Coach wrote:Did you complete IDP/AXP? I thought every state accepted that as de facto diversity of experience.
Your experience wasn't rejected by the board, it was rejected by a staffer. I would definitely appeal to the board.
Now, to the root of the problem...
I suspect that, in an effort to look important, the way your experience forms were filled out screwed you.
HopefullyArchitect wrote:Yes, I asked how to formally appeal, and am waiting.
I did call the board and talk to someone who reviewed my file, and they said that because my role was more supervisory in nature that my experience wasn't diversified enough. In all my projects I acted as support to the teams, reviewing/marking uo drawings, doing research for code, proposing solutions, providing presentstions, writing and negotiating contracts, and tons of constructure project management. Had I realized I need to be the actual on in cad more often, I would have pursued another job
I have completed IDP with 4.1 years logged.
Not sure what else to do.
nickedemus wrote:corbismyhomeboy, did you submit your experience through the online system? I'm suddenly paranoid that the minimums that NCARB sets for each category are somehow not enough...
nickedemus wrote:Oh wow, I didn't realize that. For some reason, I just thought NY candidates could test before completing IDP. For that reason, I considered pursuing a NY license first instead of NJ (I am in NJ, but frequently participate on projects throughout Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, & LI). Ultimately, NJ seemed like less of a hassle. And cheaper. I felt this way even without comprehending that there were additional requirements!
corbismyhomeboy wrote:nickedemus wrote:With an MArch, you're fine to start testing right away without IDP completed with no experience.
Ok, glad I wasn't crazy. I have the M.Arch. Still didn't realize about the additional experience requirement, though. That's what I get for relying on other people and not doing my own research!corbismyhomeboy wrote:nickedemus wrote:Someone seriously needs to make a chart or something!
sb84 wrote:I'm sorry, and I don't mean to sound negative, but from what you wrote I don't disagree with the board. What you are describing is not preparing construction documents under the supervision of a licensed architect. What you have discribed as your job is reviewing someone else's construction documents. Reviewing and preparing are 2 very different things. Regardless of my interpretation I wish you good luck and congrats on finishing all exams
HopefullyArchitect wrote:I was told that my work at my job was not versatile enough specifically in regards to construction documents. While at my job I review Redline and make edits, I do not directly produced drawings for the most part. as such only one of my four years was accepted. This seems ridiculous as my job was a mix of planning, code research, construction administration and project management, design support, and more.
What I don't understand is how "producing drawings" can be such a hang up. I think about one of the architecture departments in my company, which is effectively a department of people who drop details into place for pre-designed retail establishments and who do very limited repair/renovation projects on larger facilities. Any one of them could truthfully say that they produce drawings. But there's not a whole lot of critical thinking going on, and it seems like a very pigeon-holed type of existence. On the other hand, if you move on to handle construction administration or project planning/management, you at least get the bird's eye perspective of physical, economic, and budget constraints, you learn to juggle your consultants, and you interact with the stakeholders involved. Drawing is important, but you can't get something built with only a drawing. And producing drawings doesn't mean that you comprehend the whole enchilada. You can make nice art, though.
nickedemus wrote:HopefullyArchitect wrote:I was told that my work at my job was not versatile enough specifically in regards to construction documents. While at my job I review Redline and make edits, I do not directly produced drawings for the most part. as such only one of my four years was accepted. This seems ridiculous as my job was a mix of planning, code research, construction administration and project management, design support, and more.
