Well, for #4 I would think showing a LOT of interest in architecture is important.  

My entry portfolio was a rough, ROUGH affair in many ways.  But I had quite a few 3d designs that (I think) showed my interest in how space is contained, not just the edifice or final form.  

If you can show some clear logical processes for projects that can only help you.  As far as the "artistic capability"; I think those that just knock out flat simulacras of stuff are not helping themselves at all.  Depth of field and an original concept are needed.

Lackey, thanks for the response. I just finished an intensive summer course that I have been told is equivalent to the first studio and part of the second for a B.Arch. I hope to use some of those projects but I am unsure about the quality. We were really rushed to learn a lot, and it was not exactly a portfolio builder, but rather an attempt to immerse us in studio environment. Also, it's hard to work on models at home without take photos without a site model. 

Anyways, I certainly agree that every portfolio I have seen that has made it into top 10 schools had at least one project that a.) was unique b.) Expressed an understanding of space and 3d  C.) Documented process in a very sequential logical order.

What did you think of the summer program (not to derail the thread)?

One component that too often gets overlooked is that the portfolio itself should be approached as its own design project. The content is obviously important, but a compelling presentation will hold the admissions committee's attention long enough to see how good that content is (and will potentially sweeten their view of your potential, which is really the whole point of a first-professional portfolio).

Mr. Minimal, I do think that presentation of portfolio is held in very high regard by the admissions committee. I may be jumping to conclusions, but from the sound of some of the e-mails I have received, it is actually equally as important as content. It does seem that there are many portfolios with mediocre that create a cogent visual dialogue and are therefore strong. I honestly get frustrated by the fact, and can't believe that they could judge each person equally by way of content. A math major should not be expected to have near the design prowess as a graphic design major. There is no way of telling what their "potential" would be if they were in classes together for 5 years. All you can really do is test their ability to think with visual logic (meaning how something is put together, and how ideas are presented.)  and I wish they just replaced this thing with some sort of IQ test on assembling blocks or putting together an object for the M.Arch 3. I guess that is for another discussion.

As far as UT Summer Academy goes. It is an excellent program. I spoke with those who went to other programs, and I don't know that the others seem as intense. I was in studio with people 23-39. They were at the very least talented, and a few (1-2/9) I believe will get into any grad school based on M.Arch 1 portfolio's I have seen here vs the work they did there. Having said that, the program for many of us stretched us beyond are intellectual breaking point. Most people pulled at least 4 all nighters over 5 weeks for review, and at least half the other nights were spent going to bed from 3:30-4 in the morning, and sleeping until 8:00. It all depends on the studio, some probably got more sleep. 

I do have a few issues with the program.  First is my own fault, but I should have enrolled in a semester of drawing before hand. Despite the idea that these summer programs are aimed at non-design majors, and believe me most call themselves a "non-design major" in order to seem like they are natural Da Vinci's. In reality, they have had classes in pottery, sculpture, painting, and drawing. Having said that, you will be at a real loss if you don't have a natural knack for craft, and don't have a strong background in drawing.  The problem is that both of these things are actually easy to improve in a short period of time, but you don't want to do it during these five weeks. If you go into it with a background, you will leave with some great work for a portfolio.

Lastly, and this ostensibly runs in the veins of all architecture schools is the focus on craft. I feel like craft is one of those bullshit things you should never get graded on but should always be expected to have. To me it's a way of maintaining pride in your work, but lets face it. In the real world, not everyone will be making models. I know attention to detail is important in architecture, and I don't think one should graduate without it, but I don't think it warrants a grade over something that is conceptually better. Slobs succeed in all professions including architecture. Would they be better otherwise, sure, but I don't believe that it should be like a ceramics class.  

This completely off the wall...but i've been told I need to be a little more fluid and flexible with my ideas, so here goes.....

I am assuming the M.Arch 1 design portfolio is there to judge your potential as a student. I am also assuming that your ability to rearrange blocks and space are good indicators of spatial intelligence (probably the primary thing they are looking for.) Would it be that off the wall to cleverly weave in an actual IQ test from certified Psychologist if this is something you have scored well in in the past. I mean if your in the 95th percentile in something like this, and it's certified wouldn't it be nice to announce that somehow. I mean you put a resume in there. At the risk of getting torn apart for suggesting this, I honestly wish that there was a way to deliver this information. At least in a humorous way, as I have seen a few comedians have success with that angle. 

Is it a must to do your portfolio on InDesign or a similar program? Is it possible to tell a story of a project without saying anything? I feel like absence of written explanations should kind of be the point.