admin
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Your answer on a solicitor being the appropriate person to contact is very telling; in most juristictions the first point of complaint is the professional practice; who are regulated by the industry professional body along a set complaints handling procedure. Failure to deal with the complaint in line with the procedure can have the member or firm struck off.
Instead your ‘I got a degree 20 years ago’ arrogance expects members of the public to incur legal costs to be able to get complaints adequately addressed.
To get qualified in the 1990’s you needed to spend 7 years in a member firm; you would at that time have needed to stay within a regime for that period and a judgement by members would have been made as to an individuals suitability.
RIAI is a long way from self-regulated; I have no doubt if you were explaining a complaint that issues like CPD would be looked at; the manner in which the matter was conducted would be looked at. That is regulation by professional body, a body you chose to leave at some point.
Fully qualified implies having both the academic and industry body qualifications to practice; it is no red herring; ask any solicitor, auditor, surveyor or actuary.
All I see from you are excuses in an effort to disguise that you made a massive error in allowing your membership to lapse in an era when regulation was not a legal requirement.
The public deserves a professional regulation regime that lays out clear rules of conduct for members and has a non-legal system of sanction; you can advertise that you got a degree in 1990 in Architecture.
ONQ
You claim to be fully qualified when you graduated; you claim not to have joined the main professional body; you are answerable to no-one from what I can make out; how can it be construed that you are doing anything other than proposing self regulation?
Who should a member of the public go to complain to if they feel that someone in your position is guilty of malpractice?
There is no vitriol; I just can’t believe the arrogance of anyone who proposes a system based on getting a qualification in their 20’s and feeling they are above regulation for the rest of their lives.
the benefits to both architects and the public of having a registration act outweigh the difficulties it would undoubtedly create
I fully agree with the RIAI on this; you clearly don’t; no other profession has people outside a professional industry body which regulates the membership alloes people to claim that they are qualified in that profession.
For reasons you won’t go into you simply decided not to join the industry body; that decision has finally caught up with you. I would welcome arrangements for assessment of non-members but assessment is required as a risk management to protect the public from people who have deteriorated professionally speaking from graduation which in some cases was decades ago.
Again you fail to state the manner of regulation that you propose; no other profession grants a life long right to practice based on an educational qualification. Until you do so, your arguments lack any credibility.
ONQ
You really do like the sound of your own voice; as I have stated I am not an architect so my background is not relevant but I do have the gold standard degree for my sector; do have professional association membership and value the CPD programme and membership updates I receive very highly.
The idea that the system should allow people to get a degree and then remain un-regulated for the remainder of their careers is lazy, cheap and has had led to Ireland having sub-standard architecture for too long; granted there are some exceptional Irish architects but the standard of much of what is built is generally a lot weaker than elsewhere.
You are clearly stuck in the past if think St Petersburg is still called Leningrad; are you proposing a proletariat commune of self-regulation. Those capitalists in Merrion Square spending too much money on awards ceremonies?
You can waffle on until the cows come home; but your arguments don’t stack up as you have not proposed any system of regulation other than putting people in their 20’s out as fully qualified without any manditory industry based supervision and letting the market regulate them for the next 40 years of their careers. In these straightened times the only advice you can give any graduate is join the industry body as you may need the reciprocation recognition if you seek work in another juristication. Self regulation failed; get over it and accept your advertising limitation or regularise your position.
You make a number of long winded arguments but cannot get away from the facts that the RIAI are independent i.e. that it is not controlled by a private business or that no other profession considers a university qualification as being sufficient to warrant ongoing use of the title professional e.g. solicitor, auditor etc.
I’d ask you to look at the vast bulk of the Liam Carroll output over the past two decades; that is why we need professionally qualified architects. As far as I am concerned a professional can only be considered to be fully qualified when they have a qualification from the industry body and are subject to ongoing monitoring by that body.
The involvement of the RIAI is no accident; they are the most reputable industry body in the country. Self regulation clearly failed and that is the system that you clearly favour; i.e. send people out in their early to mid twenties and let the market regulate them.
I have no connection whatsoever with the RIAI or any professional architects organisation; however looking at much of what was built by non-members over the past 20 years many of whom claimed to be architects I can clearly see the need for a defined industry standard.
My desire to see a proper professional membership system stems largely from the need for those assessing larger scale projects to see the RIAI stamp on the design team before granting funding. It is about creating a standardised meaning to the claim of a being a member of a relevant profession; in this case architect; which in many places requires both a recognised degree which you have but from what I can see you have never completed an annual CPD programme put together by an independent third party body or faced a post graduate examination to assess your competance to practice and knowledge of the membership regulations that would form the test of reasonableness in any negligence action.
Laws change and membership of the relevant professional body is the best way to keep up not just with those that affect how you advertise but also many others that are dealt with in the ongoing CPD programmes to keep the profession on the right side of negligence claims. These is nothing new in this tried and tested professional practice framework it is simply new to the architecture industry.
