so.... yesterday a curious little email from ncarb arrives (which i'm sure many of you received as well) and.. well... i'm kind of blown away by ncarb ceo michael armstrong's summary thoughts on the subject of how long it's taking people to get registered:
"Finally, we have the data in hand to "bust" these long-standing myths. For example, we discovered that the median years—which is one measure of central tendency—it takes to complete the IDP is actually about five years. Unlike the mean, which is really just an average, the median is not dramatically affected by the outliers—those who either finish the IDP super fast or those who take 40 years to finish.
We also learned that it takes approximately seven years from graduation to initial licensure. Now we have data to disprove claims that it takes upward of 10 years, on average, to get licensed." (all emphasis is mine)
so wait: you're the ceo of ncarb. you're the exclusive manager of a proprietary process you've gotten nearly all 50 states to adopt to 'streamline' the initial registration of architects. a process that, by your own marketing materials, is supposed to be completed in 5,400 hours or approximately 3 full time years of work. and you're out celebrating because the data you've carefully culled shows that the median is ONLY 5 years instead.
this fact alone is bad enough (and since when did completing the IDP ON SCHEDULE become 'superfast'), the kicker, of course, is in the last sentence: only a bassackwards organization would gloat that a process which is supposed to be completed in 3 years is actually taking 7 and you're cheering because you can disprove the notion that it's taking 10.
un-effing believable. those statistics are simply, utterly unacceptable. truly, truly embarrassing for you, the organization and the profession you purport to represent.
very curious about the distribution - what if the curve for licensure is negatively skewed and the mode is actually closer to 10 years? so - even though half the people get licensed before or at 7 years, it could also mean that the highest percentage of people get licensed at around 9 years or something. Hard to know since we don't actually have the data.
also - half the people complete IDP in 5 years or longer? wow.
For example, we discovered that the median years—which is one measure of central tendency—it takes to complete the IDP is actually about five years. Unlike the mean, which is really just an average, the median is not dramatically affected by the outliers
this is particularly damning - he's actually admitting that the data distribution skews higher. This means that while 50% of people complete IDP in 5 years or less, it also could mean that that the next 30-40% take more like 7 or 8 years.
I'm curious when this data is from - could the mean or median be skewed by the most recent four years of employment data, during which very few interns have found IDP-sufficient employment?
and this is a complete bullshit statement. especially if the curve is bumpy - like it drops off at 10 years and then suddenly there's a mini-spike at 15, then another at 25... I'd be very curious about those spikes. This e-mail seems more like a defensive "in-your-face" to people who want to fix the system.
oh - and are there actually people who are taking 40 years to finish IDP?
donna - this was their big survey they did last year. the one that took like an hour to complete. i don't know much about their methodology personally.
One thing to remember is that 5,400 hours does not actually equal the nearly three years of work. The 5,400 is distributed across the full spectrum of architectural practice, and many interns don't get the opportunity to complete exactly the number of hours in each section without significant overages in certain categories, and having to wait for the opportunity to complete others. In my case, I think I submitted nearly 9,000 hours before I finally got enough hours in each category. Is that NCARB's fault? Nope. The firm I worked in gave me plenty of opportunity in various areas of work, but when it came time to do a project, you still have to crank CDs. Whether or not NCARB should be strutting is an entirely different matter in my mind. 5-7 years sounds about right, all things considered.
NCARB has to pay the executive and other administrative salaries and the R and D for the test each year. The fear is they will see a drop in people starting their IDP program until they have steady employment. They also fear folks will hold off on taking the ARE until they know they can finish the IDP program. Complaints such as the time and the expense may lead states to reconsider the standards imposed by NCARB and fewer architecture graduates choosing to enter the profession because of employment and IDP barriers could lead to major financial crunches ahead for NCARB. So they would want to present data and reports that make things seem better than they really are.
The data I would like to see is a month to month reporting of the total hours logged by IDP record holders split into three categories; Work experience, certificates such as LEED or CSI, and other alternate means such as the monographs, competitions and continuing education credits.
I think NCARB recognizes that IDP is burdensome and some of the changes they made give intern architects some chance to finish if they are not working or if their work is sporadic. One huge change that was long overdue was the ability to gain experience in multiple jurisdictions or states, as long as the architect is registered where you are working. What they should do is allow Interns who start their registration to file for 18 months of work and 2 years of continuing education when they start their record. If you are a student or going back to school you should have the option to pause your IDP similar to forbearance on student loans, the fees for IDP are not cheap.
Hmm. I completed IDP I think around about 5 years 6 months after graduation date. BUT I had worked all the way through school and was barred from counting any of those hours (despite the nature of the work being completely the same as what was asked for in the categories. You may not be a diploma'ed architect but picking up redlines on CDs is the same either way.) I know quite a few folks who worked through school like me and yet had to start IDP from scratch after graduation date.
