Call them members of the permanent intern underclass: educated members of the millennial generation who are locked out of the traditional career ladder and are having to settle for two, three and sometimes more internships after graduating college, all with no end in sight. — The New York Times
103 Comments
Miles Jaffe
"Recent grads have not been properly trained by the educational system and lack the necessary knowledge and experience to work in the profession straight out of school. "
That's got to be the biggest load of horseshit going around the collective mind of the profession. It is, unfortunately, true in some cases, but the majority of grads from accredited professional programs are absolutely ready for the real world of doing entry-level, relatively small-scale projects. I've been through 4 years of arch school, 3 years of art school before that, and now also have 10 years of various construction-related experience (from doing demo, to being a finisher/painter, to doing GC work).
I get stumped in job interviews because 'Design Managers' with 10 years of experience after a 1-year draftsperson diploma ask me why I used a proportioning system for my facades, instead of just following manufacturers specs, and they want to know if I can use Revit to make realistic renders. I probably could figure out the software tricks, though it seems like a waste of effort compared to using photoshop. Anyways, I don't understand what the fuck those things have to do with Architecture (people who are after 'realistic' renders are never actually considering representational effects in relation to their practice or specific project), and I will continue to refuse to stoop to that level of ignorance for not even so much as a promise of support for the IDP-route. The most common question I get asked by people in the construction industry is "And why do you want to be registered?" I have no good answer, beyond the one that points to the asinine legalities surrounding the practice!
So yeah, all of you holding on to IDP as the mian gateway to practice, you can keep being ostriches. I'm content to stick around on the edge of the discipline for a little while longer, and am getting quite good at turning art commissions into actual built, albeit small, architecture projects. I hope that maybe one day your clients ask why you DIDN'T use a proportioning system instead of going by the Sweets catalog. I bet you wouldn't think then that it's a waste - actually learning a few thing about why all those old buildings in history class turned out the way they did...
I worked at one office, where there was an intern who would "job hop" for IDP experience - our boss hated that "we aren't paying you to self actualize as an architect" as he signed his IDP form. PAs need people to get the work out, not be zigzagging all over to get experience.
Where I currently work, it's just not allowed they told us they do not support IDP - I am thinking of focusing on digital design, building a career there because the IDP path is blocked - only at SOM, where I started was IDP supported. I think big offices, HOK, Gensler, SOM can accommodate IDP, but small offices? I can't get work at the big offices because I don't have any recent experience in large commercial projects - 3 - 4 years ago is too distant a recruiter told me.
These millennial interns will have the last laugh. Guarantee they will start coming for heads when they are running the world, so start treating them right, or else you'll wind up in Soylent Green.
what do you do for a living jla? it sometimes seems like you have no idea what an architect actually does in real life.
working on an actual building does not typically have a single architect like howard roark doing everything. that's fiction. typically it requires a team of people with various expertise working together. when people learn to help each other out, that team tends to work together better, and that makes for a better building. employers should be helping their employees. employees should be helping their employers. that's how you build teamwork. when the employee and employer see each other as an enemy or something stupid like that, it's going to be a toxic environment. granted, if you're just doing bathroom renovations, you can go ahead and howard roark out all you want. but then, you don't need to be an architect to do that.
there is no point in going on about 'entrepreneurs.' especially if the entrepreneur is a complete moron. i imagine that's where those bosses xenakis is talking about come from. those are your great entrepreneurs who can't build a team and can't support their staff. instead of making their employees better, they push them down and actively prevent them from reaching their potential. maybe someday you'll learn that when it's all about you instead about your team, you won't be able accomplish anything worthwhile.
I hire interns to wipe my interns butts, the whole system is flawed, its time to revolt.
curtkram,
You are correct, I do not like the part about IDP that requires interns to rely on an unincentivized architects to provide them with proper experience. Therefore, because interns cannot do anything about it as it is outside their sphere of influence, it is a flawed system that hurts interns (aka future architects).
Most architectural practices have stretched/limited resources, why does the AIA/NCARB think they have the resources to provide interns with quality experience practicing architecture?
