Uphill both ways, in the snow...
...pair of compasses in one hand, rolls of drawings in the other.
I've spent the afternoon looking through and commenting on the Ontario Association of Architects' Intern Architect Initiative website. I think I missed the deadline to have my comments and concerns included in the official report but hopefully not from being heard and considered.
No one would deny that there are some serious issues and massive amounts of red tape with the current internship process. On the frontpage it states that the average age of an Intern Architect in Ontario is 39. It is supposed to take three years after graduating to get your license. For me, that would be 28. There's a problem.
I'm very happy to see some movement and discussion on the matter.
I'm relatively happy to see some of the proposals being put forth.
I'm not so happy to see some of the responses.
There is a great deal of bitterness by those who have made it through the ridiculous system. Despite the more than likely fact that these people complained about the process when they went through, recognized its flaws and absurdities, they now feel it is a necessary part of the path to become an architect - an arduous obstacle course one must defeat to prove one's devotion to the profession.
I'm disappointed.
Do I feel that way when it seems someone is getting an easier ride than I did? Absolutely.
Do I want them to suffer as much as I did? Probably.
Do I expect an outdated and flawed system to continue to be outdated and flawed just so I don't feel cheated? No.
I ranted a bit to Mekki on MSN today:
Mekki: It seems to be the norm in every organization.
Mekki: People are stupid.
Mekki: Groups of people are stupider.
Mekki: Nothing ever gets solved that way.
Mekki: It's a shame.
Sarah: Self-serving but pretending to be concerned about "the community".
Sarah: There's nothing wrong about being self-serving.
Sarah: It's the pretense that drives me nuts.
Mekki: Don't get too worked up.
Mekki: I do it too much.
Mekki: It just jades you and drains you.
Sarah: I don't do it enough.
Mekki: Just say your peace.
Mekki: Move on.
But the rant doesn't end there. I need to say my peace.
Mekki's been looking into the P.Eng. licensing process recently so I thought I would take a look at the competition. I was pretty shocked. Well, not really shocked. The engineers are being logical and reasonable. The architects are making things way more complicated than they need to be to maintain some sort of image. That (can be) a quality in architecture, not in the logistics of an organization.
So, in addition to completing the survey and providing detailed comments on all the proposed changes, I added the following note to the general forum:
I realize there is always a hint of professional animosity and competition towards our friends the engineers, but maybe they might have figured something out that we're missing here.
Below is the professional licensing procedure (unofficial based on what I gather from the PEO's website and friends in engineering):
1) All the required exams, with the exception of a professional practice exam, are included in the curriculum of accredited programs.
2) The required four years of engineering work experience are recorded by the applicant with explanations of positions held, projects, and responsibilities with an explanation of how the work "applied engineering theory". This allows for a variety of experiences, flexible to the field of specialization of the applicant, to count towards their experience (subject to review, of course). They don't need to account for every minute of every day and have every action signed off on by a supervisor.
3) In stead of a supervisor signing off on experience logs, three referees able to comment on the applicants "capabilities and suitability for licensing" are required.
4) Annual licensing fees are reasonable and do not act as a deterrent to completing the licensing requirements and registering as a full member ($220 annual fee compared to the OAA's $798).
5) There is also a limited license for those who have completed the necessary experience but lack other requirements. This allows them to step up out of the "in-training" status while acknowledging not everyone practicing engineering requires full licensing.
The PEO does have problems with their system, especially in the are of certifying graduates from non-Canadian universities and the reciprocity with other jurisdictions. They also have a much larger member base and have greater lobbying power.
Regardless, I think there is a lot of food for thought here. The PEO approaches their licensing process with (at least seeming) clarity and simplicity, flexibility, and respect for the professionalism of its members to act ethically and know their own boundaries.
The biggest problem I see with the proposed solutions to help reduce the number of Intern Architect and increase the number of Licensed Architects is that the problem isn't /just/ that the process is complicated, redundant, unreasonable, expensive, lacking flexibility, etc. The problem I didn't see addressed in any of the proposed solutions was what's the benefit of being a fully licensed architect?
