I got this email today. The question is: why should I respond?
You have been selected to participate in the 2007 NCARB Direct Supervision Survey. The results of the study will provide essential information for reviewing the current definition of ‘Direct Supervision.’ The 2006-2007 Handbook for Interns and Architects defines “Direct Supervision” as:
“that degree of supervision by a person overseeing the work of another, where both perform their work in the same office, where personal contact is routine, and whereby the supervisor has both control over and detailed professional knowledge of the work prepared under his/her supervision.”
The purpose of this study is to collect information about the supervision of interns enrolled in the IDP. Your open and honest answers are critical to assist the Committee on the Intern Development Program in making future decisions on any modifications to the definition of direct supervision. As part of this study, we need you to take an online survey. Your individual results are strictly confidential and will not be reported to NCARB. The survey will take less than 15 minutes and can be saved and completed in multiple sessions.
It looks to me like it's investigating the possibility of lessening the restrictions on supervision of IDP experience. In all of the questions the current state of affairs is the most restrictive answer choice. Currently one may not count any experience that was not directly supervised by a licensed architect working in the same office. The survery seems to be exploring whether perhaps they should also count some amount of experience that was performed away from a supervisor - for example in a branch office that might be in another state or even another country from where the licensed supervisor is located, and whether sufficient supervision is possible by email or other forms of long-distance communication.
I think it's an interesting question, given that many firms these days do have multiple branch offices, not all of which may be staffed fulltime by licensed architects, and some people telecommute/videoconference from home.
That really is relatively quickly. NCARB has reported recently that the average amount of time between graduation and finishing the ARE is 7.5 years. That's one of the reasons behind the push to allow testing concurrent with IDP.
NCARB's vote to allow testing during IDP has been finalized, but it is up to each state board whether or not to allow that in their state (which is why there are already 7 or 8 states that have allowed it for years already).
I feel pretty neutral about the concurrent testing issue. My biggest frustration was with having to wait 4+ months after sending in my final IDP form to get authorization to start testing.
For the most part I think that IDP experience should be supervised directly by someone in the office. But I can think of certain situations where interns could benefit from some changes to the rules. For example there have been some threads on Archinect and on the ARE Forum started by interns who've had experience rejected for things like working for someone who is a registered architect, but not a registered in the state where the intern worked for them (for example one case involved a student working for a former professor who lived/worked part-time in the student's state, but did not maintain a license there.) I think this is splitting hairs on NCARB's part, and that any person who is licensed in any state should be able to serve as an IDP supervisor...
concurrent rocks- taking and passing the tests have very little to do with your competency as an future architect. then again, 3-4 years of interning also has little to nothing to do with becoming a good architect.
Did any one not catch the question of what type of program you would like to go to in order to supervise interns: Monograph, seminar, web based seminar?
The process of getting registered is becoming a cake walk? Come on Lawyers and Doctors have it easier. You didn't even used to have to go to school for that matter participate in IDP. I'm all for regulations to "safeguard the public health, safety, and welfare", I'm just not convinced that the definition of Entablature or Sociofugal, nor what type of planning the Piazza of Saint Peter is an example of has anything to do with safeguarding public health. Yet you need to know the answers to those questions to pass the ARE. Further I'm not sure how realistic nor responsible it is to have IDP requirements in the areas of Office Management or Bidding & Contract Negotiation.
I get frustrated and disheartened with the sentiment that because I had to go through this you do to. If what they are making people go through is ridiculous why should we do things to further propagate this. Just because we have rules doesn't mean we shouldn't question the validity of those rules.
With regards to the direct supervision I'm one of the people in a situation in which my legitimate time working under the VERY direct supervision of a licenced architect doesn't count because:
a) At some firms I was an "independent contractor" (which basically means they didn't withhold my taxes for me. It had nothing to do with how we operated).
b) At one firm the projects I was working on were in states and countries other than where my supervisors were licensed even though cumulatively there were many countries and states represented none of them were states we were performing work in. This was a very well known and respected starchitect too, there is no question they are architects... but it doesn't count...
So now I find myself 4.5 years out of school with 2 years of experience. and 0 IDP, but I'm working for myself and doing just fine but I'm in a position in which I need to be licensed and the only way to do that is close up my shop, and take up a job for several YEARS working for someone else (and take a pay cut in the process).... seems insane.
