Elite

If you’re drawn to the Elite format, you probably care less about broad coverage and more about depth—really digging into the “why” of journalistic thinking with people who won’t let you slide by on surface answers. There’s a strong focus on direct feedback—sometimes it feels almost too honest, but that’s honestly one of its strengths for someone serious about growth. Individual mentorship is built in, though I’d say it’s not for those who prefer to figure things out quietly in the background (there’s a fair bit of dialogue, sometimes even debate). One thing that stands out—participants often end up forming pretty lasting connections, even outside the sessions. That’s not advertised, but it happens. You should know, though, the schedule is less flexible than you might want if you’ve got an unpredictable routine. If you prefer focused challenge over guided structure, and you’re willing to be really seen in your work, then this might resonate.

Supreme

Direct access to senior editors—this is really at the heart of the Supreme level. Participants typically bring a willingness to share nuanced drafts and, sometimes, even their own hesitations. In exchange, there’s not just feedback, but detailed, line-by-line commentary that actually addresses the thinking behind each journalistic move. People sometimes gloss over this, but the one-on-one dialogue can make a big difference; it’s not just about getting your work “marked up,” but about having your reasoning challenged in real time. Then there’s the monthly roundtable—less formal, more searching. You hear what others are wrestling with and, honestly, you start to see your habits in a new light. Some say that’s where real change happens, though I suppose it depends on how much you’re willing to speak up. And yes, there’s a library of annotated case studies, but, for me, the real value comes from the back-and-forth with the editors. That’s something you don’t quite get at the lower tiers. If you’re already comfortable with surface-level advice, this level probably isn’t necessary. But for those who want to dissect their process and get at the roots of their decisions, it does seem to offer something extra—if you’re ready to put real work on the table.

Basic

The “basic” approach to building critical thinking in journalism often appeals to people who want a clear, manageable starting point—without being swamped by dense theory. There’s something reassuring about sticking to essential questions: What’s really being claimed here? Who stands to gain? That’s the heart of it. Honestly, the real draw is how this method keeps things grounded—no jargon, just straightforward habits you can actually use on deadline. One element that stands out is its focus on unpacking assumptions—sometimes that means scribbling in the margins during a late-night edit, just trying to spot what’s missing. The other key bit is practice with real examples (not the stiff, invented kind either—usually clippings or stories that felt messy in the moment). For some, that hands-on angle matters more than abstract discussions. I’ve noticed people who start with this option often say it helps them avoid overwhelm, especially when the newsroom is buzzing and nobody has time for theory.

Advanced

The “Advanced” participation format in our method asks for a more substantial investment—participants bring not just their time, but also a piece of real reporting, typically a short article or draft, to the table. In exchange, they receive detailed, individualized feedback from experienced editors (often more than one), with a particular focus on argumentation and logic. The most meaningful bit, in my view, is how this feedback isn’t just generic praise or vague suggestions—you get direct questions about your logic, sometimes even a challenge or two. That tends to push people further than they’d expect. Honestly, the format can feel a bit intense, but for someone ready to test their assumptions in a live-fire setting, it’s oddly exhilarating. And while you don’t always walk away with a publishable piece, you do gain a clearer sense of where your thinking stands up—and where it wobbles.

Find the Perfect Plan for Your Education

Everyone learns a bit differently, don’t you think? Some folks thrive with hands-on practice, while others prefer structured guidance or a more flexible approach—kind of depends on what you’re hoping to achieve. I’ve found that matching your training path to your actual goals can really make the experience more meaningful. So take a moment to think about where you want to go. Select the learning experience that aligns with your aspirations:

Fill Contact Form

Begin to Communicate

Contact Information

  • 10647, Taiwan, Taipei City, Da’an District, Section 3, Roosevelt Rd, 297號3樓
  • ++886 933 006 227
Data and Cookies

If you stay touring our websitedsiagree to the cookie utilization system,