Accreditation is common in many industries in Australia, it's basically a huge racket. To legally do any wiring work at all it must be done by an accredited electrician, not merely inspected by one as in most countries. in fact most home improvements of any kind must be performed by an accredited tradesman. add to this the laws that state any home improvement must bring the entire house up to current building codes, it's a recipe for massive expenses that go straight into the pockets accredited tradesman.
This essentially prevents any person that owns older property from doing any upgrades, or major repairs at all, because the massive cost of upgrading the entire house at once is completely out of reach for most people. this leads to urban decay and property abandonment on a massive scale.
with the recent push by parties such as Apple, Microsoft, and Google to have registered developer programs complete with code signing, be very wary of industry wide pushes to introduce a similar thing for programmers. The IEEE has attempted to introduce the idea for years. you can be sure that soon after introduction laws forcing accreditation for many types of positions would shortly follow, as would subsequent rises in membership fees and requirements.
Not to mention the threat of only a certified developer being able to legally write code at all. this situation already exists in many engineering disciplines. with things like secure boot and locked bootloaders and signed code, it is almost a technical triviality.
want to know how general purpose computing will be killed? it will be via initiatives such as this.
> To legally do any wiring work at all it must be done by an accredited electrician, not merely inspected by one as in most countries.
That's what the various bodies would like you to think, as making things black and white makes their life easier, and keeps them friendly with the various trade organisations.
I gather it is now legal for a professional electrical engineer to do their own wiring in Queensland, just they can't do it for third parties. By my reading, it is also generally okay for anyone to work on an "extra low voltage circuit", meaning less than 50Vac or 120Vdc. At the same time, the various energy authorities will claim it is illegal to install your own solar panels, and their publicity material says you can't do any wiring. The actual law seems to say you can DIY, just that you would need an electrician to connect the 240Vac side of an inverter to the main.
Workcover applies an additional layer of regulation in industrial situations. There also seems to be a requirement for an electrician to do solar work to qualify for various green rebates, despite the electricity regulations saying its okay.
Here's my experience with the Australian Computer Society.
Having studied abroad (Ireland), I was required to send in all of my exam results for my B.Sc, H.Dip & M.Sc. as well as a reference from each employer that I worked with in my field (Software Engineering).
For the visa I was applying for at the time it required that I was certified by the ACS, have a minimum of 5 years experience.
The process took 6 months for a single sheet of paper saying I was qualified for my profession! Due to this, my visa was submitted quite a while later than I initially planned and that took a further 12 months. 18 months all up waiting for my residency.
They took $600 for what was an open and shut case. They never contacted any of my references or colleges enquiring about my past experience or grades. The whole thing is a complete sham and is just another way of grabbing money off those who need visas.
The entire visa system in Australia is in bad need of restructuring and left a very sour taste in my mouth.
Compare that to a Canadian coming into the United States as a "Computer Systems Analyst" - Show up at the airport 20 minutes earlier than you normally would, give them a one-page letter describing your employer, what you'll be doing, where you'll be working. Include a either a 2 year diploma + 2 (3?) years of work experience or a 4 year degree.
10 minutes later you have a Visa good for three years. Normally one expects lots of bureaucracy when dealing with the government, but the US/Canada have really streamlined their NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) down to next-to-no hoops to jump through.
Quick questions. Is it possible to migrate to Australia (Sydney) if you only have a DipHE (didn't finish last year of uni) and have around 2 - 3 years full time Software Engineering experience or MUST you have a BSc?
Also, I am potentially doing this through my current employer rather than as a skilled independent migrant.
I went through the same process. Yes it took longer than I would have liked, but in general it went very well.
Australia is very restrictive on immigration because so many people want to go there. I'm not really sure why they would restructure the system when this is the case, they have a relatively small population and extend a variety of state benefits to immigrants, so they don't want to be swamped.
Firstly - come to New Zealand. There is long list of ICT/Electronics and Communications roles, including all professional engineers, on the long Term Skills Shortage list. Additionally ICT and creative indistries are deemed long term growth areas. This means it's much easier to get into NZ - either for working or for immigration through our points system.[1]
On the ground the answer is yes, we really need more devs and creatives. Requirements are generally degrees and a little experience.
Secondly, it's telling that we have yet to see a response from ACS on this page. Speaks volumes.
The main problems with working in IT in NZ are that there aren't many jobs, and the pay is much lower than in Australia. And since Kiwis and Aussies have reciprocal working rights, there are a whole lot of Kiwi IT people who've moved to Australia.
