I've heard it is low on the list of priorities for the reviewing committee, but that's only what I've heard.

My guess at the list of importance would be:
1. PF
2. letters of rec
3+4. statement - grades
5. GRE

anyone else?

1. portfolio
2. letters
3. statement
4. grades
5. gre

for those of you giving such advice, are you in academia?

no, I am not. that's why I called my list just a guess.

I've seen the way that some schools break out this info. They compile it in spreadsheets so that committee members can go to the "GRE page" of their binders and compare scores of all applicants. There's another page for GPA. There's also a page for each separate applicant, on which are listed their references, GPA, GRE, undergrad school, etc., and there's a box for each reviewer to write 2 or 3 sentences of observations about the candidate. There's also a box for each reviewer to score the applicant on a 1 to 5 scale. I don't know if all schools do things the same way. I've seen admissions materials at the school I attended for my M.Arch and at the one where I teach part-time.

In my personal experience: my GRE scores were 800verbal and 710math. I got into most but not all of the schools I applied to. But so did friends with considerably lower (even far below average) scores. I agree that portfolio and recs are by far the most important factors. I think some schools use grades and GRE as factors that are slightly more important when allocating grants and scholarships to 1st year students.

i didnt have to take them just portfolio letter of intent letters of rec.

At my school (one of ol' Michas' favs.) the way it works is that the Arch school looks at your work an d your atatment and recs. but the overall grad program likes to keep their average GPA and test scores looking good so the school gets hassled if they try to let in people with low grades or test scores.

Therefore, even amazing stats wont help that much but a sub-par score will make you less attrective. Yours are fine and fine is all you need.

I got into Ivy, and my GRE was average, at best. Grades were decent (3.65).

I don't think it matters much at all.

NSLM is right, though. A lot of U have a 'not below here' score that applies to the entire school. This is the case with grades, too.

trace, was your portfolio quite strong?

Did any of you get in without much of a visual/artistic element in your portfolio? My undergrad is in econ, and my portfolio is all papers, with a couple of drawings I did just to show them I could draw. One of the admissions guys told me in response to my expression of concern over this "How would you have a visual component? Your major was eonomics," which relievedd me, but I'm still worried not everyone on the admissions board feels that way.

I couldn't imagine people sitting down to read them.

guiggster - I liked it ;-)

newstreamlinedmodel,
do you think that at your school, once you do get passed the overall grad school cut, the arch school admissions really looks at the grades/gre? and if they look at grades, do they just look at gpa or the actual transcripts?

five,
there are many people at MArch programs with no formal visual arts background. but that doesnt mean they dont have any material to put in portfolio. Most do vis arts as a hobby. to be honest, i doubt anyone on admissions commitee would read papers. poetry, maybe, but most writing (even project descriptions) gets skipped over

netizen,
So the only way for an economist to become an architect is if he sits at home on weekends and draws?

threads, you rule.

I'd agree w/netizen in terms of the portfolio as priority although I went to ivy grad with an arch undergrad and average GRE scores (can't remember exact scores - 600V, 650M, 700 A).
it would seem that without a strong pfolio the GRE becomes more prominent.

My portfolio is incredibly strong, as well as my academic record--Magna cum Laude, University Scholar, Liberal arts background, undergraduate research--but it's strength is in my writing--everything an admissions board is looking for--creativity, research ability, composition skills, intelligence--is all there, but not in images. If it is the case that arch admissions people won't read papers, then all this crap about wanting students with diverse backgrounds who draw inspiration from a breadth of sources is all bs? I hope not. Isn't it ideal to have a classical background before one goes into a highly focused postmodern program?

hahahaha.
Where are the "highly focused postmodern programs?"
good one,
i appreciate your sarcasam.

Postmodern in the sense that you're ionly studying one thing--architecture--there's no philosophy classes or science or math except ones taught in relation to architecture.

But isn't that what all masters degrees in architecture are?

Five, I wouldn't stress. I went to Columbia's open house in the December(?) and someone asked the profs what to include if you don't have an art background. They responded and encouraged to include essays and writings. That same evening I talked to a student that is currently enrolled at Columbia and he was a Literature major in undergrad with no art background. He said that he had mostly essays and writings in his portfolio with maybe one sketch and a couple of graphic drawings, which he trained himself how to do only for the portfolio. This student admitted that his portfolio was weak, but that he had "amazing GRE scores". I don't know what "amazing" means. You have great scores, it will certainly give you that edge if your portfolio is lacking.

Yes--that was my point.

If you have two postmodern degrees (BArch, MArch), then you have nothing to inspire you but other architecture.

five--What is "postmodern" about focussed study? The main reason the 3 year Masters don't include many electives outside of archtecture is that they are cramming a helluva lot into three short years....as you will soon see.

