Revamping Architectural Education in India…….A thought!

Revamping Architectural Education in India…….A thought!

Professor Jaffer AA Khan, Auckland New Zealand

Architectural education in India has a long history. At the time of independence, the country had the only institution in Bombay (Mumbai), Sir JJ School of Architecture which split from the Bombay School of Art in 1913. It was such an honored school that it was the only school in Asia and for a long time the GD Arch Diploma from the school was recognized by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA). The standard was so high that the students who graduated  from JJ School were regarded very high and they were in demand even in Great Britain ( India was part of the Empire). The school has a long history which is worth a study by every architecture student of India to understand the legacy of architectural education in this country . It is ironical that with more than 450 schools today , the RIBA does not recognize even a single school in the country due to the fact that the standards of education comparing to global scenario has diminished to such a level that we can only  boast of numbers  by adding schools every year but not the expected  standards.

We have seen that, the last decade was the great surge in the number of architecture schools and more than 50% of them came up during this decade or so. One must credit the Council of Architecture (CoA), the schools multiplied without any idea and today many of them face shortage of faculty as it is most difficult to find them and that to find the good ones. The Architects Act of 1972 mandated the Council of Architecture to approve schools to impart architectural education in good faith. The 1984 Minimum Standards of Architectural Education was a gazette document and laid down the foundation for the minimum faculty qualifications for various academic positions. Then came the un-gazetted version of the 2008 Minimum Standards of Architectural Education which being enforced now by the Council and its appointed inspectors.  The draft version of the 2014 is still in the draft condition and one does not know when this will see the light of the day.  Hence,  the 1984 Minimum Standards hold good for any such appointment of faculty  or their qualifications to serve the Council in any manner stipulated in the Architects Act 1972.

Presently, the architecture program is five year full  time study period  with a year of training included . The Council insists flexibility of the program and accepts that the training period of one year could be after the third year or after the fourth year when the students are free from any academic commitments, and  they could  get to graduation straight on. But there is growing concern among students that, the institutions should not collect the fee for the period they are not to be attending any classes or University examinations. The CoA is unclear about its policies in this aspect as one could see the growing restlessness among students. The institutions have their own argument on this matter though many students feel that the CoA inspections are a farce in many ways and does not serve the purpose as many faculty are brought to be present as actors for the  period of inspections who are paid a sitting fee. The Act actually stipulates that such inspections should happen once in five years, but not to be frequented as it happens now.

With the growing concern on quality of education and the paucity of the faculty to teach, it is important that the CoA  relooks at the architecture program and help make it comparable to international standards through serious debate and deliberations and implementation in the best interest of the future of the profession. One would suggest a model that can be  more practical to split the architecture program  in three parts like 3+1+2+1. The first three years will be a Bachelor degree program like BArch  (Bachelor of Architecture Studies), the one year of practical training under any architectural firm. Then if the student wants to pursue higher studies he could join post-graduation M.Arch ( Master of Architecture Studies) ,which will be a  2 year full time  program. Then the final one year will be to work and produce a portfolio for registration as an architect with the CoA. More so  this gives a chance for a student to reduce full time study and a break at third year level , enabling them work for a few years and then seriously think of doing the post-graduation to either register as an architect or enter academics. This method has been followed by Australia, New Zealand and many other countries are looking at the positive side of the program due to its employment prospects and the flexibility to the students to have bachelor degree in three years when they could be employed as, Architectural Designer, Design manager, Design Technician and Draftsperson.  In fact the Master’s program could be further compressed to 18 months to enable practicing architects to qualify themselves as post graduates, in case they would look at academics as their alternative career. In the UK the RIBA , last year agreed for a shake- up in architectural education for 50 years. The proposal reduces three years from the average amount of time to qualify.

It is time for the CoA to relook and revitalize the system before they keep on adding more number of schools. The first step would be to review the system thoroughly and seek the advice from the practicing and academic fraternity who have an open mind for a change and to create a robust system involving technologies and research into the program.  This change should be for the betterment of the future generations of architects and to make them leaders in the profession but not otherwise. 

.