I was recently involved in an ACS "Re-accreditation" review for my University which I graduated from in 2011. It was clear from the outset that the whole thing was a farce - to be re-accredited required the ACS to ask past students generic questions (such as "How important is ethics to an IT Professional") and for us to give canned answers. While the university didn't explicitly tell us to give the 'expected' answers to ACS questions, it was strongly implied that we were expected to represent the virtues that the ACS "teaches".
It is in the universities interests to advertise that their IT degrees include ACS accreditation (despite no Australian IT employers I know of giving a damn about it) and it is in the interest of ACS for the university to keep paying the exorbitant fees. If anything, I feel that ACS accrediation is detrimental to the students as it requires the university to include such useful courses as "Ethics for the IT Professional" in their degrees. While being ethical is obviously important to any professional, this is time that could be spent learning real skills instead.
I did one of these a few years ago and it seemed like quite a formality, they asked vague questions about topics related to professionalism rather than any technical skill.
While I can understand that a professional body would want to ensure that people acted ethically and in good faith, I would think that it would be wiser to ensure that people graduating from technical, engineering related, and detail oriented degrees were just that. That way having an ACS seal of approval on a degree would carry some sort of weight towards the technical quality of the person, and hence would actually mean something.
Maybe it's the spaces and people I work with, but no one that I have worked with is actually a member of the ACS, despite being in industry for almost a decade.
Those courses are mandatory because the Australian government now correlates generic graduate attributes with funding allocation. This means that all Unis have to show that a percentage of their graduates are competent in, and all graduates have access to courses in ethics, sensitivity, knowledge application, problem solving, and communication. Uni administration forces lecturers to integrate these into their courses, and they then deliver a half arsed rendition to the students.
The comp sci degree at UNSW back in the early 90's didn't go in for the ACS thing. It was something offered at more Tafe-y places like UTS. Not sure about now.
It seems the lower down the qualification chain you go, the more importance is placed on giving you fancy certificates. ACS membership is one of those things.
For those unaware, this polemic is by Matt Barrie, CEO of Freelancer. He's been very outspoken in the Australian media about over-regulation of industry and outdated think tanks stifling innovation by recommending tactics that reinforce the status quo.
I think I can explain the Electrical Engineering thing.
A few years ago the ACS geared up to join some sort of peak body for professions. They took the view that they should represent all software professionals of any kind.
Then Engineers Australia put in a competing claim for jurisdiction over software engineers. The scoundrels.
I remember this because I was a student member at the time (hey, free BBQs) and they sent a sob story email to all their members about it.
Basically everybody is pissing on everybody's curtains.
I find it completely ridiculous -- how on Earth could a the ACS hope to apply any sort of standard evaluation to a CS / IT degree earned in any of a dozen countries, from any of a thousand universities (with attendant varying degree requirements and relative differences in course difficulty), not to mention evaluating self-taught skills or industry experience in hundreds of specialties. A programmer is not a tradesman.
No IT employer in Australia that I've communicated with has ever mentioned the ACS in regards to qualifications, not once -- I would be surprised if any even know it exists, unless they have worked with sponsoring skilled worker visas.
No IT employer in Australia that I've communicated with has ever mentioned the
ACS in regards to qualifications, not once -- I would be surprised if any even
know it exists
Same - I've been working as a software engineer in Australia for almost five years now, had never heard of them!
I'm not particularly fond of the ACS. I was provided with membership by my work and started getting a large volume of email from them. Unsubscribing from their mailing lists was a complete ordeal[1], and it was impossible to completely unsubscribe online - I had to call someone at their office to get taken off a mailing list. In the end I gave up and filtered their emails instead. Despite the fact that my membership has since lapsed, I am still receiving their newsletter and invitations to various events that, as a non-member, I can't attend.
[1] I had to log in to their account management system, which involved finding a randomly generated username and password that had never been sent to me.
I'd love to hear Matt's views on TAFE, i think accreditation has a very important place in our society (mainly because i got very sick of uneducated morons charging people for fixing computers, writing bad code...etc)
Anyway, the fact that Matt is complaining about fees and then is happy to be associated with the Singularity University that chargs $25k for a course (http://apply2013.singularityu.org/res/p/faq/) makes me wonder if hes just mad that they cant compete with courses provided by organizations such as TAFE.
