The nature of the profession of the architect has undergone a number of changes over the centuries, as has the education of the architect.

In many ways, schools of architecture follow rather than initiate these developments. Subsequently they may be aligned to outdated concepts of the profession, and as a result offering an education which supports neither current nor future requirements. If reliant on the teachers’ experience and on established knowledge and methods, then inevitably Education will be “behind the curve”, reactive rather than innovative.

The question remains whether architecture schools must anticipate – even precipitate – such a development by encouraging specialization, by increasingly fragmentizing the education of the architect. Or whether schools should rather make a stand against in advocating the status quo with the architect as practitioner, as generalist – as “practitioner-generalist”. In answer to the question “What does it mean to become an architect?” Alvaro Siza states „I tell them (the universe of authorities) that an architect is a specialist in non-specialization, but they cannot take that, not even as a joke.“ [“Digo-lhes (ao conjunto dos responsáveis pelas instituições) que um arquitecto é um especialista em não especialização, não devendo considerálo uma graça.”] Alvaro Siza, Conversando con Kenneth Frampton, Expresion grafica arquitectonica, Ano, no.20, 17/2012

And what are the answers of the architecture schools’? Which role does an architectural school take, and which responsibilities do they have, in making of an architect – or of future architects (of which types)? Can the architecture schools foster the process of becoming an architect? How?

What does it mean to educate creative critical citizens? Who takes the lead, accreditation organisms, industry or society? Who puts the agenda? Do we teach towards pre-set outcomes or do we set the outcomes?