The Dangers of Abolishing Level 7 Apprenticeships: A Threat to Architecture and Education by James Ewen, Executive Director, Apt
The UK government’s recent proposal to abolish funding for Level 7 apprenticeships — equivalent to a Master’s degree — poses a serious threat to the architectural profession and the future of inclusive, accessible education. For practices like Apt, which has actively supported apprenticeship pathways, this move risks undoing years of progress in diversifying and strengthening the architectural workforce.
Architecture remains one of the most financially and academically demanding routes into any profession, typically requiring at least seven years of combined academic and practical training. The traditional path is prohibitively expensive for many, especially those from underrepresented or less affluent backgrounds.
Apprenticeships at Level 6 and Level 7 have helped address this imbalance. They allow aspiring architects to earn while they learn, combining academic study with hands-on experience in practice. These routes create a more inclusive and financially sustainable model for architectural education, aligning with the broader industry push for greater equity and accessibility.
At Apt, we introduced our first Level 6 architectural apprentices in partnership with London South Bank University in 2021 and have successfully lobbied to increase the number of Level 6 places available in the UK, with the practice employing three Level 6 apprentices thus far.
Two of our apprentices, Holly McLean (2021 intake) and James McNamara (2023 intake) have gone from strength to strength in their development, proving the power of this alternative pathway.
In Holly’s case, she is set to graduate shortly with exemplary grades and was recognised with a prestigious RIBA London Student Award in her third year, presented to her at 66 Portland Place — a testament to her talent, hard work, and the effectiveness of the apprenticeship model.
Through apprenticeships, the practice is not just nurturing skilled designers — we are shaping resilient, work-ready professionals who contribute meaningfully to our studio and the wider built environment. We have championed these schemes for their ability to remove barriers and widen access to the profession, creating real opportunities for young people to learn, contribute, and grow without the burden of debt.
While Level 6 apprenticeships provide a vital starting point (equivalent to an undergraduate degree and RIBA Part 1), Level 7 is critical to seeing students through to full qualification (Parts 2 and 3). Removing this route would effectively strand talented young professionals midway through their journey — undermining years of effort and removing a proven path to chartership. As an example, having now completed four years, Holly has already been accepted by LSBU for her Level 7 and as a studio we have committed to supporting the next stage of her development. If this route were no longer available, where would this leave her?
But Level 7 apprenticeships aren’t just about access; they are about excellence. By integrating work and study, apprentices develop deep practical knowledge alongside academic learning — a balance that many employers and educators agree produces highly capable professionals. It is this balance which is often missing from Part 2 and 3 graduates who have followed a more traditional path to qualification and where theoretical knowledge is not always underpinned by suitable experience. In a sector facing challenges ranging from housing shortages to climate-responsive design, we cannot afford to stifle the next generation of architectural thinkers and leaders.
The abolition of Level 7 apprenticeship funding would signal a regressive step, limiting opportunities and weakening the pipeline of future architects at a time when the built environment urgently needs fresh talent and diverse perspectives. It contradicts the government’s stated goals on skills, growth, and levelling up.
At Apt, we have seen the immense value apprenticeships bring — to individuals, to our practice, and to the profession. We urge policymakers to protect and invest in these pathways, rather than dismantle them. For architecture to remain relevant, inclusive, and equipped for the future, it must remain accessible to all — not just those who can afford it.
Share
