Dear Young Architects

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby PVC King » Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:39 pm

You have an IT / university qualification and at some point had an employer sign off that you were competent. Those are historical milestones in your career

How does anyone know that you are

1. Still competent to industry standards
2. Carry out continued professional development
3. That there is a recognised complaints handling procedure to a third party
4. That you subscribe to industry standard risk management procedures such as manditory PI cover and client money handling regulations

I am not an architect but if I am placing a third parties money on the line those are the types of question that I would consider answered by membership of the relevant professional body for any professional service. For that reason I don't need to read legislation specific to another discipline merely to see that issue has been looked by the government and that a particular membership affiliation will if used constitute due diligence if I check that the membership is valid. I'd happily use someone with a RIBA membership as I know that they also ensure the risk management that is required.

Is a system that excludes people with online degrees and where the previous system even allowed people like David Grant to claim to be architects a problem? Absolutely not.
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Tue Apr 27, 2010 3:00 pm

PVC King wrote:You have an IT / university qualification and at some point had an employer sign off that you were competent. Those are historical milestones in your career

PVC King,
You seem to be out of your depth here.
And I have to admit, these are pretty shallow waters.
I do not have an IT/University qualification - whatever that is.

I qualified from a five year full-time accredited professional course.
The course I completed and passed is a recognised course under Irish and Eu law.
The institution I attended is recognised as being competent to issue accreditation under Irish and EU law.

Former employers don't enter into this arena.

How does anyone know that you are

1. Still competent to industry standards
2. Carry out continued professional development
3. That there is a recognised complaints handling procedure to a third party
4. That you subscribe to industry standard risk management procedures such as manditory PI cover and client money handling regulations

That's easy and its not brain science.

Normally they meet me and ask, and I tell them.
I show them work I've done, I show them my PI Cover.
I explain my strategy to them for the project going forward.
I discuss the ramifications of the several applicable branches of law with them.
I offer to introduce them to clients or let them make independent approaches on their own behalf.
More importantly after half an hour's meeting with me they realise I know my stuff backwards, as you've found out today.

Alternatively, following the RIAI standard practice,I show them that I know where to go to find out.
Even MRIAI's aren't expected to know everything off the top of their head and its unprofessional to advise like that.
No professional is required to operate at such a level, even in terms of a Court of law where they might be giving evidence.
Professionals are expected to operate at a level higher than that of " the man on the top of the Clapham Omnibus" but no higher than that of an average competent member of their profession exercising his skills and knowledge diligently.
Advice in meetings should be offered only based on recearch or recent certain knowledge, or in a very limited and qualified manner, and followed up with due diligence research and comment almost immediately - otherwise you may advise your client incorrectly and be sued.

Oh, and unlike some solicitors, who seem to make money out of short term deposit, high interest client accounts, I don't handle client monies.
The most I would normally have in my physical possession is the statutory approval application fee cheque and I give them the local authority receipt for that.
This can be quite sizable, but I make sure they are always crossed and made out to the relevant authority.
They never get cashed into my account.
I am not an architect but if I am placing a third parties money on the line those are the types of question that I would consider answered by membership of the relevant professional body for any professional service. For that reason I don't need to read legislation specific to another discipline merely to see that issue has been looked by the government and that a particular membership affiliation will if used constitute due diligence if I check that the membership is valid.

In other words, you won't look further than the badge and you'd rely on a representative organization policing its members diligently.
That's not you being diligent - that's just you being too lazy to undertake proper checking procedures.
Policing its Members is something the RIAI have failed to do in the past where I have been involved in a referral.
Although I'm prepared to give the Registrar the benefit of the doubt - for now.
I'd happily use someone with a RIBA membership as I know that they also ensure the risk management that is required.

Again, you're trading on the badge.
And you might be very unwise to do so unless they have experience of working and detailing buildings in our climate.
Ireland is a far wetter, colder and damper climate than the south of England where most of the RIBA Members operate.
Buildings need to be detailed differently to weather well here and/or to avoid interstial condensation.
Is a system that excludes people with online degrees and where the previous system even allowed people like David Grant to claim to be architects a problem? Absolutely not.


(rolls eyes)
I don't have an online degree.
I have a degree from attending a full time course for five years.
As in physically being present in studios, for lectures, for exams, crits, and my thesis.

I lost one client to David Grant.
He came back and was well satisfied with our services.
The reason he left us was that David Grant promised him something he couldn't deliver.
We had told him we couldn't deliver unless he bought a strip of land.
He learnt his lesson well and gave us repeat work.

