Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share What makes a good studio master ?
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
What makes a good studio master ?
Send us a text
This podcast episode is a one-off reaction piece to the discussion on "What makes a good studio master?" It refers to the Malaysian Architecture Education context and the premise from the problem of bureaucracy.
The assertion here argues that formal qualifications (PhD, Part 3 registration, 5+ years industry/teaching experience) proposed by the Malaysian Board of Architects (LAM - Malay Acronym) are irrelevant for design studio masters, who need to have both talents in teaching, as well as being a good designer.
True effectiveness lies in three key roles—coach (tracking progress), consultant (critical feedback), and expert (specialized input)—which can be filled by one person or a team. Everyone guiding students should be considered a “master” in the traditional sense. Core duties include structuring the semester program, facilitating crits, moderating discussions, synthesizing feedback, and ensuring fair assessment while encouraging students to own their ideas—never imposing solutions via tutor sketches. Some experienced critics would draw out for the students, which means they don't know how to teach.
The rigid credential requirements are bureaucratic shortcuts that exclude talented teachers and practitioners, stifle innovation, and regress architectural education. Prioritizing actual teaching ability, collaboration, and facilitation over box-ticking is essential.
© 2025 Talk Architecture, Author: Naziaty Mohd Yaacob.
Support the show
Do subscribe for premium content and special features which will help to support and sustain Talk Architecture podcast on a more in-depth explanation on design thesis and processes. These special commentaries and ‘how to’ explanations are valuable insights and knowledge not found elsewhere!
View all episodes
By Naziaty
5
11 ratings
Send us a text
This podcast episode is a one-off reaction piece to the discussion on "What makes a good studio master?" It refers to the Malaysian Architecture Education context and the premise from the problem of bureaucracy.
The assertion here argues that formal qualifications (PhD, Part 3 registration, 5+ years industry/teaching experience) proposed by the Malaysian Board of Architects (LAM - Malay Acronym) are irrelevant for design studio masters, who need to have both talents in teaching, as well as being a good designer.
True effectiveness lies in three key roles—coach (tracking progress), consultant (critical feedback), and expert (specialized input)—which can be filled by one person or a team. Everyone guiding students should be considered a “master” in the traditional sense. Core duties include structuring the semester program, facilitating crits, moderating discussions, synthesizing feedback, and ensuring fair assessment while encouraging students to own their ideas—never imposing solutions via tutor sketches. Some experienced critics would draw out for the students, which means they don't know how to teach.
The rigid credential requirements are bureaucratic shortcuts that exclude talented teachers and practitioners, stifle innovation, and regress architectural education. Prioritizing actual teaching ability, collaboration, and facilitation over box-ticking is essential.
© 2025 Talk Architecture, Author: Naziaty Mohd Yaacob.
Support the show
Do subscribe for premium content and special features which will help to support and sustain Talk Architecture podcast on a more in-depth explanation on design thesis and processes. These special commentaries and ‘how to’ explanations are valuable insights and knowledge not found elsewhere!