Student speaks out against NCIDQ, interior design licensing

Student Exposes Truth About NCIDQ Exam and Licensing

This is probably the best post we’ve ever received.  It just came in as a reply to an article I posted (http://idpcinfo.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/patti-morrow-students-should-not-be-forced-to-support-licensing/) a couple of years ago, but I can’t take the chance of it getting buried — EVERYONE needs to read this, especially the ASID/NCIDQ/CIDA Cartel.  It proves EXACTLY what we’ve been saying!:

“You’re 100% right – there are not enough experienced designers out there who are giving the newbies a chance to “sit” and those that do give this opportunity, are usually cruel and unjust, not to mention they rarely follow the apprenticeship guidelines. (uuhhh, like give us the chance to get our feet wet by letting us do the tough stuff).

As for the NCIDQ exam – talk about raping someone of money! OMG. I think I’ve spent a total of $2,000 at this point. The questions they ask require so much analysis it’s no wonder 50% fail it multiple times. I keep running out of time analyzing them. Because the reality is – Not every interior design firm operates EXACTLY how the NCIDQ council “claims” is the “official” way of the entire industry. For instance, I “sat” under Architects, and their system was fairly different than the NCIDQ’s. So I had to buy all kinds of books and reprogram myself, but when I would read a question on the test, there were moments when I would have to recall my real life experience and compare it to the NCIDQ books. WHOOPS. Times up! You fail! Example: What’s considered a part of the “Schematic Design” phase is often times very subjective.

And what’s up with the NCIDQ judges who judge Part 3? They probably have to fail half the people b/c this is how they make their money. Designing what normally would take at least a week, in three hours? SO lame. Even more lame was how they threw in a huge ADA factor – my client was in a wheelchair and he wanted a classroom designed for photography students which had to include a darkroom and this was directly adjacent to the office space we had to design. What the heck? Honestly, most of my studying for the test was on what system to use so that I could finish it on time. I hate the NCIDQ council AND their ridiculous exam. It needs to die! I spent over $60,000 to get a BFA in ID, spent over two years working 60 hours a week for $30,000 a year for architects who lorded over me b/c they didn’t take interior designers seriously, had to move back to my parents to pay my school loans, then got laid off b/c of the sucky economy right before taking the exam, only to fail it. Ironic that I failed too considering I gave the Architects I worked for a run for their money. I know I’m skilled. I LOVE interior design with a heartfelt passion. Yet honestly, I have no choice but to give up at this point. There are no jobs and if there are jobs, it’s almost impossible to find them. And if one does find one, the job probably requires the 3d software they DIDN’T learn in college not the one they DID learn. Speaking of which, there is always a new version of the software coming out and I can’t afford  it and I’m not into stealing copies. So, I think the decade I’ve invested into the field of interior design has been enough. Sadly my college, although one of the best, operated much like the NCIDQ council and they have been no help to me. Really, really sucks. Goodbye Interior Design. Hello – reception job? Oh it gets better. Now people won’t hire me b/c they think all I can do is interior design and they don’t really understand what the field is about. Even after I explain  all the transferable skills there are between project management and office administration. It’s just SO sad. All of it.

This includes you Harrington College of Design. What a bunch of liars. Money hungry thieves who get 22 year old kids to the point where they are so broke (b/c they have no time by jr./sr. year to even think about a job but are most likely slaving away at their full time internship for free) that they have to take out personal loans with 15+% interest rates! Little do they know that when they graduate, they are screwed. Not exactly easy to pay off and get ahead when it’s hard to even get paid $25,000 a year as an entry level designer. 

Sorry, but someone had to say it.

Signed. . . “Frustrated”

Reversing the Indoctrination of Interior Design Students

ATTENTION STUDENTS!

On September 15th, the IDLNY conducted a pro-legislation meeting.  While very little input from those opposing their agenda to expand the current title act was allowed into the forum, subsequent to the meeting, a very interesting email debate ensued between Patti Morrow, founder and director of the Interior Design Protection Council and Chris Cyphers, Ph.D.  and president of the NY School of Interior Design.