David Grant attracted clients because he only charged €3,500 nett for a planning application.
David Grant lost clients because he attracted a failure rate of 70% or more.
But he frightened the life out of the RIAI - almost €1M in fees one year.

Would the BCA 2007 have been so draconian without him?
If he didn't exist the RIAI would have had to invent him.
He's the Architectural Bogeyman.
So much for David Grant.

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 » Tue Apr 27, 2010 3:13 pm

You qualified from an institute of learning; the system at that time did not require you to be a member of any professional body to use the title architect.

The UK system makes a lot of sense in that there are three levels of membership

Student i.e. pre-graduation
Associate i.e. post graduation but pre acheivement of part 3
Chartered i.e. has acheived part 3

http://www.architecture.com/JoinTheRIBA/Individuals/Individuals.aspx

To be fully qualified in the sense of the word you need to have acheived part 3 and be chartered; that was why I assumed you had something further from your employers either past or present. From what it sounds like you are an associate on the RIBA scale; if you paid a subscription that is.
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:01 pm

PVC King wrote:You qualified from an institute of learning; the system at that time did not require you to be a member of any professional body to use the title architect.
(RIBA support act snipped)


Correct.

DIT is an Institute of Higher Learning as recognised by the EU and defined as a competent body under S.I. 15 : 1989.
I have used the title architect based on formal recogniation of my qualificationunder both EU and Irish Law.

The ARB accreditation procedure has its fair share of detractors in the UK and elsewhere.
Citing it here instead of answering the points I made shows you've nothing much to say.

Thank you for revealing the depth of RIAI propaganda to me in your posts.
I won't count this as a wasted day.

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

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby wearnicehats » Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:20 pm

I think you two need to sort this out at home but, if I may be allowed to put my head above the parapet:

The more I read these debates the more I realise just how far from resolution this whole thing is. The Architect’s registration Board issue – on a weekly basis – reports on disciplinary action that has been taken in the UK against people who misuse the term “architect”.

HOWEVER

Just as many determinations are issued with regard to action taken over misconduct by those who are “entitled” to the title.- all based around the ARB’s strict professional competency standards. These judgements are issued to all members of the ARB and name every individual concerned. I received one 2 weeks ago regarding someone being “erased” from the Register for unacceptable professional conduct. The good thing about the ARB is that I can register for €95 without having to join the RIBA

There’s an individual on another thread who is very excitable about the whole thing and I’d like to use him as an example. Personally I see the role of Registration as one where this individual should not be allowed to use the term “architect” due to the fact that, in my opinion, he does not have anywhere near an acceptable level of competency in design (as opposed to construction).

BUT

This discriminates against those who are able to show a competency in design but do not hold a requisite qualification. (there is nothing new here by the way – the ARB uses the same EU directive as the RIAI when deciding registration)

BUT

What if this individual did carry an acceptable qualification and legitimately joined the register. Would the RIAI have recourse with regard to poor design? Would the RIAI take this individual to task over sub-standard aesthetics? It would be almost impossible to do so.

SO

The word that appears time and time again is “qualification”. I’m lucky enough to have one that’s recognised but I also know that 66% of my colleagues in final year were failed. It’s no accident that all those people who should not have passed third year made it to the end – to fail people early means loss of 3 years fees you see. The consequence, however, of allowing substandard designers to progress as far as final year is that they will carry on into the workplace instead of finding another vocation. This allowing substandard candidates to complete a high standard course is just as bad as allowing graduates of a sub-standard course into the workplace

There is no magic solution here but I wanted to ask ONQ who has a much better knowledge of these things – is there any machination by which a course, not currently recognised by Directive 2005/36/EC, can be put forward for recognition? It would seem to me that this petitioning of Brussels should be included in the RIAI mandate in order to assist registration rather than blocking it.
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 823
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby foremanjoe » Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:50 pm

wearnicehats wrote:The word that appears time and time again is “qualification”. I’m lucky enough to have one that’s recognised but I also know that 66% of my colleagues in final year were failed. It’s no accident that all those people who should not have passed third year made it to the end – to fail people early means loss of 3 years fees you see. The consequence, however, of allowing substandard designers to progress as far as final year is that they will carry on into the workplace instead of finding another vocation. This allowing substandard candidates to complete a high standard course is just as bad as allowing graduates of a sub-standard course into the workplace


So am I correct in understanding that you're saying that the problem with the old system was that the institutes of higher education were producing too many substandard graduates, and this new architects register will weed out unworthy practitioners?

