The main differences between the new system and the old one come from a change in the work settings and experience categories. Basically, it's a merging of some categories and an expanding of others while creating a more concise way of assigning responsibility. I would recommend looking at the following PDFs for specifics.
While it seems most of the changes are pretty minor, the rollover may cause some of the hours to be lost in the transition or transferred to other categories, that is, if you do not meet the current requirements. For some of us who have a hard time obtaining specific category hours, this is not great news.
I understand the changes are a means to keep up with the evolving requirements of the architectural field, (more international work, field office sites, satellite locations, etc.) but it seems that all of these changes favor large or mega firms over small to medium ones. The changes alienate a design firm or architectural practice that would need to sub out for speciality work. Granted, you would be hard pressed to find one that wouldn't do their own specs, but it just comes off as leaning to more powerful firms rather than measuring actual experience.The other issue can be found can be in the category of "Academic Internships" which cover experience settings A & O. (More information on the experience settings can be found here.)
This section is pretty vague and the website does not really help to clarify:
In IDP 2.0 interns may earn up to 930 hours of experience credit in any of the IDP experience areas (except for 4B: Leadership and Service) through qualifying academic internships that meet the durational requirements and are in [experience setting A or O].
This seems redundant. If your internship was already qualified in section A or O, then why would you bother routing it through your school? Wouldn't you just go directly through the employer? I'm sorry NCARB, but that gets you another one of these:
Finally, there is fundamentally a problem with requiring a registered architect to sign off on budgetary estimates. This is a rollover from the old system that just seems odd. A/E firms are naturally expected to present budgetary estimates to clients, but it seems that it would make more sense to have a construction contractor confirm estimate pricing rather than a supervising architect, as they would be the one actually doing the work.
Not really 2.0's fault, so we'll just give them a "seriously?"
In the interest of fairness, not all of the changes are bad. On the plus side, the category changes do present a better means of streamlining responsibility. Rather than having the A,B,C,D,E,F,FF system that was confusing and vaguely indifferent, the A,S,O covers a lot of the "in between" oversight responsibility which previously was going unchecked.
All and all, NCARB 2.0, a mixed bag. Tyrion Lannister, bring us home.
Also, if you can't tell, I have been getting INVOLVED with Game of Thrones. Best. Show. Evar.
I think the question of having an internship approved through the employer vs. through the school has to do with compensation. Under the current/old IDP, unpaid internships cannot count towards your IDP. As far as I know, internships that are required as part of your curriculum, or that count towards school credit, are not paid. Therefore, in the current/old IDP, academic internships do not garner IDP credit. In the new IDP, or IDP 2.0, it sounds like you can have unpaid (academic) internships count towards IDP.
ReplyDeleteThat's my understanding, but I could be wrong.
As for all of these dramatic changes in IDP, specifically allowing for more internships/experiences to qualify for IDP and even the acceleration of ARE candidate eligibility.. I think it may have something to do with the fact that many individuals in the profession become side-tracked and do not ever complete the path to licensure.
I also think NCARB is trying to help recent graduates out, particularly since architecture grads have one of the, if not THE, highest unemployment rates in the past couple years. That could be another reason the "academic" or unpaid internships are now qualified IDP settings.
And regarding the cost estimating, I can see what you are saying and have felt the same myself in the past. However, I have 2 things to add. Cost estimates, if of a more complex or foreign nature than can be accurately compiled by the architect, may in fact be consulted out to a construction cost estimating specialist. I think this is a service a contractor may provide, but it may be something more in the realm of a construction manager - I'm not certain.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I think you may need to give the [experienced] architect a little bit more credit. As I am currently becoming more familiar with the contract administration responsibilities of the architect in my studying for the ARE, it is important to note that all applications for payment to the contractor by the owner must be reviewed and signed off by the architect. What this means is that the architect is assessing how much work is being down and comparing that to what is being asked for payment. Therefore, every month (or as stipulated in the contract) throughout the course of the project, the architect is analyzing the work performed and scheduled values of that work.
So my point is that, you are correct the architect may need some outside assistance in properly estimating costs. But also, the architect has a lot of experience in pricing construction work, even though he or she does not actually perform the work.
Hmm.. IDP never ceases to create opportunity for an abundance of discussion, it would seem!
...Also, please ignore the above spelling mistakes!
ReplyDeleteHaha no worries, spelling is all gud.
ReplyDeleteI think you bring up some valid counter arguments. I don't mean to totally deride the system either. IDP isn't perfect for sure, but I think that anything requiring proof of experience is inherently flawed, as experience is an abstract concept. 2.0 has got a tough job especially: it has to balance maintaining industry standards and the necessary flexibility of an unstable economy.
However, on the estimate side, I think the problem comes with accuracy of work, rather than practice of it. Anyone can come up with an estimate but it doesn't do any good if the number is too high or, invariably, too low. I just wish there was more accountability for the product, like, estimates within 10% qualify, while those outside do not. Unfortunately, that would also put the system at risk for numbers being fudged to fit. Then there is the problem of not getting the work, which happens for a lot of firms, more often than not.
The long and the short of it is: it's never going to be a perfect system. Someone will put in hours they didn't earn, someone else will confirm them and on it goes. But you have to admire them striving towards a better end result.