The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

Postby wearnicehats » Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:24 pm

http://www.fiannafail.ie/news/entry/4902/

New Bill to have architects recognised - O’Donoghue
Posted on 16/07/10 by John O’Donoghue

The Oireachtas has today published a new Bill that will provide a “grandfather clause” for architects who have not received the official qualification from the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland (RIAI). The Building Control (Amendment) Bill 2010 is a Private Member’s Bill introduced by Kerry South TD John O’Donoghue.

Deputy O’Donoghue has prepared the Bill to prevent hundreds of working architects from losing out on their official status because they pursued a different route to qualification. Under the terms of the Bill all architects aged 35 or older at the time the legislation was enacted and who can show evidence of having worked practically as an architect for 7 years or more, would be officially recognised as architects by the State.

“Unfortunately there is a problem with the existing regulations which could see hundreds of hard working architects lose their qualifications and not be recognised officially,” said Deputy O’Donoghue. “There is a process for these architects to secure the necessary qualifications through the Royal Institute of Architects in Ireland however this is too expensive and too time consuming for many working architects.”

“My Bill seeks to simplify this by providing a ‘grandfather clause’ so that people who are 35 years or older and can show they have 7 years practical experience of being an architect would gain official architect status. The alternative is that hundreds of people who have done a lot of excellent work as architects could have that status diminished and that could have severe implications for the future of their careers and their ability to earn a living.”

“The Oireachtas has now published my Bill and I hope it will be enacted during the course of the next Dáil term,” Deputy O’Donoghue concluded



There is – as no-one could fail to be aware – an interminable thread elsewhere on this site whereby unqualified persons feel that they are a disenfranchised minority deserving of an architectural amnesty by virtue of their so-called experience within the profession over a number of years

It appears from the above that they have found a champion in John O’Donoghue who seeks to push a irritatingly coined “grandfather clause” through the Oireachtas

The questions here are – what are the RIAI going to do about this in terms of placating those members who have actually bothered to follow the required route to qualification; those members who did the requisite college term and apprenticeship; those who have subsequently paid their RIAI subscriptions over a number of years and those members who were, until the Building Control Act of 2007 offered a ray of hope, forced to compete against those who took the easy way out?

I do intend to write to the RIAI on this matter and copy my correspondence to John O’Donoghue in terms of clarification of the fees those subject to the grandfather clause will have to pay retrospectively. I also intend to seek clarification on how those availing of this clause will be judged in terms of their ability.

The champions of the grandfather clause are vocal in terms of fairness for all and I believe that those of us who did bother to qualify should air our opinions also. There is a very great danger here that any future half baked law change will simply give the message to the younger generation (if the message be needed) that they need not bother with education at all
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 823
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

Postby henno » Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:37 pm

politics and timing....

D4 Gormley gets his stag hunt bill and dog breeding bill..... Rural FF gets its disenfranchised architects bill.......

politics and timing....
henno
Senior Member
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 12:07 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

Postby BenK » Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:32 pm

Deputy O’Donoghue has prepared the Bill to prevent hundreds of working architects from losing out on their official status because they pursued a different route to qualification.


Surely the issue with most 'working architects [sic]' is that they knowingly and intentionally, for whatever reason thus far, haven't pursued any route to qualification... I'm not necessarily against a Grandfather Clause but doesn't the existing Act essentially have one already? Cost, admittedly does seem to be an issue with the assessment at the moment though but it's hard to have any sympathy for any one who thinks it 'too time consuming'. As far as I know it takes a year to complete which is very short in comparison to the 8-9 years for the official route (with the associated high costs of this route too). I'd have serious concerns under this Bill about what evidence would be deemed satisfactory to show that someone has 'worked practically as an architect for 7 years or more' and who assesses it.
BenK
Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:59 am

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

Postby wearnicehats » Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:39 pm

wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 823
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

Postby Rourke » Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:13 pm

heres an excerpt from the above link

"Mr. O’Dowd: This is an important issue. The Bill concerns qualification and people who are deemed to be architects and practising as such. I have received representations from the Group of Independent Architects in Ireland, GIAI, which, with the Architects and Surveyors Institute, ASI, the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors, IAAS, and the Irish Architects Society, IAS, has contributed to a document entitled A Framework for"


