How Long from Intern to Architect?
Posted: December 18th, 2009 | Author: James P. Cramer | Filed under: Best Practices, Education, Professional practice, Publications, Strategy, Technology | Tags: accreditation, Add new tag, IDP, intern, licensure, NAAB, ncarb |Today’s guest blogger is Matthew Arnold, who has been examining the duration and success rates of the Intern Development Program.
How long does an architectural internship actually take?
Official estimates range between three and five years, but that didn’t seem to be the case for any of the interns I knew or for that matter, any that they knew. I couldn’t find any hard data published anywhere, so I sent an e-mail to each of the U.S. NCARB-member boards asking what they could tell me.
Three boards — New York, Nebraska, and Oregon — furnished hard data in response to my request. New York provided records for all 15,088 actively licensed architects there. Nebraska and Oregon provided data for the actively licensed architects who had taken and passed the exam in their states, 626 and 800 individuals, respectively.
I made graphs of what they sent me, which you can fine here along with explanatory notes:
http://www.stairwaytoarchitecture.com/images/NY_STATE_REPORT.pdf
http://www.stairwaytoarchitecture.com/images/Nebraska_Report.pdf
http://www.stairwaytoarchitecture.com/images/Oregon_Report.pdf
The data show that the average time elapsed between graduation and licensure for architects licensed in 2009 exceeds public estimates. In New York it was 11.06 years; in Nebraska 10.89 years; in Oregon 8.96 years.
So as best as I can determine, the answer to how long it takes to become a licensed architect is 9 to 11 years. It is a rare intern who finds this surprising.
The trends in the data are disturbing, in particular the percentages of licensed architects whose internship was 5 years or less, between 5 and 10 years, and over 10 years in New York, as shown in this graph:
In New York in 1980, about three out of four internships took less than 5 years; today this is true for less than 10 percent of aspiring architects in that state.
Before 1980 it was rare for an internship to extend a decade or more in New York, but in 2009 it has become the rule: Half of all internships last at least that long. The trends are similar in Nebraska and Oregon.
There are still some states (New York among them) that do not require an NAAB-accredited degree in order to sit for the exam. These states typically require an (ostensibly) longer period of internship in order to compensate. If the duration of average internship for those with NAAB-accredited degrees is indistinguishable from those without one, the question as to the benefit of the degree in this regard is not an unfair one to ask.
Are three states a sufficient sample to enable us to draw any conclusions?
I’m an architect, not a statistician, but I think it is. These charts depict the professional records of slightly more than 16 percent of all currently licensed architects in the United States — about 1 in 6 of us. New York, Nebraska, and Oregon are distinct in population, geography, and economic characteristics.
I welcome additional hard data on this subject and expect it to support rather than contradict what shows up in the statistics from these three states.
Most states appear to rely on NCARB to maintain these records and are unable to provide them. NCARB tells me it cannot provide any information beyond what is posted on its Web site.
Is such an attenuated internship — amounting to more than 20 percent of a typical career — in the best interests of our profession? Why the discrepancy between what is necessary and what is (apparently) sufficient? Is this system functioning as designed? If so, why isn’t it functioning as advertised? Should we make any changes? What should we change? Are we really doing our best in this regard? Can we in good conscience as a profession continue to create false expectations in students and young professionals about their careers? These are only a few of the questions that the facts compel us to ask and answer.
There are more charts and a nascent discussion on this issue at my Web site. I will be happy to provide the raw data at cost to anyone upon request, and you can perform your own analysis.
Early next year, I’ll be asking the architects who sit on our state boards to obtain an accounting on this subject from NCARB. It’s time to take the future seriously. At the very least, we owe the next generation some honesty.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by DesignIntelligence and Zach Evans, Kenneth Crutcher. Kenneth Crutcher said: RT @zdevans: RT @dinet: Architecture students deserve 2 know truth abt internship http://www.di.net/blog/2009/12/intern-to-architect #NCARB [...]
Did you ask the interns why it was taking so long? You could ask if they were motivated to make it happen quicker. It has been my experience that there isn’t the same “push” to get licensed as in the past. Getting licensed can actually bring “negative” ramifications or so I’ve heard over the years. Curious.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by zdevans: RT @dinet: Architecture students deserve to know truth about length of internship http://www.di.net/blog/2009/12/intern-to-architect #NCARB…
I can’t speak for every state, but in Illinois and Indiana, there’s no mystery as to when one can become an architect. Get an Architectural degree from an accredited school and work with an architect 3 years, documenting the experience via IDP.
