american institute of architectue students redesign of studio culture report_2002

The Redesign of Studio CultureA Report of the AIAS Studio Culture Task Force

The American Institute of Architecture Students

AIAS Studio Culture Task Force

Aaron KochKatherine Schwennsen, FAIAThomas A. DuttonDeanna Smith

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTURE STUDENTS1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW SUITE 300WASHINGTON, DC 20006202-626-7472www.aiasnatl.org

The AIAS is an independent, nonprofit, student-run organization with over 5,500 architecture anddesign student members across North America. Its mission is to promote excellence in architecturaleducation, training, and practice; to foster an appreciation of architecture and related disciplines; toenrich communities in a spirit of collaboration; and to organize students and combine their efforts toadvance the art and science of architecture.

COPYRIGHT 2002 AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTURE STUDENTS, INC.

Introduction 3

Studio Culture Critiqued 4

Describing Studio Culture 5

Current Aspects of Studio Culture 7

New Visions, Shared Values 19

A Call to Action 25

A New Program for the Design of Studio Culture 26

Afterword 27

The Redesign of Studio CultureA Report of the AIAS Studio Culture Task Force

December 2002

Those who have studied architecture undoubtedly havevivid memories that characterize their design studioexperience. Late nights, exciting projects, extremededication, lasting friendships, long hours, punishingcritiques, unpredictable events, a sense of community, andpersonal sacrifice all come to mind. Those aspects are notusually written into the curriculum or even the designassignments, but they are likely the most memorable andinfluential. The experiences, habits, and patterns foundwithin the architecture design studio make up what wehave termed “studio culture.”

Design studio teaches critical thinkingand creates an environment wherestudents are taught to question all thingsin order to create better designs

The design studio lies at the core of architecturaleducation. In architecture schools, studio coursescommand the most credit hours, the largest workloads, themost intensive time commitment from educators andstudents, and supreme importance. Studio courses areintended as the point of integration for all othercoursework and educational experiences. Accordingly, itis natural for studio courses and their environments tocreate their own culture. However, this culture too oftenbecomes an all-consuming aspect in the lives of students.

Design studio teaches critical thinking and creates anenvironment where students are taught to question allthings in order to create better designs. Criticalquestioning is encouraged, visionary schemes arerewarded, and design-thinking serves as the base forexploration. In this spirit, the Studio Culture Task Forceof the American Institute of Architecture Students releasesthe following report: to offer a critique on the currentpractices in design studio education.

To analyze current studio practices, we have attempted toframe this examination much like a design problem. Toaddress the critical issues facing architectural education,we must do what we do best: research, examine, critique,determine roles, and design.

Introduction

3 AIAS Studio Culture Task Force

it is natural for studio courses and theirenvironments to create their own culture.However, this culture too often becomesan all-consuming aspect in the lives ofstudents

The first part of this report, Studio Culture Critiqued,explores the current state of studio education, examinesoutside forces impacting architecture education, and callsfor change in studio culture. Describing Studio Cultureanalyzes the historical roots of studio culture, states aseries of myths prevalent within studio education, anddiscusses other elements that characterize this culture. Inthe section titled Current Aspects of Studio Culture, weprovide a more in-depth commentary on twelve topics thatwe feel most be questioned in order to design a moresuccessful studio culture. New Visions, Shared Valuesproposes five values, Optimism, Respect, Sharing,Engagement, and Innovation which we believe couldserve as the foundation for necessary change. In theportion titled, A Call to Action, we have suggested rolesthat students, educators, administrators, and organizationscan play in shaping a new future for architectureeducation. A New Program for the Design of StudioCulture lists a number of goals that can be embraced increating change. Finally, the Afterward section includes adescription of the process of the Studio Culture TaskForce’s efforts, acknowledgements to essential individuals,and a list of works cited.

As with any design problem, we must begin by identifyingthe roots of studio culture. How did we get to this point?What critical issues must we address? What context mustwe work within? What are the values that will guide futurechange? How can we accomplish desired results?

Studio Culture CritiquedThroughout the years, educators, administrators, anduniversities have designed the curriculum, learningobjectives, and the environments in which studio educationis taught. These design decisions were made to createcertain desirable outcomes in the development of students.We believe the use of design studios is an excellenteducational model, and a number of scholars havedocumented this belief (Schön, 1983; Boyer and Mitgang,1996). At its best, studio learning has many strengths.Few other disciplines have courses with such direct one-on-one interaction between faculty and students, wherebystudents receive immediate feedback on their work. Thestudio model offers tremendous potential for creativediscovery, exploration of ideas, critical discussions, andrisk-taking. As one faculty member suggested in hisresponse to the our call for perspectives, “Promoting andsupporting critical and synthetic thinking, exploring therelationship between the built environment and the largercultural context, the ability to create amidst uncertainty,the joy of making, the rewards of building one’s ownsensibility as a designer, opportunities for collaborationand working with ‘real life’ situations are just a fewattributes of successful design studios.”

Our task force believes in the potential of the studio modelin architectural education. We admit that we couldproduce an entire report focusing on the great values andstrengths of studio learning. However, that is not the focusof our efforts. Our goal is to question aspects that webelieve must be examined in order to strengthen studioculture.

one thing is clear: studio culture mustchange. We believe that change mustbegin now

The studio model has its own culture and values that are asinfluential in a student’s education as the actual projectsthey complete. In many cases, the habits and patternsexhibited in this culture are not the intentional product, buta byproduct. These byproducts can be very positive, butthey can also produce harmful results. Many scholars, likeThomas Dutton and Kathryn Anthony, have called theconsequences of this culture the “hidden curriculum” ofstudio learning. In simple terms, the hidden curriculumrefers to those unstated values, attitudes, and norms thatstem from the social relations of the school and classroomas well as the content of the course (Dutton, 1991). Habitsand culture are passed on throughout the years, andpatterns are built upon generations of students, educators,and practitioners.

Throughout this century, design studio culture has largelyremained the same. In fact, one of the roles of a culture isresistance to change (Fisher, 2000). At the very least, thechanges that have occurred do not begin to keep pace withthe changing nature of the world or the changing contextof architecture practice. There are more changes than wecould publish in a report, but we can say that the world isbecoming more complex, boundaries are eroding,information is flowing faster, and globalization is a part ofour everyday vocabulary. This directly affects studioculture.

Change is needed to produce healthier,more optimistic, and more engagingarchitecture school graduates

More specifically, architecture practice is undertakinglarge transformations. New technologies affect the wayspaces are designed, construction documents are produced,and even the methods of building fabrication. Clients aredemanding, and architects are delivering, an expanding setof services. In addition to traditional design andconstruction administration, architecture firms are offeringservices in business consulting, strategic planning, realestate development, web site design, and facilitymanagement, to name a few. The world of constructionhas also changed the options for delivering projects toclients. Design/build agreements with contractors areimpacting the role and control that architects have on theentire design process. Through it all, the cultural values ofarchitecture studios have largely withstood change.

Nevertheless, one thing is clear: studio culture mustchange. We believe that change must begin now.

Change is needed to produce healthier, more optimistic,and more engaging architecture school graduates. Changemust occur to proactively address the changes in the worldand practice. Change must happen to elevate the value ofarchitectural education. This change is crucial formembers of our discipline to increasingly servecommunities and lead in the creation of the builtenvironment.


Describing Studio CultureAttempting to define a culture is never an easy thing to do.It is especially difficult to define studio culture, but we canlearn a lot from describing it. Each design studio, eacharchitecture program, and each school has a differentculture. These differ from each other in significant ways.The discipline of architecture takes great pride in thediversity of its programs and teaching methodologies thatexist at over 115 schools within the United States alone.Despite this great diversity, there are uniform patterns ofbehavior that transcend each program.

Perhaps nothing is more revealing of stu-dio culture than the actions of its studentsto promote this culture.

How has this seemingly uniform studio culture formed?One method of getting at the answer is by examining thehistorical roots of design education. Many scholars andhistorians have documented the history of architecturaleducation. It is commonly understood that prior to the mid19th-century, architects were not educated in colleges oruniversities. Architectural education existed as anapprentice system where aspiring architects would serveunder the guidance of an experienced architect. With theadvent of the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris in 1850, aformal architectural education model developed. As manyAmericans graduated from the Ecole and returned to theU.S., they imported the philosophies to the first Americanschools, such as MIT and Columbia University. By the turnof the 20th-century, most schools had Beaux Arts-trainedprofessors, and the pedagogies of the Ecole were dominant(ACSA, p. 1).

There were many other influences on architecture programsas they evolved throughout the early 20th century. As existstoday, each campus had different conditions and culturalfactors that impacted the evolution of each architectureprogram. However, with the advent of Modernism,American architecture schools were greatly impacted. TheBauhaus, the German architecture school that only lastedfrom 1919 until 1933, had a large impact on Americaneducation when many of its instructors immigrated fromNazi Germany. Most notably, Walter Gropius went on toserve as the head of the architecture school at HarvardUniversity and Mies van der Rohe become the head of thearchitecture school at the Illinois Institute of Technology(ACSA, pp.1-2).

