the intro crits, from what i experienced, were great. more important than who the individual critics are is the instructors' collective approach to teaching newcomers. they'll establish rigid constraints, like what materials/representational methods are available to you, to help you focus and push your ideas. it may feel stifling, but i learned this is something you need to feel comfortable with in design. they assign you a critic depending on your experience.

from a bldgblog interview:
Wigley (the columbia dean) : You make me think of something else. You know, Enrique Walker, one of the teachers at this school, thinks that architecture is always about constraint, and that architects don’t acknowledge that enough. We really build constraints – we don’t build freedoms: we build reductions of freedom.

I think what’s great is that, if you think that way, you really have to take more responsibility for every decision, right, because every decision is a kind of narrowing of options. I mean, it’d be great. What would happen is, in a school of architecture, we would just tell everybody: every line you do, every decision, every statement, as an architect, is going to limit more options than it opens up

http://bldgblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/architectural-weaponry-interview-with.html

Absolutely. Charles Eames said the same thing.

Who was your instructor and what was your experience with her/him like?