With that, you qualify to take the exam, which has been made extremely more user friendly vs the time I took it over 4 days straight. Pass, you win. You can legally call yourself an Architect. Fail, you take whatever part you failed over again until you pass.
Students coming out of a tech school have a long road to go if they want to be an architect. Maybe they’re calling themselves interns, which would skew the numbers upward time-wise.
If intern is defined as someone who has the necessary degree, as you say, why do they wait so long? The graph is interesting if not alarming if this is the definition. However, if intern means something else (tech graduate, etc), then the graph is less interesting.
The graph above shows those with accredited degrees who are residents of NY State who hold an active license there. These are not charts of interns, they represent only those who have become licensed.
If you examine the NY report, you will see an increase in recent years of the number of licensed architects who qualified through experience in lieu of a formal education.
[...] at the DInet.blog with me to provide a summary of what I’ve found so far. You can see it at http://www.di.net/blog/2009/12/intern-to-architect/. If you’re coming here from there, welcome! Please post a comment or pipe in at the talk back [...]
As an architect living and working in China, I have met many young people from Western countries who are coming to China to gain experience. It means that I have had many opportunities to evaluate skills and knowledge of graduates of various schools of architecture from all parts of the world. I must say that it is hard to incorporate them into project teams because most of them lack basic practical knowledge. We have to teach them almost everything from scratch. I believe that the academia is becoming something like an “independent field” which is losing touch with the profession and this is the reason why graduates need more time to prepare for the licensing tests.
The other issue is the fact that the market is becoming quite saturated and less and less graduates are able to create their own companies. To pay for increasingly more expensive membership in professional associations does not make sense if one can practice under the umbrella of an already established firm.
One way or the other I am very interested in this issue and would like to continue in this discussion.
[...] recent article on the Design Intelligence blog (http://www.di.net/blog/2009/12/intern-to-architect/) analyzes historical data from Oregon, New York and Nebraska to show that the time it is taking [...]
Below are a few reasons, excerpted from a post at archifilter.com
1 - Intern Development Programs (IDP)
The 2008 article “Licensure and Time” from the AIA California Council posits IDP as part of the problem, noting that “In the 1990s, the time it took for a professional degree graduate to complete licensure requirements more than doubled.” Why would this be the effect of a program designed to assist interns in structuring a more complete internship? “…IDP placed additional requirements on interns to get specific work experiences that they were mostly powerless to ensure….”
2 - Computer-based exams
The move from a paper based exam to the multiple-choice ARE increased cost, while perhaps unintentionally reducing support from within firms. A comment from from an intern in the above article is revealing: “I think that architecture firms were more supportive of the time and other needs when 10 or 15 interns were taking the exam all together. Now it’s one here, one there, and it’s like the firm is doing you a favor.” Without a groundswell of camaraderie within a firm, interns are often left on their own to find the time and motivation to schedule exams.
3 - Limited Financial Incentive
In other professional fields like law, medicine, accounting, & engineering, there is a typically a substantial financial incentive to pursue and achieve licensure - salary increase, promotion, job title, increased public role within the firm. Depending on the company, the rewards in an architecture firm upon receiving one’s license may be small, if indeed they exist at all.
4 - Supplementary Exams (CA Orals)
In California, the CA Supplemental Exam is one additional barrier. The California Architect’s Board announcement that the exam is moving to a computer-based format (www.cab.ca.gov/pdf/publications/csefaq_newformat.pdf) recognizes that a multiple-choice “exam will be more defensible”, indicating that the current system is somewhat less so.
Indeed, criticism of the subjective nature of the oral format has long dogged the CAB, memorably in the editorial in the AIACC’s 07.04 “PreFABiana” issue of their quarterly publication, arcCA. After describing the exam as an opportunity to “haze the incoming generation”, the editorial concludes:
“What can the Supplemental Exam judge that a computer-administered test can’t? Well, it can judge whether you clean up nice, it can judge your hue, it can judge your gender. It can judge whether you sound intelligent…. It can judge how well you handle pressure, which is perhaps relevant to architectural practice but is hardly a criterion for licensure.
