Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: vanessafong
Age: 28

I think experience is very important in this profession. I don't feel like 1 year would be enough to get a grasp on all the different aspects of a project - being one or three projects. If one were to try to gain all the experience requiremed working on one project, unlikely it will be complete in a year. Possibly in two, but unlikely.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: lismin
Age: 35

2 years experience is far too little. I had 8 years experience before I became registered and there was no way I (or anyone else) would have been qualified to practice on my own after just 2 years.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: sarah
Age: 30

I don't think the current experience requirements are too strict.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: Alex
Age: 32

Range of experience IS very important given that once the intern process is complete the individual will be legally equal to all other architects. The OAA has a responsibility to ensure minimum standards. If a firm cannot offer the appropriate range of experience, then the intern should plan to change firms (a normal and healthy thing to do). The "approach and responsibility" can be addressed in 2 years. Recorded experience is necessary given that many interns already use "soft" hours to get the log book filled out quickly.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: Heman Shih
Age: 42

too short period for experience. it will promote lower quality of candidates. However, international experience has been seriously discredited and costly to request for acceptance. mechanism should be in place to streamline the process to accept overseas working experience.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: akramer
Age: 30

One to two years of intern experience seems reasonable. Being able to call yourself an architect shouldn't take 6 years of university and 3+ years of practice. Once you are an architect, you can keep practicing.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: louise
Age: 43

alll experience should be recorded - how else can it be evaluated?

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: Donald
Age: 40

Current system is too rigid and does not reflect the diverse functions that architects engage in. Many architects do not work with the building code on a daily-basis. Nor do architects get to work on a diverse array of building types. This often requires architects to seek other employment often outside their town of residence. Some European countries distinguish between title and license. You can still hold a professional title (eg. be called an "architect") but to practice under your own name involves additional requirements. There are many architectural grads that are non-interns and work as architectural designers or project managers in Ontario typically under the direction of a certified arch. practice.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: Lisa
Age: 38

I do not think it is necessary to reduce the recored experience. It is not difficult to accumulate 3 years in the span of time it takes to get registered. However, I do agree that there should be some rethinking of the building type requirements. The complexity of a project should be considered and not just types.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: shope
Age: 40

It takes many years of experience to be competent to practice architecture. 5000 hours is not too much and should be maintained.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: jtrop
Age: 35

There is nothing wrong with 3 years or recorded experience. The current category list is good, and the IDP is relatatively well put together. Although some of the categories can be difficult to achieve, if you read the fine print there are ways to get the experience through reading and other opportunities. The major issue is the 3 different building types. It is hard to argue that if an intern has worked only on small interior renovations that they have had appropriate exposure to how buildings should go together, code issues etc. However, this may be the only type of projects that the person in interested in working on. There is no easy solution to this one.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: yenny
Age: 31

Both offer too short a time frame - three years should be the minimum.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: smcc
Age: 33

Two years is too short and the experience must be well rounded. The inern should be proactive in their career to make sure that this happens.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: k_clark
Age: 31

What is unrecorded experience? I think 1 year is too short, however it depends on where you work. 1 year in a small firm working on all aspects of a project sometimes gives you more experience than working on a large project at a large firm. Variety of experience is hard to accomplish and should be changed.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: Chod
Age: 38

It takes time to see a project through its construction process. Three years goes very quickly. Additionally, it is partly up to an employee to ensure that he or she is receiving an adequate breadth of experience.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: mills
Age: 34

One year is too short!!

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: Rem Koolhaas
Age: 30

Neither options addresses the goal of producing quality professionals on two levels. Firstly, they impose a 5 year time limit, which is insensitive to the realities of the real world (IE. work opportunities, business opportunities, growing families, etc.). This would be huge step backwards for the profession. Secondly, 1-2 years is not enough to time to acquire the diverse experience required to be a well-rounded architect. Also note that this option says, "recorded or un-recorded", who is accountable for unrecorded experience --- totally ridiculous.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: Jason Martin
Age: 34

The current 3 year record of experience is good but suggest that the number of required major building types be eliminated. More about the practice / process than building type.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: Steve
Age: 34

The existing 3 years seems like a reasonable amount of work experience.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: daniel
Age: 57

The 3 years should be maintained and the building types reduced to 2.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: viktrix
Age: 34

I like the flexibility of this format, however, I believe 2 years is a more sensible time frame. Any architect knows you can spend years in predesign for projects before you ever really get anywhere. Two years seems like it offers potential for an intern to be exposed to more stages in a project's evolution. I also like how this puts more emphasis on the employer and the intern to take responsibility for the intern's development and minimizes the 'paper' exercise, which was of no benefit to me personally.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: mazen
Age: 47

I am afraid solution A will let the employer profit the intern and profit of him/her big time

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: vikas
Age: 36

Neither one year or two years are enough. But new immigrants with 15 yrs of experience its more than enough to understand canadian construction technologies..they should be fine with this timeline.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: gigi
Age: 28

Working abroad has been discriminated against with the OAA format. Work are not recognized in the same way, and format of recorded hrs are tedious, and do not reflect the broad work that we do. I think 2-3 years of work already establishes ones ability and knowledge, it is the responsibility of both employer and worker. Usually, project take over 2-3 years of fulltime employment, and to ask people to switch just to get the neccessary hrs within the limited 3 years of licensing doesn't represent the real working world. In reality, 4-5 years is the limit. But we all know architecture is a lifetime achievement.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: tesark
Age: 34

1 year seems too short, but, the length of time seems to be second in importance to the Scope of Work Agreement. In what way would it be binding on the employer? How does the mentor fit into it? Having a sense of taking part in a defined process with a time frame attached to it might make the whole thing less intimidating. Logging each and every hour correctly is unrealistic anyway, especially once one falls behind...

