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

They should be able to reapply if needed. 5 years is not that long...what if you have a baby?! or get sekc? That could mean a year or so off your time.

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

Everyone has extenuating circumstances.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: andyro
Age: 37

This is cruel and unusual punishment. Interns are not troubling with the exams because they are onerous. Many of us have not even completed taxes for several years, but are otherwise meaningfully engaged in the practice. Reducing the administrative burden and length of the process on the intern will encourage timely completion of the process. Make CERB forms available online, track intern progress online, that would definitely speed things along.

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

That seems a little limiting. I don't think any other profession would impose such a restriction. How about individuals who fail to complete the licensure requirements withing the time limit have to start over at the beginning.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: rclarke
Age: 67

Family, business cycle and other issues may make it difficult. This is a draconian measure and some appeal mechanism would be useful

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

This is a ridiculous idea.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: Charlie
Age: 48

Everyone should have the right to reapply.

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

If you shut interns out after 5 years, they would basically loose all the 6 years of university education they committed to architecture. You will alienate a significant number of people...what if there is a recession like in the 80s and people can't find work as an architect? What if women want to have kids and then re-enter the profession? Be flexible. Open the door to different kinds of membership. The more open the association is, the more they will be able to retain talent.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: archkelly
Age: 26

There is so much that happens. Although I think the OAA should encourage a short period of internship, disabling people to reapply is not to the advantage of the profession, but merely an advantage to the bureaucratic system for which interns pay for.

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

What about recessions and other economic circumstances outside an intern's influence. Let's not forgot that many interns could not get licensed in the 90's because no construction...thus no site experience.

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

There should be a time limit to eliminate 'lifers', however, I asked myself regularly why I bothered getting licenced when there seems to be no difference between the two when working in an architectural practice. My employer made sure that I was under no illusions that anything would change for me. Needless to say, I moved on.

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

So what this means is that a person who gets through the internship process in a limited time (let's say 5 years) will be better suited to provide architectural services to the community than someone who takes longer (let's say 10 years)?

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: david
Age: 50

get serious, or go away!

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

see above comment

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

I agree there should be a time limit, but you should be allowed to reapply under certain circumstances (which should be clearly set out before instituting such a rule).

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

Licensure should not be an "all-or-nothing" proposition. However, perhaps there should be a 10-year time limit.

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

"Banned from being an intern, forever" --- Can an association really deny an interns future means of making a livelyhood?

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

There should be NO time limit

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: patrick trottie
Age: 43

Get off the control issue. The profession must provide a healthy environment for individuals to develop at their own pace.

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

Again, extenuating circumstances need to be considered but generally, I think this is a strong move.

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

You should absolutely have the right to reapply. Finally after 6 years since my first exam, I will finish the ARE - but it has taken until maternity leave to have enough time to do them (sad isn't it?). What has taken so long? Everything from very intense and long projects, to teaching while working, to marriage to illness&death in the family. In other words - life. After all, it is a profession and not a race.

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

are trying to eliminate the international trained professionals, or help correct the problem. see comments on previous question ( #7 )

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

no way. bad idea. are we getting punished for a lifelong work!

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

If the goal is to help more interns become architects, new barriers are not helpful. This seems punitive rather than constructive. If the internship process was more structured yet less about record keeping, time limits would take care of themselves. If a time limit is imposed, it should include the opportunity to 'pause the clock' in the event of significant life events such as maternity leave, bereavement leave, sabbatical, etc.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Joseph Galea
Age: 60

I believe a one-time re-application should be allowed. This will then probably do away with the exemptions of the previous question.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: meredith
Age: 35

Many intern architects do not feel the need to get their stamp while working for someone else. That may change later in life. Why ban them from the profession just because they are not ready to stike out on their own during the first 5 years?

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Tommy
Age: 31

I disagree with query no. 7 to start.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: evan
Age: 47

Why is the OAA interested in punitive measures? Penalties promote disrepect and misunderstanding. A more supportive Association would be a better Association to belong to. Don't you think so?

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Daniele KSantos
Age: 32

For foreign trained professionals, married and with family, 5 years may not be enough time to complete all the additional education that CACB requires to have the equivalency of studies.

