marmkid, you yourself acknowledged that you have a few years of work experience that have not been submitted. i'm the same way. 90% of interns are like us. someone who diligently submits every four months as aquapura did is from what i have observed the exception. okay, so the six month rule is supposed to motivate us to get our act together. fine. the reality of the situation though is that there will be many that have completed the credits, but cannot count them. that to me is ridiculous. idp is supposed monitor our work experience before registration, not monitor how diligent we are at submitting paperwork.
why will people have completed the credits but cant count them?
this doesnt take effect until July 2009 or something, there is plenty of time to get that done
if you are saying people will complete credits but not be able to count them because if, after 2009, they dont bother to fill out the forms every 6 months, then yes, maybe they will lose some credits
that will be completely their own fault at that point
fill out a form online every 6 months if you want credit
otherwise dont complain if you miss out, and dont blame anyone else
The problem with your argument is that NCARB dictates how architects get licensed.
You follow their rules, not the other way around.
If you don't like it, try to change it or learn to deal with it.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure this rule will apply to NEW ncarb records only. interns who open a new record should be fully aware of the rules and have no problem meeting the deadlines.
"tragically impossible" is an exaggeration. i'm just pointing out that it is a process that privileges its own bureaucracy over what it is purportedly there to serve, i.e. a means to record experience. i'm not talking rocket science here either. anyway, this debate has gotten completely overblown. you're satisfied with the changes. bully for you. as i stated above, idp for me is something to be endured. thankfully i'm almost done (as long as they don't lose my paperwork!).
I'm sure you already know this from your vast amount of non-documented "real-world" experience, but a very high percentage of an architect's day is spent pushing papers. I hardly believe that NCARB is the greatest producer of paperwork we have to deal with.
It may be shocking to newbies, but real architecture isn't just making funny shapes on a computer screen and fabricating them with a CNC.
Sometimes we have to accomplish tasks that are less desirable, such as filling out paperwork.
Scenerio - older person late 30's has all the experiance but left the profesion as an intern to do real estate development and now is looking to go back to get their license - they are not on archinect. They didnt get the memo. Isnt this just walling them out and skewing the profesion again, increasingly towards the same coddled multi degreed demographic?
speaking of paperwork - I have 2 phonebook size stacks of paper for one fucking building permit that has taken 2 years, a court case, a city council ordinance,.....get used to it. Thats what architects do.
the greatest generation of paper pushers is also an exageration
"the reality of the situation though is that there will be many that have completed the credits, but cannot count them."
i still dont understand this
that is the very thing they are trying to eliminate
why do you think this will forever be a problem, i am really curious to hear your answer
and i am not satisfied with any of it
like i have said several times, i am way behind in submitting my hours, but i am not going to sit here and blame everyone else except myself for that
of course IDP is something to be endured, no one likes to have to do these things
i also dont like having to double check the steel shops that the new guys just reviewed or go over any door hardware
but i am not going to bitch about having to do my job
and you arent satisfied with NCARB's changes
so bully for you
i dont understand why we cant have conversations here without people getting all worked up
Why didn't this individual get licensed if they had completed all of the required experience? Seems like if there was a possibility of coming back to architecture in the future, this would have been a logical step to take, and having the license could only them in their real estate career.
Sounds to me like this 30-something person is the one who wants to be coddled.
from what i understand, if they actually filled out their IDP stuff when they were getting this experience, they should still have a record intact after this all takes place
i think everyone who has an NCARB record before this takes place has some leeway
but if they never bothered to start an NCARB record or record any IDP hours, they may be out of luck.
and to be honest, i dont know if that is a bad thing
if you work as an arch intern, then go do something else, even if it is somewhat related like real estate, i dont know if i agree with you being able to walk back and say, oh, i want my license now, give it to me.
I'm sure you already know this from your vast amount of non-documented "real-world" experience, but a very high percentage of an architect's day is spent pushing papers.
TD, when did i say anything to contradict this or talk about my "real-world" experience? now you are just being a prick.
marmkid, no, i really believe we are the greatest generation of paper pushers (or pixel pushers).
this discussion has run its course. good luck with your six month rules and the like...
alternative parallel routes matter not everybody wants and needs to be a intern, and would rather have just been an apprentice.
the only thing i see this effecting me by is when i apply with NCARB for broad experience. ill just file all my IDP up then right before the deadline i guess once the 10 years comes, 2013, then get reciprocity. my only concern is i want reciprocity in EU. has anybody done this?
yeah i might bitch a little...... yeah i might be angry at the "system"...and i might come off as an ass in most cases......
but i have a right to bitch............ i can give you 8 years of info on bullshit reasons why i couldnt get hired in firms when i actually wanted to do office work........etc etc etc
each year it just makes things harder for me to get back in the office.....
it's fine........ one day it'll happen.............
back in time i think the tradesmen/masonaries/carpenters were actually ones to build and make "architecture" happen......... no stamp needed then....... but now
TD -"Sounds to me like this 30-something person is the one who wants to be coddled. "
Many many people get sucked into other careers via architecture. They go to work for builders, banks, mafrs - and the hypothetical peron in my example would be pre-ncarb IDP. To them it would seem logical that they could petition to take the exam under old rules! How would they know until they start looking into it the rules have changed? Imagine - not being able to take the exams because your too old essentially and not "tracked".
