The jury system does seem like a case of "this is the way we have always done it," and is very dependent on the quality of the jurors. I do think the sense of let down is quite common: you work for weeks and then get 15 minutes of commentary, much of which is just the jurors trying to figure out what they think. The key is not to look at the jury as the only goal of the studio - the interim discussion with the studio teacher are more important (both for learning and for your grade)

It is certainly important to become comfortable presenting your work both to colleagues and outside reviewers, which can be accomplished through juries. It is also useful to see how others read what you put on the wall.

I would not think of the jury's comments as "pointing out mistakes" - the reason juries make some sense is because there is not only only solution to a design problem, so in the best case the jury should offer something you and your studio teacher had not thought of.

And if they are saying your a great communicator then you are more than half way there - too many architects are obfuscators.

Thanks for your reply I appreciate it. It just seems as if there is always ONE "answer" to a design problem they are looking for and I never seem to have it. But as you pointed out, there are many solutions to one program.

I guess some positive feedback about my work would be appreciated - not that there isn't ANY but it's about 10% and the rest is critical.

ANyway, thanks for writing I will take what you said to heart and try not to worry so much about what they think or say - afterall, they are not the end all be all of architecture.

Thanks

Just conclude your presentation with this "opinions are like arse holes, everybody has one, kthnxbi".

I agree with spruce... I think a lot of students go into critiques and get hammered and have mini-breakdowns. Even in undergrad it is not uncommon to see students start crying at the end of or after there review. Professors are overly critical for a reason.

I personally never got my feathers ruffled in a critique because everyone has their own ideas and what they are giving you is feedback and alternative possibilities. Just because someone else would do the project a different way doesn't mean that your way is bad (of course there are cases that resolutions are completely inappropriate)... I am sure that Gehry would critize Zaha and vis versa... architecture is one of the most subjective porfessions and it always amazes me when I meet people that can't take critisism. The worst thing you can do is take it personally and let it discourage you it should be the opposite. I love to debate and defend my projects and that might be why I always looked forward to critiques. You should look at it as a learning conversation where you can discuss what issues you are having with your approach and what the best way to develop it further should be.

a hard lesson is to remove yourself from the work. once you've put it on the wall it's out there. the point of the review is for you to learn all you can from the reviewers responses, but it only works if you have developed your own ability to be self-critical. if you can look at your own work dispassionately and really hear what's being said about it, you increase the potential of the jury format to be useful.

when i've been on reviews and the reviewed immediately becomes defensive, i know that the discussion will be of limited value. it's one thing if the reviewers are missing something important that you can convey in a non-defensive manner, but if it devolves into a 'but...but...but', you might as well end the discussion there. no one will learn anything.

some of the best lessons can come out of this part of a project. some of the best come from watching the reviews of OTHERS - because your peers' work is another learning opportunity, of course.

but, then, some juries really are just useless chats. there's no guarantee.

If you haven't seen this its pretty funny
Blowfish

following on steven ward's comments, I would also recommend taking a conversational tone with the jurors, including asking questions on the aspects of the project you would like to hear their thoughts on...juries are probably the single most powerful learning tool school can teach, and you should take advantage of that by viewing your project subjectively - i used to pinpoint areas of my project that i thought were lacking, asking for comments on how i could've possibly improved said aspect...

the trick to dealing with juries is to make sure you are the one controlling the discussion - either end your presentation with a question or bring a list of questions to ask the jurors after you've finished.

Everyone knows there are unresolved issues with any project, and if you can present something in terms of "this is where I am - where can I go from here?" - you'll have a much more constructive crit.

a couple warnings - do not talk about what you didn't finish unless they bring it up... and stay positive, as if everything you've done to that point was intentional.

the whole point of the crit is to make sure your ideas are solid, that you are being rigorous about testing them, that you've presented your concept clearly (both visually and verbally) and that it is developed enough - if you feel that there is something you've missed about the assignment, or you got stuck on something this is your opportunity to bring it up with people who aren't your prof as they are looking at your project with fresh eyes.

also - knowing what direction you want your review to go you'll have a better sense of what materials you need to explain what is going on. of course everything needs to be as polished as possible, but as long as you take the attitude that what you are doing at that moment is just one stage within a life-long exploration, the harsh criticism is much easier to take.

i have 4 weeks to go till I graduate with my masters in architecture and my last review, one of the jurors hit me with this comment: "what are you doing in architecture?"

made me feel all warm and tingly inside. :-D

Pretend you are on American Idol. Don't cry, nod your head a lot when you get feedback, try to listen to what they are saying, and understand that certain people (Simon) are going to dislike everyone.
At least you are not on national TV with your grandmother watching.

'If no one is crying, it's not a good crit'

and

'If no jury member questions why a student chose this profession, you need a new jury'























Not really, though

my grad school crits haven't been "demoralizing" like they were in under grad. They often seem more directed at the studio topic in general and how well your project furthers that or falls short of that. personal attacks like "why are you in architecture" I havent seen.

In my masters thesis jury one of the critics commented to the department chair, "This student should not be an architect." I graduated anyway. Sometimes I wish I listened to him ; }

It's not the criticism that bothers me, it's not the harsh words, it's the lack of POSITIVE feedback. If they say 20% positive reinforcement and 80% bad everytime, it can wear anyone down. Taking criticism I learned long ago in design school for my undergrad degree and working with clients etc. It's about that more than anything for me.

