National Associates Committee

Dear members of the NCARB,
I am the happiest person by the new resolution because now it is going to be very difficult that many interns will not manipulate the list of activities and time of campletion, "GREAT". It will improve a better relationship between mentor-supervisor vs candidate.
I would like if NCARB consider more options for Architects who came from another country and definetely it would be an improvement if there are different stages to prepare them before start to apply for a job in USA.

Sincerely yours,

Jose Leonidas Mejia
architect SCA 1989
Associate Member AIACT
Volunteer at the New Canaan Historical Society
International Delegate of the Society of Columbian Architects.
203-9668254 Office
203-9375679 Home

Generally speaking, a 6 month requirement to turn in IDP units isn't a bad idea. It will motivate many procrastinators to finish IDP in a more reasonable amount of time. Alas, there are many other issues at work here that the 6 month rule does not take into account. The main issue is the responsibility of the intern to acquire IDP units and for him/her to press their employer for this experience. NCARB needs to understand that the one thing that makes IDP currently unsuccessful is the burdened of the intern being solely responsible for his/her education. The 6 month rule, again, makes the intern responsible for their education. It is not unlike a college student creating their own pedagogy and curriculum to teach themselves architecture. NCARB needs to communicate with the profession and academia to find a more successful method of acquiring professional training (i.e. internship). Only when NCARB begins out reaching and listening instead of dictating model law will the internship become a more successful means of professional development.

Increasing restrictions on IDP + ARE conspire to keep people out of the practice of architecture.

The future is bleak when this profession restricts entry. Smart kids will go elsewhere.

The IDP process is already painful enough. Is NCARB planning on beefing up their staff to handle this? Based on my experience, and that of some colleagues, they already have their hands full. What good does it do if the turn around time increases to four months instead of two. I would prefer them concentrating on streamlining the process as opposed to adding headache.

The first half of the six month rule, that of requiring submissions every six months, is great, and probably will help the procrastinators among us. The second half, however, of having credits disappear, seems counter-productive. Additional experience would only seem to be helpful, both to the individual's knowledge base in taking the tests, and in the development of the individual as an architect. I wouldn't propose rewards for taking a long time to get through the IDP, but there shouldn't be any penalties either. Any way you slice it, getting through the IDP and getting licensed is an arduous process. Let's concentrate on encouraging, rather than discouraging, individuals through this process.

This strikes me as a terrible idea, and not just because I'm a recalcitrant procrastinator (though, I admit that), but also because I am an unfailing supporter of allowing emerging professionals in non-traditional-firm jobs as many ways as possible to work towards earning IDP credit as they gain experience.

IDP already disallows credit for work experience under half-time, which has the unfortunate anti-family or possibly outright sexist effect of discounting the part-time efforts of new parents or others who choose to work flexibly. IDP also already disallows credit for less-than-6-month positions, meaning that emerging professionals are discouraged from seeking a diverse set of short-term work experiences in their early career to identify the best work environment for them. This new proposed requirement would stifle the career progress of individuals who move into architecture from another related field where they have already gained some experience in project or office management. It would also place an unfair burden on interns in situations where they do not have complete control over when supervisors find time to mentor or sign off on paperwork.

More restrictive processes only build resentment of the program and prevent a real, meaningful discourse about the actual diversity of ways that professionals gain an understanding of a field.

While this may be well intentioned, I think it goes much too far in proposing a big stick to solve a vague problem. Even given some legitimate concerns, this seems punitive and does not leave much wiggle room for life circumstances. If the goal is bi-annual reporting, why not start with a one year or eighteen month expiration clock? How will you handle the many interns who do their documentation promptly, but then spend months long distance trying to get their previous employer to complete their small task? What obligation does the firm and mentor have to make sure this works for the intern? What professional penalty does the firm or mentor suffer if it doesn't work, as delaying licensure of the intern is a significant penalty to them? I approve of the general goal of getting regular reporting, but it seems there should be carrots as well as sticks. Perhaps fees could be lower for interns who submit at least two reports every calendar year?

I can already foresee potential problems with this rule change. Currently in order to be eligible to recieve credit for work experience a candidate must be employed by a firm for at least six months. But the new rule will require a candidate to report their work experience at a MAXIMUM of six months. Do they expect a candidate to have their forms dated within this 24 hour period or else the candidate will not recieve credit? IDP is already a laughable system that in itself makes no real contribution to architectural traning; let's hope that NCARB isn't going to make it worse.

This would be a distaster for overseas architects like me who had previous experience in the US but who didn't realise they wanted to be registered here until years later. All experience, validly gained, should be allowed to be included. If the US toughens their restrictions, all that will happen is that other countries will follow suit and restrict the experience US architects can count when submitting for registration in other countries. A (probably unexpectedly) lose-lose situation.

I am a Broadly Educated Architect. As it stands, IDP, ESSA and NCARB are extremely hide-bound entities mired in red tape. Isn't it enough that these programs are so byzantine that they discourage participation except under duress? These entities, in an effort to be regulatory for all markets, have become monopolies of the highest order. The difficulties they mandate for any individual with "nonstandard" history is enough - having personal experience expire is absolutely counter to the concept of broad experience.

My vote is NO on 6 MONTHS. I completed IDP and helped others fill in paperwork. It is a DECENT GUIDELINE for mentorship, and helped me gain experince in areas I would not have otherwise. HOWEVER, the rules set by NCARB are confusing, the fees exasperating, and timeframe for turn around long. Compared to other professions, like doctors and lawyers, who use a honor systems for continued education, we're using a highly regulated system for low quality training. I'd like to have more time talking about projects with my interns and making the world better, than filling out training reports and helping them understand the process of NCARB. Member boards have clear, fast processes, why doesn't the big cheif of boards also?

