Discovering Perspective

I'm getting annoyed with conforming nonconformists. Seems to prove that their nonconformity is in all likelihood just another form of conformity completely lacking in creativity or self.

Hello all,

Mekki has just put live the survey for his thesis research. It would be great if you could go fill it out and pass along the link to friends, family, colleagues... the more the merrier.

The survey can be filled out online at http://survey.mektek.ca/ and takes approximately 5-15 minutes depending on your answers.

Thank you.

I just read an amusing but scary post on BldgBlog discussing the American election and the demographics chosen by the media and political campaigns as (mis)representative of "the heart of America".

He refers to a BoingBoing post last year that discusses how there are more World of Warcraft players in the US than farmers (actual farmers, not Chinese gold farmers). When was the last time a politician took their campaign to Azeroth?

It's rather revealing how in the land of democracy (a.k.a. land of majority rules), populations is still valued by its physical geography, by proximity. The problem is that winning over the hearts of WoW players won't secure a win. They aren't (I assume) concentrated enough in any one riding (is it called riding in the US system?) to affect the outcome of the vote. accounts for the difference between popular vote and who wins the election.

It seems elections are more concerned with geography than demography. That use to make sense. There use to be stronger correlations between where you lived and how you lived - what you believed, what issues were of greatest concern, what you wanted from your government. Certainly, there are still regional concerns but how do they compare to national or even global concerns? The weight given to where you live over what you want is disturbing.

And just think of the voter turn out if you had poll stations set up in Shattrath!

In the past, I have always voted for the Marxist Leninist Party (or some variation thereof). It has been my form of silent protest against a form of government that I don't support. Not a specific government, ie Liberal or Conservative, but the whole structure of how we choose and operate our government. That is not to say I think the Marxist Leninist Party would do any better. For me, it has always been about voting for what in principle or theory is more in line with my ideals without the consequences of how it will be practiced. I know they won't be elected and given the chance to screw it up.

But the irony is that I'm still falling into line. Still playing the democracy game. Even protest and disobedience fall into and get absorbed by the democratic electoral structure. I would assume because that is the structure on which it is based. Revolution. Give the people what they want. So, would the true, or at least truer protest be to not vote?

Why do I have a problem with the electoral democracy (as it exists currently in Canada)?

Long rant. I might follow up with more details over the next few weeks, but I will start with just a general overview of some of my biggest issues.

Democracy has evolved partially out of one major principle: "That all men are created equal." Sounds good in theory and has certainly had significant and important effects on shaping society. So everyone gets a vote and everyone gets an equal vote. But... I'm afraid I have to disagree. Should we not account for "quality versus quantity", and if so, how? Should everyone get an equal vote? In any debate or decision, aren't some people's opinions worth more than others? Perhaps there just isn't enough emphasis on the /created/ part. We all start off being worth the same as everyone else and can move up or down from there. Putting value to different people, obviously has risks and disadvantages. There's huge potential for corruption and instability, especially any that create more of "them" than of "us". There are obviously examples of corrupt governing systems based on assigning value to its people. But assigning no or equal value to everyone isn't much better. Actually, I believe it is worse. The obstacle I see in the valuation system is determining what is valued. Once that is figured out, it has huge potential. I don't see how to fix a system based on no or equal (essentially the same as no) value.

The whole thing is just so messed up. I'm sure I'm missing a lot of the details and nuances but let's go to the French Revolution. The intelligentsia realize that the aristocracy is corrupt, that ruling by divine right, by some constructed sense of entitlement is wrong and inefficient. It only benefits those at the top at the extreme cost to everyone else. This needs to change. Problem. They don't have the power to affect that change. They need support to overthrow the aristocracy. Rally the plebs! Problem. Now they have created a system where numbers, the masses, are more important than anything else. Just being now gives you a sense of entitlement. You share it with a lot more people than did the aristocracy, but meh! And we are left with a system that is corrupt and inefficient. It benefits almost no one by trying to please everyone.

Do you really want to continue supporting a system that was created with noble and grand intentions but in the end had to settle for keeping the plebeians happy so they would stop chopping off heads? "The fussy plebs!" Well, if you are a pleb you probably do. Probably also if you're about to get your head chopped off. "There's the rub!" They win by majority rules. By default, the system will always support the masses.

