University Liaison Report 2006-7

1. Overview

The broad aims of the university liaison programme are:

• To raise ARB’s profile with students and academics
• To make them aware of the role of ARB and understand how it relates to them
• To make students aware of an architect’s professional duties and responsibilities by reference to the Architects Code and to encourage a critical awareness of issues relating to professional regulation
• To stress to students the importance of good practice and high professional standards
• To gather feedback and views on ARB’s role from students and academics
• To establish a point of contact between ARB and schools of architecture

The liaison visits are by invitation from the school and are typically arranged through the professional studies adviser (PSA). Presentations usually form part of the management and practice or professional studies programme and are designed to be appropriate to the group’s stage in training. The format and content is agreed with the PSA and can be tailor-made to suit the requirements of an individual school.

This year, five schools failed to respond to an initial invitation. Four of these were visited in 2005/6 or were in contact with ARB to discuss the possibility; only one school has persistently failed to respond to communications from ARB.

Feedback shows that both staff and students value and appreciate these sessions and welcome having a named contact to answer any future queries. As around half of those attending have either never heard of ARB or would describe their previous knowledge as ‘vague’ (see Appendix 2), the presentations are an opportunity to raise awareness of professional responsibilities and regulation of title as well as answering more technical questions about registration and the examination process. It is also important that students are alerted to the implications of some of the decisions they are making about future courses and practical training.

2. Summary of ARB-led sessions

During the academic year 2006/7 there was a total of 47 ARB-led sessions for students and candidates for the professional practice examination from 32 schools and the RIBA NW, reaching 2472 students and candidates. (Five visits had to be cancelled for various reasons which would have brought the total to 52 visits and 36 schools).

Compared with last year, this represents an increase in the number of visits of 4% and in the number of students reached of 20%.  Six schools were visited this year that had not been visited in previous years.

The number of schools requesting visits for students at all levels offered has increased from two last year to six this year. This corresponds with an increase in the number of students who have taken part in a session previously but there appears to be no decrease in the level of interest or satisfaction with the content of the presentations (see Appendix 2).

The requests for sessions at the different levels are relatively evenly distributed, with a slight emphasis on Part 1 (35%) and Part 3 (36%) courses.

See Appendix 1 for full details of schools and groups involved.

3. Feedback from students

Where practicable those attending presentations are asked to complete feedback forms asking for views on the quality and appropriateness of the session, previous knowledge of ARB, how they view ARB’s role and whether they intend to register when they qualify.

This year students were also asked to indicate whether they would be interested in being involved in any surveys, questionnaires or focus groups that may be set up to seek the views of students in connection with any projects being undertaken. This met with a very positive response and more than 150 students have asked to be involved.

Forms were distributed at around 40% of sessions – this is less than planned but it is not always possible with large groups or where there are strict time constraints. 60% of forms were completed and returned (around 500). These were analysed and a summary sent to the schools where they are used as a basis for planning future sessions. More generally, they are used to identify areas for improvement and development.

• Quality. The overall quality, including audibility, legibility of slides, approach, level of interest and how informative students found the presentation, was rated very good or good by 97% of students and candidates. The content was thought to be ‘about right’ and appropriate to their stage in training by 99% of students.

• Prior knowledge of ARB. The students’ level of previous knowledge, as expected, increases from Part 1 to Part 3 and while 9% of students at Part 1 had never heard of ARB, only 1% of Part 3 candidates were in this position. 45% of students described their level of knowledge as ‘vague’ and around 11% of all those attending the sessions had only heard about ARB through the press.

• Timing. The majority of students felt that there was a need to attend session(s) at a number of specific points in their training – at Part 1, just before their practical training and while thinking about choosing a Part 2 course; at Part 2, as they prepare for their second placement and at Part 3 in preparation for their Part 3 examination and registration. Most, who expressed an opinion, felt that it would be useful to attend more than one session during the course of their training but there was no consensus as to whether this should be at Parts 1 and 2, 1 and 3, 2 and 3 or all three parts.

• Registration. Around 99% of all students viewed the role of ARB very positively or positively and 93% intended to register in the UK on qualification. A small number intended to register but outside the UK.

For further analysis of the questionnaires see Appendix 2.

4. Student concerns identified from feedback

The feedback forms and the sessions themselves are a useful way of keeping in touch with the views of students and candidates and their current concerns. While many remain similar to those of previous years the emphasis appears to have moved towards more ‘personal’ issues and they seem less concerned about what is being written in the press and more ‘political’ matters – although these are inevitably raised during the presentations.

• Practical experience. This continues to be an area of concern – although employment is plentiful at the moment, students are concerned about gaining the right experience and achieving the required levels within two years. Many feel they need at least three years before they are ready to take their Part 3 examination.

  The Practical Training Experience Working Group, which is currently looking at this area, will be asking those students who have agreed to be contacted, to provide more detailed feedback in the form of a questionnaire which will be fed into the group’s findings.