Anyway for me the biggest problem was that after I finally got that letter of IDP completion, it took me forever to take the exams because I was working consistent 55-60 hour weeks and had no time to study. (With unpaid overtime, of course!) Hence it took me until year 7.5 (IIRC) to finish up the exams - I was only finally able to crunch and get them done once I got laid off. Lots of folks I knew were in the same boat - the overworked nature of the profession preventing folks from taking the exams. This part can't be blamed on NCARB. IDP, however...
Greg - Your comments are on-point as always. I especially like how the data ends at 2009. This shows that either NCARB is so slow that they have to lag their data 2-3 years or that the 09-12 data would substantially change (extend) their celebratory 5 year timeframe.
I think this is a classic example of a mis-alignment of incentives. NCARB has no real incentive for you to get licensed because they keep charging their 'maintenance' fees and justify their existence by holding the keys to unlock the door of licensure in most states.
Architecture firms don't really have an incentive for interns to get licensed because a well qualified person with 5 years of experience who is or is not licensed will likely be paid about the same wage and their bill rates are unlikely to substantially change as well.
Interns don't see the value of getting licensed because firms don't take as hard-line a stance about being licensed as they should and I don't know anyone who got a raise when they received their license.
I'd personally like to see more firms pushing out those who have not obtained their license and have 5+ years of work experience. It's not like the ARE's are some impossibly hard test - read the books, cut back on the boozing and take the tests!
ok - let me give a little background here: once upon a time, you could only take the exam during one four day period of the year (for almost every state). you had every incentive to study, get your idp or whatever the equivalent was done and sit for that test as soon as possible. for most states, that was still at the 3 year mark. i don't know what the pass rates were, but i guarantee - guarantee - that a majority of the degree holders were getting that license in year 3. there's no way - absolutely no possible way - that the median time to complete idp was 5 years, never mind 7 years to licensure.
7 years is wholly unacceptable for this profession. AND NCARB IS FREAKING PROUD OF IT!
Everyone has always said "it takes about 3 years to get licensed" and as a high school senior that doesn't sound so bad. If you told me "it takes about 7 years from when you graduate after six years of school" you would have lost me instantly. I don't understand how this is gloat worthy news either.
@greg - what's the point of getting licensed as quickly as possible if there is very little incentive? most firms don't give you a bump in pay, you rarely get any additional responsibility (often they'll only carry liability on one stamp) - the AIA even charges the firm more for membership the more licensed architects you have on staff - especially if they aren't AIA members... so unless you're planning on starting your own shop, or have managed to work your way up in a large firm (which takes several years - if you are lucky to stay in one place that long) - there are very few reasons to get licensed so early in one's career.
I'd personally like to see more firms pushing out those who have not obtained their license and have 5+ years of work experience. It's not like the ARE's are some impossibly hard test - read the books, cut back on the boozing and take the tests!
The problem with this is that because IDP takes so long many architects have moved well beyond boozing with their "free time" and now have husbands, wives and children to balance while having to take an additional 7 exams after completing IDP. I had two hours after I put my daughter down to bed to study before I had to go to bed to get up for work the next morning. The move away from a one/two day test puts working parents at a huge disadvantage. The whole damn process takes way too long. Funny how most of the recently minted architects I know finished the exams because they got laid off. If that doesn't say the process is broken, I don't know what does.
well said. I believe this is the main reason many states now allow interns to begin the exams immediately following graduation, regardless of idp progress.
Unless you are a partner or sole proprieter, there is no reason to get licensed, which is what my architect friends and I have decided, and this is why there is no push to get licensed. Most architects aren't partners or sole proprieters within the first 10 years, if ever.
toaster - because with a license, a firm HAS to treat you differently from a CAD monkey. otherwise, you can leave and become the competition.
yes, SOME firms want to keep you in that cad-monkey position. so why in the world would you want to make it easier by delaying getting registered?
all this still points to the need, as won, shullemi and yours truly have pointed out, to streamline the process, in order to re-think how this process works. it's broken, ncarb has put that broken-ness out for all to see and astoundingly wants you to believe it's all ok....
toaster - because with a license, a firm HAS to treat you differently from a CAD monkey. otherwise, you can leave and become the competition.
My boss at a previous firm would constantly joke that I'd soon be his competition because I was designing almost all their projects, but his clients were all these developers who had been working exclusively with him (and a couple of his PMs) for the past 20+ years. I would have had to pilfer half that office's technical and CA staff in order to steal his clients - something that wouldn't have worked because the designers and the PMs hated each other (probably how the office was set up intentionally, I guess). Although - that's how a friend of mine started his own firm - he managed to convince half the staff at his old office (including a couple senior people) to join him and now they're in direct competition with his old firm. I wonder if there's less of a threat these days because risk of setting up shop is much higher than it used to be? are recent grads too scared of starting their own firm? also - what experienced client is going to run away with some recently licensed kid?
toasteroven - are recent grads too scared of starting their own firm?
