Dear Young Architects

@CK wrote:

onq,

I think that you mistake in relation to the EU legislation.

The EU legislation is only about architects traveling and working in Europe. The EU did not impose registration. The EU Directive is a non sense in itself as regulations, legislations, climates and other factors require a vernacular knowledge and if one has the skills to design a building in Norway, he may not have the skills to design one in Portugal.

The registration of the title is a globalization tool. It is not related to consumers’ protection, it is about what I call a global technocracy.

I am fighting with Architects Alliance for being able to register without paying more than the others and being subject to a fair examination and not an elitist non sense as it is now. We are lobbying and denunciating how the RIAI is discriminating me and many others in a very similar situation.

However, we are not fighting registration because even if we do not agree with it, it is a lost cause to fight against it. I am not sure what you are trying to prove when arguing that you can continue using the title without being registered, because anyway you are mistaking on this subject. I know that you were told by the RIAI admission Director that you could continue calling yourself a qualified architect, but as I already told you, do not believe all what the RIAI says, specially on the phone and even less on radio or other media.

Registration is about protecting a group of people. If you are not part of the group you have to fight to get in. I have not stopped fighting and I will not. But you must be careful not to fight a lost cause.

For the nth time, I support Registration, Co-Regulation and compulsory CPD.

I have engaged in CPD for my entire career.

My point, my sole point, is that I am entitled by EU and Irish law to use the title and I would appreciate being afforded the courtesy of automatic Registration.

Did you get it that time?

Re-read my posts and you’ll see this is a consistent thread.

The rest is mere supporting argument or dealing with queries raised.

ONQ.

@PVC King wrote:

If you are qualified on graduation what relevance has CPD? Clearly the intention was to seperate course content and regulation; which you claim to be exempt from.

No.
CPD is relevant to every person who qualified before today’s date.
The baseline qualification entitles me to call myself an architect under law.
My engagement with CPD keeps my skillsets current enough to competently perform.

Last May for example, a new standard for Fire Detection and Alarm systems came in.
I included it in a revised FSC Further Information submission dealing mainly with a requirement for my client to show a Right of Way.
The Fire Office knew about the impending change but hadn’t known it was in yet.
That’s a worked example of me operating as an architect based on my 20 year old qualification, while keeping my skillset and knowledge of the statutory framework in which I work up to date.

That link does not mention the word architect in it; it does mention the common fisheries and agricultural policies. In any event it is a 1999 document so would be superceded by the 2005 directive. You have been on a fishing trip from the off on this; all of these directives relate to the free movement of labour across borders.

The date of the original Architect’s directive is 1985 – it was superseded by the later Qualifications Directive of 2005. References within the documents to qualifications are the same. References to other documents within them are to current documents and its understood that references refer to later documents where these have been superseded.

No those without educational qualification are dealt with under Article 47 which is titled
Derogations from the conditions for the training of architects

You couldn’t be more wrong PVC King.
This section relates to two specific means of attaining recognition which at first glance do not satisfy the minimum requirements for training referred to at the beginning already referred to above:

1. “Fachhochschulen”, which is only 3 years full time but has 4 years practical

and

2. “training as part of social betterment schemes or part-time university studies”, which is not full time education.

They don’t have to

Are you sure?

What Article 49 actually does is make your position worse; read the clause again

Make your point.

If you travel the rights in your own juristion can be applied in all other member states; what it does not do is grant rights in the country of qualification that do not otherwise exist. If the Irish system requires registration someone from abroad with a qualifying degree still needs to register; if an Irish architect travels to another member state they are bound by the same rules as the local practitioners.

You seem to have missed the significance of this line:

“even if they do not satisfy the minimum requirements laid down in Article 46”

I have no problem with Registration, as I have repeatedly stated on numerous occasions
I have a problem with not being entitled to automatically register, since my qualification entitles me to use the title “architect”.

Now tell me where you get to be such an authority on professional qualifications.
While you’ve shown you can read, you don’t seem to understand.
Your comments about Article 47 are a worked example of that.

Come clean.
What’s your qualification?
What’s your competence to comment on qualifications?

ONQ.

@parka wrote:

CK you are starting to sound like a broken record, since I qualified 20 years ago I have furthered my knowledge by undertaking two Masters and two post grads, don’t think I would be capable of passing the exam?

As for the cost of you becoming an Architect, one of my masters cost nearly 20,000

I’m always impressed to see people furthering their education, but TWO masters?.

The figures you quote seem a huge investment for someone with a house and children.

What’s your situation and what was the reason for all this investment in your education?

ONQ.

The general system for recognition, however, does not prevent a Member State from making any person pursuing a profession on its territory subject to specific requirements due to the application of professional rules justified by the general public interest.

Enjoy your day….

@PVC King wrote:

Enjoy your day….

The above quotation is bound by the previous discussed reference which forbids any Member State from restricting access to natural persons to the profession who possess the required qualification.

