I'm an IDP supervisor for a few people soon-to-be-formerly-known-as-interns so I've been reading NCARB's typically-convoluted transition explanations. I see that when "IDP" magically changes to "AXP" this summer it won't require as many hours anymore (except that a bunch of states still require the previous amount of hours anyway) but most of the circuitous routes around actually working for an architect have been eliminated: no more community service points, no more "Emerging Professionals Companion" workbook activities, no more teaching, no more AIA LUs, etc. - and none of those things will count for the extra jurisdictional experience either, in the states that still require the 3 years of experience.
On the one hand I feel this is a good change. It always seemed like too many ways to get around actually getting real architecture firm experience. On the other hand, many of those other ways to get hours came about during the last 2 recessions when a lot of young professionals were stuck in their tracks in pursuing a license because they were between jobs. Do you think all the alternate IDP workaround experience types will just re-emerge during the next recession? Are you in favor of them, or is it better for interns to get their 2 to 3 years of pre-license experience working on actual architecture?
shellarchitect
Feb 16, 16 6:44 pm
Glad to hear that "volunteering" is gone. I think a lot of the requirements will be back in some manner eventually. As I recall there was a lot of worry about people never getting licensed. Once that goes away, people will start looking for ways to reduce competition again.
Curious to hear other opinions
Feb 16, 16 7:55 pm
Interesting. I'm deciding to hold off on this IDP-->AXP stuff a little. It's reshaping dramatically. As for extra-jurisdictional requirements like Washington, I would look at what experience requirements meets their requirements and so forth.
We'll find our way through this stuff.
archanonymous
Feb 16, 16 8:04 pm
I think other modes of practice are perfectly valid and many can lead to much better experience than you would get in an architect's office, the problem is, there is no way to verify any of it.
(it is, of course, also impossible to verify hours reported in an architect's office other than just licensed Architect X signs off on these hours" which, trust me, does not always instill confidence.
I do hope some of these come back, albeit with lower % of required hours.
Fivescore
Feb 16, 16 8:08 pm
The extra jurisdictional experience for those states that have decided to require it still has to be reported through NCARB in this new system, and the new rules explicitly state that this list of activities (EPC, AIA LUs, community service, teaching, etc.) that no longer satisfy IDP will not satisfy extra jurisdictional requirements either.
NCARB-reported extra jurisdictional experience is different than a few states' pre-existing requirements for extra experience for those without degrees that is reported directly to the state in some cases, so sometimes has other rules.
Fivescore
Feb 16, 16 8:18 pm
Direct cut-and-paste from NCARB:
Important Notice: On June 29, 2016, Leadership and Service will no longer be eligible for IDP or additional jurisdictional experience.
-and-
When the overhauled IDP launches, the following opportunities will no longer be eligible for IDP or additional jurisdictional experience:
Emerging Professional’s Companion (EPC)
GBCI LEED AP Certification
Advanced Degrees
AIA Continuing Education LUs
CSI Certificate Program: CDT
Teaching or Research in a NAAB-accredited program
archanonymous
Feb 16, 16 8:43 pm
Anyone know (without me digging into a ton of NCARB shit) if interns who started under the old system will be allowed to keep hours in the categories that are being eliminated, or will those hours go away?
Fivescore
Feb 16, 16 9:00 pm
There's a question-answer video in which they say that already-reported hours from those activities will transition into the new categories, if they're reported before June 29. So it sounds like they won't be lost. It's just that you won't be able to report any new hours from those activities as of June 29.
There's a fee change associated with all of this too. In the old system the initial IDP fee covered the first three years, but now there will be a $100 fee to start a record and $85 for every year after to maintain it.
Everyday Intern
Feb 16, 16 11:21 pm
NCARB has a online calculator showing you how your current hours will transition to the new system: http://idpcalc.ncarb.org
I'll have a few questions for the NCARB staff as it comes to earning hours over the required hours. I have to try to understand these changes but okay.
Everyday Intern
Feb 17, 16 12:07 am
Balkins,
I'm sure there will be more information coming out as we get closer to June 29. For now, It looks like any hours you earn over the required are grouped as additional hours that would count toward a jurisdictions requirement for additional hours beyond IDP. You can earn hours in experience setting A (which will remain the same as it is currently), and setting O which is outlined as the following with these amounts of maximum hours allowed in each:
Other Work Settings - 1,860 hours
Design or Construction Related Employment - 320 hours
NCARB’s Professional Conduct Monograph - 16 hours
CSI Certification: CCS - 40 hours
CSI Certification: CCCA - 40 hours
Community Based Design Center/Collaborative - 320 hours
Design Competitions - 320 hours
Site Visit With Mentor - 40 hours
Construction Work - 320 hours
AIA Continuing Education for HSW - 20 hours per experience area
These settings correspond to settings currently accepted in the current program, there are some differences in the amount of hours you are allowed that are changing with the overhaul, but I would expect the settings themselves to remain unchanged from how they are currently outlined in the current IDP Guidelines.
Feb 17, 16 1:03 am
I will probably call NCARB just as part of verifying and confirming details and understanding. It's just prudent even if you are right. If you find out and happen to do so before I get around to it, let me know. I have a few misc. stuff on my plate before hand.
arch76
Feb 17, 16 2:07 am
I received an email survey from NCARB recently indicating the possibility of introducing "NCARB certified" study material for the ARE, and wondering how likely I would be to employ it... I am guessing they may be asking for a roll out in the next generation ARE. My understanding is that the next ARE will have fewer tests, and that IDP credit requirements have been reduced, and that IDP credit can now be earned in school. I could be wrong on these details, but it seems that NCARB is lowering the bar for entry to the profession.
Personally, I would prefer more licensed Architects and fewer unlicensed designers, but I worry that with reduced requirements or facilitating the path to licensure, adequate competence will not be achieved. I found my best education was listening to colleagues deal with phone calls in the office, and hearing their solutions to the call, and later hearing the back story regarding the issue at hand. Being around competent people doing the work I was hoping to do in the future. No "NCARB certified" study material can substitute for that real life experience.
Feb 17, 16 5:35 am
arch76,
People have to make mistakes and learn and that's going to be part of professional practice throughout your career. Always has and always will. What is "competence" or more specifically "competent" ? That's a more deeper and convoluted question with more opinions on this than it may seem so don't disregard it as too simple.
You never know if you are ready so you just have to take it with a little faith.
The good thing is we have a world of resources from what others have laid down before us to discern a solution that works. You can't know it all before you get in the game. Humans don't live long enough to achieve that.
:-)
Fivescore
Feb 17, 16 9:35 am
Rick what are your questions? There are several conversion charts, question-answer blog posts and videos, etc. on NCARB's site. There is also the information that they sent to supervisors. As stated above, hours in excess of the required hours are logged as additional hours. But, as of June 29 the categories I listed won't be logged at all anymore.
geezertect
Feb 17, 16 1:50 pm
All these contortions are just an admission that the schools are sending out graduates with inadequate knowledge of the real world of practice, and they are making a template for the student to fill in the gaps during employment. That puts student and employer into unwanted roles. The employer wants to accomplish the workload without worrying about whether it is a balanced experience for the paid (??) intern, and the intern should have been exposed to much of this stuff in school (why else were they paying the school?).
Law school graduates can take the bar exam immediately after graduation because there is the assumption that they know enough to be minimally competent in practice, and can ask the right questions to fill in the gaps. The same should be true for this profession. Too much design and theory and too little knowledge of construction, real estate, engineering and law is making an architecture degree into a joke. The more sophisticated clients already know it. When are the schools going to be held to account for wasting students' time and money?
Fivescore
Feb 17, 16 2:30 pm
Agreed. And that's why NCARB started the direct school-to-license program - there are 13 schools in that "Integrated Path" program at present, that are eventually supposed to lead to the ability to sit for the licensing exam upon graduation. But since there are 150+ accredited architecture schools and the rest of them haven't been approved for that program yet (or even pursued approval), and since everybody who has ever graduated from or will graduate from architecture school before 2020 at the very earliest did not have the opportunity to attend one of those programs, and since some states have indicated that they intend to require additional on-the-job experience anyway, some version of IDP is likely to exist for many years to come.