The overwhelming majority of staff members at the various schools of architecture in this country are MRIAI, right? Therefore, one would assume that the standards they use to assess their students are pretty much in line with the standards of the RIAI, right? So, at what stage does an education from MRIAI become insufficient for a qualification from the RIAI?
foremanjoe
Member
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:57 pm

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby CK » Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:53 pm

It is new that one European country implemented registration without insuring that established professionals were protected and that registration would not damage existing practices. I have made some researches in UK law, French law, Spanish Law, Belgium Law,... I did not find one European country which did not protect its self-taught architects or those with alternative qualifications when starting the registration procedure.

Registration is not compulsory in the EU. It is not the EU requested that self-taught architects in Ireland shall be discriminated. This is a pure Irish phenomenon.

Why is it happening in Ireland? Why are we treated like criminals? I cannot imagine anyone else than the RIAI and some schools of architecture to have organized such a plot? These people should be ashamed to represent Irish architecture and consider their own interests instead of the public interests as they claim and pretend loudly.
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby PVC King » Tue Apr 27, 2010 6:13 pm

onq wrote:Correct.

DIT is an Institute of Higher Learning as recognised by the EU and defined as a competent body under S.I. 15 : 1989.
I have used the title architect based on formal recogniation of my qualificationunder both EU and Irish Law.

The ARB accreditation procedure has its fair share of detractors in the UK and elsewhere.
Citing it here instead of answering the points I made shows you've nothing much to say.

Thank you for revealing the depth of RIAI propaganda to me in your posts.
I won't count this as a wasted day.

ONQ.


I have a very favourable impression of DIT as a seat of learning; I just don't feel that in the absence of time in the workplace with learning specific to the profession as opposed to academic learning is enough to consider people qualified. Look at accountants, solicitors, surveyors etc all require further study from their base degree.

I am all in favour of people currently at DIT being called student architects and those with the degree but pending a part 3 equivelent being called associate architects albeit that they participate in ongoing CPD to retain that status; but for the qualification to stand up on a par with other professions something along the lines of a part 3 qualification is required to be fully ready to practice as a sole practitioner in my view.

I am not saying that someone of associate status would automatically do an inferior job on a specific task but the differentiation between associate and chartered allows the market participants to make an informed choice based on a clear line of demarcation.

Given the free for all that went before I support the RIAI system as something is clearly better than nothing. What I don't understand is why you didn't pursue RIAI membership if you have such a great qualification; is there an issue of it only being recognised by the institute for a period of time or requiring further training to convert the underlying degree to their vision of fully qualified?

A lot of people would view your situation as getting through a tough under-graduate course but not making the effort to do whatever was necessary to secure membership of the national professional body. A lot of people would only care about the design vision but banks may want a bit more than a degree if the project involved secured lending.
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby CK » Tue Apr 27, 2010 6:40 pm

Studying is a privilege...

Many academics believe that they know better than those who learned by themselves.

They should look at the history of architecture more attentively and they will find that many of the great architects learned by themselves. Self-taught architects are passionate about their art, they did not study to gain a title, they study everyday to create.

Academics claim to protect the public by preventing self-trained to practice... But in reality they are only protecting themselves...
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Tue Apr 27, 2010 6:49 pm

PVC King wrote:I have a very favourable impression of DIT as a seat of learning; I just don't feel that in the absence of time in the workplace with learning specific to the profession as opposed to academic learning is enough to consider people qualified.
(waffle about PVC Kings re-writing of the law snipped)


PVC King,

You seem to be someone who puts badges before people and that's a sure road to disaster.
Are you one of those whose ISO 9002 QA file is filled, but things don't get done around?
Things get done around me, clients happy, certificates issued, photo record taken.

What part of "I practised legally as an architect from June 1990 until May 2008" don't you understand?

I had no need of the RIAI.
My certs were accepted from before 1994.
I had my designs built while I was still studying.

I was one of two named officers of the company I worked for under its P.I. cover deemed competent to inspect and signed certificates.
I supported the company's and my own CPD programmes, and since leaving them I found I frequently had to instruct MRIAI's on their lack of knowledge during disputes.

I realise there are some lame ducks out there who absolutely need to belong to an old boys club, whether for social reasons or whatever - but that's not me.

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

As for the RIBA, isn't this the same old boys club that Quinlan Terry belongs to?
Wasn't he fined a wadge recently for allowing a builder to demolish a listed building?
How di his badge and his "Chartered status" in any way serve the public interest in this?