In other words, it’s a lawsuit waiting to happen, and it should be discontinued. Architecture school is hellish enough. We don’t need a belt line too.”
[...] How to become a licensed architect?, and the scary charts (click on the pdf’s) from Design Intelligence. So, with someone that probably has an even less clearer/sure path, how long will my architecture [...]
Since the 1989-1991 slowdown, much of our profession has not seen anything but an ever-increasing demand for architecture. Firms were often growing at a rate that made assimilation of the firm culture difficult. In addition, opportunities existed regardless of whether you were registered. Many shopped jobs for instant raises. We learn in college to be deadline driven. If there is no deadline, there is no completion of any task. I believe that until interns believe that becoming a registered architect really makes a difference is their promotions, opportunities, and salary structure, there will not be significant change in these numbers.
Having said that, I know a number of interns that have taken this economic slowdown to complete the ARE, because they thought that being registered differentiated them from their peers.
I’m a product of the recession in the early 1990’s, which is why my career got off to a slow start. I graduated in 1992 from Dalhousie U in Halifax, Canada, and it took over a year for me to find an architecture job. I got laid off in 1995 due to lack of work (continuing effects of the recession), then moved to Vancouver. I struggled to find work there for a year and a half during the bust that came after the Hong Kong investment boom. Moved back to the east coast, struggling again for a year before landing a job with an interior design firm. While that was a great experience and I learned a lot, the provincial architectural association would not allow me to continue accumulating time for my IDP logbook at a non-architectural office. So, in order to keep moving towards a license, I left a job that I loved and spent the next 2 years in short-term contract positions before finally moving to the US for a job with a large A/E firm, where I finally got licensed.
So, from 1992 until licensure in 2007 = 15 years of trying to get the “right” experience, getting through the exams, and dealing with life along the way. It wasn’t laziness, lack of motivation, or failure to understand the value of licensure. It was a number of factors, some of which were beyond my control and some which were my own doing:
- dealing with the economic climate where I was living;
- moving from city to city and starting over every couple of years;
- not being given the experience necessary to complete the IDP when I asked for it; and
- when I finally was employed F/T, I was working ridiculous hours which made studying more difficult.
Everyone has different circumstances to deal with. Having said that, I agree with some of the comments that employers are not providing incentives to push interns towards licensure. Unless it’s a small firm where licensed architects are more valued, in my opinion, being licensed is often irrelevant. In my last firm, I watched as unlicensed architects were promoted far above me on the corporate ladder, with no pressure on them to get licensed. There was also a really small salary increase that came with licensure - in my case, it was less than 5% of my annual salary.
This actually doesn’t suprise me if interns actually stick to the training areas. It has been my experience that some training areas are hard to fulfill in a 3 year period. When I have spoken to to other interns and architects on how they met the requirements for difficult areas they basically told me that they fudged their numbers. More people need to take a look at what it means to be a professional. Integrity anyone?
1. No $$ or title incentive
2. Studying for a “memorization exam” that has not much to do with what you do everyday at your job that has 7 parts on a computer with a drawing program that no one uses in the practice.
3. Dealing with NCARB is a nightmare, poorest customer service (example: lose records, don’t answer phone) and they carry no consequences for screwing up your file or not getting back to you.
4. NCARB’s exorbitant fees for “keeping your record”
5. People end up fudging their “internship hours” because the documentation is ridiculous
Seriously “NCARB Stinks”?
1. Pay is higher for an “architect,” is that not an incentive?
2. How else do you propose to test thousands of people on issues of life safety and design. If you don’t deal with those issues everyday with your job, you shouldn’t be qualified to be an architect.
3. The process is so streamlined now it is similar to AIA and USGBC.
4. The fees are like $180 for 3 years and $90 a year after that. Most firms will pay these costs anyways.
5. Documentation is the easiest things I have ever done. I fill it out along with my timecard after work. Reporting it is simpler now too with online reporting. If you are trying to pull together 3 years of work together to report all at once, yeah that can be difficult as expected, nearly impossible if you are being honest about every hour.
I agree that I don’t agree with all of the training areas, but does that mean you can just be dishonest.
Sounds like somebody has lied on their reporting and can’t past any tests. Gee, I wonder why. The purpose of NCARB is to make competent professionals and not just a set of hoops to hobble over.
