What is the problem with part III? (“RIBA and Arb to reform education” News September 20) If you can reliably carry out the role of an architect, it should pose no issue.
There have been issues with finding projects to use as a case study, but I know of people who worked around this in the depths of the recession while fighting tooth and claw to hold on to jobs.
Part III is the critical professional examination and should be maintained — yes, revise it continually to reflect the changes in the industry and profession.
On another note, why are the RICS, RTPI and other bodies not being asked to comment? After all, we work in a interconnected industry. Most critical should be to involve CIAT for the broader range of technicians and technologists the modern industry demands. Key to all of this is to engage employers and get the debate out of the ivory towers. It must be instigated with a truly open mind — to do otherwise will fail to find any meaningful outcomes.
Professionalism must be key. If anyone questions what value an architect brings, it should be set out on these grounds: we have to uphold high standards because the public, industry and public sector have a right to expect the very best from those they have to put their trust in.
It is this that always seems to be forgotten. However people end up being educated to carry out the role of an architect, the foundation must be to understand the duty of care to clients and the wider public.
James Francis
via bdonline
Postscript
Email letters to buildingdesign@ubm.com including your postal address. We reserve the right to edit all correspondence
No comments yet