So in addition to the RIAI , we now have the following ( newly sprouted?) groups of individuals in the fray who 'represent the Profession'...

the GIAI, the ASI, the IAAS, the IAS, the Architects Alliance, perhaps 3 or 4 Architectural technician groups also.8 or 10 groups who 'represent Architects' in a country of 4 million ( im subtracting a few hundred k emigrants and returning immigrants )

All competing with various Engineers of varying levels of competence from semi retired expert down to a few months in the local tech college , construction technicians , project managers ( in some cases a 2 or 3 day course confers a title of 'project manager' ) , Chartered Surveyors , Quantity Surveyors etc

throw in the odd auctioneer, govt planning official, accountant, estate agent , tech drawing teacher , garda, milkman, taxi driver parish priest and whoever else can manage to raise 20 quid to photocopy a house plan from the county councils files and resubmit. No wonder the general public is confused.
Rourke
Member
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 12:00 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

Postby publicrealm » Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:33 am

Rourke wrote:
So in addition to the RIAI , we now have the following ( newly sprouted?) groups of individuals in the fray who 'represent the Profession'...

the GIAI, the ASI, the IAAS, the IAS, the Architects Alliance, perhaps 3 or 4 Architectural technician groups also.8 or 10 groups who 'represent Architects' in a country of 4 million ( im subtracting a few hundred k emigrants and returning immigrants )


Don't forget the PFLP.

And what did the IAAS ever do for us (apart from the roads obviously..)?

Bloody splitters
publicrealm
Member
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:50 am
Location: D6

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

Postby Rourke » Wed Jul 21, 2010 3:06 pm

PFLP ?

Peoples Front for the Liberation of Professionals?
Rourke
Member
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 12:00 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

Postby onq » Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:43 am

I have heard it suggested that the legislators were frightened by the possibility of several David Grant types crawling out of the woodwork.
This is despite there having only ever been one David Grant.
Nor are we seeing the profession infested by a plethora of people calling themselves architects but who are incompetent.

There is of course the usual sour grapes from Wearnicehats & Co [thanks for that Ruairí Quinn link, BTW] but they have no clue about the real world.

I qualified from a five year course, have twenty years experience behind me post qualification and I didn't get automatically registered whereas some muppet with two years who passes an exam can?

I have known several MRIAIs or more years who were not competent to inspect, never mind certify, yet they are given a pre-eminent position based on an assumption of their competence.
Many practically trained architects can run rings around them, but they cannot legally use the title?

One guy I met recently used to mentor aspiring Part II's doign their Part III's but the new act prevents him doing so any more, after several years doign so with the blessing of the RIAI?

That's a TOTAL disgrace!

There is an awful lot of bullshit about this.
However if the powers-that-be want to play hard ball so be it.
The RIAI are offering assurances based on a technical assessment.

Why then did they and the government take away the right of Graduates to use the Title Architect?
A right first agreed in 1985 abd again in 2005 by the European Commission?
Was it to trade on fear and set up the Assessment Franchise?

There is a whole lot of back story not being yet told here.
Eventually the story will be told and the truth will out.
Then you may see some red faces.


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

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

Postby onq » Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:59 am

Rourke wrote:heres an excerpt from the above link

"Mr. O’Dowd: This is an important issue. The Bill concerns qualification and people who are deemed to be architects and practising as such. I have received representations from the Group of Independent Architects in Ireland, GIAI, which, with the Architects and Surveyors Institute, ASI, the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors, IAAS, and the Irish Architects Society, IAS, has contributed to a document entitled A Framework for"


So in addition to the RIAI , we now have the following ( newly sprouted?) groups of individuals in the fray who 'represent the Profession'...

the GIAI, the ASI, the IAAS, the IAS, the Architects Alliance, perhaps 3 or 4 Architectural technician groups also.8 or 10 groups who 'represent Architects' in a country of 4 million ( im subtracting a few hundred k emigrants and returning immigrants )

All competing with various Engineers of varying levels of competence from semi retired expert down to a few months in the local tech college , construction technicians , project managers ( in some cases a 2 or 3 day course confers a title of 'project manager' ) , Chartered Surveyors , Quantity Surveyors etc

throw in the odd auctioneer, govt planning official, accountant, estate agent , tech drawing teacher , garda, milkman, taxi driver parish priest and whoever else can manage to raise 20 quid to photocopy a house plan from the county councils files and resubmit. No wonder the general public is confused.


