I did IDP before you could take the ARE concurrently - I realized only after preparing for the exam that this process would have been a better start for my career and I probably wouldn't have wasted so much time trying to seek out experience in areas that literally only took me 5 minutes to learn how to do in the test prep.
I also felt like the whole process was a bunch of BS - I could have easily fudged the hours (I didn't, btw). basically all I was doing was filling out paperwork every few months and paying NCARB to file it. There's absolutely no accountability even in the current system - no one checks to see if interns are actually learning anything - or that they even worked the hours they're filling in. It literally is a few years of free money to NCARB.
this might be the other reason people don't bother - there's no accountability, so it's mostly just playing the game to get registered. why don't they just come out and say they want $4000 and you can take the test tomorrow? it's the same thing, except less paperwork. people are going to be less motivated to participate in a system where there is absolutely no feedback during the process.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Keith. However, I can't imagine anything more soul-killing than an involvement in politics. I prefer to stick to making pretty things.
It continues to be a mystery to me why architects remain convinced that it is a good idea to hand over complete control over our training and livelihood to outsiders who are at best indifferent to our success and at worst running a ponzi scheme at our expense. When has that ever turned out well for anybody?
I did my time in architecture school, completed my internship quickly, and qualified for licensure as soon as possible. I did it because I had to in order to do this thing that I love, not because I wanted to or because it made any sense. I just held my nose and did it. Now that I'm here with my handsome certificates on the wall, I will not fall prey to self-justification to protect the position they supposedly give me. I refuse to pretend that this system is anything but the scam that it is. I hold NCARB/IDP and NAAB in the contempt they deserve.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I am out of the loop w/ IDP etc..so I cannot debate it intelligently. I guess I am old school, 5 years undergrad, 3 years in a firm, take exam, architect.
It's kinda scary to think it's more complicated now.
Question: They used to allow folks to sit for the exam who simply worked under an architect for 7-8 years, is that still allowed?
Gwharton, Don't worry, once we have you in office, we can ear mark funds for pet projects you can design under an alias. How about an embassy?
Brian, yes you can take the ARE's in some states upon graduation from a NAAB program. I think you need an M-Arch. I just registered for mine in AZ. I know most states are different though.
Keith, one more point of clarification. I believe that the ability to take the AREs after working for x number of years under a licensed architect only takes the place of a NAAB accredited degree, not the IDP. So you can become an architect without going through the schooling in some places but I think you still have to do IDP. Again, it all depends on the registration board. This webpage lets you look up specific jurisdictions and their requirements/allowances.
NCARB and the AIA have been working diligently for some time to get the "experience in lieu" clauses struck from the licensing laws in all 50 states. They recently succeeded in doing so for my home state of Washington, for instance (at the same time they put in place a continuing ed requirement ... why don't they be honest and call it a "continuing income for the AIA" requirement?)
There are very few states where you can use experience in lieu of an accredited degree now.
Starting July 1, 2012, candidates who haven’t started IDP or haven’t had any activity for over 5 years must meet the following requirements:
Be at least 18 years old.
Have an accredited architectural degree and have completed at least 3 years’ IDP.
or
Have a high school diploma or equivalent and at least 9 years of practical architectural work experience, including completion of IDP. Before enrolling in IDP, you must have had at least 6 years of work experience, with at least 3 years’ experience under the direct supervision of an architect.
I think in terms of accounability, there is almost no way to enforce this that wouldnt include massive increases in fees just to cover the additional work needed to hold firms accountable. Considering how hard it appears to be to now get people to sign off on your hours when they are not even monitored, imagine if it was something they would actually be held accountable? I could see a lot more of these situations pop up where you then have architects questioning the interns hours just to cover themselves.
And really, how would you even monitor it? It would still come down to an architect signing off on the hours, and who is to say what happened 6 months ago?
I think the more appropriate route is to get rid of the hours requirement altogether. Yes, some could pass the exams right away, but a lot of interns could not and the work experience actually does make a difference.
The only problem with that is that it would lessen the value of the license, at least partially. But i dont know if that is really a problem. You get far more work based off of your experience than because you just have your license.
If you graduate and pass your exams right out of school, then try to just open your own firm, you wont be handed projects just because you have a firm and a license. You need to win clients by proving you can do their job.
So i dont know if losing the IDP requirement really would hurt the profession all that much. It may hurt individual interns who might just graduate and focus more on their exams before gaining experience and employment. But thats just my opinion that work experience is far more valuable than what you do in school and the exams.
I'm pretty sure lawyers can take the bar exam the day after graduation with no experience whatsoever. Can't see why architects shouldn't be able to do so as well. If they aren't competent to design simple projects the day they graduate, what does that say about architectural education? A novice designing a porch addition has less real world consequences than a lawyer defending an innocent person in a courtroom.
If you graduate and pass your exams right out of school, then try to just open your own firm, you wont be handed projects just because you have a firm and a license. You need to win clients by proving you can do their job.
Most registered architects I know never used their stamp until after they've had it for several years anyway. a license is a tremendous responsibility, but when one has responsibility thrust upon them, most people tend to be far more careful and much faster to get help. I think what is lacking among many recent graduates is a sense of responsibility...
Most registered architects I know never used their stamp until after they've had it for several years anyway. a license is a tremendous responsibility, but when one has responsibility thrust upon them, most people tend to be far more careful and much faster to get help. I think what is lacking among many recent graduates is a sense of responsibility...
I agree. And not to be too harsh on recent graduates, but I think that there is just a major lack of responsibility and accountability for their own careers going on out there. Way too many people cannot seem to handle submitting IDP hours every 6 months and want to take a stand against it on the principle alone for some reason. It seems that everyone wants to blame everyone else for them not being licensed right out of school. This idea that you are somehow being held down by others and being prevented from opening your own firm when you are 29 is a little ridiculous.
I dont know if its a generational thing, because i am not that much older, but i kind of liken it to how in schools these days, if kids get in trouble in any way shape or form, the parents come in and say what the teacher did wrong instantly, never what the kid did wrong. It seems we are all raised to play the victim more than taking responsibility for ourselves. (obviously this doesnt apply to everyone, but you know what i mean)
I am hoping to have these last 3 exams wrapped up before the summer. And professionally, i wont be using my stamp for a really long time unless i switch jobs. I also have no interest in opening my own firm for a long time, if ever. It has nothing to do with a lack of confidence in myself or my skills, it just seems unnecessary for the added amount of work for the payoff.
I'm pretty sure lawyers can take the bar exam the day after graduation with no experience whatsoever. Can't see why architects shouldn't be able to do so as well. If they aren't competent to design simple projects the day they graduate, what does that say about architectural education? A novice designing a porch addition has less real world consequences than a lawyer defending an innocent person in a courtroom.
I agree with this. While i see that IDP is just trying to give a way for interns to not get stuck doing renderings 50 hours a week, or being pigeon-holed doing something else forever, and to at least give partial incentive to give a broad amount of work experience, it just basically seems like we could do without it. Let us architects take responsibility for our own careers.
A lawyer with no experience who just passes the bar exam the day he graduates will be a worse lawyer than if he decided to work for a couple years gaining experience and then passed the bar. But who is to say that shouldnt be his choice?
