Following the comments, but on top of the other self accreditation forum and the comments on this thread, there does appear to be such a plethora of organisations out there, trying to induce members across the whole landscaping / garden design spectrum. Whilst actually each and every organisation needs to hone in on its particular target membership which exists for each organisation. This would enable said organisations to concentrate and specialise in their own field much more, leaving the LJN (and others?) to cross the genres.
"Phil comments concerning trades will make the SGD cringe. The SGD believes that garden design is a profession more akin to that of an architect or surveyor rather than a tradesman such as a plumber, electrician or (dare I say it?) a landscaper. Hence a tie up between SGD, BALI and APL will never happen under the watch of the current council of the SGD in my opinion."
Not sure which particular comment you refer Jonathan?
If the above statement really reflects what the SGD believe then surely it's a ridiculous point of view for an organisation to hold? I would hazard a guess that most members of the SGD cannot and have never touched landscape construction.
I believe that it often takes great skill by an experienced (not going to use the word qualified) constructor to overcome many of the impossible build specifications of garden designers.
If the SGD are going to share part of the future as a respected body, they will have to start talking to everyone who is involved.
Such a coincidence that you added to the debate today. I picked up on comments made by garden designer Mark England and I was going to write a piece about the rumblings the SGD reorganisation has caused.
"While I think that the SGD is a very well-intentioned organisation, and indeed one to which I have contributed time in the past manning the stand at flower shows and the like, I think it is still struggling with its direction.
"I do welcome the move toward encouraging all members to undertake the rigorous peer review to achieve registered status; however, in individual cases this has been treated clumsily."
I too have read Mark's full comments and I'm afraid he is not the only one who has been treated like this. However, these things don't change because members don't complain about them. Trying to get members to take up issues with the council of the SGD is difficult. I'm not sure why. I hope Mark does have success. I believe he should be refunded some of his fees, but I would be surprised if this happens. I don't defend the SGD, there is an awful lot I would like to change about it. I think the SGD has lost direction and its new membership rules will mean some members will leave.
What chance has someone got of realistically got of becoming a member with no qualifications in horticulture or design?
Every chance Karl, that is I believe part of the problem. There are many registered members of the society who have no qualifications in design at all!!! And this is my point. You can't ignore education. Could you imagine another profession were you were allowed to become a full member of its professional body without a qualification in the subject matter? Its quite simply crazy. The SGD defends itself on this basis as wishing to be open and inclusive of all. But when members with degrees who took three years to get them and someone who has no qualification other than what they have picked up from TV or the internet, are treated the same then something is fundermentally wrong. No other profession I know allows this to happen.
Karl Harrison said:What chance has someone got of realistically got of becoming a member with no qualifications in horticulture or design?