Again, that's the point. That's why admissions boards should be seeing that other aspects of scholarship are developed in their applicants' undergrads.

Historically, most great (and respected) architects were extremely well-rounded and focused on multiple areas outside of architecture.

five,
its not bs at all. i have many friends at ivies now who say up to a quarter of incoming classes have no formal vis arts background at all. your undergrad degree in econ is definitely a plus, as well as your academic achievements.

what do you mean by your portfolio being strong? if you can write well, that will help. but architecture is a visual practice. the ivies stress this the most in terms of reviewing apps/portfolios. if the couple dwgs you have in your portfolio are very strong, then i would say they would be enough.

imagine yourself on the admissions commitee--if an applicant who is strong academically but doesn't exhibit any interest in the visual arts through practice--how would they judge that persons ability to design?

thats why you hear stories occasionally of people with a pretty low gpa, but who are insanely talented and even smart (can come across in statement) getting into to some very competitive programs. one of my classmates from undergrad was like that--he didnt care much about grades, wouldnt go to classes that didnt challenge him, but he won the top design awards at the school. he also had very high gre scores and was an excellent writer, so that showed he was intelligent. he got into all the ivies he applied to with a 2.8 gpa.

again, the quantity of the vis arts portion of your portfolio is not important, its the quality of those few dwgs. what kind of dwgs were they? also, your recs will be more important--will they talk about your creative potential or just list your academic achievements?

Five, your statement,
"If you have two postmodern degrees (BArch, MArch), then you have nothing to inspire you but other architecture."
is total bullshit. inspiration does not begin in one's undergraduate years and end once graduate schooling is finished. Not to mention that students in these programs do not live in a vaccuum, or a bubble and they are completely aware of their enviornment as well as the surroundings. To say taht the inspiration only comes from the formal training is totally ignorant, and arrogant on your part.

Van Winkle,
It is not bullshit. I guarantee that people with two focused degrees, no matter what their interests or hobbies, are living in much more of a bubble than those who have spent their time studying business, physics, law, film, literature, philospophy, theology, etc. You're perverting the practice by insisting that architects have nothing to learn in other fields of academia.

i never said that architects have nothing to learn in other fields. I never made any reference to such an idea. I am jsut speaking with first hand knowledge that in my office, whenever we hire a graduate with an March (from whatever university) they always know less and are for more inefficent than graduates with a Barch. You are preverting this thread with your brainwashed ideas that someone sold you when you couldn't get into architecture school. Stop wasting your time.

netizen,
Thank you for your response. The reason that I do not have a substantial visual component is that I got my undergrad degree in 2.5 years--I was very anxious to move on to an arch degree, but felt that a broad undergrad application would be beneficial. Having spent only 2.5 years, I had no time to take misc. classes in the arts--I like to focus on what I am doing at the moment, getting everything I can out of that stage of my education. I expect that the admissions commitee will understand that I will apply that same focus to their program.
Also, I believe that architecture has room for sculptors (eg Gehry), or Jewelers (eg eisenmann), but also for composers--you are really just drawing diverse elements together in arch (in terms of theory and physical elements). Being able to compose a piece of written work is the same, and I do have the physical ability to draw well, which I'm sure they will see. My concern is that people were telling me that an exhibited passion for the visual arts is a necessary prereq.

Van Winkle--I'm not perverting anything with the idea (which is original, mind you) that it is beneficial, perhaps superior, when going into a focused program, to have academic training in other fields. FYI, the program I am applying to is a 4+, which inludes in sum a year of internships. I am sure I will be a highly successful architecture student, and architect, if I choose to be one.

It's not unusual for applicants to have no architectural or visual arts background. I had classmates who had been chemistry, history, and english majors. However it is unusual for a candidate to an M.Arch program - even a first professional program geared toward those without previous design studies - to have so little visual work of some sort that they can't fill a portfolio. This is not to say that it's impossible to be admitted, but it makes it more difficult on your part to convey your aptitude and potential and working process and just your way of seeing the world.
It's unusual for someone with a strong interest in a design field to lack some sort of visual work, if merely because people who would gravitate toward design tend to be people who have always been visually creative in some way. It can really be anything from photography to furniture design to textiles to abstract painting to ceramics.

I agree with those who have told you that your written work likely will not get the attention it deserves. It is just the way that this type of admission process is constructed. Picture a bunch of people sitting around a conference table, spending only a few minutes per applicant in each meeting, and calling each others' attention to projects/images that appeal to them. Some committee members may also take portfolios home with them for a few days to spend more time reviewing and marking pages to show the group next time. Applicants are often advised even to limit text about projects in their portfolios to no more than 3 sentences per project - because it usually will only be skimmed at best.

