What do you think of a patient who goes to consult a cardiologist to ask about a urinary tract problem? His argument is that both hold a medical degree and graduated from the same college, right? And what do you think of someone who goes to roadside clinics in India to treat dental problems without certificates, without appointments, and using primitive tools? His argument is that experience is more important than certification. Indeed, why spend more money? Why obtain certificates at all? Why expand into detailed fields? The matter depends on experience; all we need are forceps, clips, a hammer, and a nail to extract teeth, plus a bit of skill and dexterity. By analogy, let's ride the wave of urban planning with the same logic: what do you think of someone who provides solutions and strategies for cities based on experience without having studied urban planning? The matter is simple: all we need is to attend some courses, read a set of books, and understand some theories, right? Everyone is capable of practicing the profession of 'urban planning' by maneuvering, so to speak, and thus cities become a stage for experiments accommodating everyone. In fact, every profession cannot be practiced without professional accreditation, or so it is hoped. Accreditation is obtained after passing the initial qualification stage in the field. Professional associations are supposed to regulate the profession, set the necessary standards for its practice, protect the rights of members of the specialty, and protect them. Some professional associations also require their members to pass screening tests before issuing practice permits. For example, an electrical engineer is not called an electrical engineer until obtaining a degree in electrical engineering. An orthopedic surgeon does not get the title until obtaining a degree from the orthopedic surgery department and passing the specialty exam, and then he can continue his detailed studies to become a specialist in upper limbs, lower limbs, or pediatric orthopedics. As for urban planning, some say that its study can be limited to postgraduate studies without a scientific foundation, as there is no need for extensive undergraduate studies, as they see it. But can obtaining a higher degree replace the foundation stage? I see that postgraduate studies in general are a stage of research expansion in which the student learns the principles of 'academic reading and writing' and does not present projects, field practices, or extensive sciences as in the bachelor's stage. Urban planning is one of the essential disciplines aimed at improving society and developing cities in a sustainable manner, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is witnessing an urban boom, urban development projects, and extensive urban transformation. Cities today have become the main driver of economic growth, enhancing quality of life and sustainability, and the perspective of urban planning is no longer limited to land use distribution or the number of technical plans as some believe; rather, it is a strategic tool and a policy to guide development, increase spending efficiency, and adapt to global transformations. However, despite this expansion, there is still a clear gap between the number of practitioners and university graduates in this specialty compared to the scale of urban transformations we are witnessing. This prompts me to ask: How can we expect creative future outcomes for cities if some practitioners in this precise field do not hold a qualification in urban planning? Amazingly, some blame planning and get its title wrong, like someone who constantly visits a cardiologist for urinary tract treatment?