Answer: it didn't - mere Propaganda to suit ass covering pen pushers who like to answer yes when someone asks -

"Is Quinlan in the RIBA?"
"Why, yes he is Quentin."
"Pity about the Listed Building though..."
"Indeed Quentin, but he's one of us you know - a decent sort."

Pandering to the British way of doing things doesn't sit well with me.
I'm not a rabid Republican, but I don't see their stuff is head and shoulders over the rest of the world.
Despite all their money in the City, what have the Brits done with it to benefit the general public or even London?

Monolithic crap in Canary Wharf reminiscent of something from Communist Russia
Dodgy post-modernism on the Thames.
The inside-out Lloyds Building [yeah, THAT started a fashion]
That Penis/Gherkin joke
A stupid tent
A stupid wheel -

I mean, I ask you!

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

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 » Tue Apr 27, 2010 6:50 pm

Self-taught architects are passionate about their art, they did not study to gain a title, they study everyday to create.



But you can have the best of both Worlds; most professions do; you study for a number of years and then work and are examined on the quality of your work. I have no doubt David Grant thought he was a genius..... I am clearly not saying that anyone here is a David Grant but that a system less than one which requires that the academic knowledge be applied and then examined is clearly superior to academic knowledge alone which allows many people to get the qualification and regard themselves as knowing the business; which many clearly will not due to a lack of practical experience. In no other profession I am aware of would a discussion on full qualification being acheived at a university or IT; take place, the necessity of CPD cannot be understated to keep the body professional up to speed with changes in the industry.
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby PVC King » Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:03 pm

onq wrote:PVC King,

What part of "I practised legally as an architect from June 1990 until May 2008" don't you understand?

I had no need of the RIAI.

My certs were accepted from before 1994.

I had designs built while I was still studying.

I was one of two named officers of the company I worked for under its P.I. cover deemed competent to inspect and signed certificates.

I supported the company's and my own CPD programmes, and since leaving them I found I frequently had to instruct MRIAI's on their lack of knowledge during disputes.

I realise there are some lame ducks out there who absolutely need to belong to an old boys club, whether for social reasons or whatever - but that's not me.

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

Pandering to the British way of doing things doesn't sit well with me either.

I'm not a rabid Republican, but I don't see their stuff is head and shoulders over the rest of the world.

Despite all their money in the City, what have the Brits done with it?

The monolithic crap in Canary Wharf reminiscent of something from Communist Russia, some dodgy post-modernism on the Thames, the inside-out Lloyds [yeah, THAT started fashion] and the Penis/Gherkin yoke, a stupid tent and a stupid wheel - I mean, I ask you!

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

ONQ.



You had a legally recognised degree in a country where anyone could call themselves an architect; the RIAI have brought in a regulated system which was enshrined in law because the public were getting conned. You try to explain the Grant sitaution by saying you sorted the client out; base line Grant should never have been able to exploit the complete absence of any meaningful regulation.

As I have said I am all in favour of people with the appropriate degree going on to become registered architects; when they can display that they have completed the necessary experience and have acheived a proper technical standard. Until that point I think the associate membership route is entirely appropriate to indicate at least academic knowledge but not full chartered status.

The RIAI was founded in 1839; I just don't understand why anyone that aspires to the pinacle of their profession would choose not to join. Did you apply to join on graduation or just decide it was a membership fee and your money had better uses?

I'm not going to comment on UK architecture but would say that when the majority of planning permissions are going to applicants who have engaged engineers and cad designers and even interenet plan shops such as Irish House designs; then slagging neighbouring juristictions is rather limp.
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby gunter » Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:25 pm

onq wrote:Monolithic crap in Canary Wharf reminiscent of something from Communist Russia
Dodgy post-modernism on the Thames.
The inside-out Lloyds Building [yeah, THAT started a fashion]
That Penis/Gherkin joke
A stupid tent
A stupid wheel -

I mean, I ask you!


That's good . . . very good

. . . . just let it all out
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:57 pm

PVC King wrote:You had a legally recognised degree in a country where anyone could call themselves an architect;

Nope
I had and still have a legally recognised degree that formally entitled me to call myself an architect, both in Ireland and throughout the EU.
the RIAI have brought in a regulated system which was enshrined in law because the public were getting conned.

Last I checked it was the Attorney Generals office that wrote the law which was voted on by the Oireachtas and signed into law by the president.
But you're claiming the RIAI did it.
You must be one of those "insiders" we read about in the scandal sheets.
How is it that a non-archtiect like you claime ot be is so well-connected and knows so much about the RIAI?

