Bear with me I was getting ahead of myself on Thursday with regards to getting into the weekend mood as I was having a day off on Friday to prepare for my CPD course on political lobbying.
Ho, ho, ho.
Maybe you too should lighten up a little or take some time away from this forum (570 postings and counting)
This is a serious matter for me and for every Graduate.
You seem astonished at my prolific writings - wait until you see my Option C Self-Assessment Matrix.
...as you seem very bitter or is that in the nature of online threads such as this?
Whoa! A backhanded ad hominem disguised as concern? Ho ho ho.
I am also trying to deal with several posts of yours on separate threads in one response
Not trying - that is succeeding.
- is that allowed?
Nope, its mere laziness on your part and the sign of a disorganised mind.
I am also going to ignore the ad hominem straws in my postings as alleged by you when you fail to realise the ad hominem planks in your own not to mention your argumentum ad popoulum appeals to the Dinosaurs / Grandfathers. I am actually beginning to suspect that you are actually a pro-BCA 2007 candidate as your claims become more extreme that even CK is starting to argue with you! LOL
I admit to getting an "A" in Latin in my Intermediate Certificate wayyy back in 1977 but there is no excuse for your logical mangling of the terms and the facts noted above.
Ad Hominem Attack - attacking or insulting the poster, not necessarily addressing the argumenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem
Straw Man Argument - proposing an argument of your own not raised in teh debate by others and knocking it down.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
I haven't made appeals to the Grandfathers/Dinosaurs and I have been arguing with CK almost since I joined this thread.
Anyhow to follow up on some of your assertions:
You can start any time you like
In relation to the Technical Assessment Scheme:
“the unworkability of a totally new system without redacted successful submissions, specimen exam papers, specimen answers, or graduates and past exam papers to advise”
Can you not spare some slack for a totally new system of this complexity?
Nope. Its a totally unnecessary system. A grandfather clause requiring the showing of evidence of providing services commensurate with those of an Architect would have simply and equitable separated the chancers from the competent. It would take me an hour to process one person in a face-to-face review of their portfolio. Any MRIAI should have been able to do this without special training.
How can you have redacted successful submissions on a pilot project .
That's MY point - you cannot.
and for the record there are no exam papers with specimen answers involved in the Technical Assessment Scheme
And your point is what - that its totally unknowable and unworkable?
This is worse than spending millions on the damned voting machines that nobody trusted.
In relation to Grandfathers, the simple fact that they were not automatically registered despite decades providing competent services should scream at any right-thinking [as opposed to ass-covering] MRIAI that this is not a level playing field".
In relation to the ‘Dinosaurs / Grandfathers’ where is the empirical evidence of "decades providing competent services"? Where exactly is the level playing field that you are looking for?
I cannot speak for any other Grandfathers or Graduates of long standing like myself, but mine is partly in my built work, partly in my files and partly in shredded or dumped papers.
By waiting until after the onerous requirements of the Data Protection Act came in the RIAI have made it all but impossible for people of 10 years standing [for example] to prove their competence going back to their early days.
The level playing field is the market, which the RIAI have unfairly biased in favour of their own members, by abusing their dominant market position.
This kind of playing for position by monopoly holders is viewed pretty dimly by people who try to regulate the market for consumers.
"the most spectacular building failures in the Tiger were down to RIAI practices"[/B]
Do you have any empirical evidence for this claim?
Apart from published news accounts not rebutted by the persons or firms named?
These are primary sources, well publicised - the fact they were neither rebutted nor the subject of a defamation action against the papers is effectively an admission of truth.
I note your attempts to play down your claims above.
There is accurate reporting and their is fair reporting.
I won't smear Jim Pike, Opperman or Tony Reddy by suggesting these failures are typical of their work, however much it might push someone else's agenda..
I also know for a fact they are not typical of the vast majority of MRIAI's and I am happy to comment to that effect.
You've just criticised me for being fair to people.
I could give more examples of spectacular building failures attributed to unqualified people claiming to be architects during the Tiger but it would not be empirical evidence.
List them and be damned VCA.
I am happy to see the debate being broadened - more than you might suspect.
I know at least one potential defect in a house design which I took over in Tallaght, although that was just non-compliant design which I spotted and rectified.
"MRIAIs typically charge higher fees than non-Members"
Do you have empirical evidence for this claim? Are you comparing like with like? Is there not a justification in charging a higher fee for a higher level of service if a higher level of service is being offered as may be verified, if required, by empirical evidence?
Sometimes when you pay peanuts you get monkeys (or Charter Chancers).
No, you have me on that one fair and square.
I have only anecdotal evidence for that otherwise unfounded assertion.
How is a client to compare like with like when comparing quotations between consultants who may be offering widely divergent levels of service and qualifications without some reference to the definition of the title of architect and what that should mean?
That's a difference matter.
Even with MRIAI's there are widely divergent levels of specialisation and competence.
"Who has lobbied to disenfranchise Graduates and prevent them using the Title?
You seem to forget that until May 2008, Graduates could set up in practice and sign certs"
There is nothing in the BCA 2007 that prevents qualified / unqualified people setting up 'architecture-light' practices. It is just that they may not call themselves architects.
Straw man argument again VCA.
I'm not interested in certifying as anything other than an Architect.
"Building Designer" may suit the likes of Brian Montaut - as revealed on a recent Drive Time interview with John Graby - but he doesn't speak for me or any other Graduate.
It doesn't suit any Grandfather that I know either - Montaut is out standing in his own field on this one.
May I respectfully ask what wording have you been using on the certificates of compliance etc. that you have been using to date if you are not an RIAI member? Is it in the form of the wording as agreed by the RIAI and the Law Society? Or have you been using a ONQ hybrid certificate?
I use whatever wording the solicitor will accept subject to it broadly complying with the agreed RIAI wording.
I never use RIAI Opinions of Compliance headed paper/booklets.
It has always been on the headed paper of the firm I worked for or my own.
I have never represented myself as a Member of the Institute on any of my certs.
Is it copyrighted and / or available to third parties? Has it been approved by your insurers?
No. Yes. Yes.
You see, unlike the RIAI, I don't agree with hoarding knowledge as a means of wielding power in the profession.
That's a way of trying to control people and its led to them taking their eye off the ball where fraudulent certification has occurred.
Far better they should concern themselves with mis-certification amongst their registered members.
"When I said that it also irritates me intensely that almost every reference on this thread to “self-taught” people is coupled with allusions to Le Corbusier ...
"The truth hurts, ehhh?
do you really believe that every "self-taught" person is a Closet Corbusier?
Another straw man argument VCA.
The implication was clear - you raised the matter not I.
Corbusier did not qualify from a recignised full time five year course.
You then said:
What would you do if I added Michael Scott [blessed be his name, blessed be his holy works] to the mix
I wonder why you are quoting all of these people from a previous generation who are all now deceased and operated in a completely different professional era.
Remember "one swallow does not a summer make".
Architecture from thousand of years ago still speaks to us today.
Only a fool thinks you can educate people to be talented.
Or that registration will make them competent.
Or ensure that they act with integrity.