• Image versus substance: In a pure competition model, issues of marketing can rise to the foreground pushing issues of substance to the background. This would violate one of the primary purposes of education – the critical examination of the substance and boundaries of knowledge.
  
• Exploitation due to the pursuit of power or commerce: We have all witnessed too many colleges that survive with inadequate resources and faculty, and still claim authority to award degrees. Many of these colleges exist because of selfish motives of the promoters – either financial profit generated through capitation and other fees, or the status and power that are attached to running an institution. This situation is allowed to survive in the Indian environment where conventional thinking often sees a professional degree as nothing more than a passport to financial promise. 
  
• Coherence of the discipline: Architecture, as a discipline, is a means of understanding, interrogating and constructing the built environment. It provides these means because it coheres as a discipline. To survive as a discipline it must have a set of shared epistemologies, knowledge, propositions, methodologies and skills. It is not necessary that these be fixed or unquestionable – it is only necessary that they become the locus of a set of shared practices. A regulatory process can ensure that the colleges of architecture in a region come together to examine such shared practices.
• Challenge posed by an external audit: A well-constructed process of external audit is a useful means of stimulating quality and renewal.

From agkm Fri Jan 16 13:19:29 +0500 2004 From: agkm Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:19:29 +0500 Subject: Flexible Benchmarks Message-ID: <20040116124929+0500@www.architexturez.net>

We also need to regulate to establish benchmarks that translate societal/professional aspirations. These can change over time, and of course, can be different from region to region. These benchmarks are useful to both the Schools to make goals, and for society at large to assess their preferences while selecting institutions for education.

From unknown Fri Apr 2 17:22:54 +0500 2004 From: Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 17:22:54 +0500 Subject: Implementing Change Message-ID: <20040402165254+0500@www.architexturez.net>

Since this paper apparently welcomes thoughts and responses to it, I would do so as what I am – a twenty-five year old architect fresh out of an education system he has taken far too long to navigate.

[..WHY REGULATE AT ALL?..]

In addition to the ‘Why Regulate’ and the ‘what’ of it, some of which has been discussed in the subsequent sections, I think there might be a need for a ‘How’ section as well. What I mean is, that there are certain individuals/bodies/groups/organizations who stand to gain from the current state of things. The ‘excellent’ ones, who are at the top, the present regulatory bodies, the ‘selfish’ promoters….. Part of this paper [formally of informally] might need to look at identifying these possible deterrents, the exact aspects of this paper which might make them deterrent, and the ‘how’ of circumnavigating them. Part of the ‘how’ might also entail listing like-minded people, who together as a mass would be adequate to influence policy, without having to get into the gory politics of it.

From PremChandavarkar Fri Apr 2 17:41:28 +0500 2004 From: Prem Chandavarkar Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 17:41:28 +0500 Subject: Implementing Change Message-ID: In-reply-to: <20040402165254+0500@www.architexturez.net>

Sounds interesting - please elaborate on this. Would be good to know your specific thoughts.