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

First CACB doesn't have its house in order and wants to follow requirements doesn't make sense.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Helen Desjardin
Age: 49

If someone fails to complete within the time limit, why could he not reapply and have to do most of the process a second time?

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

Ridiculous! See Eunuch comment above.

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

There are many life paths. While endless procrastination has it's tortures, being able to choose when to do the exams and how to work them around the other parts of life is very important. These sorts of things usually unduly punish people who choose to have children, especially women. It was my understanding that that was why the time limit was lifted. I would strongly disagree with this.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: chris
Age: 31

That's completely wrong. After going to university for 8 years? then someone is going to tell me I can't even use my education that I paid for?

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

They should be able to reapply, but there should be some consequences. Also, individual circumstances need to be taken into consideration. We want to ENCOURAGE people to become Architects; consequences should be seen in that light.

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

interns should never lose their statuse no matter what time passes , they have done alot of effort to gain this statuse & should never be "punished" because they don't have the chance in 5 years to get licensed instead, licensure procedure should be made more "Architects Friendly"

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Grant Oikawa
Age: 27

This seems extreme. A better possible solution would be that individuals who fail to complete licensure requirements within the time limit need to reapply and start the entire process over, this would negate all of the previous recorded experience and all other requirements of the IAP

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: lkasawat
Age: 40

Interns should be allowed to re-enter the process after a penalty is served, maybe one year and restart the process. However to fully deprive them of being an architect is not a healthy way to go.

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

There should be a provision for bad decisions, errors in planning or general regret... This is potentially a mistake someone could regret for the rest of their lives, and after the difficulty of getting as far as becoming an intern, they should have recourse. Perhaps, a one-time, expensive extension of one or two years could be granted in these cases.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: lauren b
Age: 25

While I agree that a time limit is a good incentive to move people through the system, I don't think that closing the door on those who can't finish in 5 years is appropriate. Each intern has a different set of circumstances, and circumstances change. Let's not allow this arbitrarily imposed time limit to be the deciding factor in an intern's ability to become professional.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Peggy Theodore
Age: 41

The interns who continue to pay fees (perhaps increased?) should be alllowed to remain interns.

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

So we let them spend 5 or 6 years getting a professional degree, let them write a series of gruelling exams, let them work in the industry for 5 years and then toss them aside if they don't meet the final deadline? Ridiculous!

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Len Abelman
Age: 37

If there is no goal and time frame to complete the process, some people never will...

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

there should always be possible options for extraordinary circumstances (sickness, family matters, etc.)

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Hector Romero
Age: 52

But there is a way of solve that. If the intern is working and can demostrate it through the menthor, He should be able to keep on the path and have more time if necessary

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Nadine El-Gazza
Age: 30

This seems completely unnecessary. It applies too much pressure on Interns to complete the licensure in a time period that may not be appropriate for them. Some people need more time to learn things than others. It is not fair to penalize people who require more time to make themselves fully familiar with the practice of architecture.

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

MAY NOT REAPPLY smacks of the practice gestapo! You can't be that black and white. There can be good reasons to wait more than 5 years, as long as the intern maintains currency, particularly if working in an office.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Tracey Winton
Age: 42

Architects are human beings, not timetables. Experience normally increases competency.

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

as explained in # 7.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: J. Denis Seguin
Age: 50

Except if their are circumstances which make it impossible to acheive....I found the data shocking on the average age of interns. We have a number of interns who do not appear to ever want to be architects....kids in the way, partner does not understand...just can't get to it and next thing you know they are 39 years old?

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

this seems cruel, as it could strand people that have worked for years, they would have been better off being disallowed from the start, than to have missed a window five years later.

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

They should be allowed to reapply. What if a family illness takes them out of the country or an accident causes delays. Taking away the ability to reapply does not seem fair, they are to throw away 6-7 years of education ?

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

I'd like to swear here, but I won't. Its called life, and some things get in the way.

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

Why can't some people enjoy a rewarding career as an Intern Architect indefinitely? Being fully licensed, with all that entails, may not be for everyone... they should still have some status / merit after graduating.

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

They should be able to re-apply (there are many circumstances that can lead to them exceeding the time limit), but they will have to start over. Like graduated licensing in Ontario, you have 5 years to complete, and if you miss it, you can pay again and start again. Being too harsh by not giving second chances may discourage interns from trying at all.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: Rhonda
Age: 31

Situations can change. A person could change professions and then seek to re-enter the profession of architecture through reapplication to the intern process.

