its been quoted to me that there is no set minimum, the schools just want to make sure you are not a complete dolt and can that you can handle the required math and verbal communication requirements at their institution. of course, if you get 300 verbal and 200 quantitative ur not getting in. you can guage it a bit by your SAT scores...if you got above a 1200 on your SATs(and can still perform just as well on the GRE) u should be good...above 1100 still good but better have a good transcript and portfolio...1000 and below you better have great references. I compare it to SATs because if you add the verbal and quantitave scores together it is typically close to one's SAT scores.

personally, i took it twice...once right after undergrad when my head was full of bong resin and sex and once right before i applied for gradschool...did much much better the second time

can that be true? Is it really as lax as that? SATs were so intense; 1200 means you couldn't get in a school that was in the same city as the ivies... crazy. good for me ;)

ps didnt see bong water & sex coming in this thread at all. outrageous.

800

How's our portfolio?

Ooops, your portfolio.

GRE means nothing, that is if you are worried about exact numbers. Just take the damn thing and move on. And if you score below say 800, maybe you shouldn't apply to MIT... and move on.

GRE is much harder than SAT, so the scores aren't comparable.

And yeah, I'd say a combined GRE score of 1100+ (quant + verbal) and 5.0+ analytical writing should do the trick for most schools out there.

I understand what you are saying brightside but I don't think people are trying to find an imaginary line that they know they will be safe if they simply cross it, I believe it has to do with knowing at which level you are working at...everyone has different skills and some are better or more appreciated than others...certain people belong at Harvard, Yale, MIT, and the like because of their knowledge, skill, and creativity...I just think that so many people ask this question about scores and gpa because they want to know if they are at that level or if they can just compete at that level before they delude themselves in the dreams of those top schools and expend vast resources both monetary and otherwise in the application to those programs

j2h, how would you judge that knowledge, skill & creativity? if you aren't in a b. arch program its tough... looking through studio work on school's websites can only clue you in so much... would you even reccomend that?

I would argue that it does have *some* weight, given that they require it. And no, it's not a university requirement- in applying for art programs at some of the same schools many people here applied for architecture at, I was not required to submit GRE scores. So that tells me that the university can and does allow a department to waive GRE requirements, but architecture departments mostly choose to keep that requirement, meaning they find some degree of value in it. Yes, it can be overcome by an otherwise outstanding application, but I wouldn't look at it as a university requirement that the architecture school doesn't actually care about.

I had an average to just slightly above average GRE score. I didn't apply to any Ivy League schools so I can't speak of any experience there - but from the experience I do have (UW, Colorado, U.Mich, UVA, Maryland, Clemson) this is my opinion on the GRE:

I got accepted to all programs EXCEPT UVA. UVA was probably the most competitive program that I applied to and I think that there is a good chance (of course I will never be able to say this for sure) that I was initially in a "yes" pile (which most likely is formed initially w/ the portfolio, personal statements, and recs) ...but most likely toward the bottom of that pile.

When you're in that borderline place is where - in my opinion - they will weed out individuals w/ things like their GRE score. Of course this is all in theory, but I think it's a bit naive to say that it doesn't matter at all. A "bad anything" in your application will/might hurt you. The best advice I can give is to do the best you can on the test, move on and put the majority of time into your portfolio to avoid that borderline situation...

Exactly. For example: w3 and I will be attending different programs at the same university in the fall. He was required to submit a GRE score; I was not. So his department made a choice to require the GRE, which means they care about it, if only a little bit.

i was told by someone on the admissions committee at my (good, imho) graduate school that the GRE was not considered for the majority of applicants, who were accepted on the basis of their portfolios and their undergraduate or extracurricular achievements. the score may have been noted if it were exceptionally low, but would probably still not be a deciding factor. only in a situation (presented as a hypothetical) where two applicants were evenly matched, might the GRE be a deciding factor. it was the position of most people on the admissions committee that standardized tests were bunk, and were a poor judge of ability, especially in architecture.

as most reputable architecture programs are fairly progressive in their politics, and regard for standardized testing is on the slide among progressive educators in general- i would expect to find similar sentiments at most top tier architecture schools

my advice:
don't study too much. i found the test to be pretty easy- the math in particular was much easier than the SAT. i didn't crack a book and did well, as did plenty of others- other smart and perhaps more conscientious individuals who studied excessively did no better. as far as i can tell, there was little correlation between studying and achievement.