I think you are under the assumption I think gaining experience is bad; I'm not. I don't like a system requiring a structured experience, when the system cannot guarantee this specific experience is available in current offices. What incentives do architects have to give interns "help"?
time to get rid of the IDP requirement and replace it with something else -
anytime you have something that becomes unnecessarily difficult because it is dependent on others, you have a problem. There are just too many disincentives for architects to assist junior staff to obtain experiences in various categories for IDP. - It's also selfish for for Jr. architects to zigzag in an effort to full-fill IDP - employers don't like it when people want to do things outside of what they are hired to do.
i would disagree. things shouldn't become unnecessarily difficult because you can no longer depend on others.
it would be hard for me to know how much the world has really changed in the last 10 years or so, since i only have the perspective and experience of one person. however, i am confident i grew up in a world where people were willing to help each other out. if your boss had any sense and wanted to build a strong company, rather than being an entrepreneur looking to turn a quick buck, they would want to help make better people and better architects. the upside to the boss is that, given time, they would have a talented architect that developed their skills working in their company. i would hope the experience you guys have had is not normal.
of course interns are going job-hop to fill their IDP when the bosses are going to keep tossing them out. the problem isn't with the motivated people who want to do a better job, the problem is lazy 'entrepreneurs' that are too dumb to know how to invest in their own human resources.
curtkram,
You honestly don't see the problem with one's professional standing being based not on competence, but on people "willing to help each other out"?
This is the new intern experience, welcome to the future.
there are three elements that are currently required to gain and assess competence for an architect.
1) school. 5 year barch or 4+2 march
2) real-life experience. IDP
3) test. the ARE
your professional competence is based on all three elements. you only want to do 2 out of the 3. neither the test nor education can replace real-life experience.
this is not a new intern experience. it's been around for a very long time. the system we have developed is certainly not perfect. i'm sure there are a lot of ways all three elements can be improved. however, abandoning it and granting professional responsibility to people who can't read a set of CDs because they've never actually seen real-world work is not a good solution.
curtkram,
You are confusing IDP's structure with experience practicing architecture. Can you tell me why exactly 1,200 CD hours defines one as an architect and why not 1,199? Or 500? Why not make it an even 2,000 CD hours? Does the quality of those hours matter? Does the diversity within those hours matter?
Licensure is the only thing based on those three elements, architectural competence is not.
I'm suggesting IDP be improved by removing the structure. IDP is not new, it was developed in 1976 and the state of architecture in the United States mirrors this stagnant system.
IDP is a bunch of paperwork to document experience. that's what it is. it's an imperfect system created by imperfect people. the case you're making against IDP doesn't have anything to do with changing it to 1,199 hours or 500 hours.
if you're going to be responsible for putting together an entire set of construction documents that will turn into an actual building, you should at least have some experience in knowing how to read those documents, not to mention how to create them.
if you work for 3 years as a plumber, you're probably going to learn that a 4" vent doesn't fit in a 3" wall, and probably even learn how to read plumbing drawings and riser diagrams. these are valuable and important things an architect should know before they're given the authority prepare an entire set of CDs. It is not enough though, since there are a lot of other things involved in preparing a set of CDs.
if you work for 3 years an architecture visualizer, you're probably going to learn about architectural visualization and maybe even design. that's also a valuable skill for an architect. however, much like the plumbing analogy, it is not a complete view of what architects do and what architects are responsible for. since you haven't been exposed to that experience, you are not going to be prepared to take on that responsibility on your own.
even if you get rid of IDP and NCARB and all of government, you still need a system in place where aspiring architects are exposed to what architects do before they become architects themselves.
i'm pretty sure what upsets you is that you are unable to put yourself in a position to gain that experience. you have to depend on other people to help you, and in your current position, there isn't anyone willing to provide that help. i'm quite certain that in the fairly recent past it was common and accepted that an employer would help their interns be exposed to that experience. i don't know if that's changed or if you and xenakis are just in a unique position. either way, letting people become architects without that experience is the wrong answer. if the system really does need fixed, it needs to be fixed in such a way as to provide that broad experience to aspiring architects.
that experience is, without a doubt, required to be a competent architect. whether IDP is best the way to deliver that experience is debatable. there is no question, at least in my opinion, as to whether that experience can just be omitted or replaced with experience that doesn't cover what architects do.
"even if you get rid of IDP and NCARB and all of government, you still need a system in place where aspiring architects are exposed to what architects do before they become architects themselves."
