It wont look very good in your application that you only have a 3.2 GPA. An 80% is equivalent to a 3.5. Dont include CAD renderings. They want to see your creative potential so stick with the painting and the photography. There are many architecture schools out there. Try applying to more than just one.

I was admitted there in 2010 but not 2011. Chose not to go because I wanted to leave Canada. From what I can tell, they valued my design work much more than my academics. My marks in high school were okay, but I definitely did not have an 80 average. To be fair, though, I was placed on the wait list both years. 

The school I'm going to in the fall has an exchange program with Waterloo and the ROME program is actually offered. So if all goes well, I'll be exchanging from an Australian Uni to a Canadian Uni to attend a 3rd year Uni course in my 2nd year located in Italy when I am from Canada originally (holy shit, what).

Waterloo is a fantastic school and I'm not saying that to sound like a lot of the others on this site who care only about a school's prestige. The quality of students and work that emerge from it seems to be pretty interesting, it's a little less engineering-oriented like McGill and the co-op program is unreal. I realize you're an engineering student but I'm not math minded at all so a school like Waterloo really appeals to me. They actually have a surplus of offered co-op positions, meaning you can work in a lot of very different countries and cherry-pick where you'd like to go. I'm only saying this because a friend of a friend is a second year student there and really loves it.

I have one more thing to add, and that is that Ryerson left a very bad taste in my mouth. I got into the school but the whole process was annoying and one of the more pretentious exams I've ever taken part in. I can't remember what their drawing exercise portion of the exam asked but I laughed aloud while reading it. I'm 23 and I don't know how any 17 year old kid could ever decipher that bullshit.

I'd focus as much on my portfolio as possible. If you'd like, you can send me a pdf of what you have and I can help you out? Try to focus on hand-made things or areas of design outside of architecture. It's important to have good typography, to be concise and clear in your works and to show them that you can be versatile. I had 0 design works related to architecture. Save that for your M.Arch.

hey saltymoob,

i just finished the undergrad program there, and I can at least suggest, like archifan, that you should work more into showing your artistic/design/conceptual diversity and exploration rather than CAD work.  uWaterloo is not a technical school, so you'd be best off showing what non-architecture influences you can bring.  I know a lot of people are into dance, music, art, video, whatever...show what your good at, but remember the interview is not a talent show, so keep it classy.  I am not sure if the grades will knock you out, but architecture is a popular program, so...hope for the best and at least make sure your portfolio will shine through.  If you make it past that point, I don't think the grades are as important as the interview (though I didn't go for it myself), because this is where the faculty will pick out people based on their apparent potential, rather than their past marks.  Get familiar with the program...good to have a cursory knowledge so you can speak about what you want from UW...and what you're getting into!

Oh, and good luck, it's a great program, and you'll love coop!  

 I moved my porfolio and pictures to my laptop, but theres no way to get them into the forum.

Maybe try uploading to Issuu.com?  That's seems to be the norm.

Thanks, I uploaded my old portfolio and a couple things I've been working on since then. Thanks for any feedback.

http://issuu.com/mylibrary?view=pending

^ ^ Try again, looks like you copied & pasted the wrong link.

The thing to get your head around when applying to undergraduate architecture schools is that marks really only get you past that first "hump" of screenings. After that its all portfolio, and at Waterloo they want to see evidence of your creative and artistic abilities (I know that sounds pretty generic but its the truth). I recall seeing somewhere on their site that for the undergrad program they highly discourage showing up with any kind of building designs or CAD drawings, and they're right for saying that. Anyone can learn CAD, and in all honesty, you probably haven't even learned how to use it properly yet. The drawings will look amateurish and the first thing they will ask upon seeing them is if they're are CD's or schematics; when you answer that question it will become clear that you don't really know.

I'm curious why you want to go to Waterloo so badly still? U of C has the 2+2 model at their arch. school, which you can enter once you've done 2 years of any undergrad studies. Saves you 2 years off your education, both in time and money. I was denied from Carleton and Waterloo, but I was accepted to Waterloo Planning. Honestly? That university is really lame; I know it gets ripped on for that a lot, but you don't know it until you get there. Yes, the arch school is likely the best in the country, but there are many others out there. Waterloo is not the be-all, end-all, and its certainly not all it's cracked up to be. I'm now about to graduate from a different arch school in Canada come May, and theres a possibility I will apply to Waterloo's M.Arch, but I'm much more hesitant about it now, having been there for 2 years and getting a true feel for the place. Fact of the matter is, I will probably only attend there for my masters if they offer to let me do a dual degree MFA (one of the few advantages of the school is how many programs there are).