Most firms only /need/ one (licensed) architect, someone to stamp the drawings. So a lot of people practicing architecture in a firm, and otherwise fully qualified to be architects, don't need to be licensed themselves - especially not when the annual fee goes from $120 as an intern to $798 as an architect.
There is a reasonable (financial) incentive to remain an intern especially when compared to the minor (practical) incentive to register as an architect. In stead of trying to encourage its members to register as fully licensed architects, by either removing the financial downside or increasing the practical incentives, the OAA seems to want to take the approach of preventing its members from staying interns by placing a five year time limit.
My comments on these points were:
I /strongly/ disagree with this additional requirement [of a five year time limit]. As mentioned above, my concerns include:
1) What forms of considerations will be made for those who have extenuating circumstances that prevent them from finishing on time? For example, maternity/paternity leave, opportunities oversees, relocation, being laid-off, returning to university, medical reasons, etc.
2) Will there be an option to apply for a leave of absence without forfeiting existing experience?
Interns have already invested six years towards joining this profession before even starting their internship. Delays do not mean the intern is not serious about joining the profession. Perhaps penalties or repetition of requirements is more reasonable than outright banning from reapplication. Or better, increase the incentives to become a full member.
-------------------------------------
Again, I /strongly/ disagree with this solution [of denying reapplication for internship status]. You have not provided any explanation as to why the option of reapplication is not being proposed. Similar to the Ontario Graduated Driver's Licensing, you could impose a five year timeline to achieve all the requirements but still allow for reapplication, including penalties such as repaying registration fees, repeating exams, etc.
That said, I strongly believe the better option is to encourage interns to become full members, rather than discourage them from remaining interns.
Certainly part of the reason why there are so many interns is because of complications, redundancy, unreasonable requirements, lack of flexibility, etc. in the process. However, part of the reason is a lack of perceived benefits in many situations for interns to jump to full member status. For many, the only difference is an increase in their annual OAA fees.
(I think I'm approaching the end of my rant... home stretch... I'm losing steam here)
A lot of it comes down to, what in my opinion, is a problem with architects in general. We're control freaks with big egos who like to uphold the prestige, elitism, and mystery of our profession.
There are definite benefits to being a self-regulated profession. There are definite drawbacks.
I've spent the afternoon looking through and commenting on the Ontario Association of Architects' Intern Architect Initiative website. I think I missed the deadline to have my comments and concerns included in the official report but hopefully not from being heard and considered.No one would deny that there are some serious issues and massive amounts of red tape with the current internship process. On the frontpage it states that the average age of an Intern Architect in Ontario is 39. It is supposed to take three years after graduating to get your license. For me, that would be 28. There's a problem.
I'm very happy to see some movement and discussion on the matter.
I'm relatively happy to see some of the proposals being put forth.
I'm not so happy to see some of the responses.
There is a great deal of bitterness by those who have made it through the ridiculous system. Despite the more than likely fact that these people complained about the process when they went through, recognized its flaws and absurdities, they now feel it is a necessary part of the path to become an architect - an arduous obstacle course one must defeat to prove one's devotion to the profession.
I'm disappointed.
Do I feel that way when it seems someone is getting an easier ride than I did? Absolutely.
Do I want them to suffer as much as I did? Probably.
Do I expect an outdated and flawed system to continue to be outdated and flawed just so I don't feel cheated? No.
I ranted a bit to Mekki on MSN today:
Mekki: It seems to be the norm in every organization.
Mekki: People are stupid.
Mekki: Groups of people are stupider.
Mekki: Nothing ever gets solved that way.
Mekki: It's a shame.
Sarah: Self-serving but pretending to be concerned about "the community".
Sarah: There's nothing wrong about being self-serving.
Sarah: It's the pretense that drives me nuts.
Mekki: Don't get too worked up.
Mekki: I do it too much.
Mekki: It just jades you and drains you.
Sarah: I don't do it enough.
Mekki: Just say your peace.
Mekki: Move on.
But the rant doesn't end there. I need to say my peace.
Mekki's been looking into the P.Eng. licensing process recently so I thought I would take a look at the competition. I was pretty shocked. Well, not really shocked. The engineers are being logical and reasonable. The architects are making things way more complicated than they need to be to maintain some sort of image. That (can be) a quality in architecture, not in the logistics of an organization.