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Manoj Atri
Age: 46

Again no set pattern. CACB needs to streamline, courses, exams, experience, continued education, and licensing. It doesn't have a format at the moment. People from various countries, with different construction techniques are coming here, they are architects in their country, and they need to have a format or course structure which they can take to still be a part of the profession which they loved but without a format they divert to other profession here.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: ideate
Age: 38

Here's a scenario: Experienced interns benefit employers - why not place the onus on the employer to ensure that interns are brought to a certain experience level within a certain time frame? Place the mentoring of interns back into the purview of employers (where it should be) or to designated mentors within the firm. Interviews combining joint review of experience which include OAA, mentor/employer and intern can establish quality of experience and establish direct relationship between career and firm objectives.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Carole
Age: 36

I didn't have a problem with the 5400 hours method, although irritating. I don't think rushing the process will yield better results. (The part that is going to be difficult will be the last 1000 with an architect within 3 years of applying for liscence.) One thing that this may do is ensure that an intern would get quality experience.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Daniel Gaito
Age: 58

I'm not cetain that 2 or 3 years is the right length of time, but it cannot be just 1 year. Experience must be recorded, otherwise one doesn't have an overview of what experience there has been.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Maissaa
Age: 38

I think two years of experience should be good for an architect to get licensed, however, diversity of this experience is extremely important as a licensed architect could be in situations where having this kind of knowlege could make a big difference in their decision making.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: nomada
Age: 37

It is a fact the requirements towards registration are tough, but all these new ideas sounds to me like giving up on quality to gain on quantity. That would be very damaging for the profession.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: ginfaxi
Age: 32

The internship is long, but having nearly completed it, I feel that I have the bare minimum knowledge required for practice. The field requires an immense amount of knowledge for responsible practice. Make the exam simpler, not the internship. A solution might be to remove the less useful discretionary hours component but to retain the vital and broad core hours.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: KMTG
Age: 36

I feel like the range of experience is pretty important. If we have people completing their internship without experience in certain areas and then starting their own practice as an architect, I think we could do damage to the public's opinion of what an architect is.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Jacqueline
Age: 49

I think that the current requirement is already minimal. It is a tough profession. The more experience, the better. Having to record the experience forces you to try new things and helps you become a more rounded professional. Otherwise you could be come an architect after a year or two of doing nothing but drawing stair details... Why should there be a 5 year limit though? Lots of people toil in the industry for many years without becoming OAA members; they don't need their professional status while working for someone else. When they decide to register, they should not be told that they waited too long.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Genny
Age: 26

2 years prior to issuance of an architect license is necessary from my point of view. the building types requirement could go though.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Martin M. Poizn
Age: 73

Two years is enough, one year is a bit light

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Issam A Shukor
Age: 47

Involvment in one building type within one firm is enough provided interns are to follow the project from start to finish. One year is enought but 2 years are ok too.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Sander Waxman
Age: 29

It could be considered institutional discrimination to mandate a specific requirement of internship experience, which can later be proven as commonly non-attainable and unrealistic in local Ontario practice. This could then lead to a greater discrediting of the OAA, an important tool for architects. The OAA might start with cutting out the discretionary hours phase, as this could cut down time and yet still maintain the specified hours of internship.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: mcamp
Age: 27

The 3 year of recorded experience is not the main hurdle. Most interns understand it takes time. What is a hurdle are the 3 building types and restrictive categories. Some interns have a very large debt (+$60,000)as well as family obligations, switching jobs from firm to firm to accomodate the different building types required is much more difficult.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Archie
Age: 29

Current Situation is satisfactory. "Unrecorded"? Is that a joke? "5 Year completion period"? Sniff Sniif, I smell another cash grab coming to get back in the fold!

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: intern007
Age: 51

work experience is needed as university may not offer this. However if in a coop program then one year could be recorded before completion and one/two years after

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: hhawa
Age: 49

What if an international architect with 15 years of experience come to Canada, Should he wait for 5 years after being recoonised as an Intern architect to be able to submit? I think experience has nothing to do with being a Canadian Intern Architect or not. Being a Canadian intern architect should not be considered an accomplishment.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: Kori
Age: 38

The goal is not to make it easier to become an Architect; but rather to make it more rewarding, once becoming an Architect. This requires a multi-jointed effort between the Universities, the OAA, and the employers. Architecture is complex and complicated. 1-2 years is simply not enough time to learn and grasp the necessary fundamentals to become even a baseline Architect capable of opening their own practice (which is what becoming an Architect implies ultimately). Architectural firms must work with the Intern system to assist Interns in becoming good Architects as part of their professional obligations, and thus offer Interns the appropriate opportunities at the work place. In order for firms to feel comfortable giving Interns more responsibility early in their careers, the Universities must offer better practical training/courses that deal with the "real world" issues of the practice such as business skills, better technical skills, contracts, and marketing/PR. These types of courses are generally seen by the Universities and secondary (if that) to the design studio, which is very important, but ultimately useless by itself in the business world.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: TinWolf
Age: 35

I agree the whole "3 building types" requirement it beyond the rediculous. This is the modern age. People, companies, entire countries specialize in specifics. A second year intern would be hard pressed to find a job alone in todays market..and to ask them to chance leaving a secures job in search for a firm with a different typology. Do the people who wrote this rule realize that venturing out into the "interview" spectrum and putting yourself out there against the vast horde of "hungry lower paid technologists" in order to rack up a few credits as a intern in a typology you have NO EXPERENCE in is comparable to jumping off the CN Tower just to count the number of stories before you hit the ground. It's INSANE.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: toni2
Age: 29

