Unstructured writing/rant: This was over 20 years ago, and maybe specific to context of the time, I guess more accurate to say many quickly converted to contemporary architecture (it was era of starchitects/Zaha/BIG/OMA/Gehry/sustainable design, less postmodern but still some). But everyone shifted away from traditional/historic styles.

I would say 80% of 1st year class (this was undergrad program) didn't know much all about contemporary/modern/post modern architecture. Most get into architecture due to exposure to classic vernacular/buildings. Step1, get exposed to history/theory classes, learn about non traditional buildings and their theories, and start to "get it". Enough to work with it. Step 2. intro classes to drafting... this was tail end of pen+paper and CAD transition, as in everyone had to learn CAD but you still had to do a few courses on traditional drafting. No one wanted to waste their time drafting classical columns/orders. Like who wants to daw a Corinthian capital by hand. Then came the projects and model building. Step 3. Tight enough deadlines and sleepless nights and no one even considered doing anything but simple modern massing volumes and techtonics. Rendering was "hard", most didn't know vray/max etc. Step 4. Designs with "concepts" gets praised, more discussion. No one's going to turn in a boring ass Federal style building without an original "twist". Step 5. Once building science get introduced, it's over, building techniques and materials limit what can realistically be rendered, I mean anythings possible if you put enough effort, but easier to copy+paste sections/building details of a modern wall where control barriers / notation is all figured out.

The amazing thing is there isn't a process. Non of the faculty ever said you don't do traditional/historic. It's just something you learned not to do. And ultimately, everyone simply adopted modern architecture styles because it was easy when you need to hand build models and it was what everyone else did, and you need to present design with an novel idea. Wasn't until 4-5 years later in masters / M.arch program, when we got 1st gen 3D printers, laser cutters that people started doing more ornate work. But even then, ornamentation/detail is something reserved for those with both desire, energy and time to pursue. I mean I guess that kind of reflects reality, who has time for ornamentation when there's economical mass produced materials and modern building techniques.

I also attribute most architecture students starting off being kind of... hacks. If they had talent (of serious artists) to express whatever they envisioned, they'd be in art/design school doing concept art where imagination is the limit. Most of the good artists I knew went to art school. Architecture students who are also good artists are rare. But most are very mid artists and a few years of long nights, and learning building codes and everyone kind of just naturally settles into modern design because it's easier on the homework deliverables. Just like building in real life. Maybe things are different now, kids grew up using video game engines to design enviroments and have access to 3D printers. I don't follow the space (academia) anymore, I don't know trend thesis projects are being explored. But in many ways, for architecture it doesn't matter, because most are stuck doing contemporary architecture in the office because that's what the general construction workforce is trained for. There's limit to imagination once you introduce the practical side of architecture/building.