That unedited exchange can be found here.

Students — it is important that you take the initiative to educate yourself as to both sides of this important issue.  You are being indoctrinated with ONE SIDE — by teachers who desire to impose their own political agenda.   In order to make an informed decision about your future rights and livelihood, you need to know the FACTS.

To read about IDPC’s exposing of student coersion at the Art Institute of Pittsurgh and Florida State University, click here: http://www.idpcinfo.org/Students.html

For more information, please visit the IDPC website, where you will find the most comprehensive collection of truthful and factual information on this issue available anywhere:  http://www.idpcinfo.org/

Patti Morrow, Director

“Three E’s” Myth of the Interior Design Cartel by Patti Morrow

How the Cartel Uses Their Own Self-Annointed Version of the “Three E’s” to Exclude Fair and Qualified Competition

Proponents of the interior design regulatory scheme (a.k.a. “the Cartel)[1] have long advocated a single entry method into interior design under the guise of protecting the health, safety and welfare of the public.  Their self-anointed standards are known as their “Three E’s” – Education, Experience, and Examination.

Education, experience and examination – individually or jointly – can and should be used to attain a higher level of proficiency as well as used to gain a better marketing position.  But the so-called “Three E’s” should not be used to stifle fair competition.

For more than 30 years, cartel members have worked furiously, spending over $7 million dollars lobbying to establish their own self-interested qualifications as the minimum standard for the practice of interior design.  Their definition is based on their own limited view of minimum competency, but in reality, the closest description we have to an “industry standard” definition is taken from the Department of Commerce, emphasizing the nature of the work.[2]

Despite 30 years of lobbying, ASID and its allies have failed to produce any evidence that interior design work impacts or jeopardizes public safety, thus negating the need for creating a regulatory scheme for their Three E’s.

Until 2006, the Cartel had a measured amount of success in defining interior design.  Although its attempts to get practice acts adopted – which is their true goal – almost always failed, 21 states have fallen victim to their incremental regulatory scheme by adopting titling laws.  The recently established and growing effort to resist and repeal regulation (a.k.a. “the Freedom Movement”) has rejected the Cartel’s doctrine which is wholly based on conjecture, rhetoric, opinion, scare tactics, and other misinformation, and has defeated over 100 individual pieces of legislation that would have expanded or enacted new regulations across the country – and not a single new title or practice act has passed since 2006.

Are aspirations to higher education, gaining hands-on work experience, and achieving (private) certification wrong?  Absolutely not.  Those are all valid ways to enter the profession, either together or separately.  What is totally unacceptable is the government’s mandating a single entry method as the only way to practice.  Creating such a monopoly is antithetical both to the basic spirit of creativity that characterizes the practice of interior design and to the notion of free markets and consumer choices. As attorney Robert Kry explained in a friend-of-the-court brief he wrote for IDPC in a challenge to Florida’s interior design law,

“What separates the truly great designers from the mediocre is artistic vision, not a superior ability to place air conditioning units where they will not obstruct wheelchair access.”[3]

 

In order to continue to effectively beat back the Cartel’s mission to monopolize the entire industry, grassroots activists need to be aware of the Three E’s, and be armed with factual information to rebut them.

This paper documents the positions falsely portrayed by the Cartel as standard, but proven by the Freedom Movement as merely optional.

Click here to read entire white paper Three E’s Myths of the Cartel”: http://www.idpcinfo.org/THREE_E_s.pdf

---

[1] American Society of Interior Designers, National Council for Interior Design Qualification, Council for Interior Design Accreditation, and International Interior Design Association

[2] Designed to Mislead, Dick Carpenter Ph.D., Institute for Justice, http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/designedtomislead.pdf

[3] IDPC Amicus Brief in Locke vs. Shore, No. 10-11052EE (11th Cir). 2010 available at http://www.idpcinfo.org/Amicus_Brief_of_Interior_Design_Protection_Council_.pdf  

Patti Morrow Exec. Dir.

