European Institute of Golf Course Architects

[kenmoodie]

Brian

As Chairman of the Education Committee for the EIGCA I was very disappointed to hear the views you expressed regarding the Institute.

The Institute has undergone many changes in recent years and I do not think it can fairly be classed as 'old fashioned'. The reason you are on the MSc in Golf Course Architecture at Heriot-Watt University/ECA is proof of that since the need to educate prospective golf course architects was recognised by BIGCA (prior to merger with AFAG and ESGA to form the EIGCA) and the Professional Diploma in Golf Course Architects was set up as a result. This was a move away from any criticism that the associations were just 'old boys clubs' and organisations which people, without influence amongst the membership, would not find it easy to enter. The Institute was responding to a tangible demand for education in the profession by setting up the Diploma Course and the MSc is a culmination of our response. We are very pleased to see that it has attracted a large cross section of students from many different countries including a few from the USA. As you know the Professional Diploma is to be replaced with a part-time University diploma which will be run in tandem with the MSc for those that either do not have an existing degree or the facility to take a year out of their careers for education, so we are also trying to accommodate the Pete Dye's of this world.

Regarding the EIGCA AGM weekend at Royal Liverpool/Hoylake, the MSc students were invited en mas via Mike Wood, the Course Director, since we do not have contact details for all of the students. Although the Institute has retained an important role of lecturing and external examination on the course, the students are Heriot-Watt/ECA students until they graduate. Then they are invited by our President (by letter) to join the EIGCA as a Graduate member which then entitles them to attend any EIGCA event including the AGM. This year we felt that the students would benefit greatly from attending the CPD seminar we were running at Hoylake and therefore invited them through the college to attend free of charge. We also felt that it would be useful for the students to have a chance to meet members of the Institute so that they understand the true benefits of future membership for themselves. It was suggested that Mike Wood could perhaps organise a mini-bus to keep the cost down for the students. However, since it clashed with the Easter break he was not sure how many would be able to attend and I assume this is part of the reason for the low turnout. The reason we did not invite the students to the whole event was the fact that the places for golf on the Friday were limited in number and we had to offer them to our members first. In addition, the golf and associated dinner cost our members £75 per head and we were not sure whether the students could afford this as well as another night’s accommodation. Since only members can attend the AGM there would have been no point in the students staying until the Saturday.

We are an inclusive Institute and not an exclusive one and we would like to represent all golf course architects who are practising above the minimum standards that we have established. To this end we have established the Assisted Work Placement Scheme which is open to all Graduates of the Institute and offers them some financial support in gaining work experience with one of our Members or Associates for 6 months full-time or 12 months part-time. We hope that at the end of the period most will be taken on full-time in the practices involved. I currently have a Graduate working with me on this basis and another was recently taken on by Deutsche Golf Consult who had graduated from the MSc course. Our President, Peter Harradine, has also employed a recent graduate of the MSc course.

It is a shame that you felt you needed to voice your concerns on this web site and did not address the issue directly through the Institute's offices. We are very keen to see graduates of the MSc joining the institute and taking part in its affairs since they are the future of the profession.

Ken Moodie

[Forrest Richardson]

Ken,

I  enjoyed reading your comments and responses to Brian's comments. But why do you characterize it a "shame" that he posted his comments as opposed to writing you in privacy? Do you really mean, "Brian, I would have appreciated it more had you written us directly as opposed to bringing your opinions to the attention of so many others?" I am not defending Brian per se, but it does seem to me that a discussion group about educating on matters of golf architecture is a very logical forum to air such concerns, suggestions and, of course, responses.

[kenmoodie]

Forrest,

I felt it was a shame that he did not address the issue with the EIGCA so that we could respond to his concerns directly rather than through a discussion group where his views might become distorted. I agree that it is very useful to have a forum where views can be expressed openly but unfortunately some of his points were factually incorrect. For this reason I felt that it was important that we replied through the discussion group since others will have read the opions he expressed and taken them at face value.

[Brian Phillips]

Dear Ken,

Thank you for your reply.

Brian

As Chairman of the Education Committee for the EIGCA I was very disappointed to hear the views you expressed regarding the Institute.

Not being a member I can only voice my personal opinions as a person working in the industry looking in from the outside.  I am sorry you feel such issues should not be discussed in public.  There are many other things that could have been brought up but they would have not been appropriate for this site.

The Institute has undergone many changes in recent years and I do not think it can fairly be classed as 'old fashioned'. The reason you are on the MSc in Golf Course Architecture at Heriot-Watt University/ECA is proof of that since the need to educate prospective golf course architects was recognised by BIGCA (prior to merger with AFAG and ESGA to form the EIGCA) and the Professional Diploma in Golf Course Architects was set up as a result.

I have one question regarding the course.  If the Institute is so involved with the course why has the Institute not questioned the students how they feel the course could be improved?  Would it be possible to send out a questionaire asking for opinions?

Regarding the EIGCA AGM weekend at Royal Liverpool/Hoylake, the MSc students were invited en mas via Mike Wood, the Course Director, since we do not have contact details for all of the students.

Ken, that is a cop out.  There are only 12 students on the course.  I didn't realise e-mails are such difficult things to write. Even one letter copied 12 times would not have been difficult.  The letters could have been sent to Mike and he could have forwarded them to us.  If an invite was sent out it should have been sent out more professionally.  The e-mail we received did not explain anything about the day it just stated we were invited to a CPD day with the Institute at Hoylake.  No times or details were given.  Is that professional?