This proposal is not only disappointing but is outright irresponsible!

What is the purpose of the IDP program? It is a means to document and track working experience in specific categories based on a measure of time. Should a professional’s time and experience expire? This profession, which is rooted in apprenticeship, historically and currently values time and experience above all other measures of performance. This proposal devalues that experience and further devalues the profession.

This proposal is also highly discriminatory against women. As a woman, I am highly offended by the additional penalty this proposal will apply to our careers by temporarily leaving or choosing a part time schedule to start a family during this same period of time. We are already knowingly forgoing growth and advancement in both position and pay by making this decision. It is unacceptable to include a loss of earned experience as well!

This proposal will also impact others who may have an unintended life crisis, an accident, illness and/or job lay off that are not a matter of personal choice. This also does not take into consideration the firms that do not offer the flexibility or support to provide an intern with the “ideal” experience within the “ideal” time. Many firms are less than ideal, and the intern must be flexible to meet the needs of the firm first. It is unrealistic to not acknowledge the role and influence of the employing firm.

Providing a provision to prevent procrastination or encourage motivation is akin to legislating common sense, a futile endeavor. If there is to be a penalty, it should be placed upon the employing firm. These are the professionals are actually responsible for and provide the greatest influence for mentoring, training and motivation.

If such a provision is passed, I would hope that we then apply the same standard to the senior and principal architects who would also be subject to losing their time, experience, earnings, and license too.

As an IDP Mentor and former IDP participant, this sort of limitation for reporting training activities is ludicrous at best. The NCARB has proven itself extremely inefficient and poorly managed already, even before imposing arbitrary deadlines.

The running joke amongst most Architects attempting to obtain an NCARB Record is not IF a problem will occur, but when and how many problems will be encountered. NCARB commonly misplaces files, records, payments, etc. even to the point of requiring multiple submissions for the same required documentation.

For NCARB to now presume they can apply a limitation on when training activities can be reported is laughable in light of their incompetence as an organization. I can definitely see many people becoming so frustrated by the arbitrary rules, lost information, mismanagement and other problems that they simply give up the process and leave the Architectural field. We definitely don't need another reason for a mass exodus from this profession. It is already hard enough to find qualified staff.

I suggest that NCARB instead work to clean up their act, creating an organized and efficient organization. This would help the process much more than applying deadlines onto overworked and distracted intern architects who need help not hindrance. Better yet, just fire everybody at NCARB and start over from scratch.

Seems like this is another attempt for this organization to become relevant. If NCARB wants to become a meaningful part of an architect's education, it should invest time and money in relating to the existing professional community and the mentoring process. Increasing the burden on the apprentice only diverts attention from current disconnect between registered architects and the process of becoming an architect. The current process is so rigid and inflexible it is dismissed as "an expensive game" or "just jumping through hoops" by those who are now mentors. Until mentors can embrace the process with confidence, NCARB will continue to be ignored and disrespected by registered architects and those struggling to beome one.

I think NCARB and the AIA need to ask this question,

If the IDP process needs another stick, could there be something wrong with the process?

Quite frankly, this proposal enrages me.

IDP is already a monopolistic racket, and to add another hurdle to licensure in an already bloated bureaucratic process is too much. This will certainly have the effect of reducing the number of candidates participating in IDP. I know from colleagues that the barrier blocking them getting into the process is that it's unclear, cumbersome, full of paperwork and EXPENSIVE. What is the incentive to getting licensed if one works at a large firm? Paying yearly fees? We certainly don't get the community recognition and correlating compensation that being a "licensed professional" deserves. Shame on NCARB for contributing to the demise of accessibility to this profession.

This proposal from NCARB is complicated. I imagine it is in an attempt to improve internship, assuming the outlined Training Areas can improve the breadth of experience an emerging professional seeks out.

I find it upsetting that NCARB is sneaking this onto the June agenda without soliciting comments from the architecture-public at-large.

The limit on paperwork submission turns the profession's back on those who have worked for years in architecture (don't tell me there aren't people in your office who do the work of architects, but aren't architects), and finally decide it's time to be professionally licensed. And these points about foreign professionals, and women who may struggle to balance their lives, must be considered. I don't think the profession would agree we want to turn our backs on those who take a different path into the profession.

NCARB already seems taxed to process IDP and send documents to the states in a timely manner. I do not see how multiplying the amount of information they get on any given day will in any way improve the process.
I am firmly against this unnecessary new rule.

I think this is another undesireable roadblock to liscensure and is an overly Bureaucratic Solution in search of a problem. Instead of requiring reporting every 6months or you LOOSE credit for work experience, Why not reduce the Cost of Testing of each ARE Segment by 5% or some percent if Interns submit paperwork each 6 months.

I really don't understand the rational of requiring a min. number of hours per week to obtain IDP credit, lesser hours don't devalue the experience gained and many people have individual circumstances which may dictate shorter work hours.

I say let market forces and local laws dictate professional licensure. Like the bar exam, students coming out of BArch or March programs should be immediately eligible for the ARE. The exam should be administered by a consortium of developers, contractors and each state's planning and building code depts. IDP, NCARB, and AIA can all disappear today and nobody will miss them except for its officers.