I agree with the above post marmkid. For some reason people feel that we have to be treated like babies. There is an interest in maintaining the status quo because the ones with decision making power are being served by it in the form of cheaper labor or in the lmiting of competition. It is why lawyers get hired out of school at 65k. A licence gives us the option to work on our own even if that option may be foolish with no experiance.
Also to add to the logic of geezertect, lawyers pose a direct threat to the public, architects design an "object" that must pass inspection, meet codes, get ok by engineer, etc. There are checks and balances in place already to protect the public.
The way to deal with this whole thing is simple. Create a new academic route.
M-arch or B-Arch plus IDP
or
M-arch plus a 2 year post grad licensing degree that is IDP equivelent.
The program should cover all experiance requirements and at the end you can take ARE's and recieve an architecture licence. Yeah ok the loans would suck, but you know what sucks more, being unemployed and painting smelly apartments for a living while looking for internships after being 100k in debt and graduating magna cum laude with an M-Arch.
I'm not totally disagreeing with what marmkid is saying about recent grads (most of us don't take much responsibility on ourselves), but I think the frustration with IDP comes mainly from not having complete control over one's career (if licensure is the chosen path), not the will to submit hours every 6 months. Ultimately it comes down to a recent grad being able to get a job under a licensed practitioner that will support them in their desire to complete IDP. The variables involved rely much more heavily on other people and their willingness to work with the system than on the recent grad.
IDP makes it so I can't just find any job, but I need to find the specific job. Hopefully one with an employer that is willing to work with me through IDP. If this thread is any indication of the general trend in the profession that may be harder than it seems; I'd say just as many people that could be helping recent grads through IDP are saying they dislike the system just as much as the recent grads are. The difference is that if a recent grad wants a license they are forced to deal with it, whereas an employer can choose not to.
Because text doesn't really convey the tone I'm trying to send with this I'll say that I'm not trying to rant or get upset, and I hope it doesn't come across that way. I just wanted to clarify a little bit about how recent grads might feel in the current economy, et cetera.
A lawyer with no experience who just passes the bar exam [and opens a practice] the day he graduates will be a worse lawyer than if he decided to work for a couple years gaining experience and then [opened a practice.] But who is to say that shouldnt be his choice?
word! and if we had the skills upon graduation from such a program it would be beneficial to employers as well. Would anyone do something like this if it were offered? I am thinking about talking to the university to make something like this available.
Thank you. I am not a lawyer and none of my friends are, so I don’t know what their career path necessarily is. Though, like doctors, I am pretty sure it is not the mirror route that we architects tend to portray. If our education was as intensive and prepared us for our careers in the same way that med school and law school did for them, then I would be 100% on board with the analogy.
I'm not totally disagreeing with what marmkid is saying about recent grads (most of us don't take much responsibility on ourselves), but I think the frustration with IDP comes mainly from not having complete control over one's career (if licensure is the chosen path), not the will to submit hours every 6 months. Ultimately it comes down to a recent grad being able to get a job under a licensed practitioner that will support them in their desire to complete IDP. The variables involved rely much more heavily on other people and their willingness to work with the system than on the recent grad.
While that is true, I just don’t see that it is that dire of a situation that it seems to be made out to be. And I will admit my statement on recent grads was a bit exaggerated, and it seems to be those a bit older who just decided now after working for 10 years, have decided they want to get their license and think they should be able to submit 10 years worth of hours, despite the amazing coincidence of it being 3 days after the 6 month rule deadline took effect.
Most firms, I have to believe, have a licensed architect working for them. And most of those licensed architects are reasonable in helping you achieve your IDP hours if you present it to them in a way that is not a burden on them. If you come to them prepared, with everything set where all they need to do is essentially say yes, then I don’t think you will run into much trouble. Unless I am mistaken, and there are just a ton of architects out there who just out of spite don’t want to click yes on the online form?
IDP makes it so I can't just find any job, but I need to find the specific job. Hopefully one with an employer that is willing to work with me through IDP. If this thread is any indication of the general trend in the profession that may be harder than it seems; I'd say just as many people that could be helping recent grads through IDP are saying they dislike the system just as much as the recent grads are. The difference is that if a recent grad wants a license they are forced to deal with it, whereas an employer can choose not to.
This has always been the case though. Except now it is all done online and in a much easier way. I don’t think that if you are able to find a job, that it is any harder now to get your hours signed off on. I think it would actually be easier. No one likes the system. But I just don’t think that employers (the majority anyway) choose to not help you unless they have a reason.
That is the industry we have chosen, it hasn’t changed in recent years. You need to find the specific job that will best further the career path you choose. Right now, yes, the economy is not great, so you may be forced to just take any job you can. But as architects, there will always be ups and downs in the economy that we have to deal with.
Though maybe I am just misunderstanding you when you say you can’t just find any job. What kind of job can’t you take?
Because text doesn't really convey the tone I'm trying to send with this I'll say that I'm not trying to rant or get upset, and I hope it doesn't come across that way. I just wanted to clarify a little bit about how recent grads might feel in the current economy, et cetera.
I think before we all propose to do away with IDP - anyone know the history behind why it was implemented in the first place? NCARB's website says it was invented in 1976:
NCARB introduced the Intern Development Program (IDP) after working with the American Institute of Architects (AIA) throughout the 1970s to develop a more structured program for interns to ensure they were gaining the knowledge and skills necessary to practice independently. Administered by NCARB, jurisdictions gradually began adopting the program to satisfy their experience requirement.
what had come before IDP? Were there a large number of architects running around who lacked fundamental skills? I think identifying the core competencies for practice is positive - and having these resources available to interns is also positive, but clearly the current system is not very effective in it's intended purpose, and I think it would be very helpful to understand the state of the profession in the run up to IDP - and where we are now.
I have no sympathy for the intern that tries to submit 10 years of hours 3 days after the deadline. That's just taking responsibility for your own career.
You're right that it should be easy for an employer to just click ok on an online form and it's that simple. I would expect any employer to be willing to do that. I'm talking more along the lines of an employer being willing to work with an intern in getting the hours they need, where they need them rather than just three years of figuring out flashing details.
You're also right to say that nothing has changed and you still need to find a job that will best further your career path. Rhetorically though, how many 'best jobs' are available? Under perfect conditions IDP and licensure take 3 years, how long is that stretched out when you can only take the 'pay off student loans job'? The any job versus the specific job comes down to a personal choice and your intended career path. Any job will give you money to pay bills (it may not be enough), but the specific job will do that, plus any other benefits and/or compensations you feel works out best for you and your career. That can be good health insurance, networking opportunities, help with IDP and licensure, and many other things.
I guess the larger question behind all this, and to bring the thread back on topic, asks if IDP should be this way. Should we (recent grads) need to rely on licensed architects in order to get a license? Should it take 3+ years? Should there be a simpler solution that puts the variables in the hands of the person seeking the license?
what had come before IDP? Were there a large number of architects running around who lacked fundamental skills? I think identifying the core competencies for practice is positive - and having these resources available to interns is also positive, but clearly the current system is not very effective in it's intended purpose, and I think it would be very helpful to understand the state of the profession in the run up to IDP - and where we are now.
I think that is important. Based on what little I know about it, the origins of IDP were a good idea. I think the problem now is that there may be more specialties in our profession as well as more varying career paths that are available which are not really addressed by IDP.
