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

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

Postby onq » Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:01 pm

wearnicehats wrote: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


I know.

[bliss]

And we're only on our second page - my, my...

Oh frabjous day!

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 » Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:07 pm

BenK wrote:
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.(snip)


No, BenK.

The difference is that one is giving an assurance that the work he WILL do in the next ten years will be up to scratch.

The other can point to the work he HAS done in the past ten years as proof of not only his competence, but also his integrity and professionalism.

I'm not saying one is intrinsically better than the other, both views have their merits, but only one person gets automatically registered, and I have met many of them trading on that paper assurance that border on criminals, with sharp practice and trading on the badge the least of it.

The fact that this is still evident will be borne out by the building failures and loss of life we are yet to discover in RIAI certified buildings.

I accept your other comments - this will come to fruition in the fulness of time.

However as to the right to use the title - this is something conferred by two EU directives on Graduates that the RIAI and this Minister have seen fit to take away - unjustly.

As for dealing with this gross undermining of the primary degree - spannungsbogen.

[which should also tell you something about my mis-spent youth and early twenties]

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 sean blerkin » Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:24 pm

I must admit i had forgotten about the years of one's life preceding qualification. maybe they should be put towards achieving a masters from the school of hard knocks as well?
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 onq » Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:57 pm

sean blerkin wrote:I must admit i had forgotten about the years of one's life preceding qualification. maybe they should be put towards achieving a masters from the school of hard knocks as well?


(chuckle)

We all tend to forget them for various reasons - I cannot believe I am pushing fifty - where did that time go?

Many practically trained architects will point out that new Graduates know very little about building a building, and I don't mean a lack of contract or detailing knowledge.

They are clueless about how people from different backgrounds get on and communicate, establish a pecking order, command respect, speak authoritatively while still holding not alienating your audience - all this is on the curriculum of the "school of hard knocks".

In Bolton Street - I cannot speak for UCD - some rapport at least with trades was engendered with our studies with the Linen Hall or School of Trades.

My meagre efforts at sand-casting, carpentry and brick-laying left with with a then new found respect for people who could building in real life with their hands what I had designed.

We were also encouraged to get work on building sites to see how buildings were actually built, and perhaps find out the shortcomings of the "assemble it from a catalogue" school of working drawings.

Finally we were encouraged to take at least one year out to work in offices - oftenr between 3rd and 4th year, or 2nd and 3rd, learning the ropes and finding out what office like was like, in a smaller office, so that we would be exposed to every level of the job.

Those years were essential to my understanding of the limitations of paper and later digital design in terms of materials use in wet climates - such as ours - and detailing to avoid water penetration and control cracking and weathering.

I don't rely on technicians to solve my problems - I sometimes consult with them to reach better solutions, but I know my way around a detail and a new regulation.

If you cannot raise yourself above the level of mere compliance to that of foreseeability you won't last long as an architect - the regs aren't written by architects, I can tell you that.

Your comment about those years being wasted shows your silver spoon - never deride the school of hard knocks.

As an aside, I heard recently that footballers, often pilloried for their lack of education were assessed for their use of brain power versus a commensurately equipped theoretical robot.

Even at the current levels of sophisticating and processing speed, the designed robot couldn't match the sloppiest proponent of the game when it came to dribbling a ball past a set of opponents.

Something you might want to bear in mind the next time you're tempted to diss those with SOHN after their name.

:)

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 henno » Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:36 pm

can an MRIAI give me one good reason why the introduction of this grandfather clause, as outlined by JD, is not a good idea????

is there a fear out there, and if so why??
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 PVC King » Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:01 pm

Most professions structure themselves along the lines of student member, associate member i.e. recognised degree but not examined by the industry body, member (examined), fellow (made contribution though exemplary service) and vocational member i.e. grandfather clause but must pass a less academic test based on experience.

I could be wrong but JoD's proposal seems more like an amnesty than a controlled intake to the professional body as you would hope would be the case. You want all professions to have those using the title to be subject to regulation done through manditory practice statements and guidance notes that establish industry standards in tests of 'reasonableness' in this case the RIAI are best place to regulate.

I do agree that the sudden regulatory change from no public protection to the ARB may have been a move that didn't consider many individuals who are competent; however who decided that they were competent in their professional careers (ONQ college is not the real world) However it is vital that the entire profession are required to do cpd and must follow practice statements to preserve the good mane of the profession.

A balance would be to fast track an examination that a competent practitioner could pass but that is not academic in its leading and award ArchTech status.

To grant an amnesty sends exactly the wrong message out to students; why bother getting professionally qualified when a future politician will declare an amnesty. The real pity is that someone didn't regulate this 20-30 years ago.
PVC King
 

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

Postby DOC » Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:20 pm

PVC....I have to say that's probably the most logical post I've read in the two threads!
DOC
Member
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 12:57 am
Location: Dublin

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

Postby onq » Fri Jul 23, 2010 11:26 pm

PVC King wrote:Most professions structure themselves along the lines of student member, associate member i.e. recognised degree but not examined by the industry body, member (examined), fellow (made contribution though exemplary service) and vocational member i.e. grandfather clause but must pass a less academic test based on experience.