Studio culture can also be characterizedby the myths it perpetuates. These mythsinfluence the mentality of students andpromote certain behaviors and patterns

The fundamental ideas embedded within these primaryinfluences have shaped and sustained studio culture.Thomas Fisher, in an essay entitled, “Critiquing the DesignCulture,” analyzed the larger philosophies that serve as thebase for studio learning (Fisher, 2000). In his analysis ofthe influence of the Ecole des Beaux Arts and the Bauhaus,Fisher states:

Studio culture pedagogy originates, in part, from 18th

and 19th century French rationalism, which held thatthrough the analysis of precedent and the application ofreason we could arrive at a consensus about the truth ina given situation. This rationalism underlays theteaching methods of the Ecole des Beaux Arts, broughtto the first schools of architecture in the United States byarchitects such as William Ware and Richard MorrisHunt…. Many of the features of today’s design studio –the unquestioned authority of the critic, the long hours,the focus on schematic solutions, the rare discussion ofusers or clients – were begotten by that 150 year-oldsystem (pp. 69-70).

Overlaying this rational French tradition in thearchitectural culture is an idealistic German one…. Theattention paid to star designers, the focus on currentstyles, the striving for freedom from constraints, thehistoricist nature of architectural theory, and thetendency to polarize education and practice all echo theHegelian beliefs that history moves through the work ofa few great individuals, that every period has itscharacteristic styles, that history is moving towardsmaximizing the freedom of every person, and thatcultures progress by a process of synthesizing polarities(p. 70).


Studio culture can also be characterized by the myths itperpetuates. These myths influence the mentality ofstudents and promote certain behaviors and patterns. Thefollowing are myths that prevail within many designstudios if not within every school:

• Architectural education should require personal andphysical sacrifice

• The creation of architecture should be a solo, artisticstruggle

• The best students are those who spend the most hoursin studio

• Design studio courses are more important than otherarchitecture or liberal arts courses

• Success in architecture school is only attained byinvesting all of your energy in studio

• It is impossible to be a successful architect unless youexcel in the design studio

• Students should not have a life outside of architectureschool

• The best design ideas only come in the middle of thenight

• Creative energy only comes from the pressure ofdeadlines

• The best design ideas only come in the middle of thenight

• Creative energy only comes from the pressure ofdeadlines

• Students must devote themselves to studio in order tobelong to the architecture community

• Collaboration with other students means giving up thebest ideas

• It is more important to finish a few extra drawingsthan sleep or mentally prepare for the design review

• It is possible to learn about complex social andcultural issues while spending the majority of timesitting at a studio desk

• Students do not have the power to make changeswithin architecture programs or the design studio

We believe that these myths, in particular, should be ideasof the past. Embracing the ideas encompassed withinthese myths is sure to lead to emotional, physical, andcultural deprivation.

Perhaps nothing is more revealing of studio culture thanthe actions of its students to promote this culture. Issuesof studio culture are commonly made into items thatstudents use to create humor. From time to time, studentswill even forward emails to each other detailing “101Ways to Know You Are an Architecture Student.” At thetop of one list are, “you know all of the 24 hour foodplaces by heart”, “you spend your Friday nights in studio”,and “you slice your finger and the first thing you think

about is whether you’ll be able to finish your model.” Ifyou walk through any architecture school, it is common tosee students in t-shirts proclaiming slogans such as,“Architects do it all night long.” Why do architecturestudents so proudly display these aspects of studio cultureto friends, families, and others on campus?

All of these myths and byproducts reinforce Fisher’snotion about the fraternity aspect of studio, as described inhis 1991 editorial, “Patterns of Exploitation.” Acomponent of this fraternity aspect is the reputation thatnon-architecture students hold of architecture students.For many on campus, there is a belief that those who studyarchitecture are the crazy students who spend all of theirtime sequestered in that one building that is always well-lit.

In the past year, two major publications have printedarticles explicitly about the studio culture that exists withinour schools. The first was an article in The Chronicle ofHigher Education titled, “The Insane Little Bubble ofNonreality” (Monaghan, 2001). The other, “For Would-BeArchitects, Grad School Like Boot Camp” was publishedin the Chicago Tribune (Temkin, 2002). These titlesalmost speak for themselves. As one would imagine, thearticles focused on the intense workloads of architectureschool, isolation of architecture students, and thedisconnection of architectural education from largersociety.

The issues discussed up to this point of the report are onlya few that concern us. From the start of our investigation,we have focused our research and questioning on twelvetopics that we felt were crucial to the success ofarchitectural education. The following section provides acloser analysis of these topics and poses critical questionson additional topics. The viewpoints and ideas wereformulated through extensive dialogue with education andprofessional leaders, through observations at architectureschools, and through research by experts in thearchitecture discipline.


Current Aspects of Studio CultureSTUDENTS SHOULD LEAD BALANCED LIVESThe AIAS Studio Culture Task Force was formed inDecember of 2000 shortly after most schools in thecountry concluded final reviews for the semester. Afterone such review, a student died in a tragic car accidentwhile driving home after spending two consecutivesleepless nights working on his final project. He fellasleep at the wheel of his car and collided head-on with atruck. This terrible tragedy was not the first time anarchitecture student died in a car accident due to sleepdeprivation. Nearly ten years ago, Fisher described afrighteningly similar occurrence in the aforementioned,“Patterns of Exploitation.” In that article, Fisher wrote,“At issue is not the value or even the necessity of hardwork, commitment or dedication. There has never been,and probably never will be, a lack of that among studentsand recent graduates who are serious about becomingarchitects. The question is: When do we cross the fine linebetween hard work and exploitation?” (Fisher, 1991)

If we want professionals to lead balanced,healthy lives, we should not expect themto put off practicing that mindset untillater in life

Ten years later, our discipline is still asking that difficultquestion. When such exploitation does occur, the source isnot always clear. So, who or what is doing the exploiting?Is it the studio instructors? Could it be that students aredoing it to themselves? Or is there something deep withinthe culture that promotes unhealthy work habits?

Unhealthy work habits help define studioculture at too many schools

Fisher goes on to write, “There is the fraternity aspect ofarchitecture, where the pressure on students and interns, inparticular, becomes a kind of rite of passage or, lessgenerously, a weeding out of those unfit for membership inthe club.” (Fisher, 1991) Architectural education basedon the notion of survival and rite of passage should be anidea of the past. Within architectural education, we havewitnessed a student culture that takes pride indysfunctional behavior. Students brag about the number ofconsecutive “all-nighters” they survive, Exacto knife scarsare shown off like a badge of honor, and the “cool”students are those who spend the most time in studio.

Unhealthy work habits help define studio culture at toomany schools. In our examinations and visits toarchitecture schools, students consistently reported longhours in studio, poor sleeping habits, unhealthy eatingpatterns, and high levels of stress. While schools andeducators may not have intentionally created unhealthystudio environments, it is not apparent that there are manyefforts to promote against these consequences. AsKathryn Anthony stated in her landmark book DesignJuries on Trial, “While no one is forcing students to stayup all night, the current studio subculture encourages it.Studios are usually accessible 24 hours a day. Well-meaning professors sometimes offer criticism so late in theprocess that students have to stay up all night just toaddress their concerns (p. 40).”

When do we cross the fine line betweenhard work and exploitation?

Architectural education should be challenging, rigorous,and time-consuming. However, as one noted practitionerstated, “If we want professionals to lead balanced, healthylives, we should not expect them to put off practicing thatmindset until later in life.” Do our current practicespromote successful habits? Is too much focus placed onthe time spent in the design studio? Despite the difficultyof these questions, the answers must be sought andconsidered. The consequences of not doing so have beenfatal.


TIME IS MORE THAN A CONSTANTLY ENDANGERED RESOURCEStudio courses compose a learning model that is basedheavily on time emersion. Studio projects involve siteanalysis, research, designing, drawing, modeling,reflection, and group discussions; all of which are criticalelements that are very time intensive. The nature of studiocoursework is time consuming, therefore it is essential toexamine the critical aspect of time. At issue are theattitudes and values that architectural education places onthe notion of time.

We believe that the consideration of timeforces designers to be more creative intheir process

The majority of schools in this country, for example, givetheir students access to studios and computer facilities 24hours a day, seven days a week. With the ability forstudents to work on their projects at any point, time canquickly become a quantity that seems limitless. With moststudents, if they are given a day to complete a project; theytherefore think they have 24 hours to finish the necessarywork.

To eliminate this unhealthy mentality, many havesuggested that schools turn off the lights and lock thedoors at a reasonable time of night. This may be asuccessful tactic, but such a move tends to address thesymptoms of the problem without addressing theunderlying roots of the issues. If studios were locked atnight, what would prevent students from finding analternative space or working at home? To get at the coreof the issue of time, examination must focus on studentworkloads and the attitude towards time.

Many responses to our task force have also proposed that amajor solution to several of these issues would be to teachtime management skills. Most schools place littleemphasis on teaching these skills, and even fewer haveclasses directly dedicated to this topic. Students whomanage their time well typically perform much better thanthose who do not. Good time management usually leads tostronger design projects due to a more balanced workschedule and allowing time for reflection. Also, good timemanagers have more successful reviews because they haveallotted time to sleep as well as prepare for their oralpresentations.

Some have argued that emphasizing time managementlimits the creative process in education. We believe thatthe consideration of time forces designers to be morecreative in their process. Learning successful timemanagement skills is essential. Students must trulyunderstand the value of their time.

The professional world places a far higher value on time.Whether in architecture practice or any other discipline,people have a limited amount of time that must be utilizedcarefully in order to lead healthy professional and personallives. The value someone places on his or her timecorresponds directly to the value he or she places onlifestyle. To promote the value of time, we believe anincreased awareness of work habits and emphasis onsuccessfully utilizing time must exist in the design studio.

Is there a strong link between the valuearchitects place on their time and thevalue society places on the architecturediscipline?