Personally, I think if you want the architectural license, it is completely reasonable for them to expect that a licensed architect sign off on your hours. It seems the only logical way to keep some level of accountability and credibility on what their license means. Essentially, if one of your own signs off on something basic, it is acceptable. While I understand that there is a very gray area of fudging hours involved, it still has the basis in that you are working with a “known” quantity. If the rules are stretched to include unlicensed architects or whoever being allowed to sign off on hours, then what baseline do we have? There is no standard, or at best, the standard would need to be clearly defined and expanded.
Basically, you could be working for a shady developer who would like a licensed architect on his staff. So he signs off on all your hours. I realize this is not much different than a shady architect signing off on your hours. But at least it wouldn’t be as widespread.
And you would like to think that a large majority of licensed architects would not be so jaded that they completely misrepresent themselves and sign off on completely fraudulent hours.
You're right that it should be easy for an employer to just click ok on an online form and it's that simple. I would expect any employer to be willing to do that. I'm talking more along the lines of an employer being willing to work with an intern in getting the hours they need, where they need them rather than just three years of figuring out flashing details.
My point is that exists with our without IDP. And I have always felt that IDP actually aids interns in that it is a way to gain more varied experience quicker than maybe they would be able to otherwise.
Again, if you present it to someone in an appropriate way, the vast majority of the time you will be helped. No, you won’t automatically be switched over to new work every other week just to meet the specific hours you need. But much more often than not, you will be given the opportunity that works within your firms workload. If you are willing to show that you will go above and beyond, maybe work a little extra on something that wasn’t in your schedule, but was in the hours you need, you probably will be given that chance.
And then it snowballs in that you will be given other opportunities because of that
But I think an unreasonable expectation of people is that you should fulfill all your required hours in 3 years and if you go over, the firm has failed you. 3 years is just the added amount of hours. No firm can guarantee that, and it shouldn’t be expected.
You're also right to say that nothing has changed and you still need to find a job that will best further your career path. Rhetorically though, how many 'best jobs' are available? Under perfect conditions IDP and licensure take 3 years, how long is that stretched out when you can only take the 'pay off student loans job'? The any job versus the specific job comes down to a personal choice and your intended career path. Any job will give you money to pay bills (it may not be enough), but the specific job will do that, plus any other benefits and/or compensations you feel works out best for you and your career. That can be good health insurance, networking opportunities, help with IDP and licensure, and many other things.
Yeah that is the pickle we are all in with this career
I guess the larger question behind all this, and to bring the thread back on topic, asks if IDP should be this way. Should we (recent grads) need to rely on licensed architects in order to get a license? Should it take 3+ years? Should there be a simpler solution that puts the variables in the hands of the person seeking the license?
I think it comes down to more of a yes or no question. Is IDP needed?
I see the merits to both answers. I tend to side with yes, as I think the benefits are there just not always recognized. But then again, I am more on the traditional firm career path, so the jobs I have had have always been in line with it.
I can see the other side if you choose to follow a different career path.
I think the program is a simple as it needs to be right now, and adding any more complexity to it would only make things worse, while also taking responsibility away from interns, which I don’t agree with.
marmkid - actually the question of IDP being 'needed' has already been answered by 48 states and NCARB. it's not going away completely. does it get absorbed into the academic curricula? is it rethought? that's different question than wishing it dead.
i think we're all getting a bit off track - nothing about the kind of proposal i've laid out would restrict the long term career path of anyone getting through it: remember, it's 2 years (or less if it could be worked out, but 2 has a lot of advantages) right after school. some programs considered more 'alternative' would be fine to host idp candidates, but they'd have to do so while hitting the required items, in the structured order.
the issues of needing a licensed architect to sign off, length of time, alternative settings - all that goes away. to me, those advantages outweigh the potential downsides. there's a definitive professional standard for calling yourself an 'architect' - it's done quickly, consistently and then guess what? you're not bound to anyone...
marmkid - actually the question of IDP being 'needed' has already been answered by 48 states and NCARB. it's not going away completely. does it get absorbed into the academic curricula? is it rethought? that's different question than wishing it dead.
first, i dont wish it dead. I actually think its very beneficial, even set up the way it is now.
second, by that logic, then the NCARB and those 48 states have already answered your question as well. I dont hear NCARB complaining about how long it takes anyone, and i dont hear schools complaining that they are not responsible for their graduates professional readiness. Actually quite the opposite. Schools do not want that responsibility as they would have to, in most cases, completely redo their circulum to accomodate what is covered by the exams and 3 years of work experience hours.
In a perfect world, I would agree that when you graduate from an architectural program, you are ready to be an architect, and that you have the necessary skills. But if we are talking about realistic options, I dont see putting it all on the universities as something that is even remotely possible.
Your proposal includes making things more complicated unfortunately.
Teaching Studio firms is a good idea, but incredibly limits those that would be available to participate, and I don’t know how it would be legal to set a standard salary for your first 2 years out of school. You also end up limiting the options where the best and brightest interns can work, as not every firm would be able to participate, though they could potentially have a job opening, which normally, would potentially count towards their IDP. Right now, firms as a whole don’t need to buy in, only individual architects do.
One question I have is how you would make it worthwhile for a firm to spend any of its architects’ time on the teaching aspect. I don’t know about where you work, but the upper level architects, who would best be suited to be the “teachers”, are stretched thin enough as it is to give up even a couple hours a week. It’s basically taking time away from paying clients. Doctors in a hospital can do this, I believe in large part because they get funding outside of their patients. I am not sure that could translate to architecture, unfortunately.
I think the benefits you mention really would only effect firms that are currently supportive of their interns growth to begin with.
Some excellent discussions going on here. I am an (unlicensed but could have if I had a stronger BS threshold) architect turned educational therapist and have learned so much about education and knowledge that my suspicions of IDP and the ARE have been confirmed, but without real rigor. I completed IDP and took a few of the ARE's before I changed careers. I am a long-term archinector and don't really know how to help right now, but am interested and willing and will offer an educational/psych perspective if I can... Let's SUE 'EM! Ha ha. No, seriously, why isn't the ARE subject to psych measurement? It isn't!!!
What if we hire an outside evaluator to determine if the IDP and ARE are doing what it purports to do? I think things would fall apart pretty fast. Embarrassingly fast.
actually the question of IDP being 'needed' has already been answered by 48 states and NCARB. it's not going away completely
Actually - it's not technically needed - it's just one path toward licensure. you can completely circumvent IDP by getting licensed in a state that does not require it for their exam, and then getting certified through NCARB's "broadly experienced architect" program - which is 6 years after you've held your license in good standing - then gaining reciprocity in other states (some states don't require NCARB certification, so it could go even quicker). I think "experience" is the only consistent item across all states when you sit for the exam, and IDP (plus a professional degree - which you don't technically need either) is the fastest way to becoming a licensed architect. you could actually work for 15-20 years straight out of HS and you can get licensed in all states except for kansas (and maybe another one). the trick is finding a job in an architecture firm straight out of HS - but you'd be licensed by your mid-30s and you wouldn't have any student loans.
toaster - actually, you're only partially correct. if you can get a ncarb certificate through the bea program, that's not a guarantee individual states will accept the certificate when applying for reciprocity. (here's their exact quote: " Many architects apply for an NCARB Certificate to seek reciprocal registration in other U.S. jurisdictions. Reciprocal registration requirements vary and not all jurisdictions accept an NCARB Certificate issued upon satisfaction of the education requirement through the BEA Program.")
if you look at the specific requirements of each jurisdiction, only the following will grant a license without a professional degree and/or completion of IDP:
CO; DE; IL; MI; OH; OK, OR, RI.
all of those require a minimum of 2 years active licensure in another jurisdiction prior to applying. some require as much as 5 years. there are about a dozen states that would allow a license obtained prior to 1994-1996ish to apply for reciprocity without retroactively doing IDP.
point being: a certificate alone doesn't ensure an ability to get reciprocity. yes, it can be done, but with a huge set of caveats.
greg - also NH, VT, & CA. and many state review boards can determine licensure on a case-by-case basis. anyway - my point is that while IDP + professional degree are the easiest and fastest way to a licence, it's not the only way - you just have far more hoops to jump through.