In general, this all makes me mad. Matt just seems very outspoken and is giving Australia a bad rep in general.
Having witnessed the hoops that 2 colleagues with significant experience, skills and strong qualifications- both had university degrees, and were white (meaning that they received a high quality education) -had to jump through to migrate from South Africa to Australia, I suspected ACS was more of a protection racket. This seems to validate this opinion.
I find it humorous that the ACS's response is "the ACS Foundation has nothing do to with the ACS". It just happens to be an organisation they set up and uses their name that their members promote.
Some interesting emails came in overnight:
"The ACS is run by a whole bunch of accountants and lawyers who can't believe their luck that people associate them with the technology industry"
"You’re right that the ACS has to go.
Back in 2001 I contacted the ACS to discuss some policy things and was horrified to discover the “experts” I was talking to were nothing more than accountants. Later they elected a lawyer as president, and then a recruiter, prompting me to publicly condemn the ACS as a fake during the period 2004 – 2006.
The ACS is actually an anti-professional organisation. Their agenda is not to promote computer science or engineering expertise, but rather to allow pretenders to hide in the generic vagueness of “ICT Professional.” They actually work to devalue real expertise, since engineers and computer scientists pose a threat to accountants, MBAs and lawyers who want to claim membership of the technology professsions.
I think the solution has to be a formal inquiry into regulation of the IT professions, with a view to government stepping in and, as you put it, disbanding the ACS. At the moment, the ACS has insinuated itself too strongly into formal regulation. Simply starting a rival organisation for software engineers, say, would not work. Government has to dissolve existing ACS influence and leave the way open for new specialist organisations."
Former employer bought me an ACS membership one year (mainly so we could get access to their members in the hope of selling our services).
The entire membership seems to be guys who built a homebrew PC in the 70s and haven't showered since, or international students who believe so much in their education they're fooled into believing they need the ACS to rubber stamp their degree.
They're totally irrelevant in today's "but can you write good code?" hiring practice.
The ACS preys on uninformed international students. (Who, in interviews, all seem to want to work for Cisco in five years time! Are they taught this by the ACS?)
The general (low) opinion of the ACS on Whirlpool (AU broadband / IT forums) is that they exist solely to make money from rubber-stamping IT accreditations for skilled worker visas.
Just payed the required $450 to have my Australian Master degree accredited by the ACS, that was only after I had spent $60.000+ in tuition fees in two years.
only to see that the temporary residency application fee rose from $315 to $1250, (almost 400% increase in only one year)... :( some much money.
I truly believe they have gone too far and soon they will start missing all the money from the international student and skilled migrants. (sorry for any grammar mistakes)
This reflects pretty poorly on a country and government which supposedly is trying to shift from a "get stuff out the ground and sell it" to a knowledge economy...
I've been working in Australian IT since the late 1970's and never once did anybody ask whether I had ACS membership.
When I graduated from uni, I looked at the ACS requirements and they were all to support the status quo of the 1960's EDP era. So I wouldn't have been accepted even if I tried. Even though I had the best computer engineering qualifications available at the time.
Over the years the ACS members I have had the misfortune of working with couldn't program their way out of a wet paper bag, not even using COBOL or RPG. Of course, as other comments here indicate, they abided by the Peter Principle and had been promoted to their level of utter dismal incompetence to muddle management.
[+] [-] throwaway2048|13 years ago|reply
This essentially prevents any person that owns older property from doing any upgrades, or major repairs at all, because the massive cost of upgrading the entire house at once is completely out of reach for most people. this leads to urban decay and property abandonment on a massive scale.
with the recent push by parties such as Apple, Microsoft, and Google to have registered developer programs complete with code signing, be very wary of industry wide pushes to introduce a similar thing for programmers. The IEEE has attempted to introduce the idea for years. you can be sure that soon after introduction laws forcing accreditation for many types of positions would shortly follow, as would subsequent rises in membership fees and requirements.
Not to mention the threat of only a certified developer being able to legally write code at all. this situation already exists in many engineering disciplines. with things like secure boot and locked bootloaders and signed code, it is almost a technical triviality.
want to know how general purpose computing will be killed? it will be via initiatives such as this.
[+] [-] tomcorrigan|13 years ago|reply
This is patently false
> this leads to urban decay and property abandonment on a massive scale
Australia does not have property abandonment nor urban decay on a massive scale. Go to Detroit to witness such things.