There is a lot in what you say Rourke, but you need to open your mind a little.

I have met MRIAIs who were incompetent at soem things and practically trained architects who were very competent at msot things

I have met MRIAIs who were barely competent when they qualified and for whom no amount of CPD can help them keep up with current developments.

This is the current Big Lie beign peddled by the RIAI - that CPD will keep you competent.

Competence is a state of mind, like checking over the latest design mags, reading the latest legislation and case law, visiting buildings, talking with the people installing the newer forms of construction, visiting the latest sites.

There are very few grey heads on the AAI site visits I have attended, yet they too are automatically registered by this Buildign Control Act.

Plus about 20-25% of the RIAI were at one time unqualified,
Conveniently I think the last of them retired a year or so ago.
Which jsut leaves the sweet deal they did with the GIAI and IAS.people.
Perhaps you should direct your ire there if standards are what gets you going.

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

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

Postby onq » Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:01 am

wearnicehats wrote:There is a very great danger here that any future half baked law change will simply give the message to the younger generation (if the message be needed) that they need not bother with education at all


Why should they bother?

The Building Control Act 2007 took away their right to call themselves architects.

Despite the Graduate Degree being recognised in two EU DIrectives as entitling them to call themselves architects.

Write to the RIAI about that while you're at it.

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

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

Postby wearnicehats » Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:59 am

onq wrote:I have heard it suggested that the legislators were frightened by the possibility of several David Grant types crawling out of the woodwork.
This is despite there having only ever been one David Grant.
Nor are we seeing the profession infested by a plethora of people calling themselves architects but who are incompetent.

There is of course the usual sour grapes from Wearnicehats & Co [thanks for that Ruairí Quinn link, BTW] but they have no clue about the real world.

I qualified from a five year course, have twenty years experience behind me post qualification and I didn't get automatically registered whereas some muppet with two years who passes an exam can?

I have known several MRIAIs or more years who were not competent to inspect, never mind certify, yet they are given a pre-eminent position based on an assumption of their competence.
Many practically trained architects can run rings around them, but they cannot legally use the title?

One guy I met recently used to mentor aspiring Part II's doign their Part III's but the new act prevents him doing so any more, after several years doign so with the blessing of the RIAI?

That's a TOTAL disgrace!

There is an awful lot of bullshit about this.
However if the powers-that-be want to play hard ball so be it.
The RIAI are offering assurances based on a technical assessment.

Why then did they and the government take away the right of Graduates to use the Title Architect?
A right first agreed in 1985 abd again in 2005 by the European Commission?
Was it to trade on fear and set up the Assessment Franchise?

There is a whole lot of back story not being yet told here.
Eventually the story will be told and the truth will out.
Then you may see some red faces.


ONQ.


There is of course the usual sour grapes from Wearnicehats & Co [thanks for that Ruairí Quinn link, BTW] but they have no clue about the real world.

Actually, I do – and, while we’re at it, why should you have the right to cry foul and not me?

I qualified from a five year course, have twenty years experience behind me post qualification and I didn't get automatically registered whereas some muppet with two years who passes an exam can?

I did a 6 year course and have 19 years experience in 4 different countries. I passed my exams 2 years after leaving college – so that makes me a muppet? I have a recollection that you yourself chose not to register? – apologies if in error

I have known several MRIAIs or more years who were not competent to inspect, never mind certify, yet they are given a pre-eminent position based on an assumption of their competence.Many practically trained architects can run rings around them, but they cannot legally use the title?