I also think that if someone were to challenge IDP and/or NAAB as the only path to licensure in court that it might not stand up. Some states don't have accredited architecture programs, and IDP is managed by a non-government organization that doesn't actually have any authority over licensed architects. If we want IDP to have more teeth, it needs to be enforced and managed by the state (or a currently non-existent federal) licensing boards, not NCARB.
IDP has two major roadblocks, one landing a job and the other getting a broad working experience.
The academy is not helping when they chose not to cover basic fundamentals and firms have to educate or re educate young professionals. If a school graduates students who have no CAD Revit experience, don’t have any idea how to design an ADA toilet or how to design a wall or other system then those schools should lose their accreditation right away. I am all for exit exams which translate into experience points but schools who fall short and have 20-30% failure rate must have their certification revoked. The academy has turned its back on their students and the profession when they decided to ignore the science of construction. Firms should expect a standard of competency if a student has entered the IDP by passing or doing exceptionally well in the graduate exit exam.
Additionally NCAR NAAB and the AIA must insist that all architecture studios be taught by an actual licensed architect and those studios could count as work experience. Think of how many hours you spent under the supervision and control of your professor in studio.
As for the broad range of experience, I think firms could use the 15 work experience divisions as part of their job descriptions when they recruit candidates they could estimate what percentage of time the position will engage in any of the 15 specific training units. This could work to both employers and employee’s benefits by more precisely matching skills and experience to the needs of the position. Firms offering a more diverse work experience will attract higher quality candidates. He job can be negotiated and offered with a sort of contract that I will have opportunity to spend 12% of my time on Specifications and so on. This may require a unionization of Interns to enforce these contracts but maybe that is the missing piece of the puzzle.
Firms should expect a standard of competency if a student has entered the IDP by passing or doing exceptionally well in the graduate exit exam.
This sounds more along the lines of having your license exam be tied in with your degree, so when you graduate, you are licensed and firms can understand what your base level of skills are.
I think its overkill to expect the schools to reform to that level and then still expect there to be any sort of internship required before getting your license. If the schools did a better job in the first place, then IDP would not be necessary
The job can be negotiated and offered with a sort of contract that I will have opportunity to spend 12% of my time on Specifications and so on. This may require a unionization of Interns to enforce these contracts but maybe that is the missing piece of the puzzle.
That would be impossible, because why would a firm ever sign such a contract? They cant guarantee their own work, let alone the work for an intern with little to no skill coming out of school. And then what happens if the firm loses a big job through no fault of their own, which happens? What if they were banking on that project for some of the intern's hours? They technically would be breaking their contract with the intern. That opens a whole other can of worms
pjn26, I disagree on the point about professors being licenced architects. We need a broad design education. If it is turned into a vocational school, students will become corporate robots. However, there should be a 2 year post-grad licensure degree where such things are taught in place of IDP. If one wants to get an M-arch and go on to do something other than practice architecture they can. If they want to get a licence they can do IDP or a 2 year academic equivelent. This at least gives us a choice and allows us to advance our careers in times of economic downturn.
All states should remove the requirement of a degree, and adopt work equiv. towards qualification to take the ARE. Potential employers would get roughly the same skill set, and the interns would not have such high debt. If college is your thang, cool, if not cool. The apprentice route is the best way to learn the business, practice and art of Architecture, in my humble opinion. You can learn most of the stuff they teach at the big U's by reading a few books on the weekends...
I strongly believe that there should be alternative routes to licensure (or at least until college is free in the US) - but I want to make it clear that I think that a professional degree and some kind of structured training program are by far the best way of assuring a certain standard of skills and professionalism among licensed architects.
but I think the trouble this idea of "fixing IDP" is running into is that it is completely voluntary (or legally completely voluntary - if someone wants to challenge it) for one to participate in this program - there is also really no public oversight of NCARB (it's a private non-profit) - which means that their main incentive to "fix" IDP is the fear of their certification no longer meaning anything to state licensing boards. same thing with NAAB. If we want to actually change anything our efforts should be directed primarily with state licensing boards instead of going only through NCARB or AIA.
I am only suggesting that studios be taught by actual architects and that those studios could become a way to build IDP experience. I do not think the distinction in vocational verses "academic" or vocational education turns folks into corporate tools is fair. Schools teach techniques, tools, and give practicum which we call studios. Many other academic programs have a balance of vocational and non vocational course work. If we were a music school your suggestion would be like teaching piano with only a picture and a text book. Architectural design is an art and a science, part of it can be quantified and a part of is cannot. I don’t think many people enter an architecture program expecting much less than learning a trade that can become a career, in this case the trade is very complex and has a lot of room to specialize or to generalize. If your studio at a graduate or 5th year level and is taught by a licensed architect then call it work setting S or something and allow academic credit and IDP credit for the same work if the studio is designing something that could be viewed as architecture. Perhaps a firewall could be in place that your mentor can not be the same person as your studio instructor.
Architecture curriculum often suffers in the larger university structure because creative work is not given merit as research or publication, this creates a revolving door at some universities’ departments or schools of architecture. Having to disclose your studio instructor’s professional credentials and that being something that schools feel the need to be competitive on could help maintain or restore the theory versus practice balance we as a profession need. The trend towards theory is mostly the fault of large institutions not giving equal merit to creative works such as designing a restaurant or a community center.
This may be controversial, I am sure it is, but as far as IDP goes let interns who design “architecture” in studio get IDP credit and academic credit at the same time.
On the issue of IDP categories as a form of contract, maybe not a good idea but recruiting interns in terms of IDP credits desired and offered may be a way to quantify experience and opportunities. Big house firm seeks intern who has earned 40% of their building cost analysis hours and wants to earn the remainder. Also in larger cities it is possible for firms to contract short term and just get someone in to write specks, or to do site analysis, or to work nights or weekends on toilet partitions just to help make a deadline. Using IDP as a means to gauge experience and what work any given position anticipates is only a tool to help firms and interns make more informed decisions.
Architectural curriculum is unique from most other professions in that it needs to be at once both theoretical and practical. When the two modes of thought reinforce on another that's when the magic happens. Preferring one over the other leads either to inconsequential jargon or banality.
can we fix idp? finally? one proposal to do so...
I did IDP before you could take the ARE concurrently - I realized only after preparing for the exam that this process would have been a better start for my career and I probably wouldn't have wasted so much time trying to seek out experience in areas that literally only took me 5 minutes to learn how to do in the test prep.