Patti Morrow-IDPC lists opposition to interior design legislation & regulation

Organizations Opposed to Interior Design Regulation  

Academy of Staging and Redesign (www.decorate-redecorate.com) 

Allied Board of Trade, NY

American Institute of Architects (www.aia.org)

American Lighting Association (www.americanlightingassoc.com)

Association of Design Education (www.associationofdesigneducation.com)

Association of Independent Colleges of Art and Design (www.aicad.org) 

Association of Interior Design Professionals (www.aidponline.com)

Becoming Green, Inc. (www.BecomingGreenInc.com)

Decorators Alliance of North America (www.decoratorsalliance.org)

Designer Society of America (www.dsasociety.com)

Foodservice Equipment Distributors Association (www.feda.com)

Foodservice Consultants Society International (www.fcsi.org)

Interior Design Protection Council (www.idpcinfo.org)

Interior Design Society (www.interiordesignsociety.org)

Interior Redesign Industry Specialists (www.weredesignandstage.com) 

Interiors by Decorating Den (www.decoratingden.com)

The Institute for Justice (www.ij.org ) 

National Association of Schools of Art and Design (www.nasad.arts-accredit.org) 

National Association of Home Builders (www.nahb.org)

National Association of the Remodeling Industry (www.nari.org)

National Council for Architectural Registration Board (www.ncarb.org)

National Federation of Independent Businesses (www.nfib.com) 

National Home Furnishings Association (www.nhfa.org)

National Kitchen and Bath Association (www.nkba.org)

North American Association of Food Equipment (www.nafem.org)

Office Furniture Dealers Alliance (www.iopfda.org)

Real Estate Staging Association (www.realestatestagingassociation.com)

School of Interior Redesign (www.schoolofinteriorredesign.com)

The only organizations actively advocating regulation of the industry are ASID and IIDA.  Passively supporting are NCIDQ and CIDA — both founded by ASID in the 1970′s, hence the group’s title, “the cartel.”

Patti Morrow, Executive Director

Patti Morrow: Student coercion swept under the [designer] rug

AIP officials sweep interior design coercion under the [designer] rug.

In a letter responding to multiple requests from the Interior Design Protection Council (IDPC) requesting action on an inappropriate assignment, the Art Institute of Pittsburgh (AIP) has indicated that they consider the matter resolved and are not open to further discussion.

At issue is instructor Laura Musulin’s extra credit assignment entitled “IDLCPA Support” in which she offered to award students 20 extra points if they provided proof that they’d lobbied legislators to support Pennsylvania HB 1521, a bill to license interior designers that is currently before the House.  “It is totally unethical for a teacher to use such heavy-handed intimidation to influence impressionable students into supporting their own personal political agenda, in this case to support licensure proposed by the Interior Design Legislative Coalition of Pennsylvania on whose board Musulin sits.” said Patti Morrow, executive director of IDPC, “especially since no alternatives were offered, nor any information provided on the negative implication such legislation could have.” 

Patti Morrow

Morrow, who first broke the story on June 11th, has made repeated attempts to persuade AIP administration that swift and corrective action to educate students about the improper assignment should be initiated by the school.  Under pressure from Morrow and others, AIP President George Pry finally admitted the “nature of the extra-credit assignment offered is inappropriate,” but according to students, not a word on this issue has been mentioned to them.  “It is of paramount importance that these students be issued an apology and an explanation of exactly why Ms. Musulin’s actions were inappropriate,” added Morrow.

Public reaction has been nothing short of outrage.  “This represents a gross perversion of the education system, the students’ grading process, and general tenets of intellectual freedom,” commented Bill Barrett, executive director of the Association of Independent Colleges of Art and Design.  “Whether you support or oppose such legislation, no one should be using students’ grades to generate support for a proposed law. Students should be encouraged to investigate the issue from all sides and make up their own minds. In this case, they were not. They were bribed.”

Kelly Spewock, AIP Interior Design Department Chair, initially responded to the complaint, stating, “Students had the opportunity to research and evaluate opposing views.”  However, according to Johnny Matia, a student in Musulin’s class, that assignment was only offered a week after the controversy exploded, and was never formally announced by Musulin, but just quietly posted on the school’s student server a few days before the semester ended.  “At the very least, this certainly gives the appearance of a cover-up,” claimed Morrow.