I could be wrong but JoD's proposal seems more like an amnesty than a controlled intake to the professional body as you would hope would be the case. You want all professions to have those using the title to be subject to regulation done through manditory practice statements and guidance notes that establish industry standards in tests of 'reasonableness' in this case the RIAI are best place to regulate.

I do agree that the sudden regulatory change from no public protection to the ARB may have been a move that didn't consider many individuals who are competent; however who decided that they were competent in their professional careers (ONQ college is not the real world) However it is vital that the entire profession are required to do cpd and must follow practice statements to preserve the good mane of the profession.

A balance would be to fast track an examination that a competent practitioner could pass but that is not academic in its leading and award ArchTech status.

To grant an amnesty sends exactly the wrong message out to students; why bother getting professionally qualified when a future politician will declare an amnesty. The real pity is that someone didn't regulate this 20-30 years ago.


Pity you don't actually research what you pontificate about.

A Grandfather Clause is an amnesty - an amnesty from new laws that are not appropriate to apply to some groups of people.

You're CPD waffle stops far short of giving any assurance - its a post-facto cover up measure without any objective reality.

Only an independent exam administered every five years to allow Members retain their status will do that - do you see the RIAI rushing to give THAT assurance?

No - and you are highly unlikely to see it in your lifetime - too few of the older Members in the existing Membershio would pass it.

The Part III's thirty years ago were different than today, and the people who passed them areunlikely to match current standard yet the law suggests they are competent and deserving of being on the register automatically.

In this regard, the automatic registration of persons who got their part threes more than twenty years ago should beseen as what it is - the RIAI version of the Grandfather Clause.

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 » Fri Jul 23, 2010 11:36 pm

henno wrote:can an MRIAI give me one good reason why the introduction of this grandfather clause, as outlined by JD, is not a good idea????

is there a fear out there, and if so why??


You may be waiting a long time for an answer.

Brian Montaut of the AA put it succinctly when he stated that Registration in the way it was done amounted to an anti-competition measure introduced by the RIAI intended to prevent competitors accessing the marketplace.

The JOC on 18th May 2010 asked whether the RIAI were in fact operating a Franchise.

They are offering - in a recession - a test which costs €13,500 and can only be attempted once - a hurdle imposed on hundreds of people who have been providing services reliably and with integrity for decades.

The RIAI have no empirical evidence to suggest any benefit to the public will arise - their reasoning is the kind spread by PVC King -

"Believe in us [and pay us lots of money] because we passed a self-administered test, because we passed any test and because we have letters after our names."

Look at Michale Lynn solicitor if you want to see the intrinsic value of tests, registration and qualifications when it comes to keeping the public safe from criminals - totally useless.

A far more objective and reliable test is the person's track record - how have they behaved in their career to date?

If they have behaved competently, with integrity, even handedly and honestly, then Register them and let them continue their good work.

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 PVC King » Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:44 am

onq wrote:Pity you don't actually research what you pontificate about.

A Grandfather Clause is an amnesty - an amnesty from new laws that are not appropriate to apply to some groups of people.

You're CPD waffle stops far short of giving any assurance - its a post-facto cover up measure without any objective reality.

Only an independent exam administered every five years to allow Members retain their status will do that - do you see the RIAI rushing to give THAT assurance?

No - and you are highly unlikely to see it in your lifetime - too few of the older Members in the existing Membershio would pass it.

The Part III's thirty years ago were different than today, and the people who passed them areunlikely to match current standard yet the law suggests they are competent and deserving of being on the register automatically.

In this regard, the automatic registration of persons who got their part threes more than twenty years ago should beseen as what it is - the RIAI version of the Grandfather Clause.

ONQ.


This is where I have a problem with your argument; you as opposed to examining ways of bringing vocational practitioners into the profession structure simply attack the existing structure which is based on International best practice in your attempts to justify creation of an entry point that is not regulated. Are you really suggesting that all motor drivers who have acheived a full driving license should also be retested every 5 years?

Please clarify post Granfather clause how you propose the beneficiaries of the amnesty would be regulated in respect to industry led practice statements and guidance notes, please clarify how the beneficiaries will maintain relevant life long learning and who will provide it and check that they are compliant with industry standards.

Please clarify who will adjudicate professional complaints at industry body level for these beneficiaries should any arise.

As opposed to attacking those who graduated and then completed further study you need to realise that the sympathy that exists is not for people who have the degree and just didn't bother completing the part 3 examination; it is for those who either did a different qualifiaction or did not possess the resources to go to third level and have through sheer hard work pulled themselves up to the level of competent practitioner and that to date may not have had an entry route into membership of the industry body.

As you well know only one professional body has the structures and resources to credibly regulate the industry along International best practice lines; this is the case with all other professions in Ireland.
PVC King
 

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

Postby onq » Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:37 pm

PVC King wrote:This is where I have a problem with your argument; you as opposed to examining ways of bringing vocational practitioners into the profession structure simply attack the existing structure which is based on International best practice in your attempts to justify creation of an entry point that is not regulated. Are you really suggesting that all motor drivers who have acheived a full driving license should also be retested every 5 years?