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

I think that under certain circumstances, Interns should have the opportunity to re-apply.

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

why? what is so bad about needing more time?

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: Shawn
Age: 36

Life throws many curveballs. This seems to be a rather imposing deadline for no reason.

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

I believe a person should be able to re-apply at another time - starting over of course. It would allow for life-changing events to happen and they not worry about losing any possibility of becoming an Architect.

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

I understand having to begin the licensing process anew but to be denied ever being an architect seems very odd! what if you need to take time off to have a baby or a project takes you abroad for some time... would all these cases need special approval to put the status on hold??

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

This solution reflects a negative, blaming attitude toward interns - which does not seek to understand what the real issues are and develop applicable solutions, instead, it seeks to enforce compliance for its own sake, by restricting and excluding. If you are not attracting interns to the profession, you are part of the problem.

Date:  Mar 20, 2008
User: Anthony
Age: 61

I thought this was covered in the previous item?

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

Trying to frighten or punish people into finishing their internships is not a great strategy at encouraging people to become licensed architects.

Date:  Mar 20, 2008
User: Nathalie
Age: 41

One should have the opportunity to reapply under certain circumstances.

Date:  Mar 21, 2008
User: archipunjabi
Age: 32

One should have an option to reapply. It could have been circumstances that forced them to drop out but may be they are in a better position now and are determined to complete the requirement

Date:  Mar 23, 2008
User: s z
Age: 35

See above.

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

My guess is that most Interns have been wanting to become Licensed Members since graduation, don't penalize them because they are unable to complete the Experience component.

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

I still believe that the unlimited time frame should remain in force.

Date:  Mar 24, 2008
User: Derek Newby
Age: 35

If a reapplication process is considered, it should be a one-time extension. Interns seeking longer should be interviewed, discuss difficulties, and be granted, or denied an extension on the merits. I think a one time extension is reasonable, but it should be final.

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

A penalty is not addressing the true problem with interns completing licensure requirements. The OAA and the profession have to provide an incentive for interns to complete licensure.

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

It depends on the circumstance.

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

that may be a bit harsh, but there does need to be some repercussions.

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

again, the factor is not only time, but money.

Date:  Mar 27, 2008
User: Nick Borcescu
Age: 36

Definitely disagree: my own work experience took me abroad for 3yrs, so with a time limitation while I was unable to submit Canadian experience time towards the OAA, I was nonetheless gaining very relevant and important experience on a global market and international exposure level. I would suggest that there would be a possiblity (with an associated cost, if necessary) to "pause" the internship program and allow for the flexibility of trying something else for a set duration or time - or alternatively offer something along the lines of the 10yr time limit.

Date:  Mar 27, 2008
User: david agro
Age: 44

I'm not sure stricter rules will solve the problem. The irony is, after all is said and done, you can become a developer or project manager, hire an architect, tell them what to do, and make more money!

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

who on earth is making this stuff up. if i wasn't so busy trying to run a business...

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

You are disqualifying their experience gained and the degree that was originally certified. In short...Why punish people because of work or life commitments? Especially when employers typically do not support the licencing process.

Date:  Mar 27, 2008
User: Robert
Age: 42

With one hand we're tring to make the system better, but with the other hand, an initiative like this, would make the system worse.

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

Some things are worth repeating: YOU HAVE THIS COMPLETELY BACKWARDS !!! No intern wants to drag this process out. To say the intern alone must pay the penalty by not getting licensed is PUNISHING THE VICTIM. If you want the intern to finish within a stipulated time then firms must have an incentive for cooperating or a punishment for NOT cooperating - a carrot AND a stick. What makes this problematic is those who say, "We can't tell them how to practice or run their business". I agree that finding the exact way to implement this would be difficult but the associations seem to enforce plenty of other things, look at the failed BCDN system, ConED, go read the disciplinary results. If the associations have the will to provide incentive AND enforce punishment, then the problem will be solved. And enforcement is the key. Anyone who has even seen the business side of this profession knows full well that any agreement is meaningless unless it can be enforced and enforced in a timely manner. Firms are part of the problem, they have to be part of the solution. PERIOD.