• Prescribed examination. Students are concerned about the cost of the examinations and the sessions are a good opportunity to explain the basis for these as well as to discuss the subject more generally. Students have welcomed the Board’s decision to consider outsourcing the examinations

• Cost of training. The cost of fees for the five-years of study plus living expenses and the cost of materials means that more students are saying they have to work part time. They are concerned about the effect this has on their studies and they are looking for more flexible ways of qualifying.

  There is also a concern that part-time experience is not always accepted towards the practical training requirement (unless it is more than 20 hours) and that students still have to complete a year after their Part 2, regardless of the experience they have. Again, these areas will fall within those considered by the Practical Training Experience Working Group.

5. Summary of future work and on-going work in 2007- 8

• Involvement of all schools of architecture in the liaison programme. Every effort will continue to be made to involve all schools in the programme of visits.

• Archaos. An Archaos representative was invited to join the Practical Training Experience Working Group and is proving a valuable member. We intend to have a student representative on similar groups wherever possible and to continue the regular meetings with Archaos executive members.

• APSAA (Association of Professional Studies Advisers in Architecture). ARB was invited to attend and contribute to the APSAA conferences held in November and April this year. This has proved valuable in keeping PSAs up to date with relevant developments and generally reinforcing contacts with schools and it is intended that this should be continued.

• Newsletter. The Education Newsletter, which is emailed to Heads of Schools, PSAs and Archaos executive members each term to keep them up to date with developments and the work of the Qualifications Department, is being updated and re-designed. The new version will be published at the beginning of the academic year 2007/8.

• Practical Training Experience Working Group. The Group had its first meeting in June 2007 and is due to report to the Prescription Committee in November 2007. 

Appendix 1 –Schools requesting visits and groups involved 2006-7:

School of Architecture
Aberdeen, Robert Gordon University	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3
Architectural Association	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3 (2 groups)
University of Bath	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3
The Bartlett School of Architecture	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3
Queen’s University, Belfast	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3
UCE, Birmingham	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3
University of Brighton	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3
UWE, Bristol	Part 1	Part 2
University of Cambridge	Part 1		Part 3
Canterbury, University of Kent at Canterbury	Part 1	Part 2
Canterbury, University of the Creative Arts at Canterbury	Part 1	Part 2
Cardiff University, Welsh School of Architecture	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3
University of Dundee	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3
University of East London	Part 1	Part 2
University of Edinburgh	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3
Edinburgh College of Art	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3
Glasgow School of Art, Mackintosh School of Architecture	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3
University of Greenwich	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3
University of Huddersfield	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3
Kingston University	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3
Leeds Metropolitan University	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3
Leicester School of Architecture, De Montfort University	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3
University of Lincoln	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3
University of Liverpool	Part 1	Part 2
Liverpool John Moores University	Part 1	Part 2
London Metropolitan University	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3
London South Bank University	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3 (2 groups)
Manchester School of Architecture	Part 1	Part 2
University of Newcastle	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3
University of Nottingham	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3
Oxford Brookes University	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3
University of Plymouth	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3
University of Portsmouth	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3
RIBA – NW			Part 3
Royal College of Art		Part 2
University of Sheffield	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3
Sheffield Hallam University	Part 1
University of Strathclyde	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3
University of Westminster	Part 1	Part 2	Part 3

Notes

• Part denotes visit requested 2006/7

• Part denotes visits previous years

• RIBA – NW Part 3 session is generally attended by candidates from Liverpool, Liverpool John Moores and Manchester universities

• Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield run a joint session for their Part 3 candidates

 

Timing of visits

The majority of visits fell within the traditional academic year with the greatest demand during the spring term.

Click here to view chart.

Appendix 2 – Student feedback data

Presentation
Audibility/legibility Ratings of very good or good given by:	96% of Part 1 students 97% of Part 2 students 98% of Part 3 candidates
Approach/level of interest Ratings of very good or good given by:	93% of Part 1 students 97% of Part 2 students 97% of Part 3 candidates
Content Ratings of ‘about right’ (+ 1) in all categories	98% of Part 1 students 99% of Part 2 students 99% of Part 3 students
The talk was rated very informative or informative by:	100% of Part 1 students 100% of Part 2 students 99% of Part 3 candidates

Prior knowledge of ARB

	% at Part 1	% at Part 2	% at Part 3	% Average
Had never heard about ARB	9	1	1	4
Only knew of ARB from the press	19	8	5	11
Vague knowledge of ARB	57	40	38	45
Good working knowledge of ARB	4	36	38	26
Had referred to ARB website	6	50	64	40
Had referred to student handbook	0	10	6	5

 

The profession ARB was viewed very positively or positively by:	99% of Part 1 students 100% of Part 2 students 97% of Part 3 candidatess
Intention to register in the UK on completion of studies:	87% of Part 1 students 95% of Part 2 students 97% of Part 3 candidates