I also felt like the whole process was a bunch of BS - I could have easily fudged the hours (I didn't, btw). basically all I was doing was filling out paperwork every few months and paying NCARB to file it. There's absolutely no accountability even in the current system - no one checks to see if interns are actually learning anything - or that they even worked the hours they're filling in. It literally is a few years of free money to NCARB.
this might be the other reason people don't bother - there's no accountability, so it's mostly just playing the game to get registered. why don't they just come out and say they want $4000 and you can take the test tomorrow? it's the same thing, except less paperwork. people are going to be less motivated to participate in a system where there is absolutely no feedback during the process.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Keith. However, I can't imagine anything more soul-killing than an involvement in politics. I prefer to stick to making pretty things.
It continues to be a mystery to me why architects remain convinced that it is a good idea to hand over complete control over our training and livelihood to outsiders who are at best indifferent to our success and at worst running a ponzi scheme at our expense. When has that ever turned out well for anybody?
I did my time in architecture school, completed my internship quickly, and qualified for licensure as soon as possible. I did it because I had to in order to do this thing that I love, not because I wanted to or because it made any sense. I just held my nose and did it. Now that I'm here with my handsome certificates on the wall, I will not fall prey to self-justification to protect the position they supposedly give me. I refuse to pretend that this system is anything but the scam that it is. I hold NCARB/IDP and NAAB in the contempt they deserve.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I am out of the loop w/ IDP etc..so I cannot debate it intelligently. I guess I am old school, 5 years undergrad, 3 years in a firm, take exam, architect.
It's kinda scary to think it's more complicated now.
Question: They used to allow folks to sit for the exam who simply worked under an architect for 7-8 years, is that still allowed?
Gwharton, Don't worry, once we have you in office, we can ear mark funds for pet projects you can design under an alias. How about an embassy?
Keith, it depends on the registration board. Some states allow it, others don't.
Brian, yes you can take the ARE's in some states upon graduation from a NAAB program. I think you need an M-Arch. I just registered for mine in AZ. I know most states are different though.
Keith, one more point of clarification. I believe that the ability to take the AREs after working for x number of years under a licensed architect only takes the place of a NAAB accredited degree, not the IDP. So you can become an architect without going through the schooling in some places but I think you still have to do IDP. Again, it all depends on the registration board. This webpage lets you look up specific jurisdictions and their requirements/allowances.
Interesting, thanks Brian for clarifying.
NCARB and the AIA have been working diligently for some time to get the "experience in lieu" clauses struck from the licensing laws in all 50 states. They recently succeeded in doing so for my home state of Washington, for instance (at the same time they put in place a continuing ed requirement ... why don't they be honest and call it a "continuing income for the AIA" requirement?)
There are very few states where you can use experience in lieu of an accredited degree now.
gwharton, Washington state still allows experience in lieu of a degree. From the Washington State Department of Licensing website under the registration by exam requirements:
Starting July 1, 2012, candidates who haven’t started IDP or haven’t had any activity for over 5 years must meet the following requirements:
or
I know at least in Kansas you are required to have an NAAB degree for reciprocity - most states are fine with just the NCARB certificate.
I think in terms of accounability, there is almost no way to enforce this that wouldnt include massive increases in fees just to cover the additional work needed to hold firms accountable. Considering how hard it appears to be to now get people to sign off on your hours when they are not even monitored, imagine if it was something they would actually be held accountable? I could see a lot more of these situations pop up where you then have architects questioning the interns hours just to cover themselves.
And really, how would you even monitor it? It would still come down to an architect signing off on the hours, and who is to say what happened 6 months ago?
I think the more appropriate route is to get rid of the hours requirement altogether. Yes, some could pass the exams right away, but a lot of interns could not and the work experience actually does make a difference.
The only problem with that is that it would lessen the value of the license, at least partially. But i dont know if that is really a problem. You get far more work based off of your experience than because you just have your license.
If you graduate and pass your exams right out of school, then try to just open your own firm, you wont be handed projects just because you have a firm and a license. You need to win clients by proving you can do their job.
So i dont know if losing the IDP requirement really would hurt the profession all that much. It may hurt individual interns who might just graduate and focus more on their exams before gaining experience and employment. But thats just my opinion that work experience is far more valuable than what you do in school and the exams.
I'm pretty sure lawyers can take the bar exam the day after graduation with no experience whatsoever. Can't see why architects shouldn't be able to do so as well. If they aren't competent to design simple projects the day they graduate, what does that say about architectural education? A novice designing a porch addition has less real world consequences than a lawyer defending an innocent person in a courtroom.
If you graduate and pass your exams right out of school, then try to just open your own firm, you wont be handed projects just because you have a firm and a license. You need to win clients by proving you can do their job.
Most registered architects I know never used their stamp until after they've had it for several years anyway. a license is a tremendous responsibility, but when one has responsibility thrust upon them, most people tend to be far more careful and much faster to get help. I think what is lacking among many recent graduates is a sense of responsibility...
Most registered architects I know never used their stamp until after they've had it for several years anyway. a license is a tremendous responsibility, but when one has responsibility thrust upon them, most people tend to be far more careful and much faster to get help. I think what is lacking among many recent graduates is a sense of responsibility...
I agree. And not to be too harsh on recent graduates, but I think that there is just a major lack of responsibility and accountability for their own careers going on out there. Way too many people cannot seem to handle submitting IDP hours every 6 months and want to take a stand against it on the principle alone for some reason. It seems that everyone wants to blame everyone else for them not being licensed right out of school. This idea that you are somehow being held down by others and being prevented from opening your own firm when you are 29 is a little ridiculous.
I dont know if its a generational thing, because i am not that much older, but i kind of liken it to how in schools these days, if kids get in trouble in any way shape or form, the parents come in and say what the teacher did wrong instantly, never what the kid did wrong. It seems we are all raised to play the victim more than taking responsibility for ourselves. (obviously this doesnt apply to everyone, but you know what i mean)
I am hoping to have these last 3 exams wrapped up before the summer. And professionally, i wont be using my stamp for a really long time unless i switch jobs. I also have no interest in opening my own firm for a long time, if ever. It has nothing to do with a lack of confidence in myself or my skills, it just seems unnecessary for the added amount of work for the payoff.
I'm pretty sure lawyers can take the bar exam the day after graduation with no experience whatsoever. Can't see why architects shouldn't be able to do so as well. If they aren't competent to design simple projects the day they graduate, what does that say about architectural education? A novice designing a porch addition has less real world consequences than a lawyer defending an innocent person in a courtroom.
I agree with this. While i see that IDP is just trying to give a way for interns to not get stuck doing renderings 50 hours a week, or being pigeon-holed doing something else forever, and to at least give partial incentive to give a broad amount of work experience, it just basically seems like we could do without it. Let us architects take responsibility for our own careers.
A lawyer with no experience who just passes the bar exam the day he graduates will be a worse lawyer than if he decided to work for a couple years gaining experience and then passed the bar. But who is to say that shouldnt be his choice?
Same goes for architects, in my opinion.
I agree with the above post marmkid. For some reason people feel that we have to be treated like babies. There is an interest in maintaining the status quo because the ones with decision making power are being served by it in the form of cheaper labor or in the lmiting of competition. It is why lawyers get hired out of school at 65k. A licence gives us the option to work on our own even if that option may be foolish with no experiance.