Recent grads aren't taught the first thing about managing anything in reality. And by the time they may get licensed they either still have large debt or have been working from hourly wages ranging from $8 - $20 an hour, and with liability now and how ignorant we are coming out of school, I couldn't fathom starting my own practice before even 30. The whole cost and stability factor is really intimidating.
My all-time favorite from the report (download it here) is the chart from the intern perception survey that shows where interns first learned about IDP and how well they feel they understand the rules of IDP.
"It appears most interns feel they understand the rules of IDP, which is counter to the myth that the IDP is too complicated a program."
Follow-up questions -- of those interns that feel they understand the rules of IDP, how many of them actually understand the rules of IDP? Wouldn't that show if IDP is too complicated a program? I think we might have a situation where it looks simple on paper but when it really comes down to it, there is more that complicates the issue.
When you look at the whole ting, and once you *finally* understand the difference between mean and median :) the real goal here is to convince us all to NCARB certify promptly. Apparently it is free if we do. That is, free after paying $75 for nine years.
I love that they focus on the median like it is somehow more telling of how long it takes to complete IDP because the outcome is not dramatically affected by outliers. What if the "outlier" is the one person who finished in five years?
99 out of 99 people all take five years to complete IDP, the median is five years.
If 50 people out of 99 take five years to complete IDP and the other 49 take 40 years; the median is still five years.
If 49 people out of 99 take three years to complete IDP and another 49 people take 40 years to complete it, but one person finished in five years; the median is still five years.
If you look at the mean (or average) of those same groups of people...
Five year average
22.3 year average
21.3 year average
Obviously, these numbers are an exaggeration but you can't just take a median of five years at face value, especially when the organization collecting, crunching, and reporting the numbers has such a clear agenda and bias. When NCARB can brag that the median is three and a half years to complete IDP ... then I'll be impressed.
First, thank you all very much for the feedback—we are interested in hearing your thoughts about this work, and we think that analyzing this data and tracking trends can help to provide a foundation for conversation about key indicators for our profession.
Just to clarify a few points that were raised in your discussion:
This is not the data from the 2012 Practice Analysis. The data included in this book comes from two places: NCARB’s new internal data warehouse and a perception survey we sent out in late 2011. Results from the 2012 Practice Analysis will be published at a later date. The Practice Analysis provides insight into the practice of architecture. Every five to seven years, NCARB surveys the profession to identify the tasks and knowledge/skills necessary for the independent practice of architecture. This data is then used to drive the development of the Architect Registration Examination® (ARE®), inform the Intern Development Program (IDP), guide NCARB’s response to the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) 2013 Accreditation Review Conference (ARC) and inform NCARB’s continuing education policies.
Time to Complete the IDP:
There is no time limit to complete the IDP, and interns can choose their own pace. While the IDP requirement of 5,600 hours equates to about three years, not every hour of work experience counts toward IDP. The time to complete to IDP is impacted by several factors including firm setting and access to experience areas.
To be transparent, we included both the mean and the median related to the time it takes to complete IDP as well other measurements. While the mean time it took to complete IDP for all our Record holders is interesting and worth review and discussion, the median is the more accurate description of what a “typical” experience is like. The difference between the mean and median, which is two years or less for all measurements, shows the impact of the statistical data of those who took a significant amount of time to complete IDP.
The chart that shows the time to complete the IDP ends in 2009 because it is organized by application year, a decision made to answer an intuitive question: what should I expect when I start my Record? Data does not exist after 1 July 2009 because interns who applied after this date have been subject to the Six-Month Rule for the entirety of their time as Records holders. As such, they have not yet had sufficient time to document 5,600 hours of IDP. We are very interested to see what these trends will look like in the next few years.
Changes to the IDP:
There have been several changes to the IDP over the last several years. In addition to modifications to experience categories and areas, there are new IDP eligibility dates that allow interns to start earning experience after graduation from high school or enrollment in a NAAB-accredited program and expanded opportunities to earn experience outside of a traditional firm setting. It will be interesting to see if these changes have any impact over the next several years on the time it takes to complete IDP.
We hope that by releasing some of this information for discussion and dialogue, we can all start to form a better understanding of what the world is like, how it has changed over time, and what we might see in the future. If you have additional questions about the information, please contact NCARB Customer Service at customerservice@ncarb.org.
NCARB, I think the frustration you see in this forum and from interns in general is the distance between your conclusions from the data ("mythbusting" as you put it) and the actual experience interns face as part of the process. Instead of defending the process as it stands, I think NCARB and the profession as a whole would be much better off to take this criticism seriously rather than trying to use data to rationalize an entrenched position or make minor changes that nibble around the edges of a much deeper problem.
couple of questions/comments/follow ups to your post:
first, it'd be great if the ceo would register for an archinect account and come in here personally to have a dialogue about the results. having a discussion with a nameless entity is always difficult at best.
second - in many of your replies above, you note that the results are "interesting" and that you'll be waiting to see future trends. for the record though: are you proud of the results that were released yesterday? yes or no would be fine. if yes, then why? if no, then why not say as much initially?
