the renderings are very nice. am sure you can get a job doing that.

if you can take an honest opinion i find the design work says almost nothing about you at all except that you are influenced/fascinated by zaha hadid sometimes. the work appears to be largely derivative of architects you respect, which is fine. but what about you? what do you think?

if architecture school were only about style your work would be fine, but in north america the main things are process and having your own standing point. based on what you included there is no way to know what you think about architecture and no evidence that you did any thinking at all. so, as lovely as the renderings are, there is nothing to grasp on to and talk about.

i have no idea if the places you applied to thought that way, but that is why i would put your portfolio in the "interesting but not-quite" pile.

I liked the renderings a lot, but I would include some hand drawings, sculpture, or other non-computer work to balance it out.

Thx a lot for to ur responses, I did notice that I didnt put in any hand drawings because i just wanted to bring out the best presented material and for me , i can do much better presentation using computer graphics . I will include some more in my future one and will try to demonstrate my own views and concentrate abt the process more bec there was sure much thinking that lead me to these results not just a blind influence .

If that's the case solh, then I'd be very careful about how you present your work. Without going into too much detail, I found the over-all presentation quite poor. The descriptions weren't clearly written and the actual layout isn't doing you any favours. Ditch the gradient background, the thick image borders, and the dropshadow on the text. Stick with a solid unassuming background (black, white, gray, etc.) and pick a simple, clean type set. Think about proportion and hierarchy when composing images and blocks of text.

But that's just part of it. Depending on what school / program you're applying to, I imagine the real concern is that you aren't showing enough depth in your work. Your one skyscraper project for example... Is it really valid to base the form on a pair of wings in flight? I get the metaphor about wanting to go skyward, but I don't really see the relevance. What's the real connection to site (physical or temporal), program, materiality, or the act of making?
If it absolutely is about the wings/flight, then I think you need to go deeper. What is it about the wing that interests you? Maybe it's the light-weight structure or the surface/materiality. Maybe it's the aerodynamic qualities or the way thousands of sub-substructures (feathers) come together to form a unified whole (the wing). All of these (and many others!) could potentially be the basis of investigation that then influences or informs your project.
At this point though, you've just reduced a concept to a cliché.

Position yourself in architecture, and find a method of investigation or research that involves more than just imitating the latest trends. Try to develop a personal voice... Not as a style, but as a process or way of working through a project. Above all be critical in your work.

Disclaimer: but that's just one man's opinion

What IamGray said especially about the presentation design, text, layout, borders...

To add to that, the combination of landscape/portrait oriented pages would be really distracting when bound together.

Also, the background gradient I feel dramatically takes away from the integrity of the nice renderings. I think white would make the images really pop.

yeah, i noticed too that there was really no pop in the boards. Pg 4 of 17 seemed sorta ok but the colors are dull. Don't be afraid to use dark grey backgrounds with like hot pink or electric blue solids and orange text (or just a complimentary color) for lines. That will really jazz up your page and have everyone looking. I have to agree that the main faux pas is that there are no physical models or sketches. Something to show process, development, and conclusions...basically the entire program that CLEARLY and BRIEFLY illustrates it's evolution. i have to say some of the titles seem pretty weak and uninteresting. Like "graduation project" ???? and as the very first page of material ?!?!

Are you applying to MArch I or II?