"The design process in Architecture has been described as:'The performing of a very complicated act of faith" -'Jones, (1966)'. Various attempts have been made to construct 'maps' of the design process. Unfortunately, most of the route remains hidden - for it is what goes in the designers mind that really matters. 'Lawson, (1982)'. Most recent work on design has been derived by methodologists who tend to logically describe sequences of activity relationships which imply the broad generalisation that design can be characterised as a choreography of events. This position is descriptive rather than experimental and does not differentiate between individuals and what they actually do. Work on differences between designers has been undertaken by Mackinnon on the basis of personality traits. There is little evidence of experimental work which attempts to describe the implications of other DIFFERENCES which exist between designers. To assess learning outcomes in design based Courses in Architecture, there should be some understanding of these differences. At present, our teaching methods address everyone with the same criteria and consequently fail to recognise the differences that exist in abilities. This is further complicated by the differences that exist between assessors where their expectations and thereby assessment of achievement are often different. One of the critical issues is whether or not the abilities of individuals to design are significantly different, and if they are, what the implications may be. The application of practical knowledge to design tasks is a skill which depends on a sophisticated understanding of the issues involved. Distinguishing between the ability to apply knowledge and the ability to design requires clarification of what we mean by design. It is a contention of the author that design is an activity which demands more than the ability to apply practical knowledge, that it requires the ability to transform rather than restate knowledge, that replication alone cannot be considered as design. The following observation from Professor Symmes (1989) identifies a paradox which has persisted in architecture. "Many of the problems of architectural design education stem from the fact that its content is broad and much of it naturally directed towards practical ends. There is a stress on skills and techniques which puts them in constant tension with abstract and theoretical knowledge." This statement implies that differences in outcomes may be attributable to the differences in demands between the application of known or established understanding and other less tangible concepts. The statement does not however address the more fundamental issue."