The ruling on wether or not the institutionalization of architecture is a positive or negative was never touched upon. What is known is that at present institutions control information, at the same time they tend to be the producers of much of this information. On the other hand limited access to information is often seen as a bad thing, reinforcing hierarchies and creating exclusion. Many people complain that education debt is too high and has now surpassed credit card debt in America. I would say that with the advent of more affordable but less reputable online degrees the information preservation has been opened somewhat. I would go further to say that with the internet anyone has, to a degree, the amount of information needed to make informed decisions.
When comparing this structure in architecture to the field of medicine it is easy to make the comparison. Both deal with life and death issues, if a doctor fails someone dies and if architecture fails many die. However medicine’s information grasp has produced a negative side effect which is the enormous health care cost incurred as a result of paying for doctors. In architecture we can see how not having a grip on information has led to negative consequences as well. Less than 5% of new construction is done by architects and as a result the profession is overworked and underpaid with high unemployment rampant in the profession. It is clear that a balance needs to be struck but information control in the age of the internet is harder than ever to secure in the right balance.