I don't see logging hours as the problem. I do think that if you're working on larger projects, there should be obvious ways to 'categorize' your work that could count as experience within different building typologies (ie. retail space within a hospital). This should be clarified (and promoted) in the IAP manual. Having adequate practical experience (whether it's 3 years or 10 years) is important to the profession. Re-certifying or re-taking exams when you've already graduated is redundant and screams 'money-grab'.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: eleanor
Age: 34

if your firm doesn't offer that kind of experience- go to another firm. OAA must qualify architects, not architects for only a limited number of building types.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: doug pollard
Age: 63

I am not so sure abouy trimming the time back to even two years but I am OK with the aspect of scope of work agreement It reference to the point about approach and level of responsibity it is hardto imagine someone rising to a level of full responsibility except in the smallest firm or for the smallest projectsin a time frame under two years

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: catiasplace
Age: 26

I find one year to be too short. It is good to help Interns through the process but not at the cost of quality. I feel that experience is still the best way for interns to get a good grasp of the profession.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: Katherine
Age: 28

1 year is not enough experience, by any means.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: feedmyego
Age: 26

1 year is too little. 2 years is reasonable in a 5 year span (for those wanting to have families etc). Building types are irrelevant, while methods and approach to practice are of much more importance. HOw can one person work on 3 building types in 5 years and still complete each of the projects....that is laughable when most projects average 2-3 years to complete fully.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: Alex
Age: 28

I believe this is the main barrier for most of the Interns. They have to keep changing employers to cover all the aspects and it’s close to impossible for the ones with family. At the same time, P.Eng. get to accumulate 3 years of ANY experience, un-recorded and it doesn't even have to be under a licensed P.Eng's supervision and get most of the privileges and rights that we get after writing just 1 exam!!!!! They get to stamp on almost 90% of drawings under the O.B.C Why does the life have to be so much harder for the Architects?!!!!!!

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: mnsa
Age: 39

While it appears that there may be a shortage of architects in the future, the current system does not even work, so shortening the time frame that it takes one to become licensed would cause greater problems for the profession as a whole. Having gone through both college (Architectural Technology) and university (B. Arch.) programs, I can tell you first hand that a university student is not prepared after even three years to become licensed. My recent experience is that there are young architects in Ontario today that should not have a license. They have somehow managed to meet all the experience requirements and acquired all the prerequisite experience, yet don't know the first thing about how to properly detail a building, prepare a set of construction drawings, conduct a site visit, process a change order, etc.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: alejandro
Age: 24

experience is important

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: mross
Age: 32

Some kind of verification either through recording or firm confirmation.

Date:  Mar 20, 2008
User: OlaM
Age: 26

Architecture is a continuing education career, each year one is more experienced. it is not quantity of work we do, but the quality of work, to bridge the gap between academia and practice, not to teach us a new profession.

Date:  Mar 20, 2008
User: Nikki
Age: 47

There is a serious deficit in this field to find committed employers who provide opportunities in firms for Interns to grow. This group of employers have not embraced the business principles and practices that value employees. These owners do not understand that to invest in your employee is a win-win situation. There was once an all-too accurate article written called "How the Profession Eats Its Young" - I suggest that this succinct article be revisited by those who wish to identify the real problems and find solutions. I suggest the OAA take more responsibility in educating owners of firms of the opportunities they miss by not investing in their employees and point out the detriment they cause to their business and the entire profession.

Date:  Mar 20, 2008
User: intern4ever
Age: 40

The minimum of 3 years experience is the most valid requirement of the IAP.

Date:  Mar 20, 2008
User: asling
Age: 29

What is un-recorded experience? 1 year is not enough to gain the experience to manage a project solo, especially with larger projects, and especially for graduates who did not benefit from work experience during their education.

Date:  Mar 20, 2008
User: Matt
Age: 27

Date:  Mar 20, 2008
User: Acer
Age: 45

One or 2 years is not enough. I think that 3 years of recorded experience should be regarded as a minimum. In fact, I would suggest increasing it (to, say, 5 years), with the proviso that it can be reduced by passing the ARE exams. For example, passing an ARE exam might be deemed to be worth, say, 3 months of logged experience in the related experience category, so the more exams you pass, the fewer the number of recorded hours you need....

Date:  Mar 22, 2008
User: alan
Age: 34

In the U.K., architecture students are required to undertake a minimum of two years professional experience in architectural practice, before becoming eligible to complete their qualification by taking a recognised examination in Professional Practice and Management (Part 3). Solution B is similar.

Date:  Mar 23, 2008
User: s z
Age: 35

Universities across Canada are not giving students a complete education that prepares them for practice (i.e. drafting, technical skills, code, professional practice issues). This is not necessarily a criticism or a bad thing, as the current requirement for experience allows an intern to learn all of the things actually required on a day to day basis to practice as an architect. One firm with limited scope is not likely going to be able to provide this, especially in a reduced amount of time.

Date:  Mar 24, 2008
User: filippo
Age: 43

Upon graduation, all Architecture Students bcome Architects, however only allowed to work in Part 9-Residential and Small Buidings. To be licensed for larger work, the 1 year experience is required. This would be similar to a College graduate who has completed the MMAH exams. Also, special consideration should be given to those Interns who have not been able to become Licensed 5 years after graduation.

Date:  Mar 24, 2008
User: Ron Milne
Age: 74

Forty years ago, when I graduated, the 'apprentice' period was two years and the complexity of the practice of architecture has grown exponentially since then. Two years is probably insufficient time for a grad to become comfortable with his profession. The Schools should introduce these aspects of the profession before a student graduates, or perhaps the student can attend these courses during his summer employment so that the essence of Contract Law and the bible, the OBC, are absorbed timely with the remainder of a student's learning process. Regrettably, again when I was a student, our professors told us to ignore the OBC because we would have lots of time after graduation to study those requirements. Big mistake.