Thanks, hopefully these work.

http://issuu.com/saltymoob/docs/undergrad_application_pdf

http://issuu.com/saltymoob/docs/paintings

The reason I chose Waterloo is because after visiting and applying to most of the schools in Canada, it was the only one that offered me the education that I wanted with the community life and a awesome co-op. I realize calgary probably has a great program, but its barely had a graduating class yet and I'd rater get a degree from somewhere tried and tested than be a trial run for future U of C arch students. 

@BenC

sorry, but I don't see what makes Waterloo lame...those who don't make it into the Architecture program, since there's only about 70-80 students, are often offered a position in Planning instead.  At least they give you something!  As for the program, I don't have too many complaints, but like anywhere, it's not going to satisfy anyone 100%.  No need to hate on it....

@saltymoob

Hey, I perused the portfolio and wanted to leave a comment.  I'll just be blunt about it (without being pretentious) and hope it helps you curate your work for this time around.  As for the portfolio, the first feeling I get from flipping through is that it's very plain.  The cover, nor any of the spreads, grabs the eye memorably.  It does not bring any of the work to the forefront - that's the problem.  The font and layout you've chosen lends itself better to a report of some kind...have some more fun, choose a more relaxed typeface and tighten up the layout.  At the moment, it feels like text and images floating in a sea of white: use the space better...take up the whole page for some images, and give some breathing space for others.  It'll give it a better flow and rhythm.  The work itself, I feel, would be helped by improving the layout, but you should incorporate more finished work, and more explorative work.   As far as I can tell, most of the work are photos of objects or sketches of objects, and does not readily express a point of view, an idea, an interpretation, or your particular interests.  You show you can sketch, or that you can take a photo, but it does not show a voice.

I'd suggest taking a look through issuu or other portfolios for some idea on what kind of graphic approach may improve the representation of your work, and keep pumping out thoughtful work in more medium.  As I said before, show all the angles you can bring!

Thank you for your input, I agree with what your saying and am working on some metal sculpture right now. As for the layout I had a really hard time find any portfolios that weren't already in the undergraduate program, so I had to wing it.   

Sorry, "lame" is probably a pretty juvenile way of putting it (I'm not trolling).

I'm going to try not to detract from the thread as much as possible because I think its a good discussion, so I'll try to explain while staying on topic. My point wasn't to start a flame war, it was to bring awareness to the fact that there are other architecture school in Canada that it seemed like maybe the OP hadn't considered, and instead had tunnel vision of getting into Waterloo. Without a doubt its a great arch school, and I was blown away when I toured it (both undergrad and grad) - the facilities are top-notch and the student work produced is very strong. However, considering that most other arch programs in Canada revolve around the 2+2+2 model, would you not agree that it may be more worth his/her time to enter one of those and graduate after 4-years with a B.S. Arch, instead of starting at square one again at Waterloo (which takes 5 years to finish the undergrad). Technically he could finish his masters degree in the same time as finishing the bachelors at UW. This is up to them to decide; perhaps the extra time/money is not a factor - its completely a personal choice.

I will stand by my earlier comment though. The school has a serious problem with student spirit and student engagement - which is a nice way of saying that the student body doesn't really do anything other than study. This has been the #1 complaint by current undergraduate student for something like the last 5 years as reported by Maclean's on-campus (student) school ratings and polls.

Anyways, back to the application. I completely agree with dionysus' comments above, the work feels unfinished. The photos seem to go on too long and give the impression of filler. The first two explorations of the body have a significant amount of potential though - I highly recommend getting a REALLY good figurative/expressive drawing or painting in there. Keep plugging away at the portfolio, as its definately the most important part. Good luck with the application!

saltymoob, a little bit more about the in-house interview. You will first be doing a written test with all other applicants. You'll be given an impossible question with no answer. Just do your best.

The interview portion will consist of 4 interviewees, 2 professors and two senior students. Each one will score you A-F after the interview (but noone gets less than C, unless you poo on the table), and an average between the four will be determined. In most years B+ is minimum you'll need to get in. Some years pool of candidates is much stronger so you'll need an A-. Since all 4 have an equal say in the admission matter, try to engage everyone equally, not just the old dude with a beard. That's at least how it used to be. Hope that helps.

Thanks rusty, I did the mail-in application last year. It was a portfolio, precis test, video as well as a building study. Do I have to do another precis test this year?

I believe so. The mail-in precis differs from the one done in person. Things might have changed. It's been a decade since I last set foot there.

A couple of things;

Firstly, I will apply to as many arch schools as my budget will allow, but at this point Waterloo seems like the smartest choice. I've been to Dalhousie and McGill and their programs seem to be much more engineering based (and I'm already in Engineering, with a Co-op). U of Manitoba is in Winnepeg, and I just can't deal with that. As well Ryerson is in Toronto and my family strongly advised me against going there.

Secondly, how should I make my porfolio more proffesional, all the ones online seem to be ones for proffessional architects that have already graduated, or those in their third or fourth year. All I have to work with is a Nikon D3000, a staples printer and my laptop any exanples would be much appreciated.

You cross Manitoba off the list because of location, yet consider 4+ years in Cambridge, ON a good idea? Sorry, but I'm not computing that. 

just to note that it's only 3 years in Cambridge...since 2 years is coop abroad...cambridge ain't so nice, I admit...but its 45mins from toronto....and winnepeg is 45 hrs from nowhere, so it is a point...

So does anyone know how I can make my portfolio more finished/proffesional, the only examples I can find on the internet are for professional architects that have already graduated.

When I was considering schools I based it on the quality of the student work and personally I thought University of Manitoba's work was the most impressive and the most intriguing.   And although the school is isolated geographically, it is not in terms of mindset, the school is quite global, studios travel all over the world.     

Saltymob:

I think you need to worry less about making your portfolio "more finished/profesional" and start investing more time into making more work to put in. It has potential, but it needs to be stronger, and the only way to do that at this point is to keep producing work to put into it. When you are at the point where it may be getting too long, at that point you can start selecting pieces and designing the actual portfolio layout. A slick looking booklet won't make a difference if the work is sub-par compared to others, and having sat on an admissions jury/committee I can say that the profs are often very good at sorting the truly good work from the mediocre.

Hope that helps, just keep plugging away at it.

Thanks for the advice and support. I've been working on a few more projects but I'm still struggling with the organizational aspect. How do I lay it out in a way that puts my work in the best light possible , and keeps it from looking so "highschool"?

saltymoob:

I think you should watch some videos online about good typography. Go to websites like this to check out what graphic designers do with type in print media. Start every page with a grid. Follow that grid to an extent by making sure your type is alligned, well proportioned and not too large. Use 11pt type when describing projects. If it still seems too small to read, use appropriate leading and line-spacing. Use a larger size for titles and subtitles but nothing too large. Unless the reviewers are absolutely blind, I doubt they will have trouble reading a 14pt title.

Do not add things that do not need to be there.

I'm going to add a little insight on the portfolio admission committee: I served on one for Dalhousie and the (at the time) director treated it like a circus. There was a serious pile of 'hey, these people have made a valiant effort and we're going to review their portfolios again on a day when we're not feeling so nasty' and then there was an entertainment pile of portfolios used to feed the committee's mocking hilarity. The rest were ditched in a box for collection by their owners at a later date. 

Hopefully it's a little more mature at Waterloo. What I learned about portfolios was that even the most strange and underdeveloped portfolios could be considered serious applications if they were presented well. Conversely, some portfolios that had sort of nice work but were presented like a high school report were instantly ditched. Luckily you haven't prefaced your portfolio with a comment about a young boy playing with Lego blocks who dreamt of making fabulous buildings, so you're not likely to end up on the...

Oh wait. *reads front page* Yes. Yes you did. Do you have any idea how many people think that will win the hearts of the committee? hahaha! You and a quarter million other little children playing with lego. We had a special pile just for people who were inspired by lego. Instant rejection. 

Emphasize your strengths, and NEVER add something sub-par just because you feel that you need to have more projects shown.

Tips:

> Seek out strong graphic works that you admire and COPY THEM SHAMELESSLY! Okay, not the content, obviously, but studying the layout and font choices of good graphic work can really help you get a feel for putting together a nice presentation of work. Websites that have lots of good print work to inspire you: http://www.graphic-exchange.com/02print.htm, 

You can often find really nice free fonts. Here's a guide to mixing fonts: http://www.typography.com/email/2010_03/index_tw.htm

just good print work/typography: http://grainedit.com/

You say you have looked at portfolios of people who are already in school or graduated... I wouldn't bother looking at architecture portfolios, but you might try to find some art, graphics, or visual design portfolios just to see the level of presentation that will wow a portfolio committee. 

> Your photos: First of all, they should be the goddamned best photos you're capable of taking. And then some. Ever since digital cameras have come out, architecture and art school applicants claim 'photography' as a skill and throw in some depth-of-field shots they think are pretty. Go to www.500px.com and get inspired. The committee doesn't want to see 'incident' shots, they want to see something you've designed. How about a photo-a-day series? You need something that shows intent, patience, and effort. 

Second: the layout. For your best shots, use a full-bleed page. Small, rectangular, offset photos that look like a bad powerpoint presentation will get you thrown straight into the rejection pile. Oh, and lose the explanations. Good photos don't need explanation. 

Your photos are not sized or lined up. 

> General layout: Landscape, not portrait! Portfolios almost always look better in landscape. 

> Cover: You need a really great graphic for the front. A detail of one of your works perhaps?

> Drawings: Have confidence. Yeah, we can tell they are fruit and vegetable drawings. So what? Take the best one, work on it until it looks like a big steaming pile of awesome, and put it full bleed on a page... on the page beside you can have the rest of the drawings as a series, nicely cropped and lined up. One of my tutors used to say: Even if all you have at the final presentation is a bunch of shitty sketches on trace paper, treat those shitty sketches like works of art and curate them until every else thinks they're the most incredible sketches they've ever seen. 

You need some drawings that prove what you say in your letter of intent. Your aunt taught you the tranquil art of sketching? Prove it! Show us a series of sketches! They don't need to be awesome, but it would be great to see improvement over time instead of some still life drawings that you and the other 250 applicants did in high school art class. Move beyond what you were assigned to do, and show that you like to do it on your own. 

In my experience with assessing drawing skills, they don't want to see just one image. Architects love 'iterating'. Taking something and working over it many times until something else grows out of it. Try some different media. Pens, charcoal, watercolors. Draw the same object or scene with multiple media, every day for a week or two. Now you have something to show! 

> The rest: What's with the color bars? They're not even lined up? And it's really not necessary to number your pages. No one is going to refer to them. It just adds unnecessary visual distraction. 

You have time to develop your portfolio. If you haven't used inDesign, now's a great time to learn. If you haven't used Photoshop, now's a great time to learn. The more you can do now, the easier it will be when you're struggling to put together a poster later. 

I hope this helps! Portfolios are a lot of work, but I promise that pushing yourself to try harder in this will have a fantastic result!

Best of luck :)

Wow.  thanks stephanie for the comprehensive post...read up, salty...

Thanks Stephanie.Amazing insight.Much appreciated :)

to set some things straight... Waterloo, the program does take you 5 years to finish, however, this is because of the coop program (only full coop architecture program in North America I believe after U of Cincinatti scaled things back)  you come out with around a year and half of real world job experience which gives you a boost in securing a job out of school or applying to grad schools, plus you can use the money you make to pay for school.  CO-OP is an amazing advantage, you can travel the world while earning money (most of the time) and while not having to take a break from your education.  I am interning in Los Angeles currently and there are people from my class in NYC, Boston, Miami, Paris, Den Haag, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Nova Scotia...  Cambridge sucks, yes, but I can tell you we definitely do more than just study, and since the school is all alone in Cambridge it is probably one of the tightest academic communities you will find anywhere, everyone in the school from first years to masters students attend the parties and events and this atmosphere really lends itself to an open communication with your TA's and the upper years during your classes and if you are ever needing help.  Also, the school takes the philosophy of "Design from day 1" meaning from your first day of studio you will be testing out and growing your design muscles, where as some schools (McGill) you get the pleasure of taking physics and math for a whole year and maybe have a few art or arch history courses in there.  This also gives you an added 2 years of studio experience and work for your portfolio over any 2+2 schools.

If you are still interested in the engineering side, an option to get a certificate of engineering has recently been added to the masters program.  Since you have completed a couple years already I would highly suggest you look in Dal as well.

Is this the university that everyone is dying to get into.... http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/former-uw-architecture-school-gm-charged-with-fraud-theft-forgery-1.2228221

Old news m.elz.  Waterloo is still the top school in Canada even if some of it's support staff embezzled funds for boytoys and gambling.

not real familiar with Canada, is Waterloo considered better than McGill?

Shuellmi, it goes Waterloo first, Mcgill second, then the others how ever you want to rank them. 

~ Waterloo is on the decline, just saying.

^typical UofT opinion and not based on reality.