There are a lot of arguments I've heard as to why I should vote. I wouldn't mind picking some apart but for now, I'll just go with this one: "We owe it to those who came before us, who fought for our right to vote."

I disagree. I do not believe that they fought for our right to vote. "They" (dangerous concept) fought for our right to break free from an antiquated, corrupted, ineffective form of governance. If you absolutely feel the need to base your actions on some sense of obligation to our forefathers (that's another argument), than continue to fight to ensure our governing system is as effective and honest as possible. Don't just blindly do what they did then, do what needs to be done now to respect why they did what they did then.

Tricky part. What's the alternative?

Sarahworld is one option. I promise to be a benevolent dictator. Really.

I think that those who recognize the futility of the game, can't help but want to (A) pull themselves out of the game, or (B) redefine, improve, or reinvent the rules of the game. A is much easier than B. But A doesn't accomplish anything. It is as futile as continuing to play the futile game, it just saves you a bit of time. But B doesn't guarantee results either. Unless you succeed in bringing about a positive change, it just makes you feel like your doing something.

I'm working on B but in the short run, I might have to settle for A.

The choice whether or not to vote may be as important as the choice of who to vote or not vote for. What is actually important, in my opinion, is that you think about it and act or don't act accordingly.

The above rant is just that, a rant. A bit silly. A bit tongue-in-cheek. A bit messy. But I do believe it is a serious issue, one that will require a lot of thought before and after election day.

The results are in regarding the survey I talked about in the last post.

I'm happy to see some of my comments (directly quoted) and concerns (generally stated) are present. But, most of all, I have to share with you all the comment that made me laugh for five minutes.

In response to the proposed 5 year capped internship period:

"Does the OAA hate babies? Come on, at some point, we may all get occupied with making babies...."

...pair of compasses in one hand, rolls of drawings in the other.

I've spent the afternoon looking through and commenting on the Ontario Association of Architects' Intern Architect Initiative website. I think I missed the deadline to have my comments and concerns included in the official report but hopefully not from being heard and considered.

No one would deny that there are some serious issues and massive amounts of red tape with the current internship process. On the frontpage it states that the average age of an Intern Architect in Ontario is 39. It is supposed to take three years after graduating to get your license. For me, that would be 28. There's a problem.

I'm very happy to see some movement and discussion on the matter.

I'm relatively happy to see some of the proposals being put forth.

I'm not so happy to see some of the responses.

There is a great deal of bitterness by those who have made it through the ridiculous system. Despite the more than likely fact that these people complained about the process when they went through, recognized its flaws and absurdities, they now feel it is a necessary part of the path to become an architect - an arduous obstacle course one must defeat to prove one's devotion to the profession.

I'm disappointed.

Do I feel that way when it seems someone is getting an easier ride than I did? Absolutely.

Do I want them to suffer as much as I did? Probably.

Do I expect an outdated and flawed system to continue to be outdated and flawed just so I don't feel cheated? No.

I ranted a bit to Mekki on MSN today:

Mekki: It seems to be the norm in every organization.
Mekki: People are stupid.
Mekki: Groups of people are stupider.
Mekki: Nothing ever gets solved that way.
Mekki: It's a shame.
Sarah: Self-serving but pretending to be concerned about "the community".
Sarah: There's nothing wrong about being self-serving.
Sarah: It's the pretense that drives me nuts.
Mekki: Don't get too worked up.
Mekki: I do it too much.
Mekki: It just jades you and drains you.
Sarah: I don't do it enough.
Mekki: Just say your peace.
Mekki: Move on.

But the rant doesn't end there. I need to say my peace.

Mekki's been looking into the P.Eng. licensing process recently so I thought I would take a look at the competition. I was pretty shocked. Well, not really shocked. The engineers are being logical and reasonable. The architects are making things way more complicated than they need to be to maintain some sort of image. That (can be) a quality in architecture, not in the logistics of an organization.

So, in addition to completing the survey and providing detailed comments on all the proposed changes, I added the following note to the general forum:


I realize there is always a hint of professional animosity and competition towards our friends the engineers, but maybe they might have figured something out that we're missing here.

Below is the professional licensing procedure (unofficial based on what I gather from the PEO's website and friends in engineering):

1) All the required exams, with the exception of a professional practice exam, are included in the curriculum of accredited programs.

