Thanks a lot. this is a good framing. I hadn't thought of it this way. 2 to 4 years is very close, but 10 years vs 20 years creates an entirely different set of variables to consider.

Disagree; You have to know a lot of stuff in a pretty broad range of roles. The IDP is also set up so you have to do more than sit drafting details. And that's all setup by the school accrediation that also requires a lot more education than just studio. Essentially, the systems in place to become a architect are setup to give you a broad range of practical experience to avoid creating architects who can only design ANSI compliant bathrooms. They try to give that quality by forcing you to be educated and have work experience outside just a drafting station. I will agree the time you spent doing something like contracts would be subjective to how in-depth that experience was... but at least we have it.

sorry- very much disagree. Are you telling me that if an intern does photoshop work on a presentation related to programming, that intern can't just log his hours under programming? He/she isn't ACTUALLY doing programming. So please: the system only works if the supervisors take it seriously, and half the time, office politics comes into play because the supervisors don't wan't to be the asshole who doesnt apprrove someone's hours.

Such a good point. BBlogger I like the bit about practicing without liability particularly. And you're spot on with AXP, depending on the individual signing off on the hours, candidates can receive credit for areas for time spent, but not necessarily an adequately robust depth of experience.

From the AXP supervisor point of view: these days there isn't really any particular way for the supervisor to "take it seriously" or not. When I first started supervising people the forms were 4 pages long, with much finer break-downs of experience categories and sub-categories, and a page for the supervisor to grade the candidate in several different areas. But as of about 10 years ago we no longer get a breakdown of hours per task - it went from that 4-page report down to just one dumbed-down screen: it just provides an hours total per category for that reporting period, with no other info at all. The only thing I can really do is check it against employees' time sheets and see if it roughly jives. There are also no grades/ratings anymore - the only choices for the supervisor are: approve the form as submitted; return it to the candidate for changes; or reject the hours.  Often candidates don't even report a lot of their experience until after they're no longer working in our firm, especially when they were summer interns or 1-semester co-op students.  Often they're no longer even local, so it's not as if there's any opportunity to review it with them in-person.  Basically the NCARB system sends an automatic email, and subsequent reminders, until I push one of the three buttons.

no one (not even you it seems, since you never make any meaningful progress) cares about your epic quest for licensure, balkins.

You're talking about a long time ago vs. now. I'm not talking about pre-internet Excel-spreadsheet era IDP, or the time before IDP. I'm talking about the IDP/AXP supervisor's experience in the fairly recent past (say 10 years ago) vs. now. 

When I was first supervising candidates, in the 10-20 years ago timeframe, the online reports were far more detailed in their breakdown of hours, and required the supervisor to individually assess each task. What I'm saying is that in the last few years the NCARB supervisor's interface has been seriously dumbed down. We're no longer grading/rating anything, and we aren't approving individual tasks anymore. Example: in the "old days" if an intern had submitted 30 hours for construction documents and 5 hours for field observation, but I knew he hadn't actually done any field observation, I could reject those five hours individually. And if an intern had done unsatisfactory work in some categories I could grade it that way - and in theory if someone got a lot of low ratings then NCARB could/would require additional documentation or possibly more experience.

It doesn't let us do any of that anymore - we're can't reject portions of hours on a report or grade them unsatisfactory anymore. We only have ONE button push per entire report now: approve, return to candidate for changes, or reject. Basically if I want to reject the 5 hours of field experience I have to reject the entire report. There's just not really any opportunity for the supervisor to do this process "seriously" or not.  Either I push the approve button or I don't - that's pretty much all it boils down to, particularly when the experience reports aren't even submitted until after someone isn't working here anymore.  

To bring this back to the OP's question and away from the Rick Show: for employment purposes, experience is subjective. Nobody is likely to look at the resumes of the person with 2 years of experience and the person with 4, and summarily reject either one based on years of experience alone. There are far too many other factors. An employer may advertise a job saying "3-5 years of experience" as a general idea of what they think they're looking for, but they're almost certainly not going to throw your resume away without evaluating it just because you only have 2 years of experience. 