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

Sounds like another cash grab.

Date:  Mar 28, 2008
User: donb
Age: 55

why be so draconian...who is to know the personal circumstances that cause the delay. Be more flexible. this does not fix anything.

Date:  Mar 28, 2008
User: Garry
Age: 56

But some of these people are still working in architecture. Perhaps iot would be better to create a graduated scale of licensing, with appropriate limitations at each stage, starting at the technologist level and moving to senior level based on acquiring experience over time.

Date:  Mar 28, 2008
User: jmcginn24
Age: 28

you can't allow a person to not reapply this is someones career your talking about. Last time I checked failing is not an offence its a good learning experience.

Date:  Mar 28, 2008
User: slk123
Age: 30

too harsh. introduce a fee/fine to re-rejister.

Date:  Mar 28, 2008
User: Lesley
Age: 53

It's often a challenging environment/profession tied to the ecomomy, and very hard to prevent a possible layoff which would destroy everything you've worked so hard for!

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

There may be extenuating circumstances and re-application should be encouraged, with stipulations.

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

The ability to not reapply risk the loss of a lot of potential architects that need to be part of the OAA since the loss of the majority of the "baby boom" architects in the next 20 years.

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

see comments above...

Date:  Mar 30, 2008
User: Kristin S
Age: 30

I feel a time limit is a great way to motivate people but not allowing people to reapply may be a bit harsh. It could be made that in order to reapply you have to go through an interview process and explain the reasoning as to why you never completed and then start the process again from point 0.

Date:  Mar 30, 2008
User: Kris_B
Age: 28

With reference to question 7, I am opposed to the idea of preventing candidates from reapplying to become inters however, I think that a time limit is smart. Imposing a schedule, which if left to lapse, would mean that candidates would have to regain experieance, or retake exams they had already passed. I think this would be enough of a deterrent to some of the lazziness seen in recent years.

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

This is unnecessarily restrictive. I agree with a time limit but the process must remain open to reapplication, perhaps with a minimum wait time before reapplying built in.

Date:  Mar 31, 2008
User: holmwood
Age: 39

Should be able to reapply every 5 years, but may have to re-start process.

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

This is shooting ourselves in the collective feet. Perhaps a better solution would be to have a mandatory review of an intern's situation at regular time periods.

Date:  Apr 01, 2008
User: ddrussell
Age: 35

Thereb needs to be clarification on this process further - if there is an intern who has made progress with all IDP and is currently sitting for the ExAC exam, since this exam is only offered once each year, there is time lost there and also that in the IDP the hours generated wihtin the log book are not always considered valuabel - it takes a lot longer to get other hours available in many different firms - this is a reality for intern tryin to fullfill the log bok requirements - so this time frame will have to be reassessed.

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

I disagree, individuals must be allowed to reapply at lest once. They should be allowed to reapply twice as a special case consideration after an interview.

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

There should be a penalty for not finishing in the alloted time, but restriction from re-applying is unfair. People's lives are complicated, unexpected things happen and people cannot be excluded because of conditions they may not have had control over.

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

This sounds very unreasonable and does not help anyone.

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

This seems unneccessarily punitive and affects a persons livlihood and destroys a potentially life long investment. Does any other profession have this kind of restriction? This is a condition that is onerous for people who may want to take time to travel, care for a sick or dying loved one, raise a young family, persue an interesting tangent to the profession or train for the olympics! Do you really want a woman intern to feel forced to have an abortion in order to finish her internship? We need to embrace and accept a range of life opportunites and circumstances. This will bring needed diversity and care to the profession.

Date:  Apr 02, 2008
User: A Gaus
Age: 27

This is not an incentive for architects who have worked towards obtaining a license, but for unforseen circumstances cannot finish the program within this new limit. This would lead not only to a loss of interns, but also a loss of potential architects.

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

This is complete bullshit. If you limit this, unregistered architects will practice anyway.

Date:  Apr 04, 2008
User: dmesher
Age: 29

See #7. I am currently registered as an intern, working part-time, and raising a 2 year old. It would be totally unfair for women to be penalized for raising families during their internship and not be able to reapply once their kids are school aged.

Date:  Apr 04, 2008
User: intern
Age: 37

See comment above.

