Yesterday, the most recent changes to the Intern Development Program — first alluded to at the annual Coordinators Conference earlier this summer, and announced last month — formally took effect. You’ve probably already heard the gist — eligibility requirements have been streamlined, and the duration requirement has been eliminated. And to this I say, good riddance. So long, and thanks for all the fish.
Truthfully, I can’t think of many people who will miss either of these aspects of IDP. Out of all the questions I’ve received in my time as Pennsylvania’s state coordinator, it seems like these two topics have harbored a great deal of confusion from soon-to-be architects. Phasing them out significantly simplifies the process for everyone involved. Or, as a young professional in my chapter put it, “eliminating barriers to licensure is always a good thing.” I don’t know if I would have referred to it in quite that way — I’ve never seen IDP as a barrier to anything, even when I was struggling through it — but it’s certainly true that the rules governing the act sometimes seem to take more precedence over the actual act itself. By simplifying the rules, the focus can shift back to the more important things, like actually, you know, logging experience.
Boiling eligibility requirements down to their lowest common denominator — a high school diploma, which anyone pursuing a professional career should have, regardless of accredited degree — is one of those it’s-so-simple-we-should-have-thought-of-it-sooner sort of changes. Besides, let’s face it — were three forms for the same purpose really necessary? That sound you hear is the collective sigh of relief from educator coordinators across the nation, who just saw a significant reduction in their paperwork.
Interns really had a hang up over the duration requirement (sample question: “I have found a summer internship, but my employer is” — gasp! the horror! — “giving me the day off for Memorial Day and Independence Day, so it won’t REALLY be eight consecutive weeks. Will this count toward IDP?”), which just seemed to become more confusing the more you tried to clear it up. To paraphrase EB White, trying to explain it became something like dissecting a frog. No one was interested, and the frog died.
Say what you will, but NCARB, to me, has always been incredibly responsive to the needs of their constituents. The ever-fluid nature of the Intern Development Program proves this — IDP is constantly evolving, mostly due to the input (or “constructive criticism”) of the people currently working their way through it. The best changes are the ones that are barely noticable, simple yet profound… and these two certainly qualify. And you certainly won’t hear any frogs complaining.