[no subject]

Subject: Re: AIA discussion

>Excerpts from netnews.alt.architecture: 19-Feb-94 Re: AIA discussion by
>Garry Stevens@xxxxxxxxxx
>> In fact, closure (to use the sociological jargon) is an
>> essential part of professionalism.

>True, and by the way it occurs in other professions as well. It seems
>to be much worse in executive circles, apparently.

>I once worked in a hellish environment where there was a lot of
>emphasis on "professionalism" (the degree required to become a
>"professional," by the way, could be obtained in less than a year.
>Big deal) -- it was lousy since people doing lots of work didn't
>get credit since they weren't professionals, and professionals
?
| A system of
examinations that results in these kind of "professionals" is *VERY*
questionable. But it does happen. It should not happern!

>would regularly make lousy decisions which were followed through
>because of their status. It sucked.

>> The most intersting closure mechanisms
>> are not, in fact, the apparent overt ones of licensing, etc but the very
>> subtle, covert ones which groups use to designate others as outsiders,
>> not-one-of-us.

>Which is why licensing is in some ways a moot point, and would
>in some ways improve prospects for individuals -- it lessens
>dependance on politicking and herding (after having becomed
>licensed, not before, obviously).

>> Part of my thesis is on how the design studio in arch school
>> is used to filter out all those whom the teachers regard as unsuitable to
>> be architects, not because they lack talent or skills or aptitude, but
>> because they have the wrong attitudes and tastes. You can see part of this
>> process in operation in the studio crits, where the harshest criticisms are
>> always moral ones, criticising lack of dedication, the unwillingness to
>> play the game.

>Which is why after I get my bachelor's, instead of going to architecture
>school (which I had been considering) I'm thinking maybe going
>for construction engineering instead.
?
| YOU PROBABLY MEAN CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT IN AN
ENGINEERING SCHOOL. This would be an attempt on the part of
engineers to replace CONTRACTORS.

>By the way, do you know if any schools are worse in that respect
>than other schools? I mean, which schools?

>Also by the way, one could argue that this sort of criticism-based-
>on-attitude, a bad thing, is present in Ayn Rand's stuff. If I hire
>an architect to design my house, I want him to produce good work
>(by my standards); I don't particularly care if he's a Rational
>Individualist or whatever, and I don't think that personal philosophy
>has any bearing on talent (plenty of great artists were bastards).

>> I think the discussion about this has, to some extent, got it the wrong way
>> round. Most people are running on the idea that licensure is about
>> protecting consumers, and that this was the original and continuing
>> motivation for registration of lawyers, doctors, architects, engineers,
>> etc.
>> [stuff about licensure pressure coming from the licensed]

>That's certainly true, but that doesn't mean that licensing is bad.
>One reason that licensing for doctors, lawyers, and architects happened
>was that people at large approved of it as well (not just the professionals
>looking for protection).

>Here's a different take on the subject: suppose architects
>were licensed soley on the basis of understanding of engineering
?
| THEN THEY WOULD BE ENGINEERS!

>and construction principles? So that they would have to understand
>how to build a building that will stand up, but anything relating
>to aesthetics or socializing (such a required internship time at
>a firm) would be eliminated from the licensing requirements.

>So, if your average customer wants to hire an architect, s/he'd
?
|Clients are not really "customers".
>be able to make their own determination regarding the architect's
>aesthetic sense (based on viewing the architect's portfolio), but
?
|In *your* senario the aesthetics would *always* be determined by
a pervious customer, not client. That's a commercial point.

>would also be able to rely on that architect's license to know
>that the architect wouldn't build something structurally unsound.
?
|That *IS* the purpose
of the structural engineering consultant to the architect for the client.


>How would you feel about that?
?
| I would fee TERRIBLE...!

>--paul
Partial thread listing: