Much has been
written on CPD points that architects in Queensland are required to
collect in order to be re-registered: see -
Nothing happens,
nothing changes; no one appears concerned with the childish games,
complete with ‘show bags,’ and the put-down of professionals who
are asked to attend un-audited, un-accredited sessions to accrue
critical points, and respond to a set of written questions, as tests
or exams, at the end of these occasions in order to prove that
adequate attention has been paid to the presenters. These forms are
then to be filed away as evidence, so that, if the Board of
Architects of Queensland wants to audit an architect, all of the
documentation can be presented to ‘prove’ the claim that the
points, 10 formal and 10 informal, have been properly and responsibly
gained; that the architect has not cheated. It sounds a little like
the classification of third world coffee: ‘ethically produced.’
That architects are
treated as primary school children might be, is apparently of no
general concern to the profession that acts as an agent for the
client. This position of agency in itself should be sufficient to
ensure that the responsibility of the architect is to quiz and test
sales reps on behalf of the client, to ensure performances and
quality, rather than having the salesmen act as teachers, promoting
their blurb, with the authority to issue points to the professional
attendees, who may include practitioners with over forty year’s
experience; perhaps more. Apparently, for the BOAQ, this involvement
is irrelevant. The mature architect is treated in the same manner as
the recent graduate with no experience at all. Knowledge and
understanding mean nothing. Even the quality of the presentation
means nothing.* The only critical things seem to be the signed
attendance forms and the ticks on the exam questions.
It is truly an
appalling situation that needs immediate change so that both quality
and respect can be brought back into the profession. It is not as
though the Board’s hands are tied. The Act allows experience to be
recognised. It is just that the Board chooses to limit the rules it
wants to apply for re-registration. The current situation needs
review. The Board should revise its requirements and start taking on
the responsibility for recognising maturity, and offering quality
sessions for architects rather than letting things go on willy-nilly.
Such an approach might gain the Board some respect too, instead of
the current mockery that even compliant architects show towards the
system and those who enforce it.
“Hey, could this
drinks session with colleagues be used for points?”
“Yes, points and
pints!”
“That’s the best
way to do it!”
“Yes, you get
‘Board stiff’ at the talk sessions.”
“That’s a good
one, and its true. The Board is pretty rigid.”
While one might
refuse to engage in these ‘sales’ sessions, even for seven free
points over two days – WOW! Yes, the rules have created a business
- the chat in the profession spreads the word.
“Where’s my show
bag?” was the question of one colleague to his wife.
“It’s by your
drawing board.”
This colleague still
actually draws with a T-square!
“A show bag?” I
asked.
“Yes, we all got
one at the talks I went to, and seven points!”
And out it came; a
brown paper bag with black casf text on it and string handles
appeared.
“This is it,”
was the declaration as the bland bag was held high with a
mocking grin emphasizing its insignificance.
“Have a look
inside.”
My hand reached in
and pulled out a bundle of papers and publications.
“They loved it.
There were some left over, and when asked if they would like to take
one for friends, the architects rushed out to get more.”
“It sounds like
the Ekka, but not as interesting.”
“No lollies!”
“Gosh, I remember
sales reps who put on lunches for those who might attend, not only to
encourage attendance, but also to thank the architects for using
their products: bless them.”
“Those were the
days.”
As the contents of
the bag were transferred to my lap for perusal, two small
publications fell out. I looked at these first. They were brightly
coloured with quirky titles: SAY WATT, Lighting Companion, Volume 5:
Greenery lighting. It had a green cover. On opening the booklet, one
was confronted with cartoonish illustrations, one per page, with
strange ‘educational’ titles. The publication looked like a
children’s colouring-in book.
“Did you get any
coloured pencils?”
The cynicism was
obvious and shared, accompanied by a snort and a smirk.
“They handed these
out. The others loved them.”
“But what has this
to do with architectural practice and competence?”
“Yes, exactly.”
Three other books
were a part of this set. All books were likewise childishly punny.
They were an embarrassment to a profession committed to rigour and
knowledge in architecture and in graphics. One could argue that the
Board, with its own poor graphic logo, probably couldn’t care less:
see -
https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2012/04/normal-0-is-asquality-in-graphics-that.html
More lighting
brochures tumbled out. These were more classy in their presentation,
playing with the name ambience, with the catchphrase, MAKING
LIGHT WORK – clever! But do these slogans really do anything but
keep the creator feeling smug and smart? The folded sheet illustrated
various models of light fittings available. There is a limit to
variations; eventually all selections of light fittings start looking
the same. Maybe that is why the word games are used – to make a
difference?
