Just took a look at the pass rates for the ARE. Averages rate across all tests for 4.0 in 2009 is 63%. BUT a more important number, the odds of passing all of them would be much lower... if it were truly random, you have about a 4% chance of passing all those tests.
Contrast that to pass rates for the BAR.. from my research the numbers appear to be in the high nineties.
After having passed 7 exams except for the graphic one, I don't think I'm playing in this casino anymore.. to retake those I've already passed but with that tedious graphic crap thrown in.
I'm a good designer, I can handle complex projects, I can get clients and manage my business fairly well. But I think we are selecting only for technicians who can pass those tests.
Not as many entrepreneurial types are going to play those odds.
Damn NCARB and the governing bodies of this profession.. they can keep it.
On this note, I'm out. Starting in another line of work. Its like leaving a bad relationship.
Yeah lletdownl.. Already did that. Now to do it again because of the switch to 4.0? the #'s speak for themselves on pass rates.. 'its not that hard'.. well its apparently gotten harder, and most people studying for these exams are fairly bright to start with.
and yes, you do have to do it again cause they switched a new test. Now if you'll excuse me, this smug little punk has to go review PPP cause he took the stupid graphics portion for granted and failed
the architect has no real power any longer, we have become a clerk or a gate keeper, better yet a child not allowed at the adults table. the real men have continued the business without us, the developers and contractors of the world. any reasonable client will eventually recognize this 'middle man complex' of a failed model, retain a designer professional/architect for their limited knowledge and have a qualified contractor execute the work. our days are limited, and the AIA has provided little value or protection for our dying craft. in fact, they are only protecting themselves and the wolves have already smelled fear.
BUT a more important number, the odds of passing all of them would be much lower... if it were truly random, you have about a 4% chance of passing all those tests.
if what were truly random? I would think the pass rate is the more important number
I dont follow what you are talking about though. you passed 7 and are just stopping? or do you now have to start over with 4.0 or something?
it's sometimes hard to follow what we are complaining about here
i have 4 out of the way, only 3 to go. its a pain in the butt to try to do while working, and especially now with a new baby, but its really not that terrible. I dont quite see the big deal with it all
passed 7 and have to retake 4 or 5.. because I didn't pass 3.0 graphic exam.
It doesn't work this way, because someone who passes one test may be more likely to pass another, BUT, with the pass rates are around 60ish percent on each test, to get a PASS on ALL would require jumping through 7 hoops with a 60% chance of tripping on each one.. 3% chance of making that total dance a success. 200 bucks a pop. 6 months of time to retake. What's the big deal? I feel I already know what I am doing, and more so than a lot of my peers who are licensed. I don't take a cavalier attitude towards the responsibility we carry, but I feel like the tests are a bit, well, insulting, to the real work of being an architect. There are enough blocks out in the world to success and the tests, especially the graphic ones, are honestly, a joke. If you put up with those tests, I feel you are likely not to have the spine to deal with clients and contractors...
What I struggled with most in practice wasn't the technical stuff that you can look up in a book, but learning how to negotiate with clients that had immense legal, administrative, and financial resources, and contractors often with the same. I think those who have actually been 'in the trenches' might understand.
I am currently gathering bids from lawyers to form a company and draft a contract for a lease. $385/hr. from reputable firms. They all passed the bar.. they hold responsibility.. I guarantee, that if the ABA boards were as ridiculous and in large parts irrelevant as the ARE exams, there would be reform. extra quick.
But, us compliant architects just say 'finish the test'. We take our lumps. Things 'are as they are'. And we accept our little $110/hour wage if we are lucky. Probably a lot of the chumps here are taking $20/hr.
I really have a lot of admiration for those that go the distance. And I certainly learned some good stuff taking those tests.
Best commentary I heard about the ARE: take the tests, and you will be prepared to deal with the rest of the bs that comes along with the career!
Good luck on the exams guys. I'm not zooming in on handrails again in this life! Blech!
If you put up with those tests, I feel you are likely not to have the spine to deal with clients and contractors...
Wow that is quite a blanket statement to make. I would counter that if someone cant deal with a series of simple tests based on what you do every single day, I wonder how you would have the patience and/ or competence to deal with clients or contractors as well
and i will just take your word that you know what you are doing more than your peers, some of whom are licensed. passing the ARE's doesnt make you a good architect, it makes you a legal one. passing the bar exam doesnt make you a good lawyer, it makes you a legal one. Perhaps if you viewed it in that regard, it might not get you so pissed off
For sure. I passed all the tests except for the graphic one. Let's get that straight. I dealt with them once, but not again?