Again I like IDP, I dont like NCARBs ever expanding control of the route to profesionalisation. Its actualy imho dumbing down the role of architect. Mark my words you heard evil say it first - General contractors are going to start "licensing" in some states and become a "profesion" in their own right
cryzko
that really sucks
was it because they wouldnt pay you enough for your experience level? i could see some places being sticklers with that if you dont follow the traditional path
i wouldnt want to come in after having worked for 8 years and be offered a right out of school intern's salary
anti
what is the difference between an intern and an apprentice?
i always thought they were just different words for the same thing
The biggest problem I see with this isn't with those people who follow a more or less standard path from an architecture education to internship. Those people really have no excuse to not be able to document their experience on a regular schedule (though speaking as someone who sent in nearly 6 years of experience in one batch I can understand how that happens in the current system.)
The big problem I see is with those people who follow a non-traditional route and may not decide to pursue licensing until they've already been working in architecture for some years as technicians/drafters. There are at least 16 states that still allow licensing with only a high school diploma (usually with a longer internship - 5 to 13 years in various states), and more than 20 states that allow licensing with a 4-year college degree, not necessarily in architecture.
Sometimes these people don't realize until they've worked some years in the field that they want to get licensed, or even that they're eligible. This type of path would effectively be eliminated by the policy of no retroactive reporting. Of course that fits NCARB's own agenda perfectly, as their own position is against licensing without an NAAB degree.
Another likely wrench in the system is that not all states are planning to adopt this new policy. Going back 10 years or so there were a number of states that already had limits on retroactive reporting. But the trend was to eliminate those, and Ohio was the last state with this policy (which was a 6-month retroactive limit, except for people who had recently moved into the state) and they eliminated it a few years ago. Some states are not on board with NCARB's new rule, so as with most other NCARB rules there will be states that override it.
i think eventually it makes sense to have just a set standard of rules. this clearly is just a very first baby step in that direction and has many issues to get cleaned up before we will know if it is something that is worth it
i dont quite understand the backlash towards the idea of needing a professional degree to get your professional license though
why are architects so different from any other profession that has a license
you need a professional degree to get the professional license
you can work in a doctors office for years and learn everything you would need to know but you still cant be a doctor officially unless you have your degree
same goes with being a lawyer
i like the idea of there being a baseline requirement for education to have a "professional" license
again, you dont need your license to work a long career in architecture, so its not like everyone has to do this or else they are screwed out of the profession.
if you have a ton of experience in construction or building or anything related, you can usually go back to school for only a year or so and get your degree and then this isnt an issue.
i dont agree with a degree not really meaning anything
the problem is the forced conformity of career paths via IDP. untill IDP, there were many routes to becoming a licensed architect that served the profession extremely well by creating a diverse work force. Our future is overloaded with 3d-monkeys from Ivy Leagues with no common sense or understanding of gravity.
If the AIA really wants to increase the representation of minorities in the ranks of the profession, they need to open the door wider instead of shutting them.
i agree that there should be routes for anyone to become an architect. i think there should be set routes though, and you need to follow that. the doors seemed to be open pretty wide before which caused some problems
i think a "professional" license should have "professional" requirements
It should be more flexible than just IDP, but everyone shouldnt be able to make up their own route and basically say on their own that they deserve to be a licensed architect and should be allowed to sit for the exams on the basis of their "special" experiences
There should be a couple set paths to take which all have their own requirements. If you want to walk in and take the exams, you should at least meet certain requirements, and maybe might have to do something extra to meet them.
to expect to just walk in and not have to do anything at all though, is ridiculous
but yes, everyone doesnt need to go to school at 18 for 5 years and then intern for 3+ years then take the exam all in that order with no deviation.
treekiller - Not to jump off on a tangent, but in my opinion, it's architecture education and not NCARB that is creating a generation of 3D Maya Monkeys with no common sense or understanding of gravity.
Most schools and professors who teach at those schools fetishize paper architecture, starchitect worshipping, fancy graphics, and the creation Architecture with a capital A.
