Criticism of architectural internship, spun of anecdotes and 'solutions' to the process' flaws, often includes phrases like '...more and more', or 'lately', or 'this day and age'. What could be less contemporary than the shortcomings of internship, or of the Intern Development Program? Since IDP's early development in 1969, bright, capable individuals in this profession have questioned its billing as the model utility by which architectural internship should be catalogued and measured. Not at all surprising is the fact that those same people have since been writing articles, publishing papers and waxing alternative with those who would listen. Let us pretend for a moment that we've been listening all along.

What ever was so wrong with the model of internship used in the days before IDP? Were the old days of apprenticeships and personal mentoring so fatefully flawed that this profession produced technically incompetent renegades, hell-bent on sacrificing public health, safety and welfare? If so, I haven't met one of these buccaneers of architecture. Would I promote or participate in an Ebenezer Scrooge - Bob Cratchit model of internship? A coal to warm the bones, sir? 'I don't think so!' But is a standardized model for this relationship the responsible party for progress in the treatment of interns? 'No.' Without standards, would this type of relationship be more widespread? 'Perhaps.'

We are reminded in Building Community: A New Future for Architecture Education and Practice that "...standards without standardization..." [can be] "...a framework of common expectations for students in all programs, but one which also affirms the diversity so vital to the well-being of the profession." I would hope the authors wouldn't find it too much a stretch to suggest the same would apply to a young practitioner.

The utility is flawed. The aforementioned framework doesn't exist, but rather a non-malleable box. And perhaps that is stifling growth, interest and professional progress for young designers in the profession. Perhaps we need to massage, shift, alter, mold the system. But more likely, we need to establish the values and standards most dear to our profession and trust the teachers to teach, in and out of the classroom. Diversity in methods, knowledge and process have been a strong suit of architectural education and ought to be for the professional development of an architect.

We belong not to a trade but a profession, we rely not on training so much as creative process. In this, we are unique. For once, let us act like it, and not fall into the painful cycle of iterative comparisons with other professions. It demeans our own education and confuses the unique processes by which each is educated for their specific societal and professional responsibilities. For once, let us value our profession by valuing our education. Let us recognize the rigor and process that will serve us, not only in the practice of architecture but in nearly any corner of life, by recognizing an examined and affirmed designer, with degree in hand, as an Architect; a citizen; a servant and a leader by nature and by statute.

IDP was a great experiment. I look forward to what's next.