The present position with respect to admission criteria to architecture courses in the country is an outcome of the cumulative wisdom contributed at the previous Workshops on Architectural Education. It is therefore, imperative that a retrospective view is cast before the present situation is brought under review. While change may be considered as a sign of development, change for the sake of change is undesirable.


The Baroda Workshop can be considered as a pioneering effort, being the first of such workshops. This Workshop was held at a time when the nature of the high-school education was undergoing a complete overhaul. The 10+2 format was introduced in many states and under serious consideration in others. The Central Board of Secondary Education had adopted it.

This Workshop, as it can be seen in the hindsight, made recommendations, which are ‘landmarks’. It was agreed that the intake to architecture courses can be made at the 10+2 level, i.e., after 12 years of schooling and from the so-called ‘science stream’.

The alternatives, which were considered but not finally agreed, were:

  1. Intake after the 10th standard — where the student will be younger, more ‘malleable’ (not hardened by physics, chemistry and maths)
  2. Intake after the 12th standard — where the student ay be drawn from other streams such as Commerce or Arts
  3. Intake at any suitable level but having opted for subjects such as applied art, painting, drawing or technical subjects.

There was profound discussion on each alternative.


The Workshop on Architectural Education held at Hyderabad deliberated mainly on the document called the ‘Minimum Standards of Architectural Education’.

The Council of Architecture mainly on the justification and validity of norms already prescribed the emphasis of this workshop.

The norm of keeping the intake level at 12th standard with Science stream was once again justified as appropriate. The basis of justification, as elaborately brought out, was …

  1. Architecture courses have to be at par with other technology courses in the country where admissions were made after the 12th standard with the science stream.
  2. Courses taking off from the 10th standard level were generally compared with ‘polytechnic’ level and as such, lower in the public esteem as ‘non-university degree level’
  3. The Grant-in-aid formula adopted by the State and Central Govts was generous for the ‘Degree level’ technical education etc., etc.

As such, the present norm of admission eligibility is prescribed as “12+PCM”.


The workshop held in 1991, at Goregaon, Bombay was mainly concerned with the rapid changes in the field of Technical Education and the diversifications offered by the emerging fields of technical education.

Although, consensus, if at al reached, is not available in form of any Resolution of the Workshop, it is understood that many important and relevant issues were discussed:

  1. It is about time to reconsider the various norms, which have now become conventional
  2. Imaginative but appropriate means of securing students motivated to architecture studies need to be thought of
  3. Duration of architectural studies, traditionally to be 5 years, also needs to be reconsidered in view of rapid development of post-graduate education and specialisation
  4. A ‘freedom of format’ could be considered for such institutions which have attained sufficient academic maturity


The issues now before this workshop—especially relevant to the topic of this paper, therefore, are as follows:

  1. What intake level/s are now visualised?
    1. 10th standard + pre-architecture course
    2. Open intake after 12th standard
    3. Continue the present intake
    4. Any other?
  2. Selection/Elimination process at entry level
    1. Direct admission on entry qualification
    2. (a) plus a locally devised entrance/aptitude test
    3. Through competitive test for other engineering courses—at a state or national level
    4. Through speciality/custom designed tests at local/state or national levels
    5. Any other?