Is it me, or do architects believe that they are the be-all and end-all of architecture, both professional and educational? I have been qualified since June and in that time I have found the majority of architects ignorant of the fact that an architectural technologist is not a run-of-themill technician who has only studied for one or two years at university. We also, like architects, have a degree. Some might say: 'But ours is in arts.' So what, the RGU architectural course in Scotland is BSc based like ours.
I may as well have just done the two years at university and left, as I would have been treated the same by the establishment.
One company that called me for an interview began the meeting with 'Did you really go to university?' And this was before the interviewer saw my portfolio. I don't believe for one minute that if I had walked in as an architect I would have been asked that question.
Now that I am working, I find it hard to stomach that I have been given the job of designing (houses, bars and restaurants), but the architect gets the credit. I have spent four years at university and with that I would expect recognition and respect. I don't have to mention that both the RIAI and the RIBA do not recognise architectural technologists.
It is time that architects began to move with the times and get down off their overstuffed high horses and open the doors to technologists.
An architectural technologist, via email