As do I but I know many other non-qualified persons who, if they worked for me, would not be allowed near a site or a contract either. They can’t use the title and rightly so. There’s a certain mainland European person who has been very vocal in pressing for the “Bill” on another thread. Judging from what I’ve seen; whilst this Bill may loosen the shackles on many competent non qualified persons, it will evidently also throw open the doors of the odd asylum

If parity is the goal then I have every right to expect those people who have been under the radar to be subject to the same rules as me retrospectively. In my case that’s the cost of 6 years of study, the cost of the subsequent professional exams and the cost of 17 years of professional fees and PII. I am also entitled to my opinion that third level education is as important to a person's growth as the school of hard knocks

I don’t know. Some people can give it but when it comes to taking it...............
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 823
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

Postby BenK » Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:01 am

onq wrote: I qualified from a five year course, have twenty years experience behind me post qualification and I didn't get automatically registered whereas some muppet with two years who passes an exam can?


Onq, just pass the exam and that's your registration sorted. Afterall, it's pretty handy, apparently even muppets can get through it!
BenK
Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:59 am

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

Postby onq » Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:08 pm

wearnicehats wrote:There is of course the usual sour grapes from Wearnicehats & Co [thanks for that Ruairí Quinn link, BTW] but they have no clue about the real world.

Actually, I do – and, while we’re at it, why should you have the right to cry foul and not me?

I qualified from a five year course, have twenty years experience behind me post qualification and I didn't get automatically registered whereas some muppet with two years who passes an exam can?

I did a 6 year course and have 19 years experience in 4 different countries. I passed my exams 2 years after leaving college – so that makes me a muppet? I have a recollection that you yourself chose not to register? – apologies if in error

I have known several MRIAIs or more years who were not competent to inspect, never mind certify, yet they are given a pre-eminent position based on an assumption of their competence.Many practically trained architects can run rings around them, but they cannot legally use the title?

As do I but I know many other non-qualified persons who, if they worked for me, would not be allowed near a site or a contract either. They can’t use the title and rightly so. There’s a certain mainland European person who has been very vocal in pressing for the “Bill” on another thread. Judging from what I’ve seen; whilst this Bill may loosen the shackles on many competent non qualified persons, it will evidently also throw open the doors of the odd asylum

If parity is the goal then I have every right to expect those people who have been under the radar to be subject to the same rules as me retrospectively. In my case that’s the cost of 6 years of study, the cost of the subsequent professional exams and the cost of 17 years of professional fees and PII. I am also entitled to my opinion that third level education is as important to a person's growth as the school of hard knocks

I don’t know. Some people can give it but when it comes to taking it...............


I have no problem with taking it and I used the title legally for 18 years.

What gives you and teh RIAI the right to tell me I can't use the TItle I earnt?

Haw many FRIAIs do you know who have a clue about the current regs - most will have the good grace to admit in private that they don't.

Many came from an era when faced with a difficult detailing problem they said "give it to a technician".

And that is the rick they will perish on when someone who knows the law takes this mess in front of the Hight Court.

Technicians carried the bulk of design responsibility in relation to complaince, yet most MRIAIs think they are on another planet when it comes to design.

There is a lot of gross unfairness in the segregation that exists and just like in England either it gets addressed fairly or its goign to blow up in the RIAI and Government faces.

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

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

Postby onq » Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:19 pm

BenK wrote:Onq, just pass the exam and that's your registration sorted. Afterall, it's pretty handy, apparently even muppets can get through it!


I know - I see the evidence of it here.

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

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

Postby BenK » Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:31 pm

The MRIAI bashing is getting quite tiresome ONQ. Labelling someone a muppet because they had the foresight to commence and complete professional practice exams seems odd to say the least.
BenK
Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:59 am

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

Postby wearnicehats » Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:33 pm

onq wrote:
What gives you and your muppet club the right to tell me I can't?

The gloves come off now smartie-pants.


ONQ.


what age are you again?
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 823
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

Postby sean blerkin » Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:03 pm

I qualified from a five year course, have twenty years experience behind me post qualification and I didn't get automatically registered whereas some muppet with two years who passes an exam can?



That makes you at least 25 by my reckoning
sean blerkin
Member
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:44 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

Postby wearnicehats » Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:15 pm

a mere 13 years before JohnO was a twinkle in the milkman's eye

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0026/S.0026.194201140006.html
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 823
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

Postby onq » Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:01 pm

sean blerkin wrote:That makes you at least 25 by my reckoning


18 years to third level
5 years course [normally with a minimum of 1 year out]
20 years post graduate

And you think that that adds up to 25.

