RIBARB - Sorting out the muddle

There still seems to be some confusion about what the ARB education reforms mean in terms of what architectural courses will or will not exist in future. For example, we have heard that some educators are telling students that Part 3 will not now exist. Would that it were so simple!

Part of this confusion is around whether Part 1, 2 and 3 will still exist. From the ARB's perspective, "No they won't!" From the RIBA's point of view, "Yes they will!" It's beginning to feel like having a set of phantom limbs - you can feel them, but they aren't there. Quite how this will be squared remains to be seen.

Technically, “Parts 1, 2 and 3” are RIBA qualifications and the Architects Registration Board (ARB) and its predecessor, accepted this framework as the standard for recognised architectural education. Universities have designed awards that are validated by the RIBA and prescribed by the ARB, and colloquially, the awards are labelled Part 1, Part 2 or Part 3 courses. Part 1 is conventionally an undergraduate degree; Part 2, a postgraduate degree, a diploma, or a master's degree; and Part 3, a further postgraduate degree, although Part 3 awards tend to be postgraduate certificates or diplomas rather than master's degrees.

In its education reform, the ARB has moved away from this classification. It will now accredit qualifications that meet its new Academic competency outcomes and/or Practice competency outcomes. For want of a simple explanation, the Academic outcomes are more about the “what” of design, and the Practice outcomes are more about the “how” of the profession.

Given the complexity and standard of academic achievement required, the competency outcomes will only be met once someone has completed a qualification at postgraduate level, rather than at undergraduate level. The ARB will not be accrediting undergraduate courses, so an ARB accredited Part 1 will not exist, and therefore from its perspective, it doesn't make sense to refer to Part 2 or 3. However, the RIBA will continue to validate courses as Part 1 (undergraduate), Part 2 and Part 3.

So what to do?

Course providers, schools of architecture in the main, will need to serve two masters with different expectations. They are at different stages in their thinking about what qualifications they will be offering. They have the option to transition existing courses and demonstrate that they meet the new competency outcomes, or they can create new courses, or indeed both. Have a look at the ARB's website, Applications for Accreditation, for an idea of how the landscape is shaping up.

Qualifications, or courses if you prefer, can either integrate the Academic and Practice outcomes, or keep them separate. However, the complexity doesn't end there. Some schools are creating courses that integrate undergraduate and postgraduate, so that students will, in effect, stay on a single course until the end of four or five years. Whether these courses will be able to include the Practice outcomes is unclear, partly because to meet the Practice competency outcomes demands some experience in architectural practice, and will also need integration. Other schools are creating entirely new postgraduate courses which take students who may have done an undergraduate degree elsewhere. Several are at the moment transitioning existing Part 2 and Part 3 courses, so that the Part 2 (MArch / DipArch) and Part 3 (PG Cert/PG Dip) meet the new Academic and Practice outcomes respectively.

Just how much can be packed into a two-year master's degree covering the ARB's academic and practice outcomes is a subject of much discussion. For some, the four-year integrated undergrad/postgrad course raises the same question.

Given the cost of going to university, there is a pressure to keep course lengths down, so four years seems sensible, but is it realistic if students want or need to have a part-time job as well?

Also, there is a concern about the pressure that some students may find themselves under if they opt for the four-year integrated or one-year postgrad option (assuming that one is offered). Will the funding model allow them to extend by a year, if they needed to?

Sorting through the muddle

Applicants will be thinking in terms of becoming an architect, therefore they will want to know whether the course they take will lead them to that. So, where do your courses sit on the journey line? Whether or not your course(s) are RIBA validated seems to have become a second order question. Although arguably international students will more interested in the status of an RIBA validated course than having a licence to practice in the UK per se.

Whatever happens, all schools of architecture will have to be very clear about their messaging and their offer. Talking in terms of Parts 1, 2 and 3 will only serve to muddle everything.