download the forum press release in pdf format
ARCHAOS PRESS RELEASE : Westminster forum
The forum was held from 10am-5.30pm at Westminster School of Architecture in London. There were reps from 23 schools of architecture present, from around the country- Brighton to Plymouth to Cardiff to Dundee.
The purpose of the Forum was to discuss the future form of Architectural Education, with the ultimate aim of producing a coherent set of proposals formulated by the reps, for publication and discussion by the profession. Speakers included Kate Heron (Head of School at Westminster and Chair of SCHOSA), John Lyall (Compiler of the RIBA guide ëTomorrowís Architectí) and Jeremy Till, who gave a personal viewpoint on how architects should be educated. In addition we had a presentation from EASA, the European Architecture Studentsí Assembly.
The majority of the day was spent in group discussions, sharing proposals from students as to how elements of the course might be structured. It quickly became clear that all those present felt that the current form of education was unsatisfactory and inherently unsustainable. The changing role of architects, the impending introduction of top-up fees (and the already intolerable level of student debt), the confusion and debilitating pantomime of Validation/ Prescription for schools, and the Bureaucratic minefield of routes to registration- it is not easy to become an architect in this country, and it is not easy for all the wrong reasons.
Students were able to pinpoint several areas of particular concern. It was agreed unanimously that the events that befell the students of DeMontfort University last year were utterly condemnable. While it was accepted that the finger of blame could not be pointed solely at any body, there was much dissatisfaction from all representatives with the way that students had been treated, by both the ARB and the University.
Archaos was able to report to reps that after direct discussions with ARB, it had at least been agreed that in future, withdrawal of prescription would NOT have immediate effect that academic year. Also the process was being streamlined in an effort to decrease the burden on schools. However the issue of student support and Validation & Prescription transparency was a difficult issue. There are too many parties involved with different agendas. ARB want something different from the RIBA, and they both want something different from University Chancellors, who donít even have the same aims as their Architecture Schools. And in the middle of this, students and tutors continue to try to explore and investigate architecture with innovation, constantly checking themselves to tick boxes, toe lines and untangle red tape.
Is all this bureaucracy useful? As one student exclaimed in disbelief, after discussing the differing teaching practices around the country, ì How can a course with 1/2 a tutor per unit and no permanent lecturers have validation, when another (non-prescribed) school has not only internal lecturers, but external lecturers from top practices and other related industries, and a ratio of 1:6 staff to students?!î
A major worry was that the issues which we were discussing were only ones we had become aware of after some months in the world of architecture. School-Leavers considering architecture as a profession could far too easily stumble into one of the 700+ non-accredited UK courses with no prior warning of how this might affect their future career. Archaos was able to report that the RIBA have been in discussion with UCAS for some time, and that these bodies were working to organise a transparent procedure and briefing for School-leavers. However this remained a concern for most reps.
If Validation & Prescription were a primary concern, perhaps a more fundamental issue was with the basic structure of education itself. Students welcomed the fact that it is possible to enter architecture from a non-orthodox route, applying for exemption from Part 1 and Part 2, but more worryingly, many felt that this was perhaps a BETTER way to become an architect. It was also felt that practising abroad during the Year Out or post-Part-2, was not given enough recognition, in a profession that is increasingly international. If you ask current students for their architectural heroes, the majority of responses will not be British architects.
And speaking of British ArchitectsÖ. Students felt strongly that the current links between Schools and Practitioners, between the studied and practical elements of education, were in most cases far from ideal. It was felt that both practitioners and students would gain much more from a closer relationship throughout the course. Studio projects might be set to enable innovative thinking based on real problems and actual sites of local architects. Construction and Detailing should be taught with a reference to actual buildings and sites. Part 2 might even be taken from within an office placement, with the candidate investigating a design-based, technical or structural issue of their choice, under the supervision and guidance of university tutors. Crits should be open to local practices. Above all a responsibility should be shouldered by practitioners who take on a post-Part-1 student, to provide a useful and valuable experience which can sensibly constitute Practical Training.
The in-depth discussion of architectural tuition brought up the question, ìWhat about the Tutors?î Those who have possibly the greatest formulative impression on the next generation of architects? While the ARBís Criteria and RIBAís ìTomorrowís Architectî tell us what these bodies expect from architectural training, and Heads of Schools meet annually as SCHOSA to share ideas and experiences, tutors do not have a collective forum in which to discuss their aims. As we prepared to collate our experiences, opinions and aspirations of education into some formal proposals, we realised there was missing an essential piece of the jigsaw. Tutors, this is an open invitation- if you have views on Education you would like to share with archaos, we would love to hear from you.
Students were unanimous in their view that archaos should primarily enable student communication, with a view to presenting student opinion, and also link events at schools and provide a National discussion forum. The debacle at De Montfort had brought to a head the usefulness of having a network of students around the country with which to share ideas, and on which to call when there is a problem. We had present at the forum a kaleidoscope of people- from around the country, foreign students, mature students, first years, graduates, veterans of archaos from that first conference in 1998, and newcomers who had never seen more than the website before. Everyone there could recognise the value of archaos as a means of representing our ideas in the wider architectural sphere.
Students spent much of the afternoon formulating proposals for how architecture might be taught in the ëarchaos utopiaíÖ the results of which will be under discussion by reps for the next couple of weeks until a definite set of ideal proposals can be agreed and submitted to ARB and RIBA for their consideration, and to the Press for open discussion in the profession. In any case, it was unanimously agreed that the status quo is not acceptable, and all members of the profession should be proactive in discussing and implementing change to the system.
Forum proposals will be collated by reps and published within a few weeks. Archaos would like to thank our funders, the RIBA and SCHOSA, for making this forum possible.