Wouldn't that system be working in an office; why does IDP need to structure this experience? I'm arguing that the system needs to be fixed by removing the structure. Even if I was an architect, do you really think a client would offer me a project if I didn't have relevant experience to prove my competence?
The case I am making is why exactly does it need to be 1,200 hours? Can you explain this extremely exact number one is required to reach to be an "architect"?
"i'm quite certain that in the fairly recent past it was common and accepted that an employer would help their interns be exposed to that experience."
Like I said, welcome to future, aka the post 2008 financial crisis world, where money is the bottom line and no one is willing to provide help if it doesn't provide money.
The case I am making is why exactly does it need to be 1,200 hours? Can you explain this extremely exact number one is required to reach to be an "architect"?
Same reason there are 10 commandments...As the late great George Carlin said..."they made the whole fuckin thing up, 10 just sounded like and official number."
Your point is spot on Donatello. The system is arbitrary. I do not see the necessity to structure experience. I do think experience is very valuable, however, experience can and would be sought without IDP. A law school grad can take the bar exam and get licensed right out of school. Their education teaches little about professional practice. Regardless, 99% of them do not start a practice upon passing the bar. They are not legally constrained, but most of them will want to gain real world experience before starting a firm. Some do not and fail, others (very few) jump in the water and learn to swim. The system allows for personal responsibility. This responsibility acknowledges that they are capable adults able to make responsible decisions without govt oversight. This gives merit to their degree and their professionalism. The IDP system does not. It treats people like new born babies.
Before 1977 there were many many years that worked fine under the loose apprenticeship system. The IDP system was not brought into effect in some reactionary way to solve some problem. Instead, they replaced a good system that encouraged mentorship and personal responsibility with dependency and a feeling of entiltlement on the part of the intern and the employer. The system creates a burden for firms as well as interns. State mandates should be structured/satisfied by the agency creating the mandate not pawned off onto the private sector. I like the idea of setting up "teaching firms." I could get on board with that. I also had an idea a few years back of a community service npo that would provide experience in exchange for service, such as working on projects like the type that architecture for humanity does...The firm could offer a part time or full time residency program so that grads could gain experience and get licensed. It should be structured more like a college degree where you would gain x number of credits to complete. The nice thing about such a program is that it would create a good bond between the older and younger generations, because it would eliminate the feelings of dependency and the awkwardness of job/intern hybridization, and also allow them to work together towards a positive common goal.
overall, we are friggin designers so lets design a better friggin system. Its really not that hard.
as i said before, only being a plumber or illustrator is not going to give you adequate experience required to become an architect. that's why idp has the structure it has. you also noted that the world is different now post recession, and an employer is not going to give their employees the experience they need the way they did 10 years ago. if that's the case, then the structure is all that much more important.
go ahead and try to reform idp so they require 1500 hours instead of 1200 for CDs if you think that's important. get rid of IDP and replace it with a system that works better if you want. all i'm saying is that you need to have experience that covers the broad range of what architects do before you get licensed. i'm not concerned so much with how you get that experience, i'm just concerned that you want to do away with it altogether. if something needs to be fixed, focus on how you get the experience, not on abandoning it.
do you really think a client would offer me a project if I didn't have relevant experience to prove my competence?
this is what the license is for. once the state grants you that license, you have the faith of the government standing behind you, saying that you have the minimum competence required to execute a project that requires an architect. there are a lot of contractors and developers looking to cut every corner they can. adding checks and balances, which included licensing architects as well as city plans reviews, is important to keep everything safe and up to the standards the public expects of their built environments.
curtkram,
Stop side-stepping the question. You are championing the structure of IDP, so tell me why is it 1200 hours exactly?
So even with all those checks and balances that come with an architecture license through IDP, the travesty that become Pittsburg's African-American Performing arts center was still able to happen. Can you explain how the checks and balances worked in that situation?
curtkram,
"i'm not concerned so much with how you get that experience, i'm just concerned that you want to do away with it altogether. if something needs to be fixed, focus on how you get the experience, not on abandoning it"
You are still confusing "experience" and IDP and clearly care how one gets experience.
curtkram,
We are going in circles.
" if something needs to be fixed, focus on how you get the experience..."
Again, If it is up to interns to focus on how they get experience, then why do we need IDP to regulate it?
