I understand studio is about design thinking, but I really think it would have been good to have one where there was a very strong focus on reality. Have something small and simple then develop it to at least a strong DD level of completeness. No nonsense of a wall being a single line, even at ¼"=1'-0" or reinventing the apartment to be half museum, half library with sleeping pods and anonymous graves in the walls. Something practical that requires you to think through the constructibility and work that more typically goes into practice.

One thing my school tried to do, but was never well executed, was integrating other classes with studio. We'd have classes that would focus on things like sustainable strategies, lighting, mechanical systems, etc. and we would usually be required to demonstrate these concepts by incorporating them into our studio project. The problem was that the professors would never really discuss this with each other so the types of spaces studio and these classes required would differ. The result was that at the end of the semester you were working on two different versions of your studio project instead of one version as intended.

professors who are current with the profession

Cowbell.

We never developed any studio projects past SD level.  The professors mad no effort to corral people who were designing stuff that was wildly unrealistic and didn't met any kind of building code.  That made the 5 year program seem at least 2 years too long.

Nobody should be allowed to graduate before they can produce a buildable set of CDs and a project manual.

My undergrad program had a clear division between studios and technical courses... and this worked well for most cases until you had that one studio with the crazy kook (60ish students split into 4-5 different groups with independent profs and projects) and were required to use your "design" to address the building science courses.  This never went well and there were always a few students who simply could not present anything substantial (both studio and course work suffered as a result).   We were also hand-drawing everything back then... I have so many slides of work that I could set up a full poker chip set.

What was missing in this was a frank conversation, say at mid-point between major deadlines, about the value of the studio's assignments in regards to either the professional world, or future graduate studies.  This was obvious to me at the time as I was already working in an office doing architect things, but this was an alien concept to many of my peers.  A "how to make this project real" would have certainly saved many from the cold shower they eventually stepped into once the academia protection cover got lifted.  

I know some Canadian schools demand that your final project be fully documented as if it were for permit (code, materials, LEED, etc), and I've even taken electives where budget, schedules, and ROI calcs were mandatory along with the fluffy design. This is all in undergrad, so a half-decent student is employable without needing an M.Arch.

I went to a program where most of the faculty were working professionals, and for the most part that was great, but what was lacking was a faculty presence outside of class/studio hours.  Some faculty had no office hours at all, and there was no advising system that created any continuity or followup with students for longer than a semester.  If I were redesigning the program I'd establish a higher number of full time faculty, and I'd try to keep academic advisors assigned to the same students while the students move through their years in the program.

architects