Dear Young Architects

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:42 pm

PVC King wrote:How many shoulders do you have?


Plenty.

How many degrees do you have?

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 » Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:49 pm

Tayto wrote:I didn't get where I am today by exercising my ego, I tell you!


I'm afraid its the only exercise I get these days.

Apart from attending my AAI CPD evenings :D

ABK lecture tonight on the Edmund Burke.

Well attended.

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 » Thu Apr 29, 2010 11:06 pm

BenK wrote:I think I've pretty much said what I have to say but in reply to some of the issues you raised ONQ:

I guess where we differ is you think it's appropriate to say you're an architect after coming out of college. I think it should have some sort of qualification: graduate architect or similar. I obviously don't think that you should be kept at the level of the man in the street. I know when I first qualified after coming into an office full-time it was an eye opener and on a practical level I knew next to nothing. I concede that now I know a little more than nothing!

I don't "think it's appropriate to say you're an architect after coming out of college"
What part of "its written into Irish and EU law" don't you get BenK?
Please don't put words in my mouth. Granted (no pun intended...) I admit I did forget about your reference to Mr. David Grant, sorry about that, but I'm not defending the indefensible, MRIAIs or anyone else. I was more getting at what I felt was a lack of balance to your posts. And again I've clearly stated that I don't think MRIAIs or anyone else are above reproach. As I've stated before, in terms of protecting the consumer/public and so on a MRIAI has an added qualification (Part 3) that a graduate hasn't. To me it's obvious that this helps protect everyone in the majority of cases (anecdotal stories withstanding).

But that's the point, BenK.
Its bad enough hearing anecdotal stories about a lack of action.
When you've seen enough bad apples you begin to wonder "what's the point?"

I accept that the people involved are all adults and can't be "chastised".
I accept that up until the BCA 2007 the RIAI had no real "clout" with its Members.
I accept that as a professional courtesy and to avoid economic consequences for an office the RIAI might want to keep any censure quiet.
But when you see the guy you reported rise through the ranks afterwards you can be fairly certain nothing, absolutely nothing, was done about him.
Perhaps that's naive on my apart. As for the suggestion that I personally attacked you I think that's a little over the top. And I'm well able to think for myself. Thanks for the heads up though.

The point I was trying to make was that you went after the man, not the argument - ad hominems never impress.
That's fair enough, I can understand you feel your rights have been denied. I still feel though the Part 3 is a necessity and I just wanted to understand why, in your position, you chose not to complete it. If you're in the position to do it, it seems like a no-brainer to me. Not to join the RIAI, old boys' club if you will, but to allow yourself to join the register as an architect.

I probably will do that and despite the fact that PVC King thinks I'm dissing the RIAI when I'm merely attesting to my legal rights under the law - as they have existed since 1990 - I actually think that the online CPD and practice notes are two very good reasons to join the RIAI.

In the meantime I think there is a middle way for people who are self-taught as shown in post no. 132 above.
This is likely to be put to government and the RIAI in the next few days as a means of defusing the stupid situation that's brewing.
Mind you I've just been to an AAI lecture and discovered that Koralek won the competition for the Trinity Library when he was only 28.
The only other modern building in Dublin at the time was Busárus, he had never been in Ireland before and he was allowed build the campus centrepiece.

How undermined is this profession now when people with the qualification are prevented from calling themselves architects.
And you and your supporting voices here don't even seem to realise the injustice that's been done to you!
Will you at least go and read the current Directive like an independent thinker?

DIRECTIVE 2005/36/EC http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:255:0022:0142:en:PDF

In particular read Article 46 which the RIAI refers to on its web page, but it seems not to understand Section 2 which says you can't raise the bar.
Also read Article 52 Section 2 2nd paragraph which confirms this.
Admittedly these are only my interpretations.
But I've been told I'm good at this.

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 » Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:29 am

I have read the latest posts here between the lines. On one side we find those who support registration of architects blindly because the legislation and its implementation are in line with their interests. On the other we find those for whom registration is against their interests because the fees requested are too high and / or because the assessment is set up as to minimize their chance of success and / or because they have problems dealing with the Royals.

The first group defends blindly registration and its procedure which is in line with their own interests. The second group, in the contrary, started to question the Act and its implementation.

Taking one or two, maybe three steps back, I am trying to put my personal interests aside and to think logically as well as impartially. Of course I am questioning the Act and the procedure, but shall not everybody with sense be questioning a system before using it?

I went to the RIAI (Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland) website and read: “Promoting, Supporting, Regulating Architecture”, then I was wondering does the RIAI do what they claim doing? I think that by letting some professionals practicing architecture without code of conduct or supervision, The RIAI is falling short of what it claims to do. It is only fair to say that the RIAI slogan should be changed to: “Promoting, Supporting, Regulating Architects”.

I looked at the argument behind Registration. It has been openly advertised on TV, Radio and other media as an action protecting the public. Trying to understand what has been created to protect this public, I realized that the only change is related to the term “Architect”, which first defined a profession, and now defines a title. Some professionals are able to continue using the title (group one as described earlier) some others are not (group two also detailed earlier). From now on, if a consumer wants to hire the services of a professional using the title architect, he or she has to choose within the RIAI registered practitioners only. The consumer also has the choice to hire the services of a professional who cannot use the title.

Is the public really protected now? Isn’t there an issue related to the fact that consumers can only use RIAI registered professionals if they want to hire the services of a company or an individual permitted to use the title? Wouldn’t the consumer be protected more efficiently if he or she had the choice between 2 groups regulating the title?

Continuing deeper in the subject, I am wondering, what is the reason for professionals who cannot register to continue practicing without being regulated or supervised? If part 3 the Building Control Act 2007 really intended to protect the public, surely this issue would have been addressed, but it hasn’t. Would it be that the RIAI will deal with these individuals in the future by definitely removing their rights to practice? If these professionals have to be regulated or removed from the scene, then why not doing it now?

