There is a crisis in the architectural profession: the number of individuals being licensed is lower than the number “expiring” each year. While the architectural education remains valuable to other industries, architectural school graduates continue to leave for other professional opportunities. Whether this is solely a function of salaries, or other factors, there is consensus that the licensure process is arduous. It is time consuming, expensive, and replete with administrative requirements.
In California, an additional requirement was adopted in 2005 requiring “evidence” in specified IDP skill and application areas. Comprehensive Intern Development Program (CIDP) was originally developed to enhance and strengthen the internship experience and to improve the intern/supervisor relationship through discussions about the evidence documentation.
Prior to adopting these programs in 2005, the California Architects Board (CAB), the licensing authority for the profession, had identified some concerns about IDP (i.e., role of IDP supervisor and mentor; competency assessment; experience alternatives; training areas and settings; IDP entry point; duration requirements; and IDP reporting). In light of the numerous improvements to IDP since 2005 (culminating in the complete implementation of IDP 2.0), CAB and its Professional Qualifications Committee re-evaluated its intern development requirements earlier this year.
At its June 16 meeting, the CAB voted to discontinue the CIDP requirement, which will require a regulatory change approved by multiple control agencies. CAB is currently expediting the regulatory changes and will notify all affected candidates once final approval has been obtained. In the interim, CIDP is required until the regulatory change is approved and codified. The AIACC will also continue to follow this discussion and assist candidates for licensure during this period.
We are curious. . . .what are your thoughts about how this change will impact the profession?