Dear Young Architects

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:25 pm

PVC King wrote:Clearly wasting my time here;

No argument there.
there is a difference between being self-trained and being professionally qualified.

(Stunned silence)
You CAN assimilate facts...
Authorised, approved, qualified; none of which guarantee talent;

Well, THAT didn't last long.
(sigh)
Actually nothing guarantees talent.
The most talented can fail, even after years in practice - its the Big Fear.
But a qualification from a design course gives an assrances that the person is competent to design buildings.
Oddly enough Part III's do not - they centre on professional practice: running an office, contract administration, interpretation of contract law - that sort of thing.
however they signify indications of reaching a recognised specification. How in god's name is a planner not familiar with a party making an application or a prospective client supposed to know who are the good or the bad 'self trained'

Planners like architects have the ability to form an opinion of people whose work they are assessing.
Its not rocket science.
No-one is stopping anyone from working; it is simply ensuring that those claiming to be architects have met a defined pathway to be able to use the title.

I totally agree.
My LEGALLY DEFINED "pathway" was to attain a qualification which is recognised in EU and Irish law as entitine me to practise - AS AN ARCHITECT - throughout the EU.
On the education v experience route; it is not either or; both are equally important; it is however easier for someone working in the industry to gain an educational qualification by distance learning or part time study than it is for your average under-graduate to battle with the temptations of growing up and studying simultaneously. Both are to my mind equally important and both are equally necessary to convert either industry experience to professional membership or an academic qualification to become a professional member.


You urgently need to flesh out your understanding of the profession of architecture.

I recommend "The Architect, Chapters in the History of the Profession", by Spiro Kostof.

You will see that learning by apprenticeship was superseded only in the last few centuries by book learning, itself a mere substitute for actually visiting the built work, the onlyreal way to appreciate architecture.

Similarly, academic learning, while a good preparation, cannot replace experience of working in the profession.

This is the basis of the sel-taught archtiects' claims to competence and there is some merit to them.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby PVC King » Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:34 pm

Again you fail to state the manner of regulation that you propose; no other profession grants a life long right to practice based on an educational qualification. Until you do so, your arguments lack any credibility.
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby Tayto » Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:49 pm

CK wrote:Are you trying to improve the content with such declarations?



Things are improving already- my modest comment has been upgraded to a "declaration".
Whey-hey! :cool:
Tayto
Member
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:00 pm

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:02 pm

PVC King wrote:Again you fail to state the manner of regulation that you propose; no other profession grants a life long right to practice based on an educational qualification. Until you do so, your arguments lack any credibility.


You seem to be stuck in this rut.
I am not talking about regulation of the profession at all.
That is a matter for the RIAI a Regulatory Body and the Registrar.
And for the record I am not really making any strong arguments in my own case.
I am stating AS FACT that EU Law and Irish Law grants me the right to practise AS AN ARCHITECT.

How the Registrar deals with that is up to him.

---------------------------------------

In November of 2005, this was written by Tony Reddy, past President of the RIAI.

From: http://www.anthonyreddy.com/media/pres_column/pres_nov05.htm

Registration
Registration of architects was given a new impetus as a an issue of wider public concern following the RTE Prime Time programme broadcast in April, which focussed on the activities of an unqualified individual providing architectural services.

In response to the public outcry following the programme, Dick Roche, the Minister, at the DOEHLG, gave a personal undertaking to the RIAI to introduce a Registration Bill this year. This had led to a series of confidential bilateral contacts between the Department and the RIAI in relation to the Bill.

While the final content of the Bill will depend on the outcome of drafting by the Department and decisions by the Government, I am hopeful, subject to the specific concerns which we have raised in relation to the draft being addressed, that the RIAI will be in a position to welcome the Bill when it is published.

The Department has indicated that it plans to publish the Building Control Bill, which will make provision for registration of architects, by the end of 2005. When it is finally published and enacted by the Dail, it will represent the culmination of an inordinately long campaign, commenced by the Institute in 1888 and pursued by it with successive Governments from the foundation of the Irish State in 1922.

The new role as the registration body for architects will create a series of challenges and responsibilities for RIAI. However, it has been the view of successive Councils over the past decade that, on balance, the benefits to both architects and the public of having a registration act outweigh the difficulties it would undoubtedly create. I wish future Presidents and Councils every success in leading the RIAI in this


---------------------------------------

The sentence in bold is telling.
It described David Grant as "an unqualified person providing architectural services".
That was the RIAI's main concern at the time - the fact that Grant was "unqualified".

Where as I am a "qualfied person providing architectural services whose qualification entitles him unde EU law to call himself an architect".

But that's not good enough for you - you're still getting your knickers in a bunch over Regulation.
I wonder what architect screwed you over on fees way back when and if he was a Member of the Institute.
Because all this peripheral knowledge and vitriol comes from somewhere and your lack of confirmation of your professional qualification suggests it might have come from a bad experience with a professional that you haven't yet told us about.