IDP does not directly provide the experience you need. It provides a list of categories that they think you need experience in, and a method of documenting that experience. i am not as hung up on IDP as you seem to think. what i'm saying is that you need broad experience. you need exposure to what architects do before you become an architect. if all you do is hide in a dark cubicle drawing stair rail details, that's not enough to make you an architect.
it seems to me what frustrates you is that you have to depend on others to help you. you're largely powerless to force people to do what you want, or to force them to give you what you want. the best thing you can do, as an intern, to help yourself become an architect, is to talk to your boss and try to get them to give you more exposure to the profession. if your boss is unwilling to do that, you might need to think about finding a better place to work. i know that that is very hard and very frustrating, considering there might not be that many people hiring. if employers in the field are no longer offering that experience to the people they hire, then that makes it worse. regardless, you still need to be exposed to the profession before you become an architect, and you aren't going to get that exposure if you're pigeon holed into a narrow role.
you have proposed, as a way to fix what you perceive to be a problem, to get rid of the current experience requirement entirely, or to replace that requirement with something that would allow a person that doesn't have any practical experience to get licensed.
i'm trying to tell you that experience is an important part of becoming an architect. if you're going to fix what you perceive to be a problem, it has to be fixed in such a way that allows you to get the experience you need to learn how to practice architecture.
curtkram,
You are right, my last four internships didn't provide an experience IDP deems acceptable, I'll move on and maybe the next one will be better. Thanks for the advice, I'll keep playing internship roulette until I find a firm with the ability to give me an experience the system deems acceptable.
Once I get that 1 hour of CDs and 10 hours of volunteer work, I will finally have all the knowledge of a master builder!!! Until then I'm not an architect and don't know anything about constructing and designing buildings. woe is me.
curtkram,
I have a riddle. If one needs 10 hours of CDs to complete IDP, but lies and counts 9 hours of programming as 10 hours of CDs, are they an architect?
it's not that complicated. i do not associate any transcendental or religious esteem to the title as some others might. if the state grants you the title of architect, then you're an architect. if not, then you're not. if you cheat to get the title, you might have it revoked.
So you are okay with a cheater becoming an architect?
As long as the state recognizes one as an architect ;)
curtkram,
Just to make sure you see your contradiction. You keep going on about experience being so important, but in answer to my riddle which outlined a situation where the type and time of experience was incorrect, you agreed that it would still qualify one as an architect.
It's obvious your religion is AIA/NCARB.
no. i would rather you didn't cheat. it's not up to me though. i don't get to make you an architect. neither does NCARB, or the AIA, or NAAB, or your employer. it may even be beyond your own control.
curtkram,
Of course one would rather not cheat, but you are okay with a situation where one can cheat and become an architect. How does it feel to know your title is a piece of paper and nothing more?
*And yes NCARB/NAAB decides who is an architect; that is why I am targeting IDP because that is taking a lot of it out of my control.
my title is a piece of paper and nothing more. you're giving it too much importance. if what you want to do is be a designer or an entrepreneur like jla, then go do that instead.
that's not entirely true. it's a piece of paper that allows me to act as architect of record on a set of construction documents.
there's nothing magic about it. i also have a stamp to act as notary public. that grants me a title that allows me to witness other people's signatures. also granted to me by my state. not that different, though the notary stamp has been more useful, and cost considerably less.
ncarb has no say in you becoming an architect. they offer guidelines that your state may follow, and they send records to your state upon request. while idp is set up and administered by them, it your state's review of their information that will allow you to become an architect. subtle difference that probably doesn't matter.
curtkram,
If it is a piece of paper, then why do we need it to practice architecture?
I don't have a problem with the state, it's NCARB's outdated IDP system.
There was a time when buildings fell down or burned down and hurt people. The architect's job is to design buildings to code and that meet common industry standards so buildings don't hurt people. You need the piece of paper to demonstrate you have the competence to do that if you're the architect of record and taking responsibility for the design of a building. The state does not not want idiot entrepreneurs who are just out to make a quick buck taking that responsibility, so they require you to show you have the (a) education and (b) experience then require you to take a (c) test to demonstrate broad knowledge of the practice of architecture.
Go ahead and get rid of ncarb if you can. Nobody will miss them. You still need real experience before you take responsibility for the design of a building.
Curt, your single track mind is showing again.
