There is a discussion on in-enaction@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx about architectural
education in the context of CoA-AICTE imbroglio. See archive - December. A
collaborative area with a first draft is underway and hopefully more
people will use it. I'd posted the following a while ago, forgot to copy
it.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [in-enaction] Reassessing regulation (white paper)
From: "Architexturez Enaction" <enaction@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, December 28, 2003 11:17 am
To: "Concerned about habitat and the professions."
<in-enaction@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am delighted about the last couple of mails. I am not presuming to
interfere in a discussion about architectural profession. This is only for
two things - one short request and two longish comments, only about
starting premises.
Request. Please find a term other than white paper. That rings of
presumption to wipe the slate clean without accounting for our messy
chalking. And it is currently very pop great governance instrument for
sweeping failures under the carpet as well as for quackery.
Comments.
One, I think minima-maxima conflict between sub-system objectives (of
licensing and education in this case) should not be the key
starting-premise for discussion about the system.
The conflict is illusory. The fact is that neither objective is
contributing to system goal (in this case CoA's statutory purpose) on
account of dis-connect. A profession can't simultaneously glorify in name
of
excellence-pursuing education and take action in public interest against
sub-standard (even illegal) professional work, professional corruption,
quackery, obfuscating of professional work as participatory work, etc, via
some minimum licensing regime for practice. There is no doubt that
excellence is for professionals to mind. There is also no doubt that we
cannot afford to have what is only dis-connect growing into real conflict
between some peer control in name of minding excellence and statutory
processes for minding the profession in public interest.
Two, I see AICTE-CoA imbroglio as just opportunity (no crisis at all). It
is useful entry point for discourse about the real crisis, but unworthy
starting point or central peg for it.
For years I've nagged young professionals to seize such opportunities.
Most have not, some have, at times effectively. I personally think just
numbers can't count and a different discourse can't be built out of the
existing one. That assessment (no, it is not cynicism) apart, I know any
numbers for any discourse are hard to come by. It is very quiet out there.
Anyone diagnosed the silence? Is it the silence before the storm awaiting
a process (and I wish it is that, which is why I am delighted at what Prem
and Anand are suggesting)? Or is it the silence of those who have nothing
to say? In any case, can we accept that a big part of the real crisis
facing the profession is of repeatedly missed opportunities to heal itself
and of the growing silence - one leading to the other? If we do, then we
must also accept not only that management of so-called crises should not
deepen this real crisis but also that we all badly need a 'win'. I suggest
that while building a network of discourse bear in mind that the bigger
the process the greater the damage it can do by failing, so what comes out
of it is important. It might just help to privilege introspection over
ab-initio idea-building.
PS
I am copying this to other lists. Prem, Anand, I could put you on the one
re SPA enquiry [didn't really take off and so has only my prose, etc] if
you want to check if anything on it connects
PPS
By the way, an eminent architect had today an exhibition of his excellent
work. Is that not against minimum licensing standards that disallow
advertising?
_______________________________________________
in-enaction mailing list
in-enaction@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/in-enaction
education in the context of CoA-AICTE imbroglio. See archive - December. A
collaborative area with a first draft is underway and hopefully more
people will use it. I'd posted the following a while ago, forgot to copy
it.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [in-enaction] Reassessing regulation (white paper)
From: "Architexturez Enaction" <enaction@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, December 28, 2003 11:17 am
To: "Concerned about habitat and the professions."
<in-enaction@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am delighted about the last couple of mails. I am not presuming to
interfere in a discussion about architectural profession. This is only for
two things - one short request and two longish comments, only about
starting premises.
Request. Please find a term other than white paper. That rings of
presumption to wipe the slate clean without accounting for our messy
chalking. And it is currently very pop great governance instrument for
sweeping failures under the carpet as well as for quackery.
Comments.
One, I think minima-maxima conflict between sub-system objectives (of
licensing and education in this case) should not be the key
starting-premise for discussion about the system.
The conflict is illusory. The fact is that neither objective is
contributing to system goal (in this case CoA's statutory purpose) on
account of dis-connect. A profession can't simultaneously glorify in name
of
excellence-pursuing education and take action in public interest against
sub-standard (even illegal) professional work, professional corruption,
quackery, obfuscating of professional work as participatory work, etc, via
some minimum licensing regime for practice. There is no doubt that
excellence is for professionals to mind. There is also no doubt that we
cannot afford to have what is only dis-connect growing into real conflict
between some peer control in name of minding excellence and statutory
processes for minding the profession in public interest.
Two, I see AICTE-CoA imbroglio as just opportunity (no crisis at all). It
is useful entry point for discourse about the real crisis, but unworthy
starting point or central peg for it.
For years I've nagged young professionals to seize such opportunities.
Most have not, some have, at times effectively. I personally think just
numbers can't count and a different discourse can't be built out of the
existing one. That assessment (no, it is not cynicism) apart, I know any
numbers for any discourse are hard to come by. It is very quiet out there.
Anyone diagnosed the silence? Is it the silence before the storm awaiting
a process (and I wish it is that, which is why I am delighted at what Prem
and Anand are suggesting)? Or is it the silence of those who have nothing
to say? In any case, can we accept that a big part of the real crisis
facing the profession is of repeatedly missed opportunities to heal itself
and of the growing silence - one leading to the other? If we do, then we
must also accept not only that management of so-called crises should not
deepen this real crisis but also that we all badly need a 'win'. I suggest
that while building a network of discourse bear in mind that the bigger
the process the greater the damage it can do by failing, so what comes out
of it is important. It might just help to privilege introspection over
ab-initio idea-building.
PS
I am copying this to other lists. Prem, Anand, I could put you on the one
re SPA enquiry [didn't really take off and so has only my prose, etc] if
you want to check if anything on it connects
PPS
By the way, an eminent architect had today an exhibition of his excellent
work. Is that not against minimum licensing standards that disallow
advertising?
_______________________________________________
in-enaction mailing list
in-enaction@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/in-enaction