Non Sequitur
Feb 17, 16 2:39 pm
^ I would not trust a jurisdiction that grants a license without for realsies on-the-job, on site, construction admin, etc experience.
SneakyPete
Feb 17, 16 2:43 pm
^ I do not trust the exams or the IDP to prove for realsies that people who complete them know their ass from a hole in the ground.
Lowering the bar simply makes it easier to legitimize the charlatans, all-the-while lining NCARBs pockets.
Win-win.
Non Sequitur
Feb 17, 16 2:45 pm
that too SneakyP.
Feb 17, 16 3:17 pm
Threesleve,
I may have very specific questions and while I will likely also wait until more info comes out before spending the time waiting in the call queue that may answer my specific questions but I am also looking through the NCARB site for anything that may already answer my questions that are rattling in my head but that may evolve as well. I have to sort of sit down long enough to figure out exactly what my question would be.
I am not asking here yet as it is customary good practice to do ones own due diligence effort to find the answers to one's own questions instead of looking like an idiot asking a question that could have been easily found.
It isn't a distrust matter. It is a matter of knowing what to ask and a little patience while I have a number of things non-AXP/IDP related at the moment.
Like you said, there is several conversion charts, blogs, Q&A sessions so I like to catch up on that to be sure I didn't overlook it.
Off hand, when I look at the charts that says about maximum number of hours: (Sorry it broke the nice columnated form.
Experience Setting O,Where the Hours Go, Maximum Hours Earned
Other Work Settings, Any IDP experience area, 1,860 hours
Design or Construction Related Employment, Any IDP experience area, 320 hours
NCARB’s Professional Conduct Monograph, Practice Management, 16 hours
CSI Certification: CCS, Construction & Evaluation, 40 hours
I am wondering if these "maximums" only pertains to the maximum number of hours for the core 3740 hours. I am wondering if hours above the maximum hours listed above would go into the jurisdictional requirements above and beyond that. For example, lets say that I get my core hours but I need to continue recording additional hours such as hours above and beyond 5600 hours or 3 years rule for say experience requirements, I would be inclined to document it into the NCARB record that helps to validate and verify those experience even though I have to fill out additional forms with the state specific stuff. The IDP / NCARB record is a good documentation.
For example, lets say I garner more than 320 hours of say..... Design or Construction Related Employment, I understand that 320 hours would apply to the core 3740 required hours for core NCARB requirements. Lets say I garner 750 hours in this category (speaking hypothetically not of actual numbers).... There would be 430 hours more than the minimum. I wonder if those 430 additional hours above the Experience Setting O maximum for "Design or Construction related employment" would count towards the additional jurisdictional hours or will they have to be Experience Setting A.
I would want to know where this would fall. It is about knowing how to go about the matters. I understand that certain state specific issue have to be looked at. I understand that most states have several years of experience under an architect on experience based path to licensure.
Fivescore
Feb 17, 16 5:06 pm
Rick I was only trying to answer your questions because you wrote "If you find out and happen to do so before I get around to it, let me know..." I've already read the documents, talked to my state's NCARB liaison, etc. Just trying to help - not telling you not to call NCARB yourself...
In your example the 430 hours beyond the max allowed in the setting would not count toward extra jurisdictional hours if the state requires that jurisdictional hours are reported through NCARB. That is specifically answered in several places. If you gained 750 hours in that setting, the extra 430 hours in that setting are recorded but they don't count toward the base requirements nor toward jurisdictional requirements.
That said, there are a few states whose additional experience requirements specifically for "experience route" people are not required to be reported through NCARB. In that situation it would be the state's rules that matter, not NCARB's - though some of those states won't use an NCARB record as the documentation of that extra experience - they have their own experience categories, spreadsheets, supervisor forms, etc. NCARB doesn't tend to have any expertise with those rules - you'd be better off asking your questions to the state.
3tk
Feb 17, 16 5:18 pm
The exams & references should be the gate-keeper of minimum competency - I'd rather consolidate the exams (less studying to the topic, more you better know it). Architects don't trust each other (maybe rightfully so), but this makes the profession a bit less legitimate from the point of view of, say lawyers and engineers. PE exam is one day, your entry is a letter from a PE saying you're ready. It's open book and you better know it or you won't finish it.