In fact, the vast vast majority of professors, at least at my school, were unlicensed. The most popular professors were the ones who have never built a single structure in their entire lives and the least popular professors were those who were at least somewhat grounded in reality.
So anyway, architecture school is another conversation altogether, but I think that's the root of the problem you brought up earlier.
I second T D, it's the professors that are hyping the 3D software. It has it's place, but fresh grads only want to do the fancy graphics and never want to get down & dirty into construction details, or anything relative to getting the buildings built.
Additionally, one can still have a diverse workforce by requiring an accredited college education and a pre-defined apprenticeship (internship) program. Many of my classmates in college had come from previous backgrounds in construction, drafting, textile design.
We get all worked up when some computer tech calls himself an architect but then we want to let anyone with some "experience" bypass the whole structured educational path to becoming an architect for the sake of "diversity". Bullshit.
Go to college, get a degree, complete IDP, pass the ARE. Whine all you want about paperwork, I don't care. That's life. Get used to it.
All of the Ivy architecture schools combined graduate +/- 350 students per year. According to NCARB the nationwide total number of grads from NAAB architecture programs is a little above 5000. The Ivies make up about 7%.
NCARB also states that only about half of all NAAB grads eventually go on to get licensed. But assuming that the percentages of people who eventually go on to get licensed are about the same for Ivies and non-Ivies, and even pretending that all licensed architects hold NAAB degrees (which we know is not the case), the concentration of Ivy grads - 3D monkeys with no common sense or not - in the field should still be only about 7%...
As for being on the route to one standardized set of rules for everyone: that's what NCARB wants very much. But it's up to each state board to adopt, amend, or reject every NCARB position, and each is different. That's why there are different licensing requirements, education requirements, internship lengths, time limits for testing, laws about incorporation of firms, who can be a partner in a firm, who can be granted reciprocity, how much the fees are, who can use the title "architect", etc. etc. in every state.
It's not likely that this new rule is any exception to this. It's not a first step in getting every state on the same page - it's another NCARB position that's meaningless until each state decides what to do with it.
"why are architects so different from any other profession that has a license"
Because what we do is trade based like it or not. Architecture was only thought of as a distinct "proffesion" when attorneys and doctors appeard, thus the endless copying to be like them.
And correct me if Im wrong, but technically you can become a doctor by passing the medical exam?
Fetishism is the key idea here. It's all about sex, isn't it architects?
All joking aside, I'm continually appalled at the "head in the clouds" mentality of many of my schools top students (and I don't even go to a prestigious one). There seems to be increasingly less interest in the realities of the profession.
MArch students are graduating with very little to any knowledge of the process it takes to get something built (and no IDP documented), only to get blindsided by the blunt realities . Instead they possess this destructive either/or mentally. Your either a technical, hands on person, with no design sensibilities about you, or your the next coming of Corb, with no regard for the "meat and bones". Such a perspective is unfortunate as it only panders to the image-consciousness of our society.
This may sound cheesy, like a motivational speaker, but I think a good "designer" thinks holistically, with an and/both mentality, creating win/win opportunities.
Personally, I see no reason why one cannot be a "good designer" and be rooted in reality. Just as an example (not to toot my own horn) but, after having documented 280 IDP hour while in school, and earning top honors for my master's thesis I feel like I have found that balance to a degree, albeit early on in my career.
I also think that our education system does an incredibly poor job (at least at my school) of informing students of the road toward licensing. I had classmates going into their MArch who didn't even know what IDP was!
What I'm saying is that some states have already decided to reject this policy, and in general it runs counter to the trend of the state boards eliminating their previous time limits in reporting. I'd link you to the charts that list all of NCARB's positions and then list all the states that do and don't agree with each or have amendments and exceptions - but those links are all "currently unavailable" on NCARB's site at the moment. NCARB's policies aren't meaningful unless at least a majority of state boards choose to adopt them. Otherwise they just add to the confusion...
What tends to happen when some states reject NCARB's policies in favor of laxer rules or rules that make things easier or less expensive for interns is that interns just choose to register through the states with the easier rules.
You can see this in statistics about licensing in various states. For instance if you pick a state that is by and large a by-the-book NCARB example - like Connecticut - you see that it has 1551 active licensed architects residing in a state and granted initial licenses to 18 people last year. But look at a state that doesn't toe NCARB's line - like Vermont - and they have 250 active resident architects but granted initial licenses to 75 people last year. In other words they granted 27 times the number of licenses that would be expected there if they were also a by-the-book NCARB state.