Some may think that my demonstration is not impartial, but doing my best to ignore my own interests, it is still evident, that the only persons protected by the registration of architects as implemented in Ireland, are those professionals who are now listed on the register of architects.

Considering this, I want to be on the register too. But to do so, despite my 16 years of experience and 8 years in university learning about sciences of Arts & Architecture, I am not permitted to pass an examination for professionals with more than 10 years of experience, because I had only 8 years of experience working in the State on May 2008 date of the enforcement of the Act. Some architects with some qualifications gained abroad can register in Ireland without any experience working in the state, without any knowledge of the Irish planning system, without any knowledge of Irish building standards. Consumers are not protected from those individuals. Why is the legislation discriminating me against these foreign practitioners?

Whatever, I am not lazy; I have been a hard worker since I was in university financing my studies by working part time. Then I decided to pass the ARAE which is an examination for those without qualification and over 7 years of experience. But you may imagine my surprise when I was requested E13,300 to pass this examination, a sum that I cannot afford in these difficult times. Another issue is related to the content of the examination, which is very academic, in line with the knowledge of a newly qualified architect, but not with the skills of an experienced individual. The examination, as detailed on the ARAE website would require that I switch from the work that I carry out in my practice to study subjects that are completely foreign to my usual work. I am just willing to continue practicing in my specialty as many architects members of the RIAI do. I have learned to design industrial buildings about 16 years ago in France, I have participated to the design of some industrial buildings in the UK about 12 years ago, but I have not and do not intend to design some in the future. Then why should I be assessed on this ground? The industrial building is one example, but the issue is similar in relation to other sectors. I am not intending to work on large developments, why should my skills to practice be assessed in relation to large developments? The fact is that young qualified architects have experience of nothing, but they have a wide superficial knowledge of everything. The ARAE is suitable for these young qualified architects, but not for experienced professionals who have already made their choices and specialized within the profession.

My conclusion on the registration of architects is first that the public has been misled because consumers are not protected by the new legislation, and second that people in my situation have been discriminated using financial means, as well as administrative and legal tools. I cannot fully prove who orchestrated the deception that surrounds the registration procedure and its legislation, but my only suspect is the RIAI. I have compared fees and procedure in many other European countries, and I do not understand why Ireland decided to protects architects instead of regulating architectural services.

This is my first and it will be my last post on archiseek for today 30th April 2010.
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby missarchi » Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:19 am

I got the same impression...
Proffesions are like colours theres no gold at the end of the rainbow...
missarchi
Old Master
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:53 pm

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby BenK » Fri Apr 30, 2010 9:31 am

ANd around and around it goes...

I don't "think it's appropriate to say you're an architect after coming out of college"
What part of "its written into Irish and EU law" don't you get BenK?


I get the written into Irish Law bit ONQ. I'm simply saying, which I think is pretty obvious, that I feel it's deficient for all the reasons I've already stated. You clearly think it isn't. Fair enough we disagree.

But that's the point, BenK.
Its bad enough hearing anecdotal stories about a lack of action.
When you've seen enough bad apples you begin to wonder "what's the point?"

I accept that the people involved are all adults and can't be "chastised".
I accept that up until the BCA 2007 the RIAI had no real "clout" with its Members.
I accept that as a professional courtesy and to avoid economic consequences for an office the RIAI might want to keep any censure quiet.
But when you see the guy you reported rise through the ranks afterwards you can be fairly certain nothing, absolutely nothing, was done about him.


I can understand you you've had some issues down through the years with individual members of the RIAI. I'm not trying to defend any one of them. But I feel that that is a bit of a smokescreen to what I feel is the nub of the issue. Is Part 3 required or not for an architect to be fully qualified? You had intimated in previous posts that it wasn't. I feel it is. This is where we disagree, again fair enough.

The point I was trying to make was that you went after the man, not the argument - ad hominems never impress.


That just isn't true. I consistantly went after your arguments, your irrational knocking of MRIAIs aside.

I probably will do that and despite the fact that PVC King thinks I'm dissing the RIAI when I'm merely attesting to my legal rights under the law - as they have existed since 1990 - I actually think that the online CPD and practice notes are two very good reasons to join the RIAI.


Good I think this is the best thing to do. Not to join the RIAI but to practice the most competently as an architect.

How undermined is this profession now when people with the qualification are prevented from calling themselves architects.
And you and your supporting voices here don't even seem to realise the injustice that's been done to you!
Will you at least go and read the current Directive like an independent thinker?


I don't feel there's any injustice being done to me at all. I am a graduate architect when I finish college. I am a registered/chartered architect when I finish my Part 3. As I've said before, you think it's an injustice, not me. That is me independently and logically looking at the issue.
BenK
Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:59 am

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:00 am

BenK wrote:ANd around and around it goes...

Not for much longer.
I get the written into Irish Law bit ONQ.

No, I don't think you do.
I'm simply saying, which I think is pretty obvious, that I feel it's deficient for all the reasons I've already stated. You clearly think it isn't. Fair enough we disagree.

You're merely repeating yourself.
You have made no comment on my suggestio in Post # 132, which picked up on comments passed by PVC King.
As you can see, unlike you, I don't have a mentality that depends on defending entrenched positions.

If I see that proposal as a way forward that will improve the situation for all concerned I will AT LEAST investigate it.

You didn't even acknowledge the step forward that this might represent.
That's a sign of readily adopting an entrenched position.
A two-edged sword in design terms.
Wth no fallback position.
I can understand you you've had some issues down through the years with individual members of the RIAI. I'm not trying to defend any one of them.

