Dear Young Architects

@onq wrote:

I was a qualified architect from June 1990 until May 2008 and the school of architecture from which I qualified set the bar.
Are you suggesting you’re stupid with your own money but not other people’s?
Are you being dismissive of someone who was qualified but unregistered because of incompetence on his part, or because that’s the RIAI party line?
But to turm your own question back to you –
Would the public be safer if a private organization got every qualified Architect barred from practising because their qualification wasn’t gained through them?

In the case of the disbarred solicitor, there must be evidence he committed some wrong.
In the case of qualified architects no wringdoing is assumed, and the right to call themselves “architect” is supported by an Irish Statute and two EU Directives.

ONQ.

.

I have no idea how you can claim to be qualified from 1990 on when there was no legal requirement to be qualified until 2008; prior to that point in time you could buy an online degree and claim to be an architect. Your claim to be qualified is based on what exactly?

No-one is barred from practicing under the current regime they simply cannot advertise being qualified to practice as an architect unless they are accredited; this I believe to be correct as it enables risk adverse individuals to be sure of what they are getting.

In terms of my own purchase decision I knew the individual for many years; who was a qualified engineer and had completed 4 of the 5 years of the DIT degree; I knew that he would secure the objectives I required and ultimately it was my cash on the line. Could I advise a client to use a non-accredited architect and defend a negligence claim if it went wrong; I doubt it. Even if the law changed on advertising I still have my doubts as to defensibility of the claim as by advising a client to hire outside the RIAI you are advising to hire someone who you cannot state with any certainty has been monitored by an independent competant body as having to that point in time followed the professional rules of the profession; in so doing you are not in a position to ensure that the practitioner has had the most relevant and up to date and ongoing professional development through CPD training .

I admire the RIAI as beyond personal interpretation of design style of particular buildings I have yet to see work that I would regard as poor work from their membership.

I’d also say that only for the excellent work of the ILS that there would be a lot more disreputable solicitors practicing; as the high standards required to enter the profession screens many who though clearly are not dishonest may not have the skills knowledge or understanding to practice competently and may try to cover their inability in a pressured manner to prevent destruction of personal finances.

You clearly have an axe to grind but may find using the EU directive to your advantage by going to another member state gaining membership there and then forcing the RIAI to recognise your qualification by virtue of a well intentioned but dubious directive a lot more productive than grinding on a discussion forum.

Who issued your qualification?

@PVC King wrote:

.

(snip comments on qualification dealt with separately)

No-one is barred from practicing under the current regime they simply cannot advertise being qualified to practice as an architect unless they are accredited;

Everyone who is not registered is barred from practising as an architect.

Accreditation is what happens when they qualify from a 3rd level course.
Registration is what happens when the Registrar admits them to the Register, whether they have a third level qualification or not.

Please learn the law before you make any more waffly comments you’ll regret later.

this I believe to be correct as it enables risk adverse individuals to be sure of what they are getting.

As the above corrections to your comments should make clear, you seem virtually clueless about what you claim to be knowlegable about.

In terms of my own purchase decision I knew the individual for many years; who was a qualified engineer and had completed 4 of the 5 years of the DIT degree;

So he was qualifed as an engineer which is a four year couse to completion, but not as an architect, which is a five year course to completion.

I knew that he would secure the objectives I required and ultimately it was my cash on the line.

Really?
No formal qualification as an architect.
No formal accreditation from the RIAI.
Yet you just “knew” he would deliver the service you require.
You were happy to trade on assumptions and personal knowledge of the man – just like any client who uses a self-taught architect he trusts.
Okay…

Could I advise a client to use a non-accredited architect and defend a negligence claim if it went wrong; I doubt it. Even if the law changed on advertising I still have my doubts as to defensibility of the claim as by advising a client to hire outside the RIAI you are advising to hire someone who you cannot state with any certainty has been monitored by an independent competant body as having to that point in time followed the professional rules of the profession; in so doing you are not in a position to ensure that the practitioner has had the most relevant and up to date and ongoing professional development through CPD training .

Propaganda.
There is no monitoring once they’ve got through the exam.
Exams can be crammed for as any self-respecting student will confirm.
You have no assurance what will stay in their heads afterwards except by personal experience of the professional in question, just like your architect/engineer friend.

I admire the RIAI as beyond personal interpretation of design style of particular buildings I have yet to see work that I would regard as poor work from their membership.

So some of its crap you don’t like – join the club and stop crawling will you.

I’d also say that only for the excellent work of the ILS that there would be a lot more disreputable solicitors practicing; as the high standards required to enter the profession screens many who though clearly are not dishonest may not have the skills knowledge or understanding to practice competently and may try to cover their inability in a pressured manner to prevent destruction of personal finances.

Five years full time in Bolton Street weeds out the stragglers and most of the incompetents too.

You clearly have an axe to grind but may find using the EU directive to your advantage by going to another member state gaining membership there and then forcing the RIAI to recognise your qualification by virtue of a well intentioned but dubious directive a lot more productive than grinding on a discussion forum.

