Following the announcement made by the government in May, funding for Level 7 apprenticeship qualifications will be withdrawn for those over the age of 21 from January 2026, a move which may lump firms with millions of pounds in fees, if they continue to offer the training at all.

With 89 per cent of all Level 7 apprentices aged 22 or over, the government’s decision to restrict its support will reportedly cost UK employers around £214 million to make up the funding shortfall.

Students, teachers and industry figures have criticised the move, saying it will torpedo one of the most accessible routes into architecture and raising the prospect of a profession increasingly available only to those with the passion, patience and money to afford it.

Stephen Drew, founder of online careers platform Architecture Social, described the government’s decision at the time of the announcement as ‘an act of vandalism on an already-fragile talent pipeline’.

And last week former RIBA president Angela Brady came out in opposition to the government’s decision, backing a letter signed by trainee architects at the University of Kent citing ‘urgent concern’ for pathways into the industry.

As the letter says, the new, more restrictive criteria ‘particularly disadvantage career-changers, mature students and those from non-traditional backgrounds – exactly the groups we should be encouraging into the built environment [sector]’.

Peter Wislocki, director of architecture studies at the University of Kent, told the AJ the cuts were likely to make an already unsustainable situation worse, placing another barrier across the route to becoming an architect.

‘This may literally make it impossible for the majority of the population to gain registration as an architect’

He said: ‘Level 7 apprenticeships are pretty much the only option available to the majority of averagely wealthy students. This may literally make it impossible for the majority of the population to gain registration as an architect.’

Wislocki pointed out that, although funding would remain available to those with undergraduate degrees by the age of 21, it will strip away the option for anyone who didn’t go straight into studying architecture at 18.

He told the AJ: ‘It will clearly exclude anybody who has had a gap year or for whatever reason has got slightly behind the curve from getting the funding – and therefore, presumably, being offered an apprenticeship.

‘That’s very unfortunate – and quite arbitrary, as someone who is just a few months too old would not get the funding.’

For Wislocki, this discussion speaks to a larger, more fundamental problem in architecture education.

He argues that the staggering investments of time and money that architecture training demands is putting a lot of young, talented people off the industry as a whole.

He said: ‘Clearly there are some students funding their way through university who are who are abandoning architectural careers at a relatively early stage, because another couple of years paying fees in excess of £9,000 is just too much to afford.

‘To get through five years of full-time studies puts most newly registered architects in about £100,000 of debt. So, when you look at the average salaries that recently qualified architects command, you would basically have to live on nothing, with no tax, to pay off your debt in about three years.’

Many of the students in Wislocki’s class feel the same way, some even going as far as to doubt whether they would still be pursuing architecture if not for the apprenticeship funding.

Ryan Gentry, 32

Ryan Gentry helped organise a letter to the government signed by his classmates in protest of the funding cuts

Ryan Gentry, a 32-year-old Level 7 apprentice and one of the organisers of the protest letter at Kent, told the AJ that he was deeply concerned for the next generation of architects.

Gentry said: ‘[The funding decision] is going to stop a lot of people from qualifying in their tracks, especially people from diverse backgrounds, purely on the basis that they cannot afford it.

‘If it were not for [apprenticeship funding], I literally would not have been able to do what I am doing.’

Gentry described a difficult journey through education. After completing an undergraduate degree unrelated to architecture, he was, he said, lucky to take on a Part 1 course at all.

He worked three days a week while studying full-time, after which his ‘only option’ was to get onto an apprenticeship course and benefit from the available funding. He is now working for Turner Jackson Day Associates, a firm he says could not have afforded to take him on as an apprentice without financial assistance.

Gentry’s story is a common one among young, trainee architects.

Harry Munro, 25

Harry Munro is sceptical that he would still be studying architecture at all if not for apprenticeship funding

Harry Munro, 25, is also studying at Level 7 in an apprenticeship role with the University of Kent. He made the decision to pursue architecture as a creative but ‘secure career path’, with an established job role at the end of studying that would likely yield ‘good money’.

Munro told the AJ he was concerned both for his own future and that of the industry as a whole.

He said: ‘I am very pessimistic about the future of the architects in this country.

‘The level of debt that students have to take on does not marry up with the salary that you will receive as an architect.’

‘The effect will be fewer architects coming into the industry in the future and a profession which is vital to improving the quality and safety of our buildings will become a dying profession.’

Contrary to his initial hopes, he admits that, after spending ‘about 10 years’ in education and ‘going up to £100,000 in debt’, at the end of it all ‘[he will be] lucky to get a £35,000 salary’.

Without apprenticeship funding, Munro believes that he would not be in the position he is today. The firm he works for, he believes, could not have afforded to take him on without government support.

As things stand, firms with wage bills of more than £3 million a year have to pay a tax equivalent to 0.5 per cent of their wage bill into the Apprenticeship Levy.

But smaller architecture practices – and, currently, 98 per cent of UK companies – don’t pay the levy. Instead they have to come up with 5 per cent of the cost of training their apprentices, which is paid directly to the university providing the training. The government pays the remaining 95 per cent for each eligible apprentice.

William Cook, 24

William Cook is worried for the future of the industry, as he follows in his grandfathers footsteps in becoming an architect

Another Kent student, William Cook, said he was inspired to follow a similar path to his architect grandfather.

The 24-year-old told the AJ his pathway through education had been made considerably easier by the availability of apprenticeship funding.

Cook already had a job as an architectural assistant for his Part 1, so convincing his firm to take him on as an apprentice was not a hard sell. Without government support, however, he is doubtful it would have been so easy, or even possible at all.

Cook said: ‘Without the apprenticeship it is very unlikely that I would be in the process of reaching the next stages of qualification, as becoming a full-time masters student is not financially viable for me.

‘I like to stay optimistic. People will find a way to achieve a positive future for the industry. However, I can’t deny the worries I have.’

Now that apprenticeships have been made a less likely prospect for budding architects and employers can no longer get their new hires qualified at a discount, many may have to turn towards less traditionally structured degrees to integrate education with industry.

Alternatives do exist. Universities including Bath, Sheffield and Cardiff, for example, offer the opportunity to complete postgraduate study alongside part or even full-time work.

Emilia Rapacioli, 23

Emilia Rapacioli is on one such Part 2 course at Cardiff University, describing it as an efficient option to blend work and study, even if heavily time-consuming and challenging.

The 23-year-old works at London-based practice shedkm full-time while using her evenings and weekends to study for a masters degree. This means she takes home a full salary, as the university work does not impact what she is able to deliver for the company.

Emilia Rapacioli saw little other option than to work full time while studying for her master level qualification

For these benefits, however, taking on both a full-time job while completing a rigorous academic degree demands an almost total dedication to the cause – a lifestyle some may find off-putting.

Rapacioli told the AJ that this was one of the only options she felt was available after completing her undergraduate degree. Trying to find an assistant position was nearly impossible, due to stiff competition and little incentive for firms to attract inexperienced students who will leave after one year to study full-time.

She said this difficultly tempted some of her fellow student to abandon the profession all together.

She said: ‘It was so hard to find a job at that stage and think that it really deterred some people from continuing with architecture, along with the low salaries and all their expenses.

‘They can go into another profession; transfer their skills; find a job quicker and get paid better. Why wouldn’t you, if you’re not absolutely passionate about becoming an architect?’

Many are saying that the whole pathway into architecture needs a more fundamental transformation to better bring the expectations of employers into harmony with the needs of students.

When asked who should be spearheading efforts to make such a change, Wislocki emphasised that there existed a ‘combined responsibility’.

He concluded: ‘To improve the whole situation would require an effort on the part of employers and universities and students. It takes two to tango, and it’s not going to happen unless all sides actually take the time and come together.’

The proposed changes come into force in Janary 2026.