It is no longer necessary [and probably hasn't been for years] to attend a school to receive and education from it, if an education is the acquisition of knowledge and not just a piece of paper that you are handed at the end of a stage.
This is something I've been turning over since I first started university in 2005. Over the years I've seen a shocking amount of bovine inanity where there are supposed to be critically thinking scholars. The easiest answer is that many universities are, and have been for a long time, an enterprise for profitability instead of educational institutions for the propagation of knowledge. There remains the possibility to be educated... but there also remains the possibility to just 'get what you paid for' (which is the route that many choose).
As for the statement:
They hold up ideas of collaboration as a means to achieve something higher, and to a certain extent I believe they may be on to something, but involvement of other professions into architecture can be dangerous to the field itself.
I both agree and disagree. I think that the collaboration of professions and the culmination of ideas from many disciplines is to the benefit of design in general. I also think that if architects are THAT worried about the strength of architecture 'holding it's own' in collaboration with other disciplines, it is extremely 'telling' about the position of the discipline itself.
To me this problem is ultimately connected to the 'education' issue, in that, as with any university degree, one is very much able to go through university and become a 'certified' professional without having any idea of what that means. Congratulations, you graduated. Now what?
And so students merrily go along, believing that walls have mystical meaning and that they can do really well in life if they just pull 3 all-nighters before their final 'project' is due, and that they can use post-rationalization as the main method of figuring out what the crap they are imposing on humanity in their urban schemes.
Of course if you look at it this way, the future of the profession looks a little bleak.
But then we strike gold...
Architects often claim to have some sort of legitimate knowledge of other professions like engineering, Sociology, and Liberal Arts. Why not validate these claims through a more extensive education process that ultimately not only creates architects who design buildings, but professionals who have a grasp on the entire world around them.
See, it's really simple. Everyone gets it. Oh. Except the deans of the faculties and the self-important directors of curriculum. Remember, architecture is SO important! The basis of all society is architecture! Our world would not be what it is without architecture!
Whenever I hear another lecture about how architecture is the pillar of society, I want to hold my breath until I pass out.
The first time I heard this, I immediately thought 'no it's not. it's primary function is shelter. It's secondary function is as a medium for expressing a message.' It's very simple. But why have simple, when you can have complicated? Eh?
Maybe if instructors and professionals were ready to let go of the useless notion of architecture as some kind of noble art and would get down to the translation and passing-on of knowledge--including a specialized education in other disciplines--we'd have a shot at holding our own with the other professions instead of looking like slack-jawed yokels when people ask us 'So what is it that architects do...?
Architects: We look dour because our profession is in danger of being phased out by the creative geniuses behind LOLcats.