In Texas the licensing board (TBAE) examined the IDP timing and created a path to take the ARE while working on one’s IDP. Thus, people are encouraged to seek the goal that is no longer 9-11 years out there. It’s now a reasonable task, and the questions asked of interns taking the exam early are not “dumbed down” for the early-takers. If you are prepared you will pass; if not, you will be forced to take that section again. The three E’s — education, experience, and exam — remain in place, but now the latter two overlap if one chooses to follow that route. But ALL THREE must be completed prior to receiving a license! We are losing too many good graduates who ask, “Why should I want a license?” This carrot-on-a-stick seems to be working here, and NCARB is now beginning to accept this approach. And yes, NCARB is not service-friendly. I will say no more on that subject.
I’m not shocked to see these figures. I came out of school with high expectations, worked between my accredited degrees to get a head start on IDP, and after grad school landed a job quickly in a state where I could begin testing concurrently with finishing my IDP. I was on a mission, ready to be an architect and have it done in as short a time period as possible.
Then I got into the office, and while I’m able to work on great projects and get all the different experiences needed to complete IDP (and have done so) and the firm is supportive and putting together a task force to help those of us young designers get licensed, the fact of the matter is there is zero incentive to do so other than pride, and the possibility years down the line that you could be considered for an associate or principal position. Even at this great nationwide firm that I have a lot of respect for and am glad to be a part of, there is no bonus, no raise, no status incentive to complete your license. People can work on the same great projects, and are given assignments based on their experience and expertise, irrelevant of licensure. Only the studio head signs drawings as well, none of the other licensed architects even take legal responsibility.
It sort of took the wind out of my sales that the most I’ll get is a pat on the back for all those years of hard work, and in my day to day life nothing changes.
I’m currently trying to work up the motivation to invest the time in studying that I could be using towards other income earning opportunities, and to begin the ARE 4.0 process, since I’m now done with IDP. I’ll do it for myself, and the title, but it’s really disheartening that after all that work there’s not a status change upon reaching a professional level, such as there would be in law or medicine.
I was astounded when I saw these figures. An incoming college freshman has about 12 years of education behind them. Do they know they are not even half-way (on average) to their license?
I found the statistics on NY state interesting - Is this indicative of the extraordinarily poor educational system for architects? In my practice, I find it shocking how little recent grads (even now with a required Master’s degree) know about architecture or construction. The people in academia need to consider that Architecture is a profession and should be taught in a similar manner as medicine or law.
It took me 4 years from my first IDP hour to my last exam being passed.
It has to do with the individual, not the system. We tend to get comfortable in our jobs and not push our own personal agendas. We work in a very demanding profession, and it takes an additional dosage of discipline to make it happen.
I have somehow become an old guy (in age, but not mind or body…yet). My partners and I grew my firm from 3 to 200 by the time I semi-retired a couple of years ago. I did a lot of hiring and mentoring over those years and observed the varying motivations of younger generations.
My sense is that there has been significant change in how graduates view the value of their degree and the privilege of professional licensure – not a change I understand, and not necessarily a change for the good – or maybe the Internet just gives naysayers a louder voice.
Upon graduation, my goals were to pass the ARE on the first taking (thus the only one, or one of the few, to do so in Iowa) and to become the youngest to do so. I was able to meet those goals (skin of my teeth on Structures, though). I took the 4-day, 7-part paper exam (with a 12 hour design exam) with my leg propped up on a chair due to a nasty, painful boil (the stress of it all). This was 40 months after graduation.
I DID NOT have the benefit of IDP, which did not yet exist but would have improved my early abilities. I DID NOT have the benefit of being able to take the A.R.E. immediately upon graduation, something I have long advocated. I DID NOT have the benefit of the AIA/NCARB Emerging Professional’s Companion, which looks to be an incredibly helpful resource. However, I DID have the benefit of great mentoring and support from my first employer (Charles Herbert & Associates, later Herbert Lewis Kruse Blunck, 2001 AIA Firm of the Year).
Interns of today benefit from a great many tools provided by AIA and NCARB to get the job done, but you have to want the achievement. Failing to timely pursue licensure is not AIA’s fault. It is not NCARB’s fault. You are the driver of your own ship. Set your goals and pursue with discipline.
