Withdrawal of Prescription from De Montfort University

Withdrawal of Prescription from De Montfort University (26/02/2003)

The Architects Registration Board yesterday, 26 February 2003, wrote to De Montfort University to inform it that under Section 4 of the Architects Act, ARB has withdrawn prescription from De Montfort University’s BA (Hons) degree in Architecture (three years full time), BA degree in Architecture (five years part time), Graduate Diploma in Architecture (two years full time) and Diploma in Architecture (three years part time). This decision was arrived at over meetings held between 29 August 2002 and 20 February 2003. The reason for these decisions of the ARB Board are set out in more detail in the attachment to this Press Release, but briefly the reasons are:

• The reports of the Visiting Board and those of the external examiners showed that for a number of years advice given on standards had not been acted upon.

• The examination standards of the University for these courses has not been acceptable to ARB, despite steps taken by the University very recently.

• ARB could not be satisfied that students will attain competence in the criteria set by ARB.

The effect of the decisions is that students on the courses named at De Montfort University, who have been awarded those qualifications after 2002, will not have qualifications which are automatically recognised by ARB for the purposes of registration. (The Part III qualification offered by De Montfort University is unaffected. It remains a prescribed qualification).

The ARB Board is particularly concerned for students awarded qualifications after 2002, as well as others currently on De Montfort University courses. Those students will all be offered the opportunity to be assessed by the Board (see Section 4 (1) (b) of the Architects Act). If successful in that assessment, the students will be able to pursue the path towards registration as an architect. The Board will assist those students to the best of its ability. Students with questions can contact ARB now for assistance and advice.

The University is not precluded by this decision from gaining prescribed status for new or revised architecture courses at a future date. The Board noted from information provided to it that it appeared that from September 2003 the University is possibly considering new courses differing from those for which prescription has been withdrawn. It is open to the University to apply for those courses to be prescribed by the Board. ARB will treat such an application on its merits.

- Ends -

For further information contact Robin Vaughan on 020 7580 5861

Attachment

The reasons for the decisions of the Board announced in the Press Release about De Montfort University are as follows:

1. MEETING OF 29 AUGUST 2002

BA Architecture/BA (Hons) Architecture

The Board considered the Visiting Board’s comments in relation to ARB’s criteria in Architectural Design and Cultural Context.

‘The (Visiting) Board was not satisfied that the criteria relating to Architectural Design are being fulfilled. Students at the lowest pass at third year did not demonstrate an ability to resolve the qualitative three-dimensional aspects of design projects, apply appropriate use of materials or inform design proposals with the general principles of environmental design. Designs demonstrated a lack of cohesion, poor considerations of site and user needs and simplistic spatial arrangements. The (Visiting) Board noted that the aggregated marking system permitted some students who failed design modules ARH 3002 and 3003 to pass the year and receive a Part 1 award. Whilst the staff reported to the Board that they were aware of this issue and were taking steps to rectify the problem with the university, the (Visiting) Board considered that it should be made a condition of validation that this concern be resolved by the June 2002 examination session.’

‘The (Visiting) Board was not satisfied that the criteria relating to the Cultural Context of Architecture are being fulfilled. There was no evidence of adequate coverage of the syllabus and at the lowest pass students did not demonstrate a basic knowledge of history and theories of architecture or an awareness of vernacular architecture. Even at the highest pass students demonstrated a lack of rigour and critical awareness in their investigation of historical ideas and themes related to design projects and assessment.’

On the grounds of the evidence provided by the Visiting Board that the school was failing to deliver on key aspects of the criteria, and the fact that the Board did not have before it a statement from school showing how it had responded to the changes required in relation to course titles and marking schemes, the Board decided that validation should be withdrawn from the end of the academic session 2001-2.

Graduate Diploma/Diploma in Architecture (three years part time)

The Board considered the Visiting Board comments in relation to its criteria in the areas of Architectural Design, Cultural Context and Environmental Design, Constructional and Architectural Technologies.

‘The (Visiting) Board was not satisfied that the criteria relating to Architectural Design are being fulfilled. Students at the lowest pass did not demonstrate sufficient competence in the integrated design of complex types of buildings. Students attempted the design of large buildings, often of a civic nature, without adequate consideration of site or context and with no evidence of an ability to investigate and resolve theoretical considerations or environmental or technical aspects of schemes. There was a poor use of colour, site planning and lack of understanding of materials and scale in most student projects at the bottom and middle of the marking range.’

‘The (Visiting) Board was not satisfied that the criteria relating to the Cultural Context of Architecture are being fulfilled. There was no evidence of students fulfilling the requirement the requirement for a dissertation or case study at Part 2…The (Visiting) Board recognised that substantial improvements had been made in the last year to cultural context studies in the Part 2 course, which it applauds, but was unable to find any evidence of this informing students’ design projects as yet..’

