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

@wearnicehats wrote:

a mere 13 years before JohnO was a twinkle in the milkman’s eye

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0026/S.0026.194201140006.html

The substantive piece is this:

[167] “This knowledge can be acquired only by a course of specialised education enabling him to develop his artistic gifts by suitable artistic training, to learn the technical means available for carrying out his ideas, to assimilate a sufficient knowledge of public and administrative law, social and economic science, and general culture, to enable him to fulfil his duties, and finally to acquire experience of his profession by practical training.

“If it is admitted that the architect should also possess sufficient authority and sense of professional duty to defend the often important interests entrusted to him and to carry out satisfactorily the duties as an adviser or arbitrator with which he is often entrusted, it will be realised that it is only by suitable training that he can reach the desired intellectual standard, and that no mere tests of ability can guarantee his possession of these qualities.

“At present, anyone in any place is free to exercise this profession in any way, and it must be recognised as undesirable that activities of such importance for the public welfare should be entrusted to anyone prepared to undertake them without some previous check on his abilities.”

The problem is, this is both right and wrong if interpreted literally.

The course reference immediately predicates one to think in terms of third level courses, yet it cannot only mean that, for at the time an architectural apprenticeship was recognised as a legitimate – and for some, a preferred – way of attaining competence.
Thus a “course of training” could mean other than a third level course of training.

In relation to the training itself, it makes a very valid point:

“…only by suitable training that he can reach the desired intellectual standard, and that no mere tests of ability can guarantee his possession of these qualities”

In other words, merely passing an exam with limited experience may not adequately assess the person – I have no argument with this.

But grandfathers are so-called because they are NOT only a wet week out of college – most I have met have in excess of ten years providing services commensurate with those of an architect.
Nor did they “teach themselves” – many served long years as draughtsmen or technicians or junior aprentice architects before taking a decision to practice on their own.
Its not THAT lucrative a profession – most archtiects who have made money have dabbled in development or some other revenue stream – you don’t set up to get rich.

To suggest without any empirical proof that someone two years out of a college who has passed an exam is somehow superior to someone who has earned his living for ten years as an architect seems to be rank hypocrisy, spurred perhaps by the concerns expressed elsewhere centring on the pocket of those paying the fees.

Its ironical to me that this call should issue since many I met in college had Mammy or Daddy pay their fees – they certainly never had to put their hands in their own pockets, so whinging about the cost of fees seems oddly inappropriate.

Not once have any of the whingers stopped to consider the economics of the matter – is there any substance to my assertions, and if so why are we paying for a five year course of study when people like Tadao Ando, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Michael Scott didn’t attend formal schooling in architecture.

You need to stop and question this, because apprenticed and practically trained talented people will always seek enter the profession and I would hate to think a giant talent would be browbeaten into submission or prevetned from practising because he didn’t follow the RIAI rulebuke.

Constantly referring to David Grant is mere convenience – you’d almost wonder did the RIAI invite him over, because without him they have little evidence of incompetence on the part of grandfathers to rely on – whereas many grandfathers have evidence of RIAI members’ incompetence.

It should make an interesting day out in court, when we’ll finally see what marvellous standard the Part III ensures – integrity and honesty isn’t part of the syllabus, they are qualities you either have or not – they cannot be learned.

Except, perhaps, by example.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

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.

allow me to quote you – directed to me – from another thread

After jobs, this matter is the most important issue facing architects today.
Disrupt this thread and I will report you for TROLLING.
Others seem interested enough to read it.
There are [on that thread] 20,715 views and counting
Contribute or please ignore it.

HAND

ONQ

I don’t really know what’s got into you Onq but it would be appreciated if you’d stop being a prick

@onq wrote:

Thank you for yet another incisive well thought out contribution to a thread.

Blerkin suggested i was t least twenty five when even a quick tally would nearly double that.

