Employment Verification and IDP Training Report are one document, you should submit all pages of Form 123 each time you submit your Training Units. There are three required signatures; yours, your supervisors and your mentor's. The mentor can be your supervisor. I submitted one report for the firm i work for - for the five years i worked there. Straw, i hope that helps.

yes it does, thanks.

If you are sending in regular reports throughout your internship then for each period of time you're reporting you will have at least one employment form for each employer you've had during that period.

If you wait until the very end of your internship to file all paperwork (rather than file at the suggested intervals) then you may have just one form per employer.

Keep in mind that you may need to file more than one employment form for the same employer, during the same reporting period. Some reasons for this would be: 1. You went from full to part-time or vice versa (but note that part-time experience doesn't count toward IDP unless it was for at least 20 hours per week continuously over at least 6 months) 2. You stopped working for some period of time - for instance you took a leave of abscence for a month or something like that. In this case NCARB counts your return as a whole new employment situation.

The dates on your form should reflect whatever you're sending in now that you have NOT previously submitted. To avoid problems with NCARB you should make sure that the dates on your forms follow each other continuously. They will reject forms that have even a couple of days overlap in dates, and they will request additional info if you have any gaps for which you did not provide forms.

good to know, i did leave for about a month, got laid off, then re-employed. my time records show a continuous employment with no hours worked, not as a fire/rehire so that is what i was going to do with the NCRAP stuff - just keep the employment continuous but not record any hours in this time. How would they know if my employer didn't alert them? Is NCRAP going to be alerted to something fishy and not process my units?
Thanks, it is good to confer with those that have had to go thru this before.

And whoa! I was just looking at my time records and there was a time when I just wasn't needed that much, a few weeks duration I only worked 20 hours a week. I suppose none of it counts then? I was still a full time employee, I got benefits and 401k, why not IDP? What if you take a week of vacation so your points don't average out to appear that you worked 40+ hour weeks even though you did? I took 3 weeks off to get married/honeymoon too! Where does it end?

On the employment verification form where it asks for hours worked, I just put 40+ assuming that they just wanted to know if I worked full time or not. Do I really need to calculate the exact figure? I must be an idiot because this stuff is ridiculously confusing. I fear I am doing it all wrong.

You are not an idiot. The forms are like tax forms, ridiculously complex methods for computing relatively simple information. Many, many highly educated people, like yourself, have thrown those forms down and sworn in frustration because they are just so damn confusing. Take a breath, walk away for a little break of mindless TV or something (or a drink), then pick them up again. You can do it, Strawbeary, I know you can.

tax forms? those are a breeze, and they only take 10 hours.

Don't write an average of 40 hours in if you have a lot of time in there where you didn't work that many hours. It probably doesn't need to be exact to the decimal point, but if you have far too few units during that time period to add up to a 40 hour average then they may contact you for more documentation that you were fulltime.
In the IDP instruction booklet it explains that you must start a new employment record anytime you drop below 35 hours a week for fulltime. I would definately NOT count the time when you were laid off as continuous employment, because your employer will not have you recorded that way and so if you ever needed to document your fulltime status you won't be able to. Start a new report for that.
If you go fulltime for awhile, then part-time, then fulltime again those should be on 3 separate records. For fulltime to count it must be continuous for a minimum of 10 weeks. For part-time to count it must be continuous for 6 months and never less than 20 hours per week. Everytime you drop below those minimums you basically have to start a new record and start counting all over again.
I don't think that a few weeks of vacation or some short gap like that, while employed in a fulltime situation, will trigger any problems. But it's true that overlapping dates or long gaps will cause NCARB to send you a letter requesting clarfication, which will slow things down by a good 6 weeks or so.

I never thought the form 123 was that difficult. Then again I was continuously employed at way more than 40 hours for the entire duration of my IDP. I don't suggest trying to fool the NCARB gestapo. Have had friends get caught in the whole employment trap thing.

It's truly an unfair system. Many friends have had employers that were so eager for them to get licensed that they'd just sign off on anything. Community service, etc. More or less making the entire process a sham. I did it legitimately and busted my ass trying to get it done. Spent my own time volunteering, spent my own time visiting job sites, anything to get the hours. Then an old classmate has his done within a couple years because his boss told him to fill in all his hours and signed it off. When the licensed architects out there don't respect the process what good is it? Sorry for the rant. It just still irks me to this day.

One other note: never record more than one employer within the same date range - for instance if you were moonlighting or splitting your time between two firms - unless you're prepared to go through a whole lot more paperwork and extra wait time. If you submit experience from two jobs whose dates coincide by even a few days NCARB will send you a letter explaining that they can't process the units from either job until you submit letters from both employers stating that they were aware of and approved of you working for another employer at the same time you were working for them.

A-
I think if you know it you know it... if its signed off but you can pass the exam on your own, whats the difference?
I know you were on the grind a lot more than your friend, does that mean he doesn't know how to do everything as well as you do?

Actually, I think was A's point exactly. But he should respond.

This is turning into my IDP blog, interesting, I will continue to record my issues here and those that are interested can see what the issues are, and possibly NCARB would like their own copy when I am done.

Ok, I know what to do know with the slow periods and the lay off, leave them out entirely, it was only a few months and it was all together. But what if NCARB calls my former employer and ask the dates I worked there and it is different than what I recorded? I shouldn't be under obligiation or scrutiny if I don't record time, should I?

Here's one for ya: after recording 90 weeks with great accuracy, I have 429.32 TU's. At 40 hour weeks, I should have 450. So I am short by 165 hours. Not short enough to cause NCARB to be alarmed, but this is why I am short even working 40+ hours a week: First, vacation and sick time. Second, my office was adamant about not charging clients for using the loo, coffeebreaks, chitty-chat, singing happy birthday, etc. So all those times went into a category on my time sheet. There is no category to record that time in NCARB. Unless it is "Office Management". HA HA

More...

