anchor
NCARB reveals major reinventions for the IDP and ARE
Upon NCARB's licensure-upon-graduation announcement that stirred up plenty of discussion here on Archinect, the Council recently unveiled three more major modifications regarding the Intern Development Program (IDP) and the Architect Registration Exam (ARE).
Proposal for the streamlining and overhaul of the IDP:
- The first reinvention phase proposes to streamline the IDP by removing the elective hour requirement (1,860 hours). Interns will document only the 3,740 hours in the 17 core experience areas, instead of the current requirement of 5,600 total hours of experience.
- The long-term overhaul phase proposes realigning the current four IDP experience categories and 17 experience areas down to six experience categories. These six categories would directly align with the six practice-based areas of architecture, address the realities and challenges of contemporary practice, and will also align with the ARE 5.0 that will launch in late 2016.
- Finalization of both phases -- and a potential timeline for implementation -- will be determined after the NCARB Board of Directors receives feedback from the state boards this fall.
See the full press release here.
IDP Credit for Hours Completed Beyond Six Months:
- Starting July 1, 2014, credit will be allowed for intern experience that occurred up to five years as opposed to NCARB's current "six-month rule" reporting requirement. Credit for experience older than eight months will be valued at 50 percent for up to five years, after which any other experience would be ineligible. The modification will align with the honoring of ARE exam results for five years.
See the full press release here.
Waiting period to retake ARE to be reduced to 60 days:
- Beginning October 1, 2014, the waiting period to retake the ARE exam will be shortened from six months to 60 days. Candidates who didn't pass one division can retest as soon as 60 days after the previous attempt, and up to three times in a year for any one division. Effective October 1, all candidates who failed a division within the past six months will be able to schedule a retake under the new policy.
See the full press release here.
Similar articles on Archinect that may interest you...
4 Comments
I don't agree with the ARE retake policy, they shouldn't make it so easy to repeat the test. You should have to reform to show improvement, or something along those lines. It isn't easy to show improvement in 60 days, IMO.
I totally agree with getting rid of the 6-month waiting period to retake. Most people fail by making a careless mistake on the vignettes, which are kind of their own weird animal, having very little to do with the way architects actually practice architecture.
This happened to me on the CD section. Looking back, I know the one "fatal" mistake I made on the vignette, and now have to twiddle my thumbs for 6 months waiting to retake it. I'm doing the other tests in the meantime, but it would be better to get it over and done with sooner.
I think they should get rid of those ridiculous vignettes all together, but one step at a time I guess.
The more I see these proposed "reforms" the more it seems that the ultimate goal is to get more and more people taking (and failing) their exams more frequently?
It almost suggests NCARB and the state boards are benefiting from this, but logic dictates that the way they are run they can't possibly make any money, right? My impression of the average NCARB employee is that when they aren't losing files or mismanaging cases, or not answering phones or emails, they are on one of their 8 weeks of paid vacation, right?
The (recent) prohibition on the reporting of past hours was always stupid, and they are rightfully dialing it back. If you worked the time, ever, you should get 100% of the credit.
The 6 month wait had more to do with their inability to create unique tests than anything punitive, as I understood it, but it had the benefit of slowing the progress of people who were ahead of themselves with their testing progress. I'm sure for every "dumb mistake" failure there are and continue to be 5 or 6 "not prepared"s or worse yet "not qualified"s.
That's where I was coming from Matt. I'm a high school student and that would make all of this a lot easier for me right? No. I still don't agree with it. If I'm going to be qualified in this profession I want them to make sure I'm qualified. Who wants a bunch of people running around building houses that aren't qualified to do it? Not me.
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.