Wait, don't tell me - you're a Member of the Institute!

*bwahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahhahahahhaaaaaaaaa!!!!11!1!1!!*

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

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

Postby onq » Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:05 pm

BenK wrote:The MRIAI bashing is getting quite tiresome ONQ. Labelling someone a muppet because they had the foresight to commence and complete professional practice exams seems odd to say the least.



If the caps fits BenK.

Clarification : If you read the post you'll see I was bitching because they were "automatically" registered, despite having vastly less experience than me and despite me holding the same qualification that in the EU Directives entitles me to use the title architect.

I've noticed this thin-skinned preciousness in other MRIAIs.

To busy polishing their badge and their qualification to even debate the substantive issues.

Thats a muppet by any definition.

Tall, me BenK in an effort to reach some common ground, what's the difference between a guy who's completed a two year run up and just got his part III's and a guy in practice for twenty years - in terms of giving assurance to the public.

Try not to embarrass yourself by dodging the question and I'llagree to try and not call you a muppet.
Dodge though, and you'll be labelled a muppet forever.

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

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

Postby onq » Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:20 pm

wearnicehats wrote:a mere 13 years before JohnO was a twinkle in the milkman's eye

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0026/S.0026.194201140006.html


The substantive piece is this:

[167] “This knowledge can be acquired only by a course of specialised education enabling him to develop his artistic gifts by suitable artistic training, to learn the technical means available for carrying out his ideas, to assimilate a sufficient knowledge of public and administrative law, social and economic science, and general culture, to enable him to fulfil his duties, and finally to acquire experience of his profession by practical training.

“If it is admitted that the architect should also possess sufficient authority and sense of professional duty to defend the often important interests entrusted to him and to carry out satisfactorily the duties as an adviser or arbitrator with which he is often entrusted, it will be realised that it is only by suitable training that he can reach the desired intellectual standard, and that no mere tests of ability can guarantee his possession of these qualities.

“At present, anyone in any place is free to exercise this profession in any way, and it must be recognised as undesirable that activities of such importance for the public welfare should be entrusted to anyone prepared to undertake them without some previous check on his abilities.”


The problem is, this is both right and wrong if interpreted literally.

The course reference immediately predicates one to think in terms of third level courses, yet it cannot only mean that, for at the time an architectural apprenticeship was recognised as a legitimate - and for some, a preferred - way of attaining competence.
Thus a "course of training" could mean other than a third level course of training.

In relation to the training itself, it makes a very valid point:

"...only by suitable training that he can reach the desired intellectual standard, and that no mere tests of ability can guarantee his possession of these qualities"

In other words, merely passing an exam with limited experience may not adequately assess the person - I have no argument with this.

But grandfathers are so-called because they are NOT only a wet week out of college - most I have met have in excess of ten years providing services commensurate with those of an architect.
Nor did they "teach themselves" - many served long years as draughtsmen or technicians or junior aprentice architects before taking a decision to practice on their own.
Its not THAT lucrative a profession - most archtiects who have made money have dabbled in development or some other revenue stream - you don't set up to get rich.

To suggest without any empirical proof that someone two years out of a college who has passed an exam is somehow superior to someone who has earned his living for ten years as an architect seems to be rank hypocrisy, spurred perhaps by the concerns expressed elsewhere centring on the pocket of those paying the fees.

Its ironical to me that this call should issue since many I met in college had Mammy or Daddy pay their fees - they certainly never had to put their hands in their own pockets, so whinging about the cost of fees seems oddly inappropriate.

Not once have any of the whingers stopped to consider the economics of the matter - is there any substance to my assertions, and if so why are we paying for a five year course of study when people like Tadao Ando, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Michael Scott didn't attend formal schooling in architecture.

You need to stop and question this, because apprenticed and practically trained talented people will always seek enter the profession and I would hate to think a giant talent would be browbeaten into submission or prevetned from practising because he didn't follow the RIAI rulebuke.

Constantly referring to David Grant is mere convenience - you'd almost wonder did the RIAI invite him over, because without him they have little evidence of incompetence on the part of grandfathers to rely on - whereas many grandfathers have evidence of RIAI members' incompetence.

