Proposals to cut funding for Scottish architecture schools have prompted an angry response from architects.

Plans by the Scottish Funding Council (SFC) to change its teaching funding allocations for higher education institutions would see architecture classified in the lowest funding band, Band D.

Band D subjects, which also include media studies and modern languages, will be allocated £5,000 a year per student, representing a cut of more than 20% for each architecture student.

The proposal is currently at consultation stage but has been seen by some as an attack on the future of Scottish architecture.

In a letter to the SFC sent on behalf of the Association of Scottish Schools of Architecture, professor of architecture and urban design at The University of Strathclyde, Gordon Murray, described the plans as “disastrous”.

“As a SFC initiative, this further distances the six schools of architecture in Scotland from the levels of funding available to the 36 comparable institutions in England, Wales and Northern Ireland,” said Murray, a former RIAS president.

“This surely impacts on our competitiveness and our ability to deliver international quality courses capable of attracting not only Scotland’s best but also international undergraduates. In the long term this must impact on Scotland’s economic effectiveness within Europe and globally.”

Read the full letter

I am writing to record our concerns over the proposed review by the Scottish Funding Council of the unit cost of funding and the disastrous reduction in allocation for the study of Architecture. If the recommendations are implemented it represents a drop in per capita funding for architecture students in excess of 22% at a time when Architecture is recognised both as a creative industry generating wealth for the Scottish Economy and as an enabling mechanism in extending understanding in our Built Environment. This is particularly relevant given the urgent need to deliver skills and knowledge required for a low carbon future and an integrated approach to climate change.Yet within the SFC proposals, Architecture as a Band D Course is not recognised as a creative industry, studio based and requiring both experimentation and innovation; but is inappropriately aligned with those courses which whilst valuable to our understanding of our Built Environment are delivered by more traditional means. Indeed the Band D designation-those courses specifically not requiring studio or workshops is at odds with the requirements of the QAA, Architects Registration Board and Royal Institute of British Architects who are party to professional validation of the courses. Shifting Architecture as a Creative Art into its rightful place, along side other creative arts and civil engineering (Band B) may increase funding per capita, this is uncertain given the current review that is underway, but it would certainly stabilise it at its current level.As a Scottish Funding Council initiative, this further distances the Six Schools of Architecture in Scotland from the levels of funding available to the thirty six comparable Institutions in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.  In England and Wales, since the introduction of top-up fees, Architecture receives greater funding than Scotland: Band C Grant of £3,898 plus the top-up fee of £3,300 = £7,198. Against this we are currently receiving a Grant of £4,783 plus tuition fee of £1,777. Generally £6,560. This is 10% less than in England. Scotland has already significantly fallen behind and the proposed reduction to £5,000 would leave Scotland’s funding of architecture 30% less than in England and Wales. This surely impacts on our competitiveness and our ability to deliver internationally quality courses capable of attracting not only Scotland’s best but also international undergraduates.  In the long term this must impact on Scotland’s economic effectiveness within Europe and globally. In a similar vein that discrepancy, could manifest itself in a tiered professional validation and accreditation system related to professional practice requirements under EU legislation, which would further discriminate against the courses delivered by the Scottish Schools of Architecture and disadvantage their graduates. At present all six schools are accredited as excellent under the Architects Registration Board benchmark criteria and are recognised internationally as such.Therefore it is our view that the inclusion of Architecture in SFC proposed funding group D, a 22% drop in the funding per FTE, is unjustifiable as we believe it is not possible to offer a validated course based on current QAA/ARB/RIBA benchmark criteria to the expected standards of excellence, given the defined nature of architecture as a studio based curriculum, a creative art and based on the actual costs incurred when other associated disciplines which benefit from cross-support calculations are excluded. ASSA and the Institutions in which they are based believe these proposals are ill considered and based on incomplete data and would certainly wish to make the strongest possible representation in the appropriate forum against the S.F.C. proposals. The difficulties inherent in the cross disciplinarity of Architecture highlights its unique position within our wider cultural mix.  It is construction industry and creative industry.  It is profession and education.  It is our past and our future.Yours faithfully,GordonProfessor Gordon C. Murray BSc BArch PPRIAS RIBA RIAI MIArb
University of Strathclyde
Chair of ASSA

Topics