This paper is not intended as a fully researched exploration into architecture course coverage, but an attempt to introduce debate regarding some concerns on the role and status of Computing and consumer participation in the hope that CAAD peers will discuss and reflect with other specialists. A number of commentaries on serious deficiencies in the education of architects point to poor take-up of computing into the curriculum and an almost disassociation of the eventual designed building user from decisions on the design. By comparison it seems easier to find architects today who involve clients almost throughout the design process and increasing competency and continuity of CAAD usage in practices. The few brief references to Schoolsi curricula are not formalised random studies. Certainly many excellent features will have been omitted. The intention is to start the debate. Finally a few directions are noted and some conclusions proffered. An argument is made for 3D CAAD models as the backbone and direct negotiating focus for design arbitration between consumer, designer [or students] and other professional collaborators in tesigning buildings, particularly where complex forms and spatial relationships are involved.