I just got the email (2 of them?) as well. This will only add maybe ~4 months of hours for me as that is all I missed prior to learning of the rule. Not life-changing but meh. I agree though I don't know where the 6 months idea came from. To quote the email:

"This adjustment creates a parallel with our five-year rolling clock for honoring examination results, emphasizing a consistent position that activity along the licensure path holds its value for five years."

Cutting the value of that intern experience in half, though, seems like a funny negotiation.

I'm glad they are looking to get rid of the six month rule, though it will still work essentially the same. You'll still need to report hours before six months have passed or it only counts for half.

And don't count on getting any time for hours you didn't report before the six month rule took effect. The change in the rule wouldn't happen until later this year and this July will mark five years the rule has been in effect. The hours outside of five years will not count ...

"The specific adjustment would, for the first time, allow credit for intern experience that occurred up to five years beyond the current reporting requirements. Credit for experience beyond the reporting period would be valued at 50 percent for up to five years, after which any experience would be ineligible for credit."

If you slacked off and didn't get your hours in before the six month rule took effect, you're still out of luck (depending on how quickly this gets implemented ... if at all).

NCARB is having an open online discussion March 18th at 11am EST.

 11am... I'd like to do it but I'm going to be working, trying to earn IDP hours...  

@SpatialSojourner

Just stream it at your desktop and listen.  If you have a question, type it in the box and see if they answer.  I streamed the last webinar and it didn't interfere with any of my work.  They even answered one of my questions.

Definitely changes in the right direction.  Here's the deal:  I've never worked for a company that advocated licensure.  Thus: its always been an awkward conversation whenever I have brought it up.  Maybe some firms would like to see their employees gain licensure and have the ability to found their own practice, but my guess is that most do not.  They would rather keep you around making 40k a year for the rest of your career.  As a result, I always feel like trying to become licensed has put me at a disadvantage when compared with my peers who complacently sit on their job, racing to the bottom.  These changes need to take effect so that interns stop racing to the bottom to become the lowest paid, least able to function on their own.

grneggandsam

that's been my experience - all the firms I worked for with the exception of SOM, wanted me to be a Revit specialist. IDP was discouraged as an interference. With this possible new change, there exits the possibility that many of us architechs can one day become architects.

Am I reading this right?  Is this introducing a rolling clock to IDP?  If I remember right, it took me about 5 1/2 - 6 years of reporting time to meet all the minutia categories, and I work in a firm that encouraged IDP, and gave me broad experience.  It may not be a huge deal if the hours scaling back to half credit are CD hours, but if it is master planning, costing, etc..., that seems like it would be a huge deal.  What pressure is NCARB going to bring to bear on the firms to support this?

NCARB isn't able to pressure firms to do anything.  My first week at my first firm they were debating between taking me on a site visit or staying and working.  I naively said something like a site visit would be great and good for IDP.  Bad idea.  They might have enforced the idea of firm first my professional advancement second but being a small small small firm I was able to hit a lot of hours since there was little overhead (re: fake it until I made it).  I had a long internal debate when I was offered other positions because it wouldn't be as easy to get the whole scope of architecture.  I decided I wanted to move to a more positive environment and my precursory thoughts have come true, stuck in SD with them wanting to hold my hand while doing everything.  

I get that NCARB has no pressure to put on firms to support IDP.  That was a silly question on my part.  I guess my real point is that it would be concerning to those considering the change, seeing how the average completion time is 5.33 years for IDP.  Also, the median is in the 4.2-4.3 year range, meaning almost half of IDP folk would be affected directly by this.  

Again, I hope I'm reading this wrong, and the rule only speaks to when you can actually report the time rather than establishing its worth based upon completion.

what they should really do is just narrow idp down to the design/construction phases instead of a billion little categories.  i mean, come on... no one is going to hold out on licensure because they just can't seem to get those "business operations" hours or whatever they're called.  or just do what most professional organizations do and call it "employed for 2.5 years" in an approved architectural setting.

I agree about the little categories.  I've gone far enough to be running into having a surplus in one and hardly any in another.  The most fragmented it should get is Pre-Design, SD/DD, and Construction.  I shouldn't have to sit down with a packet and debate what hours go into what sub-sub-category. 

I'd prefer the couple years and you're done.  Just working at a firm provides a good perspective.  There are still all those exams to test competency.

In its current form, IDP is like getting a drivers license where you have to break down the behind the wheel time into 10 hours in rainy conditions, 10 hours in the snow, 30 in sunny, ect.  One can't be prepare for everything, they just need to know where to look for the answer.