It was only after returning to Australia
that a colleague gave me a copy of the publication handed out on the
day of the seminar. It is headed ‘University of Queensland
Australia,’ followed by what looks like the mission statement:
‘Create change.’ Is this the best a university might hope for?
Why does it not aim for learning or wisdom? Change can be for better or for worse, and seems to be a poor ambition, even a lazy
aspiration for a university that can be so easily achieved almost
anyhow; willy-nilly, even with Trumpian spite. Gosh, our old secondary school had a better, more inspirational motto:
‘Knowledge is power,’ that looked like ‘Science is potatoes’
in Latin: Scientia est potestas.
The booklet was titled: ‘One Hundred
Years of Architectural Education in Queensland.’ Below this title
was a large, graphic purple ‘U’ mass that seemed to be a ‘U of
Q’ logo; it was not clear. The little wiggle on the bottom right
reminded one of the tail of a ‘Q’, but was it going the wrong
way? Poor graphic imagery is always a weak beginning.
The publication scheduled all of the
presentations and times, and gave some details on each presenter, a
mini CV. This appeared to be somewhat useful; but the real surprise
was at the rear of the booklet. The last ten pages were variously
titled ‘Continuing Professional Development Session One, Session
Two, Session Three, Session Four, and Sessions Five to Seven.’ These
were set out like an exam paper that needed to be completed for the
CPD points on offer. Might the document have been used for something
more relevant?
The first question was:
1. How did architects receive their
training prior to the establishment of the diploma course at the
Brisbane Central Technical College in 1918? # The unstated proposition
was that you may not have been concentrating: 'Have you been listening carefully?' Below this text were seven lines
marking the place available for one to write the answer. What if one
needed more? A total of sixteen questions with lines below, varying
in number from 6 to 16 – why, other than to fill up the space
available? - were printed for those attending to complete for CPD
recognition. Why is the length of the answer so random an affair? Why
is the response relevant?
What on earth was one to do with these
answers if one decided to fill out the forms available? What CPD
points are being referred to here? The Board of Architects was
correct in noting that it was not associated with this event,^ (the
name did not appear on the list of those involved), so do these CPD points relate to
the points required for BOAQ re-registration or not? What are they?
How is one to know?
One can continue with this analysis, but
the point has been made - (no pun intended). The greatest insult to
some attending is that they know more about some of the events being
spoken about than those presenting the material, but no one asked them anything about their experience: yet
they are being told to fill out the exam questions if they want the
points!
This is the real absurdity with CPD
matters that ignore experience: there is an utter disregard for ordinary dignity. One
is told to sit for exams when one might know more about the
issues than those presenting the occasion for CPD recognition. This
is worse than an insult. Those who have been an intimate part of the last 100
years, with detailed knowledge and understanding of affairs of
segments of this era within this time scale, are asked to participate and
complete the same forms as those who know nothing about anything, all
to prove a ‘learning experience’ - that ‘new knowledge’ has
been received!
The sheer stupidity of the proposition highlights the insult. The strange matter is that the younger members of the profession are apparently happy to participate in these silly, schoolish games, seeing nothing wrong with
the request. As professionals, they should be demanding that they are
treated as real professionals, not as children to be supervised by
‘teachers.’ The concern is that if self-appointed ‘teachers’
can be respected, why not the elders?
The alarming matter is that the
institution of the University of Queensland is happy to promote this seeming nonsense, as if sitting for exams is the only test academics know.
Precisely what ‘change’ is the U of Q seeking to ‘create’?
The implication is that one has not paid any attention to the speaker
– naughty person! Indeed, one may even have been talking during the
presentation - detention? So a test, an exam, has to be set to confirm ‘new knowledge,’ that one has indeed been listening, and has absorbed the information.
The exam
Who marks these responses? ‘What if .
. . ?’ is the big question. This apparent madness needs to be attended to.
Who tests the academics? What if those who know more and better
consider a presentation wanting; or poor? Where is this feedback to
be recorded? What happens – do the available CPD points get
downgraded or cancelled if the presenter has made a mess of the subject? Without accreditation, everything remains an irrelevant,
fluid mess.
Spending time with colleagues chatting
about these concerns only highlights the huge gaps in the CPD
structure, (see also: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2018/12/on-cpd-points-whats-point.html ), and its presumptive rudeness: there are many stories and
experiences that remain untold, unrecorded, but the questions are
never asked, and the opportunity is never offered to share these. Why
might a personal involvement with Charlie Fulton go ignored; why should the
stories of those architects back from WW1 get lost? No, one only has to shut up
and sit the exam that takes up nearly one third of the publication
specially printed for the occasion. Is the U of Q really serious
about this? Kindergarten children are managed with more panache, awareness, and
sensitivity. One has to ask: do the exam questions really reflect the
core concerns of the presentations? Is this all one has to accumulate
as ‘new understanding’ for the event to be relevant for CPD points? Who set
these questions? Why are these issues so critical? Might there be
something else one might have gleaned from the day that could be more
significant? What?
If this is the only system that those
involved in CPD matters understand, then the message must be blunt:
the system has FAILED - start again. It is suggested that 'narrow-minded' academics - or is it 'self-indulgent': "We are the teachers!"? - should keep away from the review of any new system. Surely architects can be
creative about learning without the rude and crude demands of testing and checking? Exam questions are so denigrating, so presumptive; they are
an embarrassment to anyone who has worked hard over many years and overcome the challenge of registration and practice as an architect, and gained the respect that this effort is due.
NOTE: The booklet has been scanned and inserted into the text using the same un-numbered page order as the publication.
