Three- or five- year degrees - what it means for architects

Major reforms to the education of architectural professionals were heralded with the promulgation of Act 44 in 2000. In well intended efforts, degrees were restructured from a five- or six-year B.Arch programmes into composite programmes. This article examines some of the long-term implications.

The single course previously offered was divided into a three-year undergraduate, plus one-year honours, plus one-year master's degree. This format had a number of important advantages. It aligned with the degree format of most other degrees and many international programmes. It allowed individuals to articulate between institutions and programmes, and to exit after three years with a credential to show.

It does however also mean that professionals that graduated under the old regime have a single bachelor’s degree to show for a comparable investment of academic years. In contrast young graduates with similar years of study will have a master’s degree to their name. For some time, this difference was masked by naming the bachelor’s degrees as Bachelor of Architectural Studies (BAS) or Bachelor of Science (Architecture).

The regulator points out that its recognition accounts for these differences by admitting holders of ‘old’ B.Arch degrees (subject to the usual candidacy requirements) to its highest professional category – ‘Professional Architect’.

Indeed, for many of the nearly 3000 ‘old’ B.Arch graduates still professionally active, this is not a limitation. However, for most it is unjust. And for many it is frustrating and sometimes career limiting. Barriers arise in academic circles where a master’s degree is a requirement to access teaching posts, undertake examining assignments and more. Progression and compensation in public sector roles are generally tied to qualifications, and here human resource personnel are rarely sensitising to the lack of substantive equivalence between the ‘old’ six year undergraduate and ‘new’ three-year undergraduate degrees. Tender awards heavily advantage qualifications of applicants in functionality criteria. In these contexts, a bachelor’s degree is a bachelor’s degree. This obscurity is compounded because, recently, some universities and universities of technology are reverting to the course title Bachelor of Architecture, without the distinguishing addition of ‘science’ or ‘studies’.

The result is that the schools of architecture, government departments and building projects are deprived of some of the most experienced and willing practitioners to their staff bodies. Delegations have approached SACAP and SAQA to mediate or assist, with marginal impact. Some initiatives confront the situation at institutional level. For example, exceptions are articulated in written policy explicitly permitting suitable professionals with six-year qualifications to examine master’s students at some institutions. Yet, this issue continues to harm, and remains a discussion point for the individuals it affects. It leads to various questions: Can the injustice be remedied? Is it really an injustice or a thinly veiled attempt to avoid transformation? What are the trade-offs (if any) should the situation be rectified somehow?

Join the conversation