I am planning on applying to a non-architecture background programs this December. I have a BFA in interior design from University of Georgia. At first, I was an art major at UC San Diego with 3.11 gpa then I took a few years off and worked as a graphic designer. Then I transferred to UGA and changed my major to interior design and have 3.78 gpa. My overall gpa is 3.39.
From past threads, I saw people get accepted to really great schools with 3.0~3.5 gpa and that got me wondering if they got in with those gpas because they went to good undergrad or because graduate schools treat all undergrad somewhat the same. I know GRE is used to determine GPA inflation but how do graduate schools look at GPA in regards to undergrad?
Do I have a shot at really great schools (Berkeley, UCLA or even MIT and such) assuming I have a solid portfolio, SoP, and LoRs? I haven't taken GRE yet but I doubt I'll make a stellar score. Is 3.39 gpa considered weak to apply for great schools considering my undergraduate school/program isn't as famous as some of the others?
Please let me know how graduate schools look at gpa aspect of admissions because that will give me an idea of how to narrow down the schools I should apply to. Thank you!
NdL202
May 15, 16 11:37 pm
GPA is just used as a threshold. Once passed it has no bearing in the decision making process. Portfolio is king
BR.TN
May 16, 16 1:29 pm
Any school in the country will consider you if you have above a 3.0. Some schools, which are typically unidentifiable, will automatically reject you with anything lower than a 3.0. You're in "average" standing with a 3.4.
I saw the accepted portfolios of MIT M.Arch's two years ago and some of them had 3.2 gpas - one of those was a double major from UPenn. A lot had 3.6+ from other top undergrads as well. Most were foreigners or first-second-generation immigrants. Berkeley's demographic is similar to this. UCLA is not as highly regarded as MIT or Berkeley but its still quite competitive on a national scale.
Harvard accepts a student or two with a 3.0 every year because - 'It's not about the numbers, mannnn. We get all caught up in society's abhorrently materialistic cacophony that encroaches upon our capacity toward intellectual stimulationnn. Admissions are about the people, mannnn!' - but mostly because these students had portfolios and SoPs that were exceptional.
Hello guys,
I am planning on applying to a non-architecture background programs this December.
I have a BFA in interior design from University of Georgia. At first, I was an art major at UC San Diego with 3.11 gpa then I took a few years off and worked as a graphic designer. Then I transferred to UGA and changed my major to interior design and have 3.78 gpa. My overall gpa is 3.39.
From past threads, I saw people get accepted to really great schools with 3.0~3.5 gpa and that got me wondering if they got in with those gpas because they went to good undergrad or because graduate schools treat all undergrad somewhat the same. I know GRE is used to determine GPA inflation but how do graduate schools look at GPA in regards to undergrad?
Do I have a shot at really great schools (Berkeley, UCLA or even MIT and such) assuming I have a solid portfolio, SoP, and LoRs? I haven't taken GRE yet but I doubt I'll make a stellar score. Is 3.39 gpa considered weak to apply for great schools considering my undergraduate school/program isn't as famous as some of the others?
Please let me know how graduate schools look at gpa aspect of admissions because that will give me an idea of how to narrow down the schools I should apply to. Thank you!
GPA is just used as a threshold. Once passed it has no bearing in the decision making process. Portfolio is king
Any school in the country will consider you if you have above a 3.0. Some schools, which are typically unidentifiable, will automatically reject you with anything lower than a 3.0. You're in "average" standing with a 3.4.
I saw the accepted portfolios of MIT M.Arch's two years ago and some of them had 3.2 gpas - one of those was a double major from UPenn. A lot had 3.6+ from other top undergrads as well. Most were foreigners or first-second-generation immigrants. Berkeley's demographic is similar to this. UCLA is not as highly regarded as MIT or Berkeley but its still quite competitive on a national scale.
Harvard accepts a student or two with a 3.0 every year because - 'It's not about the numbers, mannnn. We get all caught up in society's abhorrently materialistic cacophony that encroaches upon our capacity toward intellectual stimulationnn. Admissions are about the people, mannnn!' - but mostly because these students had portfolios and SoPs that were exceptional.