Report of the RIBA Visiting Board to the University of ... · Report of the RIBA Visiting Board to the University of Edinburgh ... new RIBA Criteria for Validation ... 9.1 RIBA recognition

Royal Institute of British Architects

Report of the RIBA Visiting Board to the University of Edinburgh Confirmed by RIBA Education Committee X XX 200X Edinburgh School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture University of Edinburgh

Master of Architecture, Part Two Date of Visiting Board: 26/27 May 2011

Macintosh HD:Users:fionamclachlan:Dropbox:Fiona:F Univ:ESALA:head of ESALA:ESALA academic board:210911:RIBA_Draft MArch_report v3.doc

2

1. Information About the Courses 1.1 Courses offered for validation:

Master of Architecture (M.Arch) Part Two

1.2 Address of the Institution where the courses are delivered

University of Edinburgh School of Arts, Culture and Environment 20 Chambers Street Edinburgh EH1 1JZ ECA School of Architecture Lauriston Place Edinburgh EH3 9DF www.esala.ac.uk 1.2 Name of Awarding Body

The University of Edinburgh 1.3 Name of Head of School

Ms Fiona McLachlan

2. Membership of the Visiting Board 2.1 The members of the RIBA Visiting Board for the visit on

26/27 May 2011 were: Martin Pearce, Chair Roger Hawkins, Vice Chair Dr Richard Patterson Jon Phipps

Musa Garba Doug King, Co Professional member Pepper Barney, Student/graduate member Robert Black, Regional Representative

Stephanie Beasley-Suffolk (RIBA) was in attendance as Secretary to the Board.

3. Procedures & Criteria for the Visit 3.1 The Visiting Board was carried out under the ‘RIBA

Procedures for the Validation of UK Courses and Examinations in Architecture,’ published July 2003, effective from September 2003. For more information see www.architecture.com.

4. Recommendations of the Visiting Board

Confirmed by the Royal Institute of British Architects Education Committee XX Month 200X

4.1 The Visiting Board recommends to the RIBA Education Committee Initial Validation of:

Master of Architecture (M.Arch) Part Two, 2 years full

time. 4.2 The next Visiting Board to the ESALA M.Arch (Part

Two) would normally take place four years after the present visit. However, it is likely that this will be rescheduled to bring its validation cycle into alignment with other ESALA architecture programmes that may be validated in the future. Details of any rescheduling will be


3

discussed and agreed by the RIBA and University of Edinburgh and made public at a later date.

5. Recommendation of the Visiting Board to

the Commonwealth Association of Architects and the Construction Industry Council & EU Directive

5.1 The Visiting Board recommends to the Commonwealth

Association of Architects that the CAA consider the Part Two qualification for accreditation.

5.2 The Visiting Board recommends to ARB that the Part

Two course met all points of the EU Directive. 6. Criteria for Validation 6.1 On the basis of the sample of academic portfolios

examined, the Visiting Board was satisfied that all the students graduating from the courses and examinations listed in 4.1 above satisfied all the Criteria for Validation (which are held in common by the RIBA for validation and the ARB for prescription).

6.2 From September 2011, new RIBA Criteria for Validation

will apply to all courses requesting validation or revalidation. The School should reflect these criteria when making any changes to programme structure, content, and delivery.

7. Standards

7.1 On the basis of the sample of academic portfolios examined, the work from previous year of the courses listed in 4.1 was inspected during the visit and was found to meet the required standards.

8. Conditions of Validation 8.1 There were no conditions attached to the courses listed in

4.1.

9. Standard Requirements of Recognition 9.1 RIBA recognition of all courses/qualifications is

dependent upon:

i. external examiners being appointed for the course; ii. any significant changes to the courses and

examinations being submitted to the RIBA; iii. any change of award title, and the effective date of

the change, being reported to the RIBA so that, where appropriate, recognition may formally be transferred to the new title by the RIBA;

iv. submission to the RIBA of the names of students passing the courses/qualifications listed in 4.

10. Recommendations and Advice 10.1 Recommendations The Visiting Board has made the following

recommendations. The RIBA expects the Institution to report on action taken or planned as a result of the recommendations in the mid term review. Failure by an Institution to act on recommendations may result in a course being conditioned by a future Visiting Board.


4

10.1.1 The Board recommends that School continue to work towards establishing a clear vision and identity for the Part Two course.

10.1.2 The Board recommends that the course structure and

content should ensure parity between pathways such that students on different pathways have equal learning opportunities towards meeting the RIBA criteria and in particular those aspects as they relate to technology.

10.1.3 The Board recommends that systems be put in place to

ensure that external examiners sample work across both pathways to ensure that students meet the professional criteria.

10.2 Advice The Board offered no further advice. 11. Summary of Previous Visiting Board

Reports 11.1 This is the first full Visiting Board to the Edinburgh

School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Master of Architecture (M.Arch) programme. An Exploratory Board took place on 11 March 2010 to consider the new ESALA architecture programmes for Candidate Course status. Following the Exploratory Board, Candidate Course Status for Part 1 was awarded to the Bachelor of Arts in Architecture (three years full-time) and Master of Arts (Honours) in Architecture (four years full-time). Candidate Course Status for Part Two was awarded to the Master of Architecture.

As a course may only be considered for full validation once the first graduating cohort has completed the programme, the ESALA Part One candidate courses will be visited by the RIBA at a later date to be agreed between the School and the RIBA.

Visiting Boards to the formerly separate architecture

Schools at the University of Edinburgh and Edinburgh College of Art took place in 2005 and 2006, when all existing programmes were revalidated. Validation of these programmes is retained until their final graduates emerge.

12. Details of the Conditions in Item 8. 12.1 There were no conditions attached to the courses listed in 4.1. 13. Commentary 13.1 Self-Appraisal and Developments since the last visit The Board thanks the School for the clarity of the Critical

Self-Appraisal and the use of the WIKI in presenting the information. The Board found this both useful and thorough. The Board commented however that the focus of the critical self-appraisal was predominantly on the staff experience, with particular reference to the merger, rather than on the effect of change on the student experience. There was also a predominance on the difficulties encountered rather than on the potential benefits and opportunities presented by the merger for the future.

The Visiting Board took place at a transitional time for

both the architecture department and the institution as a


5

whole as it prepared for the full merger of ECA with the University.

The Schools of Architecture at Edinburgh College of Art

and the University of Edinburgh had been in discussions to align their programmes since 2002. The University of Edinburgh had been the degree awarding authority for Edinburgh College of Art for all students registering after 2004. The two Schools merged in 2009 to form the ESALA. Since then, ECA and the University of Edinburgh considered the benefits of a full institutional merger, with greater opportunities for collaboration. The Scottish Funding Council approved the full institutional merger, and agreed to contribute state funding. As the ECA was established through an act of Parliament, this merger also required Parliamentary approval, which was granted by the Scottish Government in 2011. From 1 August 2011 ECA will formally be part of the University of Edinburgh. The title Edinburgh College of Art will be retained and will sit within the College of Humanities and Social Sciences. ESALA will be one of five Schools within the newly constituted ECA, the others being Art, Design, History of Art and Music.

In addition to the ongoing development and

implementation of the new programmes, staff have been overseeing and maintaining the quality of the outgoing programmes conducted in accordance with two different sets of procedures at two institutions, and managing a process of staff change.

13.2 Documentation and Arrangements for the Visit The Board thanked the staff and students for their

hospitality during the visit. Documentation was forwarded

in a timely manner and any additional information sought by the Board during the visit was provided promptly.

13.2.1 Record of Academic Portfolios sampled during the visit Lowest, middle and high pass portfolios were provided for

both pathways. 13.3 Responses made to the previous Visiting Board

report (and to reports of any revisits) and external examiner comments.

The Exploratory Board advised the School to establish a clear and cohesive course vision, to build on existing course structures and to create a new identity for the School, to continue to involve staff and students in the alignment process and to reconsider the structure of the M.Arch programme in relation to credit weightings. The School’s response to this advice was reported in the Critical Self-Appraisal.