What impact does this lack of value on time have onstudents upon graduation? When graduates are placed in aposition where every hour counts, the transition can be anoverwhelming adjustment. In many traditional designfirms, employees must bill every hour of their time to aspecific account. In the required architectural internshipprogram, the Intern Development Program (IDP),participants must record 5,600 hours of their work andtrack it among 16 specific training areas. Does the attitudetowards time that exists in design studios sufficientlyprepare students for the world they face upon graduation?What connection does the lack of value placed on timehave on the relatively low fees and wages found in thearchitecture profession? Is there a strong link between thevalue architects place on their time and the value societyplaces on the architecture discipline?


THERE IS A WORLD OUTSIDE OF THE DESIGN STUDIO“We were, first of all, concerned by the sense of social,physical, and intellectual isolation of architecture schoolson their own campuses” (Boyer and Mitgang, 1996).

The study of architecture is demanding. The developmentof a professional body of knowledge requires long hoursand intense reflection and application. As with allprofessions, specialized knowledge is contained in theoriesof the discipline, which are furthered and refuted bymembers of the profession. Both parties share specializedgraphic and verbal vocabularies. Unfortunately, all toooften in studio education, the real clients and communitiesare left out of the equation. To quantify this point, morethan 73 percent of students surveyed agreed that they“often feel isolated from others outside the architectureschool” according to 1996 Building Community report (p.92).

Cloistered into the captivity of studio, thestudio commands an increasingly greaterrole as the center of students’ social lives,and consequently, the world outsidestudio becomes less important

When students spend all of their waking time, and some oftheir sleeping time, with each other for four to six years, inthe same classes, in the same building, they becomedisconnected from the ubiquitous public they will serve.Too often, faculty members do not encourage or evenallow any unstructured time for students to developinterests and relationships outside of studio. This, in largepart, can lead to clients accusing the profession ofarrogance and ignorance.

To further illustrate our concerns about student insularityand isolation, we have included the following quotes fromnoted educators and practitioners:

“Repeatedly in our travels, we witnessed the estrangementof the academy and the profession, the isolation and stressof student life, the disconnection of architecture from otherdisciplines, and the inflexibility of the curriculum on manycampuses” (Boyer and Mitgang, p. 8).“The intense contact with studio-mates often makes itdifficult for design students to maintain their friendshipswith those in other fields. As many students haveadmitted, the more years they spend in design, the fewernon-design students they have as friends. Cloistered intothe captivity of studio, the studio commands anincreasingly greater role as the center of students’ sociallives, and consequently, the world outside studio becomesless important” (Katherine Anthony, p. 12).

“If we want professionals to be involved in theircommunities, we should make sure that we are instilling instudents a sense of involvement with others outside thearchitectural community” (Thompson Penney, FAIA, 2002AIA First Vice President).

“If you think about what you should be learning while inschool, it should extend well beyond studio to includemuch more outreach, rather than being sequestered in abuilding 24 hours a day. Any outside/non-architectureexperiences and knowledge that you gain are going to havethe greatest impact on your success. This broad, generalknowledge comes from greater university experiencesthrough outreach to other departments, lectures, andvisiting scholars, and many other things – not justarchitects or architecture” (Richard Quinn, FAIA, p. 48).


DESIGN IS THE INTEGRATION OF MANY PARTS“Architecture, by nature and tradition, holds vast potentialas a model for the integration and application of learning,largely because of its most distinctive feature – the designstudio. The integrative possibilities of studio extend farbeyond architecture” (Boyer and Mitgang, p. 85).

“At virtually all schools, design is quite rightly consideredthe heart of the curriculum. Still, the term ‘design,’ ascommonly used by architects and architecture educators,has taken on limited connotations, focusing more on theaesthetic and theoretical dimensions of design than on theintegrative nature of the process itself” (Boyer andMitgang, p. 73).

Here is the paradox of architectural education: Design iscorrectly the master value, for it is architecture’s approachto design that distinguishes architecture from other tradesand professions, and it is the design process that holds somuch potential for integrative learning. Yet design, asstudio courses narrowly define it, limits integration and isa rare commodity in practice.

“Most schools still are inclined to educate students as ifevery architect will be a designer….The conflict betweenthe hierarchical principle according to which architecturalwork is conducted and the inculcated idealized self-imagein terms of which the employees, who are architects, thinkof themselves generates all kinds of tensions in theindividual and within the firm. For example, a good manyof the human resource problems in firms are centeredaround the complaint of younger architects that they arenot given opportunities to contribute to the design ofprojects” (Gutman, p. 17).

at schools which offer studio sequencesthat allow students to leave school with anarrow base of architecture knowledge,there is too much studio

We must define design more broadly. Commodity andfirmness are of equal importance to delight. Others havesuggested that “Design Studio” be renamed “ArchitectureStudio.” Some programs attempt whole-scale integration,with all coursework tied to studios—or all studiosdependent on all other coursework. Other programs havedeveloped curricula with parallel, highly-coordinatedtracks; a history/theory/criticism sequence, for example,runs beside the technology and design sequences. Otherprograms, recognizing that integration is difficult while astudent is just gaining proficiency with a subject,purposefully insert studios with a focus on integration,utilizing knowledge that was to be gained earlier in thecurriculum.

“To the perennial question, then, ‘does the design studiotake up too much student time?’ our answer is this: atschools which offer studio sequences that allow students toleave school with a narrow base of architectureknowledge, there is too much studio. At schools which usethe studio to guide students through a gradually morecomplex and integrated exploration of architecture in itsmany dimensions –aesthetic, cultural, historic, practical,and technical – there can hardly be too much” (Boyer andMitgang, p. 88).


DESIGN PROCESS IS AS IMPORTANT AS PRODUCTOne of the most critical aspects of architectural educationis teaching design-thinking process. This ability hasenabled many architecture graduates to succeed intraditional practice or in other disciplines that they chooseto enter. The ability to view design as a process serves agraduate for a lifetime and withstands changes inarchitectural styles, materials, construction methods, andtechnology. These design-thinking skills allow architectsto build on their knowledge base and apply their abilitiesto an infinite number of applications. How effective is ourcurrent studio culture at developing graduates with strongdesign-thinking processes?

Does emphasis on appearance takeprecedence over the quality of ideas andthe process behind the design project?

With design as the core competency, architecture schoolgraduates have the vast potential to add tremendous valueto society through the design of a range of things fromproducts, buildings, businesses, and organizations to entirecommunities. Architects are using these skills to offermore services to clients, and recent graduates arecapitalizing on their knowledge to work in a large varietyof settings. The value of the discipline of architecture lieswith how effectively we prepare students to utilize thebroad applications of the process of design.

To what extent do our current studio practices and projectspromote the learning of process as a main objective? Ismore emphasis placed on design process or final product?We fear that the current studio culture rewards studentswith the “best looking” projects. Does emphasis onappearance take precedence over the quality of ideas andthe process behind the design project? Frequently inarchitecture schools, students without the ability toproduce the “best looking” projects are marginalized andundervalued. In reality, the creation of architectureinvolves many individuals who all have important ideas toshare and roles to play. Does our current individualisticstudio culture accept students who are not artisticallystrong, but may have strong design-process ideas and skillsthat will allow them to successfully practice architecture?

There also must be serious consideration concerning theimpact that digital technology and computers have onstudio culture and the learning of design process.Computers are clearly changing education and practice byoffering new tools for design and changing the way inwhich work is created. Digital technology offers exciting

new opportunities in graphic representation, visualization,and construction methods. At the same time, we fear thatcomputers may devalue the art and craft of architecture,decrease collaboration, isolate students, and emphasizeproduct over process. As the prominence of computersincreases, how will educators and students deal with thewide range of implications?

Without first-hand experience workingwith a client, do students graduate withthe necessary skills to practicearchitecture effectively?

Also inherent in a successful design process is theunderstanding of the world and the forces that impact themeaning and creation of design. Architecture embodiescultural and social values because every design impactspeople. Architects are able to design buildings becauseclients commission projects. In every design andarchitecture project, there is ultimately a user who willutilize the space or product. Without clients and users,there would be no architecture.

Despite this reality, most architecture schools place noemphasis on the role that clients and users play in thedesign process. In most studio projects, the client andusers are merely fictional characters described in thedesign problem handout. When students are notencouraged to consider the role of the user in the design ofa project, design habits and ideas are formulated bytheoretical explorations void of critical cultural and socialconsiderations. With the exception of some communitydesign, design/build, and service-learning projects,students rarely gain experience designing for a real personin school. Yet, upon graduation, students will be asked toenter a world where they must design for someone otherthan themselves or their instructors. Without first-handexperience working with a client, do students graduatewith the necessary skills to practice architectureeffectively?


COLLABORATION IS THE ART OF DESIGN“Most of us were taught in school to think of ourselves asindividualists and even encouraged to be iconoclasts. Oneresult of that individualism is that it has accustomed us tothink of ourselves as competitors, something morecharacteristic of a trade than a profession” (ThomasFisher, 2000, p. 30).

Architecture is a social art, involving countless voices andagendas. Its success is dependent on the application ofknowledge from multiple disciplines and perspectives. Weknow this, just as we know that the most complex ofcontemporary issues can only be addressed throughcollaborative efforts. Yet, much of architectural education“upholds the primacy of the autonomous designer byfocusing all its attention on the student’s experience as anindividual” (Cuff, 1991, p. 81). Students work side-by-side, but alone, often guarding their ideas from each other,competing for the attention of the studio critic. Groupprojects are most often limited to pre-design activities ofresearch, analysis, and site documentation. The syntheticprocesses of design, in which negotiation and collaborativeskills are most critical and difficult, are limited toindividual efforts. Through these practices weunintentionally teach that the contributions of otherdesigners, clients, consultants, and users are not valuablein the design process.

