I agree with the sentiment in your last paragraph, but I dont know what you mean in the last sentence.


But the only kind of architectural theory out there should be things like:

A) This structural system seems to be a step moving forward in the creation of coreless skyscrapers.

or

B) In a double blind experimental study, 82% of respondents favored that malformed lavender oval over all other forms.

kind of sounds like you want to replace architects with engineers and focus groups.

"How do you deal with a professor whose philosophy towards architecture is completely different from your own?"

fuck it, you're in school... try it his way and see what happens.

umm.. isn't the whole point of going to school so that you can get exposure to philosophies different from your own?

I did a territorial figural design studio once in grad school. totally weird approach, and I would never want or think of designing that way in my own work, but the whole point of getting a grad degree in architecture is to be exposed to a cross section of approaches.. and learning how to wield them effectively, with respect to how space and form are defined.