You wont be elligible to get into Columbia's M.Arch II program - spots in that program are given to applicants who have a B.Arch already or a B.S.Arch with an amazing portfolio and likely several years of work experience.

You will be elligible for Columbia's M.Arch I program, however.

To prepare, definitely take GSAPP's Summer Architecture course. I forget the actual name but I'm sure another poster will come in and mention it.

Don't worry about the admissions statistics - they're typically inaccurate for architecture programs because each applicant is viewed subjectively by a small group of the school's professors/instructors on the admissions board. But if you MUST know, their acceptance rate is about 20% for Columbia, +/- 5%. Today, their reputation is dwindling a bit. They are the most expensive Ivy League program (when considering cost of living + tuition), with subpar facilities and student work compared to Yale, Princeton, Harvard, and MIT (who are less expensive). I'm not saying Columbia is a mistake, a bad investment, or a bad school to enroll to, but I am saying there are notable schools with better programs, for less money, that are better investments.

Your quantitative scores (GPA + prospective GRE) are good enough to get in, from a technical standpoint, but your portfolio will be the most important factor in your application, followed by your personal statement and letters of recommendation. If you apply with an amatuer/alright portfolio, but with a 3.7 GPA and a 169/169 GRE, you'll get denied every, single, time, guaranteed. So improve your portfolio relentlessly until you truly believe your portfolio is better than your friends'.

They'll have a few spots reserved for those who can pay for everything and receive nothing from the school. Not stated explicitly but M.Arch I is an easy cash machine. You don't want to be that person but it certainly means the acceptance statistics are far from transparent.

Thank you for correcting me! March1* This is great information thank you very much.