The need to increase collaboration withinstudio education must balance theimportance of individual studentdevelopment

Within an average architecture project, designers, drafters,project managers, business managers, clients, users,contractors, engineers and consultants regularly worktogether and share ideas in order to design a project.Within this process, countless acts of collaboration andcommunication must occur. Without this sharing ofknowledge, architecture would not exist. In fact, hardlyany professional work in any discipline could becompleted successfully without collaboration.

The need to increase collaboration within studio educationmust balance the importance of individual studentdevelopment. “The point is not to undo the role of theindividual in architecture, which would be bothundesirable as well as impossible. The individualprofessional will always remain central to design; we mustrecognize, however, that the individual acts in the context

of a larger and increasingly significant social environment.As such, the cult of the individual should not dominate ourbeliefs about practice any more than the collective or theteam” (Cuff, 1991, p. 251).

Individual learning, personal development, and masteryare crucial requisites of studio education. Augmentingthese individual skills with collaborative skills is a difficultchallenge in the studio. Student designers are nascent andinsecure in their capabilities. They often bring similar,rather than complementary, skills and knowledge to a teamproject. Hierarchies are difficult to establish andadminister, but necessary to get work done.

students would be better served bylearning about the value of collaboration

“If we want professionals to be confident, contributingleaders in society, we should take every care in makingsure that the educational system encourages confidence(not defensiveness), empathy (not self-centeredness), andteamwork (not a star mentality)” (Thompson Penney,FAIA, 2003 AIA President).

In the end, it is clear that students would be better servedby learning about the value of collaboration and thenegative effects of competition. As one educatorresponded to our inquiries, “No true leader works inisolation, no true leader would not listen before showingthe way, and no true leader imposes his or her ownindividual dreams.”


DESIGN IS INHERENTLY AN INTERDISCIPLINARY ACT“Making the connections, both within the architecturalcurriculum and between architecture and other disciplineson campus, is, we believe, the single most importantchallenge confronting architectural programs” (Boyer andMitgang, p. 85).

Architecture is a cultural discipline, giving form andshelter to the aspirations of diverse groups and individuals.Like scientists, architects rely on both a body ofknowledge and a method of inquiry and invention. Likeengineers, architects give form to function and applicationto materials and tools. And like artists, architects seepotential project futures and translate aspirations intoartifacts. The creation of architecture is a social act,involving a multiplicity of participants in design,development, execution, and occupancy. Yet, learning towork strategically — collaborating on innovativeapplications of new materials, tools, institutions orproducts — is not a tradition of architectural education.

architectural education must depend lesson skill-based learning and more on thedissemination of knowledge.

On any given project, architects must work with urbandesigners, interior designers, landscape architects,contractors, engineers, building consultants, publicofficials, and many other individuals. Despite theseobvious connections, few schools make serious efforts toexpose students to the disciplines. As importantly, on anytraditional college campus, there exist opportunities forarchitecture studios to collaborate with many disciplinesthat contain knowledge that is essential to the creation ofthe built environment. Architectural education would bewell served to make connection with programs on campussuch as sociology, business, English, art, public policy,political science, and social work. Not only would studentsbenefit through new knowledge, but they would also haveexperience interacting with those who will someday serveas future clients. By embracing the value of makinginterdisciplinary connections on campus, architecturaleducation can truly become a liberal arts education.

Twenty-first century architecturalproblems are complex, demanding multi-disciplinary responses and attention.

The essential interdisciplinary nature of architecturaldecision making is largely ignored by architecturaleducation. If future architects are to perceive newopportunities as well as give them form, architecturaleducation must depend less on skill-based learning andmore on the dissemination of knowledge. The criticalknowledge to be disseminated and assimilated is not allinternal to the discipline.

We live in an increasingly non-linear world in whicheverything is connected. Twenty-first century architecturalproblems are complex, demanding multi-disciplinaryresponses and attention. If architects are to remain thegeneralist leaders of design teams, they need to be able tounderstand the language of multiple disciplines and ofparticular areas of expertise. Education needs to offerstudents a broader base of ideas from which to draw,different ways of knowing, different methods of researchand analysis, and different approaches and attitudes.


EVEN EDUCATORS CAN LEARN“Faculty and visiting critics receive no formal training inhow to conduct juries, and more often than not, theysimply rely on the techniques their own professors usedwhen they were in school, however good or bad they mayhave been.” (Kathryn Anthony, Design Juries on Trial, p.4)

Considering that most architecture studio instructors wereeducated to serve as architects and not instructors, whatimpact does this have on the creation of our current studioculture? As Anthony points out, most instructors rely ontheir experience as architecture students to guide their ownteaching methods. This phenomenon would help explainwhy our current studio culture has essentially persisted inits same form throughout the education of generations ofarchitects. We raise concerns about teaching methods andthe structure of studio learning elsewhere in this report,and we fear that these concerns are directly impacted bythe preparation and experience that many instructorsreceive, or do not receive, prior to serving as a studioinstructor.

A primary concern of our task forceinvolves the level of preparation andcommunication that schools provide totheir instructors

The design studio has an inherent responsibility to preparestudents for architecture practice. Therefore, learning thefundamentals of design must be connected at some basiclevel to the realities of the architecture profession and theconstruction of buildings. At a fundamental level,successful instruction must incorporate knowledge aboutthe complex processes of real-world design application.To provide this knowledge, what experiences must aninstructor possess? We fear that many studio instructorsseparate the design from the practice experience that isvital to impart professional knowledge to design studentssuccessfully.

A primary concern of our task force involves the level ofpreparation and communication that schools provide totheir instructors. Academic institutions and architectureschools have specific missions and objectives that shapethe design of curricula, the design of studios, and thebroader aspects of instruction. When instructors areactively engaged within the academic community of theschool, there are many opportunities and avenues for theseindividuals to embrace these objectives and incorporatethem into their teaching methods. However, what are the

effects on studio culture when the instructors and criticsare not engaged in the academic life of the schools?

Without providing any preparation orguidance before critiques, there is nothingto ensure that the assessment environmentwill be a healthy and constructiveexperience for students

Many faculty members, full-time and part-time, donot make a concerted effort to align themselves withinstitutional missions. In fact many of these missionstatements are unclear to begin with. In particular,however, we are concerned about the preparation ofadjunct professors, visiting instructors, and guest criticswho come from outside the school and may not beconnected to these broader missions. Many respondents toour inquiries have communicated that many outsideinstructors are not connected to the larger goals of theschool and do not exhibit successful levels of preparation.We fear that this issue is of significant concern based onthe number of outside individuals who sit on designreviews and critiques. Without providing any preparationor guidance before critiques, there is nothing to ensure thatthe assessment environment will be a healthy andconstructive experience for students. Also, due to thecomplex nature of studio projects, it is difficult for outsideevaluators to evaluate student work fairly withoutsufficient explanation of the project objective and learningenvironment.

We believe that schools and instructors must seriouslyquestion and examine the methods of preparing instructorsto teach and critique studio projects. To what extentshould schools and the ACSA provide guidance on howbest to structure studio courses? Is there a formal methodof faculty mentoring that schools can develop? Withexposure to cultural-sensitivity training, would educatorscreate healthier studio environments? We believe answersto these questions must be sought, or else we fear that thestudio instruction techniques will continue to be derivedfrom an instructor’s experience as a student.


THE GOOD OF STUDENTS MUST PREVAILPerhaps one of the strangest ironies about the designstudio is that while it is the central experience of nearlyevery program in architectural education, it is also themost nebulous. Certainly one explanation for this mayderive from what Donald Schon perceptively called the“paradox and predicament of learning to design.” Hestated in his influential The Design Studio, “Initially, thestudent does not and cannot understand what designingmeans. He [sic] finds the artistry of thinking and doinglike an architect to be elusive, obscure, alien, andmysterious. Conversely, the studio master realizes that thestudents do not initially understand the essential things andcannot be told those things at the outset because thefundamental concepts of designing can be grasped only inthe context of the doing” (Schon, p. 55).

This paradox and predicament of learning to designdescribes provocatively the life in design studios. But towhat extent is this an issue inherently of design studios, oris this more a matter of the application of particularpedagogies?

In his interesting contribution to the ArchitectureEducation Study, Chris Argyris accomplished someimportant work that focused on the dynamics of the designstudio primarily in terms of the behaviors and verbalexchanges between teachers and students, and secondarilyon what was investigated as content (Argyris, pp. 551-660). As Thomas A. Dutton elaborated in his Voices inArchitectural Education: Cultural Politics and Pedagogy,four points became clear in this study. First, Argyris foundthat what was described and what actually happened indesign studios were usually quite different, often resultingin teaching behaviors that were unsound. Second, theinteraction between teachers and students wascharacterized by both groups as “striving to control thelearning environment.” This often set up a competitionbetween teachers and students, and among studentsthemselves. But given the power differential betweenstudents and teachers, students typically lost in theexchanges. Third, in this way, the studio setting became ateacher-centered experience, where learning design was“successful” only to the extent that students understoodand accepted their professors’ language and their frames ofreference. This reinforced a student dependency onteachers, where students tried to make connectionsbetween their issues and the teachers’ expectations.Fourth, and as a consequence of all this, teachers andstudents rarely questioned the assumptions and valuesunderlying their theoretical frameworks. In time, a“mastery/mystery game” emerged where “mystery beganto be taken as a symptom of mastery.” Argyris found that

rarely did teachers “help the students recognize the ideasand theories that were embedded in their work or makeexplicit their own ideas, or reflect about their work andthinking in a way that would help the students understandthe discovery-invention-production processes” of thedesign process (Dutton, pp. 165-194).