Go on, you know you want to.

---------------------------------------

But while everyone was pointing the finger at Mr. Grant as a dastardly disregarder of human life, Prime Time undertook another exposé in relation to Fire Safety.
This centred on more modern buildings built by current developers and certified by qualified architects.
Prime Time just being even-handed no doubt and sparing no-one from their camera lens.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0522/primetime.html

For anyone interested in Fire Safety and the diligence of our Fire Service in exposing professional mis-certification, its a must-see.

But for you, PVC King, with your assertion of how being an MRIAI and Registered will confer benefits to the public, this should be especially poignant.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby PVC King » Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:12 pm

There is no vitriol; I just can't believe the arrogance of anyone who proposes a system based on getting a qualification in their 20's and feeling they are above regulation for the rest of their lives.


the benefits to both architects and the public of having a registration act outweigh the difficulties it would undoubtedly create


I fully agree with the RIAI on this; you clearly don't; no other profession has people outside a professional industry body which regulates the membership alloes people to claim that they are qualified in that profession.

For reasons you won't go into you simply decided not to join the industry body; that decision has finally caught up with you. I would welcome arrangements for assessment of non-members but assessment is required as a risk management to protect the public from people who have deteriorated professionally speaking from graduation which in some cases was decades ago.
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:59 pm

PVC King wrote:There is no vitriol; I just can't believe the arrogance of anyone who proposes a system based on getting a qualification in their 20's and feeling they are above regulation for the rest of their lives.

I haven't proposed anything, never mind "a system based on getting a qualification in their 20's" - whatever that is supposed to be.

As for regulatio, as an architect, I have been regulated by the laws of the land since I undertook my first Real World design project.
This was before I qualified, because if you hold yourself out to be an architect, or someone who might be expected to exercise a particular level of skill and care, you will be judged at the standard you hold yourself to be, whatever you actually are.
It is this principle of law which has deterred unqualified people from setting up as architects over the years, and which continues to protect members of the public when such people make mistakes.
Just to nail your worship of regulation in a box, whether or not such persons are entitled to use the title is irrelevant - they will be judged and sentenced if found to have committed wrongdoing as if they were architects, if they claimed they were architects in the first place.

--------------------------------

Can't you see a way forward where the Registrar's denial of people's right to the title architect might concievably be used by them as a defence to cop a lesser plea and thereby avoid the full rigour of the law?
What price protection of the public when the perpetrator - who previously traded as an architect - escapes the full penalty because he was prevented fron using the title.
Its on such nicities of law as this that legal careers are made or founder.

--------------------------------

For the record, I have pointed out that my qualification entitles to cal myself and archtiect throughout the EU and I have backed this up by citing both Directives and the relevant Statutory Instrument.
What have you done?
Falsely accused me of proposign something I didn't propose!
I fully agree with the RIAI on this; you clearly don't;

I have stated that I agree with Registration in this thread.
You've just accused me of beign disingenuous about this, never a good idea.
Long before this thread started I have posted my support for it on another thread on this forum.
Retract or support your comment.
no other profession has people outside a professional industry body which regulates the membership alloes people to claim that they are qualified in that profession.

You keep saying that I am claiming I am qualified.
The qualification is a given and was achieved nearly twenty years ago.
There is no doubt under heaven but that I am qualifed as an architect, in fact and in law.
Ergo, I am claiming nothing.

You mis-state my position - another not-so-good idea.
For reasons you won't go into you simply decided not to join the industry body;

Again, you mis-state my position.

I gave specific reasons why I didnt join the RIAI at the time and your short term memory problem is becoming terminal.
I stated these reasons only yesterday.
that decision has finally caught up with you.

My, my, what a judgemental piece of work you are.
Twenty years providing a competent service to clients and somethings "caught up with me".
Not a court case though, for I have never been sued, nor has any company or person I worked for been sued because of my work.
So I must be doing something right, in my own muddling, meandering, unregistered way.
I would welcome arrangements for assessment of non-members but assessment is required as a risk management to protect the public from people who have deteriorated professionally speaking from graduation which in some cases was decades ago.


You would welcome them, would you?
Who might you be, to welcome them at all.
You've continually dodged my question about your qualification.

You assume the worst of post-graduates, but you fail to see how this assumption might impinge on Members of the RIAI.

CPD only came in in recently - Practice notes were in long before that, and courses for those wealthy enough to be able to afford them.
There are thousands of MRIAI's, according to the RIAI.
Did thousands of people attend the courses over the last twenty years?
Unless you know thsi for a fact, you are once more on making assumptions.

Architects of all kinds throughout this country have undertaken their own skills updates for dacades, despite what you might assume.
They weren't waiting on the RIAI to set up extortionately priced courses to learn how to make a planning application or do a fire safety certificate.
I attended courses in Fire Safety and the Building Regulations all during the summer of 1992 and halped prepare one of the first Fire Certs lodged in Ireland later that year.
I've never been afraid to learn new things nor is any architect who has passed through a five year full time course.