third - will you release the raw data you used? you mention that you're interested in transparency - i think we all are. unfortunately, such a limited glimpse (and the admission that the mean is 2 years greater than the median) doesn't promote a healthy discussion about the state of idp relative to our shared goal: getting people registered.
fourth - in any of the data that you have, did people give reasons for why it was taking as long as it was to finish idp and/or get licensed?
fifth - your statement above "There is no time limit to complete the IDP, and interns can choose their own pace. While the IDP requirement of 5,600 hours equates to about three years, not every hour of work experience counts toward IDP. The time to complete to IDP is impacted by several factors including firm setting and access to experience areas. is one that i'm quite sure would be echoed by many of us who have gone through idp. yet, do you not agree it gets to the crux of the problem with the program? how are degreed students supposed to get their license if the private marketplace isn't providing them opportunities to do so? what is ncarb specifically doing to put pressure onto firms or look at alternative routes to completion? do you all not feel a sense of duty to address this paradox?
lastly - again, thank you for responding at all - you'll find a deep well of cynicism here about the value of ncarb and i'm not sure too many people would have expected any response. what i do hope, though, is that this isn't the only one. ncarb has a great deal of accountability to the development of this profession, as much as or more than the schools in some regards. my hope is that, as stated originally, you're not proud of the numbers that were just released and that you'll tirelessly work to make the system better, not (as won noted just above) continue to nibble at the edges.
NCARB, as a long-time Archinect user (and NCARB member since 1999, I think, maybe 2000) I believe an honest discussion with you here would be a great way to reach many, many students and graduates who don't know all that they should know about NCARB. As Gregory asks, please have someone step up and engage here.
Another issue is how to determine the number of candidates that have simply given up? When does an outlier simply disappear from the statistics and skew the numbers?
I want to weigh in again to ask that we try, if NCARB comes back, to have a reasoned, polite discussion.
I for one have little patience for people who complain that IDP is too hard or too confusing or whatever - try getting a building permit in Indianapolis and you will truly learn the meaning of "impacted, unnavigable bureaucracy"! Dealing with obscure details and paperwork and meeting arbitrary requirements is part of what we do as professionals.
But as Gregory says, NCARB has a great deal of accountability to the development of this profession, as much as or more than the schools in some regards. NCARB has a prominent seat at the table, and as it is *our* organization we need to be willing to engage, constructively, in both directions to try to improve the state of our profession.
I would also like to see the raw data get released and also know more specifics about how this data was analyzed. Is it not possible to have a third party do the analysis? I think it would clear up a lot of the cynicism and make it more credible that NCARB is in fact dedicated to improving the process.
There was a thread a few years ago that I can't seem to find right now. Someone independent took raw numbers from NCARB and graphed it per state. If I'm not mistaken, the average time it took to get registered in New york was 9 years based on that study. Does anyone else remember this?
I know there are people like me who completed IDP after a 4 year degree and then went back for their MArch - so that would explain things like gaps - but if someone is continually submitting records for 5+ years (or 7) while gainfully employed the entire time - after a professional degree - that means something isn't working.
I think if NCARB said that the length of time includes periods the IDP record was inactive - that would make more sense - but still not great that it takes people a long time after getting a professional degree to get licensed.
Donna, complaining that something is too hard annoys me too, but this issue with idp goes beyond that. It is more about the burden that it places on firms consequently making it very difficult for grads to find work. You can't just mandate something and then expect others to pay the way for those that must submit to the mandate. It is part of the reason for the animosity between the old and young. There should not be a give take relationship in any work place. rather, everyone should be responsible for their own development and work together for some mutual benefit. Everyone is burdened but ncarb. They profit from the whole thing so theres no wonder why they don't want to change the status quo. As a result talented young people have no freedom to leave their deadend job and try and make it on their own, they need to rely on their future competition to lend a helping hand, and firms have to raise their future competitors. It just don't work.
Another issue is how to determine the number of candidates that have simply given up? When does an outlier simply disappear from the statistics and skew the numbers?
Same things been done with the unemployment stats.
maybe there needs to be another forum topic for "NCARB, Don't Look at This One" so you can put all the rants and cynicism and Rusty's posts in one place and leave this place as somewhere NCARB can feel comfortable coming back to. My posts belong in the other forum topic, so I will not elaborate here.
ncarb explains the numbers...
so.... yesterday a curious little email from ncarb arrives (which i'm sure many of you received as well) and.. well... i'm kind of blown away by ncarb ceo michael armstrong's summary thoughts on the subject of how long it's taking people to get registered:
"Finally, we have the data in hand to "bust" these long-standing myths. For example, we discovered that the median years—which is one measure of central tendency—it takes to complete the IDP is actually about five years. Unlike the mean, which is really just an average, the median is not dramatically affected by the outliers—those who either finish the IDP super fast or those who take 40 years to finish.
