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

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.

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.

PFLP ?

Peoples Front for the Liberation of Professionals?

@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.

@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 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.

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.

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 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.