This article presents findings from an instructional-based inquiry, aimed to evaluate the critiquing characteristics of an accredited interior design program, and to optimize the experience of studio-based feedback practices for contemporary students. This investigation pre-dates the unprecedented shift to remote instruction due to the global pandemic, providing a unique snapshot of Generation Z emergent designers at a time when in-person feedback reigned. Data was collected through an anonymous, voluntary survey which invited students to share their experiences and perceptions of various modalities of project feedback. The findings are four-fold. First, students view critique not merely as a validation or gatekeeping function but as an interactive form of guidance, underscoring the necessity of harmonizing directive discourse with empowering feedback. Second, methods like peer reviews, desk crits, and illustrative feedback are seen as particularly beneficial, being both personalized and intimate, and are valued equally in both in-studio and out-of-studio settings. Third, 1-2 weekly contact hours with instructors is preferred for project feedback, pointing to a possible disparity between student expectations and prevailing practices. Finally, students recognized the potential benefits of using online critiquing tools for project feedback, even prior to the extensive uptake of online platforms during the pandemic in which students had little experience using them. This study contributes valuable context to the future of interior design education, and illustrates areas in which research concerning modern students and instructional practices can be further developed.