@CK wrote:
I am just asking for some honesty here. The legislation as it stands does not protect the public against David Grant, but it discriminates all self-trained architects, even the good ones…
Clearly wasting my time here; there is a difference between being self-trained and being professionally qualified. Authorised, approved, qualified; none of which guarantee talent; however they signify indications of reaching a recognised specification. How in god’s name is a planner not familiar with a party making an application or a prospective client supposed to know who are the good or the bad ‘self trained’
No-one is stopping anyone from working; it is simply ensuring that those claiming to be architects have met a defined pathway to be able to use the title.
On the education v experience route; it is not either or; both are equally important; it is however easier for someone working in the industry to gain an educational qualification by distance learning or part time study than it is for your average under-graduate to battle with the temptations of growing up and studying simultaneously. Both are to my mind equally important and both are equally necessary to convert either industry experience to professional membership or an academic qualification to become a professional member.
There is nothing stopping experienced persons working within the industry to get the necessary further training to get into the position to become professionally qualified. I’ve never heard of an experienced but unqualified doctor; the legal profession had for many years a structured route to grant a individuals who had not gone down the usual university onto law society examinations route practicing certificate after 7 years of work experience. The critical requirements were that your employer who was qualified and granted you student membership and that you attended structured training; not dis-similar to CPD.
I have never said that those without professional qualification don’t design well in some cases; I have used someone in those circumstances very beneficially. However buildings last for generations and it is one professional area which needs to be monitored as a result. The public have the right to associate the title architect in the same way they look at doctor, solicitor or auditor all of which require a formal membership affiliation to use the title.
@CK wrote:
First, it must be clear that registration will not prevent con men to practice, then your reference to David Grant does not make sense. There are lists of registrered architects, medical doctors, solicitors, who have been in court for misconduct.
Second, I do not understand why you think that someone cannot obtain skills to practice outside univesity. Have you tried?
Third, the world of architects would be sad if we had to remove from the list names such as Mies, Frank Loyd Wright, Ando, Xenakis, and so many more.
Fourth, why is it only in Ireland that established self-trained architects are discrimninated? Why are registered architects in this country so afraid to compete with us?
There is a large difference between misconduct and claiming to be something you are not; sadly the internet has opened many opportunities for conpersons to buy qualifications of no merit and masquerade as architects doectors etc; membership of a professional association enables prospective clients to check that the membership is valid and that the qualifications have been vetted by professionals who know the sector including the good from the bad feeder educational routes.
Most CPD is peer driven i.e. practitioners versus full time academics; much of it can be internal if the firm has the resources. What membership organisations do is that they provide the platform for smaller practices to create the numbers to ensure that events arte viable.
A talented designer will always get work; they simply need to be honest as to what their professional qualifications are; safe to say Mies is from a different era he was ahead of his time; unlike proper regulation which is decades late.
You state there is discrimination against professionally unqualified architects; beyond not calling themselves architects where is the discrimination; if you went to a hospital and it were busy and the complaint not to complex would you object to the nurse treating you? Would he object to not being called a doctor? But if the problem is complex would you not want a professionally qualified architect?
@onq wrote:
Nope
I had and still have a legally recognised degree that formally entitled me to call myself an architect, both in Ireland and throughout the EU.Last I checked it was the Attorney Generals office that wrote the law which was voted on by the Oireachtas and signed into law by the president.
But you’re claiming the RIAI did it.
You must be one of those “insiders” we read about in the scandal sheets.
How is it that a non-archtiect like you claime ot be is so well-connected and knows so much about the RIAI?As for your nonsense repeat of RIAI propaganda; –
I have seen no great outcry from the public about being conned, nor any great evidence of wrongdoing on the part of1. self-taught architects
2. persons with legally recognsied qualifications that entitled them to call themselves architects
3. or EVEN MRIAI’s– although the most serious issues of incompetence and fraudulent certification I have dealt with to date were from MRIAIs.
I realise I get to deal with the dregs, and that most MRIAI’s I know are quite competent, but still, it gives your argument a good kick in the goolies.
I’m beginning to think you’re terminally stupid.
You brought up David Grant, not me, as a red herring.
I didn’t “explain the Grant situation” by reference to my client.
I recounted the sad tale of my client’s experiecne with him separately.I explained Grant’s success which in my understanding was down to his price point, not his competence.
I explained his downfall, which I understood was down to his lack of competence not price point.Let me explain this in simple terms I hope you can grasp.
David Grant was supported by the market in the absence of regulation.
David Grant was brought down by the market in the absence of regulation.
The RIAI played no part in his downfall except the usual bleating about regulation.The market dealt with Grant.
But let’s take your point at face value.
The ARB has attempted to regulate the British profession for years.
But David Grant has operated for years in Britain where they have regulation.As an architect.
David Grant has been taken to court on at least two occassions by the ARB
Still operating as an architect.
http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/5202781.article
I have no doubt that he will continue to operate for as long as he likes, get taken to court and pay the fines.
http://www.cityultima.com/London/BusinessPage:Inspired_DesignAs an architect
He is a con man who makes so much money from the profession he can afford to laugh off the fines.
And this is continuing to occur in a jurisdiction where regulation has operated for years.
It is quite clear that regulation has not deterred David Grant and does not protect the public.You have no point.
