This has been a most fascinating discussion.
As a former member of the COD and as a former professor I beg to share an observation.
Many years ago I discovered that the sense and character of architecture conveyed by historians
usually differed from the experience of being there. Buildings that I thought I would love seemed cold when I visited them. some had the opposite effect. So I promised myself that I would never lecture students on a building which I had not visited personally. So much of my teaching became narrative followed by critique.
And students said they "loved your stories". Yet I had not been spreading fairy tales but rather like Steen Eiler Rassmussen in " Experiencing Architecture", I was simply conveying one way of looking at reality and urging them to write their own stories in situ.
For the same reason I organized student semesters abroad which turn out to be fruitful in helping students to develop a more mature perspective on the place of architecture in life as a whole. We all continue to learn from architecture no matter how mundane or spectacular, far or near the works may be.
The COD has a similar approach, I feel, and although some officers may occasionally receive travel expenses to Washington, DC, they are, after all doing the tricky, patient work of organizing excellent meetings in significant locales.
I sympathize greatly with those who have to skip beautiful opportunities because of straitened professional circumstances. I have been there a few times and it is always frustrating.
But please offer more constructive critique of the COD than just complaining about a mythical elitism.
This noble profession is at its very beautiful best when we are still learning from our colleagues.
-------------------------------------------
Patrick Quinn FAIA
Albany NY
-------------------------------------------