Current events

From PDWiki

From H. re: end of semester.

(1) The Final Review is confirmed for Monday December 18, 11AM-6PM (or thereabouts). Format: Each team is to present their project in a terse manner. They should present the thesis/manifesto (the scope, ambition, disciplinary polemic, and pithy remarks on conclusions drawn or material discovered); then a condensed content summary. As these are research projects, teams should structure their presentations mindful of the scientific method: posing a question, hypothesis or polemic, followed by the evidentiary research compiled to demonstrate or refute the claims, and then a conclusion (a new claim/manifesto). The should also be mindful of the twin nature of this course: history AND theory--both should be addressed in the presentations. They must also keep in mind that all extra-disciplinary material MUST be posed and framed from within the context of architecture--what are the relevance, implications, applications, and so on, to our field? AV presentation should use 2 projectors: 1 with one slide that comprises the full set of spreads for that team's formatted project; the second the presentation proper (teams may choose to operate from their spreads, or to compose slides specific to the format of the review, though I would tend to encourage the latter, as too much text on slides will be distracting). Any team requiring network connections should be certain it will be available (alert Mary). Impress on the teams that they MUST choreograph their presentations in advance--they must work out who will speak and in what order, how they will present the project, and what the script will be (ask for this to be submitted in advance, say by 24 hours). And make sure the teams practice and time their presentations.

Order/Schedule: Work out a timetable (20-25 mins per team?), with a max presentation time (10 mins?). Make a list with titles, team members, schedule, etc: see if AJ or Sarah will make a quick poster.

Critics: The review will operate as a studio review would: critics will pay attention to the arguments made, the evidence mobilized and so on. They will address both the presentation itself (visuals for the presentation, the layout of the spreads, graphics and so on), as well as the strengths of the thesis and content. Critics confirmed to date: Sean Lally (Rice) Eran Neumann (Technion, Visiting Scholar at the Holocaust Center) Vittoria di Palma (Art History, Columbia) Penelope Dean (UIC) Annette Fierro + other Penn Faculty

Space: TBA (exam period is difficult but mary is working on this and will get us a good space)

(2) Course Evaluations: You will have received a package each containing evaluations and envelope for each team. Please ensure that ALL students complete these. Please impress upon them the importance of these documents, and ask them to take care and consideration in filling them out: they should know that these forms operate not just to give us feedback, but are scrutinized by the Dean's Office and used in promotions and annual reviews. Thanks.

(3) Final Edits: In the next week, please collect final drafts of text and any significant diagrams (layout need not be finalized). Please collect a text file (so that we can use text edit) and a pdf of spreads. I will leave this to your discretion, but be mindful that we will need to return these no later than Dec 14, so make sure to leave sufficient time to review them (as its busy final review season).

ADDENDUM:

(1) CONDENSE. Conny points out that a book that runs to 300 pages will be expensive. Either students are ok with a $70 or so publication, or we will need to reduce pages to 10-15 pages per team. Even if everyone is comfortable with a higher price, we should see our role as in part to edit down...

(2) I'd like a set of abstracts to send to the reviewers in advance of the review: lets set Dec 14 (end of day) for that.

(3) I've just had a query re the abstracts and the text. Here's what I wrote: the abstract should operate as a manifesto for your paper: in other words, a pithy introduction and summary. these typically operate as the first section, a kind of foreword (in a book, this would be the preface; in a journal article, the lead paragraph, usually highlighted by a different font or other graphic device to identify it as separate from the paper proper)--its function is to let readers see what the paper would be about, and key in their interest. So: it comes AFTER the contents, and as lead to the text.

Comments

Thanks for the update:)