Culling Australia's Architecture Academics

They just have to go

We've always felt that the Australian architecture schools were full of fat: lazy tenured academics serving out their time. Until now, we've had no data to back up our suspicions.

We used our extensive database on architecture academics to compile some statistics on how Australia compares to the rest of the English-speaking world.

As you can see in the tables below, the data is clear. The Everyone Else column includes the USA, the UK, Canada, New Zealand, the RSA, Hong Kong and Singapore. We have included a variety of measures (per capita, per PPP GDP, per architect) to show the consistency of the result.

One interpretation of the data is that Australia is blessed to have such a superabundance of architecture schools and academics. As opposed to medical schools and doctors, for example. We are not big believers in the theory that a fecundity of architecture academics makes a nation healthier, happier and wiser.

Nor do we believe that Australia's expansive geography requires a superadundance of taxpayer-funded professors. Canada is as vast, but does not carry the academic paunch that Australia does.

We have a more jaundiced view: Australian architecture schools are full of padding. Culling about one half of Australia's 300 senior academics would bring it in to line with the rest of the world. So: who's going?

The statistics