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

Harsh and unnecessary. Why not allow reapplication? I can understand the currency issue, so why not just make them rewrite all the exams, and/or refresh their experience log if that is the concern?

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

That is ridiculous.

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

this is harsh. To we really want to impose this restriction on our colleagues? Why not try to make the process more inclusive while recognizing the interns are working very hard on balancing work/life/exams instead of imposing meaningless deadlines? When taking the ARE's I would have loved to attend a seminar discussing technics on how to balance everything in my life, how to study effectively for each exam, etc.

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

Have people still not realized there aren't any benefits to being an Intern? The term 'Intern' is a status. It is only recognized by a few people and it is a term for people who are suppose to be 'in a process'. If you don't want to hold a license then just call yourself a designer and protect the designation of 'Architect'.

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

It will not serve the purpose. The people who don't want to complete are not going to pursue anyway, even after such limitations it is not going to encourage.

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

see above.

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

Internship offers some sort of conection to the profession without obliging a graduate to register and over-invest in an association and profession that offers litle reward. If architecture as a professional practice would approach medicine or law to some degree in promoting and supporting the goals of its members and structuring an acceptable means of income for the effort, then our self-respect would serve as better promotion. As it stands, Canadian design (buildings) are weak, client budgets towards respectable building designs (environmental, urban, design) are weak and OAA self-promotion doesn't help promote architecture as an equal to other (commercial) arts - eg. fashion, music, interior decorating, culinary.... yes I'm ranting!

Date:  Apr 09, 2008
User: wing nut
Age: 39

More crazy talk, So if I went and got an engineering degree after signing up to be an intern architect I could perhaps never become and intern and as such never become an architect beacuse I did not act fast enough? Wow, how to lose more depth of experience in the field in one easy step.

Date:  Apr 10, 2008
User: Nicole
Age: 22

If Intern can provide substantial reasoning as to why rpogram was not completed- i.e, medical condition etc. then the option to reapply will stand.

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

This may not actually help the lack of licensed architects, people may decide to take their skills elsewhere, it's a dangerous game.

Date:  Apr 11, 2008
User: jcirka
Age: 52

As above. What is the benefit of dictating a schedule to all of the diverse individuals who are working toward becoming architects (each in their own way)? Why loosen so many other restrictions only to introduce this draconian measure?

Date:  Apr 11, 2008
User: jlhr
Age: 27

Seems really harsh. There should be some process by which they can apply again later to complete the Intern process. There is no timelimit to complete the intern process but there also seems to be little added value to become a full architect. ie. there isn't necessarily a pay raise.

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

This completely fails to take into account individual's life circumstances; imagine an intern w/ young children who would like to become licensed eventually, but only when their life balance has changed. If there is to be a time limit, the ability to reapply must be a feature.

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

There has to be a provision to allow reapplication. What if someone drops out for legit reasons. Are they then banned for life?! Ludicrous!

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

Does this mean you only have 1 chance to becomne licensed?

Date:  Apr 13, 2008
User: parallax_ca
Age: 42

you will lose alot, and in fact fewer will even become an intern, yes they will be more committed but again, the whole issue of NON-ENTITIES >> MAKE ANOTHER "TYPE OF ARCHITECT" IE residential architect vs. part 3 >> maybe take a clue from the OBC

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

Individuals may come upon circumstances that do not allow them to complete the process in 5 years. If they are unfortunate circumstances - not being able to reapply for their intern status would just be another thing for them to worry about. Again, if a fee is being paid I don't see why it matters the length of time and individual holds and intern status.

Date:  Apr 14, 2008
User: toronto_intern
Age: 37

same as #7 above

Date:  Apr 14, 2008
User: Michelle
Age: 26

There IS currently loss of intern status if you stop paying the fees as far as my understanding goes. I think there should be positive incentive for interns to complete the process rather than penalties.

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

Is this internship survey an exercise in punishing interns? The first page talks about improving conditions for interns. So far, all of the burden seems to be placed on the interns themselves, rather than being part of improving the process.

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

Don't further alienate the interns. Bring them into the fold with structured classes or a program, but don't try and force them.

Date:  Apr 15, 2008
User: dc arch
Age: 30

Why punish interns further?