The scores of interns who do not enroll in IDP immediately and think they can back log their time from prior firms will be the only ones hurt by this new ruling. The "I worked there 5 years ago, therefore I'm entitled to training units" attitude will be over. Often interns waste more time trying to back log work from firms that have gone out of business because they think they can get away with filing all their hours at once. It equates to trying to finish a project the week before its due without working on it for the months ahead of time. You know it's due eventually, why not work on it as you go instead of cramming at the end?

Yet another incredibly stupid idea from NCARB.

The focus seems to be on more red tape and creating a byzantine bureaucracy than in assuring the IDP process actually helps train future architects.

NCARB is already over taxed dealing with the complexities of it's current system. To think that the addition of another level of complexity will work better simply defies common sense.

NCARB can't even send me a monograph I ordered two months ago even after apologizing for the delay a month ago. It's still not here. What makes anyone think they can handle the additional burden imposed by the proposed process?

I think NCARB should get it's own act together before imposing additional restrictions on Interns. I think the staff at both NCARB and AIA have their heads in the sand and don't care a whit about interns as evidenced by the weekly emails I receive from AIA where politics is the major focus and NCARB's seeming unwillingness to improve it's own internal system. Rarely is there even a mention of what is best for interns education let alone making any progress to help them gain licensensure. NCARB can't process items sent to them now in a timely or reliable fashion. How about if we impose a penalty on NCARB for not properly or in a timely fashion processing what is sent to them? The entire system is archaic and unnecessarily cumbersome. From the intern's perspective the system is set up to keep new people to the profession in low paying grunt jobs as long as possible and the profession could care less how many people who achieve a degree in Architecture never receive a license.

A little background, NCARB is made up of registered architects, see below pulled from NCARB’s webpage.
NCARB Members
NCARB members are the architectural registration boards of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and three U.S. territories (Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands). Each registration board has state-appointed public and professional members as well as an administrator.

The IDP Committee of NCARB comprises of registered practicing architects from state boards and intern(s). This committee proposes changes to the IDP process, which the Board of Directors, also comprised of registered architects many from state boards and who practice, vote on.
So in short, the 6 month rule was derived from registered practicing architects that serve or have affiliations with their state board of architects. Therefore, they are mainly concerned about the Health, Safety, and Welfare of the public and the means of which to be registered. IDP is a state edict for registration in many states. In the end, the process of registration has to stand up in a court of law.

So when one thinks that NCARB’s rules and regulations are irrelevant and are detached from the status quo; remember that it is our colleagues that are practicing like us that are setting these policies.

The proposal doesn't support the basis of IDP.

IDP was initially established to help young architects (interns - this word is derogatory) gain a broader exposure to the profession through a variety of practice based experiences not typically found in formal education. The time period in which this experience occurs can and will change from person to person. There is no such thing as a three year "finish line" as everyone's experience is different and rate of learning is different. Therefore, why penalize young architects for submitting information when they are not ready to move to the next step, the ARE?

On top of this, NCARB can NOT keep up with the paperwork as it is. Several years ago when I went through IDP, it took months to hear back from NCARB on receipt of the information alone, and then many more to actually receive approval. Through various colleagues, I've been told it's even worse now. Well before additional submittal requirements are established, NCARB should re-evaluate their internal process and potentially staffing to learn how the review process can be expidited.

I find it hard enough to believe that NCARB thinks that this perfect formula spits out well trained architects. Now, it is even more of a stretch to think that requiring "young architects" to submit additional paperwork will actually improve their professional practice experiences. The two, paperwork and professional experience are just not related.

If NCARB wants to correct the system, then it needs to help architectural firms find better ways to develop the IDP program within their practice. This is how young architects will benefit from the program... through the young architect's actual experiences, not through additional paperwork with additional deadlines.

I’m currently trying to go through the NCARB/IDP process. NCARB took over 2 years to log-in the training reports, transcripts and other information they wanted to be submitted. After over 2 years they “decided” in an apparently random manner, what information to count and what to not issue credit for. If the interns spend countless hours and money to go through IDP and will have even more restrictions in getting IDP done, then NCARB should have to step up to the plate as well and process IDP information in a timely manner, after all, interns PAY for the service…

It seems that the interns will get the short end of the deal here, as NCARB officials are not able to handle the load of applicants, schools don’t train their students on IDP at all, and small firms don’t have the time or manpower to monitor and supervise the IDP process. It all looks fair and do-able on paper, but the reality of the process gave me a very different experience.

I read all the other comments and agree 100% with most of them. NCARB needs to be accountable for their actions, especially if they want to hold interns to such high, almost unachievable standards. The process needs to change to be reality oriented and fair. This change will not come from within NCARB, it needs to come from the AIA.

Ahhh bureaucracy at its finest. This is a definate textbook example of the top of the hierarchy dicating what is best for the bottom of the hierarchy. This proposal makes it seem like NCARB has realized that it is not the efficient machine that it thinks it is and in an attempt to correct the problem they are penalizing the end user. People have pointed out that NCARB is composed of peers in our profession. I personally would like to see how frequently those on the head committee actually practice Architecture.

Apparently they forgot that one grows through experience gathering and not point gathering. You want to get as many points as possible play basketball. You want to grow into a better Architect get out and work for various Architecture Firms. A points system has no place in the design profession.

This proposal is simply appalling. If I understand correctly that only full time work lasting at least 6 months would count, then this rule would only further reduce interns to slave status.