For NCARB IDP/AXP purposes experience is more quantifiable by years and training units.  If you want your supervisor to be seriously involved in your progress in that then you need to proactively schedule discussions with your supervisor while you actually work for the firm, and work through how/if it's possible to get the experience you need in all the tasks at that firm, and what the plan and timeline for that might be. If you wait until you don't work there anymore and then submit reports of months or years of experience that happened in the past, then your supervisor's involvement is pretty much limited to receiving an email from NCARB stating that you've submitted that report, and approving or rejecting it.  Some candidates seem to prefer that disconnected after-the-fact approach to things, and that's fine I guess, if they understand the downsides. At that point it's obviously too late for a firm to help you in getting any particular experience areas that you're missing, or especially interested in, or feel weaker in.

Rick what you want to do, when, and why is indeed your business. But you already made a thread for that, so could you please keep it there? That way anybody who wants to know about your issues and discuss them with you can do it in that appropriate thread. How you plan to track experience for a post-licensure NCARB certification portfolio is your business - but it's business which has nothing at all to do with this otherwise-interesting thread about how employers evaluate the experience of applicants with 2 to 4 years of dissimilar experience.

AXP/IDP is a joke. The only "gate" comes via the AREs, and they aren't difficult or really a good measure of a candidate's ability. I'd say make the AREs actually challenging a la the NY or CA Bar and do away with the AXP all together. You graduate with a B. Arch or M. Arch? Great, now take a monster test whenever you like and you get your license. Until then, work in the field (or don't)...no one cares. The AREs test for "minimum viable" and that bar is so close to the ground that it might be a tripping hazard.

by all means, continue on this inevitably fruitless path. it won’t piss me off if you get licensed, for two reasons: a) you will never be licensed to practice architecture in the United States, period, full fucking stop, and b) I don’t care whether you do or not. but you won’t. ever.

then you just don’t get it. I truly don’t care whether you are ever licensed or not because licensure just isn’t the holy grail of accomplishment that you’ve built it up to be. it means a) the authority to stamp drawings and b) the associated liability with doing so. that’s it, and though I know you’ll never will, if continuing to fail at this gets you going, it‘s only your own time being wasted so have at it. what does bother me is that you consistently represent yourself as someone who knows anything about architecture, or is qualified to give advice about anything related to architecture, which you absolutely are not.

ignoring your atrocious grammar for the moment, I actively choose not to ignore you because you are a blight on this forum and, again, *absolutely* unqualified to give any advice or input on any matters related to architecture. but let’s examine a reality you blissfully ignore: getting licensed requires work experience, which requires getting hired by someone willing to give you that experience. with no relevant educational credentials and no portfolio to show your (nonexistent) design/technical ability, no one will ever consider hiring you. okay, so just for fun let’s say you discover some loophole in the licensure process that lets you become licensed without work experience. then you’re licensed! hooray you fucking did it. now what? you’re either back to the problem of getting hired with no education, experience, or portfolio (but with a sparkly new but profoundly meaningless license), OR you go out on your own. where do your clients come from? why would they choose you over anyone that went to architecture school and worked in offices and can present a portfolio of design work? how will you convince them that you are worth investing in? by waving your license around and desperately hoping they'll be impressed by a credential that honestly just isn't that hard to acquire? 

What about people who do really well in school, but get really shitty experience? Happens all the time.

I went to an average school and then to a really good firm. Wouldn't have had it any other way.

That's true: Depth isn't possible without time, while length of time doesn't necessarily equal depth. I hadn't dialed it in quite that far.

The second paragraph makes sense, but the first shows a lack of business intelligence and a disregard for communication skills. An employee should never be in a position where they are completely blind to incoming tasks. If that's happening in a firm, than that firm is operating at a steep discount from full steam. Not everyone needs to be read into every job, but holy moly, grease the wheels a bit before you start Professor McGonagalling everyone with demerits.

I want to know my stats. Points?

the point system is moving target, you asked questions but they were not basic to the task rather considering the items the task addressed, and then once you knew the task I would realize what i didn't know, so above 100 with 100 perfect. 4

Threeohdoor, generally speaking I could walk into any situation with zero info and solve the architectural problem and did this time and time again with work I had never seen, so that's the bar. Don't really care if some people can't do it, don't need them around now.

+1 to this. I've known people with nearly 15y work experience who could not put together a basic CD set because the majority of that 15y was spent messing around in sketchup and talking to lightning reps. Same goes for those coming out of large A&E firms who've done nothing but the same stair details month after month after year.