As for your nonsense repeat of RIAI propaganda; -
I have seen no great outcry from the public about being conned, nor any great evidence of wrongdoing on the part of

1. self-taught architects
2. persons with legally recognsied qualifications that entitled them to call themselves architects
3. or EVEN MRIAI's

- although the most serious issues of incompetence and fraudulent certification I have dealt with to date were from MRIAIs.

I realise I get to deal with the dregs, and that most MRIAI's I know are quite competent, but still, it gives your argument a good kick in the goolies.
You try to explain the Grant sitaution by saying you sorted the client out;

I'm beginning to think you're terminally stupid.

You brought up David Grant, not me, as a red herring.

I didn't "explain the Grant situation" by reference to my client.
I recounted the sad tale of my client's experiecne with him separately.

I explained Grant's success which in my understanding was down to his price point, not his competence.
I explained his downfall, which I understood was down to his lack of competence not price point.
base line Grant should never have been able to exploit the complete absence of any meaningful regulation.

Let me explain this in simple terms I hope you can grasp.

David Grant was supported by the market in the absence of regulation.
David Grant was brought down by the market in the absence of regulation.
The RIAI played no part in his downfall except the usual bleating about regulation.

The market dealt with Grant.

But let's take your point at face value.
The ARB has attempted to regulate the British profession for years.
But David Grant has operated for years in Britain where they have regulation.

As an architect.

David Grant has been taken to court on at least two occassions by the ARB

Still operating as an architect.

http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/5202781.article
I have no doubt that he will continue to operate for as long as he likes, get taken to court and pay the fines.
http://www.cityultima.com/London/BusinessPage:Inspired_Design

As an architect

He is a con man who makes so much money from the profession he can afford to laugh off the fines.
And this is continuing to occur in a jurisdiction where regulation has operated for years.
It is quite clear that regulation has not deterred David Grant and does not protect the public.

You have no point.

As I have said I am all in favour of people with the appropriate degree going on to become registered architects; when they can display that they have completed the necessary experience and have acheived a proper technical standard. Until that point I think the associate membership route is entirely appropriate to indicate at least academic knowledge but not full chartered status.

I'll endeavour to keep the title I have.
EU and Irish law says I am an architect.
I won't be playing second fiddle to MRIAI's.
The RIAI was founded in 1839; I just don't understand why anyone that aspires to the pinacle of their profession would choose not to join. Did you apply to join on graduation or just decide it was a membership fee and your money had better uses?

I do not "aspire" to anything - I've practised as an architect for almost 20 years.
I became an architect legally in Ireland and throughout the EU on the date of my qualification from Bolton Street in 1990.
I had no need to join a repressive organization that at the time forbade advertising, promoted price fixing and forbade non-Members from using the RIAI Contracts at the same time as they promoted them as an industry standard.
I'm not going to comment on UK architecture but would say that when the majority of planning permissions are going to applicants who have engaged engineers and cad designers and even interenet plan shops such as Irish House designs; then slagging neighbouring juristictions is rather limp.


So you'd agree that the RIAI has been doing a poor job of selling "DESIGN" to the proletariat since 1839, despite being at the "pinnacle" of the profession?

No argument there.

And guess what?

Protecting the title won't change that.

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

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:11 pm

gunter wrote:That's good . . . very good

. . . . just let it all out


:D

Oh come on!!!

They have to go all the way to the Sud de France to build a decent bridge!!!

LOL!!!

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

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:25 pm

wearnicehats wrote:I think you two need to sort this out at home but, if I may be allowed to put my head above the parapet:

Of course didums - now you've seen how the big boys play you can join in.:)
The more I read these debates the more I realise just how far from resolution this whole thing is. The Architect’s registration Board issue – on a weekly basis – reports on disciplinary action that has been taken in the UK against people who misuse the term “architect”.

HOWEVER

Just as many determinations are issued with regard to action taken over misconduct by those who are “entitled” to the title.- all based around the ARB’s strict professional competency standards. These judgements are issued to all members of the ARB and name every individual concerned. I received one 2 weeks ago regarding someone being “erased” from the Register for unacceptable professional conduct.

Priceless isn't it?
John Graby is on record as admitting that 20% of complaints relate to Members of the RIAI.
Imagine what that figure would rise to if there were an Architectural Ombudsman - a totally independent office, say a Surveyor.
The good thing about the ARB is that I can register for €95 without having to join the RIBA

You mean someone not an archtiect can register?
What does that make you - a Technician or a Technologist?
There’s an individual on another thread who is very excitable about the whole thing and I’d like to use him as an example. Personally I see the role of Registration as one where this individual should not be allowed to use the term “architect” due to the fact that, in my opinion, he does not have anywhere near an acceptable level of competency in design (as opposed to construction).

