Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas talks about new trends in architecture and urban development, the end of the European city, the rise of Dubai, Russia and China, the obsession with XXXL and the difference between the people who design buildings for a living and "star architects."

 Rem Koolhaas's CCTV Tower in Beijing: "It looks different from every angle."

SPIEGEL: Mr. Koolhaas, you are designing buildings in Europe, the United States, the Persian Gulf and China. From which part of the world do you expect to see the strongest impulses for architecture and urban development emerging in the future?

Koolhaas: We have to draw some distinctions here. As far as the experience of building goes, the strongest impulse will undoubtedly come from China and the Middle East, and probably from India, as well. Things get more complex when it comes to thinking. The intellectual force of the West is still dominant, but other cultures are getting stronger. I expect that we will develop a new way of thinking in architecture and urban planning, and that less will be based on our models. There are many young, good architects in China. The unanswered question is whether our cooperation, this internationalization, will result in a common language of architecture, whether we will speak two different languages or whether there will be a mixture of the two.

SPIEGEL: At a recent talk in Dubai, you showed two slides. The first image was of a series of iconic skyscrapers that you, Zaha Hadid and other star architects designed. The second was of a collection of high-rise buildings designed by unknown architects. The images were surprisingly similar.

Koolhaas: I have a very hard time with the expression "star architect." It gives the impression of referring to people with no heart, egomaniacs who are constantly doing their thing, completely divorced from any context. I believe that this is a grotesque insult to members of a profession who -- to the extent that I know my colleagues -- go to great lengths to find the right thing, the appropriate thing, for each individual case. At the same time we are, of course, driven by the market -- and by developers who try to pin us down to certain forms. I have spent a lot of time thinking about the best way for us to escape this being pinned down to the purely formal. That's why I decided to simply demonstrate it: There is, in fact, no great difference between the buildings by "star architects" and those designed by others.

The Greek Orthodox Church says it wants to convert a 17th Century monastery into a prison for convicted clerics.

The Holy Synod has applied for permission to turn the Hrysopighi monastery in the southern Peloponnese peninsula into a correctional facility.

It hopes the recently convicted Bishop of Attica, Panteleimon, will be able to serve out his six-year sentence for embezzlement in the monastery.

The plan could later be extended to other errant priests, officials said.

Panteleimon, who is in his 70s, was convicted a month ago of embezzling around 200,000 euros ($317,000; £158,000) from a monastery under his jurisdiction.

Loud pop music in bars makes people drink more and down it more quickly, a study in France has shown.

Researchers watched young men who had ordered a glass of beer on a Saturday evening in two unnamed bars in western France. The drinkers were unaware they were being watched by the researchers, who had programmed the sound system to select randomly either a normal level of 72 decibels or a loud level of 88dB.

Nicolas Guéguen, Professor of Behavioural sciences at the Université de Bretagne-Sud, led the study. He said: "Previous research has shown that fast music can cause fast drinking, and that music versus no music can cause a person to spend more time in a bar. This is the first time that an experimental approach in a real context found the effects of loud music on alcohol consumption."

The results, published online in Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, show that the louder the music, the more swiftly the drinkers finished their beer, ordered more - or left.

The Sats fiasco reveals all that's wrongheaded about Labour education policy

If you are looking for the reason why Labour has spent more on education yet failed to improve it, look no further that the present - entirely predictable - crisis over Sats (Standard Assessment Tests). All three of the things that are wrong, foolish, and muddled about government education policy are evident.

First, the notion that if you hand anything at all over to the private sector, it will magically improve.

Second, that if you want to make teachers and schools perform better, you set them arbitrary targets, and kick them if the targets aren't met.

And third, that everything in education can be measured in crude tick-box forms, which can be completed by anyone who can read, because no sophisticated judgments are required.

How else could we have got to a situation where schools have to revolve round the demands simplistic little tests make on their pupils; where those tests can be marked by people who have no qualifications or experience in education; and these people can be employed at a pittance by an American company to do work that could be done far better, and with much greater understanding, by experienced and qualified people whom the British taxpayer already employs?

And that is not the worst of it. Our government not only insists on finding someone - anyone - from the private sector to do work that the public sector could do better and more cheaply; it then gives them a contract that means they can foul up badly and still not be fired without a golden goodbye of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money.

This isn't just about how they fail in education, this how they fail in everything.

keep to the Fen Causeway