The Board observed that the School continues to establish

the course vision. The Board was conscious of the differences between the structure, content and pedagogy of the modular and integrated pathways as the ongoing legacy of the two institutions (ECA and the University of Edinburgh). The Board recognised that the course has necessarily embodied the previous structures and institutions; however in spite of the need to run out existing courses and the operational constraints of accommodation and staff split between the two institutions, the Board believes that the course team needs to work towards an individual identity for the course and ensure that parity of student experience is achieved.


6

The Board noted the importance of continuing to involve both staff and student in developments in the School in light of the merger and in respect of course changes and developments as they affect the M.Arch course.

The Board was satisfied that the credit weighting of the

course for the final design project in the context of the work examined was satisfactory.

13.4 Context of the courses within the wider provision of

the School and Faculty. Following the full merger in August 2011, the Edinburgh

School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture will sit within the newly-constituted Edinburgh College of Art.

The Board believes that the School could further develop

interdisciplinary working and cross-fertilization of cognate courses in the School, in particular the masters level humanities disciplines. Students were particularly clear in expressing the opportunities that they saw for such connections to be strengthened.

The Board felt that such developments would further

strengthen the ‘offer’ made by the course. Having a clear strategy for promoting choice and working/learning from cognate disciplines (arising out of the merger and new university structure) would help to develop the identity of the course. The Board suggested that the School might benefit from examining other courses at part two that have strong links with other cognate disciplines and those which are structured as pathways with common taught modules and choice of design pathway.

In addition the Board noted the link between the course and the strong research ethos within ESALA.

13.5 Detailed Commentary on the Course leading to Part

Two qualification 13.5.1 Clarity, validity and achievement of course objectives

The aims of the programme are articulated in the Mission of the School as given in the 2010-15 Forward Plan, namely: ‘To educate both future architects and landscape architects, and their wider constituencies in imagining, reflecting on and producing the built forms of society in the context of rapid global change. To extend the knowledge of architecture and landscape architecture through diverse media, methods and modes of production.’ There is a clear intent to link teaching and research.

13.5.2 Course design and content The M.Arch is a two-year, full time programme. Students

may pursue one of two pathways: the integrated pathway or the modular pathway. On the integrated pathway students take an interlinked series of modules across the two years of the programme, culminating in a major project submission. The sequencing of modules is fixed. The modular pathway allows students a choice of design studios across two years. These modules are independent of each other and often related to staff research activity. This also includes a core architectural design studio module. All students must take joint core lecture modules in Architectural Technology Research, Studies in Contemporary Architectural Theory, Architectural Management, Practice and Law and, in their final semester, produce a Design Report and Academic


7

Portfolio. The School plans to offer new modular studios in the future.

The balance and weighting of the course seems

appropriate and provides a structure through which students can demonstrate that they meet the criteria across both pathways.

The individual pathways are described to prospective

students on application; students are then given a presentation on arrival. Choice is a feature of the programme and the way in which students are introduced to pathways and make their choice of pathway could be improved. This point was reinforced by the student body at the Board’s meeting.

The digital portfolio was a clear strength of the course and

was valuable to the Board, in mapping the criteria and understanding the way in which the course was structured, and to students, in giving them a clear overview of their achievement.

Generic module descriptors were less useful in mapping

the criteria and in showing progression through the course. The School might consider the relationship between the module descriptors and course handouts so that they more readily map onto each other.

The consistent use of three learning outcomes made for a

clear structure. An approach premised upon constructive alignment was well developed in the School and the resultant learning and teaching strategy was a particular strength of the course.

13.5.3 Quality and coverage of the syllabus (including balance and integration between design/non-design work) - Design Urbanism and a belief in the importance of the City is a powerful driver in the School. Much of the work seen was of a high standard. The modular pathway seemed to have the strength of being very thorough and pragmatic in design resolution and the recording of process. The integrated pathway seemed to be more experimental with design aspirations deriving from more radical theoretical positions.

