chances are fine in general. they love taking non-arc backgrounds. your gpa is kinda low but that doesn't matter if you have a hot portfolio...

yeah go for it, you should get into at least one of those schools except harvard because they require a 3.0 undergrad gpa.

probably have a pretty good chance here at OSU, people without architecture baggage - i mean, background - usually do pretty well in the masters program.

but basically it'll be your portfolio versus your gpa.

pick a couple of more safety schools. I can't image an ivy letting you in or even UCLA. Is OSU Ohio State U? .You might know better if you can get in by talking to admissions over there at your school.

You might be better off at an art school with an architecture program. Most Arch. programs ask for a 3.0 overall or last couple of semesters. I thought now a days GPA's are inflated a 2.2 is dam low. Good luck!

i agree with a few safety schools. i don't agree with the gpa issue. i had a great undergrad gpa, but i know many other schools don't consider this to be an issue (UT Austin considers it to be 10% of the grading criteria).

make sure you have good letters of rec and also a stellar statement of purpose. these are easy to do and they add tremendous credit.

also, CHECK SPELLING. if this is your 'best of the best', then you have to make sure everything is dead on. architects are obsessed with details, and it's easy to work so hard on something and then forget about the details.

i also recommend taking your portfolio to some graduate advisers and asking for their crit to help improve before you turn it in with your application. they'll appreciate this and they'll give good advice. do this face to face, not via email.

GPA isn't generally much of an issue in M.Arch admissions. But anything under 3.0 does usually raise some flags. Most of the time when we say "GPA doesn't matter much" it's when the original thread poster is agonizing over whether a 3.3 is going to kill their chances. In that situation it doesn't matter much - even for the top rated schools - and anything over 3.0 is fine. But under 3.0 is a different issue - and significantly under will definitely be raised as an issue in the admissions deliberations. In that case you're definately going to need to ace the GRE, and that should help a lot. And if, as you say, your GPA within your major is considerably higher, then you should have your records office note that on your transcript, and/or get someone in your department - preferably the department head - write a recommenation that touches on your strong standing in the department.

thank you so much for all the advice. i was half expecting to just get flamed and ignored. if a school's website says they need a minimum 3.0 gpa for admission, should i take that as a strict rule and not bother or call them and ask? sometimes i see that on a site and then somewhere else it'll say something different or it'll have something about probationary admission contingent on earning a 3.0 in your first semester. i will check into more art schools too. i was leaning towards the state school route and hoping to have or establish residency to keep tuition down, although i don't have experience with private schools. maybe they give packages that would make them on par with out of state tuition at least? thanks again for the advice, i am planning on doing all of your suggestions.

how do you only get a 3.0 majoring in art history? it's the easiest degree out there and the most useless.

No, you should never take that as a strict rule. A lot of us have known people who got into even the top-rated programs with GPAs lower than the stated minimum, or with other problems (missing prerequisites, poor studio grades, etc.) Generally if you have some standout problem of this sort then you need some standout strengths to make up for it - meaning outstanding portfolio, very strong reference letters, high GRE, etc.
Usually I think it's better not to call attention to something like a low GPA or low GRE or whatever - because these tend to be more minor factors in M.Arch admissions anyway. But in your case, with a 2.2, you might be advised to explain this briefly (in your statement of purpose or in some other way), but only IF you cand put a positive spin on it - for example if the average is the result of very poor freshman grades and then you "grew up" and found your direction and did much better, or if there were extenuating circumstances of some sort that you overcame. On the other hand, if the low grades followed you through 4 years and there aren't unusual circumstances behind them then you're probably better off not calling any more attention to them.

pointing out why you have bad grades is not advisable from my point of view unless you were battling a life threatening illness but just had to fiinish school regardless. growing up does't count. it is a pre-requisiite.

my regular ol canadian uni had a 3.0 minimum requirement. with such a low gpa, i wonder what their response might have been...they may have waived that for an amazing portfolio and other sundries.... but i do think it would have to be amazing.

still, no need to rule out any school on that basis. if you can show enough potential i imagine they will admit you regardless of your studying history.

one caveat though. all the above, an the posts by others, are based on an assumption that you are now going to be able to handle unversity level coursework. if you had a 2.2 avg it is good evidence that architecture school would be too much for you. in my school at least we saw the arts and science courses as a break from the architecture curriculum. I don't know anyone who didn't get straight A's in those classes. not cuz we were smarty-pants, just because archi-school forced us to work so frickin hard that the discipline acquired made regular schooling sort of a joke (@ undergrad level). i know that sounds rubbish,but it is true. architecture school is a long hard haul.

admissions people will likely have that going through their brains when they see the numbers. so you have to come up with amazing portfolio to offset that worry. if you can do that, you should be golden.

good luck.