Pedagogy would be better understood asa learning theory based in a teachingtheory

Argyris’ analysis of competition, teacher dominance,student dependency, and mastery/mystery is a littlesobering, and these practices do more than simply silencestudent voice. As Lian Hurst Mann put it, “By challengingstudents to ‘suspend disbelief’ and have faith that masteryof the creative process is inherently mysterious, a processof uniniformed consent to the dominant culture of thepedagogue is institutionalized in architectural education”(Mann, p. 52).

Explaining learning is a responsibilityabout which professors ought to be moreexplicit

All of this raises larger questions about the roles andpractices of both teachers and students in constructing thestudio context. But, of course, professors need to take thelead role here and investigate questions that shed light ontheir responsibility to construct the environment forlearning. Pedagogy is a term that is often misunderstoodas referring to teaching technique or the act of instruction.Pedagogy would be better understood as a learning theorybased in a teaching theory. It is a theoretical frameworkthat explains learning.

Explaining learning is a responsibility about whichprofessors ought to be more explicit. At the very least thisshould entail syllabi that are clear about what is to belearned and the criteria for assessing that learning.Professors would also do well to confront directly any slipinto the game of mastery/mystery by exposing theirlanguage and frames of reference, thereby allowingstudents to relate to and challenge these; not to bedominated by them. By working towards a studio contextthat is clear in the promotion of learning, perhaps thestudio can become less nebulous.


GRADES CAN IMPEDE PRODUCTIVE ASSESSMENT“Human beings are born with the intrinsic motivation tolearn, to improve, to take pride in one’s work, toexperiment. Research suggests that learning and gradingactually work at cross-purposes because the bestmotivation for learning comes from a student’s intrinsiclevel of interest and not from the extrinsic force of grades”(Kuhn, 1999).

Grades have been associated with schooling for so longthat it is practically impossible to think of schoolingwithout them, yet a number of graduate architectureprograms like those at Oregon and Yale have abandonedthe A-F grading scale in studio courses in favor of a Pass/Fail system. However, a universal rethinking of the role ofgrades in contemporary schooling remains far from thehorizon, even given the mass of research evidence thatdemonstrates the counterproductive role of grades inadvancing learning.

We fear that grades tend to heighten individualism andcompetition. They thus tend to rupture relationships andreduce the capacity for collaboration. This runs counter tothe evidence that the quality of learning is typically muchhigher when the context is carefully structuredcollaboratively.

All learning needs assessment of sometype and the question here is whethergrades provide enough breadth and depthof feedback for real learning to take place

Grades are a form of control and shift responsibility forlearning from students to the professor. They enforcecompliance and unwittingly reinforce the pervasiveideology of “do what the professor wants.” Hence, webelieve grades reduce risk-taking, reinforce conformity,and generally lead students to avoid challengingthemselves in the studio. Reinforced by this frame of mindis a pedagogy of transmission, where students areperceived as having deficits and it becomes theresponsibility of the professor to fix those deficits.Similarly, all evaluation rests with the professor, therebyundermining procedures for students to learn modes ofself-assessment and self-criticism.

All learning needs assessment of some type and thequestion here is whether grades provide enough breadthand depth of feedback for real learning to take place. Toooften, grades are used exclusively without other forms ofassessment—they become substitutes for the kind offeedback and evaluation needed for intellectual growth.As one researcher put it, “A grade is a uni-dimensionalsymbol into which multi-dimensional phenomena havebeen incorporated” (Milton, Pollio, and Eison, 1986).This is especially problematic for the design studio.

Grading should not be conflated withassessment. They are entirely different

A challenging studio learning environment contains manyaspects: relating knowledge to student experience andvision, a multiplicity of pedagogical and learning styles, avariety of student-faculty and student-student encounters,an ability to take risks, and an opportunity to share powerto construct new knowledge and transform thinking. Ifthese are some of the activities that compose challenginglearning environments, to what extent are suchenvironments undermined by the practice of grading?Grading should not be conflated with assessment. Theyare entirely different.


CRITIQUES ARE LEARNING EXPERIENCES, NOT TARGET PRACTICE“Despite the apparent progress in ridding most schools ofegregious abuses, communication problems remain inmany juries. Too often, the proceedings seem almostKafkaesque – a sleep-deprived student facing a panel ofinquisitors, with the “right” answers so subjective as to beunknown” (Boyer and Mitgang, p. 94).

Criticism is an important form ofassessment for learning. Our concern iswith how the function or role of criticismis socially organized, and hence whatkind of learning is privileged by thatparticular social setting

Outside of the individual desk critique, the formal reviewmay be the most ubiquitous social behavior of the studioculture. As Anthony writes in Design Juries on Trial,“Although they may be called reviews or critiques, withfew exceptions, the format of design juries is virtually thesame in every design school in the English-speakingworld” (p. 3). The question is, why?

We wonder if the formal review model isjust too overused; that it has become theone answer for all forms of learning

Our concern here is not to question the value of criticismper se in assessing student design work. Criticism is animportant form of assessment for learning. Our concern iswith how the function or role of criticism is sociallyorganized, and hence what kind of learning is privilegedby that particular social setting. In other words, what isthe hidden curriculum of the formal review, where jurors(typically professors) sit in the front row, students in theback, and the presenter stands in front of his/her project?What is learned in this kind of context regardless of theactual content of the project? Is this a context supportiveof dialogue? Equal exchange? Is this context an exampleof a democratic practice?

Currently many juries and critiques serveas opportunities to reinforce theinadequacies of student work, rather thanto build upon that which is more thanadequate

Facing these questions head-on hopefully can encourageprofessors and students to construct other kinds of settingsthat in turn will nurture other social forms of criticism totake root. We wonder if the formal review model is justtoo overused; that it has become the one answer for allforms of learning. “Presenting” and “defending” are twoactivities the formal review privileges very well. But theseactivities may not be what students need early on in thedesign phase, for example. It may be that another kind ofcontext needs constructing to facilitate criticism that ismore reflective and active, or dialogical, etc. This meansunderstanding what kind of learning is needed for studentsat a particular moment and then designing a context for thedelivery of criticism to meet that need.

Currently many juries and critiques serve as opportunitiesto reinforce the inadequacies of student work, rather thanto build upon that which is more than adequate. Webelieve that the role of juries should be to serve as acelebration of student work, as well as benchmarks forgrowth. This cultural shift would provide a process thatdoes not end in the demeaning of students. It would end inthe recognition of their accomplishments and what is leftto achieve.


TO DESIGN FOR MANY, PARTS OF ALL MUST BE INCLUDEDOver the span of the last decade, progress has been madein airing questions about diversity in architecturaleducation. Certainly there have been advances inscholarship, evidenced by the rising production of books,articles, and initiatives around diversity andmulticulturalism in architectural discourse. The extent towhich this production has been swift enough is open todebate. But it was in 1993 that Kathryn Anthony andBradford Grant, co-editors of a special sub-theme issue inthe Journal of Architectural Education, wrote that “Issuesof race, multiculturalism, and to a lesser extent, genderhave traditionally been overlooked in architecturaleducation.” Anthony and Grant did note that “interest ingender and multicultural issues is on the rise” (P. 2).

What, if any, has been the extent of this change upon theculture of the design studio? No one doubts that designprofessionals need to function more effectively within amulticultural society, and thus students and faculty shouldreceive more exposure to theories, research, andexperiences that increase multicultural sensitivity. But thedesign studio, like any institution, is not free of therelations and forces of the larger society. That is, it willreproduce those systems of belief and relations that thelarger society values.

Acceptance of all individuals regardlessof race, gender, creed, religion, sexuality,socio-economic background, or physicaldisability must be sought

Of course, reproducing the cultural and racial capital ofthe dominant society is not all that the studio does, andmany professors work against such reproduction. But ourfear is that the inertia and machinations of the dominantideologies and practices that favor Eurocentrism, culturalchauvinism, individualism, hierarchy, and patriarchy inarchitectural schooling still reign. Our fear is that theculture of the design studio continues as a masculine andwhite-based landscape. If this is true, then the questionbecomes: is multicultural sensitivity enough? We wonderabout the extent to which curriculum, pedagogy, and theculture of the design studio need to be organized aroundpractices that are explicitly anti-sexist and anti-racist.

the design studio, like any institution, isnot free of the relations and forces of thelarger society

In addition to issues of race and gender, architecturaleducation constantly ignores other groups who are lessoften cited as minorities, but clearly qualify. Acceptance ofall individuals regardless of race, gender, creed, religion,sexuality, socio-economic background, or physicaldisability must be sought. Through exposure to thosegroups of people with whom we may be less familiar, thearchitecture discipline will be strengthened throughunderstanding how to design for everyone. There can beno argument as to the value of that experience.


New Visions, Shared ValuesTo design a healthy studio culture, we have laid forth fiveessential values: optimism, respect, sharing, engagement,and innovation. Every school has its own qualities andneeds that will ultimately govern how it creates a moresuccessful studio culture. One asset every school shares,however, is talented and energetic students who willembrace these shared values when they are embraced byfaculty members and school administrators. Instead ofoffering prescriptive recommendations, we have focusedon larger values and ideas that will enable schools toaddress holistically the critical issues they face.

