News: Stansfield Smith review
Schosa secretary Michael Foster said the proposals did not seem 'radical', perhaps because there was no need for fundamental change. 'At first sight it appears rather limp, posing a series of questions without answering them in concrete terms'. Foster also questioned whether further formalised diversification would spread things too thinly and lead to a lack of 'core generalists', defended the 'necessary' disconnection between practice and academia, and cautioned that extending the time of study to a 'frighteningly long' course would dramatically reduce the size of the profession. 'We are not training space scientists, we are training architects.' He said university heads would be meeting to discuss a response on 28 February.
David Dunster, head of school at the University of Liverpool and chairman of the steering group of schosa, told the aj he had hoped the review might have included more recognition of the amount of work teachers undertake, more on student poverty, and a better pay structure so students were not taken for a ride financially. 'I'd like to see the profession putting money into architectural education - in every other profession people come back and put money in, and there are some very very rich people in architecture. At the moment the profession just takes from education. It's not time education needs, it's cash.'
The riba's honorary vice president of education, Paul Hyett, said the document could form a 'useful consolidation of our relationship in education with the arb', and will be reviewing a detailed response over the coming weeks.
Stansfield Smith gave a presentation of the progress of the review to the arb's full board meeting on 17 December last year.The arb is to make a detailed response on its contents after a day-long meeting it has called for 17 February. The deadline for responses is 19 March.