President Pry contends that the matter has been “sufficiently investigated, addressed and resolved.”  Morrow disagrees.  “Since the students have not been addressed, and until such time as they are made aware of Ms. Musulin’s impropriety, the matter is most definitely not resolved.”

A request has been made for Barrett and Morrow to jointly address AIP students on October 14^th.  To-date, AIP has not responded. 

“We’ve known for a while that student indoctrination was occurring,” added Morrow.  “We are just beginning to see how blatant and widespread it is, and we are considering launching a major nationwide investigation.  This could prove to be the proverbial Pandora’s box of interior design regulation.” 

IDPC Letter to AIP 06-15-09: http://www.idpcinfo.org/IDPC_to_Pry-AIP_061509.pdf

IDPC Letter to AIP 06-17-09: http://www.idpcinfo.org/IDPC_to_Pry-Spewock_061709.pdf

IDPC Letter to AIP 06-19-09: http://www.idpcinfo.org/IDPC_to_Pry-Spewock_061909.pdf 

AIP Unethical Assignment: http://www.idpcinfo.org/AIP_Extra_Credit.pdf

Patti Morrow responds to AIP denial of heavy-handed influence

Thank you, Ms. Spewock, for your response (comment #10 posted with original article below) to the article “Coercion at a CIDA College”, clarifying that the Art Institute of Pittsburgh has not taken a position to support the latest proposed practice act in Pennsylvania and your commitment to informing students how to research so that they will be equipped to make informed decisions about important issues impacting their futures.  On that we agree. 

However, it is clear that Ms. Musulin went far beyond inviting students to research this issue, and clearly did not adhere to your policy that “all extra-credit options are presented with equal consideration.”  Her extra credit assignment (click on this link to read:  http://www.idpcinfo.org/AIP_Extra_Credit.pdf ) only offers the 20 additional points to those students who undertake lobbying in support of legislation.  In fact, the assignment is actually entitled “IDLCPA SUPPORT.” (emphasis added).  Nowhere on this assignment is there an opportunity to “research and evaluate opposing views” and according to the student in question, when Ms. Musulin was approached and asked for that opportunity, it was denied.  It is absolutely unethical to use this kind of intimidation and heavy-handed influence to push her personal political agenda! 

I understand that subsequent to the publishing of our article, the concerned student has received an assignment to receive extra credit points.  Kindly provide the nature of the assignment, and whether or not the rest of the class also received an “equal opportunity” to do this assignment.  If this assignment was given only to the concerned student in a surreptitious manner, it would certainly give the appearance of impropriety – that of bribing his silence, which I’m sure you would not condone.  Unfortunately, under-the-radar techniques are the hallmark of the pro-regulation camp, and as the overseer of vulnerable students, you would obviously want to shield them from such tactics.

In addition, it is one thing for impressionable students to hear the facts about licensing (provided both sides are presented); it is totally another thing for them to be force-fed baseless propaganda.  The introductory section on the assignment in question contains the following inappropriate and blatantly false statements:

• The bill now has a number and needs to move quickly through the House.  It is inappropriate to imply to students that a fair legislative procedure involves “shoving” a bill through the process.  Declaring it has to “move quickly” implies a deceptive practice whereby the other side will not have equal access to a fair hearing or due process.  Is that how we want our students to be first introduced to the legislature?  I think not.
•  Only a registered design professional” may implement the IBC code.  This statement is absolutely false.  Again, students should hear the facts, not counterfeit propaganda.  Since Ms. Musulin is a board member of IDLCPA, she should certainly be aware that IDPC has written extensively on this issue, providing the actual language of the IBC, which contradicts Ms. Musulin’s and IDLCPA’s statements.  If Ms. Musulin wishes to cling to false information, that is her right, but allowing misinformation to be presented as fact certainly does not “present students with a clear understanding of the issue” in compliance with AIP’s mission. Click here for accurate information about the IBC: http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs060/1102107213116/archive/1102303468639.html

Diametrically opposed to your statement of AIP’s position, Ms. Musulin DOES “wish to influence its students toward a particular “side” of the issue.” Manipulating her students and using them as pawns to accomplish her political objective is shameful and the national design community is outraged.   This information was sent out to approximately 30,000 designers throughout the country, which after the pass-through might well have exceeded 100,000 designers.  I’ve already received numerous emails from across the country about this situation and the AIP.  This is a serious matter, Ms. Spewock, that needs to be addressed head-on, and not with glossy platitudes about freedom of thought which don’t comport to the facts.  Ms. Musulin should be held accountable for her actions.

