This goes to all you M.Archs out there.
What were your undergrad grades when you got accepted (the grades they based the admission on)?
I just want to know whether it is true that once you pass their minimum grade requirement, they soely compare your portfolios with others, and not grades.
i am starting to get the impression that graduate school admissions commitees are not as methodical about their evaluation process as you, the applicant, would hope. depending on the school, there may be some kind of loose wieghting system, but it is far from an exact science. if you come from a brand name school that is among the usual suspects for producing applicants e.g. berkeley, michigan, etc, then they know what is a good gpa and what is not, but if you are from a small liberal arts school, then they will probably be more interested in your story. more than anything, i think it is a matter of who is reviewing your application, and the conversation that arises between the reviewers.
having gone through this process within the past year, i think the best mentality is to just apply and see what happens.
oLD fOGEY- I agree. My school happened to take 0 people from its own undergrad. It seemed to scour the highly ranked undergrads for people rejected from the upper tier grad programs as well as international students. Some 25% intl.
I think it very much depends on the school you are applying to. Certain schools care very little about grades, while others are more strict about enforcing a minimum GPA. In general, the most important piece of the application package is your portfolio. You can probably contact the admissions deptartments and get a better sense of how much they weigh grades vs. portfolio vs. GRE etc.
I had a 3.6 overall, but a 3.8 during my last two years which typically carries more weight since that is when you get into your core architectural classes.
I was on an admissions committe as a student, and have had some involvement since then as a facult member at some other schools. Procedures vary distinctly from school to school. But for the most part what I've seen is that the people processing the applications (registrar, admissions, or records office staff depending on the school) usually compile quantitative information such as GPA, GRE scores, completion of pre-reqs, etc. and compile them into spreadsheets. Various spreadsheets compare all applicants to each other and flag highest and lowest scores, GPA, deficiencies, etc.
If someone has an unusually low GPA it can help to reference those charts to see whether perhaps the person has a high GRE score to compensate. If so the low GPA willl probably not be much of a concern.
The admissions committee members get - or have access to - these comparison sheets and can quickly check this information if they're interested. They also usually do have a folder on each student, in which they can see all of the info on that person at once, but what often happens is that those files are never removed from the committee room, while the portfolios themselves get portioned out to committee members to take with them and spend more time perusing between meetings.
In any case, I completely agree with j that the numbers alone are not all that informative. I also graduated with a GPA of approximately 3.2 from a school where that was considered outstanding - only to end up as an M.Arch student TA'ing undergrads at a school where kids' parents would call to complain about a score of A-. Admissions committees are generally aware of these factors, so a 4.0 from the latter school is really not going to make anyone a shoe-in, while a 2.8 from the former school may not even disqualify someone - even if 3.0 is the published cut-off.
all you m.archs.......
This goes to all you M.Archs out there.
What were your undergrad grades when you got accepted (the grades they based the admission on)?
I just want to know whether it is true that once you pass their minimum grade requirement, they soely compare your portfolios with others, and not grades.
i am starting to get the impression that graduate school admissions commitees are not as methodical about their evaluation process as you, the applicant, would hope. depending on the school, there may be some kind of loose wieghting system, but it is far from an exact science. if you come from a brand name school that is among the usual suspects for producing applicants e.g. berkeley, michigan, etc, then they know what is a good gpa and what is not, but if you are from a small liberal arts school, then they will probably be more interested in your story. more than anything, i think it is a matter of who is reviewing your application, and the conversation that arises between the reviewers.
having gone through this process within the past year, i think the best mentality is to just apply and see what happens.
oLD fOGEY- I agree. My school happened to take 0 people from its own undergrad. It seemed to scour the highly ranked undergrads for people rejected from the upper tier grad programs as well as international students. Some 25% intl.
I think it very much depends on the school you are applying to. Certain schools care very little about grades, while others are more strict about enforcing a minimum GPA. In general, the most important piece of the application package is your portfolio. You can probably contact the admissions deptartments and get a better sense of how much they weigh grades vs. portfolio vs. GRE etc.
I had a 3.6 overall, but a 3.8 during my last two years which typically carries more weight since that is when you get into your core architectural classes.
I was on an admissions committe as a student, and have had some involvement since then as a facult member at some other schools. Procedures vary distinctly from school to school. But for the most part what I've seen is that the people processing the applications (registrar, admissions, or records office staff depending on the school) usually compile quantitative information such as GPA, GRE scores, completion of pre-reqs, etc. and compile them into spreadsheets. Various spreadsheets compare all applicants to each other and flag highest and lowest scores, GPA, deficiencies, etc.
If someone has an unusually low GPA it can help to reference those charts to see whether perhaps the person has a high GRE score to compensate. If so the low GPA willl probably not be much of a concern.
The admissions committee members get - or have access to - these comparison sheets and can quickly check this information if they're interested. They also usually do have a folder on each student, in which they can see all of the info on that person at once, but what often happens is that those files are never removed from the committee room, while the portfolios themselves get portioned out to committee members to take with them and spend more time perusing between meetings.
In any case, I completely agree with j that the numbers alone are not all that informative. I also graduated with a GPA of approximately 3.2 from a school where that was considered outstanding - only to end up as an M.Arch student TA'ing undergrads at a school where kids' parents would call to complain about a score of A-. Admissions committees are generally aware of these factors, so a 4.0 from the latter school is really not going to make anyone a shoe-in, while a 2.8 from the former school may not even disqualify someone - even if 3.0 is the published cut-off.
A - Students teach
B - Students work for the C - Students
I had a 2.9 at undergrad and got in to grad school my first time round.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.