Also to add to the logic of geezertect, lawyers pose a direct threat to the public, architects design an "object" that must pass inspection, meet codes, get ok by engineer, etc. There are checks and balances in place already to protect the public.
The way to deal with this whole thing is simple. Create a new academic route.
M-arch or B-Arch plus IDP
or
M-arch plus a 2 year post grad licensing degree that is IDP equivelent.
The program should cover all experiance requirements and at the end you can take ARE's and recieve an architecture licence. Yeah ok the loans would suck, but you know what sucks more, being unemployed and painting smelly apartments for a living while looking for internships after being 100k in debt and graduating magna cum laude with an M-Arch.
I'm not totally disagreeing with what marmkid is saying about recent grads (most of us don't take much responsibility on ourselves), but I think the frustration with IDP comes mainly from not having complete control over one's career (if licensure is the chosen path), not the will to submit hours every 6 months. Ultimately it comes down to a recent grad being able to get a job under a licensed practitioner that will support them in their desire to complete IDP. The variables involved rely much more heavily on other people and their willingness to work with the system than on the recent grad.
IDP makes it so I can't just find any job, but I need to find the specific job. Hopefully one with an employer that is willing to work with me through IDP. If this thread is any indication of the general trend in the profession that may be harder than it seems; I'd say just as many people that could be helping recent grads through IDP are saying they dislike the system just as much as the recent grads are. The difference is that if a recent grad wants a license they are forced to deal with it, whereas an employer can choose not to.
Because text doesn't really convey the tone I'm trying to send with this I'll say that I'm not trying to rant or get upset, and I hope it doesn't come across that way. I just wanted to clarify a little bit about how recent grads might feel in the current economy, et cetera.
A lawyer with no experience who just passes the bar exam [and opens a practice] the day he graduates will be a worse lawyer than if he decided to work for a couple years gaining experience and then [opened a practice.] But who is to say that shouldnt be his choice?
Fixed that for you.
word! and if we had the skills upon graduation from such a program it would be beneficial to employers as well. Would anyone do something like this if it were offered? I am thinking about talking to the university to make something like this available.
It could be set up to mimic a firm environment.
Fixed that for you.
Thank you. I am not a lawyer and none of my friends are, so I don’t know what their career path necessarily is. Though, like doctors, I am pretty sure it is not the mirror route that we architects tend to portray. If our education was as intensive and prepared us for our careers in the same way that med school and law school did for them, then I would be 100% on board with the analogy.
I'm not totally disagreeing with what marmkid is saying about recent grads (most of us don't take much responsibility on ourselves), but I think the frustration with IDP comes mainly from not having complete control over one's career (if licensure is the chosen path), not the will to submit hours every 6 months. Ultimately it comes down to a recent grad being able to get a job under a licensed practitioner that will support them in their desire to complete IDP. The variables involved rely much more heavily on other people and their willingness to work with the system than on the recent grad.
While that is true, I just don’t see that it is that dire of a situation that it seems to be made out to be. And I will admit my statement on recent grads was a bit exaggerated, and it seems to be those a bit older who just decided now after working for 10 years, have decided they want to get their license and think they should be able to submit 10 years worth of hours, despite the amazing coincidence of it being 3 days after the 6 month rule deadline took effect.
Most firms, I have to believe, have a licensed architect working for them. And most of those licensed architects are reasonable in helping you achieve your IDP hours if you present it to them in a way that is not a burden on them. If you come to them prepared, with everything set where all they need to do is essentially say yes, then I don’t think you will run into much trouble. Unless I am mistaken, and there are just a ton of architects out there who just out of spite don’t want to click yes on the online form?
IDP makes it so I can't just find any job, but I need to find the specific job. Hopefully one with an employer that is willing to work with me through IDP. If this thread is any indication of the general trend in the profession that may be harder than it seems; I'd say just as many people that could be helping recent grads through IDP are saying they dislike the system just as much as the recent grads are. The difference is that if a recent grad wants a license they are forced to deal with it, whereas an employer can choose not to.
This has always been the case though. Except now it is all done online and in a much easier way. I don’t think that if you are able to find a job, that it is any harder now to get your hours signed off on. I think it would actually be easier. No one likes the system. But I just don’t think that employers (the majority anyway) choose to not help you unless they have a reason.
That is the industry we have chosen, it hasn’t changed in recent years. You need to find the specific job that will best further the career path you choose. Right now, yes, the economy is not great, so you may be forced to just take any job you can. But as architects, there will always be ups and downs in the economy that we have to deal with.
Though maybe I am just misunderstanding you when you say you can’t just find any job. What kind of job can’t you take?
Because text doesn't really convey the tone I'm trying to send with this I'll say that I'm not trying to rant or get upset, and I hope it doesn't come across that way. I just wanted to clarify a little bit about how recent grads might feel in the current economy, et cetera.
It doesn’t come across that way, no worries
I think before we all propose to do away with IDP - anyone know the history behind why it was implemented in the first place? NCARB's website says it was invented in 1976:
NCARB introduced the Intern Development Program (IDP) after working with the American Institute of Architects (AIA) throughout the 1970s to develop a more structured program for interns to ensure they were gaining the knowledge and skills necessary to practice independently. Administered by NCARB, jurisdictions gradually began adopting the program to satisfy their experience requirement.
what had come before IDP? Were there a large number of architects running around who lacked fundamental skills? I think identifying the core competencies for practice is positive - and having these resources available to interns is also positive, but clearly the current system is not very effective in it's intended purpose, and I think it would be very helpful to understand the state of the profession in the run up to IDP - and where we are now.
the anti-trust lawsuit against the AIA was in 1990 (back when the profession had been hit pretty hard by a recession) - IDP has been around much longer.
I have no sympathy for the intern that tries to submit 10 years of hours 3 days after the deadline. That's just taking responsibility for your own career.
You're right that it should be easy for an employer to just click ok on an online form and it's that simple. I would expect any employer to be willing to do that. I'm talking more along the lines of an employer being willing to work with an intern in getting the hours they need, where they need them rather than just three years of figuring out flashing details.
You're also right to say that nothing has changed and you still need to find a job that will best further your career path. Rhetorically though, how many 'best jobs' are available? Under perfect conditions IDP and licensure take 3 years, how long is that stretched out when you can only take the 'pay off student loans job'? The any job versus the specific job comes down to a personal choice and your intended career path. Any job will give you money to pay bills (it may not be enough), but the specific job will do that, plus any other benefits and/or compensations you feel works out best for you and your career. That can be good health insurance, networking opportunities, help with IDP and licensure, and many other things.
I guess the larger question behind all this, and to bring the thread back on topic, asks if IDP should be this way. Should we (recent grads) need to rely on licensed architects in order to get a license? Should it take 3+ years? Should there be a simpler solution that puts the variables in the hands of the person seeking the license?
what had come before IDP? Were there a large number of architects running around who lacked fundamental skills? I think identifying the core competencies for practice is positive - and having these resources available to interns is also positive, but clearly the current system is not very effective in it's intended purpose, and I think it would be very helpful to understand the state of the profession in the run up to IDP - and where we are now.
