In my time studying architecture, I’ve developed an understanding of differences between the academic practice of design and the professional one. In ten-week studio courses, the relative lack of time means that there is an emphasis on creating a cohesive and presentable scheme over detail work, code compliance, and budgetary concerns. The greatest benefit of the academic program is that it gives the opportunity to develop a critical understanding of architectural analysis — providing a framework in which meaningful conversations on architecture can take place, and can keep the many layers of design thinking related to their larger contexts. I’ve noticed that, especially in senior year studios, critical conversations with fellow designers have become especially important to the way that I conduct my own work.I believe that design works achieve their greatest potential when they understand their scope and the limits of what they can achieve, not when they try to be innovative at all costs. This is not to say that architecture cannot change the world, rather that the most successful change in design evolves from existing conditions in practice, not from the revolutions of modern and post-modern movements. With the use of computer modeling and green technology in the design and building trades, it is all the more important to understand the specific usability of these tools and not overlook construction processes and material character; there is a need to remember the qualities of building that cause it to be relevant to daily life. Architecture should recognise its potential to be a critical institution mediating between the world of digital information we live with and the physical reality we live in.