Well, I don't know yet if there's a simple answer to your question, I'm guessing you'll just have to take whatever advice you can get from people and make the best decisions you can from the information you have.

That being said, in some ways I'm in a better situation than you are, and in some ways I'm a bit worse off.

I started out at one university studying Applied Mathematics and Computer science for about 3 1/2 years. I found it boring, and the thought of doing it for the rest of my life was even worse. I then transferred to the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee where I spent 3 1/2 years and finally getting my BS in Architectural Studies.

Anyways, I don't remember what my GPA was at my first university, lets say it was 2.4. My GPA from the 3 1/2 years at UWM was 2.887. Which is close to the 3.0, but not quite. Also, if I wanted to go to UWM for grad school, I was told that they would average my GPAs from both universities. Not only would they average the GPAs, they would lower the GPA on my UWM transcripts, because I retook some classes for better grades. While in my undergrad GPA only factors the highest grade if I retook a course, for being admitted to grad school they look at every class I've ever taken. So despite my official UWM transcripts saying my GPA there is 2.887, I was told the UWM grad school will say I have a 2.3 GPA.


I was told the only way I would be allowed to even apply to an M. Arch at UWM was to take 6 credits (2 classes) at a graduate level and do well in them. How well? I have no idea, higher than a B, below an A, lol.

The downside is that since they wouldn't accept me as a graduate student before I take these 2 classes, I have to apply as a non-degree graduate student. The only thing non-degree means is that I am ineligible for financial aid, and I'm the first one to get bumped if a class is full. Which sucks because 6 credits costs around $4,000 out of my own pocket.

If I give them the 4 grand *and* do well enough they *might* let me apply in like 2012.


------------------------------------------------------------


What I would do is email the architecture graduate adviser from whatever schools you want to apply to, explain your situation, and ask their advice. See if there is a way that you can make up for your average GPA.

Maybe they'll tell you that if you take some grad courses as a non-degree student at you're local university and succeed in them, you might have a shot.

Or maybe there is some class in your undergrad that you did really poorly in, they might say you should go back, retake it and get a better grade.

Some of the schools have like Summer Design Camps or something, and some schools might look favorably if you attended. I don't know, my school doesn't have them, and I don't know how they work.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Basically, I don't know what kind of shot you have. Because no one except the graduate departments of each of the universities on your list knows the bare minimums for applying. I would definitely email the architecture school's advising office of whatever universities you're thinking about applying to. Don't be afraid to give them a follow-up call if you need to clarify their reply, or if they don't reply. That's their job, to help students and prospective students. Some advisers are seriously braindead so feel free to keep asking them questions until you're satisfied.

I don't know anything much about the BAC (other than meeting a few students from there at the '09 Solar Decathlon, they seemed pretty educated), but it might be possible for you to take a couple classes there and if you do well, apply to some other universities. Or if you have a university with an M. Arch near where you live, you can find out if you can take some grad arch classes there as some type of non-degree or audit student, and then apply to schools.

I guess I lucked out because I did my undergrad in architecture, so I have more insider knowledge I guess. Anyways, if I think if anything more, I'll let you know.

By the way, you didn't mention if you took the GRE yet, if not, I would seriously study like hell for it. A good score may help your odds, but a poor score will definitely hurt you.

Cstew, your list of schools is all over the place. A third of those schools aren't going to be enormously different from a decent engineering degree, another third will be so far into critical theory you won't be prepared for much of what they are trying to teach. Some are highly competitive, others will take anyone who can afford tuition.

You also sound like you aren't really motivated by school. If you really are motivated by architecture, are a spatial thinker and a visual learner, and willing to risk a decade or so of making 27k while your peers do much better, you should consider demonstrating the difference. Enroll in a postbac program at a fine arts school and show an admissions committee that you know your strengths.

Re the admissions policy at BAC, the reputations of colleges are based on the roles their graduates manage to achieve. All they need to do is make sure only the best of the best of the best graduate, and they can remain highly competitive. and lo and behold, federal law insists that they publish the following information if they wish to give anyone Federal or state aid:

6 Year Graduation/Completion Rate By Gender:
Male 12%
Female 7%

Cstew, you'd do well to check out one of the summer programs that provide individuals with other backgrounds, to do two things; figure out if this is really a passion, and second, to give you a chance to assemble some creative direction for your lack luster or non-existent portfolio. i think harvard, columbia, sci-arc and other schools have them, but you'd need to check.

i personally would find that someone with your particular skills/background to be not only refreshing to a generally stale profession, but would bring some additional thoughts to bear in other students as well...

good luck.

