The future of architectural education – can it work in practice?

The RIBA’s education review panel announced progress after an open council meeting earlier this year. The main weight of their proposed changes was to integrate practice and academia more intimately to improve the quality of architects who train in the UK. I theory I am in favour of this idea – but I am curious to know how practices, especially small and medium practices, are to bear the weight of so many students; and I am concerned by the possibilities for student exploitation that this may create.

The figure raised by some in March was 3.7 students per practice. With around 228 working days in a year, that is 2.7 million days of student experience in practice each year. In all likelihood taking on students would be quite manageable for large practices, but of the 3,284 RIBA chartered practices 2,057 consist of five or fewer people. For these small firms even one student may be more burden than benefit. Would this therefore mean that a finite number of student places would be offered each year, as dictated to the universities by the constraints of practice? If this became the case I worry for those who turn 18 in the middle of a recession.

I am wary that there are tremendous opportunities for exploitation of students

Eleanor Jolliffe

If this experience becomes a mandatory part of the undergraduate architecture qualification will it therefore be treated as voluntary, or will practices be paying these students? If the former we are in danger of further reducing the percentage of students from lower-income families able to enter the profession, as not only would students receive no salary but they might be paying £9,000 in tuition fees for this experience. If the latter then is the profession able to cover this compulsory wage bill?

Currently many large practices offer bursaries or some kind of financial assistance to some of their part I assistants who wish to pursue part II studies. This is welcome support and it is encouraging that practices are investing in the future of the profession through their support of those they believe have talent and aptitude. I am also aware of small and medium-sized practices that allowed friends to work one day a week or during university holidays throughout part II, providing some income. Despite this backing from practice is it realistic to expect that this level of employment and support could be found for every student in the country?

Recently, the RIBA has been tweeting a list of practices partnering with them in student mentoring schemes at Central St Martins, London South Bank University and the University of Westminster. This new scheme seems like a good first step, perhaps a useful pilot for the wider model of co-operation they envisage in the future. However, will every university be able to be partnered with a Stirling Prize winner as Central St Martins and University of Westminster currently are? I am worried that the understandable geographical factors in practice/university partnerships, and the London- centric nature of the profession may lead to disproportionate disadvantages for those who wish to study outside London.

I believe that there is immense value in professional experience during architectural education. The RIBA is right to champion it but I am wary that there are tremendous opportunities for exploitation of students and a risk of over-burdening the profession.

While I don’t believe any of the problems I have highlighted are insurmountable, it will take a great deal of co-operation and discussion between the RIBA, practices and universities to create a workable and successful solution. I hope the compromises and difficult decisions that will inevitably have to be made along the way do not bring the process to a halt. With the future of the British profession in the balance the stakes are too high to do this half-heartedly.