2) The required four years of engineering work experience are recorded by the applicant with explanations of positions held, projects, and responsibilities with an explanation of how the work "applied engineering theory". This allows for a variety of experiences, flexible to the field of specialization of the applicant, to count towards their experience (subject to review, of course). They don't need to account for every minute of every day and have every action signed off on by a supervisor.

3) In stead of a supervisor signing off on experience logs, three referees able to comment on the applicants "capabilities and suitability for licensing" are required.

4) Annual licensing fees are reasonable and do not act as a deterrent to completing the licensing requirements and registering as a full member ($220 annual fee compared to the OAA's $798).

5) There is also a limited license for those who have completed the necessary experience but lack other requirements. This allows them to step up out of the "in-training" status while acknowledging not everyone practicing engineering requires full licensing.

The PEO does have problems with their system, especially in the are of certifying graduates from non-Canadian universities and the reciprocity with other jurisdictions. They also have a much larger member base and have greater lobbying power.

Regardless, I think there is a lot of food for thought here. The PEO approaches their licensing process with (at least seeming) clarity and simplicity, flexibility, and respect for the professionalism of its members to act ethically and know their own boundaries.

The biggest problem I see with the proposed solutions to help reduce the number of Intern Architect and increase the number of Licensed Architects is that the problem isn't /just/ that the process is complicated, redundant, unreasonable, expensive, lacking flexibility, etc. The problem I didn't see addressed in any of the proposed solutions was what's the benefit of being a fully licensed architect?

Most firms only /need/ one (licensed) architect, someone to stamp the drawings. So a lot of people practicing architecture in a firm, and otherwise fully qualified to be architects, don't need to be licensed themselves - especially not when the annual fee goes from $120 as an intern to $798 as an architect.

There is a reasonable (financial) incentive to remain an intern especially when compared to the minor (practical) incentive to register as an architect. In stead of trying to encourage its members to register as fully licensed architects, by either removing the financial downside or increasing the practical incentives, the OAA seems to want to take the approach of preventing its members from staying interns by placing a five year time limit.

My comments on these points were:

I /strongly/ disagree with this additional requirement [of a five year time limit]. As mentioned above, my concerns include:

1) What forms of considerations will be made for those who have extenuating circumstances that prevent them from finishing on time? For example, maternity/paternity leave, opportunities oversees, relocation, being laid-off, returning to university, medical reasons, etc.

2) Will there be an option to apply for a leave of absence without forfeiting existing experience?

Interns have already invested six years towards joining this profession before even starting their internship. Delays do not mean the intern is not serious about joining the profession. Perhaps penalties or repetition of requirements is more reasonable than outright banning from reapplication. Or better, increase the incentives to become a full member.

-------------------------------------

Again, I /strongly/ disagree with this solution [of denying reapplication for internship status]. You have not provided any explanation as to why the option of reapplication is not being proposed. Similar to the Ontario Graduated Driver's Licensing, you could impose a five year timeline to achieve all the requirements but still allow for reapplication, including penalties such as repaying registration fees, repeating exams, etc.

That said, I strongly believe the better option is to encourage interns to become full members, rather than discourage them from remaining interns.

Certainly part of the reason why there are so many interns is because of complications, redundancy, unreasonable requirements, lack of flexibility, etc. in the process. However, part of the reason is a lack of perceived benefits in many situations for interns to jump to full member status. For many, the only difference is an increase in their annual OAA fees.

(I think I'm approaching the end of my rant... home stretch... I'm losing steam here)

A lot of it comes down to, what in my opinion, is a problem with architects in general. We're control freaks with big egos who like to uphold the prestige, elitism, and mystery of our profession.

There are definite benefits to being a self-regulated profession. There are definite drawbacks.

Job postings are usually pretty ridiculous and it's hard to imagine that anyone actually fully fits the requirements. Occasionally (actually, quite frequently), however, a requirement on the posting just makes me laugh and wonder if they are trying to make it impossible.

Today's laughable requirement:

"Minimum 3 years experience in preparing design and working drawings using AutoCad 2007"

Unless time travel is possible or becomes possible, I'm pretty sure no one has 3 years experience using AutoCad 2007.

My favourite will always be one Mekki came across:

Qualification: Outside the box thinker
Level: Moderate

They want you outside the box but not too far outside the box!