And if what you do as an architect has much in common with that particular test, I'm sorry!
I find often dealing with clients and contractors does require patience, but it also involves saying.. "this isn't right".
That graphic test shouldn't stand between legally being an architect and being a designer. It's a outdated POS and now they have spead its caca all over the rest of the exams.
Can I just say that looking at the US system from the outside it seems to me a bit of a blunt instrument. In the UK we do things in stages, academic study on key subjects like environment, structures etc., is dispatched at one level, pre-graduation. Professional experience which follows is tested as just that, without dragging through the previous subject matter, it's almost as though the system wants you to suceed. My feeling is that yes the system is technical testing, yes the odds are not reassuring or likely to promote the career and possibly it does show in the end product.
I passed all the tests except for the graphic one. Let's get that straight. I dealt with them once, but not again?
I don’t follow why you have to retake anything you have already passed.
And if what you do as an architect has much in common with that particular test, I'm sorry!
I don’t know which test you are talking about or what you are talking about at all. The tests cover some very basic broad concepts that every architect should know.
I find often dealing with clients and contractors does require patience, but it also involves saying.. "this isn't right".
So who have you told that this isnt right? Beyond archinect that is…
Because I would surely love for someone to reform these stupid exams, preferably before I have to take these last couple I have left.
That graphic test shouldn't stand between legally being an architect and being a designer. It's a outdated POS and now they have spead its caca all over the rest of the exams.
I will certainly agree that the graphic portion of the test is the least relevant at all. For CDS, it is a stupid wall section that is more about learning their tricks than anything else. SD is all about following basic mind numbing rules, which I suppose can loosely be tied into following code and ADA requirements, but nothing more. I found that one so incredibly simple though, it was almost an insult to my time to have to sit through. SP was all about learning the tricks of the program for the grading, nothing more. Actually found that one to be more useful though as it involved a skill that architects don’t usually have to get involved with since civil engineers handle that. Good to know I guess, though rarely ever going to be used. Structures graphics is meant to trick you which is very stupid indeed.
Again though, if it gets you this worked up, you should really direct the anger towards those who make the exams and try to get some reform in them. Otherwise its just endless complaining that will go nowhere
Well, I just posted a comment that disappeared that addressed a lot of your questions. I had not passed the graphic exam in 3.1 so I have to take a bunch of tests that I passed already since they spead that one throughout the other tests. Sorry that wasn't clear.
I also liked the grading exam. Learned somethings there.
But if I can recall what I wrote before.. If the ABA exams were changed so that pass rates dropped 20-30%, I am sure that the lawyers would have raised hell.
I get this sense that there is a 'pride in sacrifice and pain' mentality in architecture that starts in school, gets reinforced during internships, and continues through the exams. I think it is creating an obsequious attitude in our profession.
It seems lawyers retain a lot more pride through their education than we do. It feels like we are trod upon by the very governing bodies that are supposed to be supporting us.. its difficult enough when clients and contractors are respecting architects less and less, but the testing system can seem like an additional internal insult. I'm not sure that what you survive makes you stronger in this case. Maybe doctors are going through similar pain with the medical system as it stands.. we aren't entirely alone but I think we are the chumpiest of professions right now!
And I wish you would complain to NCARB as well.. or whoever is in charge. But I don't think I want to bear that cross.. I was recently talking about how it is almost a racket.. for example the CD exam has us study the AIA docs they we must pay for each use of.. it kind of smells as a cabal.. maybe they should test on more general contract information, as a lot of contractors and clients won't get near an AIA contract.
I spoke to the CAB about the situation, especially since I have passed ALL portions of the graphic exam.. but over different testing dates. Before they argued that you have to pass them together, of course, but now they split them up so I'm not sure that argument held water. The official response was.. there is always some 'collateral damage' when rules are changed.
I like intensity, I think the NAVY SEALS have intense overtesting for a reason.. I think architecture should share some of that, but the testing should be relevant, not antiquated, and be more germane to practice as it occurs.