Date:  Mar 25, 2008
User: D. Cardinal
Age: 34

3 years is a reasonable amount of recorded experience to become a professional. I found it helped guide me to get a well-rounded resume of experience. Maybe lower the minimum number of required building types to two, but even that is not necessary.

Date:  Mar 25, 2008
User: gilbert
Age: 28

Three years experience as a minimum is necessary to gain experience and knowledge prior to licensing. One or two years is definitely not enough and could be detrimental to our profession. Having many young architects with little experience is not going to gain us credibility in the eyes of society.

Date:  Mar 26, 2008
User: r.m.odell
Age: 31

Making the intern process more flexible will get my vote.

Date:  Mar 26, 2008
User: intern
Age: 35

The current system should be fine. The possible solutions may give employers an excuse for not offering interns a well-rounded experience. I think if employers are willing to offer interns the experience they need, the current system is fine. Besides, if you look at the required hours for most experience in the current system, most of them are not asking for a lot, but if employers are not willing to help interns to get registered, even one hour of a certain experience is impossible to attain. OAA should give incentive and recognition to those employers helping interns to get the experience they need in the current system, rather than changing the experience requirement as proposed, which not only helps employers to get away with their responsible roles in the internship program, but also produce new architects who may not have the well rounded experience necessary for architectural practice. Investing on interns may be costly to employers. It means that they will give a certain task to someone who is new to the task. It means that it will cost the employer additional time and resources. For most employers, it is not as economical as having the same person doing what he/she is already good at over and over. That being said, I do think that some of the experience categories in the current system should be revised in response to the changing nature of the practice. For example, instead of having 80 hours of experience A, and 120 hours of experience B, etc., one could have something like EITHER 80 hours of experience A and 120 hours of experience B OR 120 hours of experience A and 80 hours of experience B OR 80 hours of experience A and 60 hours of experience B and 40 hours of experience C OR ... depending on the type of project interns are involved in.

Date:  Mar 27, 2008
User: Robert
Age: 37

this kind of building type differentiation is utter nonsense. an architect is a designer and neeeds to provide fantastic design. builder's build it. incorporating a european model would definietly improve quality of built structure in this pioneer town mentality of crap begets crap because i was here first scenario. any where else in the world, you pretty much graduate from a rigourous boot camp of 5-6 years of intense level architectural training and jump into the fray. here, there is no fray, because you have a geriatric institutionilized echelon of grandfathered firms that got there licences from the inside of a matchbook.

Date:  Mar 27, 2008
User: alexis
Age: 40

The required experience of a full scope of projects is critical to our ability to work as an architect. In fact a minimum of 3 years of recorded experience is best. The 3 years of experience should not be required prior to writing exams, as the two (Basing this upon ARE) work well hand in hand. I tried to select 'Strongly Agree' but it was not accepted in my survey.

Date:  Mar 27, 2008
User: AYoung
Age: 26

2 years, especially if un-recorded, is still too short as a minimum.

Date:  Mar 28, 2008
User: Name with held
Age: 30

Even though I have spent more years than any person ought to in this system which unfortunately lends itself to being easily abused, I can honestly say that one year is not sufficient to learn all that is required. However, many firms would gladly make this an infinite number of years because it is in their financial interest to abuse the process. The problem is not whether it takes 2 years or 3 years but with the firms who abuse the process for reasons which include: guaranteed overtime, being able to pay less because the intern does not acquire advanced experience, power and ego problems, misguided fear that an intern will become licensed and somehow instantly provide credible competition to their decades of experience. A modest amount of time is required to atleast get licensed. The firms I have worked for where the principals got licensed and certificates of practice rapidly were not equal to those who paid their dues and learned by experience. One architect once commented tome that the safe thing was to get about eight years of work expereince after licensing with a firm before opening one's own practice. That please note is entirely different from tacking on another 8 years to the internship process BECAUSE the licensed architect who works for a firm gets exposed to an entirely different level of work than the perpetual intern.

Date:  Mar 28, 2008
User: Ctrl-Z
Age: 28

I'm in favour of more experience but allowing interns to set their own pace for completion.

Date:  Mar 28, 2008
User: neil.white
Age: 38

One year, even two, is far too little time to gain enough experience to practice as an architect. Look at the list of professional exams. Can anyone prepare themselves for all of these after one year? I think the current requirements are fair.

Date:  Mar 29, 2008
User: megg
Age: 36

one year isn't enough, especially considering the fact that many schools have moved to a masters program, and there are fewer summer or work terms in which the students apprentice. it's gotten bad enough in this respect that some employers disregard resumes from students who have graduated from certain schools. as for having to move around to gain project experience - yes, it's difficult sometimes to do this, because no one likes change. but wouldn't it be worse to have architects out there who don't know what they're doing? doctors, for example, move around, and with very good reason...

Date:  Mar 29, 2008
User: Cory Stechyshyn
Age: 44

The "variety" of office experience is more important than "building type" experience. Building code, contract law, client / architect agreements and the business of architecture are mising from the architectural education system and are very imprtant to acquire knowledge of prior to licensure.

Date:  Mar 30, 2008
User: Robert Eland
Age: 28

The time limit affects interns who may have wish to get experiance in three building types before they take on the resposibility of being architects. Architects need to be mentored before taking on this responsibility. On or two years unrecorded experiance is NOT "meaningful".

Date:  Mar 30, 2008
User: mj2knapp
Age: 29

How is the experience monitored if it is either recorded or unrecorded? Experience should be recorded; that way intern and employer are taking ownership of experience gained.