As I said, I have no problem with Registration, as long as my statutory right to use the title is recognised by allowing me Automatic Registration.

I have spent the last hour showing you don’t seem to understand what you read – I am content.

ONQ.

@PVC King wrote:

Does your eight years of study include a degree in architecture?

My partner made a second career change to become a solicitor, she had four qualifications prior including an MBA but still had to study for a year (full time but she could have done it part time over 2/3 years) to get her LPC; then two years to qualify under supervision.

I do however agree that €13,300 sounds excessive unless there is a comprehensive course underpinning it that costs no more than €50-€100 per hour for the tuition. If there is tuition in this it would sound fairer to have an exam fee and allow the educational institutes compete on the tuition element by running Saturday or evening courses. Also are the exam costs tax deductable?

I see.

So your partner is qualified, more than once, many times in fact.
Is that what makes you such an expert on “qualifications”?
A spectator, rather than a player, perhaps?
Who has become an expert on the game.

And she’s a solicitor too.
Hmm.

Why don’t you ask your partner to cast a glance over this thread and offer a comment.
Unless she’s one of those professionals who don’t engage in pro-bono work as well as doing their CPD.
Get her to check your posts before you make any more unfounded allegations about “evading” matters of law.

ONQ.

@PVC King wrote:

Your last post is not deserving of an answer; indeed only for your prose style I’d have stayed a long way from this thread.

You only see my “prose style” – well that explains why you can’t see my arguments.
No surprises, there, you haven’t directly answered most of my posts.
Afraid you partner will say you’re wrong?

I did not accuse you of evading personally; but wish to highlight the stated puspose of the Directive to protect individual member states right to regulate as laid down below:

I’ll accept that.

Using the qualification to evade national application of professional rules as authorised above is clearly prevented. As this directive also replaces all prior directives it is binding so you like everyone else is subject to the rules brought in by the government.

No.
It doesn’t say that.
You cannot prevent someone from doing the impossible.
It is impossible to “evade” a “national application of professional rules” using a qualification.
If I was unqualified and/or trading as an architect without being registered, you might have a point.

In fact looking back on the thread, I see that one explanation of your vitriol is that you assumed I was.
Of course, you were jumping at assumptions all over the place and making unfounded accusations and allegations.

However, as I am not trading as an architect in RL and I support Registration, I fail to see how this comment applies to me.
So its yet another unfounded allegation because you don’t apply professional rigour and do research or ask a relevant question.

And you’re bleating about you as Joe Public can be sure that I’m doing relevant CPD?

CPD is about asking relevant questions of your self and your environment – legal, physical and social – to allow you behave competently.
Jumping at conclusions and making unfounded allegations is not competent behaviour, neither is a quick flick over a Directive before posting.
As I said before, you can form an opinion about someone’s competence from talking to them for an hour, then you go and see their built work.

In the meantime, Go on.
Ask your partner to look at this thread.
Go on.Go on.Go on.Go on.Go on.Go on.Go on.Go on.Go on.Go on.

And tell us your qualification or your competence to comment on qualifications.
Tell us.Tell us.Tell us.Tell us.Tell us.Tell us.Tell us.Tell us.Tell us.Tell us.Tell us.Tell us.

You know you want to.

ONQ.

@PVC King wrote:

If you have not registered then until you register you can’t use the title of architect as that is what is laid down in Irish law.

It is that simple.

Its bad enough you repeat what other people say.

You don’t have to go around repeating me and pretending to make a point out of it.

Post # 193 above refers, made half an hour before you did your last parrot impression.

Sheesh!

ONQ.

@PVC King wrote:

So you have dropped the I have a degree and are therefore an architect line then.

I don’t have “a line” – I have a qualification and 20 years experience.

I won’t wilfully break the law as written in the Building Control Act.
One cannot claim legitimacy from one law but disrespect another.

The Registrar will be given an opportunity to behave competently and equitably.
The Government will be given an opportunity to amend the legislation.

One or other the other may occur – either will satisfy my concerns.
Should neither occur, I’m sure I’ll think of something.

After all, solving problems is what I do. 🙂

ONQ.

Thanks for the bump up ONQ.

I know two people who are eligible for Registration, one who no longer subscribes to the RIAI, and the other who refuses to pay the exorbitant money required for Membership. I know several current Members who think the organisation is miles out of touch with reality. How many more are there?

Here is a hypothetical conversation with a Potential Client:

Potential Client: “Are you an architect?”
Me: “Well not exactly. I’m not registered so I’m not supposed to call myself an architect.”
Potential Client: “So you’re not an architect. What are you then?”
Me: “I’m……… eh I don’t know what I am actually….. I’m not a technician, I’m not an engineer, I’m not a draughtsperson…… I’m someone with all the abilities, knowledge and experience of an architect, but its illegal for me to call myself an architect.”
Potential Client: “Architect is simpler. Lets go with that then shall we?”
Me: “OK so. If you insist….”