By continuing to use the site you agree to our Privacy & Cookies policy

Your browser seems to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser.


Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.


It’s time for a revolution in architectural education

Architectural education faces a series of important challenges, says Christine Murray

Among the student protesters that enlivened Westminster last week was a Bartlett student that stormed the Tory HQ to protect architecture from becoming ‘the preserve of the rich’.

‘Direct action was necessary’ said the student, who claimed the rate of debt incurred by £9,000 tuition fees, coupled with the ‘low rate of pay for architects’, would make studying to be an architect ‘very indulgent’.

Would a drop in architecture graduates be a bad thing? Qualified architects may welcome the news of a more exclusive profession given the mass of surplus talent that’s been drifting around since the recession. Architecture schools are oversubscribed – some by a factor of six – and students have been struggling for placements: we’ve had several complete work experience at the AJ after failing to find work in practice. Too many graduates arguably devalue qualification.

But the Bartlett student in question has a point: making architecture (even more of) an elitist profession through a tuition hike would ultimately result in a less diverse, and therefore less vibrant, adaptable and relevant workforce.

The profession has long been persistent in its monoculture. There may be a high intake of foreign students at UK architecture schools, but higher tuition fees for visiting students mean those who study here are wealthy too. And the profession does not reflect the multiculturalism in the classroom. Last year, 92 per cent of architects in practice described themselves as being ‘white’, according to statistics from The Fees Bureau.

The Stephen Lawrence Trust has worked to promote students from socially excluded and black and minority ethnic backgrounds. Its Architecture for Everyone (A4E) campaign was founded on the belief that ‘built environment professionals who reflect the diversity of the society they serve have a better chance of creating a built environment that suits society’. In other words, practices should reflect their clientele, and if your practice is building social housing, mixed-use schemes, supermarkets, hospitals, Olympic amenities or even power stations, a mixed-up team should be a must.

Tuition fee hikes are only one of several issues facing architectural education. There is the quandary of whether to combine Part 2 and Part 3 courses, an old but crucial argument since Part 2-equivalent graduates from Europe may call themselves architects, while UK graduates are beholden to Part 3. A combined Part 2 and 3 would also lower the financial burden for students, and a shorter course could help promote equality – the length of study has been accused of hobbling female architects keen to have a family. It is very difficult to reach a 50/50 by 2020 target of women in architecture without more female graduates – so far, they only number 38 per cent.

With more student protests threatened for 24 November, with activists calling for a day of disruption ‘on a national scale’, it seems an apt moment to consider a revolution in architectural education. Where do you stand?

Readers' comments (3)

  • John Kellett

    Whilst architectural education appears to concentrate on the "delight" to the detriment of "firmness" and "commodity" there will always be a shortfall in knowledge, which has to be gained in practice. Educationalists need to decide whether they are training professionals or artists!
    The European requirement to allow anyone with Part 2 (or equivalent) to practice as an architect sets entry to the profession at a lower level than is acceptable. The RIBA's "gold standard" of Chartered status is at risk. Protection of function could perhaps provide the protection of the consumer by permitting 'registered architects' and other building designers to have design control over a limited range of building types / project sizes. Chartered architects with Part 3 Chartered Practices having to be used for larger non-domestic projects. Many countries operate similar systems.
    How about:
    Part 1 = artist / building designer (small projects + unlisted) = RICS / CIAT equivalence
    Part 2 = registered architect (up to medium scale non-complex projects + unlisted) = Euro architect equivalence
    Part 3 = professional chartered architect (all projects including listed) = RIBA "gold standard"
    By no means is that the only answer but the anomaly needs to be openly discussed and a solution found.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Just a comment on the 92% of the architects in practice being white. I'm do not know when this survey was carried out, however this corresponds with the 2001 Census showing the population of the United Kingdom being 92% white. I understand that the percentage of the non white population has increased over the past 9 years, however this is mostly accounted for with more children. If this is the case there is bound to be a lag in the percentage of the architectural population being non white.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • I think the first three years were ample for giving me the education I needed to be an architect. The only aspects I gained from years 4 and 5 were the legal aspects which could easily have been done as part of the Part 3 process. Years 4 and 5 were wasted years in my life!

    Unsuitable or offensive?

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment.

Related Jobs

Sign in to see the latest jobs relevant to you!

The searchable digital buildings archive with drawings from more than 1,500 projects

AJ newsletters