Date:  Mar 30, 2008
User: jmac
Age: 38

Three years was appropriate. The time limit of five years is too short. 8 years seems more appropriate. What's interesting, I know of many Gen Y interns who don't have top level responsibilities and limited experience, thus are able to complete exams. Now the Gen X interns tend to be lead designers, loaded down with responsibilities, have families and thus NO TIME. They're driven, design leaders in the profession but are not given opportunities to take time off to study since the Gen Y's are not knowledgeable enough to step up to the plate.

Date:  Mar 30, 2008
User: iand
Age: 42

One year is not enough. What is "unrecorded experience"? Does this new arrangement replace the restriction of 1800 hours previous to signing on as an intern?

Date:  Mar 31, 2008
User: anon
Age: 38

Gaining the initial experience has not been an issue...however the "currency requirement" has been. The "currency requirement" I would add, came into effect AFTER I had started the intern program. Taking maternity leave should be exempt from the count of the three years of required experience when applying for license. It is discrimitory. Other professions (Physicians and Nurses, Lawyers) have special exceptions for persons on leave, specifically maternity. The Ontario Architect Association is archaic and unprogressive in its regulations, and I have found them to be unsupportive. I am now an insured Registered Designer with 19 years experience in Architectural firms (14 since graduation), passed all my exams, and running my small design firm--I remain unclear as to whether I will become registered. For me it would require putting my business "on hold" to gain the ADDITIONAL 960 hours of experience --an excercise that I consider redundant, in that I had logged and signed this last requirement before having children and finishing my last exams. Now they are planning to again change the regulations?

Date:  Mar 31, 2008
User: Drawswell
Age: 52

I feel the existing requirement is essential. As a senior designer it is incredibly frustrating working with individuals who have minimal experience which results in a lack of basic understanding of the concept of putting a building together - in terms of documentation, construction, and contract administration. The more experience the better. Perhaps what is required is different levels of licensure related to the O.B.C. - Part 3 license, Part 9 license, etc.

Date:  Apr 01, 2008
User: erin
Age: 24

Most importantly, the range of 3 building types must be reduced. Many firms may be unable to offer this, and architects may wish to specialize for the same reasons that their employers have - niche marketing. Engeneers are licenced immediately, and the risks they take on are undoubtedly higher. If the oaa is concerned about risking liability then these risks should be passed on accordingly. the demarcaction of 1, 2 or 5 years is arbitrary as the learning process continues always. The sooner the intern is able to write the exams, the less disruptive they are. Competing responsabilities to family and work will only increase with time.

Date:  Apr 01, 2008
User: Meshah
Age: 39

Current experience time and areas of experience are adequate and appropriate, not too strict at all.

Date:  Apr 01, 2008
User: gbaxter
Age: 32

Why water it down?

Date:  Apr 01, 2008
User: jayleb
Age: 27

I feel that one year is not enough and that three is a little over the top for someone who just spent 8+ years being educated in the field. Two years is a good compromise as long as the requirements to have experience in a broad range of categories/project types is maintained. The reality is the current 3 years over each of the required categories, usually turns out to be more like 5+, which is unfair and undesirable to those of us coming into the profession. Is it fair that a carpenter on the job site be making more than the person who went to school for 8 years, has been working in the field for 3.5yrs and executed the design and construction documents? No wonder the profession has a problem!!!

Date:  Apr 01, 2008
User: jfarrow
Age: 52

3 years is appropriate

Date:  Apr 01, 2008
User: Joyce
Age: 26

Why is there such an incredible discrepancy between professional engineer lisencing requirements and those of architects? One exam, loose, if any, recording of general experience, and they are more than qualified. 7-9 costly exams for interns, plus high costs for each as well as study material - this is what needs to be addressed and is a huge hindrance to achieving liscensing. Once one gets through the current 3 years of experience-recording, one is then faced with the exams. Who can write them throughout their internship anyway? The focus should be on preparing interns for writing exams from the very beginning, as an extension of their education. There is alot to learn from the exams and that is being overlooked in this question of learning through experience only.

Date:  Apr 02, 2008
User: Denise Lepage
Age: 49

More experience is always better. I totally agree with the reasoning. Architects have transferable skills across building types. Building type is irrelevant. Breadth of involvement in all stages of a project is more important.

Date:  Apr 02, 2008
User: Jason
Age: 34

What does this even mean? "recorded or un-recorded?" So what is the experience going to be - recorded or un-recorded? This is the kind of of nonsense that is part of the underlying problem with the OAA. There is an inherent problem here. In what way is this "Scope of Work" going to bind interns?

Date:  Apr 04, 2008
User: internarchitect
Age: 28

Architectural offices often have certain expertise and do similar types of projects, so it is not inconceivable to only work only on one building type. It does not necessarily follow that the experience is not valuable. Eg. An intern that acts as a project coordinator for jobs of the same building type, following through on all phases of the project probably has much more meaningful experience than someone who works only in one aspect of 3 different types of buildings. In this field, every project presents challenges, even if the type is the same - certain skills takes many years to perfect. Also, if it is a large scale project, it can easily take a couple of years to see it to completion of construction. Having the involvement and commitment of following through a project and owning responsibilities within a team is much more important than dabbling in various types in order to satisfy the requirements.

Date:  Apr 04, 2008
User: Tracy
Age: 28

I think that the current number of hours required is resonable as is the building types. Though I consider myself competent, well educated, and intelligent, having almost 1 year of post graduate expereince and 3 years of undergraduate experience, I can honestly say, this is not enough.