Given the 400+ deaths annually on Irish roads - more accruing every ten years than the entire 30 years of The Troubles you'd have to be stupid not to understand that retesting is required.

Or does you espousal of best practice not extend to matters that directly affect you?
Please clarify post Granfather clause how you propose the beneficiaries of the amnesty would be regulated in respect to industry led practice statements and guidance notes,

I expect they'd read them, just like other industry members do, just like they already do.
[was that a serious questinon...?]
Do you think the RIAI or some project manager looking for an alternative revenue stream INVENTED CPD?
I've been doing CPD for twenty years - you have to keep up or fall behind.
please clarify how the beneficiaries will maintain relevant life long learning and who will provide it and check that they are compliant with industry standards.

That stops beign a problem once you're registered and a member of the registration body or another professional organisation.
As for testing and compliance, while the RIAI run CPD courses, they're not directed to particular sectors, jsut as archtiects may sepcialise in different sectors - the RIAI CPD is only offered [FORCED learning, is that your cant?] and a minimum number or hours required each year.
Other bodies and groups may run courses which the RIAI accredit.
I am a member in good standng of the Architectural Association of Ireland, which concentrates on promoting architecture through design and runs RIAI-rated CPD rated events.
Please clarify who will adjudicate professional complaints at industry body level for these beneficiaries should any arise.

You need to address this to the RIAI, not me - they are the regulatory body - but I think no one does at the moment - I understand that the RIAI Good Practice Committe is not sitting at the moment although I know at least one person who used to be on it.

The issue is whether these cmopliants will be adjucated transparently or behind closed doors, and whether there will be a "crank" complaint filter applied.
As opposed to attacking those who graduated and then completed further study you need to realise that the sympathy that exists is not for people who have the degree and just didn't bother completing the part 3 examination; it is for those who either did a different qualifiaction or did not possess the resources to go to third level and have through sheer hard work pulled themselves up to the level of competent practitioner and that to date may not have had an entry route into membership of the industry body.

That's where your sympathies lie.

I didn't attack them per se - I begrudge them their automatic registration when I already have a qualification that is recognised throughout EUrope as entitlnig me to practise ans an architect - this is a very simple position to understand, isn't it?

I've already made the rebuttal that just because someone passed their part III's twenty years ago doesn't mean they are competent now - this is clearly true.
I'd also be happy to take your point except that for in Europe - as opposed to British Commonwealth Countries and their clone, America - Graduate was the minimum standard which entitled someone to use the Title and practise as an architect.
As you well know only one professional body has the structures and resources to credibly regulate the industry along International best practice lines; this is the case with all other professions in Ireland.

I don't see much result for this "best practice" of which you speak.
What is is good for except keeping those from poor social demographics out of the professions?
A closed shop by any other name masquerading as setting standards and protecting the public?
Do your research on recent building failures and see how many of those were RIAI designed buildings

And you know what their fig leaf then is?
"We weren't retained to administer the contract or carry out inspections."

But they'll still come in when its all coverd up and certify for money based on "visual inspection" only - not bloody good enough by a long shot.

Don't assume you know anything about the Architectural Profession or how Members of the RIAI behave.
Learn before you post.

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 PVC King » Sat Jul 24, 2010 6:15 pm

I am not going to reply to most of your post; the answers were not straight other than to clarify the self declared mandate of the AAI

‘to provide a medium of friendly communication between members and others interested in the progress of architecture’

How can you possibly construe that as an industry body; that would make Paul Clerkin an FAAI without ever joining.....


onq wrote: That's where your sympathies lie.

I didn't attack them per se - I begrudge them their automatic registration when I already have a qualification that is recognised throughout EUrope as entitlnig me to practise ans an architect - this is a very simple position to understand, isn't it?



The Dail architectis on record as saying the following

As indicated above the so-called grandfather clause in the Building Control Act 2007 was introduced in order not to exclude individuals who had been working as architects for some considerable time in the State but had not undergone any formal architectural training. It was strongly felt that limiting the architectural profession to graduates of the various third level institutions would be unfair on those individuals who had gravitated into architectural practices from quantity surveying, technical drafting or trade/apprenticeship backgrounds.


The intention of those who seek to protect the weaker party is to help those with vocational backgrounds not those who simply couldn't have been bothered doing professional exams.

onq wrote: And you know what their fig leaf then is?
"We weren't retained to administer the contract or carry out inspections."

But they'll still come in when its all coverd up and certify for money based on "visual inspection" only - not bloody good enough by a long shot.

Don't assume you know anything about the Architectural Profession or how Members of the RIAI behave.
Learn before you post.

ONQ.


Having wasted 10 minutes trying to deal with your spinning above I come back to the structure of all professions and ask you to address who will carry out the following functions.