# P.S.
To give the ‘flavour’ of the exam,
its trite banality, the remaining 15 questions are listed below,
along with the number of lines provided for the answer, in brackets.
The errors in these questions/tasks are alarming, especially for a
document produced by a university.
2. Give an account of the range of
career paths were (sic) afforded the first cohort of women who
completed diplomas at the Brisbane Central Technical College?
(sic) (12)
3. What was Charles Fulton’s
approach to the integration of practice and teaching over the arc of
his career? (13)
4. What ideas was Robert Cummings
exposed to during his time at the AA in London, and in Rome? (7)
3. (sic) How did Robert Cummings go
about educating the public about architecture? (7)
6. What interests did Karl and
Gertrude Langer bring to architectural education in Queensland?
(7)
7. Describe activities architects
and architectural students undertook over the course of World
War Two. (9)
8. Give an overview of the content
assembled by John Dalton for the production of pamphlets. (7)
9. What new fields of research and
technical innovation were explored in the School of Architecture at
the University of Queensland in the early 1970s? (12)
10. How did Edwin Codd restructure
the teaching program at QUT? (13)
11. Describe the contents and
findings contained in the student report produced by Peter Bycroft
and Paul Memmott in 1971? (sic) (16)
12. Describe the differences in
approach to architectural education outlined by the heads of the six
schools who presented. (6)
13. What are the distinct features of
the new architecture course offering by the University of Western
Sydney? (7)
14. What approach to studio did
Alexandra Brown and APS Steen take in their collaboration? (13)
15. What are the issues that were
raised by students that (sic) they face during their
education? What is SONA’s role and how does it represent students?
(13)
16. What is the role of EmAGN in
transitioning for (sic) study into practice? (14)
Q.E.D.
^ P.P.S.
^ P.P.S.
Well,
it happened. The sheer embarrassment of sending off an E-mail to the
wrong recipient, especially one that has been criticised in the text:
it is just so-o-o-o easy! My colleague and I had been communicating
on the matter of the U of Q seminar, including the points on offer.
It was in one of these E-mails that raised a particular issue that
caused us to realise that one communication had not been delivered.
Shortly
after this, an E-mail from the Board of Architects of Queensland
arrived in my colleague's mail. It advised my colleague that the
E-mail had been sent to the Board, obviously in error. Oddly, for a
body that polices ethics and proper behaviour of a profession, the
staff member of the Board joined in the conversation, advising that
the Board had nothing to do with the seminar, that the points related
to the Institute points.*
Well,
it seems to me that the appropriate action might have been to advise
of the error and to delete the E-mail, but no: the Board had to
comment. By commenting, it did nothing to clarify things, just to
add confusion to the matter of points that already seems to be in an
unstructured, unmanaged mess.
So
there are at least two point systems. Are they interchangeable? What
are the points that I have been accruing: Board or Institute? Does it
matter? Well, it might.
This
all highlights the need for a much better managed system, one with
real meaning and beneficial outcomes: a system with simple
clarity and substance – something to be sought after, wanted,
rather than something to scrape together as effortlessly as possible
to accrue the numbers.
Allowing
willy-nilly systems of points to waffle around without any guidelines
for assessment of quantity or quality, merely maintains the shambles
of which my colleague and myself were talking.
Things
have to change.
The
Board needs precise and meaningful policies, not only in relation to
the CPD points system, but also on the matter of wrongly received
E-mails.
NOTE
26 FEBRUARY 2019
In a recent E-mail, the Board of Architects Queensland clarified the position with points, noting that it has a joint policy developed with the Accreditation Council of Australia and the Australian Institute of Architects. The advice that the BOAQ had nothing to do with the seminar seems to rely not only on there being no promotional relationship with the event, but also on the fact that it does not accredit CPD providers. It does have a relationship to the event through the 'point' agreement.
NOTE
26 FEBRUARY 2019
In a recent E-mail, the Board of Architects Queensland clarified the position with points, noting that it has a joint policy developed with the Accreditation Council of Australia and the Australian Institute of Architects. The advice that the BOAQ had nothing to do with the seminar seems to rely not only on there being no promotional relationship with the event, but also on the fact that it does not accredit CPD providers. It does have a relationship to the event through the 'point' agreement.
Continuing Professional Development
The Architects
Act 2002 (Section 16) requires the Board to be satisfied that an
architect has maintained an appropriate level of knowledge, skill and
competence in order to renew a person’s registration. The Board’s
preferred method of demonstrating this requirement is participation
in a continuing professional development (CPD) program.
The Board has
developed a CPD policy based on a joint policy developed by the
Architects Accreditation Council of Australia and the Australian
Institute of Architects. In this way, architects that are registered
in more than one state or territory need only keep one set of CPD
records. N.B. For administrative ease, the Board requires architects
to report on their CPD activities at the time of annual renewal of
registration: the CPD year therefore is from 1 April to 31 March.
CPD Provider Ideas
Practising
architects must take all reasonable steps to maintain competency in
the practice of architecture (Section 16 of the Architects Act 2002).
As a way of demonstrating this, the Board requires architects to
undertake a minimum of 20 hours of CPD activities each year, and to
report annually on CPD undertaken as part registration renewal CPD
reporting year is from 1 April to 31 March. Following is reference
information for various CPD offerings available to Queensland
architects, provided for guidance only.
Please note:
The Board does
not accredit CPD providers.
This information is
provided as guidance only, and should not be taken as Board
recommendations. Architects are encouraged to plan their individual
CPD program each year to include learning and development activities
suited to their particular needs.
SEE: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2019/02/whats-point-on-re-registration.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.