But spending now $200/test on tests I have already paid for and passed, while trying to maintain working and kids etc. It didn't add up.
i totally agree with you regarding NCARB and the tests...they are an insult, and a racket. absolutely.
however, having made it this far, i would advise you to suck it up and finish. it will buy you some freedom and mobility in the long run...the option to quit a crappy job and take a couple of house-design projects and work on your own time, for example...
it's a bit stupid to admit this, but it helped me to compare the exams to all those bullshit classes i had to take in school to graduate...one year of mandatory high-school typing and 4 years of religion, for example...i still can't type and am a dedicated atheist, but getting the degree was worth it...
my husband is taking the last 2 tests now, and when he asks me for advice, i honestly can't remember anything about those tests...like with childbirth, you forget the pain pretty quickly.
marmkid, it sounds like you are good hoop jumper and rule follower... you'll make a perfect pencil pushing, code crunching robot for the rest of us. i'll look for your resume in the future.
I was curious, so I checked the BAR exam pass rates from the NCBEX website and found them around the same range as the AREs and not in the 90's.
And not to get too technical, but assuming somehow the chances of passing were totally random and it was around 60% each, your 4% pass rate is actually the percent of people that would pass ALL TESTS CONSECUTIVELY WITHOUT FAILING A SINGLE ONE. The truth of the matter is, we don't have to pass all consecutively and have to start over from scratch, so the odds don't work that way. The fact that you had to partly start over due to the transition from 3.1 to 4.0 is a shame, but come on, lets not rationlize your decision making while trivializing all those grudgingly go through the ONLY SYSTEM IN PLACE.
As much as I think its not a perfect system, the time it would take to change the system and the odds of that it would happen are so stacked when compared to just sucking up and going through it, that we <code crunching robots, pencil pushers, spine less, hoop jumpers> have no choice.
I don't trivialize those 'grudgingly going through the 'ONLY SYSTEM IN PLACE' at all.. I find the system to be demoralizing to most of them.. I find that the system might be selecting for obsequiousness..
And my decision isn't 'rationalized' .. like I made up some story before making the decision.. it just made sense for me! Bad luck I guess. major impact.
I looked into the pass rates for the bar, and found numbers around 72%. for '09.. the numbers I saw originally were for 'eventual' passing. would be very interesting to know how many people eventually pass the ARE out of those that start it..
feel like there is minor version of stockholm syndrome active here?
poly - not really sure what you're hoping to accomplish here. You show up out of nowhere, start bitching about the ARE because you f**ked it up, and now want to poison the well and insult those here who are serious about completing the exam. You sound like a major league loser to me.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I think of everyone who has passed the ARE. Wait. That's every architect? Yeah, that's pretty much what I think of every architect. Now excuse me while I fork over my $2,000 so I can join the ranks.
Every time I compare this system to that in the UK I am met with silence or ignored. Actually I am having to endure this as well and I think my view is worth some consideration. Why so crude with the exam? BTW Obama administration recently enquired on FB/Twitter what if anything they should be doing for Architects in North America, of course I left it because I'm not one of you.
stockholm syndrome is about right... or we could just say we built the prison and we like living in it. might like to add, commiserating about the treatment of the guards is comfortable and I think the majority of us relish in this misery, like listening to 'the smiths' too often as a youth. I think it is fair to say that licensing provides no more payment or job security than remaining a master educated designer. Considering our educations and continued ARE self whipping it is amazing that anyone goes forward in this profession especially when one considers that the average salary is sitting around 70k (being generous here).
"Not as many entrepreneurial types are going to play those odds."
" If you put up with those tests, I feel you are likely not to have the spine to deal with clients and contractors"
"Probably a lot of the chumps here are taking $20/hr."
" I think we are the chumpiest of professions right now!"
You're right. I knew trivialize was the wrong word when I was writing it. Closer to bad-mouthing?
I must have read your initial post wrong. Sounded like rationalizing with me, with questionalble understanding of statistics.
Trust me, I don't sympathize with the AREs at all. I was talking to co-workers about how it could be better just earlier today. But frankly, its the only way to legally practice architecture right now, without trying to work loopholes the rest of your career. And conversely the only system in place for the protection of the public.
L1, they force takers of the test to sign a non-disclosure and adherence to copyright law agreement that forbids them to talk about the content of the exam.