What is up with needing 10 units of programming? It isn't even one of the basic architectural services, and to need 80 hours in it is ridiculous to me. This type of work never made it to my little grey cube, and I suppose after 3.5 years I have only 8 hours, and that is stretching it. Between the three interns in the office they would have had to let all the interns do all programming tasks all the time. Programming isn't really a team thing, these tasks were done by the principal alone. That is, if it wasn't done by the client.

Another one, 15 units of code research. That is 120 hours. I think I can read the IBC cover to cover, yawn, in 120 hours. Twelve 10 hour days and that baby is covered. But it isn't in a work setting with a supervisor, nor is it putting it to use, therefore not NCARBable.

Hitting on what A said about visiting sites off the clock, this was a necessity to me as well just to get the big picture and did this many times. Even visting the out-of-town projects on the weekends. But I don't think you can record these hours.

impala - what I was trying to explain is that there's little point to IDP if people aren't going to take it seriously. I do find value in receiving a well rounded internship, and that's what IDP tries to do. What bothers me is when the licensed architects that should be supporting the efforts of NCARB and IDP see it as an obsticle to their employees advancement and essentially skirt the rules of the program to neccessitate their own needs.

I'm one of the first ones to say IDP should be scrapped all together. Then again, just since I'm of that mind doesn't mean I found ways around IDP. Yes, if you know it, you know it. The ARE is in my opinion substantial enough to stand alone as the only thing necessary for licensure. I just think we need to have a national consensus on what way we are going.

Seems the key is finding ways around doing IDP, rather than doing it.
(Shameless bump, any input on above coming up short on 40 hour weeks?)

You don't need 40 hours - you just need 35. But if you had nowhere near 35 for any significant amount of time you should absolutely fill out multiple forms and acknowledge the period of unemployment. I'm speaking from personal experience when I warn you about things that will hold up your application.

As for some of your other issues: surely you look into code issues for each project you work on. All of that can count as "code research". All the times you've looked up construction types, ADA issues, refreshed your memory about stair clearances and occupancy limits, etc. count. Even NCARB doesn't expect you to read a code book cover to cover. Just take a reasonable amount of hours from each project on which you worked on the design.
As for construction admin: I don't think NCARB has a problem with you recording hours that were used for site visits on your own time. As long as your supervisor is aware of this time it should be fine. NCARB does allow points for observation of meetings, tagging along to sites and such - not every unit must involve your active participation. Do read through the IDP book and the mentor's booklet to get an idea of what they expect you to be doing.
Programming wasn't a difficult area for me, because I worked in some firms that did a lot of feasibility studies and such, and in which we'd interview whole staffs of companies and institutions and then start the design process from the point of view of what we'd determined that they needed. I can see how this might be difficult to get if your firm doesn't do this sort of thing at all.
Strawbeary: I seem to recollect that you were moving on to new opportunities. If you still have significant time left in your IDP experience I'd suggest that you negotiate some of this experience/exposure into your next job - even put in writing your strong desire to finish IDP as expediently as possible and explain which areas you're currently lacking experience in.

I am in agreement with A. If IDP is so great and it's intent is to breed better and more well rounded architects, then why are pass rates going down? In every kind of poll you see related to Architects and what they want from incoming interns, they all state the same thing - wish they had more practical experience, and skills in construction documents. Well if NCARB, Arch. Record or anyone else gave a shit, why not put together a real intern poll and that way we can tell em all what we think.

Since when are pass rates going down? They are down this year from last, yes, and that seems to have a lot to do with the major re-writing of the test that was rolled out in the spring of 2004 - but the pass rates skyrocketed when the test went to computer versions in the first place. In the pencil-paper days the pass rates were in the 35% to 45% range (for first-time takers passing the whole thing) whereas the pass rates for each section have all been no lower than 60% and as high as 80% for the past 5 to 10 years and a much higher percentage of people pass all sections on the first try.

March 2005

ARE Pass Rates by Division


2000

2001

2002

2003

2004
Multiple-Choice Divisions




Pre-Design
73%

76%

77%

77%

75%
General Structures
76%

76%

77%

73%

73%
Lateral Forces
89%

90%

93%

92%

77%
Mechanical & Electrical Systems
78%

73%

74%

74%

67%
Materials & Methods
90%

90%

88%

86%

76%
Construction Documents
& Services
85%

86%

86%

85%

79%
Graphic Divisions




Site Planning
72%

64%

68%

70%

71%
Building Planning
61%

62%

68%

68%

64%
Building Technology
78%

67%

67%

65%

63%


and this from Archvoices;

NCARB also reported a disturbing parallel statistic. Since 1990, the number of Architectural Registration Exam divisions has dropped nearly 75 percent. Some of the decline can be explained by the shocking increase in the cost of the exam, and the fact that it can now be taken piecemeal over time. But the numbers were tumbling before NCARB introduced the new, computerized test, despite climbing pass rates and a robust economy.

This is showing fairly high pass rates. Declining numbers of test-takers is not the same issue as low pass rates. It seems that the paragraph from Archvoices confirms that pass rates were lower prior to the computerized test - though apparently were already climbing prior to introduction of the computerized test. The esteemed "Professor Dorf" on the areforum.org also says that when he worked for NCARB the pass rate for the pencil version was only about 40%.
The stats above don't really seem to indicate a steady decline. Some divisions are up, some down, some not markedly changed. And where there are more significant changes they do seem to correspond with the start of the most recent version.
By the way NCARB is tinkering with the test again. The site design division has been revamped and debuts this spring, while the Mechanical/Electrical test currently has an extra hour of non-scored experimental material, in anticipation of a new version soon.