Date:  Apr 04, 2008
User: Michaela
Age: 39

There should be no restriction on the time to complete. This discriminates against women who want to have children.

Date:  Apr 05, 2008
User: 1hk1
Age: 37

dropping the amount of recorded experience may affect reciprocity with the US for all the members. This survey did not address the number of interns that left the province/country, obtained their overseas license and would like to be an OAA member, eventually resettling in Ontario. How may OAA interns live outside of Canada? I am an intern in Ontario but licenced in California (completed all the ARE exams + california oral. I completed the Canadian IAP except for the 6 months of Ontario experience. The OAA is asking me to complete NCARB's IDP in order to obtain reciprocity. Would the OAA consider dropping this requirement for the OAA interns who have completed IAP? Many of us left due to economic downturns. Please make it easier for the oversea interns to come back to the province.

Date:  Apr 07, 2008
User: __ap
Age: 28

Will this be retroactive because I'd love to stop logging hours that appear to be unnecessary as part of the 'new' system. Also, I would appreciate guidance in finding where it is written that 'three (3) building types' are required.

Date:  Apr 08, 2008
User: virgiliu
Age: 46

This is only part of the problem. 2 more issues need to be solved: 1. before applying for license an intern is required almost 1000 hours of work, all done during the previous 3 years, on projects physically located in Ontario. 2. employees of a consulting firm that is not registered as a practice are not eligible to record their experience, although it refers to pure architectural work. Both 1 & 2 are as important as the length/exposure to building types, and both conditions should be removed. One might work for more than 3 years (full required experience recorded previously but not having finished the exams yet))on projects outside Canada with a typical Ontario Architect Practice, then move on working with an International Consulting firm, doing work in joint venture with Architectural Practices. The Architect supervising work and signing the project should be in a position to sign the intern's experience gained as an employee of the Consulting firm.

Date:  Apr 08, 2008
User: Chintan Virani
Age: 46

It takes long time to mature in our profession. People practice even after retirement age - until the mind - brain works. 3 years should not be reduced, quality may suffer. Even after working independently for 20 years it took me long to become confortable with construction - materials and methods. If you think that not all office can offer all types of work experience I think we may rethink before we decide to reduce the time. Also, we may think to increase the time frame to complete the experience.

Date:  Apr 09, 2008
User: geoff miller
Age: 32

I am strongly in favour of eliminating the need for 3 or more building types, as the experience requirements should mainly ensure the intern has the proper understanding of project management, as well as contact with clients and consultants -- and this knowledge can be gained on any project type. However, from my own experience I think that 1 year is not enough time to develop this knowledge in any depth. 2 years is a more appropriate requirement.

Date:  Apr 09, 2008
User: gejb
Age: 39

The recording process itself is what needs to be improved. Logging hours in obscure breakdown to achieve arbitrary time goals for each category is too demanding and discouraging a process.... not to mention validating to oneself what the true advantage of registration would be in the end at such costs.

Date:  Apr 10, 2008
User: deanna
Age: 28

the process never takes 3 years, it usually takes way longer to get all the targeted experience.

Date:  Apr 11, 2008
User: jsbaker
Age: 35

The recording of experience as it stands is pointless and onerous for all parties. Unrecorded experience w. a signed agreement should suffice.

Date:  Apr 11, 2008
User: rhizome
Age: 44

But how to verify work that's unrecorded??

Date:  Apr 11, 2008
User: lida
Age: 41

I do agree with less years of experience specially for professionals from abroad who have already gain experiences in other countries and they just need adjustment, but I don't agree with time limitation since enrollment.

Date:  Apr 12, 2008
User: bdonn
Age: 25

3 year is simply too long after 7 years of architecture school (in most cases). I don't want to put my career on hold (that's how it feels to me) for another 3 years while I work towards getting licensed. It should be 1 intense year following a professional architecture degree. This way, firms could organize a structured experience program that virtually ensures that all new graduates become licensed architects within a year after graduation. I a hold a Master of Architecture degree, but given the current requirement of 3 years of experience I can easily say that I will not become a licensed architect. If it were only 1 year, then it wouldn't even be a topic of debate--I would get licensed.

Date:  Apr 14, 2008
User: Amy Huddleston
Age: 29

I think the recorded experience as an intern is the most valuable form of learning. The Universities do not cover enough of the "real world" practices and I think it is imperative that interns record at least 3 years of experience in all catagorys.

Date:  Apr 15, 2008
User: Nancy
Age: 28

Why is there a limit of five years? It is important to be able to seek experience outside of architecture while interning. What would happen to people who take longer? As this survey points out, a lot of people take much longer than five years. Are you proposing that they don't have this option?

Date:  Apr 15, 2008
User: TomK
Age: 32

I think that a structured 2 year process is better. I want to see independent work acknowledged in the hours. I left a large office, where I was under utilized, to design and build a house for my inlaws. That project turned into several more and I now have an established design business doing part 9 houses. I've learned more during the first project than I did in several years of internship. This type of experience should be recognized.

Date:  Apr 15, 2008
User: typern
Age: 35

The existing situation allows for the intern's intense expoitation by some of the employing individuals. As long as this is the reality the other 'frames' shouldn't be there only for interns.

