An Update from a Concerned Thesis Class

TBD

The thesis class had their first peer review of the 2026 spring semester on Tuesday, February 10th. It was meant to mark the first point of progress after defining the site and program. Many, if not all, students showed up empty-handed.

This review follows a first thesis semester with seven reviews—three “mode reviews,” three peer reviews, and the final. Splitting the semester into thirds, these “mode reviews” asked students to either “draw,” “capture,” or “model” in the hopes of jump-starting production during a time previously perceived by instructors as stagnant research. This is decidedly more structured than recent thesis years—which typically had only a midterm and final—and seems to be addressing the larger question of how to teach thesis.

With an emphasis on finding an appropriate "response" to their research, many students find—or have once found—their projects at a standstill. They are told their work is too symbolic, discouraged from paths they’d like to explore, and are left wondering if their projects are architectural enough.

Of course, disagreement between faculty and students is nothing out of the ordinary—and perhaps neither is this moment of questioning during a thesis—but is there a better way? How much structure is too much structure? Does a thesis have to be a building or have a clear site and program? These are questions the class is asking as they navigate expectations of themselves and their faculty and make this final push towards graduation.