We also learned that it takes approximately seven years from graduation to initial licensure. Now we have data to disprove claims that it takes upward of 10 years, on average, to get licensed." (all emphasis is mine)
so wait: you're the ceo of ncarb. you're the exclusive manager of a proprietary process you've gotten nearly all 50 states to adopt to 'streamline' the initial registration of architects. a process that, by your own marketing materials, is supposed to be completed in 5,400 hours or approximately 3 full time years of work. and you're out celebrating because the data you've carefully culled shows that the median is ONLY 5 years instead.
this fact alone is bad enough (and since when did completing the IDP ON SCHEDULE become 'superfast'), the kicker, of course, is in the last sentence: only a bassackwards organization would gloat that a process which is supposed to be completed in 3 years is actually taking 7 and you're cheering because you can disprove the notion that it's taking 10.
un-effing believable. those statistics are simply, utterly unacceptable. truly, truly embarrassing for you, the organization and the profession you purport to represent.
my thoughts were that, quickly followed up by a: shit. i'm 6 months away, and i've been working for 2 years or so.... my ass is so getting audited.
very curious about the distribution - what if the curve for licensure is negatively skewed and the mode is actually closer to 10 years? so - even though half the people get licensed before or at 7 years, it could also mean that the highest percentage of people get licensed at around 9 years or something. Hard to know since we don't actually have the data.
also - half the people complete IDP in 5 years or longer? wow.
totally missed this statement:
For example, we discovered that the median years—which is one measure of central tendency—it takes to complete the IDP is actually about five years. Unlike the mean, which is really just an average, the median is not dramatically affected by the outliers
this is particularly damning - he's actually admitting that the data distribution skews higher. This means that while 50% of people complete IDP in 5 years or less, it also could mean that that the next 30-40% take more like 7 or 8 years.
I'm curious when this data is from - could the mean or median be skewed by the most recent four years of employment data, during which very few interns have found IDP-sufficient employment?
"not affected by outliers"
and this is a complete bullshit statement. especially if the curve is bumpy - like it drops off at 10 years and then suddenly there's a mini-spike at 15, then another at 25... I'd be very curious about those spikes. This e-mail seems more like a defensive "in-your-face" to people who want to fix the system.
oh - and are there actually people who are taking 40 years to finish IDP?
donna - this was their big survey they did last year. the one that took like an hour to complete. i don't know much about their methodology personally.
they need a survey to see who started idp? don't they have the actual files?
"It costs $75 each year to maintain an active Record until you become registered."
Why wouldn't he gloat?
yeah, as far as i understood, the completion numbers were taken from the big data dump before idp 2.0 took effect.
One thing to remember is that 5,400 hours does not actually equal the nearly three years of work. The 5,400 is distributed across the full spectrum of architectural practice, and many interns don't get the opportunity to complete exactly the number of hours in each section without significant overages in certain categories, and having to wait for the opportunity to complete others. In my case, I think I submitted nearly 9,000 hours before I finally got enough hours in each category. Is that NCARB's fault? Nope. The firm I worked in gave me plenty of opportunity in various areas of work, but when it came time to do a project, you still have to crank CDs. Whether or not NCARB should be strutting is an entirely different matter in my mind. 5-7 years sounds about right, all things considered.
the graph cuts off at 2009! haha
NCARB has to pay the executive and other administrative salaries and the R and D for the test each year. The fear is they will see a drop in people starting their IDP program until they have steady employment. They also fear folks will hold off on taking the ARE until they know they can finish the IDP program. Complaints such as the time and the expense may lead states to reconsider the standards imposed by NCARB and fewer architecture graduates choosing to enter the profession because of employment and IDP barriers could lead to major financial crunches ahead for NCARB. So they would want to present data and reports that make things seem better than they really are.
The data I would like to see is a month to month reporting of the total hours logged by IDP record holders split into three categories; Work experience, certificates such as LEED or CSI, and other alternate means such as the monographs, competitions and continuing education credits.
I think NCARB recognizes that IDP is burdensome and some of the changes they made give intern architects some chance to finish if they are not working or if their work is sporadic. One huge change that was long overdue was the ability to gain experience in multiple jurisdictions or states, as long as the architect is registered where you are working. What they should do is allow Interns who start their registration to file for 18 months of work and 2 years of continuing education when they start their record. If you are a student or going back to school you should have the option to pause your IDP similar to forbearance on student loans, the fees for IDP are not cheap.
Peter N
Hmm. I completed IDP I think around about 5 years 6 months after graduation date. BUT I had worked all the way through school and was barred from counting any of those hours (despite the nature of the work being completely the same as what was asked for in the categories. You may not be a diploma'ed architect but picking up redlines on CDs is the same either way.) I know quite a few folks who worked through school like me and yet had to start IDP from scratch after graduation date.
Anyway for me the biggest problem was that after I finally got that letter of IDP completion, it took me forever to take the exams because I was working consistent 55-60 hour weeks and had no time to study. (With unpaid overtime, of course!) Hence it took me until year 7.5 (IIRC) to finish up the exams - I was only finally able to crunch and get them done once I got laid off. Lots of folks I knew were in the same boat - the overworked nature of the profession preventing folks from taking the exams. This part can't be blamed on NCARB. IDP, however...