Date:  Apr 15, 2008
User: markazi
Age: 54

I WORK WITH A SMALL ARCHITECTURAL FIRM DOING EXPENSIVE COSTUME HOUSINGS AND I ENJOY DESIGNING RESIDENTIAL HOUSING (BUILDINGS) THAN COMMERCIAL

Date:  Apr 15, 2008
User: evelyn
Age: 33

I understand that Architecture evolved from working with a mentor and "interning" for that mentor was a part of learning the trade and the skills required. But I don't believe we have to subject ourselves with recording hours of work. This is the only process I disagree with out of the entire IAP. Other professions don't have to do this. It seems like unnecessary paperwork to me. The only good is that it forces our employers to give us the right kinds of experience, and I guess this differentiates good employers from bad ones. But I agree its hard sometimes to appease every intern who will be in different stages. In sum, after graduating from an accredited institution, working, studying for 9 exams, more learning with the Admissions course...I don't want to have to take up more time with paperwork, because although there are good intentions behind this process, it doesn't help us in moving us forward. In fact I know a lot of people including myself who have "back hours" to log. I wonder just how many people have "back hours" to log. At the end of the day, there is no time and my resume and portfolio count more in terms of value than the recorded IAP hours.

Date:  Apr 17, 2008
User: cos/tan
Age: 50

Any experience should be recorded. Particularly, foreign experience needs to be considered, knowing that some internationally trained professionals come here with 10 or more years of work. However, this has to be done based on a process that evaluates the overseas experience against the Canadian standard as a reference. I see a possible connection here with Question #2: Non-Canadian Degree Certification.

Date:  Apr 24, 2008
User: joeleafsfan
Age: 27

I'm about to enter the intership program and feel that a minimum of 2 years should be required if not left at the 3 year requirment it is now. Having interns be licensed only after one year is abit low.

Date:  Apr 24, 2008
User: arch_intern78
Age: 29

1. I agree 3 years is too long 2 would be adequate, 1 is not adequate for most people/firms. 2. It is essential that the intern get experience in a variety of building types, stages of project management and field instruction. these experience requirements should not be eliminated, but they could be reduced. 3. The agreement between an employer and an intern would work in theory, but would not work in practice - as some firms cannot/will not ensure an intern will get a broad experience.

Date:  Apr 26, 2008
User: Chris
Age: 38

I believe the current system to be a bit 'over the top'. It takes most people more than 5 years to meet the requirements - and it favours interns in smaller practices with shorter projects - and especially ones in smaller centers around the province where firms aren't forced by the market to be specialists. My issue with both proposals above is with the lack of external review and an external mentor. This remains a valuable part of the process. These two traits also help Interns maintain mobility and ensure that their experience accrual is not used as an instrument of coercion. I agree that most building projects are about process and approach. With the proliferation of good technical information the idea of aptitude in multiple types is desirable but not critical. I am NOT a proponent of standardized testing as THE critical step in licensure. I am far more comfortable with maintaining stringent experience requirements and relaxing the testing. I would be curious to see how well good test scores correlate to good professionals. I know many peers who have passed the tests and do not meet reasonable standards of knowledge and more importantly, judgement, in a professional context.

Date:  Apr 26, 2008
User: senior
Age: 53

Scope of experience & recording must be widened to include self employment experience within scope of Part 9 small Building as many interns are practising & whenever require's request the services of Architect or Engineer as the case may be to review & stamp their work to the satisfaction of muincipality's.

Date:  Apr 28, 2008
User: rima
Age: 41

If registration means practicing as an architect, i.e. the ability to run one's own practice, five years should be the minimum. Two or three years often times are not enough to see a project through, let alone gaining sufficient experience and confidence to render architecural services and advice to the public. Making it easier to register should not mean doing away with the standards of the profession. This change could have the dire impact or adversely affecting public's confidence in architects, if the OAA allows insufficiently experienced architects to set up practices.

Date:  May 02, 2008
User: nguyenMSA
Age: 27

How does the OAA determine and approve the "quality of experience"? Is the Intern who spent 3 years after graduation specifying washroom partitions for a house, an community centre, and high-rise condo (3 different building types) more qualified than he/she who spent 1 year detailing stairs for an office tower? Neither circumstance is enviable. Rather than focus on the range of experience with building type, it's more beneficial to have range of experience within the architectural process.

Date:  May 03, 2008
User: Dacad
Age: 58

everything is based on aprenticeship because education in this (is it country?), sucks. School trusties, even ministers of education are high school dropouts. Hatress toward education is endemic (because of geneticall garbage sindrom). Now you gonna have ethnic schools only. And that is just a start. Way to go, people.

Date:  May 04, 2008
User: Ola_a
Age: 45

Experience prior to licensure is of vital importance for Architects, but on the other hand this is a continuous process which can not be set with a time frame. The proposed one year is just barely an introduction to the profession and may not be equally adequate on its own to enable Interns to become Licensed as many firms do not give the appropriate job responsibilities to new Interns. I would think that a minimum of two years with exposure to the “Practice of Architecture”. The introduction or addition of an approved moderated course (Project case study) focusing on simulated office environment which, will involve architectural process from inception to completion paying particular attention to but not limited to Project Management & Administration, Office Management and other areas where many Interns face limitations to gain experience. With the status of an Architect, the newly qualified Architects now will be more exposed to the practice of Architecture as the job functions will automatically place them at the level where they can express themselves as professionals.

Date:  May 06, 2008
User: Tmac
Age: 37

This is the only relevant aspect of internship. Building types are one thing but you can experience a wide variation in building science, structural systems and programmatic requirements from one type. The bottom line is architects must be problem solvers and adapt to each situation. What's the difference of 0ne type vs two vs three etc. if you can demonstrate the ability to tackle one your skills are transferable to all. I think the full three years is important in order to experience the full range of phases though.

Date:  May 14, 2008
User: Salvatore
Age: 44

This is something that should be kept, the profession needs to keep its high professionalism. It takes many years of experience to be a competent Architect. 5000 hours is not too much.

