Thought i'd throw this out there

[martin walker]

I'd see such a qualification as not just "I can do pretty pictures" badge, but also incorporate some architectural / technical knowledge and accuracy.

 

I dont see it as being elitist, but a way of saying "hey, Ive had my work judged by my peers and they deem it of a certain quality and more importantly (in my opinion) architecturally accurate."

 

Its no more "elitist" than people putting up their "image of the week" icons....if you have worked hard to become a certain standard, then fair play!

 

But its a valid comment that our portfolio is the most important "qualification" of all !

[aaron-cds]

Its no more "elitist" than people putting up their "image of the week" icons....if you have worked hard to become a certain standard, then fair play!

 

Just in case anyone cares, the image of the week icon showed up automatically when my rendering was selected. I had nothing to do with it. I hope noone thinks of me as an elitist.

 

bottom line: clients care about money, how fast it can get done and how good it looks.

 

things they don't care about: where you went to school, what type of software you use, or any other qualifications.

 

Qualifications may get your foot in the door, but it's your portfolio, cost and ability to provide certain services that is going to cause them to sign on the dotted line.

[Justin Hunt]

I for one am against such an organisation. The first and main reason they are imputent. What are you really getting and what are they going to do for me? Are they going to fight for increased fees and salaries? Are they able to protect me in court should I be sued? I maybe accredited here in Australia but it would be usless in the States.

 

As a prime example I am going to compare my wifes profession, she is a radiographer. She has to be registered to practice. In order to be registered her qualification has to be recognised, she has to do X amount of "further training" every year. The registration is expensive. When we moved state (Victoria to Queensland) she had to reregister as queensland wouldn't recognise Victorias accreditation body. The fees increase from $50/year to $500/year. For the past year the body has been fighting to get an increase in pay, woohoo they go an extra $10 a month. The only real protection she gets from this body is insurance from malpractice.

 

Here is the worst part - Luckily she qualified before 1995 in South Africa, as post 1995 the degree isn't recognised, even though the curriculum didn't change. As a result a good friend of ours, who has recently moved over here from SA, cannot work as a radiographer because she qualified in 1995. She has the experience, even lectured, but according to the body she is not qualified.

 

I would hate this to happen in our industry. Why should I not be able to work just because I don't have an architectural degree? Why should I pay an such an organisation to protect me in court? I'd rather pay a lawyer should need ever arise. Its bad enough that my bank manager dosn't recognse arch vis as a profession, an accreditation body wouldn't change that. My clients dont care that I never went to uni, and they would care even less if I belonged to an accreditation body.

 

I am all for improving and specialised education to better the industry. I would rather see education courses being accredited be a proffesional body, rather than the current accreditation by software vendors.

 

JHV