Image courtesy www.flickr.com/photos/seattlemunicipalarchives

A recent article on the Design Intelligence blog (http://www.di.net/blog/2009/12/intern-to-architect/) analyzes historical data from Oregon, New York and Nebraska to show that the time it is taking architectural interns to achieve licensure is longer than anticipated, and appears to be increasing over time. Below are a few potential reasons.

1 – Intern Development Program (IDP)

The 2008 article “Licensure and Time” from the AIA California Council posits IDP as part of the problem, noting that “In the 1990s, the time it took for a professional degree graduate to complete licensure requirements more than doubled.” Why would this be the effect of a program designed to assist interns in structuring a more complete internship? “…IDP placed additional requirements on interns to get specific work experiences that they were mostly powerless to ensure….”

2 – Computer-based exams

The move from a paper based exam to the multiple-choice ARE increased cost, while perhaps unintentionally reducing support from within firms. A comment from from an intern in the above article is revealing: “I think that architecture firms were more supportive of the time and other needs when 10 or 15 interns were taking the exam all together. Now it’s one here, one there, and it’s like the firm is doing you a favor.”

Without a groundswell of camaraderie within a firm, interns are often left on their own to find the time and motivation to schedule exams.

3 – Insufficient Financial Incentive

In other professional fields like law, medicine, accounting, & engineering, there is a typically a substantial financial incentive to pursue and achieve licensure – salary increase, promotion, job title, increased public role within the firm. Depending on the company, the rewards in an architecture firm upon receiving one’s license may be small, if indeed they exist at all.

One architect once told me he looked at getting his license as just the pre-requisite to quitting architecture. Perhaps said facetiously, but hardly encouraging to someone in the midst of the licensure process.

4 – Supplementary Exams (CA Orals)

In California, the CA Supplemental Exam is one additional barrier. The California Architect’s Board announcement that the exam is moving to a computer-based format (www.cab.ca.gov/pdf/publications/csefaq_newformat.pdf) recognizes that a multiple-choice “exam will be more defensible”, indicating that the current system is somewhat less so.

Indeed, criticism of the subjective nature of the oral format has long dogged the CAB, memorably in the editorial in the AIACC’s 07.04 “PreFABiana” issue of their quarterly publication, arcCA, an issue that is sadly not available online:  After describing the exam as an opportunity to  “haze the incoming generation”, the editorial concludes:

“What can the Supplemental Exam judge that a computer-administered test can’t?  Well, it can judge whether you clean up nice, it can judge your hue, it can judge your gender.  It can judge whether you sound intelligent….  It can judge how well you handle pressure, which is perhaps relevant to architectural practice but is hardly a criterion for licensure.”

“In other words, it’s a lawsuit waiting to happen, and it should be discontinued.  Architecture school is hellish enough.  We don’t need a belt line too.”

Add to: