Does Giles Oliver (letters, arq 5/3) mean to connect the success of the Tate Modern in ‘sucking in huge crowds’ with the success of architectural education? Both in his view seem suspect achievements. The Tate is not proper architecture — it is too brutish and poorly lit — while current architectural education avoids all that is proper to architecture. His message is that both public and consumer opinion counteth for nought in these matters. But what else have professionals ever said? Particularly the generations brought up to believe that unpopularity was architecture's native condition. Frankly I am rather encouraged by the popularity of supposedly arcane subjects like modern art, modern architecture and architectural education. At least we seem to be getting one thing right. Not that I am advocating complacency. Keeping anything alive in our management sodden culture is tricky, particularly the kind of creative team spirit required to make projects work.