Dealt with all types of historical construction methods while in undergrad... either through case-studies, technical courses or through the half-dozen arch history electives.  Modern(whatever) was never, never pushed or even suggested as the main design "type".  We did what we felt was proper given our studio briefs and it was up to us to defend it.  

Stop thinking in terms of fashion.  Instead, think about creative solutions regardless of the popular label.

For studio projects there was a lot of emphasis on adaptive reuse, so emphasis on vernacular in the sense of real-life existing typologies all over the world. Some of that stemmed from which upper-level studios I selected though, so at least after first year it would have been possible to focus mainly on "modernist and beyond" and to get professors who were focused that way, if I'd made other choices in the studio lotteries. In more peripheral support courses like materials, structures, and tectonics there was a lot of recreating of details/assemblies of all sorts of traditional constructions - everything from clay tile to slate roofs to straw bale to steel and concrete and beyond.

While I didn't feel that either of the schools I attended were focused away from traditional techniques, I do recall a few students who came to architecture school with already-defined precious interests - such as neoclassical stone mansions or traditional wooden boat building - who struggled in architecture school because those interests weren't widely appreciated and they were expected to set them aside to expand their focus much more broadly.  Most architecture programs are better suited toward high altitude generalists than craftsmen or regional preservationist types.