There's no real legal way for a third-party to scrutinize the exam unless they're protected by the fair use clause— i.e. educational, journalistic et cetera would be protected. However, to demonstrate the differences, it would require essentially publishing large portions of the exam and the exam process itself could be protected by patent law; neither of which are protected by fair use.
Huh? The non-disclosure thing is just to protect the versions of the actual exam. I'm just trying to find out why the whole thing is so nutty (to me) in the first place? Never mind relations between other nationalities Architects and US (except Canada & maybe south America) seem to have broken down years ago. Sigh, there's always Canada, or back to blighty or just not bother.
And lets clarify... the ARE is not there for our enjoyment. Nor should it be. It really isn't FOR us.
And it really is a shame you were caught in the awkward transition between 3.1 and 4.0 and you have to shell out more money. That really sucks. I would be pissed if I were in that situation. Your emotions could be affecting your reasoning though.
One change I would like to advocate is getting results faster. Some of this is not up to NCARB but the State and possibly Prometric. Since tests are to best of my knowledge scored by computer, one would think it could be possible to get preliminary results (not reviewed by a person yet) faster - which I don't see the harm of getting some preliminary results.
Obviously the practice software should support 64-bit as well. I had to create a 32-bit virtual machine just for this purpose. Oh and the functionality of the practice software. I understand the software has to be neutral, but... really?
L1 - I presume the nature of the state of our registration/licensing system itself partly reflects our litigious culture.
Well, I just posted a comment that disappeared that addressed a lot of your questions. I had not passed the graphic exam in 3.1 so I have to take a bunch of tests that I passed already since they spead that one throughout the other tests. Sorry that wasn't clear.
That is a bit absurd and I would be upset too. I thought there was some sort of grandfathering in for those who already started 3.1. Thankfully I didn’t start until 4.0 so there was none of the confusion that NCARB seems to handle oh so well
I get this sense that there is a 'pride in sacrifice and pain' mentality in architecture that starts in school, gets reinforced during internships, and continues through the exams. I think it is creating an obsequious attitude in our profession.
While that is certainly true, there is also a sort of annoyance at listening to constant complaining that architects are famous for. If everyone who had such major issues with the system would spend half the time they spend complaining online trying to actually fix the problem, perhaps it could get fixed. I will readily admit I am not going to be one going out to try to fix the system, I will muddy my way through it. I admit to not having hit any of the annoying roadblocks you have hit though, and my opinion would be swayed by such a situation
And I wish you would complain to NCARB as well.. or whoever is in charge. But I don't think I want to bear that cross.. I was recently talking about how it is almost a racket.. for example the CD exam has us study the AIA docs they we must pay for each use of.. it kind of smells as a cabal.. maybe they should test on more general contract information, as a lot of contractors and clients won't get near an AIA contract.
I don’t have the same outrage to the system that you do, and frankly, don’t feel like fixing the problem for everyone who just spend their time complaining about it online and waiting for others to fix it for them.
When I took the CDS exam, while there were certainly a few questions specifically about AIA contracts, those were the easy questions if you spent 10 minutes learning the basics. I would say 80-90% of the questions dealing with contract info was about general contract and job situations, not specific contracts. I would hardly think it focused on AIA contracts, but then again, that may have just been the version of the test I took.
I like intensity, I think the NAVY SEALS have intense overtesting for a reason.. I think architecture should share some of that, but the testing should be relevant, not antiquated, and be more germane to practice as it occurs.
I agree completely on this. I recently was speaking with one of the partners in my firm about the testing, and he told me about when he took it and it was all done at once in one day of testing. I think this is probably much more effective overall, as each test is probably watered down a bit in its usefulness just because there are so many.
But spending now $200/test on tests I have already paid for and passed, while trying to maintain working and kids etc. It didn’t add up.
I hear you on this one. I didn’t understand your original situation at first. I wouldn’t bother at this point either, especially, when in reality, you can get by without one
marmkid, it sounds like you are good hoop jumper and rule follower... you'll make a perfect pencil pushing, code crunching robot for the rest of us. i'll look for your resume in the future.
Those who cant follow simple rules are easy to spot and the fact that that is all you think I will do in my career just shows your own ignorance. It’s clear that the OP is not someone just looking for an easy way out, but just got stuck in the “well oiled” machine that is NCARB. You on the other hand, sound like someone who will look for others to do his own work for them. If I am sending my resume out any time in the future, I will be sure to avoid sending it your way, considering you read 2 words and then make a snap judgment. Let me go ahead and gracefully decline any offer you are planning
I love how anyone who doesn’t instantly jump on the “I hate NCARB” bandwagon instantly gets lumped into a mindless drone who can do nothing in his career except be a CAD monkey. And architects seriously wonder why our profession is in the state its in.