So, in addition to completing the survey and providing detailed comments on all the proposed changes, I added the following note to the general forum:
"What would engineers do?"
I realize there is always a hint of professional animosity and competition towards our friends the engineers, but maybe they might have figured something out that we're missing here.
Below is the professional licensing procedure (unofficial based on what I gather from the PEO's website and friends in engineering):
1) All the required exams, with the exception of a professional practice exam, are included in the curriculum of accredited programs.
2) The required four years of engineering work experience are recorded by the applicant with explanations of positions held, projects, and responsibilities with an explanation of how the work "applied engineering theory". This allows for a variety of experiences, flexible to the field of specialization of the applicant, to count towards their experience (subject to review, of course). They don't need to account for every minute of every day and have every action signed off on by a supervisor.
3) In stead of a supervisor signing off on experience logs, three referees able to comment on the applicants "capabilities and suitability for licensing" are required.
4) Annual licensing fees are reasonable and do not act as a deterrent to completing the licensing requirements and registering as a full member ($220 annual fee compared to the OAA's $798).
5) There is also a limited license for those who have completed the necessary experience but lack other requirements. This allows them to step up out of the "in-training" status while acknowledging not everyone practicing engineering requires full licensing.
The PEO does have problems with their system, especially in the are of certifying graduates from non-Canadian universities and the reciprocity with other jurisdictions. They also have a much larger member base and have greater lobbying power.
Regardless, I think there is a lot of food for thought here. The PEO approaches their licensing process with (at least seeming) clarity and simplicity, flexibility, and respect for the professionalism of its members to act ethically and know their own boundaries.
The biggest problem I see with the proposed solutions to help reduce the number of Intern Architect and increase the number of Licensed Architects is that the problem isn't /just/ that the process is complicated, redundant, unreasonable, expensive, lacking flexibility, etc. The problem I didn't see addressed in any of the proposed solutions was what's the benefit of being a fully licensed architect?
Most firms only /need/ one (licensed) architect, someone to stamp the drawings. So a lot of people practicing architecture in a firm, and otherwise fully qualified to be architects, don't need to be licensed themselves - especially not when the annual fee goes from $120 as an intern to $798 as an architect.
There is a reasonable (financial) incentive to remain an intern especially when compared to the minor (practical) incentive to register as an architect. In stead of trying to encourage its members to register as fully licensed architects, by either removing the financial downside or increasing the practical incentives, the OAA seems to want to take the approach of preventing its members from staying interns by placing a five year time limit.
My comments on these points were:
I /strongly/ disagree with this additional requirement [of a five year time limit]. As mentioned above, my concerns include:
1) What forms of considerations will be made for those who have extenuating circumstances that prevent them from finishing on time? For example, maternity/paternity leave, opportunities oversees, relocation, being laid-off, returning to university, medical reasons, etc.
2) Will there be an option to apply for a leave of absence without forfeiting existing experience?
Interns have already invested six years towards joining this profession before even starting their internship. Delays do not mean the intern is not serious about joining the profession. Perhaps penalties or repetition of requirements is more reasonable than outright banning from reapplication. Or better, increase the incentives to become a full member.
-------------------------------------
Again, I /strongly/ disagree with this solution [of denying reapplication for internship status]. You have not provided any explanation as to why the option of reapplication is not being proposed. Similar to the Ontario Graduated Driver's Licensing, you could impose a five year timeline to achieve all the requirements but still allow for reapplication, including penalties such as repaying registration fees, repeating exams, etc.
That said, I strongly believe the better option is to encourage interns to become full members, rather than discourage them from remaining interns.
Certainly part of the reason why there are so many interns is because of complications, redundancy, unreasonable requirements, lack of flexibility, etc. in the process. However, part of the reason is a lack of perceived benefits in many situations for interns to jump to full member status. For many, the only difference is an increase in their annual OAA fees.
(I think I'm approaching the end of my rant... home stretch... I'm losing steam here)
A lot of it comes down to, what in my opinion, is a problem with architects in general. We're control freaks with big egos who like to uphold the prestige, elitism, and mystery of our profession.
There are definite benefits to being a self-regulated profession. There are definite drawbacks.