An intern who has worked for several months under horrible conditions would be required to stick it out until the 6-month mark, then kiss up to the boss so he'll sign the forms. An employer could penalize an intern he did not like by firing him/her at 5 1/2 months so the time would not count. Or he could simply refuse to sign the work verification in the required time frame. Interns would be punished by NCARB for the slack behavior of employers who fail to complete their part of the reporting task.

Women interns who want to take a hiatus or work part time to start a family can simply forget it, because now NCARB is in the family planning business, making the decisions for women. Somebody please tell NCARB that we already had a women's movement in this country, which kicked into high gear 40 YEARS AGO. Interns of any gender who must leave a job prior to the 6 month mark, perhaps due to a family emergency, or simply a spouse's job transfer, will doubtless be offered the option of groveling to NCARB to explain their situation and beg forbearance.

The term "slavery" is not an exaggeration in these situations. Though we would all like to think that such situations would not happen, you can bet they would indeed. In some form, they already do, only now NCARB wants to exacerbate them and blame/punish the victim.

So many qualified people would abandon the pursuit of licensure, that employers would suffer from difficulties finding staff. As more people forego licensure, yet continue to do the work of architects (with a firm colleague providing the stamp), the public will get the impression that a license has no meaning at all. Reducing the number of architects in this manner will not increase our pay. It will only further erode our already paltry influence on society.

Though I found the IDP process cumbersome, as have seemingly all interns before and after me, I did not have such a vehement disagreement with NCARB's tactics as I have since I read about this proposed rule. The AIA has a DUTY TO THE PROFESSION to take a position against this, and to ACTIVELY OPPOSE IT.

IDP revisions are necessary and the biggest problem with life as an intern is that you must work for a firm to get there and in a competitive market place, economic forcing works against the IDP task distribution and forces specialized tasking. In general competitive terms the firms are more invested in fewer licensed architects to compete against and want fewer threats in the market not more.

The 6 month rule will pretty much require a 6 month minimum employment contract between intern and the firm and the contract must further require that the firm serve the employees IDP interest in the tasks assigned. The firm in competition with others will be unlikely to sign such a contract. Such contracts will abrogate work for hire legislation in most of the work for hire states.

Catherine Barfield AIA has accurately described the flaws of the 6 month rule and I have added a few concerns of my own.

The proposed 6-month rule for reporting IDP credits may seem like a good idea, but it is really a patronizing way of adding burdens to already overburdened architects and interns. Do we really need the added stress? While fostering more active engagement of mentors and supervisors, and helping interns discipline themselves to turn in IDP reports on a regular basis is a commendable goal, legislating it is probably not the best way to do so. Recommending it and making resources available to simplify the process may not be sufficient in every instance, but at least it treats the mentors, supervisors and interns like adults, allowing them the choice and flexibility to report on their own time schedules and, yes, even the opportunity to fail. In fact, legislating would simply add more stress to the over-busy, over-burdened architects and interns. It would probably result in more interns failing to report their hours before the deadline, rather than fewer. Leave us the dignity to be in control of our own reporting and help relieve us of burdens rather than adding to them.

How about requiring NCARB to grant full credit for intern's work not approved/reviewed within 6 months time? Why should the burden be placed with the intern when firms and mentors are not to be held accountable?

It seems as if this profession will go to any length to make the Licensure process as painful as possible.

How can NCARB justify limiting the reporting period for IDP participants while in many cases the completion of paperwork by mentors and advisors as well as NCARB itself is so slow.

Is simplifying the reporting process (for NCARB's benefit) worth further limiting the size of a profession which is shrinking at an already alarming rate.

Please consider what happens when you have pushed the last would-be architect to their breaking point, and this talented professional decides they would be better off as an engineer or contractor.

1) My fellow ARE candidates, I would like to know if all architects that are licensed will be required by NCARB to be certified to give internships, as it stands now, only certified architects through NCARB can give internships.

2) Most of the very few architects that are certified by NCARB don't want to give internships and when they do, it is only to their "Preferable" few. We will be at their absolute mercy and most of them do not want to give internships to women, minorities, foreigners, and anyone else that they deem "unacceptable" regardless of how much experience they have had in the past.

3)The ARE exam is extremely hard and it normally requires a minimun of 3-4 years of constant study in order to fully pass it. That means, that instead of spending time studying, the candidate now has to deal with the added pressure of having to keep a close eye on his credits, work in the firm doing projects and studying for the exam, all at the same time. My question is: Did anyone think of the consitutional legality of what they are proposing? It seems like they are trying very hard to keep architecture in the ivy leagues. If that is the case, then why practice covert elitism. Simply announce to the whole United States A.R.E candidates that only those who come from wealthy political families and have attended ivy league colleges would be allowed to practice architecture. Wasn't that the case 100 years ago.

The one thing that NCARB should be dealing with in terms of the licensing exam is the 6 month waiting time between exams. They should reduce the waiting time to two months. That would make our lives easier.
The more that they take interruptive measures to our process of licensure the more that they will deprive the construction industry of future architectural leaders.

AIA, please take a hard stand against this, up to including legal action. NCARB is making a mockery of the process and instead of helping us they are forcing us to look into engineering or other construction trades as a change to our career.

I do not think that a time limit should be set for the submission of IDP experience. In most cases interns have submitted their experience within a month of completing it, however there have been cases where a candidate has decided that they want to pursue their license after they have left the office. In the latter case if the new rule were put into place this experience would not be valid. I think this is unfair and for this reason should not be enacted.