Now to make it even worse I started in California before IDP was required and in firms that don't keep track of IDP, no biggie I don't need it for Cali. But I've moved to Oregon. If I don't do IDP in Oregon I have to first get licensed in Cali, then practice there with my license for 2 years (but I don't live there so how do I practice there) then get NCARB certified, then apply for reciprocity, then take the supplemental Oregon exams.... Does this not seem ridiculous?
To be the paranoid cynic I think it's a ploy to have guaranteed cheap labor for 3-7 years and once you have employees entrenched in your system and invested in your office they'll be less inclined to hang their own shingle once they are licenced because then you'll finally be paying them what you should have been for the last 7. This is also why they push the term intern.
You know its actually illegal to use the term "architectural". So Architectural Illustrator could technically face prosecution. Yet their is an American Society of Architectural Illustrators. Clearly whomever wrote the laws followed by the state boards grasp of the English language and the use of an adjective is even worse than mine. The Noun and Subject is "Illustration". That's what you do, you are an Illustrator. "Architectural" is and adjective, the syntactic role of an adjective is to modify the noun. Illustration is clearly the emphasis. You do Illustrations of or pertaining to architecture. This does not suggest you are soliciting for architectural services....
They could at least come up with something better than Intern. Like Physicians Assistant (I know it's a separate education). Architects Assistant? I don't know anything is better!
Also why does the questionnaire only address those currently enrolled in IDP? Not everyone seeking licensure has to follow IDP at this point yet we are still regulated by "direct supervision" so the questionare is relevant to us as well. And those who have finished IDP still have valid input (maybe more so).
NCARB IDP Supervision Survey
I got this email today. The question is: why should I respond?
You have been selected to participate in the 2007 NCARB Direct Supervision Survey. The results of the study will provide essential information for reviewing the current definition of ‘Direct Supervision.’ The 2006-2007 Handbook for Interns and Architects defines “Direct Supervision” as:
“that degree of supervision by a person overseeing the work of another, where both perform their work in the same office, where personal contact is routine, and whereby the supervisor has both control over and detailed professional knowledge of the work prepared under his/her supervision.”
The purpose of this study is to collect information about the supervision of interns enrolled in the IDP. Your open and honest answers are critical to assist the Committee on the Intern Development Program in making future decisions on any modifications to the definition of direct supervision. As part of this study, we need you to take an online survey. Your individual results are strictly confidential and will not be reported to NCARB. The survey will take less than 15 minutes and can be saved and completed in multiple sessions.
I asked myself the same question, but ended up doing it because I felt that any dose of reality into what NCARB does couldn't help.
Hurt, rather.
ha! a subliminally effective typo.
filling it out shows your solidarity with the interns!!!
Interns of the world, UNITE!!!!!
Step one: stop calling unlicensed architects 'interns'.
step two: practice the robot
i got that email too...
who gave them my email? was it one of you??
I just got it too.
I guess you're right, janosh. It can't hurt/help.
So what's the point again?!?
It looks to me like it's investigating the possibility of lessening the restrictions on supervision of IDP experience. In all of the questions the current state of affairs is the most restrictive answer choice. Currently one may not count any experience that was not directly supervised by a licensed architect working in the same office. The survery seems to be exploring whether perhaps they should also count some amount of experience that was performed away from a supervisor - for example in a branch office that might be in another state or even another country from where the licensed supervisor is located, and whether sufficient supervision is possible by email or other forms of long-distance communication.
I think it's an interesting question, given that many firms these days do have multiple branch offices, not all of which may be staffed fulltime by licensed architects, and some people telecommute/videoconference from home.
Okay, out of curiosity, I began to take the survey. The first question is: "Are you an intern participating in the IDP?"
My answer is "no" - I'm finished with IDP; I even have the certificate to prove it.
So why did they send me the survey?
My answer excluded me from taking the survey. Whatever. I don't need their no-incentive-waste-of-my-time survey anyways.
That's weird. I also answered "no", but it allowed me to continue and answer questions about supervising interns, etc.
Maybe they've received too many replies already from people in that category.
It seems they sent it to pretty much everybody whose email address they know. Everybody in my office got it (from Principals to interns).
I also checked "no" to being a supervisor.
I decided to change my first answer to "yes" so that I could register my opinion that I think interns should always have direct supervision.
I feel that with talk (implementation?) of allowing interns to take the ARE while doing IDP, the process of getting registered is becoming a cakewalk.
The survey allowed me to realize that I started IDP in 2001 but "only" finished it in 2006. And I thought I "blazed" through it pretty quickly.
...it's Frustration Monday.