IDP is NOT real experience, that is the problem, it is more like being an office temp where you pick up scraps of projects for 3-12 years. It doesn't give the broad explicit experience that would be ideal for creating competent professionals. Understand? Your insistence on equating experience with IDP is enough to take your license away because you can't seem to understand simple concepts. I did an apprenticeship with a civil engineer who didn't know what IDP was, so instead he taught me about buildings. Get it?
The licensure and built environment as it stands in the states reminds me of the old story about King Solomon and the two women who claimed to both be the mother of a child. Solomon said he would find who was the real mother. He stood in front of the two women and told them that since they didn't know who was the real mother, that he would cut the baby in half and give half to each mother. One of the mothers cried and said no! The other grinned with delight and said yes! Then King Solomon know who the real mother is. The mother who wanted to hurt the child was not the real mother. She was not the one who cared about people. The real mother was the one who was willing to sacrifice herself for the bigger picture.
If you want to continue to desecrate both the built environment and disillusion young people like this profession has with this system, your true intentions are visible to those who can see. The profession of architecture is not serving the people, it serves itself.
so if idp is failing because aspiring architects aren't getting enough experience, we should fix it in such a way as to provide aspiring architects better experience. when you say it's not "real experience," as an example idp requires experience in contract negotiation right? an intern isn't going to negotiate a contract. they don't cover that in school. during your internship, idp wants you to be exposed to that process, so before you get a license you've at least seen that part of what an architect does. in my one-track mind, it seems obvious that eliminating that exposure would make an aspiring architect that much less prepared to be an architect, whether you want to consider it 'real experience' or not.
i don't see what you're experience with a civil engineer has to do with donatello's or xenakis's situation. they're saying they get pigeonholed into a narrow role, such as rendering, and are not allowed to be exposed to the other things architects are expected to know.
are you suggesting that our profession would benefit by eliminating experience requirements, and letting people who have never really been outside the academic bubble take responsibility for the design of a building? that's the 'bigger picture?'
in what way is the built environment being desecrated? what the licensing laws say is that buildings have to meet minimum standards so they don't hurt people, they have building codes to help facilitate that goal, and they require an architect to have, among other things, a bit of exposure to an architectural office before they take responsibility for the design of a building. that's been very effective. events like the london or chicago fire tend to not happen any more. if a building does burn down, it's typically contained well enough for people to get out and the fire department has time and access to get it under control. it's not perfect, but our cities are pretty safe because of the legal requirements we have. in fact, the women in your story would probably prefer to have her kid working in a building that follows these regulations rather than a building that doesn't since she wants her kid to be safe.
do you know why eifs strip malls or walmarts get built? do you really think it's because architects are too dumb or too bitter to do any better? an aspiring architect should at least see what actually happens in the design process so they know. the architects that design the circle k, which you might think is 'desecrating the environment,' aren't serving themselves. they're serving their client, and there isn't anything wrong with that.
^well said!
Curtkram, building safety is mostly due to building codes. I am all for codes. No one is saying that we should remove all regulation from the building industry. That's dumb. In fact, I think that we should expand the codes to require a certain degree of sustainability built in. An offgasing limit (x parts per million) possibly a certain amount of energy produced on site, etc. this would truly make the knowledge itself valuable and necessary. Regulate the game not the players. A shitty greedy developer can find a way around the stamp, but finding a way around the knowledge needed to design a sustainable building will be much more difficult. Promote quality not professional title. The architects that support title protectionism are very short sighted. They are looking at the issue of relevance from a simplistic foolish perspective. Relevance has nothing to do with titles and badges, it has to do with necessity and the rarity of an ability to meet difficult demands.
curt, I guess I do not share your premise that architects are what makes buildings safe. They are part of the picture, but they are not what makes buildings safe. You think you are over there saving lives pumping CAD?
there are several layers of safety in building design and construction. the architect is just one. i do think the buildings i work on are designed such that people can exit in case of fire, and they're designed to be accessible according to the addag. the title of 'architect' is regulated to show a person understands how to meet these minimum requirements.