1. CPD for members
2. Examination of part 3 candidates and arch techs i.e. vocational candidates
3. Formulating practice statements
4. Deciding tests of reasonableness through guidance notes
5 Complaint procedures
6. Checking PI cover of members
7. Regulating client money handling through spot checks

The grandfather clause is simply a free for all by another name; a controlled intake into the industry body to preserve their ability to earn a living and protect the public simultaneously is a very different process.
PVC King
 

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

Postby onq » Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:19 am

PVC King wrote:I am not going to reply to most of your post; the answers were not straight other than to clarify the self declared mandate of the AAI

Translation: I am clearly out of my depth and I'm backpedaling like mad.
‘to provide a medium of friendly communication between members and others interested in the progress of architecture’

How can you possibly construe that as an industry body; that would make Paul Clerkin an FAAI without ever joining.....

Oops! Does this sort of thing not fit in with your carefully manicured world view - quelle surprise! That's the thing about facts, damned uncomfortable to face if your forté is arguing from first principles without doing any research.

Are you having a go at me for pointing out the RIAI have repeatedly accredited AAI events as suitable for CPD points or are you just pissed off that someone - once again - pointed out that you have no clue about what your posting about?
The Dail architectis on record as saying the following

*bwehehehehehehehe*

Oh thank you, thank, you thank you for being the one to bring that into this thread!

So sweet that you did this and not me!

LOL!

Here, catch:

"It was strongly felt that limiting the architectural profession to graduates of the various third level institutions would be unfair on those individuals who had gravitated into architectural practices from quantity surveying, technical drafting or trade/apprenticeship backgrounds."

I added the bold emphasis to show that the Graduate Standard was the original standard entitled to use the title architect in the bill, and one I had no problem with - of course this is exactly what a self-opinionated muppet like you who does no research typically fails to see or accept.

And there's more

However, at variance with the approach proposed in the Framework Document the RIAI (the proposed designated Registration Body under the Building Control Bill 2005) are determined to impose a technical assessment based on Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL). The Competition Authority’s Report states that, the RIAI will face a clear potential conflict of interest between representing the interest of its members on the one hand and regulating in the public interest on the other.

It continues

Including this reference does not undermine the integrity of the Bill or its application. As we upgrade and improve our standards, we should not allow a group of people who have worked honestly all their lives to find themselves and their identities threatened.

Then there's this bit.

The procedure for architects applying for registration on the basis of training acquired by practical means is set down in section 20. It will be the function of the technical assessment board to provide for the assessment of such applicants. The RIAI will not set the standards. The board appointed by the Minister will set them.

Of course, this was always pie-in-the-sky - in a panel composed partly of architects, the architects will tend to have the say on such matters.

The intention of those who seek to protect the weaker party is to help those with vocational backgrounds not those who simply couldn't have been bothered doing professional exams.

I'd say you're dangerously close to defaming me and others, but I'm big enough to let you prattle on and hang yourself further or just to see if you have anything else in your repertiore besides lame ad hominem attacks.
Having wasted 10 minutes trying to deal with your spinning above...

Translation: I have no clue what I'm talking aboutm and have found no way to rebut you but I'll quote "best practice" at you until I'm blue in the face.
...I come back to the structure of all professions and ask you to address who will carry out the following functions.

1. CPD for members
2. Examination of part 3 candidates and arch techs i.e. vocational candidates
3. Formulating practice statements
4. Deciding tests of reasonableness through guidance notes
5 Complaint procedures
6. Checking PI cover of members
7. Regulating client money handling through spot checks

You're making a point for some other thread perhaps.
I didn't mentione any of these issues, which read like the justifications put out by some institute to cover the outrageous fees they charge their members.
I haven't attacked the RIAI outright on all these fronts, except for them and the BC2007 not acknowledging my right to call myself an architect based on my degree being recognised in two EU Directives.

But the one point you utterly miss - and you and the RIAI share a blindspot on this - is that only by sitting externally audited exams every five years or so can any assurance be offered that Members are keeping up.
Does diddums not have that on his liddle list - no?
The grandfather clause is simply a free for all by another name;

You sound like someone under stress PVC King.
Faced with facts you cannot assimilate you fall back on parroting lines from some document you once read on guidelines for the professions.

A Grandfather Clause is not a free-for all.
For a start not that many people want to be architects as your "free-for0all" comment seems to suggest.
Like the RIAI before you, you paint a picture of a beleaguered governing body trying to protect the virtues of the profession from some unqualified horde.

This is RIAI's wet dream.
But its just that, a dream or a well work piece of spinning for those of us who;ve had ot listen ot them over the years.
This simply isn't happenning and has never happened, even in all the years when there was no restriction on who could practise as an architect.

a controlled intake into the industry body to preserve their ability to earn a living and protect the public simultaneously is a very different process.

Yep - that's called a closed shop.
Exactly what the EU Commission and Competition Authority are mandate to prevent.
Did liddle wifey not explain that to diddums when lending you her bukes on how to bring best practice to the Professions?

Poor diddums, I wonder why?

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 PVC King » Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:39 am

‘to provide a medium of friendly communication between members and others interested in the progress of architecture’


Stay with the point; they do not profess to be a regulatory organisation.

Graduate Standard


Is exactly that; name one other fee based profession in Ireland where once you graduate you are not required to join the industry membership organisation to use the title.

