Graduate Architecture

The E. Lewis Dales Traveling Fellowships

The E. Lewis Dales Traveling Fellowships are awarded each year to select students of the second-year class in the Master of Architecture program for travel abroad in the summer before their final year of study. Students are selected for the Fellowship through an anonymous portfolio competition judged during the first week of the spring semester by a committee comprised of standing and core studio faculty. The Dales Fellowship enables the Department to encourage students to begin the documentation and presentation of their work, a process that is integral to the development of a design ethic and to interviewing for a job.

Jury Process

The Weitzman Architecture Faculty Jury (see list below) evaluated 60 anonymous portfolio submissions.  They were asked to score each portfolio and submit short statements on what they valued while assessing each portfolio. The 2022 Dales Fellowships will be awarded to the highest scoring submissions.

Testimonials

I was looking for work with a strong attitude - a clear design intent conveyed through rigorous and aesthetically powerful representations. Work that questions and explores new forms of habitation, materiality, representational conventions and is not afraid to take a position. Work that is multi-layered and multi-scalar, operating across the conceptual, technical, and aesthetic spectrums with the same level of intensity. This is what the top submissions had in common.

Excellent original work. Consistent challenge to cultural norms which are addressed in work. Rare and unique.

Well-researched and presented.

Compelling geometries.

Really appreciated the intensity of ideas and graphic expression.

The narrative focus well captured graphically.

 

Good example of chromatic exuberance coupled with discipline

Compelling combination of both speculative and realized works

In each submission I looked for a connection between the travel proposal and the work being presented. Is this an area the student has explored in their work, is it an area where the student feels that they have a deficit and they want to add to their understanding or toolkit, etc.?

The work was evaluated based on the presence of consistently high output from project to project, the presence of a point of view, the ability to use imagery and diagrams to tell their story, and the overall quality of their logic/argument/findings.

I look for high resolution in both the conceptual and practical sense. Does the portfolio contain ideas that are conceptually developed to a high level?  Do those ideas question convention and push our understanding of architecture forward? 

 

 

Given the range of projects shown in the portfolios, I was drawn to the narrative aspects of the work as well as the graphic clarity and composition. Furthermore, portfolios that demonstrated a point of view about architecture and society were particularly compelling.

In general, I awarded and appreciated those portfolios that were obviously formatted with attention toward this competition: those that forefront the work at UPenn for the last three semesters as one coherent designed presentation by an individual designer with a strong “voice” expressed through a compelling graphic argument.

Compelling intensity of expression for each project.

Convincing proposals with a lot of character.

On the practical side, are the buildings resolved and are the drawings well-detailed? Is the enclosure considered and complete?

​Weitzman Architecture Department Faculty Jury

Mike Avery, Gisela Baurmann, Ezio Blasetti, Mirka Brooks, Jonas Coersmeier, Winka Dubbeldam, Annette Fierro, Nate Hume, Hina Jamelle, Vanessa Keith, Simon Kim, Ferda Kolatan, Daniel Markiewicz, Laia Mogas-Soldevila, Rashida Ng, Eduardo Rega, Andrew Saunders, Robert Stuart-Smith, Marion Weiss, Danielle Willems