ARB and RIBA

With the introduction of a dual system of validation by RIBA and ARB, the roles of the two bodies have become confused.

The overall mission of ARB is to protect the consumer. Quite how the consumer is protected by the regulation of, say a technology course in third year is not fully explained. The main danger to the consumer comes not from the lowest pass portfolio at Diploma level, but probably from middle aged architects who have fallen behind on their CPD. ARB should prescribe competency, and this is best assessed not in the middle of architectural education but at the end. The proposal therefore is for ARB to control just the gateway into the profession - a national examination concerned with design and professional competency.

Equally the RIBA needs to return to its charter ­ the advancement of architecture and education ­ and withdraw from its compromised position as ARB¹s educational watchdog. The joint criteria confuse the RIBA¹s role and have resulted in the RIBA acting as invigilator of professional standards as opposed to supporter of educational initiative. The proposal is that the RIBA just concern itself with University programmes and leave the final gateway to ARB.

The proposed separation of the roles of the two bodies allows each to fulfill their statutory duty without being compromised

Criteria

The introduction of the new criteria and procedures for prescription was introduced with a strict hand by ARB.

Most alarming is the rule that if prescription is withdrawn from a programme, then the effect is immediate from the start of the next academic year. This means that students who have entered a degree course could suddenly find themselves without prescription at the beginning of their second or third year, and are left to apply individually to the vagaries of an ARB panel (which is subject to completely different QA procedures to a University examination board).

The argument, presumably, is that the students issuing from failing courses will be immediately dangerous to the consumer. Strange then that the immediate withdrawal of validation is almost unique to architecture as a discipline – other professional bodies allow students already enrolled to graduate with the qualification.

The distress and damage that this causes to students, staff and institutions alike cannot be overemphasized and is against natural justice – but ARB have overridden advice and insisted on this imposition. The only way to avoid this is for ARB to prescribe a national examination which students present themselves to individually. This would also be a much more rigorous check on an individual's competency.

Student Debt

With the imposition of the £1,000 fee some years ago, and ever increasing costs for students, debt levels are increasing year on year. The situation is of course exacerbated by the length of the architecture programme, so that in many cases students are coming out of Diploma with £20,000 or more debt. Whereas this may be tolerable for graduates entering strong professions (law, accountancy, medicine), the equation does not work when the debt equals the salary.

Increasingly, students are voting with their feet and opting out of architecture in their year-out, when financial reality confronts the dream of creativity – maybe even the myth of the hero - that has sustained them through the degree course. What will happen is that architecture will (still more) be a profession that can only be entered by those who can afford it, a return to the gentleman architect. Any hopes for an inclusive profession serving an inclusive society will be lost.

There are two solutions:

1. For the profession to demand a proper recompense for the work they do

2. To shorten the length of full time education

Option 1 appears unlikely as long as the practices insist on undervaluing themselves, cutting fees, working all night, competing with each other. Option 2 is therefore the only immediate solution.

Student Debt

With the imposition of the £1,000 fee some years ago, and ever increasing costs for students, debt levels are increasing year on year. The situation is of course exacerbated by the length of the architecture programme, so that in many cases students are coming out of Diploma with £20,000 or more debt. Whereas this may be tolerable for graduates entering strong professions (law, accountancy, medicine), the equation does not work when the debt equals the salary.

Increasingly, students are voting with their feet and opting out of architecture in their year-out, when financial reality confronts the dream of creativity – maybe even the myth of the hero - that has sustained them through the degree course.

What will happen is that architecture will (still more) be profession that can only be entered by those who can afford it, a return to the gentleman architect. Any hopes for an inclusive profession serving an inclusive society will be lost.

There are two solutions:

1. For the profession to demand a proper recompense for the work they do

2. To shorten the length of full time education

Option 1 appears unlikely as long as the practices insist on undervaluing themselves, cutting fees, working all night, competing with each other. Option 2 is therefore the only immediate solution.

Student Debt

With the imposition of the £1,000 fee some years ago, and ever increasing costs for students, debt levels are increasing year on year. The situation is of course exacerbated by the length of the architecture programme, so that in many cases students are coming out of Diploma with £20,000 or more debt. Whereas this may be tolerable for graduates entering strong professions (law, accountancy, medicine), the equation does not work when the debt equals the salary.

Increasingly, students are voting with their feet and opting out of architecture in their year-out, when financial reality confronts the dream of creativity – maybe even the myth of the hero - that has sustained them through the degree course.

What will happen is that architecture will (still more) be profession that can only be entered by those who can afford it, a return to the gentleman architect. Any hopes for an inclusive profession serving an inclusive society will be lost.

There are two solutions:

1. For the profession to demand a proper recompense for the work they do

2. To shorten the length of full time education

Option 1 appears unlikely as long as the practices insist on undervaluing themselves, cutting fees, working all night, competing with each other. Option 2 is therefore the only immediate solution.