We appreciate your commitment to provide an excellent and fair learning environment at AIP and look forward to hearing that (1) this important issue has been resolved, and (2) it will not recur in the future. 

If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me.  I would welcome the opportunity to have a dialogue on this issue.

Patti Morrow

Executive Director, IDPC

Patti Morrow: “Students should NOT be “forced” to support licensing!”

Coercion at a CIDA College

A recent development at the Art Institute of Pittsburgh (AIP), a CIDA-accredited institution, has opened a new crack in the ever-eroding façade of interior design regulation.

Lauren Musulin, an interior design instructor at AIP, recently gave her Revit (AutoDesk) class an extra credit assignment that could potentially count for as much as 20% of their final grade.  That assignment: lobby your legislator in support of passage of the licensing bill. (Read assignment here: http://www.idpcinfo.org/AIP_Extra_Credit.pdf) Musulin sits on the board of IDLCPA (Interior Design Legislation Coalition of Pennsylvania), the group behind repeated attempts to enact practice regulation in Pennsylvania.  When approached by a student who had researched the licensing issue and concluded that licensing is detrimental to the profession, Ms. Musulin responded that no extra credit would be given for any other point of view.

Sadly, intimidating impressionable students to march in lock-step with the instructor’s political, pro-regulation agenda is all too common, not to mention unethical.  In the 30-year push for licensing spearheaded by the American Society of Interior Designers (ASID), in conjunction with the National Council for Interior Design Qualification (NCIDQ) and the Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA) – commonly called “the Cartel” – students across the country have been indoctrinated to believe that licensing will benefit them. 

Upon graduation, however, many students are finding exactly the opposite to be true.  The criteria that they must serve a 2 to 4 year internship (a.k.a. “indentured servitude”) under another NCIDQ certified designer before they can even sit for the certification exam, has effectively kept the number of new “certified” interior designers low.  In a difficult economy, few designers are financially able to hire even a lowly-paid graduate.  And even in a thriving economy, many practicing designers are simply unwilling to train their would-be competitors.  So after spending sometimes upwards of $100,000 on their education, students in states that have enacted practice laws, are proclaiming that they’ve been thrown under the proverbial bus, and that they are unable to practice in their chosen profession.

Any institution worth the paper they print their diplomas on should allow their students unfettered access to information critical to their future, in this case, whether or not they will support or oppose the restrictive, single-entry method into the field. Institutions would be well-advised to dismiss the paternalistic assumption that students will not be able to weigh the evidence and the credibility of the various messengers and come to their own conclusions.  With such censoring, how can a student make an intelligent, informed decision without having equal access to all the facts?  Yet, groups like the Interior Design Protection Council (IDPC), a nonprofit organization holding the view that regulation is unnecessary and anti-competitive, are rarely invited or allowed to address interior design students.  “Students should NOT be coerced into supporting legislation or a political agenda that is ultimately not in their best interest,” said Patti Morrow, executive director of IDPC.

Johnny Matia, an AIP student, brought Musulin’s extra credit assignment to the attention of Kelly Spewock, the Interior Design Department Director who told him she would look into the issue and provide parity, and also agreed that IDPC would be invited to speak at their town hall meeting next semester.  Matia has vowed to open a student chapter of IDPC at AIP.  “If they have ASID, they should also have IDPC,” said Matia.  “Students need to hear both sides.”

Perhaps this is the beginning of a whole new era allowing students access to a fair and open exchange of information about the free market system this country was founded upon. 

Or perhaps it’s just wishful thinking.