If it was that simple, everyone would take the easier route and short-change their M.Arch with the easier interior design degree. That's why the 3y M.arch exists, it places all applicants, B.Arch and others, on equal grounds.

But if I already have a strong knowledge and understanding of programs such as AutoCad and Revit and could prove that in a portfolio, would an admissions office take that into consideration? Or would I need to start at square one with other M.Arch I students, who may have zero knowledge and experience working in the field of architecture/design?

I don't know of any first-professional M.Arch programs that will grant advanced standing based on portfolio or work experience - but your academic experience may or may not get you some advanced standing or at least allow you to waive some required courses, depending on the structure of your undergrad program.

If your undergrad interior design program is part of the same department or division of a pre-professional architecture major (typically a 4-year AB, BA, BFA, or BS major in architecture) and if some courses are shared between the interior and architecture undergrad degree programs, then it's not unusual that some of the required first-year M.Arch coursework will have been satisfied.  If the program had design studios that mixed interior/architecture students then advanced standing is sometimes a possibility for those who majored in interior design. I graduated from an undergrad program that mixed the interiors and architecture students, and most of us were granted advanced standing at many schools to which we applied, regardless of whether our declared major was interior design or architecture.

If your interior design program was an autonomous department, or if your undergrad school didn't have an architecture major at all, then it's unlikely you'll get any courses waived or advanced standing. But some first-professional M.Archs are shorter than 3.5 years - there are many that are only 3 years, and some 2.5.

If I were you I'd work for at least a year full time in a design firm, perhaps in an interior design role in an architecture firm - it will give you a much better idea of whether you really want to get an M.Arch, and it will help you to develop a stronger portfolio.

Software is absolutely irrelevant in most admissions decisions.  What level you're placed at usually has more to do with the number of architecture studio credits, and whether you've already taken architecture history, theory, structures, and materials.

Understanding AutoCAD prepares you for design school about as much as knowing how to print & bind books prepares you for writing poetry.

The tools of the trade vs. the foundation of the art. Don't skimp on the latter. Better to spend 3 years and emerge a rockstar than try to short-cut the process and end up average.

As for "starting at square 1" with other students: some will be from nearly completely unrelated academic backgrounds (examples: chemistry, english), but many will be from other design professions.

Also some M.Arch programs don't grant advanced standing to anyone, so in those programs you'll be on even footing with all those who graduated from pre-professional architecture programs too - i.e. it's 3 years for anyone who doesn't have a B.Arch, regardless of what they studied previously.

Zack, as it's been mentioned above... software knowledge means dick-all when being considered for grad school.

You'll need that extra 1.5y so don't try and cheat yourself out of it.

Thanks for the feedback!

For the past 8 months I've worked for a hospitality design firm in NYC, and I hope to someday begin my own firm (doing hospitality work) or work my way up within a firm. 

From working within the industry, I've found that those who have higher positions within firms typically have degrees in architecture. So I figured that getting a masters in architecture would be the best route to accomplish what I'm hoping to achieve. 

Do you feel like a MBA would be a better fit for what I'm looking for?

The undergrad school I'm studying at now doesn't have an architecture major, so it would be very unlikely to get any courses waived or advanced placement, should I apply to a M.Arch program. Correct?

Also, are some NAAB accredited schools better than others?

I would just start trying to work, and make some money, gain some real world experience. Architecture doesn't pay off in the end with the debt and the time it takes to graduate.

The industry wants to see more real world experience, not a printed piece of paper. There are a ton of graduates that have a degree but no/little experience, and guess what, they are unemployed. 

My best advice is look into architecture more, because it is likely something totally different that what you envision in your head. And academia and the real world are two very different beasts.

Correct, it would be virtually impossible to get any advanced standing.  You might get some required courses waived it you already took them - but ti doesn't sound as though you probably did in your undergrad program.  The first year curriculum of most M.Arch programs includes design studio, structures, history of architecture, theory, materials, some kind of drawing/representation courses, and sometimes project management, building systems, professional practice... (though some of these come in later years in some programs)

You would be starting with a mix of students - some who have design school backgrounds and/or professional experience (sometimes many years of experience), and others who are from unrelated majors.

There are at least 100 NAAB-accredited M.Arch programs.  What makes one better than another depends on what you're looking for.  There are a million threads comparing schools - just do a search for the names of any that you're considering and you'll find plenty of opinions.

Hello- I highly recommend that you work for a year or two in a firm that has both architecture and interior architecture studios so you can see what makes the most sense. Dropping $75k on a masters might not pay off in the long run.  I lead a 20 person interior architecture studio in a 250 person firm, trained as a designer and make more than many of the architects that have the same number of years of experience. Interior designers do seem to "advance" more quickly in their careers in certain urban markets because the time frame of an ID project may be only 1 year versus the 3-5 years of a conventional base building project. Designers are able to get more projects built more quickly and build their portfolio faster making them more valuable in a firm than someone who may have only worked in production.

One thing to assess about yourself is your temperament: do you feel comfortable managing multiple deadlines and priorities? Can you easily shift gears from conceptual design to technical detailing? Do you get bored easily if you aren't given new project types regularly?  Having worked with many architects who wanted to change to work on interiors, I've observed that many have a difficult time with the fast pace and the management of 5-6 projects at a time. A large number of them went back to base building projects because they preferred the pace of working on 1 project for 3 years even if it was designing parking structures versus restaurants.