I think that is important. Based on what little I know about it, the origins of IDP were a good idea. I think the problem now is that there may be more specialties in our profession as well as more varying career paths that are available which are not really addressed by IDP.
Personally, I think if you want the architectural license, it is completely reasonable for them to expect that a licensed architect sign off on your hours. It seems the only logical way to keep some level of accountability and credibility on what their license means. Essentially, if one of your own signs off on something basic, it is acceptable. While I understand that there is a very gray area of fudging hours involved, it still has the basis in that you are working with a “known” quantity. If the rules are stretched to include unlicensed architects or whoever being allowed to sign off on hours, then what baseline do we have? There is no standard, or at best, the standard would need to be clearly defined and expanded.
Basically, you could be working for a shady developer who would like a licensed architect on his staff. So he signs off on all your hours. I realize this is not much different than a shady architect signing off on your hours. But at least it wouldn’t be as widespread.
And you would like to think that a large majority of licensed architects would not be so jaded that they completely misrepresent themselves and sign off on completely fraudulent hours.
You're right that it should be easy for an employer to just click ok on an online form and it's that simple. I would expect any employer to be willing to do that. I'm talking more along the lines of an employer being willing to work with an intern in getting the hours they need, where they need them rather than just three years of figuring out flashing details.
My point is that exists with our without IDP. And I have always felt that IDP actually aids interns in that it is a way to gain more varied experience quicker than maybe they would be able to otherwise.
Again, if you present it to someone in an appropriate way, the vast majority of the time you will be helped. No, you won’t automatically be switched over to new work every other week just to meet the specific hours you need. But much more often than not, you will be given the opportunity that works within your firms workload. If you are willing to show that you will go above and beyond, maybe work a little extra on something that wasn’t in your schedule, but was in the hours you need, you probably will be given that chance.
And then it snowballs in that you will be given other opportunities because of that
But I think an unreasonable expectation of people is that you should fulfill all your required hours in 3 years and if you go over, the firm has failed you. 3 years is just the added amount of hours. No firm can guarantee that, and it shouldn’t be expected.
You're also right to say that nothing has changed and you still need to find a job that will best further your career path. Rhetorically though, how many 'best jobs' are available? Under perfect conditions IDP and licensure take 3 years, how long is that stretched out when you can only take the 'pay off student loans job'? The any job versus the specific job comes down to a personal choice and your intended career path. Any job will give you money to pay bills (it may not be enough), but the specific job will do that, plus any other benefits and/or compensations you feel works out best for you and your career. That can be good health insurance, networking opportunities, help with IDP and licensure, and many other things.
Yeah that is the pickle we are all in with this career
I guess the larger question behind all this, and to bring the thread back on topic, asks if IDP should be this way. Should we (recent grads) need to rely on licensed architects in order to get a license? Should it take 3+ years? Should there be a simpler solution that puts the variables in the hands of the person seeking the license?
I think it comes down to more of a yes or no question. Is IDP needed?
I see the merits to both answers. I tend to side with yes, as I think the benefits are there just not always recognized. But then again, I am more on the traditional firm career path, so the jobs I have had have always been in line with it.
I can see the other side if you choose to follow a different career path.
I think the program is a simple as it needs to be right now, and adding any more complexity to it would only make things worse, while also taking responsibility away from interns, which I don’t agree with.
marmkid - actually the question of IDP being 'needed' has already been answered by 48 states and NCARB. it's not going away completely. does it get absorbed into the academic curricula? is it rethought? that's different question than wishing it dead.
i think we're all getting a bit off track - nothing about the kind of proposal i've laid out would restrict the long term career path of anyone getting through it: remember, it's 2 years (or less if it could be worked out, but 2 has a lot of advantages) right after school. some programs considered more 'alternative' would be fine to host idp candidates, but they'd have to do so while hitting the required items, in the structured order.
the issues of needing a licensed architect to sign off, length of time, alternative settings - all that goes away. to me, those advantages outweigh the potential downsides. there's a definitive professional standard for calling yourself an 'architect' - it's done quickly, consistently and then guess what? you're not bound to anyone...
marmkid - actually the question of IDP being 'needed' has already been answered by 48 states and NCARB. it's not going away completely. does it get absorbed into the academic curricula? is it rethought? that's different question than wishing it dead.
first, i dont wish it dead. I actually think its very beneficial, even set up the way it is now.
second, by that logic, then the NCARB and those 48 states have already answered your question as well. I dont hear NCARB complaining about how long it takes anyone, and i dont hear schools complaining that they are not responsible for their graduates professional readiness. Actually quite the opposite. Schools do not want that responsibility as they would have to, in most cases, completely redo their circulum to accomodate what is covered by the exams and 3 years of work experience hours.
In a perfect world, I would agree that when you graduate from an architectural program, you are ready to be an architect, and that you have the necessary skills. But if we are talking about realistic options, I dont see putting it all on the universities as something that is even remotely possible.
Your proposal includes making things more complicated unfortunately.
Teaching Studio firms is a good idea, but incredibly limits those that would be available to participate, and I don’t know how it would be legal to set a standard salary for your first 2 years out of school. You also end up limiting the options where the best and brightest interns can work, as not every firm would be able to participate, though they could potentially have a job opening, which normally, would potentially count towards their IDP. Right now, firms as a whole don’t need to buy in, only individual architects do.
One question I have is how you would make it worthwhile for a firm to spend any of its architects’ time on the teaching aspect. I don’t know about where you work, but the upper level architects, who would best be suited to be the “teachers”, are stretched thin enough as it is to give up even a couple hours a week. It’s basically taking time away from paying clients. Doctors in a hospital can do this, I believe in large part because they get funding outside of their patients. I am not sure that could translate to architecture, unfortunately.
I think the benefits you mention really would only effect firms that are currently supportive of their interns growth to begin with.
Some excellent discussions going on here. I am an (unlicensed but could have if I had a stronger BS threshold) architect turned educational therapist and have learned so much about education and knowledge that my suspicions of IDP and the ARE have been confirmed, but without real rigor. I completed IDP and took a few of the ARE's before I changed careers. I am a long-term archinector and don't really know how to help right now, but am interested and willing and will offer an educational/psych perspective if I can... Let's SUE 'EM! Ha ha. No, seriously, why isn't the ARE subject to psych measurement? It isn't!!!
What if we hire an outside evaluator to determine if the IDP and ARE are doing what it purports to do? I think things would fall apart pretty fast. Embarrassingly fast.
actually the question of IDP being 'needed' has already been answered by 48 states and NCARB. it's not going away completely
Actually - it's not technically needed - it's just one path toward licensure. you can completely circumvent IDP by getting licensed in a state that does not require it for their exam, and then getting certified through NCARB's "broadly experienced architect" program - which is 6 years after you've held your license in good standing - then gaining reciprocity in other states (some states don't require NCARB certification, so it could go even quicker). I think "experience" is the only consistent item across all states when you sit for the exam, and IDP (plus a professional degree - which you don't technically need either) is the fastest way to becoming a licensed architect. you could actually work for 15-20 years straight out of HS and you can get licensed in all states except for kansas (and maybe another one). the trick is finding a job in an architecture firm straight out of HS - but you'd be licensed by your mid-30s and you wouldn't have any student loans.
toaster - actually, you're only partially correct. if you can get a ncarb certificate through the bea program, that's not a guarantee individual states will accept the certificate when applying for reciprocity. (here's their exact quote: " Many architects apply for an NCARB Certificate to seek reciprocal registration in other U.S. jurisdictions. Reciprocal registration requirements vary and not all jurisdictions accept an NCARB Certificate issued upon satisfaction of the education requirement through the BEA Program.")
if you look at the specific requirements of each jurisdiction, only the following will grant a license without a professional degree and/or completion of IDP:
CO; DE; IL; MI; OH; OK, OR, RI.
all of those require a minimum of 2 years active licensure in another jurisdiction prior to applying. some require as much as 5 years. there are about a dozen states that would allow a license obtained prior to 1994-1996ish to apply for reciprocity without retroactively doing IDP.
point being: a certificate alone doesn't ensure an ability to get reciprocity. yes, it can be done, but with a huge set of caveats.