Bet you still haven't looked at that link, have you?
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0522/primetime.html

(chuckle)

You don't know what you're missing!

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby missarchi » Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:59 pm

scarp a would disagree even in death
missarchi
Old Master
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:53 pm

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby PVC King » Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:10 pm

ONQ

You claim to be fully qualified when you graduated; you claim not to have joined the main professional body; you are answerable to no-one from what I can make out; how can it be construed that you are doing anything other than proposing self regulation?

Who should a member of the public go to complain to if they feel that someone in your position is guilty of malpractice?
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby henno » Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:11 pm

missarchi wrote:scarp a would disagree even in death


seems like you've too much tippex on your PC screen....
henno
Senior Member
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 12:07 pm

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby PVC King » Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:17 pm

or thinner up her nostrils
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:25 pm

PVC King wrote:ONQ
You claim to be fully qualified when you graduated;

No.
The term "fully" is a weasel word you have brought into the debate.
It implies, but does not define why or by how much, that some people are "more" than others - a principle the RIAI have traded on for years.
you claim not to have joined the main professional body;

No.
I stated I was an associate member at one point - you must have missed this [quelle surprise] - but I didn't seek to have my Part III's ratified.
For the record, back in the nineties, working with Members of the Institute for 7 years or more entitled you to claim you had your Part III's by default.
Please don't bother to diss this without at least checking what I've just posted with somebody competent - it was an accepted form of apprenticeship.
Its included as one of the acceptable measures of competence leading to Registration by David Keane in Building and the Law.
you are answerable to no-one from what I can make out;

No.
Lets face it, PVC King, you've shown time and again on this thread that your perceptive abilities are limited.
I don't hold myself out to be "answerable to no-one" nor have I stated that I felt that to be my position.
This is another one of your unfounded red herring assertions that have littered this thread.
...how can it be construed that you are doing anything other than proposing self regulation?

No.
I didn't propose self-regulation - its a fact of life, although as part of the current round of propaganda its being called Co-Regulation.
Even when every architect in the country is Registered, John Graby isn't going to wander around the practices with a Big Stick.
The adherence to CPD and the Code of Practice will depend on architect's willingness to abide by them - self regulation.
The code and CPD may become mandatory, but they'll be impossible to police or enforce in a top-down manner.

Only external regulation and regular assesment of practices will be effective - guess who blocked that?
And yes, every profession in the state has and is actively resisting external independent regulation.
From the legal profession on down - in the name of independence of the Judiciary from Executive.
Who should a member of the public go to complain to if they feel that someone in your position is guilty of malpractice?


A solicitor, the same person they could always talk to on matters of malpractice involving professionals.
All the regulatory body will do if the complaint is upheld is censure the Member, fine them or strike them off.
Its a form of deterrent for potential wrongdoers and won't deter nasty pieces of work from continuing to rip people off.

It will usually take a civil action for goodly damages in the High Court to redress a serious breach of any code of practice.
Not can this be a minor or trivial matter - "de minimis non curat lex".
(was that a trick question?)

While I cannot speak for other people, if it was me, up to 1st May 2008, they could also have called John Graby and asked him to have a word.
John's door had always been open to me over the years and I have found him a good conversationalist with a good head on his shoulders.
A nice guy, whose thoughts and actions are utterly consistent and who has put huge amounts of personal time into promoting the RIAI.
It would have been ignorant of me not to listen to any concerns he might have about how I conducted my practice over the years.

Since 1st May 2008, I cannot legally call myself an architect before being Registered, but I'd still take a call from John Graby.

ONQ.

PS

Pssst! Didja lookit that link yet, didja; huh? Huh?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0522/primetime.html

Go on, go on. Its a killer.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:24 pm

[quote="onq"]No.
The term "fully" is a weasel word you have brought into the debate.
It implies, but does not define why or by how much, that some people are "more" than others - a principle the RIAI have traded on for years.

No.
I stated I was an associate member at one point - you must have missed this [quelle surprise] - but I didn't seek to have my Part III's ratified.
For the record, back in the nineties, working with Members of the Institute for 7 years or more entitled you to claim you had your Part III's by default.
Please don't bother to diss this without at least checking what I've just posted with somebody competent - it was an accepted form of apprenticeship.
Its included as one of the acceptable measures of competence leading to Registration by David Keane in Building and the Law.

No.
Lets face it, PVC King, you've shown time and again on this thread that your perceptive abilities are limited.
I don't hold myself out to be "answerable to no-one" nor have I stated that I felt that to be my position.
This is another one of your unfounded red herring assertions that have littered this thread.