you can be an architect and great at drawing, or be an architect and not any good at drawings at all. you can be an architect and a great designer, or an architect that isn't a very good designer. i don't think it's useful to assume the title of 'architect' means something other that what it means, in this day and age. palladio carrying the title 'architect' was different, because that word was used different at that time. there is some disagreement here as to what an 'architect' should be, but the state stepped in and defined it and regulated it for us, so there isn't much point being upset about it. if palladio rose up as zombie palladio tomorrow and tried to design buildings in the real-life environment we live in today, some might consider him a great designer, but he wouldn't be an architect and he wouldn't have any idea how to design a building that meets code.
specific to why this is relevant to the current conversation, is to try to explain what it is someone like donatello is trying to achieve. when you become an architect, you're not all of a sudden a great designer. you don't become palladio. all you get is a stamp that says you meet the minimum requirements to take responsibility for the architectural design of a building, and that you know enough for that building to meet the requirements your jurisdiction has established. if donatello wants to be an 'architect' as a great designer like palladio, but not so much as someone who stamps drawings, then going through idp is probably not all that necessary. wouldn't you agree with that? or do guys think the title of 'architect' is supposed to offer something other than the legal right to stamp a drawing that requires an architect's stamp?
also pride. that's really why i got licensed. i don't stamp drawings, i work for people who do that.
Trying to remember, I think fulfilled a lot of the IDP contract negotiation section by proofreading contracts. My experiences in actually negotiating and understanding things like contracts comes from experiences outside of the cubicle.
What I hear Xen saying is that his firm doesn't support IDP. And what I hear Donatello saying is that experience is so valuable, so then why are we doing IDP instead?
curtkram,
Another riddle for you, if Frank Lloyd Wright zombie reanimated would he be an architect?
The problem is not about experience, the issue revolves around IDP's outdated system, in 1976 was BIM (let alone CAD) used in a typical practice? How is IDP accounting for changes in practice?
If there is a license for architecture, why doesn't the state license designers?
The only thing you state as a reason for licensure is safety (through fires). Can you please cite this epidemic of problematic buildings? I don't think your dates correlate correctly.
According to NCARB's history it was a group of (protectionist) architects that got together and decided to license the title of architect.
This protectionism is holding the profession back.
frank lloyd wright essentially interned with sullivan didn't he? obviously, if he didn't complete the state requirements to become an architect, he wouldn't be an architect, though there are sometimes experience exemptions which might apply for him, depending on which jurisdiction he's applying to. building codes have changed significantly since his time though; he would have to brush-up.
idp provides broad categories which say some exposure is necessary. bim is a tool, as is autocad, as is a pencil. bim hasn't changed the profession so much that the categories of idp are no longer valid, and if it has, then the categories need updated. i couldn't say what changes need to be made to specifically address implementation of certain software, especially since bim wasn't really around when i was going through idp, and my office doesn't use bim now. if you have ideas on how bim actually changes those experience requirements, i would be interested in hearing them.
i don't much like ncarb or their infrastructure. i will celebrate the day ncarb goes broke or gets adequately reformed to meet the needs of the professionals they represent, if that ever happens. the only thing i'm supporting is the requirement that some exposure to the profession be provided to aspiring architects before they get licensed.
if you were to reform idp to meet what you think is the new reality that it doesn't address, what would it look like? even if you could rebuild it from the ground up, maybe even have every state require an entirely different process, and break reciprocity. would there be different categories, or would you just rearrange the time allocations? or are you suggesting that due to bim being around now, the software does all the thinking and experience is no longer useful to an architect? if you agree with last point, then i think you're mistaken.
But FLW didn't go through IDP, so there is no way he got the correct experience understanding the breadth of what it takes to practice architecture. So according to your logic, no he would not be an architect.
Here's another riddle since they seem to keep stumping you...
If the architecture licensure process is so necessary and strong, are you confident that if anyone who graduated from architecture school could be called an architect and someone who completed IDP a registered architect, would the public/client discern a difference in the work enough to always choose a registered architect?
I am in favor of eliminating IDP, one will gain experience working; FLW presents an example...
I believe I could design a program to teach a recent architect grad everything that IDP and the ARE wants them to learn in 1 year and at the end of that year they can take the ARE. Hardly a big departure, nor one that threatens current paper holders.