First, we propose that design studios engrain in students aculture of optimism. We imagine a culture where studentsare optimistic about the skills they are learning, hopefulthat architecture can make a difference to society, andconfident that they will succeed within the profession or inany other discipline they choose. We also believe that it ispossible for educators to be optimistic in the potential ofarchitectural education to reach new levels of success.

Second, to promote a healthier studio learningenvironment, schools must create a culture of respect. Weenvision a climate where student health, constructivecritiques, the value of time, and democratic decision-making are all promoted. In addition, respect for ideas,diversity, and the physical space of studio are all essentialin order to enhance architectural education.Third, we believe that architecture studios should beknown for promoting a culture of sharing. With this valueat its core, studio learning will promote collaboration,interdisciplinary connections, and successful oral andwritten communication. By embracing this value, studioeducators can make the learning of architecture and designless mysterious. Architecture schools can also embracesharing as a way to play a larger role within largeruniversity communities.

Fourth, to realize enriched educational goals, studiolearning must promote a culture of engagement. Webelieve in the value of preparing students to serve asleaders within the profession and within communities. Toachieve this goal, students must engage communities andunderstand the necessity of embracing clients, users, andsocial issues. We also envision studio projects engagingthe expertise and opportunities presented throughpartnerships with architectural practitioners and experts inallied disciplines.

Fifth, to design an effective studio environmentsuccessfully, schools must support a culture of innovation.It is not sufficient to merely encourage innovation instudent design projects. We must encourage criticalthinking, foster risk taking, and promote the use ofalternative teaching methods to address creatively thecritical issues facing architectural education.


CULTURE OF OPTIMISMAs the designers of human environments, architects areinherently responsibility to produce spaces that upliftspirits, address social issues, protect the environment,provide safety, and improve the quality of life. As the lateSamuel Mockbee once said, “Architecture has to begreater than just architecture.” The idea that good designhas tremendous power to impact human life positively isan incredibly optimistic view. To reach the vast potentialthat this architecture holds, it is essential that our schoolsand studio courses exhibit a culture of optimism.

students must witness and evenexperience for themselves the power thatarchitecture has on society throughscholarship and by providing time andopportunities for student extracurricularefforts

Within architecture education, students have the potentialto develop broad understandings about a wide range ofissues, coupled with strong abilities in design.Furthermore, architecture education has the ability toproduce students confident that the infinite applications ofdesign-thinking have prepared them for architecturalpractice and a wide range of career possibilities. Toaccomplish this, students must witness and evenexperience for themselves the power that architecture hason society through scholarship and by providing time andopportunities for student extracurricular efforts.

With clarity about the overall goals andobjectives of architectural education,students have the potential to graduatewith confidence in the knowledge gainedand the skills nurtured

Within a culture of optimism, students would graduatebelieving that they can succeed within the architectureprofession. Far too often, students are concerned that theydo not have the skills and abilities to enter architecturepractice and even earn a livable wage. With clarity aboutthe overall goals and objectives of architectural education,students have the potential to graduate with confidence inthe knowledge gained and the skills nurtured. It isessential that architecture schools communicate to studentswhat skills are being taught, why they are beingemphasized, and how these skills prepare them for life-long experiences as members of the profession and society.A culture of optimism can exist in all schools if the othervalues within this report are embraced. When studentsbegin school, they are typically full of energy, passion,idealism, and optimism. However, years of grueling work,negative critiques, disconnection from the practice ofarchitecture, isolation from family and friends, anddisengagement from serving communities have left manystudents burnt out and disenfranchised.

Architecture has to be greater than justarchitecture

It is essential that all individuals are optimistic thatarchitectural education holds great potential to reach newlevels of success. Far too often, individuals acceptunhealthy situations due to the belief that one person or asmall group cannot make a difference. Students,educators, administrators, and practitioners must all accepttheir responsibility to question existing practices criticallyand do their part to bring about positive change.


CULTURE OF RESPECTFundamental to any successful and healthy environment isa culture of respect. When true respect exists, great thingshappen. Ideas flourish, knowledge is transferred, peoplecare for each other, confidence is built, andcommunication is healthy. In their 1996 BuildingCommunity report, Boyer and Mitgang wrote a wholechapter titled, “A Climate for Learning.” Within thatchapter they write, “Whether the focus is kindergarten,college, or architecture school, any talk of realizingenriched educational missions of higher levels of studentand faculty scholarship is hollow unless the climate forlearning in the school community itself is supportive, notcorrosive” (p. 91).

Architecture schools should be places for growth andprosperity, not environments where students “put in theirtime,” learn “how to survive,” or complete an experiencethat could be compared to ritualized hazing. Althougharchitecture education may not explicitly promote theseunwritten values, it is clear that design studios across thecountry could go a long way towards eliminating them byembracing a culture of respect. To address this situation,educators must be mindful of the conditions and valuesthey create in addition to taking efforts to preventunhealthy conditions.

We envision a studio culture in whichstudents are respected for their ideas andengaged as partners in design studiodecision making

Within a healthy and responsible studio environment,respect for coursework and personal demands of studentswould be primary considerations. We believe there mustbe a balance in architectural education among studiocourses, other architecture courses, and liberal artscourses. By placing full emphasis on studio courses,opportunities for students to experience a balancededucation are greatly limited. There is tremendouspotential to enhance architecture education by examiningworking conditions and student/educator relationshipswithin design studios. To facilitate successful studentwork habits, educators have the ability to providementoring on design issues, set clear and responsibleworkload expectations, and consciously promote the valueof time.

We envision a studio culture in which students arerespected for their ideas and engaged as partners in designstudio decision making. Within this democraticenvironment, educators and students would share decisionsin all areas of studio life, including work conditions,programmatic considerations, project direction, scope ofreadings, studio scheduling, and the determination of astudent’s grade. Attempts at creating a more democraticculture can be made in order to eliminate the unhealthyconsequences of rendering students as powerless.

When a studio culture places an instructor in anunquestioned position of power, we believe that learning iscompromised. Design instructors are leaders, critics, andfacilitators. However, power is not a tool that should bemonopolized to exert control. In an environment whereeducators create master/student relationships, students areless likely to take risks, think critically, or communicatesuccessfully with instructors. To equalize the balance ofpower within design studios, it is important that the focusof attention is on the relationships among students, not onthe power that a studio instructor holds over studentsindividually or as a group.

Finally, architectural education must embrace the value ofdiversity, not only in the background of its students, butalso in the ideas that they express. The diversity of studentbackgrounds, experiences, and thought is one of the mostvaluable aspects that contribute to meaningful sharedstudio learning. We also envision a climate where ideasand feedback would be exchanged freely, without fear ofrepercussion. As stated by Ernest Boyer and Lee Mitgang,“Design studios and juries should be opportunities forrespectful, two-way exchanges. Classrooms and studios inwhich faculty critique while exhausted students dutifullynod and listen, are hardly breeding grounds for futureleadership or civic responsibility” (p. 133).


CULTURE OF SHARINGThe necessity of sharing within architectural education is avalue that few can dismiss. It is a value that is first taughtin kindergarten and serves as one of the foundations of thecreation of architecture. However, throughout this report,we have documented our concerns about the level ofcollaboration in student projects, the lack ofinterdisciplinary initiatives, limited emphasis on writtenand verbal communication, and insularity from thecommunity and the rest of campus. We believe that the allof these issues can be addressed by embracing a culture ofsharing.

To encourage students to workcollaboratively, education must place apriority on communication

The creation of architecture is a collaborative act thatinvolves a wealth of knowledge and individuals. Yet, inmany design studios, competition is often regarded as themajor motivating factor that pushes students to excel.Within competitive environments, someone will alwaysend up on the losing end. Studio education should not bebased on the concepts of winning or losing, but instead onthe process of learning. Collaboration must also occurbeyond the walls of the studio classroom, and acrosscampus. It is essential that architecture programs buildrelationships with other disciplines in order to givestudents opportunities to work on interdisciplinaryprojects. On any traditional college campus, there aremany potential partners whom architecture schools canembrace. In addition to collaborating with related designdisciplines, architecture studios would benefit bypartnering with other professional schools or liberal artsdepartments.

To encourage students to work collaboratively, educationmust place a priority on communication. Our schools havefound success teaching graphic and visual communication,however oral and written communication have beentraditionally undervalued by our discipline. According tothe Carnegie Foundation survey published in BuildingCommunity, 66% of administrators and 65% of facultymembers felt that the teaching of writing skills were weakat their institution (Boyer and Mitgang, p. 70).

education should not force students tostruggle independently to learn themystery of architecture

The ability to communicate in the most basic means is agreat challenge facing the architecture profession.Students, faculty, and practitioners need to understandwhen it is appropriate to use jargon that is not easilyunderstood by larger society. Architecture education hasthe opportunity to produce graduates with the ability andwillingness to communicate in simple terms to the generalpublic. Along with teaching and critiquing design, studioinstructors can educate students on the art of presentationand verbal communication. Adding writing and readingassignments to studio courses will benefit students greatly.

We also believe that education should not force students tostruggle independently to learn the mystery of architecture.As mentioned earlier in this report, we are concernedabout the nebulous nature of design studio learningobjectives that exist in schools throughout the country. Webelieve that a greater emphasis on sharing by educatorscan clarify the intent of studio learning and allow for theconstruction of healthier educational environments.


