It's undergrad, therefore unaccredited, and therefore nobody will ever, ever care. 

Thanks for no information whatsoever.

I may have come across as glib, but I'm dead serious. 

Because you need an accredited degree to become licensed, and because only Masters degrees are accredited in Canada, the purpose of your undergrad degree is ONLY to gain acceptance into Masters.  Again, that is if you want to become a licensed architect.

There are less than a dozen architecture schools in Canada, and we don't have any sort of Ivy League. We are not America.

The consensus is generally that U.Waterloo is the most rigorous school in the country. But it's definitely the most competitive and it's not necessarily a great fit for everybody.

I say this as somebody who screens applicants at my firm, as well as somebody who's taught at the university level - nobody gives a flying fuck where you get your undergrad. The same can be said for your Masters degree. 

I'm sorry if that's not what you want to hear, but it should free you up to find the right program for YOU.

To add to BB:

All of the pre-professional programs in Canada are still extremely competitive to get into; they don't have the huge enrollments that the US has. General numbers I've heard are in the neighborhood of 2500app./80acc. for UW, 1200app/70acc. for Carleton, and 600app./60acc. for Dal (full disclosure, I sat on Dal's admissions committee for 2 years).

Point being: Given your history, you'd be best to stop thinking about which ones are best and just apply to a number of them in the hopes that one will take you. They really do have the pick of the litter every year, and you have extra ground to makeup from the sound of it.

I went through the pre-professional program at my school, we started off with just 9 of us. Two dropped out immediately, and I was literally the only one to graduate on time. Of the 9 we started with, only 2 currently do architecture, and I'm the only one actually employed. This is all to say, even a mediocre program is a brutal endeavor. Take the advice above and apply anywhere and everywhere if you think this is right for you.

Also, let's not forget that you have a 2.3 GPA. Concerning yourself with rankings is a waste of your time; you should be looking for the ones with the least selective admissions policies. In other words, you should get comfortable with the idea of going to a shitty program or none at all. 

@ Bench, 

As someone who sat on a selection committee for a university program, how does a guy with poor previous undergrad grades stand out to the committee?

after receiving all of my rejection notices, I guessed (because only 1 actually told me) that it was my previous grades that were the driving force behind me not getting accepted.  so my question is:

when they're looking at applications, do they look at the entire application or do they look at the transcripts and if they're not up to par, they stop there?  "This guy's grades are bad, no point in looking at the rest of his application"

@BB, you did come off as a glib, but I understand your point.  My issue is that I have no other choice than to go into a bachelors program (though no guarantees that I'll get accepted) in order to use it as a stepping stone to a MArch.

What you need to realize is that the pool of applicants is highly competitive. If you manage a great portfolio but have shitty grades, you're competing for a spot with applicants who have great portfolios and excellent grades. You've demonstrated a profound inability to succeed academically, which speaks to your decision-making, time management, and motivation. 

You now need to demonstrate what you'll do differently this time. The classes you've taken since college are an okay start, but you should definitely do one of the summer programs if you want to have a real shot. But like I said before, you probably are just out of the running for any ranked or well-respected programs. 

Discouraged, all programmes have a minimum grade cut-off. If you don't meet that level, they won't even consider your application, let alone look at your portfolio. There are only 10 Canadian schools with 2000+ applicants each year.

Hmmm...I wonder what Balkins thinks of all this...

Discouraged, anything is possible if you want it enough.  But you have to work for it. 

Marks are extremely important considering how many hundreds or thousands apply directly from high school with high marks and still don't get in.  Its what the admissions committee looks at first before they even invite you for a portfolio interview. 

I was in a similar situation as you in regards to marks when I decided to study architecture.  Based on high school marks alone, I'd never have been accepted even though I managed to raise my marks to mid 80's after retaking a few required courses again.   What I did do to improve my chances was take a few university courses while enrolled in the Honors Arts program for a year and made sure my marks were very good.  Then, to be absolutely sure my application wasn't brushed off, I tracked down the architecture school's admissions director and explained my situation through email.  Like I said, most school's are very competitive and they usually take in the best of the best.  They do make exceptions if they see you're capable in handling their rigorous program.