Another folder was
opened: artificial, (well ‘synthetic,’ it sounds better), grass -
(unfortunately the name sounds like SIN GRASS: might it be a sin to
use it?) - in all of its various glories: Summer Cool; Classic;
Comfort Elite; Fresh Cut; Nouveau; Court Turf; Coolplay; Royal Green.
Who knew there were so many variations? Maybe there were more
varieties than real grass? The title on the cover was yet another
promotional pun: GREEN WITH ENVY. Who thinks these things up? Do they
realise how grating these conceits are? One cringed, not only at the
words, but the product that seriously sought to be used everywhere in
a world that, ironically, is being encouraged to be greener, to avoid
and manage the increasing use of plastic. No doubt the product has
its uses, but just where leaves one pondering. The marvel was that
various lengths and textures of this fake grass were available. Might
one play with this imagery somehow? Still, the attitude was:
“It was worth a
point to listen. One just had to grin and bear it: next.”
An exam
Another thicker tome
was perused: artificial stone – more synthetics. This publication
turned out to be interesting as it illustrated new developments with
this product that one knew only as a flat sheet. One might consider
using it, possibly more than artificial grass, but not that much
more. That this material could be moulded, maybe overseas, and
sculpted, and used as a building cladding both inside and out, gave
the product some timely importance considering the mess with
flammable claddings throughout the world. One might think that the
options could be limited by budgets – it is not cheap - but the
information was something that one would put aside to retrieve when
appropriate. This one point seemed more worthwhile, but the
questionnaire? This is embarrassing, because my colleague said that
the sessions finished with the presenter reading out all of the
answers for everyone to tick off in the multiple choice sets: “Idiot
architects,” seemed to be the suggestion. What on earth was the
point of this farce other than the point? Situations like this make
the BOAQ’s rules just silly, making professionals spend two days
out of their working time to attend sessions that are given mainly
for ticks. Might anyone go to these presentations if there were no
ticks to be given?
“How many actually
went?”
“Oh, there were
about thirty. The room was not full.”
“Only thirty!”
“Yes, one talk
would be given, then there would be a five-minute break when everyone
raced out for a free Golden Roast instant coffee and an Arnotts
biscuit.”
“It’s all a bit
cliché.”
“They had nearly
every variety of Arnotts biscuit you could think of.”
Somehow the
conversation had been downgraded from critiques of sessions into the
quality and quantity of coffee and bikkies.
“It sounds like a
government morning tea.”
“Yep! Exactly.”
“What else were
the talks about?”
“There was an
extra one on re-cladding buildings with flammable sheeting on them.”
“Isn’t that
pretty straightforward?”
“No, it gets
tricky with insurance companies getting involved.”
“Maybe insurance
companies might help sort out our planning issues too, since planners
don’t seem to care. Perhaps the response should be: we refuse to
insure properties developed on low areas prone to flooding.”
“Yes, that might
be one way to stop silly decisions that only give us grief. Look at
Townsville’s recent flooding; 12,000 homes under! - and Brisbane’s
too. In Brisbane, brand new apartment complexes went under. Why were
they ever allowed to be developed in flood plains?”
“Planners have a
lot to answer for.”
“It’s difficult.
Some years ago, the CEO of the City of Gold Coast got fired because
he argued that the flood plains around Mudgeeraba should never be
developed.”
“Wasn’t the
local Robina State School built in a flood area, on a huge mound of
fill?”
“Yes. It’s
hardly a good example.”
“So how would you
sum up your two days?”
“Seven free formal
points! Only three to go.”
The need for change
is obvious if the profession is not to be belittled by its own
managing body. While architects struggle for public respect, the
sales reps must go home laughing at architects after days like these.
It could be argued that the Board is doing more damage to the
profession than good. Ironically, its mandate is otherwise, to
protect the public from charlatans; to ensure quality in the
profession. Everything seems to be going otherwise with the public
being encouraged to treat architects as ignorant fools, and
architects being forced to gain useless points in the name of
improvement by being charlatans as students themselves, just to prove the
point for the BOAQ inspectors.
It seems that the
argument for the abolition of the BOAQ could be made if this farce
continues.
*
NOTE
26 FEBRUARY 2019
In a recent E-mail the Board of Architects Queensland made it clear that it did not accredit any CPD provider:
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.
6 MARCH 2019
Formal certificates have been distributed for this event, seven of them, one for each point, ready to be printed off and framed, or maybe just filed as proof: see below (name deleted). When might the profession protest against being treated as school children?