Has anyone actually had their portfolio looked at by a graduate staff member before deadlines? What staff member would one go to? Graduate advisor?

the list looks like a pretty wide range of types of programs -- never thought I'd see IIT and SCI-Arc on the same list -- completely different approaches.
So, while I agree with other comments about not worrying too much about gpa, I woudl more carefully consider which schools you apply to based on what you think about and want out of your education, and how particular schools align with those.

I also recommend talking to a graduate adviser in the program to get some feedback on your portfolio, as well as a sense of what the program is like.

I visited a couple schools and met with people for some general information before I applied (but then I had been out of school for a few years). I found it very useful, and actually got in a year earlier than I had expected (I thought I was past the deadline at the time, but I was encouraged to submit an application anyhow and got in for that fall).

Miami (OH) might be another program to look at if you are in-state. It's a small program, but on the other hand, there are many RA & TA opportunities.

what program encouraged you to apply after the deadline? i briefly looked into miami in ohio a month or so ago. i'll look again because it is in state but i would also like to either stay in columbus or move to a bigger city.

what about Cincinnati? Your gpa seems low from what they say on their website, but you should probably talk to them anyway.

sorry to be a wet blanket, and i'll admit to never having sat on an ivy league admissions committee, but i wouldn't waste your time and money applying to the ivies. i've known many people with stellar portfolios, a high gpa from good ug schools, and an excelent resume who have not gotten into those three year m.arch programs. there's just too much competition for them to consider marginal candidates. remember that most of those schools are accepting about 10% of all applicants.

but for me the real question is why do you want to go to those schools in the first place? you have such a wide range of schools on your list, i think it would be a good idea to research the schools a little better to figure out what they have to offer. name alone is not a very good reason to apply. get brochures, visit the schools, talk to faculty and students, look at where in the country you want to spend the next four years...

lisaletostak,

I had been just visiting Miami (in late spring) to meet the graduate director and to find out about the program. But after talking with him, he suggested that I apply immediately and I could probably get in for the coming academic year. I think, in part, it was because they had a fairly small entering graduate class. I had a fine art background (and an MFA in photography, which probably also helped), so I was able to get my portfolio together fairly quickly, and I started there that fall.

I agree with jafidler, at least in part. I think that visiting some schools and getting to see what the program is like (and talking to some of the students, too, if you can) will help you figure out where you want to go.

lisa, i just reread my response and that was pretty harsh. what i meant to write is that those schools are very difficult to get into. when i applied to the gsd and yale, i was rejected (maybe i'm bitter). in any case, i had no idea why i wanted to go there. i didn't know anyone at those schools, and looking back on it i can understand why i was rejected. when you're going through the process though it's hard to assess who you are and what that school might be looking for in an applicant.

but definitely, definitely, definitely, research the schools you are applying to; it will make all the difference as you come to a decision about where you really want to go.

once, again, sorry about that post.

I agree with jafidler,

I did the same stupid mistake i did very little research on the grad programs i chose. And as a result i recieved very quick rejection letters b/c my personal statements probably meant nothing to the review board.

I agree with what everyone is saying. I would recomend that you research the programs a little further, call and talk with chairs of some of the programs if they are too far to travel to, and try to go to their open houses if you can. Architecture professors love to talk so see what kind of recomendations they can give you Also try to talk to several architects in the profession and in general try to figure out what it is that you wish to get out of the profession. If you're in my area, I would be happy to give you a tour of what achitects do.

That said, your background in art history is a good background. But one thing to remember is that architecture is never taught on a historical basis. In many cases, history and "style" are completely dismissed. As to your GPA, the reality on the ground it that it is quite low but that alone will not get you denied to some of the M-arch programs. In all likelihood, Harvard GSD, Columbia, and UCLA should be ruled out. Those schools have the luxury to pick and choose from a vast array of exceptional candidates. Even the state schools will be extremely critical. I'm not trying to be discouraging at all though. It's all in your portfolio but remember, it's not just the work, it's how your graphic ability will be displayed. If you make stellar GRE scores, that could compensate for the low GPA.

I wish you good luck. If you have any questions feel free to drop a message.