Some reasons for this are that Vermont allows testing before completion of IDP, they allow licensing with only a high school diploma, and their fees are lower. There are similar disproportionately higher licensing rates in Wisconsin, Texas, and a few other states with various advantageous rules. Most of the 75 licenses went to out-of-state candidates who will use their license status in Vermont to get reciprocity in states that allow it based on holding a license in another state, without requiring NCARB certification.
My suspicion is that interns who don't want to do the paperwork every few months will just have their council records transmitted to states that don't require timely reporting. (It's not necessary to live, practice, or test through most states to have their boards process your records.)
I don't see this as a first step in getting NCARB organized. I see it as another step in creating disparate systems in different states.
NCARB's purpose is supposed to be to collect, verify, and process data. It's supposed to be up to the states to set the rules. I think NCARB should stay out of policy making.
On a side note: some of the states that allow licensing for architects without a college degree allow the same for attorneys (but none allow uneducated doctors, so far as I know...) So other professions have similar state by state idiosyncratic rules and statutes too.
I got my numbers from the state boards themselves, because the NCARB charts for each state don't have numbers for many of the states (many of them say "contact board directly".)
It's a great improvement and I fail to see the inconvenience. A well organized firm should have a system in place to accurately track your billable hours which we as interns should fill out at the end of each day. It should take no more than another minute to fill out the Excel form for NCARB at the same time.
Requiring a submittal of hours every 6 months will prevent an intern procrastinating until years pass by until an intern then scrounges around into time sheets and looking for the hours needed to fulfill the requirements. It's more accurate and it requires the intern to be proactive with their internship.
Would you wait for 3 years to pass by before tracking your billable hours and invoicing a client? Unless you're financially irresponsible, unlikely. Then why take your internship any less serious than money?
RE a parallel track of experience that circumvents a professional license:
It's a mistake and should not be done IMHO. Require a professional education, IDP hours and examination. The experience one gets will likely never match a good education from a reputable school.
I base that opinion on this; I am 37 years old, practiced architecture with various firms since I was 21, and previous to that worked in the field as a payed laborer since I was 15. I have 22 years of experience in the design/build field. This includes a few years of running my own firm with my own office and employees and winning national awards with the AIBD.
Honestly, I've learned more about architecture in the last 3 years of my undergrad than I have in my previous 19 years of design/build experience. I could write a lengthy post on all that I have learned, but will avoid that here.
I know how you feel man, I used to feel the same way. But there finally came a point in my life that I realized that regardless of how successful I was then, I would never be an architect. And even if I became I licensed architect by experience alone [which I can do in WI] I would never be an "A"rchitect, just an architect.
If I didn't go to school and enter the licensing route I would be stuck doing single family homes, additions and garages the rest of my life. I didn't want that. I did some pretty cool work back then, one project is even good enough to be included in my portfolio. But I when I look back to my skillset before school to where I am at now, I can't help my laugh my ass off at how ignorant I was to the profession. Not to say you are, but at the time I was because I was wrapped up in my own little world of networked builders and contractors.
I have never had a problem getting work in a firm, and now I work at a firm that I love. I do work on incredible projects, with talented and amazing professionals and my skillset is ramping up on a parabolic curve.
"I would never be an "A"rchitect, just an architect." without the educational requirements as they now stand. Is it the "A" architects that pump Maya renderings of 60' cantilevers and forget stairwells and have notorious leakage issues and often revert to an architect of record to produce working drawings and cordinate the "messy stuff".
Or is it the little case "a" architects that do the protection of the public health and welfare on which the actual license is based.
You said:
>"Licensure has nothing to do with "A"rchitecture."
But I stated:
>"And even if I became I licensed architect by experience alone [which I can do in WI] I would never be an "A"rchitect, just an architect."
I even noted:
>"I do work on incredible projects, with talented and amazing professionals and my skillset is ramping up on a parabolic curve."
Can you point out where I said licensure makes one an "A"rchitect?
AFA Maya renderings and leaky roofs, that's a Red Herring fallacy and a baited trap I will not enter, but nice try.
IDP: new six month rule
marmkid, you yourself acknowledged that you have a few years of work experience that have not been submitted. i'm the same way. 90% of interns are like us. someone who diligently submits every four months as aquapura did is from what i have observed the exception. okay, so the six month rule is supposed to motivate us to get our act together. fine. the reality of the situation though is that there will be many that have completed the credits, but cannot count them. that to me is ridiculous. idp is supposed monitor our work experience before registration, not monitor how diligent we are at submitting paperwork.
why will people have completed the credits but cant count them?
this doesnt take effect until July 2009 or something, there is plenty of time to get that done
if you are saying people will complete credits but not be able to count them because if, after 2009, they dont bother to fill out the forms every 6 months, then yes, maybe they will lose some credits
that will be completely their own fault at that point
fill out a form online every 6 months if you want credit
otherwise dont complain if you miss out, and dont blame anyone else
The problem with your argument is that NCARB dictates how architects get licensed.