Thank you for pointing out the inequity of the Building Control Act 2007 as currently applied to Irish post-graduates.
Nope, I’ll fight my corner here, whether against this discredited government, the current interpretation of my qualification by the RIAI, the instransgence of the Registrar or RIAI promoters like your goodself.

As for your comments that the legislation was based on a “well intentioned but dubious directive” allow me to point out that the RIAI traded on the authority conferred on them by this directive for nearly twenty years – its cited at the end of every Opinion of Compliance.

This is what gave them their only legitimacy in Ireland from Janary 25th 1989 until May 1st 2009.
Its disrespetful for an RIAI shill to start dissing the very Directive the RIAI traded under.
Thanks for pointing out the fickleness of some people.

ONQ.

@PVC King wrote:

Who issued your qualification?

What do you mean – “Who”?

Kevin O’Sullivan and Michael O’Donnell were two of the signatories.

ONQ.

You haven’t replied to my last two posts responding to you.

Thats Post # 43 and Post # 46 in this thread, just so that you’re clear.

ONQ.

@PVC King wrote:

You have an IT / university qualification and at some point had an employer sign off that you were competent. Those are historical milestones in your career

PVC King,
You seem to be out of your depth here.
And I have to admit, these are pretty shallow waters.
I do not have an IT/University qualification – whatever that is.

I qualified from a five year full-time accredited professional course.
The course I completed and passed is a recognised course under Irish and Eu law.
The institution I attended is recognised as being competent to issue accreditation under Irish and EU law.

Former employers don’t enter into this arena.

How does anyone know that you are

1. Still competent to industry standards
2. Carry out continued professional development
3. That there is a recognised complaints handling procedure to a third party
4. That you subscribe to industry standard risk management procedures such as manditory PI cover and client money handling regulations

That’s easy and its not brain science.

Normally they meet me and ask, and I tell them.
I show them work I’ve done, I show them my PI Cover.
I explain my strategy to them for the project going forward.
I discuss the ramifications of the several applicable branches of law with them.
I offer to introduce them to clients or let them make independent approaches on their own behalf.
More importantly after half an hour’s meeting with me they realise I know my stuff backwards, as you’ve found out today.

Alternatively, following the RIAI standard practice,I show them that I know where to go to find out.
Even MRIAI’s aren’t expected to know everything off the top of their head and its unprofessional to advise like that.
No professional is required to operate at such a level, even in terms of a Court of law where they might be giving evidence.
Professionals are expected to operate at a level higher than that of ” the man on the top of the Clapham Omnibus” but no higher than that of an average competent member of their profession exercising his skills and knowledge diligently.
Advice in meetings should be offered only based on recearch or recent certain knowledge, or in a very limited and qualified manner, and followed up with due diligence research and comment almost immediately – otherwise you may advise your client incorrectly and be sued.

Oh, and unlike some solicitors, who seem to make money out of short term deposit, high interest client accounts, I don’t handle client monies.
The most I would normally have in my physical possession is the statutory approval application fee cheque and I give them the local authority receipt for that.
This can be quite sizable, but I make sure they are always crossed and made out to the relevant authority.
They never get cashed into my account.

I am not an architect but if I am placing a third parties money on the line those are the types of question that I would consider answered by membership of the relevant professional body for any professional service. For that reason I don’t need to read legislation specific to another discipline merely to see that issue has been looked by the government and that a particular membership affiliation will if used constitute due diligence if I check that the membership is valid.

In other words, you won’t look further than the badge and you’d rely on a representative organization policing its members diligently.
That’s not you being diligent – that’s just you being too lazy to undertake proper checking procedures.
Policing its Members is something the RIAI have failed to do in the past where I have been involved in a referral.
Although I’m prepared to give the Registrar the benefit of the doubt – for now.

I’d happily use someone with a RIBA membership as I know that they also ensure the risk management that is required.

Again, you’re trading on the badge.
And you might be very unwise to do so unless they have experience of working and detailing buildings in our climate.
Ireland is a far wetter, colder and damper climate than the south of England where most of the RIBA Members operate.
Buildings need to be detailed differently to weather well here and/or to avoid interstial condensation.

Is a system that excludes people with online degrees and where the previous system even allowed people like David Grant to claim to be architects a problem? Absolutely not.

(rolls eyes)
I don’t have an online degree.
I have a degree from attending a full time course for five years.
As in physically being present in studios, for lectures, for exams, crits, and my thesis.

I lost one client to David Grant.
He came back and was well satisfied with our services.
The reason he left us was that David Grant promised him something he couldn’t deliver.
We had told him we couldn’t deliver unless he bought a strip of land.
He learnt his lesson well and gave us repeat work.

David Grant attracted clients because he only charged €3,500 nett for a planning application.
David Grant lost clients because he attracted a failure rate of 70% or more.
But he frightened the life out of the RIAI – almost €1M in fees one year.

Would the BCA 2007 have been so draconian without him?
If he didn’t exist the RIAI would have had to invent him.
He’s the Architectural Bogeyman.
So much for David Grant.

ONQ.

