13th August 2010, 12:59 PM
Just to clarify, and I apologize for labouring the point, but an "architectural consultant" or similar is someone who is not an Architect but is practising as one, and is sort of hinting that s/he is one... It is possible, legal and perfectly acceptable to be a registered Architect but choose not to be a member of the RIBA. You simply don't put "RIBA" after your name, you can put "J Bloggs Architect" on your cards and letterhead. Many proper firms are headed up by one or more Architects, and may employ other Architects, but usually employ a number of technicians (their body whinge on about being wanting to be called technologists) and indeed these guys often head up teams containing Architects...... the point of all this drivel is that I wonder if your average digger might be equivalent to technician (and don't get your high horses, there is no shame in this!) perhaps working towards Chartered Archaeologist status, but still entitiled to use the style or title Archaeologist.
I pretty much agree with you in principle Oxbeast, but I think the RICS model is perhaps a bit complicated to emulate. The beauty of the architectyrla model is that you either are an Architect or you aren't.
I think that if Chartered the IfA would inevitably "behave more professionally" although I think you may be being a little harsh on them at present. Possibly they need to get more of the message across.
I pretty much agree with you in principle Oxbeast, but I think the RICS model is perhaps a bit complicated to emulate. The beauty of the architectyrla model is that you either are an Architect or you aren't.
I think that if Chartered the IfA would inevitably "behave more professionally" although I think you may be being a little harsh on them at present. Possibly they need to get more of the message across.