Most architecture programs have a prerequisite of at least 1 semester of freehand drawing. This can be anything from life drawing to landscape drawing - doesn't have to be architecture related. You might want to look into taking a course at a community college or continuing ed program. Along with killing off the prerequisite it will often give you enough work to fill a good portion of the portfolio. (Other prereqs are often 1 semester of art history or architecture history, 1 semester of calculus and/or 1 of physics. Check with each school as these requirements vary widely.)

If you are going to send in writing samples I highly recommend that you incorporate them directly into the book of your portfolio. If you do not then there's a good chance that they'll be left in a folder and overlooked.

The program I'm applying to, strangely, has none of those req.s (probably b/c it's in its infancy--BTW, i"the program" is DAAP), though I have taken physics, calc, etc. I would have liked to have taken a drawing class, but it didn't fit into my schedule--this program is unique in that it begins in the summer and students admitted take a massive drawing foundations studio and a digital skills studio, whcih would also lead me to expect that a visual portfolio is somewhat less important than to other programs.

five,

"I got my undergrad degree in 2.5 years--I was very anxious to move on to an arch degree, but felt that a broad undergrad application would be beneficial. Having spent only 2.5 years, I had no time to take misc. classes in the arts"

I would just like to join the discussion and ask this - is there any particular reason you didn't have time or the desire to spend another semester taking some classes in the arts, to make your education even more broad? Having attended a liberal arts school for my undergrad degree, I understand the value of a 'broad' education - but I'm not sure that taking classes in every subject BUT the arts constitutes a 'broad' education. Not that one does not touch on the same ideas, emotions, and concepts through writing or philosophy or whatever you may chose, but they are touched on in a different way, or at least approached differently.

VanWinkle is right when he says that architecture students are by no means 'living in a vacuum.' We are all educated in unique and different ways. I would urge you never to assume that, because you have earned what you deem to be a broad education in 2.5 years, you are in any way ahead of someone else who chooses to learn in a different, and perhaps less documented, way - ie through personal study and exploration of ideas and disciplines in one's own time.

I would hope that an admissions committee could appreciate what you bring to the table, but they might wonder why, if you've done so many other things, you have not yet explored the arts in some tangible way. I have heard from talking to some faculty that they look for evidence that your desire to study architecture 'is based on more than the contemplation of a possibility.'

Just throwing this out there. I would urge all to reconsider the definition of a truly 'broad' education. Is it possible, or just in degrees? Should we ever justify our abilities in relation to our own ideas of how 'broadly' we have been (or are perceived to have been) educated? Let's just keep ourselves in check.

"is there any particular reason you didn't have time or the desire to spend another semester taking some classes in the arts, to make your education even more broad?"

Highsmith,

Thanks for your response. There is a very good reason for that--I am working in residential construction before I start school, and I wanted to have time (thoguht it's only 6 months) to develop that part of my education (My MArch starts int he summer). I also assumed that I would be taking intensive drawing classes in the beginning of my MArch (which I will, this whole summer) and would therefore not have the opportunity to study something like film (which I did for my art credit in undergrad).

I never stated that people with 2 arch degrees live in a vacuum, but that perhaps they could benefit from having a broader degree in addition to an arch degree--moving from a classical education to a postmodern one, I said.

In addition, I believe that design is very much a science (and not all arch it design--some is art, and it is amazing). My interests are in bringing designs to the table that are economically efficient, i.e. that can help reduce the cost of building, can last long, and can be easily repaired or updated. In my opinion, the efficient outcome is very aesthetically attractive (but maybe it's just me). E.g, container homes, urban industrial lofts (which reuse a structure initially designed with only efficiency in mind), quality prefabrication... This is just my vision; I know it is not a very mainstream one, but I believe that the most brilliant designs are useless unless they improve real peoples' lives, so building them is the ultimate test.

five: if the program is very new then it likely is looking for a broad mix of people and you'll have a better chance.

As far as the summer intensive foundation/drawing part: this is not really unique. I would say that more than half of all programs have this, though in some it is not mandatory for all new students - only those that are deemed to need it by the admissions committe - and optional for everyone else. I had summer drawing, shop, and computer courses at my program prior to starting first year of the M.Arch. Even though I had an arts background already and it wasn't mandatory about 3/4 of the entering 1st years chose to attend (or were required to.)

This discussion seems to have digressed into other things besides the GRE, so I might as well ask this here:

What schools are most of you coming from as undergrads?

And do admissions committees make adjustments on their decisions based upon the quality of the program from which you come (arch./art related or not, just in general)?

good idea--why don't you try starting a new thread with this?