<p>Portfolio-wise, that’s the general concensus I’ve heard. But CAD just seems like traditional artistry plus infinite supplies but minus evidence of non-major skills (e.g. mixing before the paint dries). Assuming most of your work is sufficient non-CAD, how could 1 or 2 sufficient CAD hurt? What would be the adcomm’s argument against it? Thanks for the insight and please enjoy your next trip to the bathroom because I know I will.</p>
<p>When I say CAD, I am including both 2D (e.g. painting using a tablet) and 3D (e.g. renders). I assume minor photo retouching does not count.</p>
<p>Thanks for the info.</p>
<p>Lots of schools don’t offer CAD to use for their students. Allowing some kids to apply with their portfolios and others not just because they aren’t as privileged would be unfair. That and most schools would like for you to start out with a “clean slate” when it comes to CAD and architectural design, so they can teach you what their program offers.</p>
<p>Okay, I’ve heard the second reason a lot, but where are these reasons coming from? Official statements by adcomms? Anecdotes? Imagination Land?</p>
<p>CAD=Computer Aided Drafting; 2D drafting of floor plans and elevations using Autocad or a similar program. Not recommended. What you are describing is 2D and 3D computer art; Ok as part of a portfolio that includes traditional artwork. Include what you think best represents your talents and skills.</p>
<p>rick</p>
<p>rick, you sir are certainly NOT a dick for providing that insightful answer.</p>
<p>That and I just killed a centipede crawling across the wall, smeared it across and watched its life fall.</p>