[+] [-] femto|13 years ago|reply
That's what the various bodies would like you to think, as making things black and white makes their life easier, and keeps them friendly with the various trade organisations.
I gather it is now legal for a professional electrical engineer to do their own wiring in Queensland, just they can't do it for third parties. By my reading, it is also generally okay for anyone to work on an "extra low voltage circuit", meaning less than 50Vac or 120Vdc. At the same time, the various energy authorities will claim it is illegal to install your own solar panels, and their publicity material says you can't do any wiring. The actual law seems to say you can DIY, just that you would need an electrician to connect the 240Vac side of an inverter to the main.
Workcover applies an additional layer of regulation in industrial situations. There also seems to be a requirement for an electrician to do solar work to qualify for various green rebates, despite the electricity regulations saying its okay.
[+] [-] damian2000|13 years ago|reply
http://uppercaise.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/new-law-puts-noos...
[+] [-] noonespecial|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mctx|13 years ago|reply
And contract electricians cost upwards of $80/hour, making replacing a light fitting prohibitively expensive.
[+] [-] goatforce5|13 years ago|reply
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/06/22/155596305/episode-...
[+] [-] beilabs|13 years ago|reply
Having studied abroad (Ireland), I was required to send in all of my exam results for my B.Sc, H.Dip & M.Sc. as well as a reference from each employer that I worked with in my field (Software Engineering).
For the visa I was applying for at the time it required that I was certified by the ACS, have a minimum of 5 years experience.
The process took 6 months for a single sheet of paper saying I was qualified for my profession! Due to this, my visa was submitted quite a while later than I initially planned and that took a further 12 months. 18 months all up waiting for my residency.
They took $600 for what was an open and shut case. They never contacted any of my references or colleges enquiring about my past experience or grades. The whole thing is a complete sham and is just another way of grabbing money off those who need visas.
The entire visa system in Australia is in bad need of restructuring and left a very sour taste in my mouth.
[+] [-] ghshephard|13 years ago|reply
10 minutes later you have a Visa good for three years. Normally one expects lots of bureaucracy when dealing with the government, but the US/Canada have really streamlined their NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) down to next-to-no hoops to jump through.
[+] [-] sc0rb|13 years ago|reply
Also, I am potentially doing this through my current employer rather than as a skilled independent migrant.
Thanks
Edit: I'm from London
[+] [-] cromulent|13 years ago|reply
"You will place the interests of the public above those of business, personal, or sectional interests".
http://www.acs.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/7835/Code-...
[+] [-] Nursie|13 years ago|reply
Australia is very restrictive on immigration because so many people want to go there. I'm not really sure why they would restructure the system when this is the case, they have a relatively small population and extend a variety of state benefits to immigrants, so they don't want to be swamped.
[+] [-] lancewiggs|13 years ago|reply
Secondly, it's telling that we have yet to see a response from ACS on this page. Speaks volumes.
[1] http://www.immigration.govt.nz/pointsindicator/ follow for Absolute Skills Shortage and Future Growth Areas.
[+] [-] jacques_chester|13 years ago|reply
http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/_pdf/sol-schedule1.pdf
Assessed by ... the ACS.
[+] [-] jpatokal|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrmincent|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Evernoob|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacques_chester|13 years ago|reply
They gave me a post-nominal: CT.
If I want the next grade up -- CP -- I will need to take thousands of dollars of synergising-outside-the-box courses.
Basically the ACS isn't really for software engineers. It's for middle management.
I won't be renewing.
(I might renew my ACM/IEEE memberships).
[+] [-] indecision|13 years ago|reply
It is in the universities interests to advertise that their IT degrees include ACS accreditation (despite no Australian IT employers I know of giving a damn about it) and it is in the interest of ACS for the university to keep paying the exorbitant fees. If anything, I feel that ACS accrediation is detrimental to the students as it requires the university to include such useful courses as "Ethics for the IT Professional" in their degrees. While being ethical is obviously important to any professional, this is time that could be spent learning real skills instead.
[+] [-] daemin|13 years ago|reply
While I can understand that a professional body would want to ensure that people acted ethically and in good faith, I would think that it would be wiser to ensure that people graduating from technical, engineering related, and detail oriented degrees were just that. That way having an ACS seal of approval on a degree would carry some sort of weight towards the technical quality of the person, and hence would actually mean something.
Maybe it's the spaces and people I work with, but no one that I have worked with is actually a member of the ACS, despite being in industry for almost a decade.
