"The European Commission has accused Arb and the government of breaking European law by refusing to register architects who have qualified abroad unless they produce additional evidence of practical experience. "
This is EU political bull! My RIBA qualification is the dogs bollocks compared to those cut out and keep European pretenders. I have EU nationals in my team who are qualified Architects in their country and experience tells me they are off the pace compared to the range of skills I have acquired through the RIBA framework Parts 1-3.
i agree about the part I - III part being worth more because it requires experience. i worked with continental architects when i was in london who did not know what they were doing (and were basically still students) even though they were nominally qualified in their own countries.
the problem with the RIBA part 1 to 3 which isn't a UK thing (rather a commonwealth CAA thing) is that unless you trained/worked in the UK they don't want to recognise it - even if you studied under the identical scheme somewhere else
I went to a SCHOSA conference last week and as I understand it - there will be a shift to in part 1 part 2 and that to enter part 2 you will not need to have necesarrily a formal part 1 qualification - it can come from other instruments - this is a great move! watch for it soon in a school near you!¬
i think this is similar to US schools which allow qualification after a 3 year master degree - the uk system is so insular and out of date in my perspective - we need more complex thinkers who bring other knowledge into the profession - the part 1 / part 2 tends to train fodder for offices - like many US schools =
i teach part 1 year 3 and have taught Dip [part 2] but even though i have been qualified in the US for 25 years and have practiced in the UK i would have to bring my original drawings from my first degree and prove to ARB [and pay £1500] that I know what i am doing in srchitecture - i fully agree that i should take part III but the rest is bull shit protectionist crap in my opinion! GOD SAVE THE QUEEN[S] and the prince and camillia!
couldn't agree more TED. i think it makes all the sense in the world that practicing architects should have part III, or equivalent, but to only be able to get to it through "convalidating" part I and II is utter nonsense. basically a money making scheme.
i also agree with jump that the requirements for qualifying varies a lot between eu countries but that it generally evens out after just a few years in practice.
May 2, 09 12:16 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
UK architect registration rules ‘break European law’
"The European Commission has accused Arb and the government of breaking European law by refusing to register architects who have qualified abroad unless they produce additional evidence of practical experience. "
BD Article
This is EU political bull! My RIBA qualification is the dogs bollocks compared to those cut out and keep European pretenders. I have EU nationals in my team who are qualified Architects in their country and experience tells me they are off the pace compared to the range of skills I have acquired through the RIBA framework Parts 1-3.
Bring on the debate.
i agree about the part I - III part being worth more because it requires experience. i worked with continental architects when i was in london who did not know what they were doing (and were basically still students) even though they were nominally qualified in their own countries.
this evened out pretty fast though.
the problem with the RIBA part 1 to 3 which isn't a UK thing (rather a commonwealth CAA thing) is that unless you trained/worked in the UK they don't want to recognise it - even if you studied under the identical scheme somewhere else
I went to a SCHOSA conference last week and as I understand it - there will be a shift to in part 1 part 2 and that to enter part 2 you will not need to have necesarrily a formal part 1 qualification - it can come from other instruments - this is a great move! watch for it soon in a school near you!¬
i think this is similar to US schools which allow qualification after a 3 year master degree - the uk system is so insular and out of date in my perspective - we need more complex thinkers who bring other knowledge into the profession - the part 1 / part 2 tends to train fodder for offices - like many US schools =
i teach part 1 year 3 and have taught Dip [part 2] but even though i have been qualified in the US for 25 years and have practiced in the UK i would have to bring my original drawings from my first degree and prove to ARB [and pay £1500] that I know what i am doing in srchitecture - i fully agree that i should take part III but the rest is bull shit protectionist crap in my opinion! GOD SAVE THE QUEEN[S] and the prince and camillia!
couldn't agree more TED. i think it makes all the sense in the world that practicing architects should have part III, or equivalent, but to only be able to get to it through "convalidating" part I and II is utter nonsense. basically a money making scheme.
i also agree with jump that the requirements for qualifying varies a lot between eu countries but that it generally evens out after just a few years in practice.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.