You follow their rules, not the other way around.
If you don't like it, try to change it or learn to deal with it.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure this rule will apply to NEW ncarb records only. interns who open a new record should be fully aware of the rules and have no problem meeting the deadlines.
yes, and ncarb is helping produce the greatest generation of paper pushers the world has ever seen!
thats your problem with this?
you have to fill out paperwork?
i still am missing something jafidler
what is an acceptable reason for an intern not being able to fill out his/her IDP forms every 6 months?
i dont get why this is hard or according to you, tragically impossible
"tragically impossible" is an exaggeration. i'm just pointing out that it is a process that privileges its own bureaucracy over what it is purportedly there to serve, i.e. a means to record experience. i'm not talking rocket science here either. anyway, this debate has gotten completely overblown. you're satisfied with the changes. bully for you. as i stated above, idp for me is something to be endured. thankfully i'm almost done (as long as they don't lose my paperwork!).
I'm sure you already know this from your vast amount of non-documented "real-world" experience, but a very high percentage of an architect's day is spent pushing papers. I hardly believe that NCARB is the greatest producer of paperwork we have to deal with.
It may be shocking to newbies, but real architecture isn't just making funny shapes on a computer screen and fabricating them with a CNC.
Sometimes we have to accomplish tasks that are less desirable, such as filling out paperwork.
Scenerio - older person late 30's has all the experiance but left the profesion as an intern to do real estate development and now is looking to go back to get their license - they are not on archinect. They didnt get the memo. Isnt this just walling them out and skewing the profesion again, increasingly towards the same coddled multi degreed demographic?
speaking of paperwork - I have 2 phonebook size stacks of paper for one fucking building permit that has taken 2 years, a court case, a city council ordinance,.....get used to it. Thats what architects do.
the greatest generation of paper pushers is also an exageration
"the reality of the situation though is that there will be many that have completed the credits, but cannot count them."
i still dont understand this
that is the very thing they are trying to eliminate
why do you think this will forever be a problem, i am really curious to hear your answer
and i am not satisfied with any of it
like i have said several times, i am way behind in submitting my hours, but i am not going to sit here and blame everyone else except myself for that
of course IDP is something to be endured, no one likes to have to do these things
i also dont like having to double check the steel shops that the new guys just reviewed or go over any door hardware
but i am not going to bitch about having to do my job
and you arent satisfied with NCARB's changes
so bully for you
i dont understand why we cant have conversations here without people getting all worked up
Why didn't this individual get licensed if they had completed all of the required experience? Seems like if there was a possibility of coming back to architecture in the future, this would have been a logical step to take, and having the license could only them in their real estate career.
Sounds to me like this 30-something person is the one who wants to be coddled.
from what i understand, if they actually filled out their IDP stuff when they were getting this experience, they should still have a record intact after this all takes place
i think everyone who has an NCARB record before this takes place has some leeway
but if they never bothered to start an NCARB record or record any IDP hours, they may be out of luck.
and to be honest, i dont know if that is a bad thing
if you work as an arch intern, then go do something else, even if it is somewhat related like real estate, i dont know if i agree with you being able to walk back and say, oh, i want my license now, give it to me.
TD, when did i say anything to contradict this or talk about my "real-world" experience? now you are just being a prick.
marmkid, no, i really believe we are the greatest generation of paper pushers (or pixel pushers).
this discussion has run its course. good luck with your six month rules and the like...
alternative parallel routes matter not everybody wants and needs to be a intern, and would rather have just been an apprentice.
the only thing i see this effecting me by is when i apply with NCARB for broad experience. ill just file all my IDP up then right before the deadline i guess once the 10 years comes, 2013, then get reciprocity. my only concern is i want reciprocity in EU. has anybody done this?
file,
yeah i might bitch a little...... yeah i might be angry at the "system"...and i might come off as an ass in most cases......
but i have a right to bitch............ i can give you 8 years of info on bullshit reasons why i couldnt get hired in firms when i actually wanted to do office work........etc etc etc
each year it just makes things harder for me to get back in the office.....
it's fine........ one day it'll happen.............
back in time i think the tradesmen/masonaries/carpenters were actually ones to build and make "architecture" happen......... no stamp needed then....... but now
TD -"Sounds to me like this 30-something person is the one who wants to be coddled. "
Many many people get sucked into other careers via architecture. They go to work for builders, banks, mafrs - and the hypothetical peron in my example would be pre-ncarb IDP. To them it would seem logical that they could petition to take the exam under old rules! How would they know until they start looking into it the rules have changed? Imagine - not being able to take the exams because your too old essentially and not "tracked".