The Competition Authority’s Report states that, the RIAI will face a clear potential conflict of interest between representing the interest of its members on the one hand and regulating in the public interest on the other.


It is interesting that the competition authority has not moved against solicitors, accountants and surveyors if their view was that the RIAI's role was incompatable. You will note it is a potential conflict and not an unacceptable conflict.

...I come back to the structure of all professions and ask you to address who will carry out the following functions.

1. CPD for members
2. Examination of part 3 candidates and arch techs i.e. vocational candidates
3. Formulating practice statements
4. Deciding tests of reasonableness through guidance notes
5 Complaint procedures
6. Checking PI cover of members
7. Regulating client money handling through spot checks

You're making a point for some other thread perhaps.


The stated purpose of the legislation is to protect the consumer from rogue Architects, QS and Building Surveyors. THE SCS regulates Surveyors along the lines above; you consistently run away from explaining who is going to do it for Architects?

a controlled intake into the industry body to preserve their ability to earn a living and protect the public simultaneously is a very different process.

Yep - that's called a closed shop.


Explain how allowing people without degree's in architecture to be given membership of the RIAI based on long service is a closed shop?
PVC King
 

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

Postby wearnicehats » Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:29 am

henno wrote:can an MRIAI give me one good reason why the introduction of this grandfather clause, as outlined by JD, is not a good idea????

is there a fear out there, and if so why??


Obviously the current situation suits those MRIAIs engaged in the one-off houses & house extension sector of the market, especially those self-employed. They can exploit the “protect the public” side of it to elbow non-MRIAIs out of the way. The amnesty will only mean that those over 35 will enter into a level playing field, however.

I’m not in the above group and I don’t have a problem with the theory of it Henno – I just would like more clarity on how it is going to happen – I also see an opportunity for some of the better ideas to have come out of all of this being incorporated and applied to MRIAIs also – in terms of continued assessment etc. There are those who appear to know more about the process but unfortunately do themselves no service with childish responses and petty antagonism to the point that I don’t bother to read their prattle. Because of this we don’t actually get an idea of the stance of the disenfranchised – except that if they don’t get their way they’re obviously intending to take their ball and go home.

The reason I started this thread is that I object to the whole thing being an amnesty. There are routes within the RIAI registration procedure to take care of those currently unregistered. Onq, for example, can use Route 2 – one of the easiest - and it makes me wonder how many others are simply avoiding doing the exams and spending the money that those registered did – To quote JOD “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”. Oh well if you’re too busy lads

I agree that the RIAI registration routes for anything other than Route A are extortionate but I also have a real issue with this “the world owes me something” attitude. Onq, for example could qualify for a sum equal to that paid in MRIAI fees by someone who registered 2 years ago. I think there might be a Groucho Marx side to him though. I also understand that the exams may be tricky for some people – all those questions and everything. There is no reason why, as PVC points out, a more relevant exam, coupled with an appropriate and reasonable fee could not be fast-tracked to suit. I would also like clarification on how the “ evidence of having worked practically as an architect for 7 years or more” will be assessed. For example, who will assess it and who pays for the assessment?

And before the dummy spitting brigade get up in arms I think that anyone already MRIAI who would otherwise not qualify should also go through this process. In this case there would be no fee if total MRIAI membership fees already paid exceed the cost of the exam.

Where I am totally unsure though is where all of this leaves those people currently aged under 35 as the old boys jump on the boat and sail away. I have asked this question in another thread and received the answer “The plan is to get the rights of Irish Graduates restored to the level enshrined in the EU Directive” which pointedly seems to ignore non-Irish graduates. I would, therefore, like clarity on how those left waiting on the quayside are to be treated
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

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

Postby PVC King » Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:29 am

Agreed it is unfair to people who say graduated at 22 in another discipline or entered the industry straight after school and spent 4 years as an apprentice draughtsman. Potentially excluding people with up to 16 years in the industry who have under their employers been afforded additional recognition for quality work would be unfair.


A fair structure would be to have different levels that recognise attainment at specific levels as each level is acheived; the consumer has a right to know what level they are dealing with.

The question is how logistically you deal with those with incomplete qualifications and provide them with a right to practice that is robust enough to fulfill the intention of the legislation i.e. to protect the public.

The split into 4 grades seems to be the only method of protecting individuals practicing and the public;

1. Student
2. Associate
3. Member/Fellow
4. Arch tech

It is further vital that when people acheive these grades that their ongoing participation is regulated through the membership body.

Given the number of unemployed architects the cost base of examining vocational canditates may be lower than in a supply constrained market.
PVC King
 

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

Postby onq » Sun Jul 25, 2010 2:36 pm

PVC King wrote:Stay with the point; they do not profess to be a regulatory organisation.

If that was your point, you made it badly, and you seem unable to run with the ball.
The RIAI are not - ulp! so far at least - anywhere near as regulatory as you make them out to be towards their own members.
Where matters are dealt with AFAIK they are done so in camera and confidentially.
No-one actually knows how they are dealt with - you are just making your usual unfonuded assumptions and pontificating - and the Good Practice Committee is not sitting and may be superseded - again, no one seems to know.
Is exactly that; name one other fee based profession in Ireland where once you graduate you are not required to join the industry membership organisation to use the title.

