Granted, this was employed at a university school of architecture, but the best test I've encountered went as follows:
1: "Select one piece of architecture (or art) that you have personally encountered. Explain why it is significant to you, what qualities appeal to you (or do not)."
2: Sit them down in front of objects(there were about 50 of us in the room when we did this, and we were looking at models of buildings), give them a black pencil and a red pencil, and tell them to sketch what's in front of them.
Exercise #1 is obviously to see if they actually observe their world critically, or if they're just pedestrians in life. Exercise #2 is mostly about raw talent - if they can sketch a reasonable approximation of their subject and figure out a good use for that red pencil, there's some potential there. I think these, along with a small portfolio submission of some sort (after all, they're still kids, and they may not have the confidence to put together a lot of work), would help separate those who really want this sort of education from the ones who want a lighter work load. I imagine that just having a testing process will eliminate a lot of the lazier students. |