Again I like IDP, I dont like NCARBs ever expanding control of the route to profesionalisation. Its actualy imho dumbing down the role of architect. Mark my words you heard evil say it first - General contractors are going to start "licensing" in some states and become a "profesion" in their own right
cryzko
that really sucks
was it because they wouldnt pay you enough for your experience level? i could see some places being sticklers with that if you dont follow the traditional path
i wouldnt want to come in after having worked for 8 years and be offered a right out of school intern's salary
anti
what is the difference between an intern and an apprentice?
i always thought they were just different words for the same thing
The biggest problem I see with this isn't with those people who follow a more or less standard path from an architecture education to internship. Those people really have no excuse to not be able to document their experience on a regular schedule (though speaking as someone who sent in nearly 6 years of experience in one batch I can understand how that happens in the current system.)
The big problem I see is with those people who follow a non-traditional route and may not decide to pursue licensing until they've already been working in architecture for some years as technicians/drafters. There are at least 16 states that still allow licensing with only a high school diploma (usually with a longer internship - 5 to 13 years in various states), and more than 20 states that allow licensing with a 4-year college degree, not necessarily in architecture.
Sometimes these people don't realize until they've worked some years in the field that they want to get licensed, or even that they're eligible. This type of path would effectively be eliminated by the policy of no retroactive reporting. Of course that fits NCARB's own agenda perfectly, as their own position is against licensing without an NAAB degree.
Another likely wrench in the system is that not all states are planning to adopt this new policy. Going back 10 years or so there were a number of states that already had limits on retroactive reporting. But the trend was to eliminate those, and Ohio was the last state with this policy (which was a 6-month retroactive limit, except for people who had recently moved into the state) and they eliminated it a few years ago. Some states are not on board with NCARB's new rule, so as with most other NCARB rules there will be states that override it.
i think eventually it makes sense to have just a set standard of rules. this clearly is just a very first baby step in that direction and has many issues to get cleaned up before we will know if it is something that is worth it
i dont quite understand the backlash towards the idea of needing a professional degree to get your professional license though
why are architects so different from any other profession that has a license
you need a professional degree to get the professional license
you can work in a doctors office for years and learn everything you would need to know but you still cant be a doctor officially unless you have your degree
same goes with being a lawyer
i like the idea of there being a baseline requirement for education to have a "professional" license
again, you dont need your license to work a long career in architecture, so its not like everyone has to do this or else they are screwed out of the profession.
if you have a ton of experience in construction or building or anything related, you can usually go back to school for only a year or so and get your degree and then this isnt an issue.
i dont agree with a degree not really meaning anything
the problem is the forced conformity of career paths via IDP. untill IDP, there were many routes to becoming a licensed architect that served the profession extremely well by creating a diverse work force. Our future is overloaded with 3d-monkeys from Ivy Leagues with no common sense or understanding of gravity.
If the AIA really wants to increase the representation of minorities in the ranks of the profession, they need to open the door wider instead of shutting them.
too be continued...
are there more Ivy League architects than before?
i agree that there should be routes for anyone to become an architect. i think there should be set routes though, and you need to follow that. the doors seemed to be open pretty wide before which caused some problems
i think a "professional" license should have "professional" requirements
It should be more flexible than just IDP, but everyone shouldnt be able to make up their own route and basically say on their own that they deserve to be a licensed architect and should be allowed to sit for the exams on the basis of their "special" experiences
There should be a couple set paths to take which all have their own requirements. If you want to walk in and take the exams, you should at least meet certain requirements, and maybe might have to do something extra to meet them.
to expect to just walk in and not have to do anything at all though, is ridiculous
but yes, everyone doesnt need to go to school at 18 for 5 years and then intern for 3+ years then take the exam all in that order with no deviation.
treekiller - Not to jump off on a tangent, but in my opinion, it's architecture education and not NCARB that is creating a generation of 3D Maya Monkeys with no common sense or understanding of gravity.
Most schools and professors who teach at those schools fetishize paper architecture, starchitect worshipping, fancy graphics, and the creation Architecture with a capital A.
In fact, the vast vast majority of professors, at least at my school, were unlicensed. The most popular professors were the ones who have never built a single structure in their entire lives and the least popular professors were those who were at least somewhat grounded in reality.
So anyway, architecture school is another conversation altogether, but I think that's the root of the problem you brought up earlier.
I second T D, it's the professors that are hyping the 3D software. It has it's place, but fresh grads only want to do the fancy graphics and never want to get down & dirty into construction details, or anything relative to getting the buildings built.