Greg - Your comments are on-point as always. I especially like how the data ends at 2009. This shows that either NCARB is so slow that they have to lag their data 2-3 years or that the 09-12 data would substantially change (extend) their celebratory 5 year timeframe.
I think this is a classic example of a mis-alignment of incentives. NCARB has no real incentive for you to get licensed because they keep charging their 'maintenance' fees and justify their existence by holding the keys to unlock the door of licensure in most states.
Architecture firms don't really have an incentive for interns to get licensed because a well qualified person with 5 years of experience who is or is not licensed will likely be paid about the same wage and their bill rates are unlikely to substantially change as well.
Interns don't see the value of getting licensed because firms don't take as hard-line a stance about being licensed as they should and I don't know anyone who got a raise when they received their license.
I'd personally like to see more firms pushing out those who have not obtained their license and have 5+ years of work experience. It's not like the ARE's are some impossibly hard test - read the books, cut back on the boozing and take the tests!
ok - let me give a little background here: once upon a time, you could only take the exam during one four day period of the year (for almost every state). you had every incentive to study, get your idp or whatever the equivalent was done and sit for that test as soon as possible. for most states, that was still at the 3 year mark. i don't know what the pass rates were, but i guarantee - guarantee - that a majority of the degree holders were getting that license in year 3. there's no way - absolutely no possible way - that the median time to complete idp was 5 years, never mind 7 years to licensure.
7 years is wholly unacceptable for this profession. AND NCARB IS FREAKING PROUD OF IT!
ugh. i need a drink...
Everyone has always said "it takes about 3 years to get licensed" and as a high school senior that doesn't sound so bad. If you told me "it takes about 7 years from when you graduate after six years of school" you would have lost me instantly. I don't understand how this is gloat worthy news either.
@greg - what's the point of getting licensed as quickly as possible if there is very little incentive? most firms don't give you a bump in pay, you rarely get any additional responsibility (often they'll only carry liability on one stamp) - the AIA even charges the firm more for membership the more licensed architects you have on staff - especially if they aren't AIA members... so unless you're planning on starting your own shop, or have managed to work your way up in a large firm (which takes several years - if you are lucky to stay in one place that long) - there are very few reasons to get licensed so early in one's career.
I'm not sure if this is entirely NCARB's problem.
I'd personally like to see more firms pushing out those who have not obtained their license and have 5+ years of work experience. It's not like the ARE's are some impossibly hard test - read the books, cut back on the boozing and take the tests!
The problem with this is that because IDP takes so long many architects have moved well beyond boozing with their "free time" and now have husbands, wives and children to balance while having to take an additional 7 exams after completing IDP. I had two hours after I put my daughter down to bed to study before I had to go to bed to get up for work the next morning. The move away from a one/two day test puts working parents at a huge disadvantage. The whole damn process takes way too long. Funny how most of the recently minted architects I know finished the exams because they got laid off. If that doesn't say the process is broken, I don't know what does.
well said. I believe this is the main reason many states now allow interns to begin the exams immediately following graduation, regardless of idp progress.
Unless you are a partner or sole proprieter, there is no reason to get licensed, which is what my architect friends and I have decided, and this is why there is no push to get licensed. Most architects aren't partners or sole proprieters within the first 10 years, if ever.
toaster - because with a license, a firm HAS to treat you differently from a CAD monkey. otherwise, you can leave and become the competition.
yes, SOME firms want to keep you in that cad-monkey position. so why in the world would you want to make it easier by delaying getting registered?
all this still points to the need, as won, shullemi and yours truly have pointed out, to streamline the process, in order to re-think how this process works. it's broken, ncarb has put that broken-ness out for all to see and astoundingly wants you to believe it's all ok....
toaster - because with a license, a firm HAS to treat you differently from a CAD monkey. otherwise, you can leave and become the competition.
My boss at a previous firm would constantly joke that I'd soon be his competition because I was designing almost all their projects, but his clients were all these developers who had been working exclusively with him (and a couple of his PMs) for the past 20+ years. I would have had to pilfer half that office's technical and CA staff in order to steal his clients - something that wouldn't have worked because the designers and the PMs hated each other (probably how the office was set up intentionally, I guess). Although - that's how a friend of mine started his own firm - he managed to convince half the staff at his old office (including a couple senior people) to join him and now they're in direct competition with his old firm. I wonder if there's less of a threat these days because risk of setting up shop is much higher than it used to be? are recent grads too scared of starting their own firm? also - what experienced client is going to run away with some recently licensed kid?
There....if you and your "architect friends" decide you don't need to get licensed, then you must refer to them simply as "friends"...
Still awaiting word from the authorities if the term "Archibuddies" is allowable.
toaster.... wtf. did we sit in the same chair?
toasteroven - are recent grads too scared of starting their own firm?