New York is another one but I think it takes 12 years without a degree of any kind.
greg - also NH, VT, & CA. and many state review boards can determine licensure on a case-by-case basis. anyway - my point is that while IDP + professional degree are the easiest and fastest way to a licence, it's not the only way - you just have far more hoops to jump through.
I also think that if someone were to challenge IDP and/or NAAB as the only path to licensure in court that it might not stand up. Some states don't have accredited architecture programs, and IDP is managed by a non-government organization that doesn't actually have any authority over licensed architects. If we want IDP to have more teeth, it needs to be enforced and managed by the state (or a currently non-existent federal) licensing boards, not NCARB.
IDP has two major roadblocks, one landing a job and the other getting a broad working experience.
The academy is not helping when they chose not to cover basic fundamentals and firms have to educate or re educate young professionals. If a school graduates students who have no CAD Revit experience, don’t have any idea how to design an ADA toilet or how to design a wall or other system then those schools should lose their accreditation right away. I am all for exit exams which translate into experience points but schools who fall short and have 20-30% failure rate must have their certification revoked. The academy has turned its back on their students and the profession when they decided to ignore the science of construction. Firms should expect a standard of competency if a student has entered the IDP by passing or doing exceptionally well in the graduate exit exam.
Additionally NCAR NAAB and the AIA must insist that all architecture studios be taught by an actual licensed architect and those studios could count as work experience. Think of how many hours you spent under the supervision and control of your professor in studio.
As for the broad range of experience, I think firms could use the 15 work experience divisions as part of their job descriptions when they recruit candidates they could estimate what percentage of time the position will engage in any of the 15 specific training units. This could work to both employers and employee’s benefits by more precisely matching skills and experience to the needs of the position. Firms offering a more diverse work experience will attract higher quality candidates. He job can be negotiated and offered with a sort of contract that I will have opportunity to spend 12% of my time on Specifications and so on. This may require a unionization of Interns to enforce these contracts but maybe that is the missing piece of the puzzle.
Firms should expect a standard of competency if a student has entered the IDP by passing or doing exceptionally well in the graduate exit exam.
This sounds more along the lines of having your license exam be tied in with your degree, so when you graduate, you are licensed and firms can understand what your base level of skills are.
I think its overkill to expect the schools to reform to that level and then still expect there to be any sort of internship required before getting your license. If the schools did a better job in the first place, then IDP would not be necessary
The job can be negotiated and offered with a sort of contract that I will have opportunity to spend 12% of my time on Specifications and so on. This may require a unionization of Interns to enforce these contracts but maybe that is the missing piece of the puzzle.
That would be impossible, because why would a firm ever sign such a contract? They cant guarantee their own work, let alone the work for an intern with little to no skill coming out of school. And then what happens if the firm loses a big job through no fault of their own, which happens? What if they were banking on that project for some of the intern's hours? They technically would be breaking their contract with the intern. That opens a whole other can of worms
pjn26, I disagree on the point about professors being licenced architects. We need a broad design education. If it is turned into a vocational school, students will become corporate robots. However, there should be a 2 year post-grad licensure degree where such things are taught in place of IDP. If one wants to get an M-arch and go on to do something other than practice architecture they can. If they want to get a licence they can do IDP or a 2 year academic equivelent. This at least gives us a choice and allows us to advance our careers in times of economic downturn.
All states should remove the requirement of a degree, and adopt work equiv. towards qualification to take the ARE. Potential employers would get roughly the same skill set, and the interns would not have such high debt. If college is your thang, cool, if not cool. The apprentice route is the best way to learn the business, practice and art of Architecture, in my humble opinion. You can learn most of the stuff they teach at the big U's by reading a few books on the weekends...
I strongly believe that there should be alternative routes to licensure (or at least until college is free in the US) - but I want to make it clear that I think that a professional degree and some kind of structured training program are by far the best way of assuring a certain standard of skills and professionalism among licensed architects.
but I think the trouble this idea of "fixing IDP" is running into is that it is completely voluntary (or legally completely voluntary - if someone wants to challenge it) for one to participate in this program - there is also really no public oversight of NCARB (it's a private non-profit) - which means that their main incentive to "fix" IDP is the fear of their certification no longer meaning anything to state licensing boards. same thing with NAAB. If we want to actually change anything our efforts should be directed primarily with state licensing boards instead of going only through NCARB or AIA.
I am only suggesting that studios be taught by actual architects and that those studios could become a way to build IDP experience. I do not think the distinction in vocational verses "academic" or vocational education turns folks into corporate tools is fair. Schools teach techniques, tools, and give practicum which we call studios. Many other academic programs have a balance of vocational and non vocational course work. If we were a music school your suggestion would be like teaching piano with only a picture and a text book. Architectural design is an art and a science, part of it can be quantified and a part of is cannot. I don’t think many people enter an architecture program expecting much less than learning a trade that can become a career, in this case the trade is very complex and has a lot of room to specialize or to generalize. If your studio at a graduate or 5th year level and is taught by a licensed architect then call it work setting S or something and allow academic credit and IDP credit for the same work if the studio is designing something that could be viewed as architecture. Perhaps a firewall could be in place that your mentor can not be the same person as your studio instructor.
Architecture curriculum often suffers in the larger university structure because creative work is not given merit as research or publication, this creates a revolving door at some universities’ departments or schools of architecture. Having to disclose your studio instructor’s professional credentials and that being something that schools feel the need to be competitive on could help maintain or restore the theory versus practice balance we as a profession need. The trend towards theory is mostly the fault of large institutions not giving equal merit to creative works such as designing a restaurant or a community center.
This may be controversial, I am sure it is, but as far as IDP goes let interns who design “architecture” in studio get IDP credit and academic credit at the same time.
On the issue of IDP categories as a form of contract, maybe not a good idea but recruiting interns in terms of IDP credits desired and offered may be a way to quantify experience and opportunities. Big house firm seeks intern who has earned 40% of their building cost analysis hours and wants to earn the remainder. Also in larger cities it is possible for firms to contract short term and just get someone in to write specks, or to do site analysis, or to work nights or weekends on toilet partitions just to help make a deadline. Using IDP as a means to gauge experience and what work any given position anticipates is only a tool to help firms and interns make more informed decisions.
Architectural curriculum is unique from most other professions in that it needs to be at once both theoretical and practical. When the two modes of thought reinforce on another that's when the magic happens. Preferring one over the other leads either to inconsequential jargon or banality.
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.