Additionally, one can still have a diverse workforce by requiring an accredited college education and a pre-defined apprenticeship (internship) program. Many of my classmates in college had come from previous backgrounds in construction, drafting, textile design.
We get all worked up when some computer tech calls himself an architect but then we want to let anyone with some "experience" bypass the whole structured educational path to becoming an architect for the sake of "diversity". Bullshit.
Go to college, get a degree, complete IDP, pass the ARE. Whine all you want about paperwork, I don't care. That's life. Get used to it.
All of the Ivy architecture schools combined graduate +/- 350 students per year. According to NCARB the nationwide total number of grads from NAAB architecture programs is a little above 5000. The Ivies make up about 7%.
NCARB also states that only about half of all NAAB grads eventually go on to get licensed. But assuming that the percentages of people who eventually go on to get licensed are about the same for Ivies and non-Ivies, and even pretending that all licensed architects hold NAAB degrees (which we know is not the case), the concentration of Ivy grads - 3D monkeys with no common sense or not - in the field should still be only about 7%...
As for being on the route to one standardized set of rules for everyone: that's what NCARB wants very much. But it's up to each state board to adopt, amend, or reject every NCARB position, and each is different. That's why there are different licensing requirements, education requirements, internship lengths, time limits for testing, laws about incorporation of firms, who can be a partner in a firm, who can be granted reciprocity, how much the fees are, who can use the title "architect", etc. etc. in every state.
It's not likely that this new rule is any exception to this. It's not a first step in getting every state on the same page - it's another NCARB position that's meaningless until each state decides what to do with it.
its a first step to getting NCARB organized, and the IDP process cleaned up
and if everyone just dismisses everything here as meaningless, then nothng will ever change and at least we will still get to bitch endlessly
"why are architects so different from any other profession that has a license"
Because what we do is trade based like it or not. Architecture was only thought of as a distinct "proffesion" when attorneys and doctors appeard, thus the endless copying to be like them.
And correct me if Im wrong, but technically you can become a doctor by passing the medical exam?
i assume you need to meet some requirements, be it medical school or otherwise before you are allowed to take the medical exam
i could be wrong, but that is what i always assumed
i dont think i could just go and sign up for a medical exam and then call myself a doctor if i passed
Fetishism is the key idea here. It's all about sex, isn't it architects?
All joking aside, I'm continually appalled at the "head in the clouds" mentality of many of my schools top students (and I don't even go to a prestigious one). There seems to be increasingly less interest in the realities of the profession.
MArch students are graduating with very little to any knowledge of the process it takes to get something built (and no IDP documented), only to get blindsided by the blunt realities . Instead they possess this destructive either/or mentally. Your either a technical, hands on person, with no design sensibilities about you, or your the next coming of Corb, with no regard for the "meat and bones". Such a perspective is unfortunate as it only panders to the image-consciousness of our society.
This may sound cheesy, like a motivational speaker, but I think a good "designer" thinks holistically, with an and/both mentality, creating win/win opportunities.
Personally, I see no reason why one cannot be a "good designer" and be rooted in reality. Just as an example (not to toot my own horn) but, after having documented 280 IDP hour while in school, and earning top honors for my master's thesis I feel like I have found that balance to a degree, albeit early on in my career.
I also think that our education system does an incredibly poor job (at least at my school) of informing students of the road toward licensing. I had classmates going into their MArch who didn't even know what IDP was!
What I'm saying is that some states have already decided to reject this policy, and in general it runs counter to the trend of the state boards eliminating their previous time limits in reporting. I'd link you to the charts that list all of NCARB's positions and then list all the states that do and don't agree with each or have amendments and exceptions - but those links are all "currently unavailable" on NCARB's site at the moment. NCARB's policies aren't meaningful unless at least a majority of state boards choose to adopt them. Otherwise they just add to the confusion...
What tends to happen when some states reject NCARB's policies in favor of laxer rules or rules that make things easier or less expensive for interns is that interns just choose to register through the states with the easier rules.
You can see this in statistics about licensing in various states. For instance if you pick a state that is by and large a by-the-book NCARB example - like Connecticut - you see that it has 1551 active licensed architects residing in a state and granted initial licenses to 18 people last year. But look at a state that doesn't toe NCARB's line - like Vermont - and they have 250 active resident architects but granted initial licenses to 75 people last year. In other words they granted 27 times the number of licenses that would be expected there if they were also a by-the-book NCARB state.