CULTURE OF ENGAGEMENTBy embracing a culture of engagement, architectureschools can prepare students to serve as leaders, successfularchitects, and, above all, good citizens. At its core,leadership is concerned with effecting change for thebetterment of others, the community, and society.Leadership is a process that can be learned and developedthrough education and experiences. Despite the obviousconnections between architecture and leadership, oureducation system rarely emphasizes the value of thinkingof the two as inseparable, or even as one and the same.We are convinced that the value of architectural educationand the profession will increase by engaging studentswithin the community.

Architecture schools can make acommitment to enhancing citizenship

In the Building Community report by the late Ernest Boyerand Lee Mitgang, they state, “Graduates should beknowledgeable teachers and listeners, prepared to talk withclarity and understanding to clients and communities abouthow architecture might contribute to creating not justbetter buildings, but a more wholesome and happy humancondition for present and future generations” (p. 129). Toaccomplish this goal, students must gain experienceworking with communities and learning first-hand aboutthe issues that are important to society. The architecturecommunity would be well served to learn the necessity ofacting as creative listeners who focus more on embracingthe public as opposed to educating the public.

Architecture schools can make a commitment to enhancingcitizenship. Many schools have outstanding initiatives andprograms that engage students with communities andprovide valuable leadership skills. The task force isencouraged by the number of design/build courses andcommunity design courses that exist. These opportunitiesare among the most popular with students, and there hasbeen an increased demand for these efforts in recent years.We believe that they offer incredible potential tostrengthen architectural education. Through thesecommunity outreach efforts, students typically are exposedto collaboration, real clients, hands-on learning,community interaction, economic issues, and the realitiesof designing within constraints.

we feel that architectural education mustdo more to engage the architectureprofession

We propose that architecture studio projects fully considerthe social and cultural implications of designing forclients, users, and society. Too often, studio cultureignores the needs of users in school, which leads to futuredifficulties communicating with and designing for clients.There are real opportunities to collaborate with citizensand community organizations to offer design services andvisionary ideas through studio projects. At the very least,we hope that studio design critiques and programs willemphasize consideration of the needs of users at the samelevel as evaluating building form and materials.

We are convinced that the value ofarchitectural education and theprofession will increase by engagingstudents within the community

Lastly, we feel that architectural education must do moreto engage the architecture profession. If the architecturediscipline truly embraces the notion of life-long education,then stronger understandings and relationships must beformed. Design studios can offer research projects thatwork with members of the architecture profession toproduce case studies that will enrich student learning,create new knowledge for the discipline, and strengthenties with the profession. Also, strong relationships witharchitectural practitioners can allow for successful studentmentoring and tremendous opportunities for students toexperience construction sites, visit design offices, and fullyunderstand the realities of practice. These connectionswill not only help students, but they will build a strongsense of community and positive relationship that will helpthe larger discipline of architecture.


CULTURE OF INNOVATIONArchitecture is a discipline of innovation. The veryessence of design is the creation of something new andunique. But innovation goes beyond simply doingsomething new or different; it entails making animprovement. To produce successful graduates and makeneeded changes in studio culture, architecture schoolsmust embrace a culture of innovation.

First of all, we feel it is essential for innovation to existwithin student ideas. The design studio is a place wherecreativity and spontaneity should guide exploration andserve as a base of learning. To promote creativity andinnovation, the studio environment must provide freedomfor students to take risks. We also believe schools mustfocus on providing support for critical and analyticthinking. While this is a fundamental objective thatapplies to student design projects, we also feel thatemphasis must be placed on the broad application ofcritical thinking. With critical thinking as a base, studentswill be in a position truly to question existing conditions,which will allow for new levels of innovation and creativediscovery.

To create a healthier and more successfulstudio culture, architecture schools willneed to rethink existing practices anddevelop creative alternatives

Innovation is healthy not only for student projects, but alsowhen applied to the academic context in the larger sense.In a culture of innovation, architecture schools andeducators would imagine more effective teaching methodsand learning objectives. In Design Juries on Trial,Kathryn Anthony wrote, “It is indeed ironic thatthroughout the term, design instructors encourage theirstudents to be creative, go out on a limb, take a risk – andthen when it’s all over most of those same instructors relyon the same technique they’ve been using for years” (p.129).

We feel a culture of innovation must be embraced in orderto create alternative teaching and learning models. Tocreate a healthier and more successful studio culture,architecture schools will need to rethink existing practicesand develop creative alternatives. Common studioprojects must be reevaluated to determine if students arelearning the full range of skills and exposed to thecomplex set of issues that they will encounter upongraduation. To create successful collaborations within andoutside design studios, innovative ways of constructingstudent relationships and experiences must be developed.Finally, to provide constructive and beneficial critiques,we believe alternatives to the traditional design jury mustbe sought.

Architecture education must use innovation to design asuccessful studio culture. We believe that schools have theopportunity to examine the learning objectives of theinstitution in addition to their curriculum in order todetermine how best to create necessary improvements tostudio culture. Innovative partnerships must be formed inorder to provide new experiences and opportunities forstudents within the university and the outside community.In the end, we believe the inherently innovative nature ofarchitecture and design will serve as a base for creating animproved studio culture.


A Call to ActionWe encourage everyone to think critically about designstudio culture that exists within your school. For far toolong, the patterns and culture within schools have beentaken as rote. As designers, we must consider if ourcurrent practices are as successful as they could be. Inorder for architecture to develop and reach its potential,we believe that change must occur.

Ultimately, lasting cultural change must come from withinthe architecture schools. As Thomas Fisher wrote in In theScheme of Things, “Rather than the conservative forcethey represent now, the schools should instead be the placewhere the critique of the design culture is most acute.That, I believe, is their cultural role” (Fisher, p. 77). Thischange must take place in the schools, although it will takemore than educators and students to bring about theseneeded improvements.

Students must recognize their power to bring aboutpositive change. As the primary reason why schools exist,students are entitled to a healthy environment, successfuleducation, and, most of all, a voice in creating change.Students have the right and the responsibility to questioneducational practices that exist and propose newalternatives. Through their actions, students determinewhat habits they will form and what type of studio culturewill exist. Ultimately, students choose how long theywork, how much they sleep, what they eat, and to whatextent they isolate themselves from the rest of campus oreven society at large.

Architecture school administrators have the ability to setforth a vision in order to produce a healthy studio culture.Through the design of architecture programs andcurriculum, leaders can implement policies and proceduresto promote the values listed throughout this report. Theyalso have the potential to share and disseminate initiativesto promote the positive values that we have listedthroughout this report. We believe that every school has anumber of successful studios and efforts that could serveas models to all within the discipline.

Studio instructors have the inherent responsibility toeducate students in a manner that promotes successfullearning, creative discovery, and healthy student lifestyles.Throughout this report we have listed many areas andideas that we feel must be critically examined andimproved. In addition to the concerns raised elsewhere,we believe that the essential role of studio instructors is tothink critically about current studio education practicesand evaluate these methods to determine if they contributeto a healthy and successful studio environment. Also, webelieve it is critical for studio instructors to embracestudents as partners in creating the studio learning

environment. Through strong collaboration andcommunication with students, we believe new levels ofunderstanding and awareness can be formed in order toguide future change.

Practitioners, alumni, and other members of thecommunity have the ability to mentor students, serve asresources to educators, and develop unique partnershipswith schools that can enrich learning experiences. Webelieve it is important for those outside of the academy tocontribute in meaningful ways in order to support studentsand educators. These individuals are in a unique positionto offer resources and knowledge that are not readilyavailable within architecture schools.

The collateral organizations, including the AmericanInstitute of Architects, the American Institute ofArchitecture Students, the Association of CollegiateSchools of Architecture, the National ArchitecturalAccrediting Board, and the National Council ofArchitectural Registration Boards have the power,individually as well as collectively to implement practicesthat will allow for a more successful studio culture. Thesemembership organizations can continue to promotedialogue and recognize studio culture best practicesthrough publications, annual meetings, and awardsprograms. Further, the collaterals can take real action notonly to call for further change, but also to lead in theseefforts. These organizations are in the position to promotea new culture through innovative programs, meetingswithin the architecture discipline, educator trainingprograms, student awareness efforts, and even the creationof accreditation conditions and criteria that promote ahealthier, more effective studio culture.

Other organizations and publications like ArchVoices,AIArchitect, and Architectural Record also have a criticalrole to play. These groups have the potential todisseminate information and create needed dialogue onideas concerning the redesign of studio culture. Their rolein promoting discussion on studio culture is extremelyimportant given their ability to reach a considerablenumber of diverse individuals within the architecturediscipline.

Throughout this report, we have suggested roles thateveryone can play and ideas to accomplish a moresuccessful studio culture. There are more ideas andsuggestions available than we could fit into this report oreven dream about. We do not pretend to have all of theanswers, although we do believe that collectively thisdiscipline can work to find the necessary solutions.


A New Program for the Designof Studio CultureOur challenge, now, is to design a studio culture that promotes:

• Design-thinking skills• Design process as much as design product• Leadership development• Collaboration over competition• Meaningful community engagement and service• The importance of people, clients, users, communities, and society in design decisions• Interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary learning• Confidence without arrogance• Oral and written communication to complement visual and graphic communication• Healthy and constructive critiques• Healthy and safe lifestyles for students• Balance between studio and non-studio courses• Emphasis on the value of time• Understanding of the ethical, social, political, and economic forces that impact design• Clear expectations and objectives for learning• An environment that respects and promotes diversity• Successful and clear methods of student assessment• Innovation in creating alternative teaching and learning methodologies

Start today in whatever ways you can.


