Why the Part 3 Exam is Broken (and How We Can Fix It)

For anyone pursuing a career in architecture in the UK, the Part 3 examination is often seen as the final hurdle. It’s the big one—the culmination of years spent poring over drawings, balancing academic study with real-world experience, and probably sacrificing more than a few social events along the way. But while the Part 3 is undoubtedly a significant milestone, one has to ask: is it still fit for purpose in the rapidly changing world of architecture?

It is clear that architecture as a profession is currently going through a bit of crisis in which professionals are realising that their skills can receive better remuneration in other fields, where companies are being left behind by the speed of technology combined with the reluctance to be part of the innovation wave and where projects are requiring a level of sustainable design unapplied previously at this scale. So what role does the Part 3 play in all of this?

Let’s talk about it.

🚩 The Problem with Part 3

The Part 3 examination is meant to test whether a candidate is ready to join the profession as a competent, ethical, and skilled architect. Sounds reasonable, right? But here’s the catch: the way it’s structured is rooted in tradition rather than the dynamic, interdisciplinary, and ever-changing demands of modern architectural practice.

First off, the examination process prioritizes theoretical knowledge over practical, hands-on skills. Sure, you’ll be asked about contracts, professional conduct, and other essentials, but does it really prepare you for the messy, collaborative reality of working in a team to deliver projects under tight deadlines and shifting priorities? Not so much. Also, if you already went through the steps of working on a project to get to this point, and you learned about the process of delivering buildings, what else does it give you more than a stamp of approval?

The format itself—comprising case studies, written exams, and a formal oral assessment—is very much focused on individual performance. Yet in practice, architecture is all about collaboration. You’re rarely working solo; instead, you’re bouncing ideas off colleagues, engineers, clients, and consultants. Shouldn’t the assessment reflect that reality? I am not advocating for a architect as a master builder, although that would allow us to extract more money from the project pot, but the level of dynamic collaboration taking place in any project, I would argue, teaches one more than the Part 3 could ever cover in one academic year.

And let’s not ignore the financial and logistical barriers. For candidates who aren’t embedded in a supportive architectural practice, preparing for Part 3 can be overwhelming. Producing a case study, for instance, assumes you have access to suitable projects and resources, leaving independent candidates or those transitioning from academia at a significant disadvantage. This is not even considering smaller practices which sometimes have minor works that could do well as a case study but start and stop for years, leaving candidates in limbo, not knowing if to jump ship or stick with it.

🍂 Time for Reform: What Needs to Change?

If the Part 3 examination is to remain relevant, it needs a major rethink. Luckily, recent developments in architectural education reform offer some promising ideas. The Architects Registration Board (ARB) has been shaking things up with its Tomorrow’s Architects initiative, which outlines a more flexible and inclusive approach to training and assessing architects. Here are a few principles we could adopt for the Part 3 reform:

Holistic and Contextual Assessment

Modern architectural practice is not a one-size-fits-all profession. We need an assessment model that’s holistic, considering a candidate’s ability to integrate design, technical knowledge, and professional ethics in real-world contexts. This means moving beyond isolated modules and encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration. Why not incorporate team-based case studies or collaborative design challenges into the assessment?

The ARB’s new framework, which focuses on competencies rather than rigid criteria, is a step in the right direction. Instead of assessing what you’ve learned in a prescriptive way, it evaluates what you can actually do—a much more realistic measure of readiness for professional practice.
Accessibility and Inclusion

Here’s the thing: the traditional Part 3 examination creates unnecessary barriers for candidates who aren’t working in a traditional architectural office. This needs to change. ARB’s recent consultation highlighted that the current pathway is particularly exclusionary to candidates from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds or those without strong professional networks.