No.
I didn't propose self-regulation - its a fact of life, although as part of the current round of propaganda its being called Co-Regulation.
Even when every architect in the country is Registered, John Graby isn't going to wander around the practices with a Big Stick.
The adherence to CPD and the Code of Practice will depend on architect's willingness to abide by them - self regulation.
The code and CPD may become mandatory, but they'll be impossible to police or enforce in a top-down manner.

Only external regulation and regular assesment of practices will be effective - guess who blocked that?
And yes, every profession in the state has and is actively resisting external independent regulation.
From the legal profession on down - in the name of independence of the Judiciary from Executive.


A solicitor, the same person they could always talk to on matters of malpractice involving professionals.
All the regulatory body will do if the complaint is upheld is censure the Member, fine them or strike them off.
Its a form of deterrent for potential wrongdoers and won't deter nasty pieces of work from continuing to rip people off.

It will usually take a civil action for goodly damages in the High Court to redress a serious breach of any code of practice.
Not can this be a minor or trivial matter - "de minimis non curat lex".
(was that a trick question?)

While I cannot speak for other people, if it was me, up to 1st May 2008, they could also have called John Graby and asked him to have a word.
John's door had always been open to me over the years and I have found him a good conversationalist with a good head on his shoulders.
A nice guy, whose thoughts and actions are utterly consistent and who has put huge amounts of personal time into promoting the RIAI.
It would have been ignorant of me not to listen to any concerns he might have about how I conducted my practice over the years.

Since 1st May 2008, I cannot legally call myself an architect before being Registered, but I'd still take a call from John Graby.

----------------------------------------------------------

Did you look at the link I posted?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0522/primetime.html

The subject is fire safety or the lack of it.
Look at the section on Shangan Hall Apartment Block
This is an apartment block adjoining the Ballymun Civic Office

The section starts at 38:46
The pass the parcel starts at 44:14
Developer, MRIAI, Fire Safety Consultant.

So much for assurances to the public based on automatic registration of MRIAI's.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby PVC King » Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:32 pm

Your answer on a solicitor being the appropriate person to contact is very telling; in most juristictions the first point of complaint is the professional practice; who are regulated by the industry professional body along a set complaints handling procedure. Failure to deal with the complaint in line with the procedure can have the member or firm struck off.

Instead your 'I got a degree 20 years ago' arrogance expects members of the public to incur legal costs to be able to get complaints adequately addressed.

To get qualified in the 1990's you needed to spend 7 years in a member firm; you would at that time have needed to stay within a regime for that period and a judgement by members would have been made as to an individuals suitability.

RIAI is a long way from self-regulated; I have no doubt if you were explaining a complaint that issues like CPD would be looked at; the manner in which the matter was conducted would be looked at. That is regulation by professional body, a body you chose to leave at some point.

Fully qualified implies having both the academic and industry body qualifications to practice; it is no red herring; ask any solicitor, auditor, surveyor or actuary.

All I see from you are excuses in an effort to disguise that you made a massive error in allowing your membership to lapse in an era when regulation was not a legal requirement.

The public deserves a professional regulation regime that lays out clear rules of conduct for members and has a non-legal system of sanction; you can advertise that you got a degree in 1990 in Architecture.
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:56 pm

PVC King wrote:Your answer on a solicitor being the appropriate person to contact is very telling; in most juristictions the first point of complaint is the professional practice; who are regulated by the industry professional body along a set complaints handling procedure. Failure to deal with the complaint in line with the procedure can have the member or firm struck off.

How do you know what occurs in most jurisdictions?
You're just talking off the top of your head again aren't you?
Instead your 'I got a degree 20 years ago' arrogance expects members of the public to incur legal costs to be able to get complaints adequately addressed.


I advised that a person could take well trodden a course of action that will enable a victime of negligence to sue for damages if any are due to the injured party.
The course you advocate will result at most in (i) a slap on the wrist, (ii) a fine, of (iii) a striking off, but won't compensate the victim.
Which course of action actually delivers the goods for the member of the public who has suffered?

Yeah. Right.

And I see you've once again totally ignored yet another but related reply, that even when there was no regulation, qualified archtiects like myself kept up cordial and respectful relations with the RIAI Secretary John Graby.
You just don't understand how professional and collegiate relationships within the professions work, do you?
Perhaps you WISH you did, which may be what has made you so "plus royaliste que le roi".

On the matter of qualification, I merely stated a fact, a fact you are in denial over, a fact you simply cannot handle.
What did you say your professional qualification was again?
Oh, that's right, you didn't.

You're the one telling the RIAI how it should be regulating the profession, when in fact its not doing that in the terms you describe.
Yet, you cannot distinguish between; -
  • regulation and Registration
  • being formally qualified and being Registered.
  • achieving 40 CPD points per annum and being allowed so through a self-directed course of study, with both structured and unstructured elements
(the term "structured" refers to activities approved by the RIAI, not to a structured course of study per se - the architect chooses what activities he attends)

You spray unfounded allegations and suggestions of incompetence on the part of post-graduates without any supporting evidence whatsoever!
Nothing! Nothing in support of your wild, illogocal, unfounded allegations! Nothingat all! No points answered, just another line of attack and smear!