You cannot seriously advance that argument BenK.
When you've seen enough transgressions and sharp practice and mis-certification you begin to realise that amongst the good guys, there is a significant number who behave as if they look down on their clients.

The prelude to the story about the architect opposite me on the house defects job is that the architect who had certified the houses, another MRIAI, when presented with the horrible vista of an entire estate of houses with defects allegedly ran out of the house saying "you're not pinning this one on me".

The "alleged" comment is inserted because I was not personally present at that meeting on site, but two persons separately confirmed this to me on twoseparate occassions giving the exact same descriptions of the event - good journos only seek two confirmations.

His was an unprofessional response to an admittedly difficult situation.
To make matters worse, it was a situation he inherited, he hadn't designed the houses originally.
But his response is one you'll have heard echoes of in the "I wasn't directly involved in that" reply in relation to Shangan House fiasco, if you played the Prime Time video link I posted.

When you see consistency like this where MRIAIs are faced with serious problems involving compliance you begin to realise that maybe you SHOULD join the RIAI, and seek a seat on the Council or the Professional Practice Committee, because something might need to be done about this kind of behaviour or risk brining the profession into disrepute.

Let me underline this position for you.

I took over the inspection, remediation and re-certification of dwellings that an MRIAI ran away from, and that another MRIAI refused to help resolve in a manner with benefits for all.

Having acquired the Part III "qualification" certainly didn't seem inform the behaviour of the people I've written about.

In case you STILL don'tget it BenK, this is about ACTING PROFESSIONALLY, something you can do while you're still in 3rd level education.

I think the time for sweeping these things under the carpet is well and truly over.
Lord knows I treaded softly for years around such people for fear of brinign the profession into disrepute.
I see now that I was wrong to do that and have paid the price.
They have used my support to gain enough traction to take over tte profession.
People need to "out" architects publicly if they fail to act in a manner befitting professionals.

Chapter and verse - or in my case, a sworn affidavit.

But I feel that that is a bit of a smokescreen to what I feel is the nub of the issue. Is Part 3 required or not for an architect to be fully qualified? You had intimated in previous posts that it wasn't. I feel it is. This is where we disagree, again fair enough.

You are incorrect.
Sor someone approaching your Part III's you have a shocking disregard for the law, but one I have seen reflected in many Members of the Institute, as noted above.
When I say I am qualified as an architect and entitled to use the title - BY LAW - you dismiss it because it doesn't fit with your conditioning to date.

This is PRECISELY the attitude that is ruining the profession!
Badge Mentality - "I'm better than you so I'll do what I think is best."

What other laws will you decide are "deficient" when you've attained your Part III's and are in practice?
  • The building regulations?
  • Certification of houses with serious defects?
  • Certification of works not complete or commissioned?
  • Certification of monies for goods never delivered to site?
  • Leaving a practice without notice and taking files without permission?

Because I've seen it all done by MRIAIs and I have the files to prove it.

That just isn't true. I consistantly went after your arguments, your irrational knocking of MRIAIs aside.

Hello?
Once again, you have just called my evidence of wrong-doing on the part of MRIAI's "knocking", and not for the first time.

That is an ad-hominem attack on me, not a rebuttal of the points I raised.
I have already explained this self-evident fact to you once before.

We can add "unwillingness to accept facts or the views of others" to the list.
You'll make a fine MRIAI when you pass your Part III's.
Good I think this is the best thing to do. Not to join the RIAI but to practice the most competently as an architect.

WHAT?
I said that these were good reasons to join the RIAI and you say yes and then go oon about doing them independently?
What do you think I've been doing competently for the past 20 years?
Geez! Read the post before replying!
I don't feel there's any injustice being done to me at all. I am a graduate architect when I finish college. I am a registered/chartered architect when I finish my Part 3. As I've said before, you think it's an injustice, not me. That is me independently and logically looking at the issue.

You were asked to read the Directive and assess the legal position for yourself as it affects your primary qualification

Did you do so?

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 » Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:06 am

You have a degree; a poorly drafted piece of legislation transposing an equally flawed directive allowed you to use a title for many years.

When asked to comment on other professions you knock them but can't admit that the piece of legislation is completely out of step with all other professions. I'm not saying that people with degrees and experience shouldn't be able to regularise their position via taking further examination or an interview conducted by their peers to assess their competence. However the concept of graduating and then facing no further rules as updated from time to time by their peers is ludicrous.
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:23 am

PVC King wrote:You have a degree; a poorly drafted piece of legislation transposing an equally flawed directive allowed you to use a title for many years.

The original Directive came out in 1985.
It was reviewed by every EU country and revised in 2005.
You seem ot be sugesting that the entire EU beaurocracy, which included input from the heads of the schools of architecture, MISSED SOMETHING that you have spotted.
Hubris anyone?
When asked to comment on other professions you knock them

I pointed out that independent regulation and paper qualifications did NOT PROTECT THE PUBLIC in the case of the so called "Banking Profession".
Again, you attack me by labelling this "knocking", but you have made no rebuttal.
but can't admit that the piece of legislation is completely out of step with all other professions.

Please my post # 132 in this thread and comment on what I say there.
I'm not saying that people with degrees and experience shouldn't be able to regularise their position via taking further examination or an interview conducted by their peers to assess their competence.

Nor am I, in fact I have stated in this thread that I support both Registration and CPD.
You OTOH have repeatedly smeared qualified architects by denying the law that entitles them to bear the title and strongly implied that they are not competent to act as architects.
Given some of the responses to this thread you may be right, but the law entitles them to call themselves architects.
However the concept of graduating and then facing no further rules as updated from time to time by their peers is ludicrous.