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

IN MY OFFICE I KNOW TWO INTERNS THAT THEY ENROLLED TO DO THEIR INTERNSHIP BUT STILL HAVEN'T STARTED YET ? AND ARE LOT YOUNGER THAN IAM

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

People who actually want to be Architects, make the time and energy. Unless for health reasons or something, maybe there could be exceptions.

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

We are talking here about a PROFESSION of a life time, for many of us. Long years of study, practice and exams should not loose their value. I strongly believe architecture is not a profession you forget if you don't practice it. Of course, time sensitive knowledge should be refreshed, but it can be done in a sensible way.

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

This should be limited to 1 reapply. If after the second attempt fails then no more chances. There should be a minimum wait period before reapply (such as 2 years)

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

Some interns may not readily be able to find time to pass the exams within a given time-frame with work/family pressures.

Date:  Apr 25, 2008
User: D. Watson
Age: 34

I like the idea of imposing some sort of mild penalty, but not being able to reapply is too harsh.

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

If time limits are placed on the Intern process, the format should be consistent with other professions which permit their candidates to repeat critical steps - such as exams. I believe that the CA exams can be taken 3 times. I see no risk to the profession by allowing a candidate to re-apply. I would suggest that experience accrued in a previous term can only count for 1/3 of the next term (or something to that effect) - and can only be carried forward by one term. Members of the 'industry' working in architectural practices who are not 'serious' (whatever that means) are not in the IAP at all. I don't think that the glut of interns that you note in the intro page has anything to do with seriousness. My primary focus is on the best professional work I can do (at work) and on my family (at home). I am, if nothing else, serious.

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

As long as individual can prove that he or she is actively involved in profession as employee or self employed there should be no time limit.

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

Adding punishment to what is already less than a motivating process is doubling the difficulties, and will turn many away from registration. Should allow for re-application -within a new process- (as the PEO) after the five year period.

Date:  May 02, 2008
User: cvriend
Age: 39

So if you don't get registered within this brand new arbitrary time limit, you never can? That seems ridiculous.

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

Again, I /strongly/ disagree with this solution. 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.

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

As per my number 7 answer. do the people who actually make these suggestions work in the architecture profession?? and work as interns? as well, not all interns work for big firms, some work for small firms and the time line and time limit can be unrealistic.

Date:  May 20, 2008
User: Lea W
Age: 39

Putting time limits on fulfilling the requirements will discourage more graduates and create more inequity.

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

This will encourage migration to more friendly professions and lend support to the perceived policy of exclussiveness.

Date:  May 30, 2008
User: F Ng
Age: 43

The 'speed' to maturity is both biological and intellectural. Putting a time frame or time limit is a 'reverse incentive' and prohibiting re-application is just outright bureaucratic!

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

There must be balance between weeding out those who are not serious about the profession, and legitimate time lapses due to extenuating circumstances.

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

Please not this one. Experience and efforts are not a perishable fruits. If one qualifies any time in his life so be it? Keep the qualification standards. Dont treat everything like a hockey. It is difficult enough already.

Date:  Jun 17, 2008
User: tinac
Age: 31

stupid self defeating idea

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

I agree that that there should be a time limit on the accreditation process, however, individuals should be able to reapply for Intern status. Everyone's life and circumstances are different. Encouraging and enabling people to complete their education are good things. Disabling people to complete their education is a bad thing.

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

You keep making things more difficult and stressful. The cost of living is rising and the economy is poor. How do you expect us to survive when we are pressured with this time frame. It is easy for you to dictate this, since you have already completed yours.

Date:  Aug 04, 2008
User: Michelle
Age: 28

allow them to loss status - but then be able to re-apply for a fee - some people have lots of family commitments and may find the 5year limit tough - they should not be kicked out completely

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

Interns should be able to reapply.

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

Ridiculous, So now we are going to penalize folks! we will not be able to enforce this - it will go to court and be overtuned as excessive

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

Interns should have UNLIMITED time to complete licensure requirements. The OAA should not be so greedy,as far as money is concerned and always think of pay your dues, your time is up, reapply, etc. The process is as frustrating as it is.

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

Way too restrictive! There has to be some other form of penalty: Make people pay more money to reapply? Redo some courses?

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

the time limit seems entirely arbitrary.