I find this particularly onerous for young women, who are juggling IDP during their prime child-bearing years. Young mothers are often busy concentrating on babies, not their careers. That doesn't mean their earlier career work should evaporate if they happen to have priorities that are higher than reporting their IDP credits. With over half the students in architecture school being female, it's time for the world of work to learn how better to accomodate the realities that women deal with, instead of punishing them. If we don't, we'll lose a huge investment in our young people.

I think arbitrary timetables do nothing to assure accuracy of reporting. It is time to treat the IDP people as adults. Their paperwork should be due when it is necessary to be reviewed. Make them do the work of getting their act together in a timely manner. Sometimes complicating circumstances arise which are problematic enough themselves, why make someone have to deal with an arbitrary timeline in the midst of all that. Treat them as adults, with the accompanying rights and responsibilities.

I can think of more valid than invalid reasons for taking a long time to submit IDP information. Illess of self or family members, new job, childbirth, change in career path, etc. ad nauseum. The more that IDP becomes a "one size fits all" program, the fewer architects will be licensed and the more diversity in the profession will suffer.

What about the cases where geography plays a bit role? In my personal case, I moved to a state (one of the two) where a Masters Degree in architecture in not required for licensure. I have (8) years of higher-level professional experience that qualified me for the position I was offered, and, as far as this State's registration board is concerned, also qualifies me to sit for the exam. I've got the records to prove that I've put those hours in, and people willing to certify them, back "home", but have struggled with finding the time to get everything together and submitted. I've worked very hard to do everything that I do with a high level of quality and skill, and this move for me offers a chance to "legitimize" it all. To loose so much of what I have worked for (at least in the eyes of the profession) would be a great let down in my faith in the profession I have chosen to work in.

I am completely in agreement with the majority of the postings here, which oppose the six-month rule.

Just an additional comment:

The purpose of IDP was to give the intern a process that would strongly encourage their employer to provide them a broad base of practical experience(eliminating the three-year, single-task, exploition internship.)

NOT THAT I CONDONE/ENCOURAGE THIS, but if interns and/or supervisors engage in unethical behavior and report falsified training units, they are selling themselves and their firm short. The lack of experience IS the end punishment - not some arbitrary rule nullifying training units after six months. I don't know that NCARB can ever regulate against people who are determined to undermine the system designed to help them. That being said, interns and supervisors I know are doing their very best to comply with the intent of the IDP system. I personally had a great intership where I didn't even have to bring up the requirements to my supervisors - they were familiar with the program and provided opportunities to acquire the units. I don't see how adding layers of red tape would accomplish the implied end goal of reducing the falsification of training units.

Experience is experience. It is all valid and cumulative. I understand the problem with timely reporting by interns. I was among the first guilty parties 27 years ago. But, loosing the time on paper because of sloppy record keeping doesn't block that experience from an intern's mind. I think it is too harsh a penalty and would be against it.

I have been licensed for almost 30 years and have signed hundreds of IDP forms. I don't see a logical reason to add more barriers to the system. Experience is valid. Period. If the fear is that the system is getting played and inaccurate reporting is occurring, then what does that say about me?

I have found NCARB to be slow, non-responsive, expensive and rule bound for years; they are the last place that needs more rules to enforce.

This is a completely idiotic proposal typical of a regulatory agency with too much time on their hands. Unfortunately, in my opinion, they don't exert the same effort when responding to intern inquiries. I've been a registered architect in good standing in the state of Texas for almost 5 years and have signed oof on many projects in that time, yet NCARB tells me I'm not qualified to have one of their certificates so I can practice in another state. Who are they and why have we as architects, given them such power to make such determinations. If I were still an intern, this proposed new rule would infuriate me beyond words. VALID experience is valid experience! Period!! Maybe NCARB's next step will be to rule that Wright's Fallingwater no longer qualifies as a great work because it took place too long ago... VERIFY valid experience - don't disqualify it!!!

Reality is that there is no expiration date on experience, I still draw on experiences and lessons learned from the totality of my work, some dating back to the earliest periods of my career and will continue to do so until I retire. Why would we even consider expiring experience, particularly among those in the profession that have the least of it. The measure of valid experience needs to be documentation regardless of time.

This is just a way of limiting the number of new architects into the profession. To mandate the expiration of experience is nothing more than a "snobish" way of doing it.

My experience with NCARB spans 30 years. Recently is has not been a pleasent one. We presently have two individuals waiting for NCARB approval of the IDP requirements. Since sending in the last of the required time submissions it took NCARB 4 months to inform them that there was a minor administrative error on the forms. That was taken care of 2 months ago. Still no answer from NCARB.

Instead of mandating experience expiration. How about mandating a deadline for NCARB to review and respond to the IDP submissions. Less snob appeal and more responsivness to the profession as a whole.

If people didnt treat IDP as a burden and used the system properly, and actually met regularly with their supervisors and mentors, they would be reporting on a regular basis anyway and we wouldn't be having this conversation. The problem isn't with NCARB (remember they are the collective mind of all the registration boards in the US, not some 3rd party entity), it is with apathetic interns, supervisors and mentors who don't really want to deal with properly developing our future architects and are more concerned with just getting them a seal.

If people didnt treat IDP as a burden and used the system properly, and actually met regularly with their supervisors and mentors, they would be reporting on a regular basis anyway and we wouldn't be having this conversation. The problem isn't with NCARB (remember they are the collective mind of all the registration boards in the US, not some 3rd party entity), it is with apathetic interns, supervisors and mentors who don't really want to deal with properly developing our future architects and are more concerned with just getting them a seal.