9 MARCH 2019
THE E-MAILS
I sent an E-mail to my colleague who had attended the sessions, pointing out the silliness in his certificates:
Did you notice that your certificates say that you have 'successfully completed a Formal CPD presentation'?
What on earth does that mean?
Does it mean that you had the stamina to put up with it for the duration?
S.
The response was clear in its concern and detail:
NOTE
22 MARCH 2019
An article in The Guardian tells of a tattooist being jailed for undertaking surgery on his customers: see - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/21/tattooist-dr-evil-jailed-for-performing-ear-and-nipple-removals
One wonders what 'risk' the Board is protecting the public from with its registration of architects.
Architects are encouraged to plan their individual CPD program each year to include learning and development activities suited to their particular needs.
6 MARCH 2019
Formal certificates have been distributed for this event, seven of them, one for each point, ready to be printed off and framed, or maybe just filed as proof: see below (name deleted). When might the profession protest against being treated as school children?
One does wonder why the subjects have been so fragmented - is it really just to be able to issue more points? Subjects 1, 5, and 7 appear to be connected.
But what does it mean to have 'successfully completed a Formal CPD presentation'? The notion makes little sense. Perhaps it is merely attempting to confirm attendance in flash, 'academic' speak; or is it acknowledging the stamina of the individual to have put up with the talk?
The note at the bottom of the certificate is a puzzle when the BOAQ acknowledges that it does not accredit any CPD providers.
9 MARCH 2019
THE E-MAILS
I sent an E-mail to my colleague who had attended the sessions, pointing out the silliness in his certificates:
Did you notice that your certificates say that you have 'successfully completed a Formal CPD presentation'?
What on earth does that mean?
Does it mean that you had the stamina to put up with it for the duration?
S.
The response was clear in its concern and detail:
HI ..... YES I THOUGHT THAT WAS VERY BIG OF THEM .... WHOEVER "THEY" ARE
......... OFFICE STAFF ?
AS I KEEP MENTIONING, I NOW FEEL VERY CONFIDENT OF PASSING, IN ALL THE
LECTURES ....... SINCE THE LAST ITEM OF EACH SESSION IS A METHODICAL RUN
THROUGH THE ANSWERS .......... USUALLY TAKES 10 / 15 MINS.
HOWEVER THAT MUST SAVE THE PRESENTER HOURS OF POST LECTURE TIME,
CORRECTING / MARKING / POSTING PAPERS TO "STUDENTS" ......... IF
SUBMITTED FOR CORRECTION SUBSEQUENT TO THE LECTURE..
I VAGUELY RECALL THAT PREVIOUS CPD QUESTION SHEETS WERE COLLECTED AFTER
THE LECTURE ......... I UNDERSTOOD THAT WAS THE PROOF OF ATTENDANCE.????????
THE SYSTEM APPEARS TO BE STRUCTURED SO THAT ...... "STUDENTS" PAYING DUE
ATTENTION TO THE SPEAKER, RECOGNISE HIS / HER REFERENCE TO THE
MATTERS LISTED IN THE QUESTION HANDOUT ......... AND THE MULTIPLE
CHOICE OPTION IS SELECTED AT THAT TIME.
I HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO REMEMBER THE SPEAKER EVER MENTIONING THE F..KING
TOPIC ADDRESSED IN THE QUESTION .......... SO I SUPPORT THE CURRENT SYSTEM
WHICH REWARDS ONE WITH 100 PERCENT RESULT.
DESPITE MY HEARING LOSS MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A VERBAL
....... [a] ...... [b] ... or .. [c] I have been tempted to ask the speaker
to repeat the correct answer and ask
if anyone has a rubber......... K*
YES ...... YOUR LAST QUESTION IS SPOT ON ...... IT CANT MEAN ANYTHING ELSE.
*
All I could think of was K as in Kafka's novel The Trial.NOTE
22 MARCH 2019
An article in The Guardian tells of a tattooist being jailed for undertaking surgery on his customers: see - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/21/tattooist-dr-evil-jailed-for-performing-ear-and-nipple-removals
“Whilst I’m sure Mr McCarthy considers himself an artist,
providing a service removing and cutting people’s body parts
without adequate medical training from unsuitable retail premises,
presents a risk to the public that we are not prepared to accept,”
Evans said.
* EXTRACT FROM THE ACT
Section 3 Main objects of Act
(a) to protect the public
(b) to maintain public confidence
(c) to uphold standards
The point is, (no pun intended): is this dodgy CPD arrangement the best way to do whatever is supposed to be being achieved?
The point is, (no pun intended): is this dodgy CPD arrangement the best way to do whatever is supposed to be being achieved?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.