 
The reason we did not invite the students to the whole event was the fact that the places for golf on the Friday were limited in number and we had to offer them to our members first. In addition, the golf and associated dinner cost our members £75 per head and we were not sure whether the students could afford this as well as another night’s accommodation. Since only members can attend the AGM there would have been no point in the students staying until the Saturday.

Those are fair comments but again if we had received a letter or e-mail explaining the whole picture then maybe the turnout would have been better.  Many of us were in Edinburgh during the break and did think about attending but with so little information received I felt it would not be worth investing the time and money.  Have asked any of us why we did not attend?

Your point about the £75 is again something you have assumed.  We were not given the choice.  It is the Institutes decision to not allow students attending the golf but it would have been a very good way for some of the members to meet the students.  I don't know how many tee times Hoylake made available to the Institute but I cannot believe that 3 more tee times (for 12 students) would not have been possible.

It is a shame that you felt you needed to voice your concerns on this web site and did not address the issue directly through the Institute's offices. We are very keen to see graduates of the MSc joining the institute and taking part in its affairs since they are the future of the profession.

I am not part of the Institute and therefore felt no need to voice my opinions to the Institute.  I have used this site for the last two and half years to voice and discuss many opinions.  It is a site that many in the business meet to discuss all sorts of points and the members of the ASGCA often voice there opinions here as well as those that do not support the ASGCA.

I think it is great that you have responded to this post but have you posted to defend the Institute or do you really want to hear any opinions at all?  As long as the opinions are only personal opinions and no direct attacks are made on the members then I do not see any harm in it.

Why not send out a questionaire to the students asking them what opinion they have about the M.Sc., the lecturers, and the Institute?  This could then be returned anonymously to you or the Institute.

If you are interested in my detailed opinion on what I think about the Institute (rightly or wrongly) then please e-mail me to discuss it in private.

Brian.

[Brian Phillips]

Forrest,
 I agree that it is very useful to have a forum where views can be expressed openly but unfortunately some of his points were factually incorrect. For this reason I felt that it was important that we replied through the discussion group since others will have read the opions he expressed and taken them at face value.

Ken,

Would you mind telling me what part of my opinions are factually incorrect.

We both have the same goals for the program - constant improvement, I hope to use what I learned as an early student to continue to improve it for those who follow, I know the EIGCA has put lots of effort into a good program, and I do agree that maybe I shouldn't just focus only on the parts that have not yet been perfected.  

If I have upset members of the Institute including yourself then I apologise to you and the members. No offence was intended.  The Institute and the University and more importantly the existing students do need to work together to improve the course.


Brian

[GDStudio]

Ken,

Just so it is known, my name is Branden Wilburn, and I am also in the MSc. program with Brian.  The following views expressed reflect my personal opinions, and do not represent the class as a whole.

Kudos to Brian for speaking up about his issues with the EIGCA and the MSc program.  I might not agree with the forum in which it was brought up in, but Brian does have the right to discuss this anywhere, especially on this site where others like us may be reading and wanting to know more about the EIGCA and the MSc program.

As Chairman of the Education Committee for the EIGCA I was very disappointed to hear the views you expressed regarding the Institute.

It is a shame that you felt you needed to voice your concerns on this web site and did not address the issue directly through the Institute's offices. We are very keen to see graduates of the MSc joining the institute and taking part in its affairs since they are the future of the profession.

As Chairman, you should have been interested in hearing a potential future member express their honest views about the EIGCA.  Brian is not bound by any ethical decision to “stay quite” and discuss matters in private, as he is not a member of the institute.  His issues with the EIGCA and the MSc should be expresses and have been in more than just this forum.  Once the EIGCA as a whole come to accept the students as future members and treat us so, then maybe there will be more direct communication with the institute.  Many of the members have treated us accordingly, and have in return been treated with respect and been thanked for taking their time to come speak with us.  However, others have visited (and lectured) and not shown us any amount of respect and therefore, cannot expect to receive any from the students.

The Institute has undergone many changes in recent years and I do not think it can fairly be classed as 'old fashioned'.

To say it is unfair to class the EIGCA as “old fashioned” is to say Brian is not entitled to his opinions, and is a direct correlation to an old fashioned attitude.  Some students do not agree with Brian’s position, but they do not say he is unfair or inaccurate, they just understand that opinions vary and discuss the matter logically.  I do on the other hand believe that there are many institute members that are old fashioned in their believes, but I acknowledge that many are forward thinkers.  But, who am I to say this is wrong or right?  I am just an architect (and currently a student) with an opinion that I am free to express in any manner that suits me.

Regarding the EIGCA AGM weekend at Royal Liverpool/Hoylake, the MSc students were invited en mas via Mike Wood, the Course Director, since we do not have contact details for all of the students.

Yes, this was done however, it was to little to late, and was only brought up once another institute member that was lecturing mentioned it to myself and two other students after the class had broken for the day.  The other students and myself where having a discussion with the member, and where told of the event and that we were supposed to have been invited.  Later, the member approach Mike Wood and asked why we did not know of the event yet.  Mike then said that we would be invited.  As to the exact date that we were invited by Mike, I cannot state, but I am sure I can get that information for you as many students save all email correspondence with Mike.  I can state however that the information within the email was brief.  


As for the future of the program and possibly the EIGCA, Brian is right in saying that “The Institute and the University and more importantly the existing students do need to work together to improve the course.” This is desperately needed to further develop the MSc into a well respected program.  


And as for your question Brian;

I have one question regarding the course.  If the Institute is so involved with the course why has the Institute not questioned the students how they feel the course could be improved?  Would it be possible to send out a questionnaire asking for opinions?


I think that is a brilliant idea, but I hope we get to use both sides of the questionnaire for our responses…….