It seems to me that your bset approach may be to cultivate with admissions officers a sense that you've made a turnaround of some type, in terms of your plans and career outlook. To me that means really giving them evidence that you've gone out of your way to prepare yourself for a possible career in architecture, by spending them next year or so teaching yourself how to draw and otherwise how to work in different media and with complex spatial concepts (and therefore developing the start to a portfolio), taking classes in architectural and art history at a quality local university-level extension program or summer program, etc.

Secondly, given your background, you may want to actually get your PE license, possibly in environmental engineering or something else that is a plausible shift toward building and urban systems and sustainability from petroleum geology... I know this will require quite a bit of additional work on your part, to study and prepare, but a lot of those skills are transportable to help you get work with an engineering firm that deals with architectural design - either as an environmental specialist, a site development/site civils specialist or a sustainability specialist. If you can get into a firm like Buro Happold or Arup, then it will become much easier to transition from there toward archtiectural design.

I am more than certain your 2.6 GPA wont keep you from being admitted to the schools you mention here, as long as the rest of your application exceeds their threshold and makes up for it. I know this from experience applying to M.Arch programs this last spring with a 2.8something accumulative GPA (3.5 major GPA).

Also, as others have mentioned, research that list of schools you have heavily, and consider adding other schools to it (UT Austin perhaps). Give each school you decide to apply to a thorough analysis and make sure each program really fits who you are and where you want to be as a future architect.

Honestly, I applied for CCA and SCI-Arc having gotten in there for undergrad, but was denied. They are usually super-selective, and are VERY expensive. Most of what they base your admissions on is your potential in your portfolio. That said, I got into Oregon and loved it. But have fun when you leave school, as you will most likely not be working in your field for a while.

Honestly, I applied for CCA and SCI-Arc having gotten in there for undergrad, but was denied. They are usually super-selective, and are VERY expensive. Most of what they base your admissions on is your potential in your portfolio. That said, I got into Oregon and loved it. But have fun when you leave school, as you will most likely not be working in your field for a while.

Honestly, I applied for CCA and SCI-Arc having gotten in there for undergrad, but was denied. They are usually super-selective, and are VERY expensive. Most of what they base your admissions on is your potential in your portfolio. That said, I got into Oregon and loved it. But have fun when you leave school, as you will most likely not be working in your field for a while.

I have an M.Arch from one of the schools on your list. 50k or best offer?

I have no use for it anymore and I need the money for a post bac pre-med.

GPA is the most important factor in any admissions process, and quite frankly, a 2.6GPA is nothing slight of embarassing. The fact that you have not done an undergraduate B. Arch program only makes matters worse. I would say you have 0 chance.

Jesus Voltaire, and I thought I was an A-hole!

Well let's be frank here- the guy probably has a crap portfolio, albeit a portfolio at all. Second, he obviously does not have the grades to get into any masters program. There is no mention of him contacting any professors, so it is a fair assumption he is just lazy. I don't mean to offend Cstew, but you have to be realistic.

"GPA is the most important factor in any admissions process."

Completely false.

I would say go for it and apply.

Lets give the poor guy a break, we all know that we have all seen a person that had absolutely no business going to architecture school based on their GPA, attitude, quality of work done, effort shown....the list goes on.

I was one of those students that did outstanding work, earning mostly A's and some B's. When I saw a person struggling in studio I'd encourage them to keep going, when a professor had just told them to get out and leave architecture, you know what ? its a small world, those people might help you later.

Your degree in Geophisics/ Geology will be a great asset to you. You know the old saying an "architect should know nothing about everything !"

One other tiny little detail I will mention to you all is that so far college programs have not produced any great architects, Not one of us is fit to fill FLW's shoes.

I was in a somewhat similar situation years ago, and I think the path I took to get into school with a BFA from Tufts/SMFA (i.e no architectural backgroud, but fine arts degree) was valuable in helping me make the choice of whether or not to invest $100,000+ into a MArch program that paid small dividends upon graduation.

First I spoke with several pricipals at architecture firms, visited their offices, saywwhat the people there seemed to be doing all day. Valuable in and of itself - because remember - you will one day be those people if you decide to do it. So look around and see if you can envision yourself in that environment. And don't be afraid to ask about the downsides - you aren't on a job interview and you would be surprised at how willingly some of the people who have been in the trenches will unload. It waslike a first date - a gut reaction. I had a pretty good feeling that I wanted this torture for myself (only slightly kidding).

