It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Is there some sort of inflation (or deflation?) present with the archi degree. In the 1960s people graduated quite happily with a diploma. At some point soon after that was elevated to a Bachelors. Now the base degree is a Masters, which used to be an intense few years of self-guided work resulting in a thesis. I do hope that kids aren't graduating with doctorates in a few years. Then we will run out of higher levels.
I was interested to hear Paul Walker talking about the 3+2 system at Melbourne Uni (at Process last Monday). I hadn't realised that after the first three years, when you get a Bachelor of the Environment (a new B.A.?) there is no guarantee that they'll be able to continue to Masters, in fact only sixty something percent will be permitted through the gate. The rest will apparently have to find something else interesting to do for a career.
Somewhere I read that a "benefit" of the Melbourne Model was that the university would become more of a graduate school, leaving cheaper universities to do the dirty work of educating the undergraduates. As in the U.S.
I guess this means that the students at 4th year level often won't know one another, and that a school will be less able to maintain a distinctive design culture?