Bitchy, bitchy bitchy... LOL!
BUT

This discriminates against those who are able to show a competency in design but do not hold a requisite qualification. (there is nothing new here by the way – the ARB uses the same EU directive as the RIAI when deciding registration)

BUT

What if this individual did carry an acceptable qualification and legitimately joined the register. Would the RIAI have recourse with regard to poor design? Would the RIAI take this individual to task over sub-standard aesthetics? It would be almost impossible to do so.

SO

The word that appears time and time again is “qualification”. I’m lucky enough to have one that’s recognised but I also know that 66% of my colleagues in final year were failed. It’s no accident that all those people who should not have passed third year made it to the end – to fail people early means loss of 3 years fees you see. The consequence, however, of allowing substandard designers to progress as far as final year is that they will carry on into the workplace instead of finding another vocation. This allowing substandard candidates to complete a high standard course is just as bad as allowing graduates of a sub-standard course into the workplace

Didn't happen in Bolton Street.
There were two watersheds.
Most people passed 1st year.
A lot of people who hadn't done science subjects didn't pass second year.
A lot of people whose work didn't reach the desired standard of design didn't pass third year.
Those who did generally got through fourth year, a year on which you generally had to show that you had it all together enough to attempt a thesis.
Thesis year most passed.
Some didn't get through thesis year.
Some because their theses weren't good enough in terms of complexity or subject matter.
Some because they attempted something so amazing and that worked out as being just beyond their abilities to manage.
There were very few design "duds" by fifth year.

There is no magic solution here but I wanted to ask ONQ who has a much better knowledge of these things – is there any machination by which a course, not currently recognised by Directive 2005/36/EC, can be put forward for recognition? It would seem to me that this petitioning of Brussels should be included in the RIAI mandate in order to assist registration rather than blocking it.


I have little knowledge of such things, wearnicehats.
There are Europe wide organizations now in terms of Higher Education and they all talk to each other.
I think the RIAI as Registrar is assessing the other schools fo architecture, but they'll never agree to offer those students the position we enjoyed as architects.

That might bring some competition into the market place.

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

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby henno » Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:02 pm

onq wrote:....
David Grant was supported by the market in the absence of regulation.
David Grant was brought down by the market in the absence of regulation.
The RIAI played no part in his downfall except the usual bleating about regulation.

The market dealt with Grant.
.



:D

i think the appropriate expression is "OWNED!!"
henno
Senior Member
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 12:07 pm

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:22 pm

henno wrote::D

i think the appropriate expression is "OWNED!!"


:)

And this is me being nice.

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

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby CK » Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:43 pm

PVC King wrote:But you can have the best of both Worlds; most professions do; you study for a number of years and then work and are examined on the quality of your work. I have no doubt David Grant thought he was a genius..... I am clearly not saying that anyone here is a David Grant but that a system less than one which requires that the academic knowledge be applied and then examined is clearly superior to academic knowledge alone which allows many people to get the qualification and regard themselves as knowing the business; which many clearly will not due to a lack of practical experience. In no other profession I am aware of would a discussion on full qualification being acheived at a university or IT; take place, the necessity of CPD cannot be understated to keep the body professional up to speed with changes in the industry.


First, it must be clear that registration will not prevent con men to practice, then your reference to David Grant does not make sense. There are lists of registrered architects, medical doctors, solicitors, who have been in court for misconduct.

Second, I do not understand why you think that someone cannot obtain skills to practice outside univesity. Have you tried?

Third, the world of architects would be sad if we had to remove from the list names such as Mies, Frank Loyd Wright, Ando, Xenakis, and so many more.

Fourth, why is it only in Ireland that established self-trained architects are discrimninated? Why are registered architects in this country so afraid to compete with us?
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby PVC King » Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:44 pm

onq wrote:Nope
I had and still have a legally recognised degree that formally entitled me to call myself an architect, both in Ireland and throughout the EU.

Last I checked it was the Attorney Generals office that wrote the law which was voted on by the Oireachtas and signed into law by the president.
But you're claiming the RIAI did it.
You must be one of those "insiders" we read about in the scandal sheets.
How is it that a non-archtiect like you claime ot be is so well-connected and knows so much about the RIAI?