Recent grads aren't taught the first thing about managing anything in reality. And by the time they may get licensed they either still have large debt or have been working from hourly wages ranging from $8 - $20 an hour, and with liability now and how ignorant we are coming out of school, I couldn't fathom starting my own practice before even 30. The whole cost and stability factor is really intimidating.
Kevin, point taken. We are only architects in the cocktail party sense then.
My all-time favorite from the report (download it here) is the chart from the intern perception survey that shows where interns first learned about IDP and how well they feel they understand the rules of IDP.
"It appears most interns feel they understand the rules of IDP, which is counter to the myth that the IDP is too complicated a program."
Follow-up questions -- of those interns that feel they understand the rules of IDP, how many of them actually understand the rules of IDP? Wouldn't that show if IDP is too complicated a program? I think we might have a situation where it looks simple on paper but when it really comes down to it, there is more that complicates the issue.
When you look at the whole ting, and once you *finally* understand the difference between mean and median :) the real goal here is to convince us all to NCARB certify promptly. Apparently it is free if we do. That is, free after paying $75 for nine years.
I love that they focus on the median like it is somehow more telling of how long it takes to complete IDP because the outcome is not dramatically affected by outliers. What if the "outlier" is the one person who finished in five years?
If you look at the mean (or average) of those same groups of people...
Obviously, these numbers are an exaggeration but you can't just take a median of five years at face value, especially when the organization collecting, crunching, and reporting the numbers has such a clear agenda and bias. When NCARB can brag that the median is three and a half years to complete IDP ... then I'll be impressed.
I'll never fall for the system. It's a stupid tax. No plans of ever becoming licensed.
have fun working in third world countries or for other people for the rest of your life.
Hello!
First, thank you all very much for the feedback—we are interested in hearing your thoughts about this work, and we think that analyzing this data and tracking trends can help to provide a foundation for conversation about key indicators for our profession.
Just to clarify a few points that were raised in your discussion:
This is not the data from the 2012 Practice Analysis. The data included in this book comes from two places: NCARB’s new internal data warehouse and a perception survey we sent out in late 2011. Results from the 2012 Practice Analysis will be published at a later date. The Practice Analysis provides insight into the practice of architecture. Every five to seven years, NCARB surveys the profession to identify the tasks and knowledge/skills necessary for the independent practice of architecture. This data is then used to drive the development of the Architect Registration Examination® (ARE®), inform the Intern Development Program (IDP), guide NCARB’s response to the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) 2013 Accreditation Review Conference (ARC) and inform NCARB’s continuing education policies.
Time to Complete the IDP:
There is no time limit to complete the IDP, and interns can choose their own pace. While the IDP requirement of 5,600 hours equates to about three years, not every hour of work experience counts toward IDP. The time to complete to IDP is impacted by several factors including firm setting and access to experience areas.
To be transparent, we included both the mean and the median related to the time it takes to complete IDP as well other measurements. While the mean time it took to complete IDP for all our Record holders is interesting and worth review and discussion, the median is the more accurate description of what a “typical” experience is like. The difference between the mean and median, which is two years or less for all measurements, shows the impact of the statistical data of those who took a significant amount of time to complete IDP.
The chart that shows the time to complete the IDP ends in 2009 because it is organized by application year, a decision made to answer an intuitive question: what should I expect when I start my Record? Data does not exist after 1 July 2009 because interns who applied after this date have been subject to the Six-Month Rule for the entirety of their time as Records holders. As such, they have not yet had sufficient time to document 5,600 hours of IDP. We are very interested to see what these trends will look like in the next few years.
Changes to the IDP:
There have been several changes to the IDP over the last several years. In addition to modifications to experience categories and areas, there are new IDP eligibility dates that allow interns to start earning experience after graduation from high school or enrollment in a NAAB-accredited program and expanded opportunities to earn experience outside of a traditional firm setting. It will be interesting to see if these changes have any impact over the next several years on the time it takes to complete IDP.
We hope that by releasing some of this information for discussion and dialogue, we can all start to form a better understanding of what the world is like, how it has changed over time, and what we might see in the future. If you have additional questions about the information, please contact NCARB Customer Service at customerservice@ncarb.org.
NCARB, I think the frustration you see in this forum and from interns in general is the distance between your conclusions from the data ("mythbusting" as you put it) and the actual experience interns face as part of the process. Instead of defending the process as it stands, I think NCARB and the profession as a whole would be much better off to take this criticism seriously rather than trying to use data to rationalize an entrenched position or make minor changes that nibble around the edges of a much deeper problem.
it's like if you take a pile of dung and dress it in an armani suit.
still dung.
hi ncarb,
couple of questions/comments/follow ups to your post:
first, it'd be great if the ceo would register for an archinect account and come in here personally to have a dialogue about the results. having a discussion with a nameless entity is always difficult at best.