I corrected him and gave him a gentle and humorous reminder about posting prematurely.
Can we presume you sided with him because you are mathematically challenged?
Or are you just looking for someone to support you having a go at me?

ONQ.

I think Blerkin knew that. and the only person who’s having a personal “go” on here is you

and yes, if it makes you happy, you’re absolutely right

@BenK wrote:

In terms of giving assurance to the public (of which we are both members) I would argue that the difference is one has been formally assessed to a certain standard and the other one hasn’t.(snip)

No, BenK.

The difference is that one is giving an assurance that the work he WILL do in the next ten years will be up to scratch.

The other can point to the work he HAS done in the past ten years as proof of not only his competence, but also his integrity and professionalism.

I’m not saying one is intrinsically better than the other, both views have their merits, but only one person gets automatically registered, and I have met many of them trading on that paper assurance that border on criminals, with sharp practice and trading on the badge the least of it.

The fact that this is still evident will be borne out by the building failures and loss of life we are yet to discover in RIAI certified buildings.

I accept your other comments – this will come to fruition in the fulness of time.

However as to the right to use the title – this is something conferred by two EU directives on Graduates that the RIAI and this Minister have seen fit to take away – unjustly.

As for dealing with this gross undermining of the primary degree – spannungsbogen.

[which should also tell you something about my mis-spent youth and early twenties]

ONQ.

@sean blerkin wrote:

I must admit i had forgotten about the years of one’s life preceding qualification. maybe they should be put towards achieving a masters from the school of hard knocks as well?

(chuckle)

We all tend to forget them for various reasons – I cannot believe I am pushing fifty – where did that time go?

Many practically trained architects will point out that new Graduates know very little about building a building, and I don’t mean a lack of contract or detailing knowledge.

They are clueless about how people from different backgrounds get on and communicate, establish a pecking order, command respect, speak authoritatively while still holding not alienating your audience – all this is on the curriculum of the “school of hard knocks”.

In Bolton Street – I cannot speak for UCD – some rapport at least with trades was engendered with our studies with the Linen Hall or School of Trades.

My meagre efforts at sand-casting, carpentry and brick-laying left with with a then new found respect for people who could building in real life with their hands what I had designed.

We were also encouraged to get work on building sites to see how buildings were actually built, and perhaps find out the shortcomings of the “assemble it from a catalogue” school of working drawings.

Finally we were encouraged to take at least one year out to work in offices – oftenr between 3rd and 4th year, or 2nd and 3rd, learning the ropes and finding out what office like was like, in a smaller office, so that we would be exposed to every level of the job.

Those years were essential to my understanding of the limitations of paper and later digital design in terms of materials use in wet climates – such as ours – and detailing to avoid water penetration and control cracking and weathering.

I don’t rely on technicians to solve my problems – I sometimes consult with them to reach better solutions, but I know my way around a detail and a new regulation.

If you cannot raise yourself above the level of mere compliance to that of foreseeability you won’t last long as an architect – the regs aren’t written by architects, I can tell you that.

Your comment about those years being wasted shows your silver spoon – never deride the school of hard knocks.

As an aside, I heard recently that footballers, often pilloried for their lack of education were assessed for their use of brain power versus a commensurately equipped theoretical robot.

Even at the current levels of sophisticating and processing speed, the designed robot couldn’t match the sloppiest proponent of the game when it came to dribbling a ball past a set of opponents.

Something you might want to bear in mind the next time you’re tempted to diss those with SOHN after their name.

🙂

ONQ.

Most professions structure themselves along the lines of student member, associate member i.e. recognised degree but not examined by the industry body, member (examined), fellow (made contribution though exemplary service) and vocational member i.e. grandfather clause but must pass a less academic test based on experience.

I could be wrong but JoD’s proposal seems more like an amnesty than a controlled intake to the professional body as you would hope would be the case. You want all professions to have those using the title to be subject to regulation done through manditory practice statements and guidance notes that establish industry standards in tests of ‘reasonableness’ in this case the RIAI are best place to regulate.

