For the majority of the last two thousand years, the architecture profession didn’t exist. The job description of the master builder included architecture, construction, and engineering across all scales and building types. However, within the last two hundred years, the modern
industrial age has ushered in an unprecedented specialization affecting every profession, including those concerned with the built environment. The fragmentation of the building industry began as broadly as the distinction between architect and engineer. Today, the sheer volume of firms has exploded, each claiming a tiny niche in the market.

Until 1977, the only required education for the young architect was a grassroots system of apprenticeship. However, the staggering growth of the profession in the modern age has led to the need for a common, standardized education consisting of two parts. First, the university education teaches design by exposing students to various building scales and types. Second, the completion of IDP while working for a “typical” architecture firm ensures a standard knowledge base encompassing the entire construction process. Thus, at the core of IDP is the definition of the “typical” architecture firm as one that is actively engaged in all aspects of the construction process.

As the building industry becomes further specialized, the sequence of the construction process is becoming fractioned. For example, some master planning firms don’t build anything. Conversely, many production-oriented firms spend ninety percent of their time preparing
construction documents and administering construction. IDP should acknowledge that the modern intern must often work at a variety of firms in order to obtain exposure to the entire process of construction.

IDP should adopt an “exchange program” to facilitate the nomadic situation of the modern intern. This program would ideally accomplish three important functions lacking in the current education system. First, interns would have a more fluid transition from the broadly based architecture school programs to the highly specialized world of practice. An accepted standard practice of “trying-on” different niches of the profession would alleviate some of the stress associated with initial employment choices. Second, the program would allow interns to
understand the IDP consequences of working at different firms by establishing a catalogued system. This system would be organized according to the kinds of credits available at a chosen firm. Third, a controlled exposure to firms doing different kinds of work would help produce more well-rounded, stronger designers.

In order for the good intentions of the current IDP system to be realistic in the future, it must enable interns to move among firms with relative ease. One way of accomplishing this is to organize an “exchange program” within the profession. At worst, this exchange program would help catalogue and classify firms according to IDP credit requirements, vastly improving the ease with which interns can complete IDP. At best, a new generation of architects would be educated within a broader understanding of good design, equipping them with the means to reunite the profession by transcending traditional notions of scale and type.