I think this is a horrible idea, I think this is just a move to make their job easier by being able to immediately discard information. But, ultimately this is bad for the profession as there are enough restrictions to obtaining licensure as it is. This will only inhibit and make the number of people actually becoming registered architects dwindle even further. I am one of the people that let the tracking of my hours get out of hand, but that DOES NOT mean that I have forgotten what I worked on and learned. Does NCARB really think that we can only remember 6 months at most. All experience is valid and should count. Like so many other postings I don't think NCARB can possible keep up and this will only make dealing with them worse, if that's possible. Please just give us the online submittal system (which should have existed by now and probably still won't for several more years)and get rid of the 6 month experience expiration.

I also think it is a bad idea.

If this is going to happen then, architecture schools need to shut down and stop producing so many architects in the profession, so that students choose some other careers which are easier, less stressful and pay more.

I think NCARB is very insensitive.

I think this idea has good and noble intentions, however I believe in practice it is not addressing one fundamental problems with IDP or any past training requirements. I believe accuracy is more important than the timed recording of the training. There may be a more reliable way of accomplishing this.

The real issue in my eyes is that the profession has in someways forgotten that it is a mentoring profession. What I mean by this is that we have learned all kinds of knowledge and skills in are educational training, but what makes us think those skills can translate into knowing how to mentor someone else. Proper mentoring is an art and science. Knowing how to handle someone properly who is yielded to your knowledge and authority is very important.

The mentoring process has been a part of our history and part of our current licensing processes. Yet the group that is probably more important than the IDP participant or intern is the Architect who is the mentor. The Architect is probably not prepared to actually mentor the intern. I believe that Architects should be trained to actually mentor IDP participants or interns. A lot of the mentoring itself is actually supervising interns on projects and in other training areas. However are the Architects actually prepared to assist the IDP participants in the training areas, does the Architect posses the right attitudes, is accurate record keeping even practice in the firm etc...? I believe that how to train interns should also be learned by the Architect and the skills learned could be eligible for CEU Credit. If this is mandatory for the architect who is the mentor for an IDP participant and CEU credits are given; I believe it is a win win situation for all. In the mentoring training accurate record keeping of the interns training areas can be given as a skill and all would benefit. The profession, NCARB, The State Juristiction, AIA and most importantly the intern.

In conclusion I belive being prepared to mentor is as important to the profession as the IDP training itself. If the mentor is trained in mentoring the intern a continuity in content, attitude and hopfully quality is present in the IDP training and in the profession.

As a mentor and a supervisor, I meet regularly with those I mentor and I encourage regular reporting, but the timeliness of NCARB processing has been extremely disfuntional up to this point. (Some of my interns waited 120+ days to hear back on their progress. That's more than half of the proposed 6 month rule already!) There are worse horror stories out there, I'm sure. If a time restraint is put on the interns, then a similar restraint should be placed on the the processing, thus both sides participate equally in the bargain. But that isn't my main argument here, just some mental ramblings.

I believe that the focus should be kept to verifying the validity of the training. If an intern performs valid training at a firm that does not offer IDP support and encouragement and then moves to another firm that fully supports it, then the hours at the previous firm are completely lost under the 6 month rule. That's not fair to the intern.

Similarly, current economic situations have forced some students away from school temporarily until they can afford it. If they work for firms and gain valid experience then go back to school, they loose that ability to claim those valid hours due to the time restriction. Additionally, summer interns would loose those hours which are currently allowed in the IDP program prior to their senior year.

Cheating and falsifying records is unethical and wrong. There is no question of that and if people choose to do that they shouldn't be allowed to be professionally licensed. For the rest of us, I believe the focus should be on the training validity and not on the timeliness.

Requested transmittal of my record 4 months ago.

Finished exams 2 months ago.

NCARB calls me yesterday to tell me that they can't transmit the record, because I haven't finished my exams. They had the wrong state to transmit to anyways.

Now, I start over again, to try to get my record transmitted.

How about a deadline for NCARB to do their job?

The only thing that will work efficiently is to get your license 20 years ago, before NCARB exams were computerized and all the silly IDP credits. Obtain your license then live and work only within one state. -- remember to Never Ever Move! I think that is how Frank Gehry is doing it.

Well, here is another example of an poorly organized group, NCARB, trying to set new rules when they cannot even keep up with their current rules and processes. While I understand and respect the intent behind these changes, I cannot support these alterations until this organization gets their act together. NCARB's time and efforts would be much better served if they completely revamped their processes and procedures to make the efforts of obtaining a license logical, timely and efficient. I do hope that NCARB reads all of these posts and understands the significant issues they must overcome and the immediate changes they need to make internally.

I am disappointed to hear about the new “6 month rule” regarding IDP. I support the Associate AIA Committee’s recommendation against it. Moreover, I believe that there are larger issues that NCARB should address before adding more obstacles to entering the profession as a qualified individual.

Recently I passed ARE 3.1 in a little less than a year. While I consider it a great accomplishment, I considered it as a race against the clock before 4.0 came into effect. When I signed up for my first exam a little over a year ago, it was shortly after that the announcement of full transition ARE 4.0 in July 2009.

The change to this new exam was not smooth, was not what I originally signed up for or expected, I did not take that exams in a timeframe or order that I was completely comfortable with, and created much more unwanted stress in the process.

Without digressing too much, I believe that if NCARB does not account for the effect this will have on those architectural interns who will be submitting IDP experience it will place unneeded burden on them.

