Contents

An unequal standard across Europe - illustrating the irrational requirement for the RIBA Part III qualification from those applying for registration from the United Kingdom while requiring only the equivalent of an RIBA Part II qualification from those applying from the EU.

The duty to consult - illustrating concerns raised by the Board's approach to statutory consultation when prescribing qualifications.

The ARB's own examinations - illustrating a means of circumventing the Board's much criticised examinations.

Architectural education in the United Kingdom : Examinations, qualifications and reasonable expectations - This note, published on 2 June 2007 on a separate page, has been submitted by a contributor for the information of inquirers and policy-makers, particularly having regard to the topics of eligibility for membership of the RIBA, mutual recognition of qualifications among EEA States, and freedom to practise as an architect worldwide.  To the article ( To PDF version)

An unequal standard across Europe

The Registrar is bound, under section 4 of the Architects Act, to register any person who applies for registration if that person has "such qualifications and has gained such practical experience as may be prescribed".

An alternative route to registration is to satisfy the board that an equivalent standard of competence has been achieved.

The standard of qualification is not equal for all candidates.  A matrix can be applied as follows:

The disparity arose from the European Directive on Mutual Recognition of Qualifications in Architecture 85/384/EC, now repealed. Article 4 of the main text of that Directive had stated that the total length of education and training would consist of a minimum of either four years of full-time studies at a university or comparable educational establishment or at least six years of study at a university or comparable educational establishment of which at least three must be full time.

As this was a minimum requirement there was nothing to stop a country applying higher standards to those obtaining qualifications and experience within its own jurisdiction.  However it is widely held (and expressed in the report of the late Michael Highton to the RIBA Council) that any challenge to this disparity is likely to succeed on the grounds of irrationality.  The report stated: "In our view it is only a matter of time before a UK student, who has been denied registration on the grounds that he or she has not passed the Part 3 examination, yet who has been educated in the UK and achieved two years practical experience in the UK, successfully challenges such a decision on the basis that it is irrational to require a UK based student to possess a higher level of qualification and experience than is required of a non-UK based student or architect. "

The RIBA may wish to note that if, on challenge, ARB is required to reduce its registration requirement to four years full-time study, there is no reason why the RIBA should lower its entry standard. 

The duty to consult

The ARB's Prescription Procedures at Appendix 3 require applications from schools of architecture to include "a report based on one or more visits by a body which includes professionals from both architectural education and practice and lay persons.  The report must state whether all ARB's criteria have been met by those who have received the qualification".  The RIBA is the only organisation that can provide that requirement through its Visiting Boards. 

Inquirers and policy-makers may therefore question the ARB's 2006 prescription of Nottingham Trent University's BA(Hons) degree course in architecture.  The ARB states: "There is no Visiting Board Report available for this institution", which is unremarkable because the first intake of students in not expected before September 2006.

A further question may arise over Edinburgh University's new post-graduate Masters degree in Digital Media. Here it appears that the RIBA were not consulted at all, even though this is a new course.  Such consultation is a requirement of s.4(3) of the Architects Act, which requires that "Before prescribing ... qualifications ... the Board shall consult the bodies representative of architects which are incorporated by royal charter ..."

The ARB's own examinations

For those who are unable to apply for registration because they do not hold a qualification prescribed by the Board and who do not have a recognised EEA qualification, a route to registration is opened to them by section 4(1)(b) of the Act which allows applicants to demonstrate a standard of competence equivalent to that of a prescribed qualification and practical experience.

The Board can require those applying to register by this means to demonstrate their "standard of competence" by passing a prescribed examination in architecture, a route that appears to be universally applied.  However, the only examination that is currently available is the examination set by the Board itself.  This examination has been criticised because the Board is not empowered to conduct examinations under the Act and appears to do so only by straining the meaning of the Act.  Moreover, the examinations are expensive and the results appear to be inconsistent when benchmarked.

It has been suggested that the examination should revert to the RIBA which has a wealth of knowledge on education standards that the Board cannot ever hope to match.  The Board has dismissed this suggestion. However in the meantime, it appears that an application for Associate Membership of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland is possible, including where the applicant is accredited by a course recognised by the professional body of a non-EU state, subject to verification by the RIAI's Board of Architectural Education and at the discretion of its Council*. 

Once an Associate of the RIAI (annual cost €80.00 for those outside Eire) the ARB is bound to register the architect in the United Kingdom under section 5 of the Act provided the candidate is a national of an EEA state.  All such a candidate must do is present a Certificate of Associateship of the RIAI.  This route is permitted by the provisions of Article 2 of the EU Architects Directive.

*  AARUK is grateful to Mr Charles Edwards for bringing this to our attention.

[ top] [ back]