I think it was nice to have a minimal category with all the inclusiveness - it encouraged at least some to explore those options than the traditional grind.
Bloopox
Feb 17, 16 7:04 pm
In my state to take the PE exam a candidate needs a minimum of 4 years of documented full time experience, and five references from currently licensed engineers. That doesn't really seem any easier or less regulated than the route to an architect license. I don't know how standardized the requirements are for engineers in various states - maybe it's easier in some.
I'm an IDP supervisor for a few people soon-to-be-formerly-known-as-interns so I've been reading NCARB's typically-convoluted transition explanations. I see that when "IDP" magically changes to "AXP" this summer it won't require as many hours anymore (except that a bunch of states still require the previous amount of hours anyway) but most of the circuitous routes around actually working for an architect have been eliminated: no more community service points, no more "Emerging Professionals Companion" workbook activities, no more teaching, no more AIA LUs, etc. - and none of those things will count for the extra jurisdictional experience either, in the states that still require the 3 years of experience.
On the one hand I feel this is a good change. It always seemed like too many ways to get around actually getting real architecture firm experience. On the other hand, many of those other ways to get hours came about during the last 2 recessions when a lot of young professionals were stuck in their tracks in pursuing a license because they were between jobs. Do you think all the alternate IDP workaround experience types will just re-emerge during the next recession? Are you in favor of them, or is it better for interns to get their 2 to 3 years of pre-license experience working on actual architecture?
Glad to hear that "volunteering" is gone. I think a lot of the requirements will be back in some manner eventually. As I recall there was a lot of worry about people never getting licensed. Once that goes away, people will start looking for ways to reduce competition again. Curious to hear other opinions
Interesting. I'm deciding to hold off on this IDP-->AXP stuff a little. It's reshaping dramatically. As for extra-jurisdictional requirements like Washington, I would look at what experience requirements meets their requirements and so forth.
We'll find our way through this stuff.
I think other modes of practice are perfectly valid and many can lead to much better experience than you would get in an architect's office, the problem is, there is no way to verify any of it.
(it is, of course, also impossible to verify hours reported in an architect's office other than just licensed Architect X signs off on these hours" which, trust me, does not always instill confidence.
I do hope some of these come back, albeit with lower % of required hours.
The extra jurisdictional experience for those states that have decided to require it still has to be reported through NCARB in this new system, and the new rules explicitly state that this list of activities (EPC, AIA LUs, community service, teaching, etc.) that no longer satisfy IDP will not satisfy extra jurisdictional requirements either.
NCARB-reported extra jurisdictional experience is different than a few states' pre-existing requirements for extra experience for those without degrees that is reported directly to the state in some cases, so sometimes has other rules.
Direct cut-and-paste from NCARB:
Important Notice: On June 29, 2016, Leadership and Service will no longer be eligible for IDP or additional jurisdictional experience.
-and-
When the overhauled IDP launches, the following opportunities will no longer be eligible for IDP or additional jurisdictional experience:
Anyone know (without me digging into a ton of NCARB shit) if interns who started under the old system will be allowed to keep hours in the categories that are being eliminated, or will those hours go away?
There's a question-answer video in which they say that already-reported hours from those activities will transition into the new categories, if they're reported before June 29. So it sounds like they won't be lost. It's just that you won't be able to report any new hours from those activities as of June 29.
There's a fee change associated with all of this too. In the old system the initial IDP fee covered the first three years, but now there will be a $100 fee to start a record and $85 for every year after to maintain it.
NCARB has a online calculator showing you how your current hours will transition to the new system: http://idpcalc.ncarb.org
Also graphically shown: http://www.ncarb.org/Experience-Through-Internships/IDP2-Experience-Categories-Areas/~/media/Files/PDF/IDP/NCARB_IDP-Overhaul.ashx
I'll have a few questions for the NCARB staff as it comes to earning hours over the required hours. I have to try to understand these changes but okay.
