Questions of structural integrity

January 29, 1999

The statement from HEFCE illustrates the protectionism that has so dominated architectural education in the past two decades; even the RIBA response was immediately protectionist. It may be necessary to question the reason for this to unravel the myths. Are the following fact or myth?

* Architecture spans the sciences and humanities but remains attractive to entrants despite demands for science-based A levels at a level science courses envy

* Teaching and examination methods traditional to the pedagogy of architecture are now being discovered by "teaching and learning" apostles

* The professional validation of input and assessment of student outcome and "added value" is equally exemplary in quality assessment methods

* The integration of received knowledge, testing by project and by structured practical experience and then a final two years developing individual strengths is exemplary.

The above are fact, but all is not well or architectural education would not be undergoing such a review. Until architects can make explicit the link between practice and research, we will continue to protect the apparently inexplicable.

Wendy Potts Head, school of architecture University of Portsmouth

Please login or register to read this article.

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments