to what they "would" know based on the nature of typical office experience.
beta- you were more fun before you sold your soul to NCARB and started wearing that ball gag on this topic all the time...
beta -- it's refreshing to see someone who doesn't just carp irresponsibly from the sidelines, but who actually invests something of himself to improve the conditions of professional practice for all.
congratulations!
It's sad that an institution responsible for the PUBLIC welfare is so secretive that it won't release what it finds to be the most important types of knowledge for an architect to have. let's have a little more transparency on these issues, before someone tries to do a South Africa on us all...
Best of luck beta.
jc ... the NCARB website provides extensive guidance about its current thinking on the kinds of knowlege important to the effective practice of architecture. Additionally, AIA and NCARB publish (for free) the The Emerging Professional's Companion which supplements the NCARB website.
I'm pretty sure beta's referring to a "work in progress" that's still under discussion and development ... sometimes, releasing such information before it's cooked creates many more problems than it solves. I'm sure NCARB will make this work available for public review and comment before it is finalized.
Sometimes a little research totally negates the knee jerk reactions and conspiracy theories seemingly so prevalent here.
yes beta, you should reveal every single thing you have ever heard regarding NCARB regardless of any sort of personal consequences to yourself
didnt you hear? joshcookie doesnt like NCARB and needs some reassurance that they arent trying to screw over every architect in the country. so its up to everyone else to make him feel better
no one is trying to "do anything" to you or anyone here joshcookie
can there ever be a discussion on these boards that doesnt turn into a complete architect bitchfest? the way people talk around here you would think architect's make zero money and have to go to hell and back to get their license. when in actuality all you have to do is work for a couple of years and get some forms filled out
As I said before: Maybe we should collectively brainstorm some ways to improve the IDP here, instead of simply complaining (though complaining is fun too!)
Obviously there are people involved in the process who are listening and who might be receptive.
All right, I'll minimize my complaining (with a title like "IDP SUCK ..." you would think it is all you reasonable people hijacking our Bitchfest).
How about IDP focusing on competency instead of duration? Some people will take 500 hours to learn XYZ while others will take 1000 hrs or even just 10 hrs. CIDP requires both, fulfill the hours and then prove you know what you are doing. Can we accept proof of competency in lieu of a set duration?
j
that's a good point, joshcookie. i've learned a ton in idp, but i'm not sure it can be quanitfied so easily in credits and categories. i think this is where a lot of the right brain types really have a problem with idp. it's overly bureaucratic from its conception to its management. it was definitely developed by people who see the world in checklists. certainly these organizational skills are worth having and a trait that the idp process teaches an intern in spades, but at the same time, it makes the profession stiff and dogmatic. quite honestly, for me, it's taken a lot of the creative joy out of architecture; i'm beginning to see the world in checklists too. unfortunately i don't have a solution, and i'm grinding it out like everyone else who wants to become an architect.
jc, competency IS focused on, the exams TEST competency.
Keep in mind NCARB represents state architectural boards, and provides a test for and based on certain national standards - i think - although some states obviously stipulate or require other "tests" or req's in order to get a license.
I'll say it again, and hopefully for the last time; get involved, even if minimally, volunteer when NCARB asks, go and do the pretesting and writing of the exams - they are not asking you to suspend your Gehry-like ability - and when you understand the process, do something about. The people there are the people in charge at NCARB, so shiite gets done.
"idp sucks @#$%^" -- True that!
So the purpose of IDP is experience for experiences sake. Great...
I am pretty well versed in the history of NCARB and IDP. The tests are not based on national standards so much as national surveys of professionals and others (if you want to call that a standard, fine I wont argue that point much). California states that there are 33 areas of core competency that need to be addressed to meet minimum safety to the public as an architect, as established in its regular surveys of the professionals in California. It believes that the ARE addresses 11 of those sufficiently. Thus the reason why in California we also take an oral exam to test us in the other 22 areas of core competency.
I studied the different internship routes before deciding to find a way to get my experience under the old system. I looked at the studies of Beth Quinn. As far as I know they are the only ones to really compare IDP to a traditional unstructured internship. What do they recommend, I bet you can't guess.
The discussion under the structural limitations of the profession and her conclusions are revealing and virtually ignored. 5 years on, and if anyone suggests that we scrap IDP, they are having a bitchfest or are "knee jerking". IDP isn't just an inconvenience, its built upon the dubious assumption that the profession can support an effective structured internship.
If someone can prove competency by exam, why does it matter how long they have been in the field? If the tests really do establish minimum competency to practice architecture, anyone who can pass the test should be able to practice architecture. Until IDP or any other internship can be linked to actually establishing some core competency it will still be nothing more than experience for experience sake.
You don't have to join the army to argue for peace, and you don't have to volunteer for NCARB to question the need for IDP.
In my unreasonable ranting, knee jerk, bitchfest opinion, that is.
j
you dont pass anything after IDP, it isnt a testing board, and i dont think is meant to be
that is what the ARE's are for. you prove you learned everything you should have from your IDP hours and requirements by PASSING the test. if you dont pass, you know you didnt learn everything you should. that is how it is linked to core competancy
if you dont pass the ARE's, you didnt learn what you should.
we arent in school anymore, there doesnt need to be a teacher holding our hands before we take the ARE's.
The AIA is who's license you get. Why is it a problem for them to say, we want people to have this minimum level of experience before granting them a license? Just because you dont agree with that, doesnt mean you are right. It's not your license to give out.
and seriously, you can practice architecture, lets not make it out like you are stuck in a hole until your 3 years internship is done
"Until IDP or any other internship can be linked to actually establishing some core competency it will still be nothing more than experience for experience sake."
are you seriously trying to say that working in the areas required for IDP doesnt give you core competancy?
how else do you get competant besides working?
i'd love to hear how
-- my god, you are clueless!
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.