I’ll endeavour to keep the title I have.
EU and Irish law says I am an architect.
I won’t be playing second fiddle to MRIAI’s.I do not “aspire” to anything – I’ve practised as an architect for almost 20 years.
I became an architect legally in Ireland and throughout the EU on the date of my qualification from Bolton Street in 1990.
I had no need to join a repressive organization that at the time forbade advertising, promoted price fixing and forbade non-Members from using the RIAI Contracts at the same time as they promoted them as an industry standard.So you’d agree that the RIAI has been doing a poor job of selling “DESIGN” to the proletariat since 1839, despite being at the “pinnacle” of the profession?
No argument there.
And guess what?
Protecting the title won’t change that.
ONQ.
I am going to resist the temptation to do multiple quotes on this; you went to college and a deficient legal framework allowed you to call yourself a qualified architect even though you had not worked in the profession for a significant period of monitored employment and structured training; the phrase may have been qualified but clearly the emphasis needed to be on educationally qualified and not professionally qualified. Name one other profession where that was the case then or is now.
David Grant was not brought down by the market he was brought down by a prime time expose; the complete absence from the requirement to be vetted by a professional body of practicing peers was patently obvious as the major cause behind chancers like Grant getting away with it. David Grant had a degree but no professional membership; solicitors, auditors and most other professions have for decades insisted on professional membership to claim the title. A Trinity Law degree gets you the right to sit a further exam and thats it.
Your answer as to why you didn’t join the RIAI is quite telling; you clearly didn’t feel that you needed to join the main professional membership organisation in the sector; legally then you didn’t but the law changed; to state that any graduate is fully professionally developed is niave at best or a polemical stance to suit a retrospective position looks more credible.
I congratulate the architecture profession in providing the same coherence as other professions; as the saying goes better late than never. I’m sure the RIAI would discuss a vetting procedure for you that reflects that you have a degree; as you have kept up with CPD then you would have no issues sitting some form of test to clarify that you have the relevant skills; although I must confess to being a touch confused as to how you would know the appropriate balance unless you have followed the ongoing guidance of the RIAI on that subject from a distance.
To someone outside the profession; I have never ceased to be amazed at how much of the market share was taken by people who had no design training at all; excluding operating cad packages that is. I further cannot understand how after 5 years in what in fairness is reputed to be a tough degree to acheive that one would feel that membership of the relevant professional body was not the appropriate manner in which to develop one’s career further. Clearly that decision has had an opportunity cost in some cases.
@onq wrote:
PVC King,
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 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.
Pandering to the British way of doing things doesn’t sit well with me either.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?
The monolithic crap in Canary Wharf reminiscent of something from Communist Russia, some dodgy post-modernism on the Thames, the inside-out Lloyds [yeah, THAT started fashion] and the Penis/Gherkin yoke, a stupid tent and a stupid wheel – I mean, I ask you!
ONQ.You had a legally recognised degree in a country where anyone could call themselves an architect; the RIAI have brought in a regulated system which was enshrined in law because the public were getting conned. You try to explain the Grant sitaution by saying you sorted the client out; base line Grant should never have been able to exploit the complete absence of any meaningful regulation.
As I have said I am all in favour of people with the appropriate degree going on to become registered architects; when they can display that they have completed the necessary experience and have acheived a proper technical standard. Until that point I think the associate membership route is entirely appropriate to indicate at least academic knowledge but not full chartered status.
The RIAI was founded in 1839; I just don’t understand why anyone that aspires to the pinacle of their profession would choose not to join. Did you apply to join on graduation or just decide it was a membership fee and your money had better uses?
I’m not going to comment on UK architecture but would say that when the majority of planning permissions are going to applicants who have engaged engineers and cad designers and even interenet plan shops such as Irish House designs; then slagging neighbouring juristictions is rather limp.
Self-taught architects are passionate about their art, they did not study to gain a title, they study everyday to create.
But you can have the best of both Worlds; most professions do; you study for a number of years and then work and are examined on the quality of your work. I have no doubt David Grant thought he was a genius….. I am clearly not saying that anyone here is a David Grant but that a system less than one which requires that the academic knowledge be applied and then examined is clearly superior to academic knowledge alone which allows many people to get the qualification and regard themselves as knowing the business; which many clearly will not due to a lack of practical experience. In no other profession I am aware of would a discussion on full qualification being acheived at a university or IT; take place, the necessity of CPD cannot be understated to keep the body professional up to speed with changes in the industry.
@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.
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.
The UK system makes a lot of sense in that there are three levels of membership
Student i.e. pre-graduation
Associate i.e. post graduation but pre acheivement of part 3
Chartered i.e. has acheived part 3http://www.architecture.com/JoinTheRIBA/Individuals/Individuals.aspx
To be fully qualified in the sense of the word you need to have acheived part 3 and be chartered; that was why I assumed you had something further from your employers either past or present. From what it sounds like you are an associate on the RIBA scale; if you paid a subscription that is.
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
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 regulationsI 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. I’d happily use someone with a RIBA membership as I know that they also ensure the risk management that is required.
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.
