NCARB’s “Integrated Path” initiative, which works with architecture schools to develop programming that fulfills licensure’s requirements by graduation, recently approved plans from over a dozen schools hoping to get their students licensed. Schools were invited to submit their initial proposals in May of 2014, when NCARB announced it would work with NAAB-accredited schools to let students complete IDP and ARE requirements while they were still in school. Now, NCARB will work with each school that submitted a proposal to get closer to a viable “licensure upon graduation” plan.
The schools will only be announced once their program is fully accepted by NCARB. Every year, starting again in early 2016, NCARB will invite additional schools to submit proposals to the “Integrated Path Evaluation Committee”. You can read NCARB's full press release here.
Archinectors weren't overwhelmingly swayed by the initial announcement of NCARB's initiative to have accredited schools offer licensure upon graduation. Once the programs offering such an "alternative" path to licensure are made public, it'll be easier to make a clearer evaluation of the idea.
Previously on Archinect:
14 Comments
I have to admit that this would have been a big selling point to get me to choose one school over another. But having gone through the entire process and just recently attained licensure, I can say that anyone coming out of school with the ability to practice architecture on their own will be a detriment to the profession. The entire point of IDP and the AREs was to ensure that aspiring architects attained a knowledge base that ensured the health, safety, and wellness of the users. There is an associated practicality to that which can only be attained while working in the profession and not while in school. I sincerely hope that NCARB retains some stipulation to help recent graduates attain that experience otherwise I fear there will be a significant increase in architectural based litigation and a negative impact on the industry as a whole.
^Then you haven't learned anything during your IDP...
and again we find ourselves presented with comments lacking content. By all means present your case but please refrain from casting lack-luster jabs from the peanut gallery.
My IDP was actually invaluable. I learned how to make my designs into realities. turning a idea into something actually buildable, client relations, developing team and managerial skills, etc. The work it takes to design in school versus what it means to actually practice architecture are two entirely separate things. both valuable but different.
follow your own advice.
you say grads with the ability to practice would be a "detriment to the profession." can you explain? I have seen so many incompetent plans done by architects and Landscape architects that I question whether there is a drug problem in the profession. Also, can you please explain why it works fine in most other countries? Are europeans genetically superior or is your argument based on ego pumping bullshit?
Can you also explain how recently minted grads would actually get big clients in leau of experience? Seems they would have to work their way up from small (anyways exempt) work for years prior to getting a project that would require a stamp. How haven't you learned that during your invaluable IDP experience?
sigh...to answer your first question, please just reread my first post. The rest of your post doesn't warrant response.
That said, as this is obviously just going to devolve into an "I'm going to YELL until you walk away" situation. Congrats. I will gladly walk away and will no longer respond to this thread.
LOL. You cant answer because your argument is flawed.
turning a idea into something actually buildable, client relations, developing team and managerial skills, etc.
I learned all this stuff in school, (5 years + thesis project) honed it during my first 5 years of profession, working full time for others while doing small projects on the side, never had any issue going out and learning how to navigate, but with my own pilot's license.
Looks to me the problem lies in schools more than in practice
Add two semesters of internships, one in public sector, one in private practice, done during school hours, one day a week. Complement that with code classes and business classes, can't be that hard. Make everybody graduate with a thesis project, not just the final studio.
I've never understood what's the logic behind the US college system, where your first 2 years are a waste, and you have to do another 2 years of "serious stuff" to get out in the world. Why can't you do 5 years of college again? oh, because it's always been this way and can't change now, I see....
Very interested in the details of how these programs are structured. What portion of the 3,740 IDP hours overlap the standard curriculum? How long would such an integrated path take, while still protecting public safety, health, and welfare of the American public? It seems unlikely that a typical 5 year B Arch program has the bandwidth to include anywhere near that many hours.
^ Don't know if your interest was towards what I mentioned, but here's the current curriculum at my school,
http://arquitectura.uc.cl/images/Malla_Arquitectura_Resol_078-2014.pdf
let me know if there's something I can clarify or translate for you.
Krimson,
The intern has to complete IDP and pass the ARE. They already been able to do this while they were in school. The only difference is they had to complete their degree, IDP and/or ARE and have all of it done before they receive their license. To think about it, it isn't even a difference. It has been going on in a number of states before this was announced. It just might mean more programs are building their academic programs closer in line with what is practice while still meeting NAAB requirements. So, what's the difference or point?
People can be licensed 5 years after graduating high school. Your complaint sounds more like age discrimination to me.
Watch yourself there. I hope it isn't what you imply to mean.
NCARB has now named the schools that will first develop their programs to accomplish this:
Pretty much exactly the list I would have guessed, and I think that's good. These schools seem to already being focusing on practice more than many other schools are anyway.
I know there has been much gnashing of teeth over fears that architecture schools will now just "teach to the test" and be little more than trade schools, but I think those fears over an overly-dramatic response. Personally I think this is great and I feel it gives our discipline more diversity in paths to practice, be they traditional or not.
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.