One solution could be creating alternative routes to qualification. For instance, mentorship programs or experiential learning platforms could help bridge the gap for candidates working independently or outside of traditional firms. The ARB’s move toward diversifying accreditation standards, including recognising experience from a wider variety of contexts, is a much-needed step forward.
Ethics and Sustainability as Core Competencies

The climate emergency, social inequality, and the demand for more sustainable built environments are pressing concerns that architects must address head-on. The ARB has recognized this by introducing competencies focused on sustainability and ethical practice in their updated educational framework. The Part 3 examination could take a similar approach by emphasizing these issues, ensuring that candidates are prepared to lead with integrity and responsibility.
Flexibility and Modern Assessment Methods

Why are we still relying so heavily on oral exams and written submissions? The architectural profession is embracing digital tools, BIM, and collaborative platforms—so why isn’t our assessment methodology evolving with the times? Imagine a Part 3 where candidates submit digital portfolios or demonstrate their skills through virtual simulations or peer-reviewed projects. These methods would not only be more engaging but also far more relevant to the way architecture is practiced today.

👩‍💼 What About Practices?

It’s not just the candidates who are affected by the outdated Part 3 process—architecture practices bear a heavy burden, too. Mentoring candidates, allocating resources for case study projects, and preparing them for the examination is time-consuming and costly. While many practices see this as an investment in the profession’s future, it’s not sustainable for smaller firms or independent architects.

ARB’s consultation suggests that we might soon see a more equitable distribution of responsibilities. Their proposed commission to review practical professional experience requirements could lead to less reliance on formal mentorship in offices, opening up space for shared resources and community-driven learning.

💸 Let’s Talk Money

One of the most common critiques of the Part 3 is its cost. Between course fees, study materials, and the time off work needed to prepare, candidates often find themselves shelling out thousands of pounds. When you consider that architecture is already an expensive profession to enter (hello, student debt!), compensation per hours worked is what it is, and the cost of living crisis crippling people not over a certain annual income, the financial strain of the Part 3 feels like an unnecessary burden. A burden that turns out to be the last straw for many professionals.

Reforms could make the process more cost-effective. Streamlining the assessment process and incorporating it into earlier stages of education—another idea floated in ARB’s reform plans—could reduce the financial and time commitment required for qualification. One other idea that is bounding in my head is making the Part 3 free. Companies and professionals are already paying a large amount to the ARB (and RIBA) on a yearly basis for ... no idea for what. What if some of that money is allocated towards something more tangible, rather then the usual 'it costs to set up events'.

🕊️ A Glimmer of Hope: ARB’s New Vision

The good news is that change is on the horizon. In its Tomorrow’s Architects initiative, the ARB proposes a shift from the rigid Parts 1, 2, and 3 system to a more competency-based model. The goal is to ensure that every candidate—regardless of background—has a fair shot at becoming an architect. By focusing on what architects should be able to do, rather than prescribing exactly how they should be trained, the ARB is laying the groundwork for a more inclusive and forward-thinking profession.

Alan Kershaw, Chair of the ARB, emphasized the importance of modernizing architectural education to reflect the diverse challenges of contemporary practice. It’s encouraging to see the ARB acknowledging the barriers created by the current system and committing to more equitable solutions. This is a small step but it is in the right direction. It gives hope that a self-assessment is being undertaken and the need for change is acknowledged.

⏭️ What’s Next?

Reforming the Part 3 examination isn’t just about improving the experience for candidates; it’s about safeguarding the future of the profession. Architects are problem-solvers at heart. If we can reimagine buildings, cities, and systems, why not reimagine the way we qualify and assess our future leaders?

The ARB’s reforms are a step in the right direction, but they’re just the beginning. As a profession, we need to keep pushing for an assessment model that values collaboration, diversity, and adaptability—qualities that are essential for architects navigating the challenges of the 21st century.

We have been left in the dust of a dynamic world which values quick-to-adapt companies and professions. We must stop the self-indulgency of complaining that others are not solving our industry's issues and start working towards making the changes that we want to see in the world. It will take time so the best moment to start was yesterday. The second best is today.

So, what do you think? How would you reimagine the Part 3 examination? Let’s keep the conversation going—because the future of architecture depends on it.