‘The (Visiting) Board was not satisfied that the criteria relating to Environmental Design, Constructional and Architectural Technologies are being fulfilled. At the lowest pass students did not reach the required standard. Students did not demonstrate a deeper understanding of the influence of environment, structure and technology on built form. Students’ ability to resolve design projects was limited by their poor understanding of structural and constructional aspects of design, simplistic detailing and inappropriate use of materials. At the highest pass students did demonstrate a competence to resolve the technical aspects of design projects, although the (Visiting) Board were disappointed to find that this was rarely elegant or inventive.’

On the grounds of the evidence provided by the Visiting Board that the school was failing to deliver on key aspects of the criteria, and the fact that the Board did not have before it a statement from school showing how it had responded to the changes required in relation to course titles and marking schemes, the Board decided that validation be withdrawn from the above qualification from the end of the academic session 2001-2.

The Board also considered the effects of the withdrawal of prescription on the University, the School of Architecture, the staff who provide the courses, on the region in which the school was based, and particularly on students which are a cause of considerable concern to the Board. However, the Board concluded that the information before it was such as to require the withdrawal of prescription.

2. MEETING OF 20 FEBRUARY 2003

The Board’s decisions to withdraw validation were made with particular regard to impact on students currently on courses leading to the relevant qualifications. The Board noted students who obtain the qualifications, whilst not prescribed, are able to be assessed by the Board under its procedures relating to section 4(1)(b) of the Architects Act 1997, and, if successful, are able to continue to pursue the path towards registration as an architect. The Board considered that its assessment procedures should minimise disruption to students.

The Board considered that the concerns which led to its decisions of the 29th August, 2002 were still relevant. The reports of the Visiting Board and those of the External Examiners (now presented by the University) – the former in relation to all qualifications and the latter in relation to the BA Architecture and BA (Hons) Architecture - showed clearly that for a number of years the advice and recommendations of the Board and the External Examiners had not been acted on by the University promptly or at all (as they could and should have been), as a result of which students had been awarded the above qualifications who did not meet all the Board’s criteria. The Board considered this a very serious matter.

The Board noted that one of the external examiners in her report commented that the Report of the Visiting Board “echos to some of our previous concerns”. She continues: “We have previously noted concern over students obtaining a degree whilst failing their third year design module – and can understand the Board’s concern about the professional standard required for validation. Some designs are of very poor standard but the students have benefited from the aggregated marking system over which the staff have very little control. Likewise a superb student who has let himself down on only one project finds himself having to fail and resubmit.”

In her e-mail of 18 December the external examiner said: “As an external examiner at De Montfort for the last three years I have been involved in reviewing the issue of “compensated” failures within the University. Every year we have agreed with the staff that the University’s anomalous grading system was in need of revision to avoid the unhappy fact that a student could theoretically pass a year with a U failure in one module. We have also been happy to see the anomaly acknowledged by the University and now understand that a mandatory pass is required in all modules….”.

This comment was appended to a note which recorded that in 2001/2 nine students out of 50 had graduated with U grades, of which three students had U grades for design work but in each case the external examiners considered their overall portfolio to be otherwise of a reasonable standard.

In the report of another external examiner it was said that he had seen the Report of the Visiting Report. He said: ”I have made the comment on previous visits and it was put more strongly by the visiting board who made it a condition of validation. In short, students at the lowest pass at third year are very poor and attention needs to be paid in how to raise the standard of work produced or lower the marks”.

The Board noted that the steps taken recently by the University, whilst meeting some of the concerns of the Visiting Board and the External Examiners, still left open the question whether, under the marking schemes in operation, students would continue to be awarded a qualification whilst not meeting all the Board’s criteria.

The Board noted that in a letter of 13 February 2003 from the University that it was unable to give the Board the assurance which it had sought as to the pass/fail threshold being raised. The Board also took into account the past record of the University in implementing recommendations and advice given to it but even balancing this against its more recent efforts the Board did not have confidence in the University for the present.

Although the Board welcomed the recent appointment of a new Head of School, the Board did not consider that that in itself and the other steps taken by the University were sufficient to give it confidence that the leadership and guidance necessary to achieve compliance with the Board’s expectations would be achieved so as to justify the continuation of validation.

The Board did not consider that a continuation of prescription upon conditions would be appropriate given the University’s past record of implementing required remedial action.

However, the Board wished it to be clear:

(1) That it would consider how its assessment procedures should be applied to minimise disruption to individual students.

(2) That if, as appears to be the case, the courses planned by the University for September 2003 are new courses, because they appear to differ significantly from the present courses, it is open to the University to apply for these to be prescribed by the Board, and such an application will be treated on its merits.