The notion of flexibility in architectural education is the subject of fresh and vital debate. This debate is based on whether flexibility is achieved by the inner dynamics of architecture, or the external dynamics that have a broader impact on it. However this debate seems null and void since the dynamics of both sides seem to necessitate flexibility in architectural education at almost the same level. Hence the attitude that the prerequisite for creating flexibility according to the inner dynamics of architecture depends on the protection of architectural education from the coercive effects of external dynamics is no longer a relevant issue. Furthermore, architectural education as a role model in such a debate becomes more important not only in a monotyping global context but also in the local social context as well. Herein lies a fundamental dichotomy arising from the fact that because of globalization - if the Bologna Process can be seen as a reflection of it - curricula may face the risk of becoming uniform. However, what actually causes the notion of flexibility to arise in architectural education is the debate itself.Any effort to overcome this dichotomy in such a debate seems vital. For instance, omitting certain topics from the context of this dichotomy first and the creation of a flexible context aftermath would be a viable option in such a process. However, then the question arises whether such a dichotomy, which turns architectural education from an autonomous discipline into a quasi-autonomous one, makes architectural education into a rather political issue. Moreover, it should also be kept in mind that such a transformation may have inevitable or even unpredictable results. It is also possible to conclude that such a transformation may put architectural education into a more conservative position. As long as the issue of flexibility in architectural education based on curricula and globalization is discussed, the role of architectural education in social structure will be questioned. In terms of globalization, there is a debate on how local preferences respond to the notion of globalization.If the autonomous nature of architectural education resists globalization, the question of the manner in which this resistance occurs and what impact it will have on architectural education seems of the utmost importance. Forum IV on Architectural Education with the theme "Flexibility in Architectural Education" was as an activity in which the architectural education platform is cross-examined, new ideas and experiences are shared, and the potentials of "regeneration" are discovered. The volume presents works of Juhani Pallasmaa, Kim Dovey, Kojin Karatani; from global and local perspectives works of Herman Neuckermans, Conall O Cathain, Mark Olweny, Ugur Tanyeli, Ferhan Yurekli, Gulsun Saglamer, Fatma Erkok, Rengin Unver, Cigdem Polatoglu, S.Mujdem Vural focus on Flexibility in Architectural Curricula, where works of Iris Aravot, Acalya Allmer, Sigrun Prahl, Aslihan Senel, Sevgi Turkkan, Burcin Kurtuncu, Sait Ali Koknar, Ozlem Berber, Funda Uz Sonmez, Akin Sevinc, Danelle Briscoe, Kurt Gouwy, Aydan Balamir, Mine Ozkar, Basak Ucar, Semra Arslan Selcuk, Arzu Gonenc Sorguc, Sema Alacam, Gulen Cagdas, Esra Gurbuz, Urs Hirschberg, and Ahu Sokmenoglu focus on flexibility in architecture design studios.