Thats not a concept I have put forward.
That's you either misunderstanding or willfully misrepresenting my position, which I have set out at several points in this thread and which you have failed to either acknowledge or take on board.
Please read these posts setting out my position and acknowledge them before replying.
Oh and read 2005/36/EC as well - you might learn something about the law as it pertains to architects.

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 » Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:41 am

onq wrote: The original Directive came out in 1985.
It was reviewed by every EU country and revised in 2005.
You seem ot be sugesting that the entire EU beaurocracy, which included input from the heads of the schools of architecture, MISSED SOMETHING that you have spotted.
Hubris anyone?


Off to Strasbourg with you then, but you would need a solicitor and a barrister both of which would need to be members of their professional associations to practice.

onq wrote: I pointed out that independent regulation and paper qualifications did NOT PROTECT THE PUBLIC in the case of the so called "Banking Profession".
Again, you attack me by labelling this "knocking", but you have made no rebuttal.


The vast majority of bankers are fine and disciplined individuals; certain institutions got overawed by a boomtime view that there was a new paradigm centered on real estate development. Those individuals can be sanctioned by the IBI.

onq wrote: Please my post # 132 in this thread and comment on what I say there.

Nor am I, in fact I have stated in this thread that I support both Registration and CPD.
You OTOH have repeatedly smeared qualified architects by denying the law that entitles them to bear the title and strongly implied that they are not competent to act as architects.

Given some of the responses to this thread you may be right, but the law entitles them to call themselves architects.


So who designs the course material for CPD? Who updates the registration crtieria? Who handles the disciplinary criteria? These are not governmental functions they are those that are best managed by the professional industry body and in all other professions are run by the relevant membership organisation.


onq wrote:Thats not a concept I have put forward.
That's you either misunderstanding or willfully misrepresenting my position, which I have set out at several points in this thread and which you have failed to either acknowledge or take on board.
Please read these posts setting out my position and acknowledge them before replying.
Oh and read 2005/36/EC as well - you might learn something about the law as it pertains to architects.

ONQ.


Banker bashing, RIAI bashing, other poster bashing, you simply will not look at what other professions have done and simply want to pick and choose which elements of a comprehensive professional regulation regime suit you.
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby BenK » Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:19 am

ONQ,

Honestly I'm not sure about your proposal in post 132. I'd have to think about it a bit more. I think in practice it might cause difficulties and be pretty confusing for all involved with the overlap of responsibilities and liabilities amongst the different grades and the lack of clear demarcation. But that's just a first reaction. I have to say though aswell that it seems if someone gives an opinion to you and you don't agree with it that that person has become 'entrenched'. I give an opinion that I feel a piece of legislation is deficient and I'm showing a 'shocking disregard for the law'. By this logic unless you wholeheartedly agree with every law out there you have a shocking disregard for the law. & I certainly don't think I'm better than you. Your comment about the building regs and certification is more that a little dramatic. I'll respect and work to the law, it's a different thing entirely not agreeing with it (you do encourage me to think independently don't you...) This opinion has nothing to do with my conditioning by the Institute. It is MY opinion. My position, entrenched as you may feel it is, is that a qualified architect with their part 3 will in the MAJORITY of cases be more likely to be more competent than an architect who hasn't completed their part 3. This to me is obvious and this is why I think the piece of legislation you refer to is deficient for the profession and for the public. I'm not disputing your individual competence as an architect, you might just very well be the most competent architect in the world. The point is I don't really know what it is but, as a graduate until it is properly assessed, I feel it is difficult to really comment on it. Of course the Part 3 doesn't guarantee competence but then again nothing can.
BenK
Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:59 am

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:27 am

PVC King wrote:Off to Strasbourg with you then, but you would need a solicitor and a barrister both of which would need to be members of their professional associations to practice.

Eh nope, PVC King.
I'm the one saying the law is fine.
You're the one saying its defective and badly written.
You're the one who needs to go to Strasbourg, not me.
Oddly enough I don't need to be chaperoned to to anywhere in Europe.
The vast majority of bankers are fine and disciplined individuals; certain institutions got overawed by a boomtime view that there was a new paradigm centered on real estate development. Those individuals can be sanctioned by the IBI.

These fine and disciplined individuals went from
  • lending money to selling money
  • meting it out professionally to thrusting it at people
  • overseeing an unregulated floor of credit to a drip feed
  • supplying finance to our economy to hoarding reserves
  • being the oil in the maching to a bag of dirty ball bearings.
All these facts are known, so don't bother telling me what these smug bastards are with their million Euro pension top ups.
They are a disgrace, second only to the pedophile priests in terms of lack of public trust at the moment and second to none in the professions regarding the level of damage they have helped do to this country.
In the context of this debate, they are anothe red herring introduced by you - as usual.
So who designs the course material for CPD? Who updates the registration crtieria? Who handles the disciplinary criteria? These are not governmental functions they are those that are best managed by the professional industry body and in all other professions are run by the relevant membership organisation.


I have already stated as fact that I support Registration, and that the online CPD and Practice Notes are two good reasons for joining the RIAI.

What part of that didn't you comprehend?
This was only a couple of posts ago.
Memory of a goldfish.

[/QUOTE]
Banker bashing, RIAI bashing, other poster bashing, you simply will not look at what other professions have done and simply want to pick and choose which elements of a comprehensive professional regulation regime suit you.[/QUOTE]

On the contrary
  • bashing is too good for bankers
  • I'm fed up covering up for the RIAI
  • you have yet to acknowledge or rebut my points
  • I have already supported the process of Registration
  • I have already supported the mechanism of Co- Regulation

The only point I have repeatedly made, and the only point you still refuse to concede, is my automatic right to call myself an archtiect that is granted to me by EU and Irish law.

