What? Why, When, Where?

In 2013, the RIBA launched a review of the tripartite educational process in the UK, in response to a revised EU directive on the registration of architects in Europe. It sets out minimum requirements for qualification, as either five years of university-level study (5+0) or four years of study supplemented by two years of professional training (4+2). The current route to qualification in the UK represents a hybrid, making it rather longer than its counterparts on the continent.

One proposal to replace the current system is a revised ‘integrated’ 7-year programme which incorporates all the aspects of its predecessors but leads to qualification upon graduation. There has been considerable debate over these proposals, and I won’t claim to knowing the right answer or put forward a case either way. On paper, the RIBA is seeking to provide a more direct route to qualification. However, will this maintain the level of competence and experience required of an architect? Will it lead to a longer, more intensive period of study? Will the increased cost of study be offset by higher starting salaries? How will it affect students wishing to study at different schools as part of their education? There is still some way to go before any of these proposals are implemented, but the debate is sure to go on.

Whilst the negotiations for Britain exiting the EU are still ongoing, it seems architects remain steadfast in their desire to maintain the mutual recognition of qualifications. This means that UK qualifications would still be recognised in Europe post-Brexit, and EUqualified architects will still be able to work in the UK without having to go through the pains of Part 3. Whether you agree or disagree with that premise, having this cultural exchange undoubtedly enriches our design process and architectural landscape, and allows us greater access to opportunities abroad. In the interest of learning, it must be something we strive to preserve.