Some critics are more harsh than others but it may be for other reasons, like they don't see eye to eye with studio instructor and then takes it out on the student. Or it could be they are taking another polemical stance. Add to this, you're exhausted so the comments might not be registering correctly. But if you taped the critique and go over it later, it probably won't be as bad as you remember. When you're out of school, working on your own projects, you'll miss having this resource to hone the project. I know I do. Many firms try to bring in outside architects to critique the project and help move it forward. It NEVER ends. Get used it.

Harsh crits prep you for the real world when your clients reject your design. They train you to explain your design, absorb criticism, and work through to better ideas.

Can you imagine never having a jury crit, going to the real world, and having you idea bashed by an architecturally uneducated client? Try having a client say "that looks like shit" but offer no reason except for personal taste. He then presents his really shitty design to you. You'd probably cry, or get mad, or do something unprofessional. Good thing you had those rough reviews in school.

As I went from undergrad to grad I saw less "crying" crits and more productive ones. I think this is a testament to the student's increasing maturity and knowledge.

reviews/crits are always like a game of russian roulette - anyone can have a bad review at any time. The critic could be having a bad day, the level of comfort sitting in a hard plastic chair could affect the outcome of the review that others can also attack you and my favorite, there is no food in reviews but cheap wine and water and I’m starving so let’s get this over with and give everyone bad reviews. Granted you could have the best project in the studio, but again, it’s like a game of russian roulette. But just touching those comments on “you’re a great communicator, you communicate clearly..” and such, you know that you really don’t offer any design or creative solutions to the project so that’s pretty much all they can say. Not to be a negative thing but I believe that’s more a positive feedback. You be surprise how many people cannot communicate their ideas or express themselves clearly in a real work environment.
But if you really want to stir things up, if you’re having a bad review, judge the critics and tell them that their practices is crap and worthless. That should be interesting. I always get a kick when I hear that.

dallasarchitect, I think you'll really understand this a lot better once you've been on a few juries yourself. I do always make a point of making sure that the student knows what is strong in his/her project (because often, they don't actually know what's good about the project) but then beyond that, I need to be constructive, because I know that the student is getting encouragement and positive feedback from the professor all semester long. The jury is part of a system of instruction - it's not the end-all be-all, and it exists to counterbalance the professor's instruction, to some extent. So I see my job on a jury as to point out the strengths, but more importantly to point out specific areas that need improvement and specific failings - things the student can learn from and act on after the crit. It's up to your studio professor to encourage / cajole you. In 15 or 20 minutes it's up to your jury to help you see areas for improvement. (or think of it this way: why dwell on the good stuff, since that's not the stuff that needs fixing? You have such limited time, and you really want the kid to improve, so you try to show them how.)

Granted, not all jurors feel this way. Some prefer juries to be forums for broader discussions, where a particular student's project serves as a jumping-off point into larger implications for architecture itself. Now THOSE are fun - REALLY fun - but they are few and far between, because they depend on both a really strong project (usually - although a really bad one can also do) and a really strong and engaging jury.

But anyway - what you should realize is that for the most part, your jury is there because they want you to succeed. Trust me, people do not give up hours and hours of their time to listen to horrifyingly bad presentations by half-asleep zombies just for the fun of it. So although you may feel like they have it in for you, you need to get over that, because they wouldn't be there and take the time to thoughtfully critique your work if they didn't feel invested in your success.

And if you think it's grueling for you to be up there, try critiquing 20 projects for 5 hours straight with no bathroom break and little food (because the students eat it all before you get to it). Sometimes juries do get cranky.

Also, I find that if you're the student that obviously did not do as much work as everyone else, you are going to get slammed, because I'm sorry, very few jurors I've seen have patience for that crap. It is not fun to feel like your time is being wasted. So don't be that student.

Also, I completely agree with the comments of the others here regarding the jury of your clients. They can be even harsher because your payment is on the line. It's simply a part of life - I loved crits and miss them because I loved the opportunity for multiple points of view on my project. I almost always walked away with a vision of how my project could be better, and that's a great feeling. That's how you know you're learning, and all your money is not being wasted.

I love juries! it should be an exhilarating experience if you enjoyed your project.
I love the moment when morning comes and you know the hard part is over and the fun part starts.
Remember, it takes some generosity to sit on a jury and find something constructive to say to one student after another (I have never witnessed any malice in my reviews or my studio mates reviews).

the juries are juz warm up for your future dealing with real life as an architect.

If juries are architects with experience, then they are pissed off at architecture for low wages and crappy clients, and they release all that negative energy on students.

I am already an interior designer and have been for 6 years. I am already quite accustomed to client feedback and the "real world" of design. So I don't really feel I need to be "prepared" for the real world when I'm already in it.

I guess maybe that's why I have a hard time with it because I feel like they are just looking for something wrong and I guess they are otherwise we'd all just be sitting there talking about how great I am.

sometimes juries are full of arrogant jerks. sometimes the truth hurts. sometimes the jury didn't understand the project. sometimes its hard to think of something constructive to say for the tenth student of the morning. sometimes it wasn't as brutal as it felt. usually its a mix. usually there's something of use to be gleaned from the experience.

being both experienced and a sometimes reviewer, i can honestly say: bullshit, zen.