I do agree that the sudden regulatory change from no public protection to the ARB may have been a move that didn’t consider many individuals who are competent; however who decided that they were competent in their professional careers (ONQ college is not the real world) However it is vital that the entire profession are required to do cpd and must follow practice statements to preserve the good mane of the profession.

A balance would be to fast track an examination that a competent practitioner could pass but that is not academic in its leading and award ArchTech status.

To grant an amnesty sends exactly the wrong message out to students; why bother getting professionally qualified when a future politician will declare an amnesty. The real pity is that someone didn’t regulate this 20-30 years ago.

@PVC King wrote:

Most professions structure themselves along the lines of student member, associate member i.e. recognised degree but not examined by the industry body, member (examined), fellow (made contribution though exemplary service) and vocational member i.e. grandfather clause but must pass a less academic test based on experience.

I could be wrong but JoD’s proposal seems more like an amnesty than a controlled intake to the professional body as you would hope would be the case. You want all professions to have those using the title to be subject to regulation done through manditory practice statements and guidance notes that establish industry standards in tests of ‘reasonableness’ in this case the RIAI are best place to regulate.

I do agree that the sudden regulatory change from no public protection to the ARB may have been a move that didn’t consider many individuals who are competent; however who decided that they were competent in their professional careers (ONQ college is not the real world) However it is vital that the entire profession are required to do cpd and must follow practice statements to preserve the good mane of the profession.

A balance would be to fast track an examination that a competent practitioner could pass but that is not academic in its leading and award ArchTech status.

To grant an amnesty sends exactly the wrong message out to students; why bother getting professionally qualified when a future politician will declare an amnesty. The real pity is that someone didn’t regulate this 20-30 years ago.

Pity you don’t actually research what you pontificate about.

A Grandfather Clause is an amnesty – an amnesty from new laws that are not appropriate to apply to some groups of people.

You’re CPD waffle stops far short of giving any assurance – its a post-facto cover up measure without any objective reality.

Only an independent exam administered every five years to allow Members retain their status will do that – do you see the RIAI rushing to give THAT assurance?

No – and you are highly unlikely to see it in your lifetime – too few of the older Members in the existing Membershio would pass it.

The Part III’s thirty years ago were different than today, and the people who passed them areunlikely to match current standard yet the law suggests they are competent and deserving of being on the register automatically.

In this regard, the automatic registration of persons who got their part threes more than twenty years ago should beseen as what it is – the RIAI version of the Grandfather Clause.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

Pity you don’t actually research what you pontificate about.

A Grandfather Clause is an amnesty – an amnesty from new laws that are not appropriate to apply to some groups of people.

You’re CPD waffle stops far short of giving any assurance – its a post-facto cover up measure without any objective reality.

Only an independent exam administered every five years to allow Members retain their status will do that – do you see the RIAI rushing to give THAT assurance?

No – and you are highly unlikely to see it in your lifetime – too few of the older Members in the existing Membershio would pass it.

The Part III’s thirty years ago were different than today, and the people who passed them areunlikely to match current standard yet the law suggests they are competent and deserving of being on the register automatically.

In this regard, the automatic registration of persons who got their part threes more than twenty years ago should beseen as what it is – the RIAI version of the Grandfather Clause.

ONQ.

This is where I have a problem with your argument; you as opposed to examining ways of bringing vocational practitioners into the profession structure simply attack the existing structure which is based on International best practice in your attempts to justify creation of an entry point that is not regulated. Are you really suggesting that all motor drivers who have acheived a full driving license should also be retested every 5 years?

Please clarify post Granfather clause how you propose the beneficiaries of the amnesty would be regulated in respect to industry led practice statements and guidance notes, please clarify how the beneficiaries will maintain relevant life long learning and who will provide it and check that they are compliant with industry standards.

Please clarify who will adjudicate professional complaints at industry body level for these beneficiaries should any arise.