You seem to be deliberately missing my point PVC King.
I have a qualification that entitles me - merely by possesing it - to use the title architect and practise as an archtiect throughout Europe - the BCA 2007 does not recognise this.
Nor dos it recognise the standard of Graduate as the appropriate standard.

You can perhaps see that the additional hoop to jump through while being prevented by a draconian law from exercising rights as you have for the past twenty years looks to some like a protectionist policy for RIAI sole practitioners.

It is interesting that the competition authority has not moved against solicitors, accountants and surveyors if their view was that the RIAI's role was incompatable. You will note it is a potential conflict and not an unacceptable conflict.

My understanding is that the Competition Authority are not in a position to move against statutory bodies.
If they cannot move against the RIAI/Registrar and the matter rests on an unjust law not bad pracitce, they cannot move against the others.
I understand its a matter of law, so perhaps before you take any more cheap shots at them or me, you could check out the position with your other half.
The stated purpose of the legislation is to protect the consumer from rogue Architects, QS and Building Surveyors. THE SCS regulates Surveyors along the lines above; you consistently run away from explaining who is going to do it for Architects?

I have already explained to you - many times now - that the legislation cannot achieve its purpose, any more than medical registration protected the publc from that bastard up in Drogheda General who performed the unnecessary symphysiotnomies {sp} or the roge solicitor Michael Lynn - both were qualified and Membershipped up to their eyeballs.
So the worst effects of rogue operators - criminal actions against the public - cannot be regulated.

Now let's turn to the substantive issue of competence and assurance of good service.
You seem ot be forgetting the properties of the two groups whose rights I am seeking to have restored.
Gradautes are the products of a a full time five year course listed in the Directive, which listing entitles them ot use the Title Graduate, to which listing Jim Horan contributed documentation [Jim is Head of BOlton Street School of Architecture].
Grandfathers are people whose abilities have been tested over a minimum period of seven years in the marketplace working with that statutory matrix operating in this country to protect the public.
At no point has the RIAI or the governmetn undertaken any resarch to show that either Graduates without Part III's or Grandfathers with 7+ years are a risk to the public in terms of competence.

More importantly, my time spent reading questions and posting advices on Boards.ie, Askaboutmoney.com and here have shown me that there is a certain degree of antipathy to Architects in general, not just RIAI members.
They have bene portrayed as arrogant, overpriced, unwilling to listen to their client's wishes - and sure can't a technician or an engineer do the job as well anyway.
One priceless exchange involved a guy whose engineer was clearly out of his depth designing a once-off residence - and he gets another engineer to sort it!

Its hard enough dealing with public perceptions like that without dealing with the Registration issues on top of that, but as I said before - I support registration.
I just don't supportthe way its being done by the Government and the RIAI and this looks like its going back to the Dáíl or if not the High Court and the EU.
Explain how allowing people without degree's in architecture to be given membership of the RIAI based on long service is a closed shop?


Its a closed whop because its out of reach of most people on several levels.
One is cost - the cost is outrageous, and prompted by the level of difficulty it takes to prove anything to the RIAI - its is not a cost of the fee alone.

Two is fairness - we have had a report of an AAoI Member being refused because the RIAI formed a view that the work was not their own - fair enough, I have not assessed the particular application, there may be truth in it.

But I tell you a little secret - no-one of any seniority on any job does all the work, not even all the design work - including MRIAI's.
To reject an application based on an assertion like that would constitute a terrible defamation unless it was proven by witness statement or corollary evidence.
I hope to be in a position to investigate this shortly and then we'll see what's what with the Registrar - until then, and only until then - he gets the benefit of the doubt.

I just know that under your apparently defamatory best practice martinet persona there lurks someone desperately trying to be fair minded, so I'll raise these issues with you.

#1
I asked the RIAI after the JOC Meeting on 18th May 2010 to allow AAoI Members [this isn't the AAI BTW] to see a redacted copy of the succcesful applications they had offered to show the JOC.
So far, over two months later there has been no sign of something that could easily have been done to allay fears of both Grandfathers and Graduates alike.

#2
Margaret Hynds O'Flanagan asserted in the JOC Committee on 18th May 2010 that EU Commission had stated that th Graduate standard had been included in the Directives "erroneously".
I challenged her on this and she retracted her statement entirely although I understand its still on the written record.

Either she address this or I will, and if I do it it may prove embarrassing for her, the RIAI and the Register.
After all John Graby had presented her immediately prior to her making this statement as the RIAI expert on matters dealing with the Directive.

I would hate to think she deliberately tried to mislead the JOC just ot rebut my point that the Graduate standard was the standard in the Directive.
I prefer to think her comments were wishful thinking on her part, but 19 years of a Directive entitlement doesn't get washed away by lobbying and wishful thinking.

But with a possibly unconscious [and I'm stretching this to give her maximum benefit of the doubt] bias like that, you can perhaps understand that the pedestal you put the RIAI doesn't seem secure to me and many others.
Is it any wonder that people worry that the RIAI are favouring their members and will not play fair with them?