It should make an interesting day out in court, when we'll finally see what marvellous standard the Part III ensures - integrity and honesty isn't part of the syllabus, they are qualities you either have or not - they cannot be learned.

Except, perhaps, by example.

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

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

Postby BenK » Thu Jul 22, 2010 8:11 pm

onq wrote:If the caps fits BenK.

I've noticed this thin-skinned preciousness in other MRIAIs.

To busy polishing their badge and their qualification to even debate the substantive issues.

Thats a muppet by any definition.

Tall, me BenK in an effort to reach some common ground, what's the difference between a guy who's completed a two year run up and just got his part III's and a guy in practice for twenty years - in terms of giving assurance to the public.

Try not to embarrass yourself by dodging the question and I'llagree to try and not call you a muppet.
Dodge though, and you'll be labelled a muppet forever.

ONQ.



I've noticed this thin-skinned preciousness in other MRIAIs.
To busy polishing their badge and their qualification to even debate the substantive issues.
Thats a muppet by any definition
.

You can call it thin-skinned if you like but if I was called a muppet by anyone in any walk of life I'd be questioning it. The issue doesn't seem to be debating the substantive issues as I can see, it seems to be more about having to agree with your point of view. I have given an opinion on the Grandfather Clause already so I won't repeat it.

Tall, me BenK in an effort to reach some common ground, what's the difference between a guy who's completed a two year run up and just got his part III's and a guy in practice for twenty years - in terms of giving assurance to the public.

In terms of giving assurance to the public (of which we are both members) I would argue that the difference is one has been formally assessed to a certain standard and the other one hasn't. You could be a great architect, the best one out there, but you expect me and others just to take your word for it that you have completed the right type of practical experience. In your particular case, I'm sure if your practical experience is as good as you claim you could easily pass the exams and put the issue to bed once and for all. The exams are based on practical applications of the building regulations, contracts, planning etc. after all.

Try not to embarrass yourself by dodging the question and I'llagree to try and not call you a muppet.
Dodge though, and you'll be labelled a muppet forever
.

Label me whatever you like ONQ, whatever works for you.
BenK
Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:59 am

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

Postby wearnicehats » Thu Jul 22, 2010 8:17 pm

onq wrote:18 years to third level
5 years course [normally with a minimum of 1 year out]
20 years post graduate

And you think that that adds up to 25.

Wait, don't tell me - you're a Member of the Institute!

*bwahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahhahahahhaaaaaaaaa!!!!11!1!1!!*

M.


allow me to quote you - directed to me - from another thread

After jobs, this matter is the most important issue facing architects today.
Disrupt this thread and I will report you for TROLLING.
Others seem interested enough to read it.
There are [I][on that thread]
20,715 views and counting
Contribute or please ignore it.

HAND

ONQ[/I]

I don't really know what's got into you Onq but it would be appreciated if you'd stop being a prick
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 823
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

Postby onq » Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:34 pm

wearnicehats wrote:allow me to quote you - directed to me - from another thread

After jobs, this matter is the most important issue facing architects today.
Disrupt this thread and I will report you for TROLLING.
Others seem interested enough to read it.
There are [I][on that thread]
20,715 views and counting
Contribute or please ignore it.

HAND

ONQ[/I]

I don't really know what's got into you Onq but it would be appreciated if you'd stop being a prick


Thank you for yet another incisive well thought out contribution to a thread.

Blerkin suggested i was t least twenty five when even a quick tally would nearly double that.

I corrected him and gave him a gentle and humorous reminder about posting prematurely.
Can we presume you sided with him because you are mathematically challenged?
Or are you just looking for someone to support you having a go at me?

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

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

Postby wearnicehats » Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:39 pm

onq wrote:Thank you for yet another incisive well thought out contribution to a thread.

Blerkin suggested i was t least twenty five when even a quick tally would nearly double that.

I corrected him and gave him a gentle and humorous reminder about posting prematurely.
Can we presume you sided with him because you are mathematically challenged?
Or are you just looking for someone to support you having a go at me?

ONQ.


I think Blerkin knew that. and the only person who's having a personal "go" on here is you

and yes, if it makes you happy, you're absolutely right
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 823
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Next

Return to Ireland



cron