Beleive me, PVC King, I'm not the one straddling the credibility gap in this thread.
To get qualified in the 1990's you needed to spend 7 years in a member firm; you would at that time have needed to stay within a regime for that period and a judgement by members would have been made as to an individuals suitability.

Eh, nope.
You are the most stupid person I have ever come across on an Irish forum.
I was qualified as an architect when I graduated from Bolton Street DIT in June 1990.
This is the fact you just cannot seem to get your head around.
The 7 year process was a form of apprenticeship, undertaken by many architects at the time, which ensured a measured exposure to a lot of different situations and building types and contractual situations over time.
It didn't rely on the artficially truncated 2-year run up to the Part III exam that's currently in vogue or prevent architects working as architects to benefit older Members and large practices.
You seem to be utterly clueless about any of this.
RIAI is a long way from self-regulated;

The RIAI has for years been trying to balance representing its Members against its role as a self-regulated body and in an effort to avoid external regulation has adopted the current process known as co-regulation.
Learn your facts.
I have no doubt if you were explaining a complaint that issues like CPD would be looked at; the manner in which the matter was conducted would be looked at. That is regulation by professional body, a body you chose to leave at some point.

CPD is intended to inform the practitioner.
It cannot defend him from a claim.
It may help prevent one.
Fully qualified implies having both the academic and industry body qualifications to practice; it is no red herring; ask any solicitor, auditor, surveyor or actuary.

On the contrary, you are drawing a comparison between professions which have been subject to various levels of registration and self-regulation.
Even under the Building Control Act 2007, the term fully qualified doesn't arise and even the term Part III's isn't used.
You are either Registered, or not.
All I see from you are excuses in an effort to disguise that you made a massive error in allowing your membership to lapse in an era when regulation was not a legal requirement.

The only error I made was in thinking I lived in a state in Europe whose legislators would respect my existing legal and acquired rights to practise as an archtiect.
The public deserves a professional regulation regime that lays out clear rules of conduct for members and has a non-legal system of sanction;

I never said it didn't, on the contrary I said I support Registration.
What's your point?
you can advertise that you got a degree in 1990 in Architecture.

I know - again, what's your point?

(what I actually advertise is the fact that I have been in practise for nearly twenty years - it seems to give people a lot of comfort knowing they're in safe hands)

I'd suggest you look at the link I posted above and see who was involved in what seems to have been a serious breach of duty.

I've no doubt other readers have looked at this link within the timestamps I specified and they will be either astonished or chuckling at your continuing to promote the RIAI as a paragon of professional virtue.

All your assertions of how good it will be to have RIAI CPD and RIAI Registration and RIAI Regulation and Members looking after the public regarding complaints will be blown away by just this one worked example.

Just one.

Enjoy.

------------------------------------

Imagine how many such examples we might uncover if we had an Independent Ombudsman for the Architectural Profession?
In all your time propagandizing for the RIAI here, did you never stop for a moment and wonder why such a position wasn't created?
Co-regulation is effectively self-regulation and that's just the way the Registrar of the Architectural Profession wants it.
Along with the Incorporated Law Society and the Society of Chartered Surveyors.
Self-regulation of the professiona is here to stay.

Oh wait

(shakes head, laughing)

I've just realised why you're so dogged about "self-regulation".

You're confusing it with "self-certification" aren't you - and you haven't a clue what either means!

:D :D :D


ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby PVC King » Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:18 pm

The only error I made was in thinking I lived in a state in Europe whose legislators would respect my existing legal and acquired rights to practise as an archtiect.


One line says it all; you graduated the public were safe.

Name one other profession where that is the case. Lets talk about 1980's regulation of off shore bank accounts; the bloke who went into NIB in Carrick on Shannon and opened the account with the address 1 Main Street London. Quality eh?
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:29 pm

PVC King wrote:One line says it all; you graduated the public were safe.

Why are you seeking to defame me by suggesting they were unsafe?
I'd start backpedaling now if I were you, because I've ignored this gross slander for long enough.
Name one other profession where that is the case. Lets talk about 1980's regulation of off shore bank accounts; the bloke who went into NIB in Carrick on Shannon and opened the account with the address 1 Main Street London. Quality eh?


I wasn't going to be drawn on how other professions operated because it would have been so easy to shut you down, but now that you've opened the Banking can of worms, what's your point?

---------------------------------------

And I say again;

Did you look at the link I posted?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0522/primetime.html

The subject is fire safety or the lack of it.
Look at the section on Shangan Hall Apartment Block
This is an apartment block adjoining the Ballymun Civic Office

The section starts at 38:46
The pass the parcel starts at 44:14
Developer, MRIAI, Fire Safety Consultant.