^ Accesskb, I've done the exact same thing, even went as far as to make an appointment with the direction.

Thanks accesskb, finally someone who was in a similar situation to me.  Constantly hearing "your grades are bad and you'll never have a chance of doing this" was getting a bit tiresome.  

Now, we're talking undergraduate here:  I have already completed a degree, albeit with poor grades, but does that not put me at an advantage over a high school student?  I've also completed a technical diploma with perfect grades.  Again, would that not play in my favour? through I'm hearing in here that if I include any of that in my portfolio they'll burn it and publicly shame me..

"they'll burn it and publicly shame me.."

Not that far from the truth... at least when I was in undergrad the admissions people left all the bottom 10% rejected portfolios in a pile for students to browse. The best (ie worst) were displayed for a week or so. No names though. Harsh, I know, but it's the nature of the schools.

Can you just not apply with highschool grades and ignore the bad bachelor's or simply ask to be treated as a mature student? Mature students normally don't have to use pre-req grades to qualify for a B.A.S. Could be a way to avoid having your previous degree hold you back.

High school grades are not good.  I was extremely lucky to get into university.  as for mature student status, the requirements for that (from the reading I've done) state that Mature students cannot have more than 1 year post secondary experience.

I feel that my best option is to reach out directly to some program officials and explain my situation and show them my interest in pursuing this seriously.

Maybe it's different in Canada, but U.S. programs typically require a transcript from every institution where college credit has been awarded. 

"Constantly hearing 'your grades are bad and you'll never have a chance of doing this' was getting a bit tiresome."

Yeah, the truth is a bummer, huh? You seem to think you're entitled to an architecture education; you're not, and that's a direct consequence of your own fucking around in college. I hope the frat parties were fun. 

Do 2.3 GPAs get into grad school for medicine, law, or engineering (or anything else, really)? No, they do not. It is insulting to those of us who worked hard in college that you think the bar for admission to architecture school is low enough to accept you.

The only thing I feel entitled to are answers to legitimate questions.  I'm really not impressed with the lack of support on this forum.  You try to get some straight answers and get nothing but shit and sarcasm.  Some people may think that I have no shot of being admitted, ever, but they still give answers to the questions while others just refuse to offer anything constructive.  I would think that I'm justifiably frustrated when I come to subject matter experts and am ridiculed and dismissed.

also, I'm asking about undergrad programs in this thread.  If you want to slam me of trying for the MArch with shitty marks, GTFO and go to my other post.

But you clearly think you can just waltz right into an undergraduate program as well. You can't.

Thanks for your input.  I appreciate all that you've told me.

My advice is that rather than asking which is the best ranked undergrad program, do a bit of investigating and find out which one seems the most interesting and fun to you. You will have to spend 4-5 years there after all. If you live close to any of the schools you should go check them out, maybe you can get someone to give you a tour and talk about the schools methodologies. See if what is going on in the studios looks cool to you or not. Getting familiar with the school and some of the people at the school will also help with your application, portfolio and your admittance. 

Really the masters degree is probably going to matter more for you career-wise, but many of the architecture schools in Canada have pretty different approaches and philosophies to architecture. 

Good luck

I mentioned before that I went through a pre-masters program (2 yrs). Have you looked into any of those? They're a lot more competitive in terms of ratio of applicants to entrants, however they generally have more flexibilty about how and who they select. In other words, if you can put together a super portfolio and you write well enough, your grades won't necessarily keep you out. But your portfolio has to be very high quality and very interesting. Life experience also counts as these programs look to recruit those with diverse and interesting backgrounds. Your academic background will hurt rather than help, but maybe you've done something else in your life that you can draw from. In my program we had a biochemist, a motorcycle mechanic, an engineer, a ceramic artist, a body piercer....

