Not long ago, writer and director of the Open City charity organization Phineas Harper wrote in his Twitter that the architecture profession has to face up to the fact that it has grown to be “more elitist than the most elite university in the world.” The assumption is not at all new.
‘Elitism’ in architectural schools is a recurring criticism among architecture students. According to the student survey by the UK’s Architect’s Journal, 44 per cent respondents name cost as the single biggest issue facing them and their peers, while 45 per cent believe they will never be in a position to pay back their student debt after graduation.
On top of that, Peter Lampl, founder of charity The Sutton Trust, raises concern that “not only will graduates be saddled with tens of thousands of pounds of debt, but they’re also having to shell out thousands of pounds each year for laptops, study trips and printing.” Hidden extras such as model-making, printing and study trips, as well as computers and books are becoming increasingly normalised. The research reveals that students in the UK spend around £2,000 a year on these costs.
This forces students to turn to their parents for financial help, with 81 per cent of those polled saying that their families have contributed to their education. The extent of parental support was so significant that they acknowledge there is simply no way they could afford to study architecture without help from their parents. As one of the drop out students confesses, this not only puts greater pressure on parents, but it can also be demoralising for students wanting to be self-sustaining adults. Many students admit that the prospect of huge levels of student debt, followed by a career of modest salaries and long hours, make them start having doubts.
Predictably, students from poorer backgrounds are often left on the margin of the profession. Costs of the course, accommodation, private institutions and equipment price many talented students out of a potential career in architecture, especially when you relate that issue to the level of fees that are prevalent in the profession. According to Sumita Sunghi, this is one of the reasons cited in the 2003 CABE study of Minority Ethnic students and Architecture, as to why BME architectural students tend to drop out of studies.
The 2018 data shows that for students from BAME backgrounds, the drop-out rate is higher, at 17 per cent, than the overall percentage of drop-off among UK respondents (10%). Sonia Watson, CEO of the Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust, which supports students from disadvantaged backgrounds into the industry, is concerned by the figures. She says: “We have always known that the huge cost of qualifying as an architect can deter young people from disadvantaged backgrounds from considering architecture as a career. The sad thing is that the rise in costs and the need for extra financial support to continue their studies seems to be hitting those from BAME backgrounds the hardest.”
Students from ethnic minority backgrounds appear to be more inclined to end their pursuit of becoming an architect early. The costs are not the only barrier to the profession. As they do not receive financial support, many BAME architecture students live at home, which means it takes them a lot longer to get into university and their sleep time is reduced.
Students raise concern that, with the cost of studying architecture ever increasing, the prospect of becoming an architect seems unattainable to those from less privileged backgrounds. It is “sending them the signal that ‘architecture is not for you’,” says Ashley Meyes, 24, Sheffield School of Architecture, Part 2 graduate, acknowledging that she wouldn’t have entertained the idea of studying architecture for 10 years if she knew what she know now. Mellissa Kirkpatrick, 23, studying on the Part 2 collaborative practice course at Sheffield University, thinks it is evident that “within architecture schools there is a move back towards it being an ‘elitist’ profession, and a sentiment that architectural education should be more of a luxury for those who can afford to go the full way to qualification, rather than essential education available to all.”
Phineas Harper draws attention to another fact he has discovered as the former deputy editor at Architecture Foundation. According to Harper, although at least 90 per cent of people in the UK receive their education from state schools, which are free to attend and funded by the government, fewer than half of architects featured in Architecture Foundation book are from state schools. This is significantly lower than the 68 per cent of new students at Cambridge University last year who went to state schools.
Harper made the comments as the UK government received intense criticism for using an algorithm intended to determine the A-level grades, which are used by universities to select new undergraduate students. The algorithm was introduced this year, as it was not possible to hold exams due to the coronavirus outbreak and the consequent lockdown. As the statistical model took into account teacher’s predictions, mock exam results and previous year’s A-Level performances at each school, pupils from state schools were disproportionately affected by the downgrade compared to those from private schools. As a result, many students missed out on university places receiving lower grades than they were predicted by their teachers.
With the existing system of teaching architecture, rewarding those who already have the most, the numbers of students abandoning their hope of becoming architects seems likely to rise.