I already explained that I am preparing my MCIAT instead of the ARAE because I cannot afford the second and because the ARAE seems to be a biased procedure designed to fail most applicants... In the contrary, CIAT appears to have created an exam which is hard work but affordable and honest.
Many of you criticize members of the Alliance who do not want to be assessed... Onq is only one of them...
The point that I am trying to make is that architects who were assessed 15 years ago, cannot pretend that their assessment suit the practice of architecture today. If these architects did not enter a self-learning phase, then they would not be in a position to practice today.
My question is: why aren't these architects assessed like self-taught for registration purposes, as their degrees do not reflect the necessary skills for practicing architecture today?
I understand everyone's concerns regarding the necessity of an assessment. But guys you have to be fair and honest here... Those who qualified 10 years ago cannot pretend that they were assessed as per today' standards. They must admit that like self-taught architects they have learned in practice.
In France there is no equivalent to the Building regulations (at least not when I left). We have building codes and building standards like B.S. or ISO and so on. But still a French or a German architect speaking English can register here within about 3 months and without assessment despite having no knowledge of the planning system or other building legislations.
Those who insist on established self-taught architects being assessed for registration today, should ask themselves why they do not request the same assessment to long established or foreign qualified architects...
I think that requesting an assessment for self-taught only is just a way to discriminate practitioners without recognized qualification. Specially when the assessment is prepared by an institute which represented professorially qualified architects for decade and which is still defending the interests of architectural education today.
There is no resistance from me in relation to re-testing MRIAI's.
Not only has the detailing in buildings moved on hugely [and stupidly, when you analyse the effects on occupants of some of these passive ventilation efforts] but the legislative requirements for someone employing people has become a minefield of potentional legal actions for the unwary.
But even in relation to older MRIAI's the point is that AT ONE TIME, they had achieved a standard of excellence covering the broad range of professional practice, contract and legislation necessary to run an office competently.
You might need to update the details, now and again, but once you achieved it, you never really lose that overview.
The point being that unless you've had to pull yourself together to be assessed independently, most people won't reach that plateau.
And therein in my opinion may lie the nub of the matter from the Registrar's point of view in relation to the AAoI stance.
The AAoI want no independent qualitative assessment of the work of their Members by the Assessment Board.
They just want to dump a shedload of their work in and say "there we did all that - now Register us please."
AFAICS there is no point claiming that merely because a building in a rural area achieved planning permission and fire safety certificate approval that a decent standard of work was reached.
That would rest entirely on the quality of those officers of the council assessing their work as well as the demands of the client.
If the general ethos in a rural area is that a watertight shed constitutes good design merely because its watertight and built roughly in the right location, the standards demanded of the design team may not be that onerous.
I guess we'll have to wait for that elusive exhibition of AAOI Members work to form an opinion.