Most of the changes that NCARB has made recently that affect the ARE and IDP may have made it a better system, however, it has been at the expense of those that are candidates trying to gain licensure. Left with little other option, those that fall in this category are forced to adjust their long term plan to this end abruptly.

When candidates start their NCARB or State record for IDP or ARE we are given requirements. We plan for these and have a plan to obtain them. Then in the middle they are changed, adapted, made more difficult, and have administrative consequences on the side of NCARB and the State Board.

For instance, I never saw a graphic score online for a Graphic Exam (3.1) any earlier than 9 weeks after I took it. It is supposed to take 4-6.

It usually took 10-13 weeks for the letter. That is 3 months! Or ¼ of a year!

Multiple choice tests took 4-8 weeks and it is supposed to take 2-4.

This is just an example of a major problem that every candidate sees and feels. It is hard to wait 10 weeks for an exam score (graded by computer) when this is hundreds of dollars for the test, not to mention, something that will effect the rest of your professional career.

I could think of many problems NCARB could address before they change requirements of IDP and ARE mid-stride of existing candidates. I hope that NCARB will keep in mind that the existing candidates should not have further obstacles in their way after having already established requirements for licensure. If changes must be made, please make them as smooth as possible for existing licensure candidates that have established a record.

I have effectively given up on my pursuit of the ellusive Architect's Registration and have submitted my applications for Professional Engineer. After graduating at the top of my class while working full time and having put into Architecture over 12 years there is no system in place (except IDP) for me to qualify for the ARE. I can name a dozen friends and coworkers that work as I for large firms and are not licensed and all like I have decided that it is effectively impossible to do the IDP after working for so many years. Now they will have you reporting every 6 months or you will lose the time. What happened to my last 12 years? I guess they never happened. So it is with a sad and heavy heart that I bid my fellow Architects adieu! Unfortunaltely, the people who really need to read these posts will never see them.

Aspiring to be an Architect since the age of 5. If I knew then what I know now, lets just say I would have chosen a completely different profession. I love Architecture, not the "politics" it entails. I am looking @ this from the aspect of an intern. Having taken 1.5 years to find a job in an architeture firm after graduation(because of experience or lack there of), Having to leave hometown, family, friends to pursue a profession where jobs were not abundant, Having interned @ 3 firms in less than a year. Currently working in a less than desirable location where I've worked for almost 2 years, where I am constantly told what a disappointment I am, where I am held to a different set of "standards", where I took a pay cut to intern because of the "learning experience" I would aquire. Having been passed over for a raise (due to economic instability, oh and knowing all the other interns received a raise, so now they are close to my pay) I have exceeded my breaking point as I ask myself is this really worth everything I've sacraficed, everything I've missed? On top of everything, 5 year degree (60,000 in debt)and still can't call myself an Architect; the lack of money an architectural intern makes; the unwillingness of "IDP-Friendly" firms to actually aid in the process of IDP by teaching, not just inflicting unreal expectations; the exorbetent fees I am expected to pay to NCARB, and now the 6 month rule. In a profession where it seems as if I and others like myself are not wanted, It is rare that I find a face that looks like mine, and I don't even think my IDP Mentor is fully intuned with the difficulties I face on a daily basis. When does it end? A program that is supposed to be geared towards the advancement of "qualified" professionals seems to be more of a henderance, so much so, that I am re-thinking my career choice. Like anything else expected to grow, we need to be nurtured, tearing down and not building up is not the answer. My morale is low and the desire that once burned bright for a profession I fell in love with is a mere ember struggling to remain lit. If I had the money, I would just hire a licensed Architect to be my teacher so I could sit for the exam, and become a licesed architect myself, reality is, I am a broke intern aspiring to enter a profession where it seems membership is "exclusive" @ best.

Man, I may as well bend over and take it up the ass again...like in school when I needed a good grade...Architect Shmarchitect....

This is just an erroneous question... I wonder why they wouldn't establish the same rule for education experience by the same logic. All these hard earned architectural degrees would have to be repeated if you miss the 6 months deadline1 Ha, ha…

This will probably answer everybody’s questions. Just look at the system and you will see where is it going to get worse. Back were I’m from no state or government has the right to give or take away the title of an architect. This is the privilege that should come from other architects, e.g. the school, architects that should not be connected to you by the relationship of business. If it comes from other architects who are in the business with their pupils they would not like to increase their competition by issuing the licenses but rather by limiting them. The system that is in place in USA is really similar to medieval European trade corporation, where corrupt elders kept their students in permanent state of dependence. Of course the government or some other body should have some form of control haw to regulate the right to practice profession, the so called licensing. This license and the architect title should be two separate things. Well, if something doesn’t work in America what do you do? You “sue them”. I wonder if AIA can start class action lawsuit against the NCARB on behalf of their interns. I’m not a lawyer, so can anybody answer this question? Pawel Fiema, AIA. Assoc. and Architekt

NO. The 6 month rule is a terrible proposal!

As stated well in many of the previous posts this rule takes an already complicated and convoluted exam process and makes it WORSE. It especially creates hardship for individuals who have children, families, who have the chance to spend time abroad, or who have the normal life challenges - such as surgeries and other hardships, let alone financial challenges that many architects have in this profession. What do you say about these people? Will there be "special considerations" (more complications and red tape and frustrations) that these people will have to go through every 6 months?