So much for assurances to the public based on automatic registration of MRIAI's.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby BenK » Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:34 pm

Hi onq,

I've been an interested spectator of this the last couple of days... I'm genuinely wondering, why didn't you complete the Part 3 back in the day to become a full member of the RIAI? Hasn't the part 3 not been around since a long time before the BCA? And wasn't it always an indication that you had become a fully qualified architect even before the BCA (I know there was no registration of the title before this but it's been in the pipeline for a long time as far as I'm aware... And like it or lump it MRIAI has always been a 'badge' indicating that someone was fully qualified). & finally why don't you complete your Part 3 now?
BenK
Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:59 am

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:42 pm

BenK wrote:Hi onq,

I've been an interested spectator of this the last couple of days... I'm genuinely wondering, why didn't you complete the Part 3 back in the day to become a full member of the RIAI? Hasn't the part 3 not been around since a long time before the BCA? And wasn't it always an indication that you had become a fully qualified architect even before the BCA (I know there was no registration of the title before this but it's been in the pipeline for a long time as far as I'm aware... And like it or lump it MRIAI has always been a 'badge' indicating that someone was fully qualified). & finally why don't you complete your Part 3 now?


I had experiences with Members that didn't endear me to the RIAI.
Foolish perhaps, but its on such personal relationships we build our lives.
After qualification I was entitled to practise throughout the EU as an Architect.
My Opinions and Certificates were accepted by the solicitors and banks that I dealt with.
I was working with an office where I was one of two officers specified on the P.I. to issue Opinions.
I was diligent and professional in all matters of keeping the office current and was called back to advise on their court cases.
In terms of professional competence, without being unduly arrogant, I felt I had achived my Part III's after the seven years and performed at that level.

Put it like this, the RIAI once issued a good practice note advising its Members that under the transitional arrangements under the Building Control Act 1990 and the Building Control Regulations 1991 all building works prior to 1st June 1992 were deemed to have achieved bye law approval.

This note bore the imprimatur of David Keane.

What would you have done?

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby PVC King » Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:49 pm

onq wrote: Why are you seeking to defame me by suggesting they were unsafe?
I'd start backpedaling now if I were you, because I've ignored this gross slander for long enough..


You are in an internet forum using psuedo-id; not like a membership number is attached. I have no confidence that people without part 3 are fully competent without carrying out a time consuming due diligence procedure. Proper regulation in the form of needing to be a full member to be considered a fully qualified architect removes the requirement for due diligence.


onq wrote: I wasn't going to be drawn on how other professions operated because it would have been so easy to shut you down, but now that you've opened the Banking can of worms, what's your point? .


Regulation in Ireland in most fields was non-existent at the time your right to be considered qualified was enacted. Other professions recognised this and self-regulated. They certainly never regarded graduates as qualified.

---------------------------------------

onq wrote: And I say again;

Did you look at the link I posted?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0522/primetime.html

The subject is fire safety or the lack of it.
Look at the section on Shangan Hall Apartment Block
This is an apartment block adjoining the Ballymun Civic Office

The section starts at 38:46
The pass the parcel starts at 44:14
Developer, MRIAI, Fire Safety Consultant.

onq wrote: So much for assurances to the public based on automatic registration of MRIAI's.

ONQ.
You should make a complaint to the RIAI if one hasn't already been made. At least there is a membership body to complain to and if you drafted the complaint yourself you wouldn't incur the legal fees you recommend others to.
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:23 pm

PVC King wrote:You are in an internet forum using psuedo-id; not like a membership number is attached. I have no confidence that people without part 3 are fully competent without carrying out a time consuming due diligence procedure. Proper regulation in the form of needing to be a full member to be considered a fully qualified architect removes the requirement for due diligence.


You remind me of an MRIAI I was against in a matter dealing with building defects.
He was absolutely convinced it would go to the High Court, that we'd be having a swearing match against each other in front of a judge and that he had a 12 page list of defects.
I warned him that we were referring the matter to the Building Control Officer and he laughed, stating he was powerless to interfer in a matter of self-certification between architects.
I quoted him chapter and verse from the Building Control Act [the sort of information that a Part III architect would be expected to know, but a post-graduate probably wouldn't] and he still denied the BCO's authority.
I think he continued to deny it right until the state solicitor served his client with a summons to appear in the District Court - a summons issued on behalf of the BCO.

The action was costly and embarrassing for his client, yet he was an MRIAI and I was not.
He qualified before me too, so he had both his part III's and more years post qualification on his side.

On the face of it, you would have said he was the better bet to represent the client.
But the years and the Part III's count for little when you're dealing with building disputes - attitude matters.
In reality he saw the building as a pension plan for fees, and failed to adopt a reasonable approach to the case and the defects.

In the end the BCO issued a Building Defects Sheet - which I had agreed with him over the course of a week - him calling the shots, me seeking to minmise work and costs, sufficient to achieve compliance but not to do extravagant rebuilding works, a position with which the BCO was in full agreement.