This is the baseline qualification.
If MRIAI's want to call themselves chartered architects and reserve working on larger schemes for themselves I have no problem with that.
Just don't deny me my right to call myself and architect and work on schemes I have proved my competence to carry out over the years.
Self-taught architects have a similar position based on experience.

Now, I'm through pussy footing around with you.
You have been posting here and telling me how I should behave as a professional.
What competence do you have to do that, apart from being Mr. Angry at Graduate Architects, a role that seems to be as self-appointed as anything you've accused me of.
Except that I'm not levelling that charge at you in a vacuum, I can point to the last four days of posting you've done.
Ranting on and on about how Graduates have no right to call themselves archtiects but never once reading the legislation.

What is your professional competence?
Put up or shut up.

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 » Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:41 am

BenK wrote:ONQ,

Honestly I'm not sure about your proposal in post 132. I'd have to think about it a bit more. I think in practice it might cause difficulties and be pretty confusing for all involved with the overlap of responsibilities and liabilities amongst the different grades and the lack of clear demarcation. But that's just a first reaction. I have to say though aswell that it seems if someone gives an opinion to you and you don't agree with it that that person has become 'entrenched'. I give an opinion that I feel a piece of legislation is deficient and I'm showing a 'shocking disregard for the law'. By this logic unless you wholeheartedly agree with every law out there you have a shocking disregard for the law. & I certainly don't think I'm better than you. Your comment about the building regs and certification is more that a little dramatic. I'll respect and work to the law, it's a different thing entirely not agreeing with it (you do encourage me to think independently don't you...) This opinion has nothing to do with my conditioning by the Institute. It is MY opinion. My position, entrenched as you may feel it is, is that a qualified architect with their part 3 will in the MAJORITY of cases be more likely to be more competent than an architect who hasn't completed their part 3. This to me is obvious and this is why I think the piece of legislation you refer to is deficient for the profession and for the public. I'm not disputing your individual competence as an architect, you might just very well be the most competent architect in the world. The point is I don't really know what it is but, as a graduate until it is properly assessed, I feel it is difficult to really comment on it. Of course the Part 3 doesn't guarantee competence but then again nothing can.


Thanks BenK.

Your last comment says it all.

My "knocking" of the RIAI boils down to jsut that.

To suggest that the Part III guarantees competence is to overstate.
To suggest that being self-taught automatically implies incompetence is to defame.

This is the substance of the Broadcasting Complaints Authority's decision against the recent disingenuous RIAI advertisement.

Now please use the benefit of your five years in a full time course and two years of law and read the Directives and Statutory Instrument.
Because as matters stand now, despite the Building Control Act forbidding your use of the title, you ARE an architect under the law and will be judged as such if you err.

By the RIAI not underlining this fact to Graduates, they are unaware of their responsibilities in legal terms.
This is not in my opinion an equitable or useful way to manage a profession or manage the risk associated with being in practice.

If my interpretation of the law is correct - and no-one has legally rebutted it so far despite my comments to the RIAI, the Oireachtas and the President of Ireland - then Graduates should be taking steps to cover themselves to the same degree as Architects / MRIAIs and with great urgency.


I already know and accept my liability under the law - you seem to be labouring under a serious misapprehension.
I had hoped you would be able to see through to this consequence for yourself.
NOW do you see why I'm taking the time to talk to you BenK?
Read the Directives and the Statutory Instrument.
It dosn't matter what you think of the law.
You must understand it and abide by it.

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 » Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:04 pm

onq wrote: Ranting on and on about how Graduates have no right to call themselves archtiects but never once reading the legislation.


ONQ.


This thread took direction from you feeling aggreived that you couldn't call yourself an architect anymore. It is merely pointed out to you that all other professions require membership of the relevant professional body to call themselves solicitors, bankers, auditors, planners etc.

You seem to feel that because the law at a point in time granted a right that is totally at odds with all other professions that you have been somehow hard done by.

A consistent position has now been applied to the architectural profession; that is the extent of my argument and a very welcome piece of reforming legislation that very few people I know would disagree with.


A graduate degree is just that; every other profession requires both a degree and a regulatory regime imposed by the relevant industry body. You have failed to make a special case for the architecture profession to deviate in such a fundamental way.

That said you can conveyance your house with a product sold by Tesco or sell your house through daft.
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:33 pm

PVC King wrote:This thread took direction from you feeling aggreived that you couldn't call yourself an architect anymore. It is merely pointed out to you that all other professions require membership of the relevant professional body to call themselves solicitors, bankers, auditors, planners etc.

Translation: no, I haven't read the relevant legislation and I have no clue what I'm talking about.
You seem to feel that because the law at a point in time granted a right that is totally at odds with all other professions that you have been somehow hard done by.

Translation: no, I won't pretend to understand that your point relates solely to the right to use the title conferred by DIR 85/384/EEC and DIR 2005/36/EC
A consistent position has now been applied to the architectural profession; that is the extent of my argument and a very welcome piece of reforming legislation that very few people I know would disagree with.

Translation: I'll keep battering away at a position you haven't claimed and haven't defended just to see my name in print - again.
A graduate degree is just that; every other profession requires both a degree and a regulatory regime imposed by the relevant industry body. You have failed to make a special case for the architecture profession to deviate in such a fundamental way.

Translation: no, I still won't read or otherwise inform myself about the contents of DIR 85/384/EEC and DIR 2005/36/EC or their implications.
That said you can conveyance your house with a product sold by Tesco or sell your house through daft.

Translation: when I get tired of throwing in red herrings I'll happily resort to irrelevant non sequiturs just to prove I'm a witty fellow.