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 PVC King » Sun Jul 25, 2010 4:35 pm

The stated purpose of the legislation is to protect the consumer from rogue Architects, QS and Building Surveyors. THE SCS regulates Surveyors along the lines above; you consistently run away from explaining who is going to do it for Architects.


One rogue doctor does not give a rationale for a free for all in an entirely unrelated profession; at national level who is going to protect the public in the same manner as all other professions are regulated. If you can't address that issue then you should leave the stage.....
PVC King
 

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

Postby onq » Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:07 pm

PVC King wrote:Agreed it is unfair to people who say graduated at 22 in another discipline or entered the industry straight after school and spent 4 years as an apprentice draughtsman. Potentially excluding people with up to 16 years in the industry who have under their employers been afforded additional recognition for quality work would be unfair.


A fair structure would be to have different levels that recognise attainment at specific levels as each level is acheived; the consumer has a right to know what level they are dealing with.

The question is how logistically you deal with those with incomplete qualifications and provide them with a right to practice that is robust enough to fulfill the intention of the legislation i.e. to protect the public.

The split into 4 grades seems to be the only method of protecting individuals practicing and the public;

1. Student
2. Associate
3. Member/Fellow
4. Arch tech

It is further vital that when people acheive these grades that their ongoing participation is regulated through the membership body.

Given the number of unemployed architects the cost base of examining vocational canditates may be lower than in a supply constrained market.


Oddly enough PVC King - here we are agreed in principle.

Before I joined the AAoI, I posted a suspiciously similar worded proposal to the Oireachtas [omitting Technicians].

I included the proviso that Associates could work independly as architects, up to a certain level of cost and complexity.
I felt that this fairly reflected the standard and conpetence attained by both Grandfathers and Graduates.

Technicians would either be Technicians or else would be working as Associates.
About 25% go on to become work as an Achitect or Architectural Technologist [CIBT?] by the estimation of he boys over on the Planning Forum on Boards.ie.

However the Associate level involves a devolution for me and some other Graduates and for some Grandfathers, given what we've worked on already.
To accommodate this I suggested that the Part III exam be made available for those who have had more than 7 years in practice, after which they became Members.

The term I used was Chartered, to reflect the understanding prevelant in many other professions of the standing of the Part III qualification - personally I don't think "member" cuts the mustard.

Oops! A whole post without a single ad hominem - I must be slipping.

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 PVC King » Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:00 pm

So you accept that a level of examination is required as well as ongoing monitoring of the entire profession.

For what its worth I think €9,250 for an examination and the limiting of the in take to 40 places in 2010 is expensive in financial terms and will not bring many competent practitioners in from a regulatory vaccum; if you concentrated your arguments on getting a justification of the scale of fees for what should be at most 5 papers sat over 2-3 weekends at DIT or UCD and corrected by the examiners of part 3 exams for traditional route entry then I think your arguments would come across very differently.

As was said to me before I qualified in an unrelated profession the entry process is a balance between technical ability and convincing the examiners that you would not bring the institute into disrepute over the course of your career.

I would check contacts in your allumni association to ascertain if enough skills exist among current staff and graduates to put together an alternative equivelent exam that is recognised by the RIAI as stated they have no financial interest in the ARAE; competition is the life blood of all commercial sectors. What would be critical is that any exam operated by an alternative provider would need to have an external examiner provided by the RIAI as you would imagine is the case with the ARAE route.
PVC King
 

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

Postby onq » Mon Jul 26, 2010 5:16 am

I realise that our new found bonhomie might be a bit heady for you, so I'll take this reaaaaal slow.

PVC King wrote:So you accept that a level of examination is required as well as ongoing monitoring of the entire profession.

In other posts - not the one above, I pointed out the need for ongoing examinations to give credible assurance to the public on an ongoing basis for all archtiects - including MRIAIs.
No one else has suggested this level fo testing and its not in place in any commonwealth countries either - they rely on the soft option of CPD once the door has closed behind you.
Let me expand on that.

*If* regulation is to be about protecting or assuring members of the public, the Part III alone cannot do this, a self-administered CPD course cannot do this.
An independent examination taken every five years seems to be the only way to do this credibly without cries of "croneyism".
This seems to be a relatively straightforward thing to do, but you'll notice the RIAI are not promoting this.
This calls into question the bona fides of their whole operation in terms of protecting the public.
This costly operation has been referred to as a franchise by members of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Envirnioment , IIRC.
I think we are in agreement up to this stage, but here is where we may diverge.

Should matters remain as is, then no, I don't agree to an examination - in principle, and for the following reasons.

I fail to see why; -
[INDENT](i) Gradautes who have attained the minimum standard required by the EU Directives to call themselves architects or
(ii) Grandfathers with seven years providing services commensurate with those of an architect [/INDENT]
- should be required to "prove" themselves beyond what they have already done.

