Continuing the conversation, Dr. Prabjoth Kaur expands on the reasons behind her back and forth with the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) and the Council of Architecture (COA) in defending her case for a mid-level exit in education, and she deems that the norms are standardized on an undemocratic base. She goes on to compare and reason the balance between ‘successful practitioners’ and architecture graduates, as well as goes into depth about the current state of architectural education according to her findings about the Council. She delves into her own journey towards success in teaching, starting with undertaking an M.Ed, and the capitalist nature of the abundant educational opportunities available today. About how the postgraduate programs remain unaffected by the Council’s influence, she discusses the prospect of how far one can improve a graduate’s career outcome under a well-guided system. She speaks from her five-year experience of practicing, her learnings from the work performance of young graduates, and the lack of appropriate training in architecture institutions provided as ‘closed silos’. On the prospect of publishing her findings on the drawbacks of higher education in architecture in India, she describes her struggles with language and overcoming them. In her time studying at Chandigarh College of Architecture (CCA), she speaks of the instrumental role of the faculty and training she benefited from largely as compared to the state of education currently. She talks about passing on to her students various understandings, such as how to design execution should be given importance over learning design. She closes the session by remarking on the sex ratio in her batch at CCA, their interactions, and engagements that she remembers fondly.