I feel your obvious frustration but I echo what others have remarked - you come across as entitled and whiny when you don't immediately get the answer you want. If you plan on entering this profession in any capacity, you'll need to grow a much thicker skin, pull up those boot straps, and work fucking hard. And don't expect anyone to hand you anything. There are people who are literally working on their portfolio right now.

1. You need both university level linear algebra and calculus to be considered for any pre-professional design related program in Canada. Since you'll have to do those courses, maybe you want to throw in some 200 level fine arts courses as well since it sounds like your portfolio is not yet ready to blow anyone away. Is there an OCAD, ACAD or NASCAD near you? 

2. Alternately, if you liked the technical aspects of architecture, maybe you'd like coding. Are there any front-end web dev bootcamps near you? The process behind designing and coding a website, its graphic content and interactions is (high level) parallel to the architectural design process. And you don't have to deal with bureaucratic nonsense to get things done. Think about it.

#1 above is not true necessarily. I have no idea how I snuck through but I have never taken any university-level math classes. None. And I have a bachelor's and master's. It can be done but again, your portfolio better blow people away.

People have mentioned the importance of the portfolio quite a bit.  Could you elaborate on what types of examples are desired?  I know now not to put in any technical details and drafting examples... but what should I have in there?

Lots of posters here have set up links to their portfolios online. Also a quick Google search should show plenty of info.

BB,

Being that it's a bit of a subjective thing, are there any examples that you'd like to share that are particularly interesting to you?

The basic format for admissions (and I've heard this is generally the case across most Canadian programs) is that marks won't necessarily get you in, but they will definately keep you out. Your GPA is a hindrance, and you need to make up for it to prove that you can succeed in their program (its not in the school's best interest for people to drop out/fail/leave, which is why it will rightly raise red flags).

BB explained it pretty well, but I'll expand. This forum gets loads of people jumping on here who have slagged off for their early- to late-20's, and now find themselves doing work that they hate and are looking for alternatives to get out. You need to realize that everyone thinks deep down that they could have been a great architect (and probably will cite poor math skills as the reason they never pursued it). This makes sense; we all live/work/play in architecture every day. We all interact with it non-stop. But it's a red herring - living in a house doesn't mean you'll be good at designing them.

The truth is that a history of poor marks is often a signal that one is not going to be able to hunker down and go through what is a very difficult program to finish, and has a high drop-out rate. There are a lot of reasons for why that is; I dont really have the will or time to get into that. The point being that marks do tend to give an accurate profile for the likelihood of success in (further) post-secondary school. A lot of people can reason-away those shortcomings, to themselves, but are unwilling to really personally explore why/what the root causes are for it. Thats setting oneself up for more of the same. Some may disagree with these thoughts; that's fine.

One word of advice - you should probably stop pointing to your diploma results. Those programs are rarely any use for pursuing bachelors or masters degrees in architecture. While certainly related, they use a very different skillset. They are also significantly less work to complete. My local architecture school (also my alma matter) always gets a massive number of applications from the local college's diploma program. I think they might take 1-2 into the start of the bachelors program annually, and those are usually in very specific circumstances (I TA'd one guy last year who had done that, worked for 3-4 years after in a demanding office as a technician, and began some university courses at  the same time before getting accepted).

The point is not to say you can't do it. But the point is that you've reasoned yourself away from finding out the true reasons of why you didnt do well in your previous studies. You say you weren't interested. What happens in your second construction technology course when you are trying to figure out the difference in water-proofing between two different wall systems? Or when you start to learn estimating, or contract laws, or any of the many dry-but-necessary topics? What about your first few 24-hour AutoCad marathons? Students don't find that interesting. I didnt. No one does. Will you slag off again, as your history suggests? Dont answer that here. Its for you to decide. These are tough questions, but they DO need to be addressed.