The Graduates have the requred degree, the Grandfathers have seven years of work behind them to be shown as piroof of establishment for the purposes of quantitative assessment.
In case you're wondering, no AFAIK you cannot simply walk into Merrion Square with a degree or 7 years behind you and sit the Exam.
In reply to your anticipated question - ask the RIAI - its their closed shop.
In reply to your other unasked question - yes I would.

:)
For what its worth I think €9,250 for an examination and the limiting of the in take to 40 places in 2010 is expensive in financial terms and will not bring many competent practitioners in from a regulatory vaccum; if you concentrated your arguments on getting a justification of the scale of fees for what should be at most 5 papers sat over 2-3 weekends at DIT or UCD and corrected by the examiners of part 3 exams for traditional route entry then I think your arguments would come across very differently.


Once again we seem to be in total agreement.
The 40 places might be an artificially restricted number to allow people running the assessment to find their way without incurring too many casualties or court cases if it all goes wrong for a large number of people.
The fact is that this number of woefully inadequate if the projected 1,000 unregistered architects [not my figure BTW] is a realistic figure - it would take 25 years to clear the list, with no transitional period allowed for in the legislation putting them at a huge disadvantage in the marketplace.
As was said to me before I qualified in an unrelated profession the entry process is a balance between technical ability and convincing the examiners that you would not bring the institute into disrepute over the course of your career.

This is actually a strong point in favour of the Grandfathers - while a two year Part III has most of their career ahead of them, a Grandfather with a minimum of 7 years has a track record they can point to saying "this is how I have worked and behaved".

Despite the assurance the RIAI claims to give, and with the best will in the world, on balance I don't think this is about protecting the public or giving them assurances so much as disenfranchising the RIAI's competitors.
There is always an element of that when regulation comes into a profession, but setting the bar beyond an existing legislative minimum gives the game away to any focussed observe.
The end game here appears to be the RIAI being able to say to to commonwealth countries who use the Part III's to restric access to the profession, "look, we match you in every way."
Well one of teh ways the middle classe control the professions - an you should check hte demograhics on this - is by makign it more expensive to practice.
Thsi doesn't promote standards per se, it just means people from poor social demograhics have a very poor chance of becoming professional.
This is an extension of the "keep builders in their place" mentality that has poisoned relations in the buildng industry for hundreds of years.

I would check contacts in your allumni association to ascertain if enough skills exist among current staff and graduates to put together an alternative equivelent exam that is recognised by the RIAI as stated they have no financial interest in the ARAE; competition is the life blood of all commercial sectors. What would be critical is that any exam operated by an alternative provider would need to have an external examiner provided by the RIAI as you would imagine is the case with the ARAE route.

[/QUOTE]

Thank you for this PVC King - and that's a genuine thank you.
That is the most incisive thing I have read on this matter since I started posting here.
It mirrorscurrent discussions amongst the AAoI Members where concerns are high about whether or not members will get a fair crack of the whip from people they see as their competitors, namely the RIAI.

The RIAI have repeatedly said that the ARAE process is independent of them and their regime was not intended to be a franchise, but rather its set up to be self-financing.
AAoI Members sourcing an alternative testing body to be accredited by the RIAI will put that to the test.
I will put your suggestion to our Members for their consideration.

I think some may want to get further away from the RIAI.
They may want prefer to use European Architects to conduct an external examination or assessment of evidence of establishment.

In closing I want to clear up something that may be causing some confusion to readers of recent posts to this and the other "interminable" thread.

AAI = The Architectural Assocaition of Ireland, currently chaired by Hugo Lamont.
AAoI = the Architects Alliance of Ireland, with Brian Montaut as its Spokesperson.

There is no link between these organizations.
I am a Member in good standing of both organizations.

The former is a stimulating and informative forum as well as a source of ongoing CPD points.
The latter is the body I helped represent before the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Environment on 18th May 2010.

FWIW

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 RKQ » Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:57 am

RIAI have no one to blame but themselves.
They lost the moral ground when they tried to use Technical Assessment to:-
  • Earn lots of easy free money - €6,500 fee is a disgrace.
  • Cull 50% of their existing competition.

The pilot scheme had a 75% failure rate before Appeal.
Not recognising "Domestic Design" as Architecture?
I don't believe office blocks, box metal warehouses or retail parks can be as complicated as a one off well design house - just ask Tado.

The radio adverts were a disgrace and totally backfired.
RKQ
Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 11:50 am

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

Postby wearnicehats » Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:09 am

RKQ wrote:RIAI have no one to blame but themselves.
They lost the moral ground when they tried to use Technical Assessment to:-
  • Earn lots of easy free money - €6,500 fee is a disgrace.
  • Cull 50% of their existing competition.
The pilot scheme had a 75% failure rate before Appeal.
Not recognising "Domestic Design" as Architecture?
I don't believe office blocks, box metal warehouses or retail parks can be as complicated as a one off well design house - just ask Tado.

The radio adverts were a disgrace and totally backfired.


no-one to blame but themselves for what?
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

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

Postby onq » Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:15 pm

wearnicehats wrote:no-one to blame but themselves for what?


For what's about to happen.

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 » Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:16 pm

onq wrote:For what's about to happen.

ONQ.


spooky
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland



cron