Don’t defund thinking: why architectural education needs space to question, not just produce ‘practice ready’ graduates

Having read Oliver Lowrie’s recent article embracing the defunding of Level 7 apprenticeships and calling for the end of the Part 2 course it, we were quite disheartened. As academics with practice experience, we felt the idea that university should be concentrating on teaching “stuff that could be charged for” and becoming ‘practice ready’ to be a very limiting view of the role academia plays in the development of our future professionals.

A visit to this year’s degree shows would clearly illustrate the intuition, thoughtfulness, creativity and, at times, shear audacity and bravery of the many undergraduate and masters level projects, all able to be produced in the context of increased academic workload, reduced admin support, and a landscape of course suspensions or closures in higher education generally.

Architectural education, particularly at masters level, is not only reflecting the views held now, but proposing projects and ideas which challenge and push our society to be the best it can be. We were often told that it takes 10 years for ideas that are developed in university to become realised in the real world. Architecture takes time.

The brilliant thing is always what comes next – students are critics, rightly questioning: What does a feminist building look like? What is an ethical procurement route? How does a building’s design perform, and will it be fit for purpose in 50 years? How do we, at this point in our society, reflect the values of that society? It just so happens that some philosophers also ask these questions…

We have seen students’ abilities to change the status quo time and time again - from peers’ proposals for food markets in car parks in BA (looking at you Peckham Levels), to ideas about queer communities demanding space at MArch (waving at The Proud Place). The university environment allows a freedom seldom garnered in practice. And that is not to be sniffed at, belittled or disparaged, that is to be celebrated. Many schools of architecture include live projects, and studio work is often connected to real world partners, sites, and issues that situate this speculative critique in the real-world parameters of clients, budgets, and programmes.

Assuming that building regulations, planning contexts, and detailing are not part of today’s curriculum is naïve, and perhaps illustrates the experience of a previous generation. Architectural education, in the main is unrecognisable from even ten or twenty years ago.

Naturally, we welcome any initiatives that aim to start promoting architecture from a young age

Rather than teaching students how to Revit-up the most profitable Stage 3 or 4 package, and scantly peruse the Regs to find out just enough about Part B to get the project through Building Control on a wing and a prayer, we actively encourage students to engage with the processes, literature, legislation, and structures to both understand them and be critical of them, and then apply that learning. This takes time.

ARB’s reasons for changes to the qualification route have cited access and diversity in the profession as some of the key drivers, so a note on access and structural inequities in Higher Education – these issues will not go away quickly and will continue to be a tough nut to crack. At Manchester School of Architecture, we started a Foundation course with particular entry criteria to combat the various diversity issues we have in this school, and also the profession.

Applicants must have attended a UK state school/college and meet at least one of the following personal background criteria: be under 21 and first generation; live in a low-participation area; have been in care for more than 3 months; have refugee status; or over 21 and have been out of education for at least three years. These criteria were hard won.

The MSA Foundation has only been going for a few years, but it is fantastic to see our first cohorts progressing into the main BA course. This “extra year” could be seen as yet another hurdle, but it has been carefully designed to support and encourage students within our restrictive context of new approvals.

It comes with a £1000 bursary and student numbers are kept low to maintain a healthy student to staff ratio. Presented not as a quick fix or silver bullet, this acknowledges equity is a long game and needs to happen from within existing educational structures (you can read more about this in an upcoming article in Charette).

Naturally, we welcome any initiatives that aim to start promoting architecture from a young age (such as the Design Engineer Construct! (DEC) qualification by A Class of Your Own, or Oliver Lowrie’s own Ackroyd Lowrie Academy). For practices then, it is a question of retention, workplace culture and mentorship alongside many well documented ideas to ensure we retain a diverse profession that can become leaders of industry.

Books such as Building Inclusion: A Practical Guide to Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in Architecture and the Built Environment by Marsha Ramroop provides constructive ideas for practices to challenge discrimination, promote retention and make sure a diverse student cohort is maintained to become a diverse profession. We encourage all practitioners to not only read, but act.

We don’t know for sure what the preferred future route to qualification might be in five years right now

Finally, it would be remiss not to focus back on the ARB changes to qualification in this debate. We don’t know how many practices have come to terms with the fact that the regulator will now only accredit the Masters-Level Qualification (as it is soon to be known) and the Practice Qualification.

The boat has already sailed, and waxing about the value of undergraduate apprenticeship provision might be wasted breath for the foreseeable future. As new courses begin in September this year, the role of a Part 1 Architectural Assistant might only have a few years validity – so who is going to make models, compile D&A statements, produce renders, and slog over competition entries in practice?

We don’t know for sure what the preferred future route to qualification might be in five years right now. A four-year combined Bachelor-Masters programme may look attractive to those wanting to qualify fast with as little debt as possible but the availability of support for apprenticeships in this model remains uncertain too.

It would probably be more productive to work out how apprenticeship funding can be best placed to suit academic and industry pathways now and in future versions of both, and lobby for this together.

The ARB’s Professional Practical Experience commission recommended that learning providers coordinate trainees’ acquisition of the Competency Outcomes – this means architectural students will remain at the core of our shared communities that we are all about to navigate together.

So, this is an open call to practitioners – look at working methods, future graduate roles, pay grades, and management structures afresh (just like students do in many a masters-level university module!). Meanwhile, those of us in the academy must examine our curriculum, programme structures, barriers to entry, widening participation, and attainment gaps – and let’s all work to better understand the important roles graduates play in shaping both academia and industry.

The truth is that students graduating this summer will be in charge in 20- or 30-years’ time and we have immense faith that the time and effort they have spent being critical in academia and industry makes it well worth the wait.