As for your nonsense repeat of RIAI propaganda; -
I have seen no great outcry from the public about being conned, nor any great evidence of wrongdoing on the part of

1. self-taught architects
2. persons with legally recognsied qualifications that entitled them to call themselves architects
3. or EVEN MRIAI's

- although the most serious issues of incompetence and fraudulent certification I have dealt with to date were from MRIAIs.

I realise I get to deal with the dregs, and that most MRIAI's I know are quite competent, but still, it gives your argument a good kick in the goolies.

I'm beginning to think you're terminally stupid.

You brought up David Grant, not me, as a red herring.

I didn't "explain the Grant situation" by reference to my client.
I recounted the sad tale of my client's experiecne with him separately.

I explained Grant's success which in my understanding was down to his price point, not his competence.
I explained his downfall, which I understood was down to his lack of competence not price point.

Let me explain this in simple terms I hope you can grasp.

David Grant was supported by the market in the absence of regulation.
David Grant was brought down by the market in the absence of regulation.
The RIAI played no part in his downfall except the usual bleating about regulation.

The market dealt with Grant.

But let's take your point at face value.
The ARB has attempted to regulate the British profession for years.
But David Grant has operated for years in Britain where they have regulation.

As an architect.

David Grant has been taken to court on at least two occassions by the ARB

Still operating as an architect.

http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/5202781.article
I have no doubt that he will continue to operate for as long as he likes, get taken to court and pay the fines.
http://www.cityultima.com/London/BusinessPage:Inspired_Design

As an architect

He is a con man who makes so much money from the profession he can afford to laugh off the fines.
And this is continuing to occur in a jurisdiction where regulation has operated for years.
It is quite clear that regulation has not deterred David Grant and does not protect the public.

You have no point.


I'll endeavour to keep the title I have.
EU and Irish law says I am an architect.
I won't be playing second fiddle to MRIAI's.

I do not "aspire" to anything - I've practised as an architect for almost 20 years.
I became an architect legally in Ireland and throughout the EU on the date of my qualification from Bolton Street in 1990.
I had no need to join a repressive organization that at the time forbade advertising, promoted price fixing and forbade non-Members from using the RIAI Contracts at the same time as they promoted them as an industry standard.


So you'd agree that the RIAI has been doing a poor job of selling "DESIGN" to the proletariat since 1839, despite being at the "pinnacle" of the profession?

No argument there.

And guess what?

Protecting the title won't change that.

ONQ.



I am going to resist the temptation to do multiple quotes on this; you went to college and a deficient legal framework allowed you to call yourself a qualified architect even though you had not worked in the profession for a significant period of monitored employment and structured training; the phrase may have been qualified but clearly the emphasis needed to be on educationally qualified and not professionally qualified. Name one other profession where that was the case then or is now.

David Grant was not brought down by the market he was brought down by a prime time expose; the complete absence from the requirement to be vetted by a professional body of practicing peers was patently obvious as the major cause behind chancers like Grant getting away with it. David Grant had a degree but no professional membership; solicitors, auditors and most other professions have for decades insisted on professional membership to claim the title. A Trinity Law degree gets you the right to sit a further exam and thats it.

Your answer as to why you didn't join the RIAI is quite telling; you clearly didn't feel that you needed to join the main professional membership organisation in the sector; legally then you didn't but the law changed; to state that any graduate is fully professionally developed is niave at best or a polemical stance to suit a retrospective position looks more credible.

I congratulate the architecture profession in providing the same coherence as other professions; as the saying goes better late than never. I'm sure the RIAI would discuss a vetting procedure for you that reflects that you have a degree; as you have kept up with CPD then you would have no issues sitting some form of test to clarify that you have the relevant skills; although I must confess to being a touch confused as to how you would know the appropriate balance unless you have followed the ongoing guidance of the RIAI on that subject from a distance.

To someone outside the profession; I have never ceased to be amazed at how much of the market share was taken by people who had no design training at all; excluding operating cad packages that is. I further cannot understand how after 5 years in what in fairness is reputed to be a tough degree to acheive that one would feel that membership of the relevant professional body was not the appropriate manner in which to develop one's career further. Clearly that decision has had an opportunity cost in some cases.
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby PVC King » Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:02 pm

CK wrote:First, it must be clear that registration will not prevent con men to practice, then your reference to David Grant does not make sense. There are lists of registrered architects, medical doctors, solicitors, who have been in court for misconduct.

Second, I do not understand why you think that someone cannot obtain skills to practice outside univesity. Have you tried?