With regards the integrated pathway, the School might consider the way in which students engage in scalar shifts from the macro city level to the detailed building scale. The Board felt there was sometimes an abrupt jump from large scale urban vision to building proposal with less exploration of immediate building-scale context. The Board felt that there could be greater consideration of the spaces created around students’ proposals and the interrelationship of people, buildings and environment and the use of the spaces between them to meet human need. Students on the Integrated pathway commented on the limited opportunities for formal reviews/crits of the design work. They valued the opportunity to present their work to external critics but equally valued the chance to make formal presentations to School staff. The Board endorsed this view and felt that more formative assessment of this kind might lead to greater development and potential diversity in the work.


8

Students generally showed very high level of graphic communication skills and the use of models is a clear strength in the School. The Board felt that the School needs to continue to ensure that there is a balance between the emphasis placed upon presentation and the content and substance of the architecture.

The strategy of constructive alignment generates

consistent module descriptors, learning outcomes and grade criteria. Some of the design module descriptors seemed overly generic and could be more detailed to demonstrate clearer progression between modules their mapping against the criteria.

Feedback against learning outcomes is clear, however

other types of formative feedback could be enhanced in the integrated pathway, and this feedback needs to be provided to students in a timely manner as at the Board’s meeting with the students they had raised the issue of feedback on design work being unduly delayed.

The digital portfolio was a valuable tool enabling students

to show their full range of work over the two years of the course. They were well organised following the structure of the course. The digital portfolio mapping against the criteria was helpful as a self reflective tool, which was a view also endorsed by the students. The students commented that the preparation of the digital portfolio could be less concentrated at the end of the course and form more of a continuous, critically reflective process. The Board welcomed the evidence of original work in the portfolios and seeing the work in situ through the exhibition, and for subsequent visiting Board events advised the School of the value of having original

assessment artefacts available to complement the digital exposition.

The integrated pathway had a strong basis in social,

political and economic concerns and there was a clear link between the research interests of the School and the work. This led to ambitious designs that provided strong vehicles for experimentation. Students developed challenging briefs from which to work. The Board thought that a point of consolidation of the brief on the integrated pathway might be useful to more clearly articulate the requirements and constraints determining the proposals.

Evidence of systematic testing, analysis and appraisal was

less evident in the work of the integrated pathway and the School could further encourage students to record design process and demonstrate how alternative design solutions were appraised. The Board felt that the Modular pathway better recorded and evaluated design alternatives and demonstrated systematic testing, analysis and appraisal.

The Board noted the different attitudes towards

group/team working between the two pathways. It seemed that the integrated pathway encouraged students to work together in developing their design thesis whilst the modular pathway favoured individual working. The Board felt that this aspect of the pedagogy worthy of further discussion by the course team and suggested that a strategy be developed to indicate to students where team working was required, optional or excluded in each of the courses/modules and the mechanisms by which team work was assessed to ensure parity between team members. In addition the School should consider suitable mechanisms to ensure that, where the criteria were met


9

through assessed work undertaken as part of a team, how each member had met the criteria on their own merits. The Board suggested that as part of these considerations the School might investigate methods of peer review.

- Technology & Environment Consideration of Construction, Structures and Materials

were well demonstrated in the work of both pathways. The integrated pathway has a real strength in model making and graphic communication techniques that demonstrated the material and constructional aspects of the students’ proposals. Evidence of the process of selecting and testing alternative material, constructional and structural systems was less evident in the portfolios.

The Board noted the taught aspects of technology as

evidenced in the Architectural Technology Research core module. The research of technological precedents was a useful exercise and the Board wondered if the work produced might be more fully disseminated across the year cohort as a valuable learning resource. The School might consider encouraging the students to engage in greater critical evaluation and debate about the case studies undertaken.