AfterwordSTUDIO CULTURE TASK FORCE PROCESSThe American Institute of Architecture Students (AIAS) isan independent, nonprofit, student-run organization withmore than 6,000 members in 125 schools offeringarchitecture and design programs. The AIAS initiated theStudio Culture Task Force in December of 2000. Since theStudio Culture Task Force’s inception, the AIAS hasmaintained the goal to be inclusive and collaborative in itsprocess. Both the American Institute of Architects (AIA)and the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture(ACSA) have representatives on the task force. Throughthese relationships, the AIAS has ensured that the inputand concerns of educators, and practitioners were a criticalpart of the process.

The task force was charged to research the currentpractices in architectural education and targetopportunities for positive change in studio culture. Theprimary goal of the task force was to generate discourseabout studio culture within all architecture schools and thediscipline of architecture. One of the main goals of theStudio Culture Task Force was to gain a diverse amount offeedback and research a wide range of ideas onarchitectural education. The AIAS call for feedback waslengthy, and the scope broad. The AIAS contactedstudents, architects, educators, leaders of the architecturalcollateral organizations, members of the building andconstruction industry, psychologists, sociologists, andexperts on higher education. Through a direct mailingcampaign, a large amount of feedback was gained thatshaped the findings and recommendations of the taskforce.

The Studio Culture Task Force made every effort to ensurethat every interested and related party had the opportunityto provide feedback. The topic of studio culture has beenwidely discussed with architecture students through theactivities of AIAS chapters and national publications.AIAS representatives promoted this initiative to educatorsthrough the ACSA Board of Directors, at the ACSAAdministrator’s Conference, during a panel at variousACSA Annual Meetings over the past three years, and inthe ACSA News. Through representation on the AIA Boardof Directors, the AIAS has solicited comments fromleaders of the profession. The leaders of the collateralorganizations discussed studio culture in a special FivePresidents Panel Discussion and at several of theirmeetings. Lastly, the discipline of architecture hadexposure to our initiative through calls for feedbackpublished by ArchVoices and Architectural Record. Weare very appreciative of all the feedback that has beenreceived and the attention that this initiative has generated.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe must thank many people whose thoughts, inspiration,and feedback made the efforts of the Studio Culture TaskForce possible.

First of all, we owe a special dept to the hundreds ofleading students, educators, and practitioners whocontributed to this report through their willingness to shareideas, tell stories, and offer encouragement. Theircontributions serve as the foundation of this report, and wecannot thank them enough for their inspiration.

The leaders of the other four collateral organizations: AIA,ACSA, NAAB and NCARB, deserve recognition for theirsupport and encouragement of our efforts.

We are especially appreciative to those leading educatorsand practitioners who answered our call for perspectiveson studio culture. Their insight and comments wereinvaluable in the creation of this report. Those whoresponded included; John Anderson; Kathryn Anthony;Robert Boynton; Frances Bronet; Michael Buono; WilliamCarswell; Neville Clouten; Carla Corroto; Charles Hight;Karen Keddy; Doug Kelbaugh; Theodore Landsmark;John Meunier; Thompson Penney; Andy Pressman; AmosRapoport; Linda Samuels; Henry Sanoff; KennethSchwartz; William Voelker; Bob Weddle; and JohnWeigand.

We would like to thank the 2000-01 members of the AIASBoard of Directors: Scott Baldermann; Nicole Kuhar;Margaret Tarampi; Carla Smith; Bryan Morales; MelissaMileff; Pamela Kortan; Christine Theodoropoulos; and, inparticular Bradley Lunz , for creating the Studio CultureTask Force and for envisioning the need to advocate forhealthier architectural education.

The 2001-02 AIAS Board of Directors was instrumental inbringing the examination of studio culture to the forefrontof its agenda. Their support laid the groundwork forexamination to take place. 2001-02 Board membersinclude: Matthew Herb; Aaron Koch; Lawrence Fabbroni;Deanna Smith; Carlos Setterberg; Marisa Smith; ScottBaldermann; Pamela Kortan; Christine Theodoropoulos;and Wayne Silberschlag.

Last, but certainly not least, are a number of individualswho made significant contributions to the intellectual andphysical framework of this report. Their knowledge andinsight is greatly appreciated and beyond normalrecognition. These individuals include Thomas R. Fisher;John M. Cary Jr.; Kirin Makker; Casius Pealer; LawrenceFabbroni; the late Ernest Boyer; Lee Mitgang; KathrynAnthony; Bradley Lunz; Sarah Peden; Doug Gordon; andThomas Fowler IV.


STUDIO CULTURE TASK FORCEAaron Koch served as the 2001-2002 AIAS National Vice President after graduating with a BS in architecture from theUniversity of Minnesota, Twin Cities, in May 2001. While AIAS Vice President, Aaron assumed roles on the ACSA Boardof Directors; the AIA National Associates Committee; the IDP Coordinating Committee; and numerous other collateralcommittees. As a student, Aaron served as the coordinator of the College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture(CALA) Mentor Program; the AIAS Minnesota President; on the AIA Minnesota Board of Directors; and in leadershippositions throughout the University of Minnesota. Aaron is currently the program coordinator with the Mayors’ Institute onCity Design (MICD) in Washington, DC. In April, 2003, he will leave for two years of service with the Peace Corps as aCommunity Development Volunteer in East Timor.

Katherine Schwennsen, FAIA, the AIA representative, is an architect and educator at Iowa State University. Sheis the Associate Dean for Academic Programs in the College of Design and an associate professor in the Department ofArchitecture. Kate earned a BA with distinction and an MArch from Iowa State. She practiced in Des Moines forEngelbrecht & Griffin Architects, and then as a senior project architect for Bloodsgood Architects and Planners beforereturning to her alma mater to teach in 1990. She has served as a member of the Iowa Board of Architectural Examiners;chair of the Iowa Architectural Foundation; a founding member of the Iowa Construction Industry Forum; and president ofAIA Iowa. Kate has recently served on the AIA Board of Directors as the Director of the Central States Region, and inDecember of 2002, she will serve as an AIA Vice President.

Thomas A. Dutton, the ACSA representative, is an architect and professor of architecture and interior design at MiamiUniversity in Oxford, Ohio. Tom earned his BArch from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, California and his Masters in Architec-ture and Urban Design from Washington University in St. Louis. He currently leads a design studio in which his studentswork with the Over-the-Rhine Housing Network in Cincinnati to design and build actual livable spaces for low and moderateincome families. He is co-editor (with Lian Hurst Mann) of Reconstructing Architecture: Critical Discourses and SocialPractices and editor of Voices in Architectural Education: Cultural Politics and Pedagogy. His research focuses on theconnections between critical pedagogy, architectural education, and social practice. Tom has served as the ACSA Treasurerand East Regional Director.

Deanna Smith, a student at Drury University in Springfield, MO, served on the AIAS National Board of Directors asthe National Director of the Midwest Quadrant. She is pursuing a Bachelor of Architecture degree along with a Bachelor ofArts in Studio Arts and a Bachelor of Arts in Art History. She has served as the AIAS President at Drury University; studentrepresentative at the Hammonds School of Architecture; and as a NAAB visiting team member. Deanna has studied abroadin Greece and Belize and worked as an intern at Marpillero Pollak Architects in Manhattan.


WORKS CITEDAnthony, Kathryn. Design Juries on Trial: The Renaissance of the Design Studios. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991.

—. Designing for Diversity: Gender, Race, and Ethnicity in the Architectural Profession. Champaign: University of IllinoisPress, 2001.

Anthony, Kathryn and Grant, Bradford. “Gender and Multiculturalism in Architectural Education.” Journal of ArchitecturalEducation 47/1. September 1993.

Argyris, Chris. Architecture Education Study, 1: The Papers. Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, 1981.

Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA). Guide to Architecture Schools, Sixth Edition. ACSA Press,1998.

Boyer, Ernest and Lee Mitgang. Building Community: A New Future for Architectural Education and Practice. Princeton,N.J.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1996.

Dutton, Thomas A. “The Hidden Curriculum and the Design Studio,” in Voices in Architectural Education. New York:Bergin & Garvey, 1991.

Gutman, Robert. Professions and their Discontents: The Psychodynamics of Architectural Practice. Practices 5/6.Cincinnati: Center for the Study of Practice: 1997.

Cuff, Dana. Architecture: The Story of Practice. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1991.

Fisher, Thomas R. In the Scheme of Things: Alternative Thinking on the Practice of Architecture. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press, 2001.

—. “Patterns of Exploitation.” Progressive Architecture. May (1991): 9.

Kuhn, Alfie. Punished by Rewards. Houghton Mifflin Co, 1999.

Mann, Lian Hurst. Architecture As Social Strategy: Structures for Knowledge for Change. Ph. D. dissertation, University ofCalifornia Berkeley, 1990.

Milton, Ohmer, Pollio, Howard R. Pollio, and Eison, James A. Making Sense of College Grades. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986

Monaghan, Patrick. “The ‘Insane Little Bubble of Nonreality’ That Is Life for Architecture Students.” The Chronicle ofHigher Education. June 2001.

Schön, Donald. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books, 1983.

—. The Design Studio. RIBA Publications, 1985.

Temkin, Jody. “For would-be architects, grad school like boot camp.” The Chicago Tribune. January 6, 2002.

Quinn, Richard. “Studiomania.” Crit. Fall 2000: 24.