The developer/builder for whom we acted completed the work for a figure that was a fraction of the the Quantity Surveyprs costs based on the MRIAI's 12 page summation.
The substantive issue was dealt with, the MRIAI got reasonable fees, but not his pension out of it, the owner received a settlement for his trouble and we got paid.
There was no winner doing it my way, but the building was remedied, we issued a full battery of Opinions, including Engineers both structural and mechanical and electrical, and our client wasn't burnt badly.

Recently I heard that on another property, where the same MRIAI had sucessfully avoided the BCO by using a good Senior Counsel and the matter was indeed heading for the High Court, the builder went bust, the house is still defective, and everyone is owed money.
The motto is - in building matters, winning the battle doesn't mean you win the war, and in some cases a defeat on good terms is better than playing for ultimate advantage.
I'm not suggesting that all post-graduates would deal with the matter like I did, but I did and it benefited everybody concerned.
Regulation in Ireland in most fields was non-existent at the time your right to be considered qualified was enacted. Other professions recognised this and self-regulated. They certainly never regarded graduates as qualified.


None of what you posted reflects the evolution of regulation in the professions in Ireland.
The two professions which most affect us, Banking and the Law are regulated at the highest levels, the former by an appointed regulator [and we saw where that led us] the latter by its own Members, and we have one of the best Judiciaries in the EU in my opinion.
The point being that and exernal regulator failed the public in the most egregious act of light touch regulation Ireland has known, whilst peer review in the Courts keeps all the legals on the straight and narrow.
My progress through the architectural profession reflects the years in practice that Barristers must put in to develop from Junior Counsel to Senior Counsel.
Its not too shabby a way to learn the ropes, I've found.
---------------------------------------

onq wrote: And I say again;

Did you look at the link I posted?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0522/primetime.html

The subject is fire safety or the lack of it.
Look at the section on Shangan Hall Apartment Block
This is an apartment block adjoining the Ballymun Civic Office

The section starts at 38:46
The pass the parcel starts at 44:14
Developer, MRIAI, Fire Safety Consultant.

You should make a complaint to the RIAI if one hasn't already been made. At least there is a membership body to complain to and if you drafted the complaint yourself you wouldn't incur the legal fees you recommend others to.


Thank you for looking at the link.

I didn't make a complaint nor is that my intent.
I just wanted to plant a seed of doubt in your mind.
I wanted you to see the side of the RIAI I know about.

I had a previous experience of a complaint being ignored.
That is to say, there was no visible censure, no loss of face or title.

Nor did I complain about the MRIAI in the worked example I wrote of above.
Perhaps his clients who followed his strategy may, but I'd say he'll hide behind the solicitor and get away with it.

That's the reality PVC King -
Its not about MRIAI's giving service to the client or the public.
Its about MRIAI's knowing enough so that the shit doesn't stick to their fur.
I'm not singling MRIAI's out BTW; this is a survival trait all architects must have.

Now you may understand my annoyance at them for attaining their pre-eminence.
They have feet of clay like the rest of us and competence in disputes is a relative thing.
And at you for promoting a group, the actions of some of some Members of which are questionable.

The reason I haven't made more of this is because I genuninely support Registration.
I don't appreciate the undermining of post-graduates' legal rights to call themselves architects.
But I'm not going to go out of my way to tear down an institution like the RIAI for no good reason.

So, to endorse my previous comments, it would be best for them and the public for post graduates to practice in a small office for a year or two, to get full exposure to all the basic skills, with a further five years in a larger office.

From the first day they would be practising as architects, not merely as "graduate architects" which is a grossly insulting term ro apply tio someone who has completed a five year full time course in design.

The would work at a certain level of project, certainly, but they would engaged in providing the full gamut of services - signing the certs, conducting the inspections, issuing the opinions, administering the contracts, all under the watchful eye of a competent practitioner, an MRIAI if you will.

This will give them the sense of being "out there" - of being liable and responsible to their client, of not being able to hide when the shit hits the fan, of having to account for themselves and represent their office..

More importantly it will give them the full range of experience requried by an architect - forecasting the workload, sheduling the work, preparing for meetings, researching the design proper, managing draftspeople and arranging access to the technicians, ensuring correspondence gets answered, file management and retrieval, client and staff relationships, agreeign fees with teh client, budgeting of fees, scheduling billing points, issuing and following up invoices - all at a scale that can be assimilated.

Because that kind of full-on experience is what teaches you about service to the client, about not being arrogant, about seeking ways forward for the good of all, not just your own personal gain.

You're unlikely to get that outlook by achieving a badge after two years cramming for the Part III exam - an unrealistically short timeframe in which to experience a wide range of professional situations.

:)

FWIW

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby BenK » Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:10 pm

ONQ,

From your last post it would appear that you don't think the current training that it takes to become an architect (MRIAI for all intents and purposes) is sufficient, i.e., 5/6 years in college, min. 2 years post college working under the guidance of a registered architect, followed by professional practice exams, case study submission and finally an interview. All taking approx 8-9 years min. overall.

