I didn't look super close at your portfolio.  That being said, I think the images are pretty successful.  I would reconsider the font choice; it is very fine and may be hard for some to read on a monitor.  I'm unclear about what the graphic on the front cover has anything to do with the projects inside.  The text notes on your wall section on p. 9 are too small and pixelated to read.

You may want to consider retaking the GRE, especially if it was your first time taking it, and investing a little bit in a study program.  Your scores aren't awful, but probably close to average.  This chart has the averages for each major. https://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide_table4.pdf 

Hi there, I like you portfolio, first project is quite nice, it'd be better to have your physical model being the 1st project front page. I also would consider take a new photograph for that model. It's a nice model, so utilized it. Love you section on first project. Overall, I think it would benefit you to have more technical drawings and diagrams explaining you projects a bit better. 

decent quality.

Here is one advice I think would be important.

Could you adjust every image to 2 point perspective?

This is architecture standard and will make your images more professional.

Overall the images are quite successful, but I would suggest you add more process diagrams and explanations. The few process images lack explanation and reasoning and seems to just be tacked on. 

Very minimal and clean which is nice, maybe try reducing your title and paragraph font sizes by 1/3? Not much else to add to the other posts, good luck!

ok so prestigious schools care about these things, in this order:

1) portfolio

2) statement of purpose

3) recommendations

4) GPA

5) GRE scores

your GRE is perfectly acceptable.  design schools only care because university administration makes them care...the only way it factors into an admit decision is if you totally crater the test.  or ace it.  

your GPA is likewise acceptable.  

idk about your sop and recommendations.

which brings me to your portfolio.  it needs work.  you aren't expected to be a technical wizard or produce photo-realistic renderings, or even be very good at design.  they'll teach you that.  you are expected to think, and to be able to communicate a thought process via. iterative design work.  that is wholly missing from your portfolio atm.  adcoms give zero fucks about renderings, yours are fine, but use those to back end your design arguments, which you demonstrate through drawing and model making.  my problem is that i see a lot of finished work, like your urban design project, but nothing shows me how or why you arrived at that particular solution.  and these don't need to be polished pieces of work!  scanned sketches, a dirty iterative model, a bit of reading you did that steered your thinking...show us that.  look at how OMA presents their projects to an architecture audiance--a good example is the seattle public library exhibit @ the library itself.  and ditch the quote at the beginning, it seems staged and trite.

also, its totally acceptable to make retroactive "thinking pieces" that demonstrate how you arrived at a solution.  the best example i can think of is weiss manfredi's olympic sculpture park. that beautiful folded model+those black drawings with white linework?  they made those after the project was finished, for marketing purposes.  be like them

I echo all the sentiments shared on your portfolio. Great start with lots of potential. I like your font choice but it does read a little light, almost low res. What dpi are you using to export your pdf?

The only thing I'll add is there seems to be a lot of different ways of organizing your drawings on each spread and different graphic tricks like gradient then no-gradient on the transition title pages. I'd just keep it consistent as much as possible to not confuse the reviewer.

I am a big fan of post-rationalizing and organizing your diagrams based on how you would present your project orally. If you feel you need to cut down your pages, there's definitely opportunities for that as we can tell your rendering capabilities based on just 2-3 renders.

This is a minute criticism, but for your main title page, what if you blew up that object to where it just shows a close-up pattern obscuring its object-like nature. Play around with the scale and see what looks best. It just looks too clunky and object like.

Good luck!

Ditch the inspirational quote, and the table of contents.  Also cut the 2 pages of interior design at the end: this is not strong work, and you want to end on a high note.

There are a lot of distracting bad things going on with your text: phrases randomly italicized, words wrongly capitalized, misspellings even in large titles and captions (examples: "Diagraming", "longitudnal"...)  If you don't have a friend who is strong in editing I would advise you to hire somebody to proofread. 

The rest of the work is ok, though there's a sameness about all the projects that gets repetitive.  Do you have any other non-architectural artwork that you could add - perhaps sculpture, painting, life drawing?  Something else to show more creative potential is advisable here, as the whole thing is a little too rendering-intensive, in ways that are not at all experimental, and none of it shows much about your unique design sensibilities or potential.