The Board were concerned that there seemed to be a

different focus and consistency in the teaching of technology across the two pathways, with a greater focus on structural matters in the integrated pathway whilst the teaching of sustainability and environmental control was stronger on the modular pathway. This inconsistency is perhaps a legacy of the two different institutions, the specialisms of staff at UoE and the practice of inviting

engaging outside consultants at ECA. The student group also raised this inconsistency at their meeting with the Board and noted that the timing and coverage of technology tutorials in support of their design projects had been unequal across the two pathways. The Board also noted that the external examiner whose specialism was in the area of technology had not sampled the modular pathway students’ work and the Board made a recommendation in light of this.

The Board perceived a weakness in the teaching of

environmental design and in particular sustainable design as set out in the criteria. Students independently endorsed this view. The Board noted that this matter had been raised by the previous Board. The School might consider reviewing the teaching of environmental and sustainable design and ensure these aspects of the course are structured such that there is consistency of taught input and student support across the current and any further pathways of the course. The Board recommended that mechanisms be in place to ensure that these aspects of the criteria are fully assessed and subject to the external scrutiny.

- Cultural Context The structure and content of the taught material, in

particular SCAT module, makes for a good exposition of the field, and engages students with a wide range of often sophisticated theoretical concepts.

From the students’ written submissions the Board

observed that the stronger students developed a critical approach to the material considered and often used these concepts as a basis for their design ideas. However,


10

weaker students struggled to assimilate this level of sophistication and showed that they may not have grasped some of these concepts thoroughly. The Board considered that at the lower end the School might further consider the match between the high aspirations of the course content and intellectual ability of less able students. The Board noted that some of the written work would benefit from more accurate proof reading and it seemed that some of the weaker students would have benefitted from greater support in the use of written English.

The Board commended the way the School sought to

embed critical context of architecture throughout the design programme/s and saw this pedagogic approach as a potential unifier of the current and potential future pathways.

- Communication

Communication skills are effectively embedded throughout the course. Specific observations in respect of communication are mentioned in Design, Technology, Context and MPL commentaries.

- Management Practice & Law Coverage of MPL in the taught programme was

satisfactory; however the essays in the reports seemed to lack the ambition seen elsewhere in the course and tended towards a reiteration of normative MPL concerns. The Board felt that there was greater scope to explore a more creative engagement with the subject and future practices.

The integration of Management Practice and Law in the

design work was on the whole well considered with regards the needs of building users and relevant legislation.

The School needs to ensure that such considerations are embedded from the early stages of the design process and not seen as an adjunct to the design report in order to meet the criteria which seemed the case in some of the weaker integrated design pathway projects presented to the Board.

13.5.4 Progression within the course

The Board noted the progression rates between the two levels of the course.

13.5.5 Assessment: ESALA has adopted the former ECA’s system of

assigning levels of achievement a letter rather than a numerical grade. This system is well understood by students and external examiners. Processes for identifying a distinction are clear. The nature and timeliness of feedback, particularly for design work, was discussed with staff and students.

13.5.6 Admissions and arrangements for direct entry at a stage

other than the start of the course Students are selected by portfolio submission, academic

performance and references only. There are no interviews but students may attend an open day. Entry to a later stage of the programme than first year is not permitted.

Formerly, ECA Part One graduates have had an automatic

right of entry to ECA’s Part Two programme. This right will continue to be honoured for the duration of the ECA Part One programme while it runs out. Edinburgh Part One graduates have not had a similar automatic right of


11

entry to the Edinburgh Part Two. The structure of the new Part Two programme has not only to accommodate ECA Part One graduates but also Part Two entrants from other Schools. The numbers in the second cohort of the new M.Arch were deliberately smaller to accommodate the larger number of students who will come through when the two streams come together. The present situation is temporary; numbers will eventually stabilise.

13.6 External examining arrangements The Board met the Part Two external examiners and also

one Part One examiner. Externals are expected to visit the University four times a year at specific points, which includes (as appropriate), the submission of the technical report, the end of the first semester, the May assessments and the August boards. The School engages with externals’ comments and responds well. The Board considered that the external examiners were clearly supportive of the School, aware of the issues it currently faced in all aspects of its operation and academic provision and expressed confidence in its future. The following reflects the main points of the discussion.