As opposed to attacking those who graduated and then completed further study you need to realise that the sympathy that exists is not for people who have the degree and just didn’t bother completing the part 3 examination; it is for those who either did a different qualifiaction or did not possess the resources to go to third level and have through sheer hard work pulled themselves up to the level of competent practitioner and that to date may not have had an entry route into membership of the industry body.

As you well know only one professional body has the structures and resources to credibly regulate the industry along International best practice lines; this is the case with all other professions in Ireland.

I am not going to reply to most of your post; the answers were not straight other than to clarify the self declared mandate of the AAI

‘to provide a medium of friendly communication between members and others interested in the progress of architecture’

How can you possibly construe that as an industry body; that would make Paul Clerkin an FAAI without ever joining…..

@onq wrote:

That’s where your sympathies lie.

I didn’t attack them per se – I begrudge them their automatic registration when I already have a qualification that is recognised throughout EUrope as entitlnig me to practise ans an architect – this is a very simple position to understand, isn’t it?

The Dail architectis on record as saying the following

As indicated above the so-called grandfather clause in the Building Control Act 2007 was introduced in order not to exclude individuals who had been working as architects for some considerable time in the State but had not undergone any formal architectural training. It was strongly felt that limiting the architectural profession to graduates of the various third level institutions would be unfair on those individuals who had gravitated into architectural practices from quantity surveying, technical drafting or trade/apprenticeship backgrounds.

The intention of those who seek to protect the weaker party is to help those with vocational backgrounds not those who simply couldn’t have been bothered doing professional exams.

@onq wrote:

And you know what their fig leaf then is?
“We weren’t retained to administer the contract or carry out inspections.”

But they’ll still come in when its all coverd up and certify for money based on “visual inspection” only – not bloody good enough by a long shot.

Don’t assume you know anything about the Architectural Profession or how Members of the RIAI behave.
Learn before you post.

ONQ.

Having wasted 10 minutes trying to deal with your spinning above I come back to the structure of all professions and ask you to address who will carry out the following functions.

1. CPD for members
2. Examination of part 3 candidates and arch techs i.e. vocational candidates
3. Formulating practice statements
4. Deciding tests of reasonableness through guidance notes
5 Complaint procedures
6. Checking PI cover of members
7. Regulating client money handling through spot checks

The grandfather clause is simply a free for all by another name; a controlled intake into the industry body to preserve their ability to earn a living and protect the public simultaneously is a very different process.

‘to provide a medium of friendly communication between members and others interested in the progress of architecture’

Stay with the point; they do not profess to be a regulatory organisation.

Graduate Standard

Is exactly that; name one other fee based profession in Ireland where once you graduate you are not required to join the industry membership organisation to use the title.

The Competition Authority’s Report states that, the RIAI will face a clear potential conflict of interest between representing the interest of its members on the one hand and regulating in the public interest on the other.

It is interesting that the competition authority has not moved against solicitors, accountants and surveyors if their view was that the RIAI’s role was incompatable. You will note it is a potential conflict and not an unacceptable conflict.

…I come back to the structure of all professions and ask you to address who will carry out the following functions.

1. CPD for members
2. Examination of part 3 candidates and arch techs i.e. vocational candidates
3. Formulating practice statements
4. Deciding tests of reasonableness through guidance notes
5 Complaint procedures
6. Checking PI cover of members
7. Regulating client money handling through spot checks

You’re making a point for some other thread perhaps.

The stated purpose of the legislation is to protect the consumer from rogue Architects, QS and Building Surveyors. THE SCS regulates Surveyors along the lines above; you consistently run away from explaining who is going to do it for Architects?

a controlled intake into the industry body to preserve their ability to earn a living and protect the public simultaneously is a very different process.

Yep – that’s called a closed shop.

Explain how allowing people without degree’s in architecture to be given membership of the RIAI based on long service is a closed shop?