(absence of requested confirmation of professional qualification noted)

(absence of requested comment on the proposed resolution in Post # 132 noted)

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 » Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:35 pm

ONQ, that's a fair enough point in relation to the law and graduates understanding their liabilities under it. I've absolutely no problem with that and it is crucially important, as you say, graduates are aware of them. I'll add that I haven't been labouring under any misapprehension either. I understand your point about the law and respect your right to call yourself an architect under it. However, my opinion on the matter is, and I think always has been really (apologies for repeating myself...), that for an architect to be fully qualified his/her competence should have to be formally assessed both academically and professionally. The Part 3 does that. Simple as.
BenK
Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:59 am

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:47 pm

BenK wrote:ONQ, that's a fair enough point in relation to the law and graduates understanding their liabilities under it. I've absolutely no problem with that and it is crucially important, as you say, graduates are aware of them. I'll add that I haven't been labouring under any misapprehension either. I understand your point about the law and respect your right to call yourself an architect under it. However, my opinion on the matter is, and I think always has been really (apologies for repeating myself...), that for an architect to be fully qualified his/her competence should have to be formally assessed both academically and professionally. The Part 3 does that. Simple as.


Thank you for taking that point.
No need to apologise for repetition of a sound point, one I agree with, as it happens - see below.

As you say it is crucially important, expecially in relation to an office obtaining adequate PI Cover.
How can an office explain its position currently, where people who may be taken to courts as architects cannot call themselves by that title, despite entitlement to do so under Irish and EU law?
I believe it cannot, and the post-graduate acting as an architect [providing architectural services] who may be singled out and under an "individually and severally" case in the High Court could find himself or herself without protection.

This is not far-fetched scare mongering - most senior architects are out winning the work, not running the jobs, and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that where a post-graduate has been signing all the letters and the drawings he will be held to account.

On the matter of the Part III's part from the fact that I believe that practising for 7 years under the guidance of MRIAI's confers a similar level of ability, we are as one.
In terms of evidence of my current abilities, have you seen anyone else teasing out the consequence for post-Graduates we've discussed above?
Nope, and most likely you won't - as I noted in a previous post, I'm told I'm good at this.

And modest. :)

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 » Fri Apr 30, 2010 2:03 pm

onq wrote:DIR 2005/36/EC

In the case of the professions covered by the general system for the recognition of qualifications, hereinafter referred to as ‘the general system’, Member States should retain the right to lay down the minimum level of qualification required to ensure the quality of the services provided on their territory. However, pursuant to Articles 10, 39 and 43 of the Treaty, they should not require a national of a Member State to obtain qualifications,
which they generally lay down only in terms of the diplomas awarded under their national educational system, where the person concerned has already obtained all or part of those qualifications in another Member State. As a result, it should be laid down that any host Member State in which a profession is regulated must take account of the qualifications obtained in another Member State and assess whether they correspond to those which it requires.

The general system for recognition, however, does not prevent a Member State from making any person pursuing a profession on its territory subject to specific requirements due to the application of professional rules justified by the general public interest. Rules of this kind relate, for example, to organisation of the profession, professional standards, including those concerning ethics, and supervision and liability. Lastly, this Directive is not intended to interfere with Member States' legitimate interest in preventing any of their citizens from evading enforcement of the national law relating to professions.


Where does the directive prevent the government from regulating as it sees fit?
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:17 pm

PVC King wrote:Where does the directive prevent the government from regulating as it sees fit?


Firstly, well done for reading the Directive.

I refer to this part of the text you quote:

Member States should retain the right to lay down the minimum level of qualification required to ensure the quality of the services provided on their territory.

I refer to S.I. 15 which wrote the Architect's Directive into law:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1989/en/si/0015.html

I refer to the following sections of the Qualifications Directive, 2005/36/EC

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:255:0022:0142:en:PDF

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

Section 8

Architect

Article 46

Training of architects

1. Training as an architect shall comprise a total of at least
four years of full-time study or six years of study, at least
three years of which on a full-time basis, at a university or
comparable teaching institution. The training must lead to
successful completion of a university-level examination.
That training, which must be of university level, and of which
architecture is the principal component, must maintain a
balance between theoretical and practical aspects of architectural
training and guarantee the acquisition of the following
knowledge and skills:

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

Article 49

Acquired rights specific to architects

1. Each Member State shall accept evidence of formal qualifications
as an architect listed in Annex VI, point 6, awarded by
the other Member States, and attesting a course of training
which began no later than the reference academic year referred
to in that Annex, even if they do not satisfy the minimum
requirements laid down in Article 46, and shall, for the
purposes of access to and pursuit of the professional activities
of an architect, give such evidence the same effect on its territory
as evidence of formal qualifications as an architect which
it itself issues.

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

And, from L 255/131:

V. 7. ARCHITECT

5.7.1. Evidence of formal qualifications of architects recognised pursuant to Article 46

Country: Ireland

Evidence of formal qualifications:

2. Degree of Bachelor of Architecture
(B.Arch.)
(Previously, until 2002 - Degree
standard diploma in architecture
(Dip. Arch))

Body awarding the evidence of
qualifications:

2. Dublin Institute of Technology,
Bolton Street, Dublin
(College of Technology, Bolton Street,
Dublin)

Reference academic year:

1988/89

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

The table is difficult to represent here in html but the other three named persons are listed.

1. Degree of Bachelor of Architecture
(B.Arch. NUI)

3. Certificate of associateship (ARIAI)

4. Certificate of membership (MRIAI)

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


Nothing in the Directive allows the Member State to take away a Graduates right to call themselves an Architect [Article 49 above is specific to me].

They can add additional requirements until the cows come home - for example, Registration, which I support and CPD, which I have been engaged in since I qualified - but they cannot unmake a graduate so that he enjoys the same standing as the man in the street.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have some proposals to put to the Oireactas based on Post # 132 above in order to try and defuse and - dare I say it - Regulate (!) the impending war with the Architects Alliance.

