Sometimes I am curious to look at the curriculum of an architecture course, to try to understand how this absolute, indisputable and blatant regression in the results provided by the evolution of architectural technique was possible. The obsession with low cost does not seem to be enough to justify it, since even in European cities there are none where the modern part is visually superior to the old part. In short, modern architecture is uglier and less creative. What is this, then, that is being taught so that the professional, with better resources, produces something expressly worse?