So are you seriously suggesting that to become an architect somebody would need to be in college for the aforementioned 5-6 years followed by another 7 years practical experience to be suitably qualified? Should they have to sit professional practice exams after this 7 years or at all? I just don't know how it would work in practice and be sufficiently well monitored. It seems a little too wishy washy for me. Maybe I'm just picking you up wrong though.

As an aside I feel your comments about MRIAIs are a bit of a red herring (they've been everywhere the last few days...). I don't think anybody has ever been promoting them as 'paragons of virtue'. Highlighting an anecdotal instance of negligent practice by an MRIAI doesn't prove anything. There are stories of negligence in every profession, why would you or anybody else, expect architects to be any different? I do think being a registered architect/MRIAI does help minimise the chances of this happening however (CPD, professional practice exams etc. etc.) Also, for me, it's obvious that in the majority of instances I would rather go with an MRIAI than a post-graduate with experience. I'm not disputing your ability but I feel that without your part 3 it's difficult for anybody or any registration body to accurately gauge your level of professional competence (design-ability withstanding) in relation to agreed standards.
BenK
Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:59 am

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:40 pm

BenK

I find the current arrangement where aspirant Part III's were allowed "look over the shoulder" of other architects as disastrous for learning.
I find the current exam-base for the Part III's using extreme exam question scenarios will be of limited use in the real world.
Finally I think the undermining of the professional standing of post-graduates to be wrong in law, in fact and in principle.
But all of these things are in the RIAI's gift and the reductions in standards they will bring will be dealt with by them.
Personally I would prefer a natural progression to achieving Part III standing over a period of seven years.
This could be by attestation/ continuous assessment by an MRIAI, case study, interview or exam.

But for the RIAI to suggest that you can deal with a large jobs in two years but weren't an architect when you qualified is a complete load of codswallop.
It is also a complete barrier to being able to command the necessary respect from trades and clients as you are earning your Part III's.
Its unworkable, protectionist nonsense, and undermines the rights of UCD and Bolton Street post-graduates to be called Architects.

Not good enough.

BenK, I know a lot of MRIAI's.
Many are competent professionals.
A significant number of them are not.

You say:

"Highlighting an anecdotal instance of negligent practice by an MRIAI doesn't prove anything"

I say you're very wrong there.
The story I posted above shows mere greed at work,
The link I posted to the Prime Time exposé shows something far worse.

As I posted elsewhere, I tend to come into contact with the dregs - but there seem to be a lot of dregs these days.
Plus, they have been given unfair advantage over others with the right to use the title architect by being allowed automatic Registration.

So the gloves are coming off - its really that simple.
We'll see if MRIAI's achieve their standards.
So far this year they haven't.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby BenK » Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:50 pm

How is it unfair that MRIAIs have been automatically registered and thus permitted to use the title architect? MRIAIs/registered architects, they are one and the same thing. I didn't complete my Part 3 to become MRIAI, I did it to become a qualified architect.

Going back to my last post ONQ, what do you think is sufficient training for an architect?
BenK
Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:59 am

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:07 pm

BenK wrote:How is it unfair that MRIAIs have been automatically registered and thus permitted to use the title architect? MRIAIs/registered architects, they are one and the same thing. I didn't complete my Part 3 to become MRIAI, I did it to become a qualified architect.

Going back to my last post ONQ, what do you think is sufficient training for an architect?


I've finished editing my above post so you can read it at your leisure.
I didn't mean to suggest this was unfair in and of itself - a standalone cannot be unfair.
No, it is unfair because other persons with a legal entitlement to use the title architect were not also automatically registered.
If you qualified from Bolton Street or UCD you were entitled to call yourself an architect on the day you graduated as attested to by the following documents:
  • DIR 85/384/EEC The Architect's Directive
  • Statutory Instrument 15 of 1989 transposing the Directive into Irish law.
  • DIR 2005/36/EC The Directive on the Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications
Please read these documetns in full.
You will see that four persons were entitled to provide architectural services and call themselves architects as of right in Ireland.

Holders of Qualifications

[INDENT]B.Arch.NUI from UCD
Dipl.Arch.DIT from Bolton Street DIT[/INDENT]

Bearers of the Affixes

[INDENT]ARIAI
MRIAI[/INDENT]

If you didn't know this about your qualification, assuming it is one of the above, you do now.
If this was denied to you in the past, you appear to have been misled.
Don't take my word for it, that's the badge engineering approach.
Investigate this matter yourself and read these documents
Then ask yourself who benefits from denying this to you.

To paraphrase your comment above:
I didn't compete a five year full time course to become a graduate architect - I did it to become an architect.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby BenK » Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:27 pm

So I'm parroting some line because I don't agree with all you write... Leave the condescension out will you. There's a good chap.
BenK
Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:59 am

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland