From Crisis to Opportunity: Reframing the Future for Architecture Graduates

Ola Obadara is Senior Vice President of the Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB). With more than 25 years’ experience in property development, she is Group Director for Property Projects at the City of London Corporation, where she oversees construction projects across the City. Ola became a CIOB member in 2003 and was awarded Fellowship in 2021. She holds a bachelor’s degree in architecture from London South Bank University and a master’s degree from the University of Westminster. She is also a Board Member at London South Bank University, supporting skills development and future talent pipelines into the built environment.

A recent Architects’ Journal article reported that this year’s architecture graduates are entering one of the toughest job markets in 10 to 15 years. Whilst the article does not entirely blame AI, it notes that it is a contributing factor.  I agree that whilst AI may be adding pressure to an already challenging job market in most sectors, architecture graduates have been struggling to find roles in architecture practices for several years.

Two contributing issues have been building since the late 1990s, the number of architecture graduates rising faster than suitable vacancies, and concerns about architecture graduates having the skills needed for practice. Data suggests that architecture courses in the UK grew by around 40% in the last 25 years, pointing to a capacity challenge that was developing well before AI.

This reflects my own experience. When I graduated at the turn of the millennium, securing a position was difficult, vacancies were limited and the application process demanding. In my graduating year, fewer than half of the students secured architecture specific roles. Rejections were frequent, and personally, I lost count of the times that, after reviewing my portfolio at an interview for junior architectural roles, practices suggested I considered receptionist or administrative roles instead. Tempting, as in most cases, those roles paid more than the architectural positions I was actually applying for.

The application process was also difficult, time consuming and in some ways, shaped by industry connections over ability. Emailing portfolios was not yet an option, so we relied on adverts in the trade press, speculative phone calls and physically carrying our large A1 portfolio folders around in the hope that a practice would give us a break.

Securing a position in practice was only the first challenge, meeting the practical demands of the job was the next. I had the architectural training but was not fully

prepared for employment. My knowledge of building regulations, specifications and working details was limited, and my AutoCAD skills were not yet practice-ready.

This led to a steep learning curve, with extremely long hours spent catching up on these essential skills.

Architecture schools have long been criticised for producing graduates who are not fully prepared for practice, with teaching often prioritising design thinking and conceptual development over employment-ready skills. One of the highest scoring submissions in my year came from a friend who, rather than presenting detailed drawings and a building model as most of the students did, installed balloons along a corridor so lecturers had to squeeze through them and reflect on the experience of navigating a difficult space.

That experience made me question what we were being taught, and I found myself agreeing with some of the criticism directed at education architecture schools were providing. A recent conversation with the Executive Dean of my former architecture school made me reconsider. His point was that the real value of architecture education lies in teaching students to think critically, innovate, challenge the norm and imagine what does not yet exist. Those skills, he argued, are worth more than simply learning to draw or replicate established designs. The conversation highlighted the broader and possibly more relevant point for graduates today – with AI accelerating, the skills that will hold the greatest long-term value is the ability to think, not just to produce drawings.

A final point in support of architecture graduates, is that architecture students work extremely hard and are not always given enough credit for the intensity of the course. It is highly demanding because of the pressure of costly materials, critiques and studio projects which can be gruelling. It is no surprise it has one of the highest university course dropout rates. Yet these experiences also build resilience, creative thinking and problem-solving skills that are highly valued across the industry.

So perhaps architecture schools have been ahead of their time. In an AI-enabled world, students need more than technical knowhow, they need to learn how to think critically, creatively and adaptively. Those skills are valuable well beyond traditional architectural practice. An architecture degree provides a strong foundation for careers across the built environment, property and digital sectors, equipping graduates for strategic, technical and other creative roles.

My closing message to architecture students and to graduates struggling to secure a position in practice, there are many opportunities where your skills are highly sought after and relevant, it is also likely, AI may create even more. The CIOB identifies around 50 distinct professional roles across the built environment, many offering fulfilling, varied and, according to industry surveys, often better-paid career paths.