I was just wondering what a C+ reads as to admission officers. Also if a 3.4 is a gpa that march programs generally take. There was no need to reply if you don't know. I was also pretty sad when I wrote the original post so I guess I was looking for some reassurance that its not the end of the world but I have quickly realized that this forum is not a good place to receive any kind of support.

It's not the end of the world. Your portfolio and gre score are what matters. Then, well...

"but I have quickly realized that this forum is not a good place to receive any kind of support"

Sorry about that. B3tadine gave you an accurate answer. I'd also disagree with NS... the very simple answer is yes. Is it a good GPA to start with, no. Will it hurt your chance at getting into ivy schools or getting great scholarships, yes. Can you get into a master's program, for sure. Rest of your material should be good though. 

I'm starting to think you have some major career envy there Jay. I wonder why?

There was a dude saying he's math major doing some kind of analytic programming for wall street firm predicting stock trends. Quantitative Analyst Is the name of the job I think. Makes $200K and above. Can't say I am not jealous of that pay.

Then you should go into that field. Also, I know of a few surgeons who make $500k a year. You should maybe look at that as possible career as well.

Yafeto, most likely 3+ year track because they are coming from an architecture undergrad degree. As for your point on this, I don't think your answer is definitely going to be the case. You can have a bad grade on a lower level math and do better in a higher level math course. It can be how the instructor/professor explains things. It could be that if you grasp elementary algebra which is basically what structural engineering done by architects, really is. All the equations variables you can fill in the numerical values from the various sources.... like the BUILDING CODES and other data sources and solve. A probability and statistics course could be a real bitch if you even if you took a course at another college as a prerequisite or by another instructor/professor who didn't cover same things the professor of the probability and statistics class assumed and just assumes you know so they just start throwing all these Greek symbols and other crap assuming you know what that means. This could be simply due to incongruent continuity in the course yet for some reason you understand the subject matter for what limited ass version of engineering course you find in a typical U.S. architecture course. For example, if it isn't stuff you find in this book: https://www.amazon.com/Simplified-Engineering-Architects-Builders-Ambrose/dp/1118975049 --- it is most likely not going to be seen in your architecture school class unless your professor is an asshole.... and you certainly won't practice in professional life because you are NOT a FUCKING structural engineer and your E&O insurance will not cover your ass for that stuff. They will drop covering you or your premium goes through the roof. Now, seriously, unless you obtain an engineering bachelors level degree from an ABET accredited college and passed the FE exam AND the PE exams for STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING and any other prerequisite PE exams, you will ALWAYS never do that yourself if you have a brain in your skull and not want to broke after more lawsuits than Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani, combined because of inane stupidity and incompetency. Architecture education isn't built with 90+ credits of engineering and math.

Yafeto. Disagree on the principle of the thing. Stats is a bad indicator. OP probably took Calculus, and if you look at the pipeline and prerequisites for architecture programs that is going to be a way better indicator. If they struggled really hard in that, then structures will probably be a challenge.

Richard, you’re really underselling structures classes with the elementary algebra comment. (Basic algebra would be a more appropriate term by the way, they don’t teach algebra in elementary school though I presume that's not what you were trying to imply). Anyway, the actual math involved is a bit harder than that to be clear. The real challenge is that structures classes are physics classes, and physics is not just applied math. I was a top tier math student though my entire primary and secondary education. I still found parts of my structure’s education very difficult. Particularly when I took at concrete structures class…. That one I’ll admit was also plagued with teacher issues.

natematt, good points there. I can see how it can be a flag of concern. It doesn't mean he can't end up completing an NAAB accredited architecture degree even with mediocre score. I would probably recommend he retake the course (or equivalent statistics course from another college) that satisfies the statistics stuff. 

As for myself

As I wrap up my not quite officially complete bachelor's degree studies which is partly a pivot from UofO days but takes into account what studies I have had from all my college, there are courses I would have to take to complete it, which I can do where I am part-time while working. It would likely require a math course or two. Some courses I am considering from the list of courses allowed to be registered for, I am considering some computer science/video game development courses and that runs me into fun math stuff, too like Discrete Math and possibly taking Statistics to allow for enough credits to maintain the part-time minimum credit load level for funding while also working. I didn't have to actually take these at college for my degrees in the past and even for a B.Arch at the University of Oregon, as it wasn't a required course there. 

Getting that done while also having a little fun, would wrap up a bachelor's degree resulting from one hell of a fucking eclectic assortment of subject matter. This then sets me in a position to apply for an M.Arch in the future if I decide to and there just isn't going to be enough financial aid or loan I can get at the undergraduate level lending that I have access to to complete a 4 or 5-year bachelor's degree in Architecture (BA/BS/BArch). I want to be in a position where I could apply and enroll in an M.Arch degree program if I feel the gumption to do so. I am also going to cycle in ARE exams and CPBD certification in there somewhere. This also means I intend to do decent with my GPA on the courses I am taking so I would have a good GPA record. So I am aiming for a 3.5+ GPA on the courses I am taking.

Add to that, a 3.4 GPA isn't all that low. A lot of people seem to stress over if the GPA is below a 3.7 GPA. Seriously, most people never get that high of GPA and if they did, a lot of easy A's because if you have a hard ass instructor that almost never gives an A and only an A to ONE and only ONE student, and everyone else gets a B or below then it is hard to maintain that high a GPA if you have that instructor over several courses. Then there are more often, hard instructors that makes it an ordeal just to get a C and even more for a B, and almost working 120+ hours a week on class to get an A. It depends on how hard the professor grades students. Some are really harsh graders and hard on students. They all know this so most look for where it counts. If your GPA is in the 3.3+ then you are likely to be able to get into an architecture school program with a decent portfolio and letter of intent/recommendations. 

A 3.4 GPA won't get you admissions into all architecture school programs in a given your but in almost all cases, it is either they had a bunch of high GPA earners and got their chosen but also if there is a lacking portfolio. People also get admitted at lower than 3.4 GPA. Even below 3.2 GPA. As your GPA gets lower, your option for schools do reduce. At minimum, you can get enrolled at an architecture school with a 2.0 GPA somewhere. Below that, it's below the hard deck and you're pretty screwed. You have to be phenomenal unlike the world has ever seen kind of elite in your portfolio to get accepted at that low of a level. Depends on the school, the administration of the architecture program and how they are running the admissions process and where they are prioritizing on the admissions. Then you have the reviewers and like others said that have their perspective and schools are not static. There are change overs in faculty, staff, and administration of the architecture program. All of which effects things. Then you have the makeup of the students submitting their application and portfolio. What does it look like? It isn't the same every year.

There are a number of well-known schools that put a 3.0 (or used to anyway) as a hardline minimum to apply, though anecdotally that doesn’t actually mean anything for the right students. I do recall some of the more selective schools using around a 3.4 as an expectation of sorts though.

The reality is that, with a 3.4, there is not a single architecture school in the US that will blanketly throw away your application. It will however be a detractor at the really selective schools, and given your background I suspect you’ll struggle to really break away from this with your other materials. As others have said, portfolio is huge, but I don’t know what the expectation is for that from a non-arch/art/design background.