<p>For example, someone applying to Cornell architecture would be less dependent on GPA or SAT scores than someone applying to Cornell engineering, right? since architecture also considers portfolios and interviews. </p>
<p>So technically speaking, would the average SAT and GPA be lower for students who get into Cornell architecture than those who get into Cornell engineering?</p>
<p>Yes and yes.</p>
<p>I don’t know the real numbers, but it seems illogical that the difference (if any) would be significant, since schools like Cornell get enough overqualified applicants to fill their classes four times over. It wouldn’t be too difficult to fill the architecture college with students with potential in architecture (as judged from their portfolios) and are exceptional academically (as judged from their SAT/GPA).</p>
<p>Yes, I would guess so. But like the person above me said, probably not by much.</p>
<p>Basically, the portfolio and interview can certainly help some, but don’t think that they’ll make 3.0 GPA 1800 SAT competitive for Cornell.</p>
<p>OP, you should post on the Architecture Major subforum to get a read on the degree of importance the portfolio holds and what baseline academic stats are for C. A look at your Chances thread makes me think you’re viable academically, but there are more experienced posters on the Arch forum.</p>
<p>p.s. In my earlier post I was answering the OPs questions word for word, but I should have stated the usual caveat that nothing makes up for subpar academics and test scores, my bad.</p>
<p>When portfolio and interview are required (architecture, art, theater), the portfolio is very important but it won’t save a low GPA/test score particularly for architecture. There are differences among the colleges within a university but they are often not what you think. To give an example: Cornell’s admit rate for engineering applicants is actually usually higher (often well over 30%) than for applicants in general (close to 20%) but at the same time the GPA/test scores of those admitted to engineering have a mid 50% range that is actually higher than the university as a whole.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While appealing, this line of logic may not tell the correct story, because the fact of the matter is schools do not just look at the top scorers and then pick out other factors. There are enough with high GPA and scores, but in my experience the number of folk with real, actual talent/drive in something is low. There are many academically overqualified students applying only in the sense of frivolous measures, not <em>real</em> ones. People are just kidding themselves if they dispute this. </p>
<p>Basically it’s up to the given program what it wants to define “subpar” as, given GPA and SATs tell only so much. Most programs will use these as only a staple to check off, so it’s good to do well in those areas, but after that they certainly get more creative. Figuring out students who really can do engineering in a serious way isn’t a joke, and I’m sure the same is true for architecture. One simply cannot take the chance of discounting someone who shows ability in these things, just because their GPA or scores seem less than tops, though low ones can kill the chances. One should gauge based on past admits roughly how far the school is willing to discount “objective” factors on average.</p>
<p>In short, this is why entomom had it perfect.</p>