That really is relatively quickly. NCARB has reported recently that the average amount of time between graduation and finishing the ARE is 7.5 years. That's one of the reasons behind the push to allow testing concurrent with IDP.
NCARB's vote to allow testing during IDP has been finalized, but it is up to each state board whether or not to allow that in their state (which is why there are already 7 or 8 states that have allowed it for years already).
I feel pretty neutral about the concurrent testing issue. My biggest frustration was with having to wait 4+ months after sending in my final IDP form to get authorization to start testing.
For the most part I think that IDP experience should be supervised directly by someone in the office. But I can think of certain situations where interns could benefit from some changes to the rules. For example there have been some threads on Archinect and on the ARE Forum started by interns who've had experience rejected for things like working for someone who is a registered architect, but not a registered in the state where the intern worked for them (for example one case involved a student working for a former professor who lived/worked part-time in the student's state, but did not maintain a license there.) I think this is splitting hairs on NCARB's part, and that any person who is licensed in any state should be able to serve as an IDP supervisor...
concurrent rocks- taking and passing the tests have very little to do with your competency as an future architect. then again, 3-4 years of interning also has little to nothing to do with becoming a good architect.
Did any one not catch the question of what type of program you would like to go to in order to supervise interns: Monograph, seminar, web based seminar?
The process of getting registered is becoming a cake walk? Come on Lawyers and Doctors have it easier. You didn't even used to have to go to school for that matter participate in IDP. I'm all for regulations to "safeguard the public health, safety, and welfare", I'm just not convinced that the definition of Entablature or Sociofugal, nor what type of planning the Piazza of Saint Peter is an example of has anything to do with safeguarding public health. Yet you need to know the answers to those questions to pass the ARE. Further I'm not sure how realistic nor responsible it is to have IDP requirements in the areas of Office Management or Bidding & Contract Negotiation.
I get frustrated and disheartened with the sentiment that because I had to go through this you do to. If what they are making people go through is ridiculous why should we do things to further propagate this. Just because we have rules doesn't mean we shouldn't question the validity of those rules.
With regards to the direct supervision I'm one of the people in a situation in which my legitimate time working under the VERY direct supervision of a licenced architect doesn't count because:
a) At some firms I was an "independent contractor" (which basically means they didn't withhold my taxes for me. It had nothing to do with how we operated).
b) At one firm the projects I was working on were in states and countries other than where my supervisors were licensed even though cumulatively there were many countries and states represented none of them were states we were performing work in. This was a very well known and respected starchitect too, there is no question they are architects... but it doesn't count...
So now I find myself 4.5 years out of school with 2 years of experience. and 0 IDP, but I'm working for myself and doing just fine but I'm in a position in which I need to be licensed and the only way to do that is close up my shop, and take up a job for several YEARS working for someone else (and take a pay cut in the process).... seems insane.
Now to make it even worse I started in California before IDP was required and in firms that don't keep track of IDP, no biggie I don't need it for Cali. But I've moved to Oregon. If I don't do IDP in Oregon I have to first get licensed in Cali, then practice there with my license for 2 years (but I don't live there so how do I practice there) then get NCARB certified, then apply for reciprocity, then take the supplemental Oregon exams.... Does this not seem ridiculous?
To be the paranoid cynic I think it's a ploy to have guaranteed cheap labor for 3-7 years and once you have employees entrenched in your system and invested in your office they'll be less inclined to hang their own shingle once they are licenced because then you'll finally be paying them what you should have been for the last 7. This is also why they push the term intern.
You know its actually illegal to use the term "architectural". So Architectural Illustrator could technically face prosecution. Yet their is an American Society of Architectural Illustrators. Clearly whomever wrote the laws followed by the state boards grasp of the English language and the use of an adjective is even worse than mine. The Noun and Subject is "Illustration". That's what you do, you are an Illustrator. "Architectural" is and adjective, the syntactic role of an adjective is to modify the noun. Illustration is clearly the emphasis. You do Illustrations of or pertaining to architecture. This does not suggest you are soliciting for architectural services....
They could at least come up with something better than Intern. Like Physicians Assistant (I know it's a separate education). Architects Assistant? I don't know anything is better!
Also why does the questionnaire only address those currently enrolled in IDP? Not everyone seeking licensure has to follow IDP at this point yet we are still regulated by "direct supervision" so the questionare is relevant to us as well. And those who have finished IDP still have valid input (maybe more so).
Anyway I wish I'd received this questionare.
the independant contractor thing sucks. i had that too.
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.