But personally, deep down inside, I think there should be a modification to the way we use the word architect. It makes architects look bad to try to control language like they do, and it takes an outside perspective to see that, like the perspective I got from my civil apprenticeship, that the way to mentor and support others is to do it, not to make up a checklist for them. Furthermore, the gap that architects aren't serving or not serving well can be addressed. We don't need all the skills of the ARE/IDP rigor to remodel a bathroom or design a doctor's office or layout an accessible ramp for an entry. Let's give graduates the capacity to do the simplest of jobs right away, and let them do it (our patrons will like this I think), and let them get experience and earn their license that way. If they don't want to do that, they don't have to of course, they can go work for someone else. Curt, even you don't need your license, you just have it so you can use the word. Hardly honorable. Your boss doesn't even make you stamp drawings. So is it safe to say the licensure process as is did not serve you well either? You sacrificed a lot for something you don't actually need. What was the opportunity cost of checking things off your IDP list? Surely you can see that to make everyone follow the same route is not without harm.
and FLW didn't get licensed till he was 70 - that could be the case for many of us - if we work @ it that is - I read FLW's books and figured I could be like him - IDP throws a rock through the lens of my rose colored glasses - Oh Well
when FLW worked for sullivan, he gained relevant experience. it worked for him.
if all you do is tweak sketchup models, you're not gaining relevant experience.
If the architecture licensure process is so necessary and strong, are you confident that if anyone who graduated from architecture school could be called an architect and someone who completed IDP a registered architect, would the public/client discern a difference in the work enough to always choose a registered architect?
i don't even know what you're asking. i have not involved myself much in the other thread where people are talking about titles like that. what i'm saying is that what we currently have is a 3-tier license process, including education, experience, and a test. if you want to make that process better, do so in a way that creates better architects. eliminating the need for broad exposure to what actually happens when designing a building will not make better architects.
ultimately, the public/client can use the invisible hand of the free market to differentiate between people who are architects and good designers from those who are architects and not good designers. if they want to hire someone who is an architect and not a good designer, that's the economy. it's not regulated.
IDP is not important in my opinion. what is important is exposure to the profession before you get a license that says you can be responsible for the design of a building. IDP just happens to be the current vehicle to provide the outline for what's necessary. due to the fact that it exists, it's the baseline for which we should build on and improve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Station_nightclub_fire
building codes save lives. i really don't think there is a question about that. also, watch this sometime if you get a chance. it's a good, entertaining film (if a bit old, and it has OJ Simpson in it). also, if you don't understand why we have codes and professionals that oversee the design of buildings that should meet those codes, perhaps it will help.
towering inferno
curtkram,
But how did FLW gain relevant experience without IDP?
The economy is regulated because an architect can only practice if they are licensed. My riddle was pointing out the fact that the 3-tier process you esteem is not a strong process, If it was a strong process, then we would not need the state to regulate architects, the public/client would have faith in architects versus registered architects.
tint, i doubt you could create an in-classroom environment that would be the equivalent of actually seeing a project from start to finish in a real-life environment. things just seem to work different in the less controlled environment of real-life. but, if you can, more power to you. that would help to remove the potential or perceived disincentive an employer might have towards mentoring aspiring architects.
i certainly agree with you when you say mentoring and supporting others is better than a checklist. donatello mentioned that the experience portion of licensure should be updated to reflect the way things work today (i think he said 'bim'). it's also been mentioned employers look at interns as cheap, warm bodies to fill seats, or pigeonhole them into menial tasks without providing the broad experience IDP attempts to encourage. i think that's the environment xenakis is in, right? if IDP or any other 'experience' aspect of licensure was updated to reflect the current market, shouldn't it be updated to reflect that current aspiring architects are not being exposed to the profession as well as they were in the past? if Donatello's boss really wanted to provide that mentorship and support, why wouldn't they expose him to the stuff in the IDP checklist so he could finish his hours?
i don't see why you would say it's 'hardly honorable' for me to have gotten a license to practice architecture. i'm proud of that fact i was able to complete the process. i don't see that there was much of an opportunity cost to checking things off the IDP list. i've worked with people who were approachable, and if i asked for exposure to different areas on that checklist, they were typically as helpful as they could be. i'm glad i got that experience. honestly, i don't understand why donatello seems to have such difficulty in getting people at his workplace to help him out. perhaps it's because he's asking them "But how did FLW gain relevant experience without IDP?" so they don't much want to work with him. but then, i also know there is a big world out there that i don't understand. he hasn't explained much about his environment other than he wants it to be easier to get through idp, and he doesn't think it's important to be exposed to what architects actually do for a living.
how would a recent grad know how to remodel a commercial bathroom that meets ada and other applicable codes if they haven't been exposed to the ada and applicable codes?
there is a reason 'architect' is a regulated title. it's not a conspiracy. before we go handing out stamps inside of every box of 3d-home software, we should understand why it's regulated.
