How should Part 3 change? Rachael Broadbent
Rachael Broadbent, Part 3 student, University of Westminster
As a Part 2 student currently enrolled on a Part 3 course, my architectural education has been turned upside down. Six months ago I was on track to complete the ARB’s traditional seven year route/model of architectural training. Post redundancy, and employed only on a temporary contract, I now face the waiting game as to when and how I finish my studies.
The purpose of case studies is to provide students with ‘real life’ practice based scenarios. However, RIBA should now be taking note of the reality faced by students today. During these uncertain times practical experience certainly shouldn’t be made specific to architectural practices, simply because employment is an unachievable goal for most Part 2’s at present.
If universities were given the authority from RIBA to take into account other forms of practical experience, then documentation of a wider range of skills and projects could easily be made an acceptable part of the course requirements in relation to PEDR records. Experience of different sorts would only enhance the transferable skills every Part 3 student has spent six years acquiring, and after all, one of the many qualities the Architectural profession celebrates, is the management of a wealth of specialist bodies.
Such a small change within the educational realm has the potential to shift the end product into a generation of more widely knowledgeable and diverse architects.
Moreover, regarding the industry in general, future prospects for today’s students are grim, and it would be wrong for RIBA to discourage its student members further and potentially lose the years of training the institution has already invested in graduates. In relation to academia I think encouragement, support and a general reassessment is what RIBA should be prioritising.