Third, the world of architects would be sad if we had to remove from the list names such as Mies, Frank Loyd Wright, Ando, Xenakis, and so many more.

Fourth, why is it only in Ireland that established self-trained architects are discrimninated? Why are registered architects in this country so afraid to compete with us?


There is a large difference between misconduct and claiming to be something you are not; sadly the internet has opened many opportunities for conpersons to buy qualifications of no merit and masquerade as architects doectors etc; membership of a professional association enables prospective clients to check that the membership is valid and that the qualifications have been vetted by professionals who know the sector including the good from the bad feeder educational routes.

Most CPD is peer driven i.e. practitioners versus full time academics; much of it can be internal if the firm has the resources. What membership organisations do is that they provide the platform for smaller practices to create the numbers to ensure that events arte viable.

A talented designer will always get work; they simply need to be honest as to what their professional qualifications are; safe to say Mies is from a different era he was ahead of his time; unlike proper regulation which is decades late.

You state there is discrimination against professionally unqualified architects; beyond not calling themselves architects where is the discrimination; if you went to a hospital and it were busy and the complaint not to complex would you object to the nurse treating you? Would he object to not being called a doctor? But if the problem is complex would you not want a professionally qualified architect?
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby CK » Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:07 pm

PVC King wrote:
To someone outside the profession; I have never ceased to be amazed at how much of the market share was taken by people who had no design training at all; excluding operating cad packages that is. I further cannot understand how after 5 years in what in fairness is reputed to be a tough degree to acheive that one would feel that membership of the relevant professional body was not the appropriate manner in which to develop one's career further. Clearly that decision has had an opportunity cost in some cases.


I have practiced during 16 years, I have BA and a master in Arts & Architecture... But I was never in a position to register... However I have been practicing as an employee and on my on account. I have a long list of employers and clients delighted with my services... I made mistakes and anyone does...

If it is thought that registration must be, I do not agree but that is fine with me, I do not want to impose my views. However, I would like to know why Ireland does not recognize the rights of self-trained architects to continue practicing, when so far as I know, all other European countries have automatically registered established self-trained architects when introducing the legislation for registration.

Such discrimination is unnecessary for the good of the public; it is only serving the interests of architects with academic qualification.
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby CK » Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:13 pm

PVC King wrote:There is a large difference between misconduct and claiming to be something you are not; sadly the internet has opened many opportunities for conpersons to buy qualifications of no merit and masquerade as architects doectors etc; membership of a professional association enables prospective clients to check that the membership is valid and that the qualifications have been vetted by professionals who know the sector including the good from the bad feeder educational routes.

Most CPD is peer driven i.e. practitioners versus full time academics; much of it can be internal if the firm has the resources. What membership organisations do is that they provide the platform for smaller practices to create the numbers to ensure that events arte viable.

A talented designer will always get work; they simply need to be honest as to what their professional qualifications are; safe to say Mies is from a different era he was ahead of his time; unlike proper regulation which is decades late.

You state there is discrimination against professionally unqualified architects; beyond not calling themselves architects where is the discrimination; if you went to a hospital and it were busy and the complaint not to complex would you object to the nurse treating you? Would he object to not being called a doctor? But if the problem is complex would you not want a professionally qualified architect?


Many MRIAI have no qualification, they never been to university. They were given membership because they were on the Minister list.

Why shall someone be doing the work of an architect without being permited to call himself / herself an architect? Don't you think that this is a non-sense?

The term "Architect" first defines a profession, isn't it?
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby PVC King » Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:36 pm

There is nothing stopping experienced persons working within the industry to get the necessary further training to get into the position to become professionally qualified. I've never heard of an experienced but unqualified doctor; the legal profession had for many years a structured route to grant a individuals who had not gone down the usual university onto law society examinations route practicing certificate after 7 years of work experience. The critical requirements were that your employer who was qualified and granted you student membership and that you attended structured training; not dis-similar to CPD.

I have never said that those without professional qualification don't design well in some cases; I have used someone in those circumstances very beneficially. However buildings last for generations and it is one professional area which needs to be monitored as a result. The public have the right to associate the title architect in the same way they look at doctor, solicitor or auditor all of which require a formal membership affiliation to use the title.
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby TxT » Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:53 pm

My first post so I'll try not to embarrass myself too much...

If you qualify from Bolton Street and work in the U.K. for 2 years min. under an A.R.B. registered Architect's instruction, you can be A.R.B. registered with no need to sit the Part III. Then come back to Ireland and you can't be on the register here.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just odd.
TxT
Member
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:00 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland



cron