Absolutely - spatial thinking is what architecture is all about - they have spatial testing on standardized IQ tests, why not a specialized architectural GRE? 

Yes I agree.....They have subject tests in other areas; math, english, psych etc. 

I think it would be more appropriate to split the weight of the portfolio is this process. (Most schools say 40%....but  I believe it's a higher percent than this). 

So you would put 20% into the test 20% into portfolio......although this would add to the already very stressful process of applying to arch school.

LOL.

You people are joking, right? 

yeah

in the states, it's called the ARE.

Please no more standardized testing, my mind is numb enough already.

We do have standardized exams.  7 of them.  They're called the AREs.

I think standardized testing is a must, of course - but I think we must also understand the limitations of this method.

My particular program is attractive to prospective students because it is a 'fast track' program. This means that students are studying continuously and as a result obtain their credentials faster, this becomes the primary goal. The problem with this method is that the school attracts students who, straight from the beginning, have this idea that architecture is just phase of a construction process. The larger discussion concerning the direction of the profession, in a critical way, takes the back seat. Increasingly, as I become more educated on the depth and scope of the profession, I am becoming more and more critical of my universities program. 

Between the GRE used as a screening for program applicants and the ARE for architecture graduates to become a licensed architect, I don't see why there would be a need for something else.

As far as I am concerned the profession would achieve better results if the process included throwing chicken bones and reading tea leaves.

To me-- The Gre doesn't seem to work that way. I mean it's been stated on here several times that it's "All about Portfolio". A standardized test may not be the best option, on the other hand I think it's viable considering that.

A.) A portfolio is at least a tiny bit subjective....some people may feel that it is more than a little subjective.

B.) There is almost no telling that the applicant did the work being presented in the portfolio,

C.) People come from all types of backgrounds and the only way they divide them up (from what i've been told) is M.Arch 1 vs 2. Think a math major should be held to the same level of design standard that a graphic design major should be? I don't.

If this is not enough to say the portfolio is a somewhat dubious indicator of success....i don't know what is. I'm not saying a test should take it's place...rather it could be used to supplement it.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that just like the portfolio, architecture itself is a bit subjective.  Architecture needs people who are creative and can express their ideas clearly. I don't see how another standardized test in addition to the GRE can capture this better than the portfolio.  Bottom line is if you have decent grades, good recommendations and a good portfolio and don't bomb the GRE you'll be able to get into a quality school.   If the applicant didn't do the work in the portfolio, he/she won't last long once he/she gets into a program, same as if they can't express their own ideas and designs for studio projects.  

Go please with what you like.  Tests will always be there.

Forget school, and find an Architect you want to work for as an apprentice....sometimes the old ways are the best ways.

I believe, that Frank Lloyd Wright never graduated from an Architecture School.

"Think a math major should be held to the same level of design standard that a graphic design major should be? I don't."

This is one of the lines of thinking on Archinect that I fundamentally do not understand, along with 'can I get into a top-10 school with a crap GPA?' Just because a program admits students without a background in architecture doesn't mean that everything has been reset to zero and nothing from your pre-architecture academic life matters.

If you want to get into a top architecture program, you've got to have something that makes you competitive with other admitted students that do have backgrounds in art, graphic design, construction, or any other relevant field. If you don't think you should be judged at the same level, then you should consider taking some time to learn something that will get you to that level before you even apply. 

That's why we have the summer programs and places like LAIAD. But really, it's not that hard to learn basic design and building principles just by going to the library or using the internet.

If you didn't do that great in college and your GPA is dreadful, why would you expect to be able to get into Harvard? That disconnect makes absolutely no sense. The portfolio is the only way you can demonstrate your potential for design ability and visual literacy, and it is (and should be) the only way a poor academic background can be overcome.

Can't get your portfolio to that level by application deadlines? Then you probably aren't ready to apply this year. Just because you want to go to architecture school right now doesn't mean that you should. And if you think your design ability shouldn't be what dictates your admissions decisions, you're in for a lot of frustration when you actually end up in a studio, where that is absolutely all that matters.

Subjectivity is built in to every step of the architectural process, so you should start getting used to it now. Students that don't make their own portfolios can't survive the rigor and expectations of studio, but neither can students who think that they know more than established architecture programs about who is worthy of acceptance. They've been doing this for a long time, and they have reasons for how they structure the process.