Balkins,
I'm sure there will be more information coming out as we get closer to June 29. For now, It looks like any hours you earn over the required are grouped as additional hours that would count toward a jurisdictions requirement for additional hours beyond IDP. You can earn hours in experience setting A (which will remain the same as it is currently), and setting O which is outlined as the following with these amounts of maximum hours allowed in each:
http://www.ncarb.org/Home/Experience-Through-Internships/IDP2-Experience-Categories-Areas/Overhauled-IDP.aspx
These settings correspond to settings currently accepted in the current program, there are some differences in the amount of hours you are allowed that are changing with the overhaul, but I would expect the settings themselves to remain unchanged from how they are currently outlined in the current IDP Guidelines.
I will probably call NCARB just as part of verifying and confirming details and understanding. It's just prudent even if you are right. If you find out and happen to do so before I get around to it, let me know. I have a few misc. stuff on my plate before hand.
I received an email survey from NCARB recently indicating the possibility of introducing "NCARB certified" study material for the ARE, and wondering how likely I would be to employ it... I am guessing they may be asking for a roll out in the next generation ARE. My understanding is that the next ARE will have fewer tests, and that IDP credit requirements have been reduced, and that IDP credit can now be earned in school. I could be wrong on these details, but it seems that NCARB is lowering the bar for entry to the profession.
Personally, I would prefer more licensed Architects and fewer unlicensed designers, but I worry that with reduced requirements or facilitating the path to licensure, adequate competence will not be achieved. I found my best education was listening to colleagues deal with phone calls in the office, and hearing their solutions to the call, and later hearing the back story regarding the issue at hand. Being around competent people doing the work I was hoping to do in the future. No "NCARB certified" study material can substitute for that real life experience.
arch76,
People have to make mistakes and learn and that's going to be part of professional practice throughout your career. Always has and always will. What is "competence" or more specifically "competent" ? That's a more deeper and convoluted question with more opinions on this than it may seem so don't disregard it as too simple.
You never know if you are ready so you just have to take it with a little faith.
The good thing is we have a world of resources from what others have laid down before us to discern a solution that works. You can't know it all before you get in the game. Humans don't live long enough to achieve that.
:-)
Rick what are your questions? There are several conversion charts, question-answer blog posts and videos, etc. on NCARB's site. There is also the information that they sent to supervisors. As stated above, hours in excess of the required hours are logged as additional hours. But, as of June 29 the categories I listed won't be logged at all anymore.
All these contortions are just an admission that the schools are sending out graduates with inadequate knowledge of the real world of practice, and they are making a template for the student to fill in the gaps during employment. That puts student and employer into unwanted roles. The employer wants to accomplish the workload without worrying about whether it is a balanced experience for the paid (??) intern, and the intern should have been exposed to much of this stuff in school (why else were they paying the school?).
Law school graduates can take the bar exam immediately after graduation because there is the assumption that they know enough to be minimally competent in practice, and can ask the right questions to fill in the gaps. The same should be true for this profession. Too much design and theory and too little knowledge of construction, real estate, engineering and law is making an architecture degree into a joke. The more sophisticated clients already know it. When are the schools going to be held to account for wasting students' time and money?
Agreed. And that's why NCARB started the direct school-to-license program - there are 13 schools in that "Integrated Path" program at present, that are eventually supposed to lead to the ability to sit for the licensing exam upon graduation. But since there are 150+ accredited architecture schools and the rest of them haven't been approved for that program yet (or even pursued approval), and since everybody who has ever graduated from or will graduate from architecture school before 2020 at the very earliest did not have the opportunity to attend one of those programs, and since some states have indicated that they intend to require additional on-the-job experience anyway, some version of IDP is likely to exist for many years to come.
^ I would not trust a jurisdiction that grants a license without for realsies on-the-job, on site, construction admin, etc experience.
^ I do not trust the exams or the IDP to prove for realsies that people who complete them know their ass from a hole in the ground.
Lowering the bar simply makes it easier to legitimize the charlatans, all-the-while lining NCARBs pockets.
Win-win.
that too SneakyP.
Threesleve,
I may have very specific questions and while I will likely also wait until more info comes out before spending the time waiting in the call queue that may answer my specific questions but I am also looking through the NCARB site for anything that may already answer my questions that are rattling in my head but that may evolve as well. I have to sort of sit down long enough to figure out exactly what my question would be.