I was recommended by one of those contacts to enroll in the GSD Career Discovery Program, and I HIGHLY recommend these programs for anyone considering this leap. I saw too much attrition during grad school; most people who dropped out were in over thier heads and not understanding what they were signing up for (half of the enrolling class).

The GSD has one, which I believe is the most "well-known" and perhaps thus the most "highly-regarded". I don't know for sure....Columbia and Sci-Arch definitely run them during the summers. If it is rigorous you will spend about 6 weeks in "Studio-Lite", complete with desk crits, working all hours in the studio, and usually 2 to 3 mini-projects to put in your portfolio (which is critical at some of the schools you mention). Also, I didn't realize it at the time, but it had the added bonus of providing me my first exposure to someone in that world that could and would write me a recommendation (another critical component - they should be weighted in that direction if they can be).

After that summer I worked as an assistant to three principals in NYC (making by the way, about that the junior people were making which was a joke) just getting to see how a firm is run, making friends with the kids my age who had just been through the process and could help with putting together my real portfolio, school choices, etc. One woman had been a student admissions advisor and had seen hundreds of portfolios at MIT. The added benefit of being able to use the software, get the portfolios printed at discount, was nice, and again - another recommendation from one of the pricipals with whom I had interacted with for about a year at this point, and had a real friendship/mentorship relationship that sustains me still today.

The Kaplan/GRE stuff was done during that year early and then assembling the applications. But at this point I had work to use, and I had two recommendations from architects, or teachers/instructors of architecture. Do not take the GREs lightly with a GPA below 3.0. Grad schools consider a 3.0 in "their" programs failing. Get a good score, and take it a few times if you can (don't remember the rules).

All in it took 2 years from the beginning to the end - but I was making money while I was doing it and seeing what the other side of school is really like. Plus I had a "built-in" destination for summer internships and a job offer from the firm that I had worked in as an assistant, thus insulating myself from the time consuming process of looking for work during finals, etc. It was pretty seamless. And I knew exactly what I was getting into.

Don't make the decision lightly - it is not worth the cost or the aborted effort/lost time on your "record" or resume - whatever you want to call it. It costs a ton and requires total and absolute focus on school and only school during certain times of the semester. I ended up going to the GUAD at Pratt Institute which was terrific. Much more theoretical (a Columbia/Sci-Arch outpost initially) than the undergrad program. Something else to be aware of - the UG and MArch programs may differ in their approach drastically.

All said, getting my feet warm like that worked for me because I had built up a foundation of support along the way and it helped me during the biggest challenge - getting through grad school and getting a job. Once you are launched it is in your hands.

"GPA is the most important factor in any admissions process, and quite frankly, a 2.6GPA is nothing slight of embarassing. The fact that you have not done an undergraduate B. Arch program only makes matters worse. I would say you have 0 chance."

Incorrect.

None of you two (med. and iheartbooks) are telling me what is more important than GPA in the admissions process. Other than the portfolio review, nothing is more important than your GPA, it is the easiest tool for "gauging" someone's diligence, hard work and dedication. Try and tell me otherwise, please.

The thread starter has not mentioned that he is working on a portfolio or in contact with individuals who can help him with him dilemma, he only states that he likes to draw buildings and has liked doing so since grade 5.

portfolio is more important. you answered yourself.

GPA is not the final piece of data you think it is voltaire. it does suggest some things but, frankly speaking, a good cover letter and a strong portfolio that shows an ability to think critically can overcome a bad gpa. On it's own it would be bad - a 3.0 gpa is indeed considered the minimum in most architecture schools - but it is not the end of the story.

it does mean cstew will have to fight to get over the hump but it is not impossible if motivated.

luck!

This has been discussed for years on here, look it up.

http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=96822_0_42_0_C
http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=96972_0_42_0_C

In my opinion, the weight of the elements are more in line with:
1). Portfolio
2). Letters of recommendation
3). CV
4). Letter of Intent
5). GRE/GPA

Voltaire, The way you're writing has me picturing you screaming and foaming at the mouth.

I don't know what my cumulative GPA was, but I had to send in my transcript from the first college I where I had been an enrolled student prior to transferring to Tufts/SMFA. My Tufts/SMFA transcript was completely out of the ordinary as Tufts gives grades for the academic portion of the degree program and the School of the Museum of Fine Arts only had written (like 5-10 pages long) "reviews" of the work each semester and never issued grades. I don't even know if the transcripts of those reviews were sent.....I don't think they were.