Life has been my biggest battle in completing my ARE. Not to mention fighting with my first employer to get the necessary experience to satisfy the IDP requirements. I had to change employers to satisfy IDP. And not to mention the 9 month delay from NCARB from the time I submitted my last IDP report until I received my authorization to test.
However I have also seen very little support or motivation from firms to get their younger professionals registered. An old co-worker of mine received his license and it was never even mentioned by the firm owner in an office of 7. Another big strike against the system is the cost of the exam has increased again. And for me I can not stand sitting in the testing center for these longer exams.
And speaking of the exams. Has anyone seen the latest NCARB report for the new passing rates for the new exam? Passing rates for all exams has significantly dropped.
As I read these comments, I am helping our daughter to select a college with the hopes of being an architect. Several of you have mentioned that the recent grads employed by you did not have enough practical training.
She has been admitted into these five colleges - do you have any recommendations? (We have purchased and read the DI Best Schools 2009 and 2010 reports.) Your feedback would be helpful.
Virginia Tech, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, Penn State, Tulane University and LSU.
These schools are tier one schools. Each has strong architecture programs that have been recognized by professional practices as being among the best. I have been on each campus and as you would expect, they are quite different — but all good. As your daughter walks the campus and talks with students and faculty she will come to narrow this down to a couple programs. I doubt she will be disappointed with her choice.
I am 35 and have been working basically as a CAD Designer for about 10 years now. It has been moderately lucrative until the recent economic depression let go about 30% or more of most firm’s staff. Today finding an architecture job seems very difficult.
I have the unfortunate curse of a bachelors in fine art (which I obtained with a passion for sculpture thinking architecture an sculpture were closely inter-twinned, boy was I wrong). I have always wanted to go back to school, preferably to one which offers a 3 year M. Arch degree, but I live in Portland and that type of degree is only offered in Eugene (a far away place I do not want to live). Thus it means I would have to sell my house and move to another city to really do so. Also the thought of having yet another ‘conceptual’ type degree in a field saturated with talent is not appealling. I have come across NCARB graduates that in my opinion don’t know a thing about construction; so basically I only see grad school as a way to develop a (an even larger) portfolio and qualify to take the ARE. Although I want the degree, and am willing to go back to school; opportunity to do so is limited.
In addition to an NCARB degree (3-3.5 years), the IDP requirement (3 years, or realistically…9, if I can find a job), the ARE exam (multiple years of prep) and…
I would also likely need
LEED GA certification (1 year), and probably the additional speciality qualification of New Construction (additional year) to land a job.
Not to mention the fact that that I would need even more cross over training in the industry’s switch from AutoCAD to REVIT
and possibly a CDT or the CSI certification too. The thought of being a 40 something intern with no end to education in sight is depressing. Plus who is going to pay for all this schooling (I’ve got a mortgage)?
It is no wonder so many buildings are dull and uninspired. I would rather spend 10 years designing in the real world, than spend 10 years in education hell. The current system rewards test takers, and while that might be good from a public safety standpoint, I don’t think it’s good for people wanting to learn how to make better buildings. There needs to be a valid system people where people can learn from home, or through a community college and gain credentials as they go. Plus there needs to be financial incentive.
ME Roth — The New School in San Diego and the Boston Architectural College both offer masters programs that involve small amounts of time on campus. There are people living in Anchorage Alaska enrolled at BAC.
ME Roth - If you are living in Portland currently, you do actually have a few options. Portland State University recently began an accredited 2-year master’s program, although since your undergraduate degree is not in architecture, you may have to do 3-years. They may look favorably on your experience in the field however. UO also has a satellite campus in Portland which offers a master’s degree.
Lastly, not all states require a NAAB accredited degree (including Washington state). Given your experience in architecture, this might also prove to be a valuable option for you.
Best of luck. You should be commended for taking this step in your professional journey.
Thank you for the feedback.
RE: The New School in San Diego and the Boston Architectural College, I’ll look into them, I don’t know much about either program.