Date:  May 15, 2008
User: S.B.G.
Age: 25

While I agree with the desire to help interns complete their internship in a reasonable amount of time and without requiring them to continually seek out new firms and positions to meet the strict requirements, I am weary about a few points in the above possible solutions. 1) What are the consequences of not completing the experience in the 5 years from enrollment? 2) 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, etc. 3) Will there be an option to apply for a leave of absence without forfeiting existing experience? 4) What will be the new guidelines/goals/classifications to ensure that the probation period is "meaningful" and sufficiently prepares the intern for entry into the profession?

Date:  May 15, 2008
User: Shirley Ting
Age: 32

Realistically every firm is essentially a business. A business needs profit. A firm will of course cater to whichever building type will give it more profit. I've quit from work 2x thinking I can transfer and get one where there are various building types. If the OAA can cover the expense and frustration of looking for a company that can give a lot of building types, then I fully support this, otherwise. Please, lets be realistic. Not all intern architects want to be the super architect of every single building type. With even more demands for attention to detail and care and creating the best handiwork, the profession is becoming more and more distinctive in the building type and clientele it will cater to, being more distinctive will give each firm or architect more experience and expertise. It's time to get more realistic in expectations. Let's build realistic approach, not all ideals work in reality.

Date:  May 23, 2008
User: eddyson
Age: 54

One of the greatest obstacles facing interns is to find a firm where they can do their interships. A deliberate and purposeful placement program will go along way to ensure that the intern program is completed on schedule. Such placement may be with or without remuneration from employer.

Date:  May 30, 2008
User: H.H.
Age: 33

One year experience is too little. Two years in an architecture practice working under an architect is sufficient experience. Breakout of required hours for individual tasks should be eliminated - it is overly complicated, nitpicky, and not easily enforced. Working in an architectural practice under the direction of a professional Architect on architectural jobs should be sufficient, without having to log individual tasks in fine detail.

Date:  Jun 02, 2008
User: SK_C
Age: 38

I beleive, previous requirement of 3 years in Ontario is near to impossible for most Interns.

Date:  Jun 11, 2008
User: leadfoot
Age: 40

It is in the interest of the intern to get as diversified experience as possible and moving to a different office while being an intern is almost expected. Medical students just don't do one rotation in one department and think they'll have all the required experience to be a good doctor. I went froma commercial firm to a purely residential firm and then back to commercial again.....best experience and diversity I could have asked for.

Date:  Jun 13, 2008
User: djanssen
Age: 36

European professional degrees permit a graduate to apply for professional status immediately. Also, some interns may gain experience in a variety of forms not necessarily affiliated with at architectural practice (e.g. structural engineers, construction etc) and these types of opportunities can out-weigh the experience gained in a conventional practice.

Date:  Jun 26, 2008
User: jmaw
Age: 24

However, I think that the experience within those two years should be recorded. It keeps the Intern and his/her mentor focused on the Intern's education.

Date:  Jul 02, 2008
User: Don Lee
Age: 45

There are many functions in a large project, for instance, office & administration parts, dining hall and kitchen area like a big restaurant, big auditorium facility and lots of stores and shops like a commercial building. Some interns may be involved in these project for a long time. How could OAA count their experience? Actually that's my case.

Date:  Jul 30, 2008
User: Licutus of Borg
Age: 45

Wow, Freedom of Choice!!

Date:  Aug 21, 2008
User: sonya
Age: 33

I feel the quality of experience OAA/architect agreement is essential in the above proposals.

Date:  Aug 22, 2008
User: elizabeth
Age: 57

Philosophically I believe that the barriers to entry (after graduation from an architectural program) have done us great harm. I would like to more information in how the engineers manage their tremendous range of disciplines and yet manage to 1) have all join "engineers' associations" or call themselves "engineers", and 2) I am inclined to think that we must distinguish between the "architectural firms" and "architects". We would be much better from a political viewpoing to have a very large group of "architects" pushing for various initiatives (good design, greening, whatever,...); and a financial significant group (owners of architectural firms (which of course could include those with other disciplines) to lobby for financial issues related to company taxation, etc...); Our message(s) would be better perhaps and fees easier to collect. THere is also the issue of provincial vs national which we need to address: accreditation is national; firms/clients are also increasingly structuring themselves nationally; the costs of developing training tools, standards (codes,....) are high and other countries are at a real advantage in that they work at a national or even international level (European Union); with Bldg Information Modelling we will be faced with some real challenges over the next 5-10 yrs as the D/C industry changes, I am not sure that if we don't all pull together (and structured differently), we will make it.

Date:  Sep 28, 2008
User: Poet of Bithyni
Age: 33

Although Vote A is the better solution; I still do not understand why a holder of a recognized overseas degree in Architecture, should have to still "prove" their competence as an Intern Architect.

Date:  Oct 02, 2008
User: dave
Age: 33

You can't fast-track Architectural experience!

Date:  Oct 06, 2008
User: joelb
Age: 34

Getting all of the required hours of experience is very difficult to get in an actual 3 year period. I support B more than A simply because it offers and mandates more experience for the intern. I fully agree that it is too difficult to work on 3 building types extensively in a single firm. Plus, some people may only WANT to work with one building type.

Date:  Feb 12, 2009
User: Javier
Age: 39

How about 2 years of recorded experience, recorded by the Member - not by the intern. This would encourage Members to allow interns a more complete range of experience.

Date:  Mar 22, 2009
User: jimes
Age: 32

Don't reduce the number of years experience and the need to record it. Definitely not 1 year experience. They may be getting a wide range of experience and project type but with constant direction and someone always looking over their shoulder. Right now, nothing measures the amount of responsibility an intern takes. Require 2 building types in 2 different scale of buildings, or 3 building types, or project experience from start to finish for a medium to large sized building is a good way to get a variety of experience within a firm which can only offer limited building types.