> Lets just sit down and define the criteria
> by which we can recognise the latter: ethics, publication, continuity of
> learning.
Yes, I will put something on Architexturez in a few weeks time -- along with
the masters courses curriculum (draft) review. The J-C-S, I was trying not
to use Deleuze and Guattari terms so I lifted from Barthes, (The bourgeoisie
as a joint-stock company) "..several types ... have succeeded one another in
power; but the same status--a certain regime of ownership, a certain order,
a certain ideology--remains at a deeper level", -- just a clarification.
Now, architecture has long served the J-C-S, one may even imagine for a
moment that Architecture as a Profession was created (Beaux Arts, etc,) in
order to serve the J-C-S. i know this is mundane, somewhat vague -- so until
later.
http://www.ab-a.net/index-edit.cgi?Texts/The_Bourgeoisie_As_A_Joint-Stock_Company
> raising the bar for the lowest common denominator, then I am in
> agreement. I just distinguish between this and the need to disallow a
> person from qualifying in both architecture and planning.
I am saying the terminal degree is the one a person is licensed to practice
as, s/he can mention the others in the CV and Company Profile so it is not
about qualification. no dual license, in other words, license defaults on
the terminal degree unless the person explicitly wants to surrender that.
just another clarification...