RE: Portland/Oregon
I have looked into both PSU and U of O’s programs. PSU has said they would require me to obtain a 4 year Bachelors prior to entering their M. Arch program (which seems like more money and less clout), and last I heard U of O only allows undergraduates with an architectural degree or 3rd year M Arch students to take classes in Portland.
i am 3 yrs 1 month into my internship with all of the requirements satisfied save one exam, which i will be writing in the next month or so. the requirements are rigorous and it has meant quite a bit of sacrifice and i still feel like i am in school, plus contending with a min. (and more often than not) 8 hr hour work day. while it has been difficult, what i find most disconcerting is the lack of effort being invested by the generations ahead of me in mentoring junior staff members. i have had to fight tooth and nail to get out on site, be involved in construction admin & the tendering process. basically anything that takes me away from my desk and being a revit monkey. granted i know that i was hired as a drafter. but still. someone took the time to mentor my bosses and they are not willing to pay it forward. not all of us youngins’ are lazy or have a false sense of entitlement. i just want someone to take a few extra seconds to explain or tell an anecdotal story about their experience with the particular issue at hand.
Going through IDP ,taking the ARE,s and eventually becoming licensed is a difficult and long process.The prize however is being able to call yourself an Architect.It is priceless and this should be the motivation for all interns . I came from a foreign country and my aim right after getting my masters was to get licensed.AIA or RA after my name is a big deal and nothing was going to stop me from achieving this so called unimaginable feat.IDP in my opinion gives you a good base for practice and only a start to a solid understanding of what it is to be an architect.Find a way of getting the most out of IDP.Discussions with your boss,giving up your weekends to help other project teams,taking the initiative to do work out of your job description and so forth ,all help in finishing this process satisfactorily.My advise is to use whatever you have to finish this process(IDP and ARE).I would not say it makes you a good architect but it makes you aware of your responsibilities as an architect.I finally became an licensed in 2010 ,4 yrs after grad school.I did it because I truly and really wanted to become an architeect.
I am 26, just shy of three years of experience since graduation, all of IDP is complete (with the exception of the paperwork) and my first exam is Thursday. It can be done. It takes desire and will, not excuses. If a person wants it bad enough, they will pursue it regardless of the existent or non-existent benefits thereof. I do think that the generation of firm leadership in place today is far less supportive of young candidates pursuing licensure than the generations before. I don’t know why, but I get the sense that today’s leadership feels that helping the younger guys out is ‘training their replacement’. Unfortunately, this attitude is only hurting our profession.
Except paperwork?The six month rule takes effect from july 1.Just make sure all paperwork is completed by then.
Not to change the topic but, you can get a bachelors in engineering - mechanical, electrical, manufacturing etc. in four years. You can expect to start with little or no experience at 45-55K and expect 60-70k in a few years. You will at least in Texas immediately be eligible to take the test to be a professional engineer with just a bachelors. The test is rightfully very hard, and generally takes a while to pass. I am not saying that being an Engineer is easy, neither is getting the degree. And the longer term career plateaus more than Architecture. But Engineers get paid more for a reason, the work they do is very valuable in many areas and many industries. My fiancé’ got a math degree, got a job working as an engineer and three years later with no license makes twice what I was making with a four year b.s. Architecture working in Dallas.
Why I decided after two good years of engineering school to get an Architecture degree I will never know. (something about having a rewarding career I believe) Man was I wrong. I worked for 2 years in Dallas got laid off, now I’m in graduate school in Los Angeles going into dept. I love Architecture that’s why I am here but I am not so sure about it as a career path. I’m here (grad school) because it is very important to have a decent career in this field and in Dallas the same was true of having and being on the road to a license. With the new rules, my unorganized records and the almost complete lack of incentive to be licensed in this market I may never become a licensed Architect. This is a hard industry for a good reason. There are many people capable of designing an adequate building, and most people want (can afford) just that. Granted, good Architecture takes time, skill and talent but most new construction is not good Architecture and does not even have an Architect. Plus I am always surprised just how many good designers and Architects there are out there.
From the little I know about the licensing process in engineering it is blatantly obvious to me that our current system is largely in place to limit the number of people in the field. They make getting licensed harder, less people become licensed. The rest that do, and have it already are in a smaller pool. This is a normal human thing to do, and is even sub conscious for many. If we let everybody in then the name will not mean anything. I think the only thing that we should be required to do to become licensed is to pass life safety related tests. After that no organization should police who can practice. I don’t believe in letting myself through the door and locking it behind me. A simple analogy to what’s going on.
[...] recent article on the Design Intelligence blog (http://www.di.net/blog/2009/12/intern-to-architect/) analyzes historical data from Oregon, New York and Nebraska to show that the time it is taking [...]