[+] [-] shanmoorthy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nevster|13 years ago|reply
It seems the lower down the qualification chain you go, the more importance is placed on giving you fancy certificates. ACS membership is one of those things.
[+] [-] jacques_chester|13 years ago|reply
Of the basic form:
"Here is the Code. Read it some time."
[+] [-] Schwolop|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacques_chester|13 years ago|reply
A few years ago the ACS geared up to join some sort of peak body for professions. They took the view that they should represent all software professionals of any kind.
Then Engineers Australia put in a competing claim for jurisdiction over software engineers. The scoundrels.
I remember this because I was a student member at the time (hey, free BBQs) and they sent a sob story email to all their members about it.
Basically everybody is pissing on everybody's curtains.
[+] [-] Wingman4l7|13 years ago|reply
No IT employer in Australia that I've communicated with has ever mentioned the ACS in regards to qualifications, not once -- I would be surprised if any even know it exists, unless they have worked with sponsoring skilled worker visas.
[+] [-] stephen_g|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ecdavis|13 years ago|reply
[1] I had to log in to their account management system, which involved finding a randomly generated username and password that had never been sent to me.
[+] [-] verelo|13 years ago|reply
Anyway, the fact that Matt is complaining about fees and then is happy to be associated with the Singularity University that chargs $25k for a course (http://apply2013.singularityu.org/res/p/faq/) makes me wonder if hes just mad that they cant compete with courses provided by organizations such as TAFE.
In general, this all makes me mad. Matt just seems very outspoken and is giving Australia a bad rep in general.
[+] [-] beamso|13 years ago|reply
http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/business-it/fierce-debate-is...
[+] [-] buyx|13 years ago|reply
One gave up, the other went to New Zealand.
[+] [-] 13hours|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] damian2000|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattbarrie|13 years ago|reply
The ACS just issued a media release: http://www.acs.org.au/news-and-media/news-and-media-releases...
Delimiter has posted an article as well: http://delimiter.com.au/2013/02/01/morons-freelancer-ceo-wan...
I find it humorous that the ACS's response is "the ACS Foundation has nothing do to with the ACS". It just happens to be an organisation they set up and uses their name that their members promote.
Some interesting emails came in overnight:
"The ACS is run by a whole bunch of accountants and lawyers who can't believe their luck that people associate them with the technology industry"
"You’re right that the ACS has to go.
Back in 2001 I contacted the ACS to discuss some policy things and was horrified to discover the “experts” I was talking to were nothing more than accountants. Later they elected a lawyer as president, and then a recruiter, prompting me to publicly condemn the ACS as a fake during the period 2004 – 2006.
The ACS is actually an anti-professional organisation. Their agenda is not to promote computer science or engineering expertise, but rather to allow pretenders to hide in the generic vagueness of “ICT Professional.” They actually work to devalue real expertise, since engineers and computer scientists pose a threat to accountants, MBAs and lawyers who want to claim membership of the technology professsions.
I think the solution has to be a formal inquiry into regulation of the IT professions, with a view to government stepping in and, as you put it, disbanding the ACS. At the moment, the ACS has insinuated itself too strongly into formal regulation. Simply starting a rival organisation for software engineers, say, would not work. Government has to dissolve existing ACS influence and leave the way open for new specialist organisations."
[+] [-] lessnonymous|13 years ago|reply
The entire membership seems to be guys who built a homebrew PC in the 70s and haven't showered since, or international students who believe so much in their education they're fooled into believing they need the ACS to rubber stamp their degree.
They're totally irrelevant in today's "but can you write good code?" hiring practice.
The ACS preys on uninformed international students. (Who, in interviews, all seem to want to work for Cisco in five years time! Are they taught this by the ACS?)
[+] [-] Wingman4l7|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrmagooey|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tnuc|13 years ago|reply
Which one is the bigger joke?
[+] [-] i386|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] damian2000|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edgar_di|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dtalic|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CyberFonic|13 years ago|reply
When I graduated from uni, I looked at the ACS requirements and they were all to support the status quo of the 1960's EDP era. So I wouldn't have been accepted even if I tried. Even though I had the best computer engineering qualifications available at the time.
Over the years the ACS members I have had the misfortune of working with couldn't program their way out of a wet paper bag, not even using COBOL or RPG. Of course, as other comments here indicate, they abided by the Peter Principle and had been promoted to their level of utter dismal incompetence to muddle management.