Some reasons for this are that Vermont allows testing before completion of IDP, they allow licensing with only a high school diploma, and their fees are lower. There are similar disproportionately higher licensing rates in Wisconsin, Texas, and a few other states with various advantageous rules. Most of the 75 licenses went to out-of-state candidates who will use their license status in Vermont to get reciprocity in states that allow it based on holding a license in another state, without requiring NCARB certification.
My suspicion is that interns who don't want to do the paperwork every few months will just have their council records transmitted to states that don't require timely reporting. (It's not necessary to live, practice, or test through most states to have their boards process your records.)
I don't see this as a first step in getting NCARB organized. I see it as another step in creating disparate systems in different states.
NCARB's purpose is supposed to be to collect, verify, and process data. It's supposed to be up to the states to set the rules. I think NCARB should stay out of policy making.
On a side note: some of the states that allow licensing for architects without a college degree allow the same for attorneys (but none allow uneducated doctors, so far as I know...) So other professions have similar state by state idiosyncratic rules and statutes too.
Bloopox, where did you find the state-by-state breakdown? I'm curious about my home state...
NCARB State Boards
ah, yes. thanks!
I got my numbers from the state boards themselves, because the NCARB charts for each state don't have numbers for many of the states (many of them say "contact board directly".)
No problem mfrech! The big issue as far as I'm concerned is #6 (the ARE/IDP timing)
yup do your IDP
get your license
do plumbing
i'm in the same boat, ryanj -- i've benefitted from MA's idp/are concurrency. so i got that goin' for me. which is nice.
RE the 6 month rule:
It's a great improvement and I fail to see the inconvenience. A well organized firm should have a system in place to accurately track your billable hours which we as interns should fill out at the end of each day. It should take no more than another minute to fill out the Excel form for NCARB at the same time.
Requiring a submittal of hours every 6 months will prevent an intern procrastinating until years pass by until an intern then scrounges around into time sheets and looking for the hours needed to fulfill the requirements. It's more accurate and it requires the intern to be proactive with their internship.
Would you wait for 3 years to pass by before tracking your billable hours and invoicing a client? Unless you're financially irresponsible, unlikely. Then why take your internship any less serious than money?
My devalued $.02
RE a parallel track of experience that circumvents a professional license:
It's a mistake and should not be done IMHO. Require a professional education, IDP hours and examination. The experience one gets will likely never match a good education from a reputable school.
I base that opinion on this; I am 37 years old, practiced architecture with various firms since I was 21, and previous to that worked in the field as a payed laborer since I was 15. I have 22 years of experience in the design/build field. This includes a few years of running my own firm with my own office and employees and winning national awards with the AIBD.
Honestly, I've learned more about architecture in the last 3 years of my undergrad than I have in my previous 19 years of design/build experience. I could write a lengthy post on all that I have learned, but will avoid that here.
To Crizzle:
I know how you feel man, I used to feel the same way. But there finally came a point in my life that I realized that regardless of how successful I was then, I would never be an architect. And even if I became I licensed architect by experience alone [which I can do in WI] I would never be an "A"rchitect, just an architect.
If I didn't go to school and enter the licensing route I would be stuck doing single family homes, additions and garages the rest of my life. I didn't want that. I did some pretty cool work back then, one project is even good enough to be included in my portfolio. But I when I look back to my skillset before school to where I am at now, I can't help my laugh my ass off at how ignorant I was to the profession. Not to say you are, but at the time I was because I was wrapped up in my own little world of networked builders and contractors.
I have never had a problem getting work in a firm, and now I work at a firm that I love. I do work on incredible projects, with talented and amazing professionals and my skillset is ramping up on a parabolic curve.
Good luck to you!
Gabriel: Youve taken the bait!
"I would never be an "A"rchitect, just an architect." without the educational requirements as they now stand. Is it the "A" architects that pump Maya renderings of 60' cantilevers and forget stairwells and have notorious leakage issues and often revert to an architect of record to produce working drawings and cordinate the "messy stuff".
Or is it the little case "a" architects that do the protection of the public health and welfare on which the actual license is based.
Licensure has nothing to do with "A"rchitecture.
EPP,
You may have fallen into your own trap :P
You said:
>"Licensure has nothing to do with "A"rchitecture."
But I stated:
>"And even if I became I licensed architect by experience alone [which I can do in WI] I would never be an "A"rchitect, just an architect."
I even noted:
>"I do work on incredible projects, with talented and amazing professionals and my skillset is ramping up on a parabolic curve."
Can you point out where I said licensure makes one an "A"rchitect?
AFA Maya renderings and leaky roofs, that's a Red Herring fallacy and a baited trap I will not enter, but nice try.
from my experience, those people who pump out renderings are neither "A"rchitects or architects
and most of the time they dont get their license either (at least not during the time when all they do is churn out renderings)
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.