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 » Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:08 pm

Article 46
Training of architects
1. Training as an architect shall comprise a total of at least four years of full-time study or six years of study, at least three years of which on a full-time basis, at a university or
comparable teaching institution. The training must lead to successful completion of a university-level examination. That training, which must be of university level, and of which
architecture is the principal component, must maintain a balance between theoretical and practical aspects of architectural training and guarantee the acquisition of the following
knowledge and skills:
(a) ability to create architectural designs that satisfy both aesthetic and technical requirements; 30.9.2005 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 255/47
(b) adequate knowledge of the history and theories of architecture and the related arts, technologies and human sciences;
(c) knowledge of the fine arts as an influence on the quality of architectural design;
(d) adequate knowledge of urban design, planning and the skills involved in the planning process;
(e) understanding of the relationship between people and buildings, and between buildings and their environment, and of the need to relate buildings and the spaces between
them to human needs and scale;
(f) understanding of the profession of architecture and the role of the architect in society, in particular in preparing briefs that take account of social factors; (g) understanding of the methods of investigation and preparation of the brief for a design project;
(h) understanding of the structural design, constructional and engineering problems associated with building design;
(i) adequate knowledge of physical problems and technologies and of the function of buildings so as to provide them with internal conditions of comfort and protection against the climate;
(j) the necessary design skills to meet building users' requirements within the constraints imposed by cost factors and building regulations; (k) adequate knowledge of the industries, organisations, regulations and procedures involved in translating design
concepts into buildings and integrating plans into overall planning.

2. The knowledge and skills listed in paragraph 1 may be amended in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 58(2) with a view to adapting them to scientific and technical progress. Such updates must not entail, for any Member State, any amendment of existing legislative principles relating to the structure of professions as regards training and the conditions of access by natural persons.


Article 46 merely sets out the components of the course in clause 1 and in clause 2 clarifies that this article is not to be construed as having any relationship with regulation of the structure, training and access of and to the profession.

1. Each Member State shall accept evidence of formal qualifications as an architect listed in Annex VI, point 6, awarded by the other Member States, and attesting a course of training which began no later than the reference academic year referred to in that Annex, even if they do not satisfy the minimum requirements laid down in Article 46, and shall, for the purposes of access to and pursuit of the professional activities of an architectgive such evidence the same effect on its territory as evidence of formal qualifications as an architect which it itself issues.,


The qualification gets you in the door providing access to and pursuit of professional activities in the same manner as if you had an equivelent qualification from the host member state. However all if this is caveated by both Article 48 below and the preamble that clearly permits member states to regulate their own regimes as they see fit.

Article 48

Pursuit of the professional activities of architects

1. For the purposes of this Directive, the professional activities of an architect are the activities regularly carried out under the professional title of ‘architect’.

2. Nationals of a Member State who are authorised to use that title pursuant to a law which gives the competent authority of a Member State the power to award that title to Member States nationals who are especially distinguished by the quality of their work in the field of architecture shall be deemed to satisfy the conditions required for the pursuit of the activities of an architect, under the professional title of ‘architect’. The architectural nature of the activities of the persons concerned shall be attested by a certificate awarded by their home Member State.


Do you now understand the difference between qualified and professional?
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby CK » Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:57 pm

onq,

I think that you mistake in relation to the EU legislation.

The EU legislation is only about architects traveling and working in Europe. The EU did not impose registration. The EU Directive is a non sense in itself as regulations, legislations, climates and other factors require a vernacular knowledge and if one has the skills to design a building in Norway, he may not have the skills to design one in Portugal.

The registration of the title is a globalization tool. It is not related to consumers’ protection, it is about what I call a global technocracy.

I am fighting with Architects Alliance for being able to register without paying more than the others and being subject to a fair examination and not an elitist non sense as it is now. We are lobbying and denunciating how the RIAI is discriminating me and many others in a very similar situation.

However, we are not fighting registration because even if we do not agree with it, it is a lost cause to fight against it. I am not sure what you are trying to prove when arguing that you can continue using the title without being registered, because anyway you are mistaking on this subject. I know that you were told by the RIAI admission Director that you could continue calling yourself a qualified architect, but as I already told you, do not believe all what the RIAI says, specially on the phone and even less on radio or other media.

Registration is about protecting a group of people. If you are not part of the group you have to fight to get in. I have not stopped fighting and I will not. But you must be careful not to fight a lost cause.
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby PVC King » Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:13 pm

CK wrote:

I am fighting with Architects Alliance for being able to register without paying more than the others and being subject to a fair examination and not an elitist non sense as it is now.


I don't think anyone can argue with that, most professions have entry routes to formal membership for those who get the experience first and then apply for an examination on the same terms as those who entered the industry on the basis of gaining an academic qualification. In so doing one is acknowledging the need for regulation and is saying that they are willing to abide by the same rules as those already qualified members of the professional association.

Those being the rules that are there to protect the public which is the purpose of all regulation in the first instance.
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:23 pm

PVC King wrote:Article 46 merely sets out the components of the course in clause 1 and in clause 2 clarifies that this article is not to be construed as having any relationship with regulation of the structure, training and access of and to the profession.

No.
They're not just the "components of the course".
They are the core competences an architect must master.

Clause 2 confirms the core competences can be updated to reflect scientific and technical advances, in accordance with Article 58 (2.
This in turn refers to 1999/468/EC which sets out how the bureaucracy should work:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1999:184:0023:0023:EN:PDF
but it limits any such updates:

"Such updates must not entail, for any Member State, any
amendment of existing legislative principles relating to the
structure of professions as regards training and the conditions
of access by natural persons."