Compared to other professions, such as Engineering, Surveying, etc, where the exams take a day or two, we already have a very tall order to go through with the exams we have to take. In Europe, in Italy, after graduating from an accredited school, architects sit for a full day written exam, and a full day oral exam. Upon passing, they are deemed “ARCHITECT”. And that is the country we look to, with their thousands of years of architecture that is considered True Architecture, yet we, in our nation seem to make ourselves dizzy in legislative obsessions that divert us from our real goal, which is to have a strong profession with strong professionals.

Our professional boards and organizations should be putting ALL of their energy into making the profession better for Emerging and Registered Architects. It is because of us that these organizations exist, and our success in return catapults their success. Why make it more difficult? Who does this benefit? And where else could this energy be used? Could our organizations put their energy into checking in WITH US on a 6 month basis to see where we stand? Could they offer us mentoring through the organizations, not just required through our employers, to assist in making our way through our exams?

In my opinion, graduates of nationally accredited schools, many of which have spent a fortune of time, energy and great endurance in completing their educations shouldn’t even be called “Interns” after receiving their degrees. Look up “INTERN” in your thesaurus and this is what you get: “Imprison, detain, confine, hold, hold in custody”… the antonym is “release”. Ponder THAT for a moment before spending time and money on proposing more “rules” that ultimately make our licensure process more difficult.

Why not spend our energy on making our profession more lucrative to all individuals who labor as we do in this field... or on redeveloping the professional respect and visibility we deserve in the greater world at large... that world where developers, and contractors remove us from the built world and replace our streets with catalog chosen developments???

This "rule" does not help the emerging professionals- and seems only to be an effort to enforce more power to the detriment of individuals who are struggling to make their way in this profession.

This is another example of the 'haves' keeping the 'have nots' from advancing.

I have worked and studied in the industry for more than twenty years now. I was kept from becoming an architect 20 yrs ago because the panels that pick architectural students, judged who would get the shot in the class room. After reapplying over the years I finally get the opportunity at a degree in architecture only to find out that now the NCARB devaules and discredits any of the experience that I have built over the years.

NO!

It is time to stand up to the NCARB.

Lets all tell them that:

1. Experience is earned no matter when.
2. If experience that we have alredy earned is worthless then all educational credits should be striped from all candidits, for education is the basis of the very experience that they have now deemed useless.
3. Also, if experience is not recognized the all current architectural registrations are void since most of the current architects never interned under the IDP program.
4. Also, product delivery is the basis of the IDP experience; If the product is not realized due to misapplication of the program then no program exists.
5. If they do not represent us or our profession then we need a replacement; We need real practioners not people that call themselves architects.
6. This short sightedness only pushes the disciple more into the realm of governmental intrusion with interns and architects both calling for lawsuits. Bad leadership now places all of us at risk of losing the ability to design; for when government dictates design dies.
7. The real designers are leaving the profession because of 'snafu's like this.

To top all of this off...

The AIA was supposed to represent me and others in this 'affair'...so...where were they?
When I contacted my representative, they got back to me only after the vote was cast.

And lastly for the spoiled little ones that are stamping their feet and proclaiming that '...they had to do it so the rest of us should have to also'...BITE ME. I would be happy to match what you do against my experience any time of the 48hr days that I work as an architectural designer in the coorporate architectural arena. You defeat your own argument with your protest.

Experience counts no matter when...and if you still disagree remember to stop calling Vitruvius an architect; He never went through IDP and doesn't have an NCARB council record.

I am an architect in State of California, passed all NCARB requirements, passed all State of California CAB requirements, Graduated from an excellect Architectural School back in 1991. Working for the past 4 years on my own. I simply cannot get recriprocity in another state because NCARB will not certify me without completing IDP credits. At the age of 50 several of the professionals I have worked for are D. E. A. D. Now they tell me I should find other people who worked with me in the office as witnesses. How insane is that? I have finished a commercial project in Texas and I want to stamp my drawings so that the developer can submit. I don't have time for such silly red tape.

With so much opposition, how did this ever pass?

I'm guessing the 49 voters that passed this don't really know or care about the profession. NCARB should be making the process not "easier" but should be looking out for our best interest. NCARB should make the process more practical and rewarding.

This is only turning away potential talented atchitecutural professionals.

I have moved away from trying to be a licensed architect myself and into construction project management and consulting because it offers a more stable and financially rewarding career. Better yet, I don't have to deal with NCARB's arbitrary bureaucratic and anti- productive process.

Perhaps they should consider IDP requrements being met in the academic phase of our early careers and allow candidates with experience to test (allow a preliminary test to substantiate the ability to take the professional test).

In my experience, unfortunatley many licensed architects still lack the knowledge that should be covered in their IDP training. What is the use of IDP? IDP wastes time and resources.

I am confident that individuals like myself could pass the exam without NCARB base on my architectural and construction experience.

I agree with the blog comment by J. Stephens...experience counts and the great architects of the world did not have NCARB to to discourage them.

NCARB is only hindering talented and competent individuals from becoming licensed architects. NCARB should really take a look at what they are really doing to the profession and fix it quickly (preferrably within the next 6 months).

NCARB is become an elite club. Not a professional. This change to 4.0 is really horrible, I have passed all but one graphic and I failed it last month. I am not sure if the grading is not riged somehow to increase the number of retaker in oder to increase revenue. I don't know if there is any oversight of these people.

I knew the 4.0 transition was coming but not until I researched the transition was I aware I could lose credit for tests I have passed. Passing Pre-Design - gone, Lateral Forces-gone, General Structures-gone, Construction Docs-gone. And why? Just so I can pay to take it all again! Same questions, different order. Time to talk to my congessman.