Introduction
1. What is your name?
Name
(Required)
Kevin Singh
3. What is your organisation or institution?
Organisation
Manchester School of Architecture
4. Is this an official response?
Checkbox:
Ticked
Please check here if you are giving an official response on behalf of this organisation or institution.
Your views
7. Please share your response below.
Please share your response below.
(Required)
The Manchester School of Architecture has a number of concerns about this proposal as follows:
Whilst the concept was mooted by the ARB, the introduction and extent of the fee was a surprise to the vast majority of the Schools of Architecture as evidenced by the reaction of academics at SCOSA in Wolverhampton. To be fair, ARB did admit that their communication was not as good as it could've been
The fee has not been justified in terms of how it is calculated and in line with the "only covering costs" concept.
The "covering costs" concept needs to carefully consider whether all Schools are charged the same or is based on the number of prescribed programmes
Numerous other regulators who charge fees have significantly lower fees and tend to be for longer periods, such as 5 years.
The fee of £9200 looks suspicious as it is remarkably slightly lower than the fee of one home student which provides a convenient narrative.
The consensus across many smaller Schools is that the fee is un-payable as it represents a significant proportion of their budget.
The separation of ARB and RIBA criteria will result in much more work for Schools to obtain these important validations, work that costs us time and money in an already hostile economic environment.
Schools of Architecture are the very lifeblood of the profession and need to be recognised as such as without Schools there will be no future Architects. This critical stakeholder position needs to be recognised and respected and a more appropriate way forward found to avoid seriously damaging an important relationship
Whilst the concept was mooted by the ARB, the introduction and extent of the fee was a surprise to the vast majority of the Schools of Architecture as evidenced by the reaction of academics at SCOSA in Wolverhampton. To be fair, ARB did admit that their communication was not as good as it could've been
The fee has not been justified in terms of how it is calculated and in line with the "only covering costs" concept.
The "covering costs" concept needs to carefully consider whether all Schools are charged the same or is based on the number of prescribed programmes
Numerous other regulators who charge fees have significantly lower fees and tend to be for longer periods, such as 5 years.
The fee of £9200 looks suspicious as it is remarkably slightly lower than the fee of one home student which provides a convenient narrative.
The consensus across many smaller Schools is that the fee is un-payable as it represents a significant proportion of their budget.
The separation of ARB and RIBA criteria will result in much more work for Schools to obtain these important validations, work that costs us time and money in an already hostile economic environment.
Schools of Architecture are the very lifeblood of the profession and need to be recognised as such as without Schools there will be no future Architects. This critical stakeholder position needs to be recognised and respected and a more appropriate way forward found to avoid seriously damaging an important relationship