• The School has had to face the challenges first of the formation of a single School, then the institutional merger. Externals spoke of talking to two different cultures with different perceptions of each other.. Discussions about the School, its name and constituent parts have presented considerable challenges for the staff team.. In the externals’ opinion there now needs to be a new identity to allow the School to develop and achieve its higher ambitions. The situation has now stabilised and commendably has not had a negative impact upon programme delivery.

• Within the external examining procedures, more contact with students would be appreciated as this is a useful developmental tool. Under university regulations, external examiners do not sample the work with students present; with the artefacts presented by the staff. Some opportunity might be made available for students and external examiners to engage in a dialogue about the course having regards the student experience. The Board learned later that there is a meeting between final year students and the external examiners. It is intended to extend this to other years in future.

• The external examiners have encouraged the course team to be more explicit about the different experiences offered by the modular and integrated pathways to prospective students

• Externals found the feedback and grading system useful. It is helpful to the students and demonstrates strengths and weaknesses in a different way than a single aggregated mark. The grading spectrum is sufficiently broad and is now well established. It is competence oriented, more accurate and less open to dispute. Processes for achieving a distinction are clear.

• There are concerns that resourcing for part-time staff and visiting specialists might be vulnerable in the event of any possible future financial constraints.

13.7 Students; The Board was pleased to meet students from both

pathways of the graduating cohort of the M.Arch. The Board was interested in exploring their perceptions forming the first cohort of a new programme in the newly established School.

The following reflects the main points of the discussion:


12

• Students observed that a clear identity for the course was still emerging but this was to be expected as the School was newly established and had inherited two identities which have not yet combined. They believed there was a distinct difference in approach between the pathways and the split site contributed distinction

• Students appreciated the option to take one of two different pathways. However, although elements are taught in common at present there is no real relationship between the different pathways; more collaboration and sight of each other’s work would be welcome. Similarly, more formal integration with or collaborative working with other departments and the opportunity to see the work of those departments would also be a positive development.

• Staff are approachable and accessible; this is facilitated by the small cohort numbers. Although students believed that staff were overstretched, they still had one-to-one tutorials every week.

• Assessment processes were understood; levels of feedback varied between the modular and integrated pathways and areas of work within the pathways. Timing and sequencing of feedback might usefully be reviewed. The modular pathway had a regular series of crits; students on the integrated pathway had been directed more through a series of one-to-one tutorials.

• Students would appreciate more external criticism or more formal internal crits. They value external opinion of the staff and their peers in developing their design work

• Students enjoyed group work and found it a valuable learning experience. There was some discussion about parity between group members and the need to ensure

that individual contributions were appropriately identified and assessed.

• The freedom to design within a framework afforded by the briefs and one to one discussion in M.Arch was welcomed and considered a strength, although it appeared that briefs on the modular pathway were clearer than those on the integrated pathway.

• Timing and sequencing of specialist technical input might be improved although there was access to in-house staff who might be consulted.

• Current workshop facilities were excellent, but access to the whole range of facilities would be welcome (students had enjoyed a concrete and glass summer workshop).

• Students were confident their comments were listened to. There are clear systems of feedback from students to the School.

13.8 Staff; The Board met academic staff from ESALA and thanks

them for a helpful and informative meeting. The meeting was helpful in the Board’s consideration of matters such as the School’s ethos and identity, integration, the consideration of technology and matters of groupworking. The following reflects the main points of the discussion:

The transitional period has been stressful as staff have

continued to teach on the established Part One and Two programmes offered separately by ECA and Edinburgh. The range of programmes running concurrently with the School, institutional mergers, along with the development and implementation of new programmes of architecture and staff changes have created real challenges for the staff team. It is commendable that in a changing context the


13

staff team have continued to make the student experience so rewarding.

Staff can be proud that the quality of student work has been maintained through a time of administrative and bureaucratic change.

