It doesn't matter what people on a website think, but what the policy is of the school(s) to which you're applying.

I was in precisely your situation-- experienced, licensed, etc.-- and had to suffer the GRE to get into the master's program I wanted.  Pointless?  Who knows?  My strong hunch is that it's a formality required by universities (rather than architecture departments).  A strong portfolio and admissions essay is what's really important in most cases.  But if they want GRE scores, then ya gotta take the GRE.

Pardon me, but why are you intending to go to graduate school?

say what!?

What citizen said. The people on the admissions committee at the architecture don't give a rat's ass about your GRE scores; it's just a box that needs to be checked off for the university.

Unless your test-taking skills are so bad that you completely bomb it, I wouldn't sweat it. If you're smart enough to earn a BArch degree and pass the AREs, there's no reason you shouldn't get a decent GRE score. I don't think I studied for my GRE at all, and I still got into my top-choice grad school.

I've been on admissions committees at two schools. GRE is not a very big factor at either - unless the GRE scores were fairly high, while the student's GPA was sub-standard - in which case the GRE was sometimes considered evidence that the student had more potential to do well academically than might be apparent from his past grades.

That said, it was a little more than a box to check off - and the scores did get to the admissions committees - they weren't merely a university requirement that wasn't considered at all.  There were spreadsheets compiled of all applicants' information so that they can be compared against each other.  Grades and scores that are below thresholds are flagged (colored differently) - and so are very high grades and scores.  So it's not that anybody typically looks at each M.Arch applicant's GRE scores in-depth or cares all that much, but they will see if the students scores are terrible, or if they're the highest received, and that may have some bearing on decisions.  Same with GPA.  So if your scores are middle-of-the-pack and you don't need them to compensate for something else, then by all means focus on your portfolio and don't study vocabulary.  

The admissions committee can also see on those spreadsheets if the application was received on time or late, whether all the recommendations have been received, that sort of thing, so it's important to keep on top of deadlines and your reviewers.  One of the schools at which I worked would score portfolios and statements of purpose on a 1 through 4 system, and that, along with all the other factors, resulted in an overall score.  The other didn't do that and just cut the pile of still-in-the-running applicants at each meeting, over the course of several weeks, mostly on the basis of portfolio reviews.  

It varies at each school. I know that some schools have cutoffs though. It wont matter how high you score, but if you score med-low to low, you get an immediate cutoff no matter your portfolio or experience. Universities have standards. 

You should be working, period, instead of studying for the GRE.

why are you going back to school?

if you think earning a m.arch II to get a higher pay than you are wrong.

I suggest you continue working rather spending $$$ on school. 

but if you do want to go back to school and want to earn more money with a higher degree, then GO FOR A MASTER OF SCIENCE IN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT.

dont be an idiot and go back to m.arch II when you're already licensed.  i don't care if you didn't get into harvard and want to go there. it won't get you a higher pay. 

Christ on a cracker, enough with the trade school mentality. The OP wasn't asking for advice if he/she should get an MArch II or not. Presumably they've already given it some thought and decided it's worth the time and expense, for reasons that may not have anything to do with earning potential.

It is pointless, don't waste your time and money. Spend more time with your family