I strongly agree with that. I've worked with people who have represented themselves as having decades of experience, but they're really serial job-hoppers who have started over and over again in nearly-entry-level roles from which they've jumped ship (or been tossed overboard) within a year or two. Some have never even been with one firm long enough to witness a project go from programming to substantial completion, let alone work on all phases themselves.

for people like that, it's a proficiency issue, they never made the grade - they don't pack the right gear

That's what interviews are for. It's not always apparent from a resume what exactly a person's experiences or strengths might be. My "weeding out" of resumes is based on a much broader assessment. But usually most of where they do or don't "fit in" can be determined over the course of an interview or two, by asking them pointed questions about their projects and their experiences in past firms, and just as much by listening to the questions they ask and to what they say about the work in their portfolios.

Not everyone gets to be big shooter PA... we need people doing work in all phases.

this used to happen to me a lot. I hated it

CAD and BIM tests are common, but they're really only relevant at lower experience levels. I've never seen a test beyond that in an architecture firm, perhaps for the reason Formerlyunknown gives below.

That was a trend in the early 90s - the "in box test". The firms would tell you to schedule a half or whole day, talk to you and look at your portfolio for 15 minutes, then stick you at a desk with a stack of tasks and leave you to your own devices. Rejected interviewees started reporting companies for unpaid labor, some had to pay everyone they'd interviewed in the past few years for the "work", and it fell out of favor.

Miles, that's exactly the sort of thing I have in mind, although I might be nicer and only have them do, say, a parapet detail instead of the whole wall section.

On my most recent (and hopefully last) round of interviews, I left the portfolio home and showed up with a roll of sketch, pens, a pocket scale, and a "pocket pal" template. None of them took me up on my offer to do a detail for one of their active projects.

Guess “experience” would depend on the position. For me, my test would be to throw a few construction photos in front of them. “Tell me what you think is wrong in these photos.” based on that, pull the CD’s. “Has your opinion changed?” Followed with; “Tell me what should have been done.” And the true test: “Why should it be done your way?” It is the answer to why that gives me insight into your experience level. If you don’t know the “why” of how things should go together, you won’t ever be able to identify why you want to take a photo there in the first place and spot things before they manifest in building damages.

Miles, how many years of experience should it take to be able to do that?

This is probably the only reality show i’d watch.

I would be on that reality show

tintt: One project.

Ok good, I was wondering. Do architects even draw wall sections anymore? I do but I am old fashioned suddenly. Can't you just cut a slice in a model?

I disagree strongly with "task tests" as an interview tactic. Expertise isn't knowing things, it's knowing how to find things, and how to absorb & analyze information quickly. The most intelligent people know how to learn.

Depends on the position. I’ve had the opposite experience, where seemingly intelligent people aren’t good for shit. I don’t want to hear about it, I want you to show me.

Tduds, we've been burned hard by many people because they gave the impression that they knew something. We now have some sort of basic CAD test for new techs and I'll certainly ask to be part of the next "revit kid" interview. Expertise is knowing what is correct or how to make something right... not how to plug in keywords into google and search, copy/paste, and go home early. Again... see my first sentence. At least that's been my experience.

tintt, architects most definitely still draw wall sections/details, a cut through a model would be too "course" for actual documentation. But I think your question was hypothetical. I find detailing to be the most fun, personally.

Sean, everyone in our office is expected to draft sections and details since we don't box out project phases to different teams. Very few are able to draft with significant oversight tho... and I feel this may be tied to a growing trend of either "the tech/GC/specs/sauron will figure it out" or "this is how they showed us how to use revit in school" attitudes. If you draft then you are accountable for mistakes and you don't learn what works and what does not work unless you take the time to do the work yourself.

Non Sequitur, nice. I think there is definitely a balance in having a certain command over the technology, but I'm not yet convinced that a software can "figure it out" as you say. Ultimately, I need to know if the software is on the right track. Not relying on the software to confirm my accuracy. I see it as a tool, like a pencil or paper, to communicate the design intent. In the end, the architect is the driver.

Correct. knowing software means dick if you don't know what the pieces you're drawing are. Expecting revit to fill the gaps for you just means I now have to fix all your mistakes.

A person I worked with mirrored a grand piano in a restaurant plan (i.e. the low notes/long strings were on the right), because it let it fit around a column. Just because you can do something with software doesn't mean you know anything or can think.

^left handed piano? I kid I kid... I'd lose my shit if I saw that.

Nevermind that nestling a piano around a column is just a terrible place to put a piano.