@PVC King wrote:

You qualified from an institute of learning; the system at that time did not require you to be a member of any professional body to use the title architect.
(RIBA support act snipped)

Correct.

DIT is an Institute of Higher Learning as recognised by the EU and defined as a competent body under S.I. 15 : 1989.
I have used the title architect based on formal recogniation of my qualificationunder both EU and Irish Law.

The ARB accreditation procedure has its fair share of detractors in the UK and elsewhere.
Citing it here instead of answering the points I made shows you’ve nothing much to say.

Thank you for revealing the depth of RIAI propaganda to me in your posts.
I won’t count this as a wasted day.

ONQ.

@wearnicehats wrote:

The word that appears time and time again is “qualification”. I’m lucky enough to have one that’s recognised but I also know that 66% of my colleagues in final year were failed. It’s no accident that all those people who should not have passed third year made it to the end – to fail people early means loss of 3 years fees you see. The consequence, however, of allowing substandard designers to progress as far as final year is that they will carry on into the workplace instead of finding another vocation. This allowing substandard candidates to complete a high standard course is just as bad as allowing graduates of a sub-standard course into the workplace

So am I correct in understanding that you’re saying that the problem with the old system was that the institutes of higher education were producing too many substandard graduates, and this new architects register will weed out unworthy practitioners?

The overwhelming majority of staff members at the various schools of architecture in this country are MRIAI, right? Therefore, one would assume that the standards they use to assess their students are pretty much in line with the standards of the RIAI, right? So, at what stage does an education from MRIAI become insufficient for a qualification from the RIAI?

@onq wrote:

Correct.

DIT is an Institute of Higher Learning as recognised by the EU and defined as a competent body under S.I. 15 : 1989.
I have used the title architect based on formal recogniation of my qualificationunder both EU and Irish Law.

The ARB accreditation procedure has its fair share of detractors in the UK and elsewhere.
Citing it here instead of answering the points I made shows you’ve nothing much to say.

Thank you for revealing the depth of RIAI propaganda to me in your posts.
I won’t count this as a wasted day.

ONQ.

I have a very favourable impression of DIT as a seat of learning; I just don’t feel that in the absence of time in the workplace with learning specific to the profession as opposed to academic learning is enough to consider people qualified. Look at accountants, solicitors, surveyors etc all require further study from their base degree.

I am all in favour of people currently at DIT being called student architects and those with the degree but pending a part 3 equivelent being called associate architects albeit that they participate in ongoing CPD to retain that status; but for the qualification to stand up on a par with other professions something along the lines of a part 3 qualification is required to be fully ready to practice as a sole practitioner in my view.

I am not saying that someone of associate status would automatically do an inferior job on a specific task but the differentiation between associate and chartered allows the market participants to make an informed choice based on a clear line of demarcation.

Given the free for all that went before I support the RIAI system as something is clearly better than nothing. What I don’t understand is why you didn’t pursue RIAI membership if you have such a great qualification; is there an issue of it only being recognised by the institute for a period of time or requiring further training to convert the underlying degree to their vision of fully qualified?

A lot of people would view your situation as getting through a tough under-graduate course but not making the effort to do whatever was necessary to secure membership of the national professional body. A lot of people would only care about the design vision but banks may want a bit more than a degree if the project involved secured lending.

@PVC King wrote:

I have a very favourable impression of DIT as a seat of learning; I just don’t feel that in the absence of time in the workplace with learning specific to the profession as opposed to academic learning is enough to consider people qualified.
(waffle about PVC Kings re-writing of the law snipped)

PVC King,

You seem to be someone who puts badges before people and that’s a sure road to disaster.
Are you one of those whose ISO 9002 QA file is filled, but things don’t get done around?
Things get done around me, clients happy, certificates issued, photo record taken.

What part of “I practised legally as an architect from June 1990 until May 2008” don’t you understand?

I had no need of the RIAI.
My certs were accepted from before 1994.
I had my designs built while I was still studying.

I was one of two named officers of the company I worked for under its P.I. cover deemed competent to inspect and signed certificates.
I supported the company’s and my own CPD programmes, and since leaving them I found I frequently had to instruct MRIAI’s on their lack of knowledge during disputes.

I realise there are some lame ducks out there who absolutely need to belong to an old boys club, whether for social reasons or whatever – but that’s not me.

Answer: it didn’t – mere Propaganda to suit ass covering pen pushers who like to answer yes when someone asks –

“Is Quinlan in the RIBA?”
“Why, yes he is Quentin.”
“Pity about the Listed Building though…”
“Indeed Quentin, but he’s one of us you know – a decent sort.”

Pandering to the British way of doing things doesn’t sit well with me.
I’m not a rabid Republican, but I don’t see their stuff is head and shoulders over the rest of the world.
Despite all their money in the City, what have the Brits done with it to benefit the general public or even London?

Monolithic crap in Canary Wharf reminiscent of something from Communist Russia
Dodgy post-modernism on the Thames.
The inside-out Lloyds Building [yeah, THAT started a fashion]
That Penis/Gherkin joke
A stupid tent
A stupid wheel –

I mean, I ask you!