People who say that architecture education isn't fit for purpose are ignoring the many educators and students addressing very real issues, says Sean Griffiths in defence of the current system.

Architecture education is once again under attack. Patrik Schumacher condemns its "art school" model as ill-suited to the production of practice-ready architects. Meanwhile, others decry the iniquities of the "master-led" unit system that dominates education in the UK.
It's too expensive and is at the root of a mental health crisis amongst over-worked and under-resourced students who, when not working all-nighters, lie awake fearing for their futures, they claim. And those of us who educate architects are narcissistic egoists pursuing idiosyncratic research projects unrelated to reality, for whom students are nothing but an endless stream of guinea pigs forced to pay to be experimented upon. While the RIBA wants to reform it to death, a large section of the profession thinks that educators are failing at our sole task, to train students for practice. This group forgets that many of us are practitioners too. They also forget that two years of an architect's education are spent in practice in order to train for practice. If there are deficiencies here, some in the profession might benefit from looking closer to home. The students they employ might reap the rewards too.
This caricature of architecture education is not one I recognise. Yes, some tutors continue to tre...