We were joined by Michael Devereaux and James Burch (UWE Bristol) for an engaging exploration of major changes in architectural education. We began with their experiences and 20% reduction in thinking time across architectural education which is putting massive pressure through ‘compression of things’. Back in the 1980s/90s you might have 3 terms in a three-year degree comprising 90 weeks of design work. Now it is more like 72 weeks, perhaps across two semesters/terms. This compression is also seen in Part 2 (60 weeks is more like 48 weeks now). This time is all in aid of helping students to develop a ‘subtle form of judgement’. There is less time, so it is much more intense and intensive.
We delved into the differences between the Architects Registration Board (ARB – protecting the professional title for architects in the UK) and Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA – accrediting courses at Parts 1, 2 and 3). The new model focusing on ‘competency outcomes’ might have a particular impact. There may now be a case where you can become an architect with the ARB with just Part 2 and 3 (PG and Practice) but not be able to be a RIBA member as you haven’t completed an accredited Part 1 (UG). This is still to be seen.
This could widen the opportunity and variety of student that might become an architect; previously if on a non-accredited course, e.g. Interior Architecture, they could not become an architect with the ARB. It will be interesting to see if any courses change to broaden the intake for Part 2 and 3 and how this affects the profession. It certainly sounds like there are plenty of high-quality candidates who could now benefit from the change, but it might also need a different approach to Part 2 and 3, or a foundation element, for those that haven’t completed a ‘pure’ architectural Part 1.
It sounds likely that most universities will still accredit Part 1 as it’s a strong selling point, particularly for undergraduate international students. Qualifications are a big part of the employability equation, but it sounds like firms are perhaps more interested in the person than their qualifications… will entry criteria for architecture schools change and how will this greater flexibility manifest? Time will tell.
There seem to be a lot of positive changes in the core competencies from the ARB – new questions on fire and life safety as well as sustainability – in response to Grenfell and the Climate Emergency, etc. Clarity is not only essential on where the competencies are taught but also where they are assessed/tested. RIBA’s ‘The Way Ahead’ also outlines mandatory competencies along similar lines, e.g. climate literacy. This structuring also benefits how the RIBA’s CPD is organised and marketed to members.
In terms of teaching and testing time on the competencies – at UWE and other institutions, there has been a resultant reduction in the humanities element of architecture degrees (UG and MArch), with an increase in the professional skills/practice and sustainable technology elements.
Overall, this was an engaging and direct exploration of the what, where and whys of major changes to architectural education, with a strong core of personal experience and the context at UWE. This made it very easy to follow and engage with some of the questions posed and encouraged our delegates to interact and ask questions throughout.
Review by David Stacey | University of Bath
Leave a Reply