U. Topcu

Istanbul Bahcesehir University (TURKEY)
Design education has become the focus of an extremely complicated set of issues and debates. Architectural design education is no different. Several conventions and cliches exist in the arena of architectural design education. Architectural design studios are guided through several approaches according to different schools of architecture. as an academic who has instructed for more than ten years in design studios, the author believes that there is a consensus on the necessity of a finalized graphical presentation of any design project. When a belief in an effective graphic presentation becomes the most essential element of a successful jury presentation, it becomes the important preoccupation of a design student. This preoccupation may present an affirmative attitude on behalf of the student towards the discipline and the jury. It may enhance the student's credibility but on the other hand, it may take away the valuable time from the design process and raises several questions about its educational value or validity. This paper argues that architectural design education favours the dominance of final presentation over the design process. Design juries seem to have an appeal for pleasent drawings. The emphasis shifts to presentation from the project itself. The author argues that the graphical presentation is supposed to stand within an aesthetic agenda and has limited contribution for educational concerns. The author has tested this approach among design students of her own faculty before. This paper attempts to test the same approach in other schools of architecture in Istanbul, both from the private and state sectors. The questionnaire used in the previous research is administered to relevant students and their personal assessments are asked for on a set of statements associated with graphical presentation according to their impact on final presentation. The results indicate significant differences among the students of different schools of architecture.