And PS: my 2 years the first "small N.E. college" were not spent studying. Complete waste of time and money. My GPA could not have been over 2.5-2.8 on a good day. Tufts was a solid 3.7 or 3.8 so I had shown improvement. At the end of the day, I think that these numbers mattered to some schools (as did GRE scores) and not as much to others. Columbia cared, Penn didn't as much and Pratt was a different ballgame.

At the time Pratt's GUAD program was in its infancy and I remember one of my friends applying as a professional modern dancer with a tape of her performances *literally* as her portfolio. The school was eager to get people from different backgrounds into the program, and most were more mature for it. During my second year they let in a bunch of kids that were out of 4-year studio programs (not accredited as "professional" degree but they were placed in with advanced standing, meaning they only had to complete 2 of the 3 years to graduate). I know from the professors that I worked with, both during and after school, that they considered the first batch of students from various backgrounds and ages as far more mature, engaged and intelligent.

Point is, it doesn't matter. You will either apply or not apply to these various schools. You will present yourself in the best light by selecting schools that are involved in work/ideas you are interested in pursuing. They, in turn, will be the schools that are more likely to view your background as an interesting addition to the group, and thus the GPA will not be nearly as important. The post by iheartbooks above that lists the order of importance corresponds with everything that I have heard from people in admissions and professors.....they want to mold your mind. It's like the military - they would rather a person with clear capacity and tenacity than a fully-formed Harvard grad with a 4.0 in political science. There are too many walls to break down with those people.

Don't sweat it, but figure out if and where first. Your list of schools is a bit scattered in terms of what you will get out of those programs. So consider what you want. You're paying.....

Voltaire seems to know a lot for someone who will be starting an undergrad Arch degree come September...

My father is a prof., and anyone can judge university acceptances because it is pretty much standard 'protocol' throughout the different programs.

Cstew... I have briefly read the responses above, so forgive me if I repeat what the others are saying.

It's going to come down to your portfolio of creative work. I spoke with the graduate director at one of your schools recently, and he told me flat out that he considers the portfolio the strongest factor of whether you're in or out. So there you go, from the horse's mouth.

With that said, your GPA is working against you. So it means you got to put together an ace portfolio and get a good GRE score. Those two will help balance things. You may even benefit taking some intro level design courses at community college to get yourself a grasp on what you'll be dealing with later on.

My suggestion for schools would be to look at the schools of your home state (for cost reasons), and look at other schools that admit people with lower than 3.0 GPA's. Off the top of my head, schools such as Auburn, U.of Miami, Maryland, FIU, Tulane, U. of Houston, have all admitted friends and collegues of mine with "bad" GPA's. Their GPA's have since skyrocketed passed the 3.5 mark (not all but most).

Are they the best schools? No, not really (although Auburn has a kick ass designbuild program), but when you're given lemons, you have two options:

1. you make lemonade

2. you throw them at voltaire for being a tactless @$$.

I love you Jake, you word things nicely unlike me. But honestly, what you said is pretty well what I did not manage to communicate well. Admissions into m.arch programs are essentially just like getting into a b.arch program- grades matter, but portfolios matter more, and you damn well show that you are a dedicated individual.

Now, this was all very interesting. Some very insightful comments. Thanks.

I am wondering what are the chances for an international student with an undergraduate and honours degree in architecture (5 years of study in total) from a South African university, and 2 years working experience to get into any of these programs? I have already been admitted to complete my M.arch at the same university in 2011 but would rather study abroad...

How does the GPA grading system compare to the European or even the South African grading system or for that matter any educational institutions outside of the USA?

Do I need to take any exams to fullfil requirements? What about Financial aid?

I am also interested in the BAC's program, but I do not know anything about the American Universities/Colleges even after I have visited many webpages and looked at many programs... I'd appreciate some info from former/current students more... they generally know the vibe best.

I have posted a discussion (M.arch/// where to from here?) but have had nobody respond to it...

thank you>

Voltaire, you sound like an undergraduate student. Your concern with grades is cute. I have a feeling that your dad is not a professor of architecture.

i am a professor of architecture, but not voltaire's dad.

You may want to reevaluate the schools you are applying to. With your science background you may not have as much luck at art schools such as CCA but may be a competitive applicant at more technical schools like MIT. I would also recommend that you take a drawing or other art course before you apply so you have something to show for a portfolio.