This paves the way for required CPD but forbids Member States from restricting persons with the required qualification from practising as an Architect.

Introductory paragraph 34 confirms this:

"(34) Administering the various systems of recognition set up
by the sectoral directives and the general system has
proved cumbersome and complex. There is therefore a
need to simplify the administration and updating of this
Directive to take account of scientific and technical
progress, in particular where the minimum conditions of
training are coordinated with a view to automatic recognition
of qualifications
. A single committee for the
recognition of professional qualifications should be set
up for this purpose, and suitable involvement of representatives
of the professional organisations, also at European
level, should be ensured."


Read before you post (1)
The qualification gets you in the door providing access to and pursuit of professional activities in the same manner as if you had an equivelent qualification from the host member state. However all if this is caveated by both Article 48 below and the preamble that clearly permits member states to regulate their own regimes as they see fit.

No.
The formal qualifications listed in the Annex noted above entitle holders to provide architectural services and practice as an Architect.
Section 48 appears to be written to allow people WITHOUT QUALIFICATIONS but who are "especially distinguished by the quality of their work in the field of architecture" to be recognised as architects throughout the EU providing their home member state issues them with a certificate.

In other words, these guys don't necessarily have any paper qualifications, just experience and talent as proven by their buildings.
All this bullshit about Part III's falls by the wayside - you see the proof of any architect's competence in their built work.

That's the thing with architecture that paper-pusher's just don't get PVC King - building sites are the last wild frontier.
Creating something out of all that chaos is an experience that drawings on paper or exams cannot encompass.

That's why the work of people without formal qualifications litter our great cities like jewels.
You've heard of Le Corbusier, haven't you - In this day and age he'd be unemployable.

Read before you post (2)
Do you now understand the difference between qualified and professional?


Do you now understand how irrelevant this is to anyone with talent?
Do you understand its about bureaucrats and control freaks?
Talent, properly applied, achieves miracles of design.
See- this Directive doesn't refer to Part III's at all.
How shocking is that PVC King?

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 » Fri Apr 30, 2010 9:05 pm

PVC King wrote:I don't think anyone can argue with that, most professions have entry routes to formal membership for those who get the experience first and then apply for an examination on the same terms as those who entered the industry on the basis of gaining an academic qualification. In so doing one is acknowledging the need for regulation and is saying that they are willing to abide by the same rules as those already qualified members of the professional association.


You should come with me to talk to Graby and O'Flanagan about it... First we will ask them to remove from the register all those who entered the club through the minister's list. Then we will ask them to remove those who have entered through an engineering background... And for the finaly we will propose fairly that all of us, including MRIAI, pass an exam to be listed on the register...

After all why shall MRIAI of my age, who qualified 15 years ago, not be subject to an exam like me? Their qualification does not reflect the skills required to run a practice today.
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby PVC King » Fri Apr 30, 2010 9:05 pm

onq wrote:

"Such updates must not entail, for any Member State, any
amendment of existing legislative principles relating to the
structure of professions as regards training and the conditions
of access by natural persons."


This paves the way for required CPD but forbids Member States from restricting persons with the required qualification from practising as an Architect. .


If you are qualified on graduation what relevance has CPD? Clearly the intention was to seperate course content and regulation; which you claim to be exempt from.

onq wrote: Introductory paragraph 34 confirms this:

"(34) Administering the various systems of recognition set up
by the sectoral directives and the general system has
proved cumbersome and complex. There is therefore a
need to simplify the administration and updating of this
Directive to take account of scientific and technical
progress, in particular where the minimum conditions of
training are coordinated with a view to automatic recognition
of qualifications
. A single committee for the
recognition of professional qualifications should be set
up for this purpose, and suitable involvement of representatives
of the professional organisations, also at European
level, should be ensured."


Read before you post (1).



That link does not mention the word architect in it; it does mention the common fisheries and agricultural policies. In any event it is a 1999 document so would be superceded by the 2005 directive. You have been on a fishing trip from the off on this; all of these directives relate to the free movement of labour across borders.

onq wrote:
No.
The formal qualifications listed in the Annex noted above entitle holders to provide architectural services and practice as an Architect.
Section 48 appears to be written to allow people WITHOUT QUALIFICATIONS but who are "especially distinguished by the quality of their work in the field of architecture" to be recognised as architects throughout the EU providing their home member state issues them with a certificate. .


No those without educational qualification are dealt with under Article 47 which is titled
Derogations from the conditions for the training of architects



onq wrote: This Directive doesn't refer to Part III's at all.
How shocking is that PVC King?
ONQ.



They don't have to

The general system for recognition, however, does not prevent a Member State from making any person pursuing a profession on its territory subject to specific requirements due to the application of professional rules justified by the general public interest. Rules of this kind relate, for example, to organisation of the profession, professional standards, including those concerning ethics, and supervision and liability. Lastly, this Directive is not intended to interfere with Member States' legitimate interest in preventing any of their citizens from evading enforcement of the national law relating to professions.


What Article 49 actually does is make your position worse; read the clause again

1. Each Member State shall accept evidence of formal qualifications as an architect listed in Annex VI, point 6, awarded by the other Member States, and attesting a course of training which began no later than the reference academic year referred to in that Annex, even if they do not satisfy the minimum requirements laid down in Article 46, and shall, for the purposes of access to and pursuit of the professional activities of an architect, give such evidence the same effect on its territory as evidence of formal qualifications as an architect which it itself issues.


If you travel the rights in your own juristion can be applied in all other member states; what it does not do is grant rights in the country of qualification that do not otherwise exist. If the Irish system requires registration someone from abroad with a qualifying degree still needs to register; if an Irish architect travels to another member state they are bound by the same rules as the local practitioners.
PVC King
 

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland