Abstract:

International exchange in architecture and planning has a century’s long history and has undoubtedly provided for both the rich cultural heritage in contemporary cities and their identities. But it was the context of the 20th century that triggered the level of international exchange in planning and design for the physical structure of the cities. Simultaneously the processes of specialization in the two professions evolved as well as the regulations and requirements for accessing the professional practice.

Now architects and planners often work in a global context – in international companies, on international projects, with international teams and partners. The bond to the national context in terms of national regulations on construction and planning that used to shape the education for the two professions a few decades ago seem to be of less importance to the students who often do not live, study and work on the same place – city, state or even continent. This attitude is strengthened by the development of the ideas for internationalization of education and the opportunities for student mobilities and exchange. As a result the educational programmes face the dilemma between the two needs of the future practitioners – whether to provide for their rapid integration in the professional practice, which is predetermined by the specific national contexts, or to focus on the set of knowledge and skills that would allow for professional mobility across countries and different fields of professional specializations.

Following the impacts of the Bologna Process and the creation of the European Higher Education Area, the development of the Erasmus+ programme and the international exchange of students under bilateral agreements, the paper aims to outline the level of internationalization of the education in architecture and planning in UACEG (University of Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geodesy – the the oldest and largest higher education institution in Bulgaria, where the education in the two professional fields in the country was established). The study is based on a purposefully elaborated framework incorporating the internationally adopted sets of core competencies for each of the two professions and a scale of three levels of transferability. The conclusions call for arguments in favour of the need for internationalized workforce of young architects and planners and for educational programmes that allow young graduates to easily integrate into the global context of their profession.

Keywords:

Education for architecture and planning, student mobility, professional mobility, internationalization of education, globalized workforce.