No it's not a conspiracy...it's worse than that. It's comfort and complacency. Not much different from other stupid laws that we keep around that are proven to be ineffective and damaging. Your idea that a stamp will come with 3d software is a ridiculous stretch. The term scientist is not regulated. Do we all call ourselves scientists? Dose a poser calling himself a scientist get to work with strains of Hanta virus in a lab? There are other ways to check ones credentials. We don't deal with desperate ignorant clients in immediate need for services. They are mostly wealty and savy people who will do their research before handing over 50 million to someone for a high rise condo. One question for you curtkram...is Tadao Ando an architect? Is there some dimensional portal between California and Japan that strips his mind of his experience making him no longer an architect?
curtkram,
In a perfect world, IDP would constantly be updated to meet actual practice. But this has two problems: the practice of the future is unknowable and not every practice is the same. You see how this inhibits progress right? Currently all the contracts in our office mandate a BIM model (other offices I have worked in have had similar contracts), do you think it is important for IDP to account for this relevant change in practice?
I think it should be easier for architecture interns to gain relevant experience practicing architecture, and have already explained how the current system doesn't encourage this development. You seem to think I am against gaining experience.
Architecture firms practice in the private sector and have no incentive to provide this experience. Imagine an example scenario where two people are competent at doing CDs, but one is a better visualizer. Is the principal going to care that the better visualizer needs to complete his CD hours to become licensed or is he going to use the better visualizer to visualize.
I've never said gaining experience is unimportant, I am solely targeting IDPs structure as inefficient to this end.
so you guys don't understand why 'architect' is a regulated title.
scientists are not allowed to stamp architectural drawings.
tadao ando cannot stamp a set of architectural drawings in california. neither can i. my license is not in california.
if you want to change words, go ahead and change them. but for the time being, you haven't been successful, so making up a definition that's contrary to what's been defined as a regulated title is unhelpful. i think it would be best if you assumed there was less prestige to the term "architect," and more prestige to "building designer" or "building spiritualologits" or whatever it is you want to be. what makes 'architect' a regulated title, which you're going to have to figure out on your own, isn't all that glamorous. otherwise, telling us you're an "architect" in the sense that 'you want to be an architect' means one thing while "architect" in the sense of "the state gave me a rubber stamp" means something else and you're confusing the discussion.
no, not giving you a license won't inhibit progress. knowing what an architect does for a living will also not inhibit progress. bim is a tool. if you're hung up the tool, then you probably don't get the point of broad experience. if you're going to become an "architect" instead of 'technician' or something, it's your brain that matters, not the tool. what's important is knowing what you want to the tool to do, and you can do that with bim, or autocad, or even a pencil.
Is the principal going to care that the better visualizer needs to complete his CD hours to become licensed or is he going to use the better visualizer to visualize.
in the world where i grew up, yes the principal, or your supervisor, will take time out to let you get experience in other aspects of the design and development of a project. when you have a more broad perspective of what's going on in the office, you will be a better employee to them. when you understand how design development works, you will be better at visualization iterations. it will also provide a foundation for you grow in to a role where you can take more responsibility on your own. of course that only applies if your employer isn't intending to throw you out after a couple years. not only that, but if your boss helps you fulfill your needs while you help them fulfill their needs, it creates an environment with more respect and cooperation, instead of just a hierarchy with mindless sheep doing what they're told. it's sad that you guys have to grow up in a world where you're just fresh meat to fill a chair. that's the part that needs fixed. if you're going to be well rounded profession, or even a well rounded human being, people are going to have to start seeing you as well rounded human beings.
curtkram,
I know you keep talking about the world you grew up in, but like I've said this is post 2008, (again) I welcome you to the future. IDP creates a distinct hierarchy you proclaim to disdain. How do you propose to create an environment that encourages (incentivizes) employers to provide true mentorship to architecture interns?
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.