The formation of the new Edinburgh College of Art is

seen as an exciting venture. Within this ESALA, offering a range of programmes, will be a powerful entity. Some staff felt the identity of the School is still nascent and under discussion. There was a feeling that inclusion of Landscape will enhance the distinct offer. Pre-alignment, each School had a distinct offer; the desire is to continue to provide student choice but this must be clearly defined. The cultivation of research and teaching linkages is seen as essential.

eca and Edinburgh University Architecture and Landscape

Architecture performed very well in the 2008 RAE. There is great potential to build upon this with the breadth of possible research synergies in the merged institution, and the M.Arch could provide a means to facilitate this.

Staff would welcome further opportunities for

conversations about common areas of teaching as there has been so much administrative and structural change. There have also been changes of staff in terms of programme direction. There seems much potential in the opportunity for cross-collaboration across the disciplines of the new academic structure. Developing the M.Arch pathways may provide opportunity for greater across cognate disciplines.

Staff predicted that ESALA students’ work will be varied, displaying a consistent standard across a variety of routes.

The Board was interested in discussing the provision of

technology teaching. The Board noted that a recent appointment has been made in this area which augured well for the future. Currently it seemed that the technology input varies between integrated and modular pathways. The programme leader acknowledged that the School was aware of this variation and that prior to the next academic session the team were intending to reconsider the teaching strategy in respect of technology, and in particular matters as they relate to current sustainability issues.

The current staff:student ratio is 1:19. Currently the

involvement of part-time/visiting staff has enhanced the student experience and bridged between practice and academia. External examiners expressed a concern that budgets to support this external provision might be vulnerable to any reduction in resourcing. The Board endorsed the value that external practitioner input has in the academic arena in the context of this professional course.

13.9 Research: There was a strong research ethos in the School which

tended towards the humanities and arts aspects of architecture and aligned with other parallel postgraduate taught courses in the college. Research activities seemed to inform, and be informed by teaching and the Board felt this to be a clear strength of the School. Staff reported strong recruitment into PhDs and awards for students recruited from the M.Arch.


14

The Board noted how the merger of the two institutions

had enabled a joint highly successful RAE submission. The Board noted the School’s plans for the forthcoming REF submission which were encouraging.

13.10 Equal Opportunities: Appropriate equal opportunities processes are in place.

The University operates a ‘Pathway to the professions’ scheme, covering law, medicine, veterinary science and architecture. This takes a proactive approach towards Schools which have no tradition of sending students to the university. The effects of this have been observed by the School in the increasing diversity of intake at M.Arch

13.11 Resourcing and facilities ESALA students have access to a considerable range of

excellent facilities at Lauriston Place (ECA) and Chambers Street (University of Edinburgh). Studios are based on both sites. It is possible that the School may, in future, be relocated but this has not yet been confirmed.

- Workshops Students benefit from excellent workshops at Chambers

Street and good support, advice and assistance from the technicians. The Lauriston Place site (ECA) also has an architecture model-making room. Since the merger, students have access to workshops on both sites and may consult specialists in areas such as jewellery. Students hope that in future they may gain access to the other specialist workshops at ECA. M.Arch students may also use the material research workshop. The ECA workshop is due to be extended.

- IT The McGovern Media Centre at Chambers Street provides

a wide range of scanning, printing, and photographic services. There is a large reprographics unit at Lauriston Place.

- Library Chambers Street benefits from an in-house specialist

library, serving architecture, construction, planning and urban design, landscape architecture and history of art among other areas. The collection numbers 22000 printed volumes, 100 architectural journals and an image library of over 100000 slides, as well as DVDs and all student dissertations. This is complemented by the ECA library, to which students have parallel access. This houses over 85000 books, of which 20000 volumes cover architecture and related subjects, as well as journals, dvds and audio recordings. Staff deliver library and information skills tutoring and inductions. The Liaison librarian sits on the academic boards to ensure the collection meets students’ needs. Students may also use the main university library.

. 14. Documentation

The School provided all documentation before and during the visit as required under the Procedures for Validation.

Documents

Report of the RIBA Visiting Board to the University of ... · Report of the RIBA Visiting Board to the University of Edinburgh ... new RIBA Criteria for Validation ... 9.1 RIBA recognition