second - in many of your replies above, you note that the results are "interesting" and that you'll be waiting to see future trends. for the record though: are you proud of the results that were released yesterday? yes or no would be fine. if yes, then why? if no, then why not say as much initially?
third - will you release the raw data you used? you mention that you're interested in transparency - i think we all are. unfortunately, such a limited glimpse (and the admission that the mean is 2 years greater than the median) doesn't promote a healthy discussion about the state of idp relative to our shared goal: getting people registered.
fourth - in any of the data that you have, did people give reasons for why it was taking as long as it was to finish idp and/or get licensed?
fifth - your statement above "There is no time limit to complete the IDP, and interns can choose their own pace. While the IDP requirement of 5,600 hours equates to about three years, not every hour of work experience counts toward IDP. The time to complete to IDP is impacted by several factors including firm setting and access to experience areas. is one that i'm quite sure would be echoed by many of us who have gone through idp. yet, do you not agree it gets to the crux of the problem with the program? how are degreed students supposed to get their license if the private marketplace isn't providing them opportunities to do so? what is ncarb specifically doing to put pressure onto firms or look at alternative routes to completion? do you all not feel a sense of duty to address this paradox?
lastly - again, thank you for responding at all - you'll find a deep well of cynicism here about the value of ncarb and i'm not sure too many people would have expected any response. what i do hope, though, is that this isn't the only one. ncarb has a great deal of accountability to the development of this profession, as much as or more than the schools in some regards. my hope is that, as stated originally, you're not proud of the numbers that were just released and that you'll tirelessly work to make the system better, not (as won noted just above) continue to nibble at the edges.
Hear, hear, Gregory Walker!
NCARB, as a long-time Archinect user (and NCARB member since 1999, I think, maybe 2000) I believe an honest discussion with you here would be a great way to reach many, many students and graduates who don't know all that they should know about NCARB. As Gregory asks, please have someone step up and engage here.
i want data to play wif.
my pythony hands like data.
Dear NCARB,
Can you help us look up definition of the term "confirmation bias"?
thnx!
I'll second the cheers for Gregory Walker!
Another issue is how to determine the number of candidates that have simply given up? When does an outlier simply disappear from the statistics and skew the numbers?
I'll second the second of the cheers for Gregory Walker.
I want to weigh in again to ask that we try, if NCARB comes back, to have a reasoned, polite discussion.
I for one have little patience for people who complain that IDP is too hard or too confusing or whatever - try getting a building permit in Indianapolis and you will truly learn the meaning of "impacted, unnavigable bureaucracy"! Dealing with obscure details and paperwork and meeting arbitrary requirements is part of what we do as professionals.
But as Gregory says, NCARB has a great deal of accountability to the development of this profession, as much as or more than the schools in some regards. NCARB has a prominent seat at the table, and as it is *our* organization we need to be willing to engage, constructively, in both directions to try to improve the state of our profession.
I would also like to see the raw data get released and also know more specifics about how this data was analyzed. Is it not possible to have a third party do the analysis? I think it would clear up a lot of the cynicism and make it more credible that NCARB is in fact dedicated to improving the process.
There was a thread a few years ago that I can't seem to find right now. Someone independent took raw numbers from NCARB and graphed it per state. If I'm not mistaken, the average time it took to get registered in New york was 9 years based on that study. Does anyone else remember this?
I know there are people like me who completed IDP after a 4 year degree and then went back for their MArch - so that would explain things like gaps - but if someone is continually submitting records for 5+ years (or 7) while gainfully employed the entire time - after a professional degree - that means something isn't working.
I think if NCARB said that the length of time includes periods the IDP record was inactive - that would make more sense - but still not great that it takes people a long time after getting a professional degree to get licensed.
Well said Gregory!
Donna, complaining that something is too hard annoys me too, but this issue with idp goes beyond that. It is more about the burden that it places on firms consequently making it very difficult for grads to find work. You can't just mandate something and then expect others to pay the way for those that must submit to the mandate. It is part of the reason for the animosity between the old and young. There should not be a give take relationship in any work place. rather, everyone should be responsible for their own development and work together for some mutual benefit. Everyone is burdened but ncarb. They profit from the whole thing so theres no wonder why they don't want to change the status quo. As a result talented young people have no freedom to leave their deadend job and try and make it on their own, they need to rely on their future competition to lend a helping hand, and firms have to raise their future competitors. It just don't work.
Another issue is how to determine the number of candidates that have simply given up? When does an outlier simply disappear from the statistics and skew the numbers?
Same things been done with the unemployment stats.
Donna: "....to have a reasoned, polite discussion."
That's not how you spell pitchforks and torches.
maybe there needs to be another forum topic for "NCARB, Don't Look at This One" so you can put all the rants and cynicism and Rusty's posts in one place and leave this place as somewhere NCARB can feel comfortable coming back to. My posts belong in the other forum topic, so I will not elaborate here.
trollist.
It sounds like getting licensed isn't worth the effort.
userben - but it shouldn't be that way. and, once upon a time, it wasn't nearly this difficult.
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.