What I don't understand is how "producing drawings" can be such a hang up. I think about one of the architecture departments in my company, which is effectively a department of people who drop details into place for pre-designed retail establishments and who do very limited repair/renovation projects on larger facilities. Any one of them could truthfully say that they produce drawings. But there's not a whole lot of critical thinking going on, and it seems like a very pigeon-holed type of existence. On the other hand, if you move on to handle construction administration or project planning/management, you at least get the bird's eye perspective of physical, economic, and budget constraints, you learn to juggle your consultants, and you interact with the stakeholders involved. Drawing is important, but you can't get something built with only a drawing. And producing drawings doesn't mean that you comprehend the whole enchilada. You can make nice art, though.
corbismyhomeboy wrote:While you may not be able to get something built with only a drawing, it's also very unlikely that you get anything built with a sufficient standard of life safety without a drawing either. Personally, I think it's important to remember that the whole licensing process prepares you to be only minimally qualified to build a building without killing anyone or bankrupting yourself. They're not going to let you have a license if you can't prove you have enough experience to know how to fulfill the contractual duties of an Architect (producing drawings is one of those things) as outlined in the AIA docs.
nickedemus wrote:corbismyhomeboy wrote:While you may not be able to get something built with only a drawing, it's also very unlikely that you get anything built with a sufficient standard of life safety without a drawing either. Personally, I think it's important to remember that the whole licensing process prepares you to be only minimally qualified to build a building without killing anyone or bankrupting yourself. They're not going to let you have a license if you can't prove you have enough experience to know how to fulfill the contractual duties of an Architect (producing drawings is one of those things) as outlined in the AIA docs.
I'm not contesting that. Drawing is important. What I am saying is that experience varies widely. Some people draw for years without fully addressing egress, ADA, or detail development. Some people just focus on presentations. Some literally compile sets out of pre-drawn X-refs. Some people focus on one part of a building only, over and over again. They turn into specialists. I learned about buildings by measuring them, and then drawing them in Revit as very comprehensive 3D models. Revit doesn't let you fudge anything, and I am grateful for that because it gave me a holistic understanding of building in general. Even something as seemingly innocuous as varying ceiling heights can tell you something about an addition. I can see the lack of understanding in drafters who have not wrestled with the 3D problem physically or digitally. To me, drawing is a very important part of understanding any problem. So is modelling. But as a measure, I am surprised that they are stuck on drawing, because it does not guarantee a specific type of understanding any more than any other aspect of architecture.
Coach wrote:IDP/AXP is a flawed system and should be abandoned and not replaced.
Coach wrote:Revit has ruined the profession.
ekelsey15 wrote:I will say that the NCARB guidelines do say that an hour of doing work doesn't necessarily mean an hour of experience. In that case of the details, I wouldn't consider that experience that can be counted.
architect23 wrote:Even though I've documented the previous 5000 hours of experience, it states I have just over 2.5 years of experience for my state. How is this calculated?
architect23 wrote:Thanks I will call and reach out. I guess I'm wondering if my state jurisdiction bar on axp which does not show the full three years completed, but shows my Idp hours completed, needs to be completed to show the full three hours or so I wait until I finish testing and see whether ny needs more of my experience documented? In other words should I log more IDP or wait to hear from NY..
architect23 wrote:I guess I'm wondering if my state jurisdiction bar on axp which does not show the full three years completed, but shows my Idp hours completed, needs to be completed to show the full three hours or so I wait until I finish testing and see whether ny needs more of my experience documented? In other words should I log more IDP or wait to hear from NY..
architect23 wrote:Even though I've documented the previous 5000 hours of experience, it states I have just over 2.5 years of experience for my state. How is this calculated?
corbismyhomeboy wrote:Nickedemus,
Your post scared me. I emailed NYS board who gave me a very vague/slightly cheeky response, but I don't think the "Years of Experience" bar counts for much for NYS. I asked "How is the experience requirement measured? Is it based on the amount of time working as confirmed by the Form 4 filled out by my employer? Or is it the time on my IDP as "Experience Requirements - Years of Experience" shown on my NCARB record?" The response I received was "You will need 3 years of approved experience to be eligible for licensure." Then goes on to talk about the ARE/IDP process. UGH. This does not help me! I say that it may not count for much because I finished IDP at 2.211 years of experience, and quit logging hours. But NYS approved me to start testing based on the 3+ years shown on my Form 4.
Users browsing this forum: anozebuhuq, azuguget, eirodfefover, Marinabuo, otalija, oxipoomahajun, oywatoirefl, uwakoca, wewuxah and 34 guests