I was told by someone on the admissions committe at Columbia that your portfolio definitely comes first. They spend up to an hour reviewing it and discussing it if they are considering you. At Columbia they look at your transcript to make sure you don't have a string of poor grades, and (my hypothesis) that your GPA doesn't fall below 3.0. Apparently GRE scores don't matter; I did horribly, but was accepted.

when people say that the portfolio is primary criteria, they are lying (or are just blind/naive)....unless it is nothing less than the second coming of architecture.

what matters are two things: international/US status and names.... the schools take a certain quota of international students each year because they don't give money to these people. then they look names; names of references, employers, and undergrad schools (including summer programs)......these come first at the Ivies.
after these points are analyzed, then they look at your portfolio, then at your essau, then at your grades, then your GRE.

don't let this bruise anyone's ego....i went through this same process. it's just the way it is...

can't tell you first hand for the ivies, but i got a 3.0 and 1100ish and got accepted to sciarc. friend got c's in same undergrad and went to columbia. other friend was on the review committee at yale and said the priority of evaluation is portfolio, essay, grades, gre, in that order. i'd imagine grades mean more if you have no arch background. i spent all but a day cramming the gre study book and i still think that time would have been better spent working on my portfolio. yale friend didn't mention reviewing and discussing any portfolios for anywhere near an hour though. more like one minute because they have stacks and stacks of them. keep them short and sweet.

p.s. i hope that anything said on this post will not determine whether you apply.

p.p.s. forgot reccomendation letters. i would put that at a close 3rd behind essay. yale friend said people who worked for bob stern likely got into yale. however there was a story of one weak portfolio. stern said to look at it again. my friend did and still gave it a no. stern said look at it again. again, no. the person never got in. the ultimate say is in the reviewer (one student and one prof). at least that's the inside at yale. can't comment about quotas.

Thanks for all your comments, this clarifies things alot.

dot: I think that I'm just going to go and apply for it and hope for the best. I have above a 3.0 and I feel quite confident in my "portfolio-making skills"...Which undergrad did you go to may I ask?

by all means apply, and if you don't get in, re-apply. (this topic has been covered here as well)

i went to georgia tech.

best of luck.

my story-

3.4 GPA
1140 GRE (640 Math, 500 Verbal)
and admittingly a lengthy portfolio but my theory was it was better to be thorough than too brief. I also spent 4 months putting it together- a good 700+hours of work
some pretty good letters of rec. (1 from gluckmen mayner)

I got accepted into SCI-ARC, RISD, and Pratt
Rejected from Princeton and UT-Austin (??)
Wait-listed for Penn

I think portfolio counts for a lot, at SOME schools. One of my instructors was really familiar with the program at UCLA, and she said that because their application count is so high, first they look at GPA and GRE, and if they are not above some value then they don't even review the rest of your application. Not sure if this is true, but often I think with state schools they evalute numbers first, work second. Some schools even specify certain scores for applications. For me, it was all about the portfolio. I spent maybe a weekend studing for the GRE and honestly, I am not sure if I did better for it.

Like everyone has said though, apply to whatever you think is best for you and see what happens. I didn't think i would get into all 3 of my top choice schools, but i did (which was both awesome and stressful). I'll be joining dot at sci-arc this fall.

good luck.

don't forget about the essay... if you have a weak GPA, but a really strong personal statement, they'll have more of a tendency to overlook a poor GPA. GRE scores are a crock - I've known some people who got really horrible scores and were still accepted to outstanding schools based mainly on their portfolios.

...plus, what do you have to lose by applying? i really had no idea that i would get into the schools i was accepted to, but everything worked out anyway. in the end, you're out $60 plus the cost of paper and ink. it's worth the effort.

thanks for all the responses. This helps quite a bit on what to focus on...I will definitely consider each and everyone's opinions and suggestions when applying for graduate school.

I really want to say that GREs don't matter at all, but I think it depends on each person's situation. I had a three digit combined score, but I'm an international student with a decent TOEFL score, a liberal arts background in computer science and studio art, my disco instructor and advisors from college wrote me great letters (I think), and I kept my portfolio simple and honest. I got admitted to GSD and Columbia, and I was surprised because my GRE scores were crap. So if you have bad GRE scores, but other redeeming factors going for you- it'll all work out alright.