I am not asking here yet as it is customary good practice to do ones own due diligence effort to find the answers to one's own questions instead of looking like an idiot asking a question that could have been easily found.
It isn't a distrust matter. It is a matter of knowing what to ask and a little patience while I have a number of things non-AXP/IDP related at the moment.
Like you said, there is several conversion charts, blogs, Q&A sessions so I like to catch up on that to be sure I didn't overlook it.
Off hand, when I look at the charts that says about maximum number of hours: (Sorry it broke the nice columnated form.
Experience Setting O, Where the Hours Go, Maximum Hours Earned
Other Work Settings, Any IDP experience area, 1,860 hours
Design or Construction Related Employment, Any IDP experience area, 320 hours
NCARB’s Professional Conduct Monograph, Practice Management, 16 hours
CSI Certification: CCS, Construction & Evaluation, 40 hours
CSI Certification: CCCA, Project Planning & Design, 40 hours
Community Based Design Center/Collaborative, Any IDP experience area, 320 hours
Design Competitions, Any IDP experience area, 320 hours
Site Visit With Mentor, Construction & Evaluation, 40 hours
Construction Work, Construction & Evaluation, 320 hours
AIA Continuing Education for HSW, Any IDP experience area, 20 hours per experience area
- See more at: http://www.ncarb.org/Experience-Through-Internships/IDP2-Experience-Categories-Areas/Overhauled-IDP.aspx#sthash.gbVl7jvt.dpuf
I am wondering if these "maximums" only pertains to the maximum number of hours for the core 3740 hours. I am wondering if hours above the maximum hours listed above would go into the jurisdictional requirements above and beyond that. For example, lets say that I get my core hours but I need to continue recording additional hours such as hours above and beyond 5600 hours or 3 years rule for say experience requirements, I would be inclined to document it into the NCARB record that helps to validate and verify those experience even though I have to fill out additional forms with the state specific stuff. The IDP / NCARB record is a good documentation.
For example, lets say I garner more than 320 hours of say..... Design or Construction Related Employment, I understand that 320 hours would apply to the core 3740 required hours for core NCARB requirements. Lets say I garner 750 hours in this category (speaking hypothetically not of actual numbers).... There would be 430 hours more than the minimum. I wonder if those 430 additional hours above the Experience Setting O maximum for "Design or Construction related employment" would count towards the additional jurisdictional hours or will they have to be Experience Setting A.
I would want to know where this would fall. It is about knowing how to go about the matters. I understand that certain state specific issue have to be looked at. I understand that most states have several years of experience under an architect on experience based path to licensure.
Rick I was only trying to answer your questions because you wrote "If you find out and happen to do so before I get around to it, let me know..." I've already read the documents, talked to my state's NCARB liaison, etc. Just trying to help - not telling you not to call NCARB yourself...
In your example the 430 hours beyond the max allowed in the setting would not count toward extra jurisdictional hours if the state requires that jurisdictional hours are reported through NCARB. That is specifically answered in several places. If you gained 750 hours in that setting, the extra 430 hours in that setting are recorded but they don't count toward the base requirements nor toward jurisdictional requirements.
That said, there are a few states whose additional experience requirements specifically for "experience route" people are not required to be reported through NCARB. In that situation it would be the state's rules that matter, not NCARB's - though some of those states won't use an NCARB record as the documentation of that extra experience - they have their own experience categories, spreadsheets, supervisor forms, etc. NCARB doesn't tend to have any expertise with those rules - you'd be better off asking your questions to the state.
The exams & references should be the gate-keeper of minimum competency - I'd rather consolidate the exams (less studying to the topic, more you better know it). Architects don't trust each other (maybe rightfully so), but this makes the profession a bit less legitimate from the point of view of, say lawyers and engineers. PE exam is one day, your entry is a letter from a PE saying you're ready. It's open book and you better know it or you won't finish it.
I think it was nice to have a minimal category with all the inclusiveness - it encouraged at least some to explore those options than the traditional grind.
In my state to take the PE exam a candidate needs a minimum of 4 years of documented full time experience, and five references from currently licensed engineers. That doesn't really seem any easier or less regulated than the route to an architect license. I don't know how standardized the requirements are for engineers in various states - maybe it's easier in some.