Tomorrow's Architects: ARB consultation on education and training reforms

It is not clear from the proposals what would be considered as a suitable "entry level" qualification. Whilst Part I will no longer be prescribed, the proposals suggest that any relevant undergraduate degree will be considered acceptable. A bachelors level of knowledge clearly needs to be demonstrated, which suggests that the minimum 7 years experience remains as the current requirement, but presented in a new guise. This will not alleviate funding requirements for students, nor open the profession up to those who would not traditionally attend university. We are more interested in understanding the "non-academic" route to entry, of which there are currently no details. Would this create opportunities for those with suitable professional experience and how would this be demonstrated? There is a danger in removing the minimum time spent in professional training - this is proven to be the time when students develop the most, learning directly from experienced colleagues without creating direct risk for the public. Releasing newly qualified architects on the public who have only gained "on-paper" knowledge, and who may practice independently, is a high risk strategy which may bring the profession into disrepute.
Apprentices currently complain of the struggle to balance university and work commitments. This needs to be addressed, with an emphasis on practical learning.
Note that, having supported 10 students to part III qualification over the last 4 years, standards for qualification have have clearly dropped with students qualifying who have not demonstrated the knowledge and ability to effectively manage schemes - this needs to be addressed as a matter of priority.

Practical experience under experienced colleagues is invaluable. this is where we see the most progression in candidates and a clear understanding of how academic learning directly applies to real world experience. Allowing candidates to practice alone with little or no practical experience is introducing unnecessary risk to the profession and the public.

The new points generally reflect the current professional criteria, but with more emphasis on fashionable terms. Research and evaluation appears more to be about understanding briefs and legislation than traditional academic research.

Assessment should ensure standards are met, regardless of background. Whilst encouraging and promoting diversity in the industry is essential, we must ensure that this does not result in a reduction in overall standards. We work in a respected and trusted profession and must ensure that all candidates demonstrate a suitable and minimum level of experience and knowledge prior to qualification in order to safeguard the public, our built0environment and the reputation of the profession as a whole.

consideration of how this affects students on different course models such as part-time or apprenticeships who generally take longer to qualify than the standard 2 years.

guidance on the non-academic requirements for entry (i.e. candidates with no undergraduate qualification)

As per previous comments, the entry requirements still suggest the requirement for an undergraduate level degree, which will create no more opportunities for diversity than currently - this will allow candidates to transfer from AT/ surveying style courses. Key to opening up the profession will be to understand the professional/ nonacademic entry requirements as this will reduce costs and open up the profession to a more diverse contingent