Obviously the practice software should support 64-bit as well. I had to create a 32-bit virtual machine just for this purpose. Oh and the functionality of the practice software. I understand the software has to be neutral, but... really?
This really annoyed me too. It seems the vignette portion of the tests are 90% practicing the software.
There is some way to convert it for a 64-bit machine, i just did it when studying a couple months ago. I dont remember it off hand, been on a break from studying with a baby at home. The ARE forumn though is where i got how to fix it. So if anyone is in that same boat, do a quick search there
I get they want to stay away from AutoCAD or any other drafting program, but it is a bit ridiculous how much it is dependent on learning their program, And the lack of info on how they grade it is ridiculous. I swear most of the errors they come up with are due to the program, and not the actual solution
You on the other hand, sound like someone who will look for others to do his own work for them. If I am sending my resume out any time in the future, I will be sure to avoid sending it your way, considering you read 2 words and then make a snap judgment. Let me go ahead and gracefully decline any offer you are planning.
You are exactly the person I will be looking for in the future. I will respect all the hard work you do to make a life and money for others. Thanks in advance for your contributions.
I had to literally borrow other people's computers here and there to practice for the graphics portions, because the software doesn't work on a mac, and literally that is the only kind of computer that every one of my family members and all of my friends own. I remember for one exam I had to use my sister's work computer from 5pm-7pm one night. As a result I was only able to ever study for the graphics portions 1x through... was fine though, they are so absurdly easy you really only need to do them 1x for practice and you're good to go.
I feel for the OP - I would be really frustrated in his/her position as well. I don't think NCARB is the devil but I certainly think the tests could be better. On the other hand, I don't think they're as bad as some people make them out to be, either. I found them to be pretty applicable to real-world experience, in that, I feel that the more experience one has, the better one is likely to do on the exam.
Which brings me to the point on pass rates... I wonder if that's being affected by increasing numbers of applicants who are allowed to take the exams concurrent with IDP? (a new thing in the last 2 years or so). I know that of the people I ran into while studying at the AIA, 100% of the ones who were struggling with the exams (had failed more than 1x) were fresh out of school & hadn't completed IDP.
To speak to the UK poster - it's hard for us to answer you because it's not quite clear what you're asking! i've read each of your posts & I still don't know what you mean us to respond to. The AREs are not based on school knowledge, or at least, very little of it is. It's really based on issues that come up in practice - heavy on the code knowledge, contractual responsibility, project management, construction detailing, and oversight/integration of consultant's work. None of this is stuff covered more than extremely superficially in most US Arch degree curriculums.
Philarch.. first off I have a strong understanding of statistics.. I just wasn't clear in my writing that the 3% chance was to pass all the tests.. obviously I am familiar enough with the tests to know that failing one doesn't mean I take them all again?
still, you only get around 6% to pass 5 of 7. I really wonder if the decrease in passing scores is due to the fact that the graphic bits are spread across all the tests now.
In regards to the chumpy part.. what I am getting at is that there is such a disconnect between those graphic tests and real practice that it is the 'third insult' after the IDP rodeo and before that an educational system that is run by mostly non-practicioners (my experience, other's may have had different experience). I think the current system is going to select for technocrats and not leaders in the field. And I think that is a change from the past.
I think the 'chumpiness' is a natural condition that arises out of putting up with monkey business like IDP as it stands and then the tests as they exist. I think we are going to get more obsequious architects out of 4.0. I think we might be filtering some leaders out of the profession. So partly a selection bias, and partly I think the system might be molding us into 'chumps'. I think the profession owes its journeymen a more DIGNIFIED process. I mean, imagine being an expert at BIM and then having to fiddle with that ARE graphic mess. . I may have just be unlucky with the graphics, the concepts are really simple, but I still have no idea what i did wrong... another part of the frustration!
Time to get licensed has gone up immensely in the last few years, but I can't find the article to support that right now.. maybe someone else can?
"Those who barely survive hazing rituals end up being the most vocal proponents for the hazings to be more painful, deadly in the future." Barbara Bush
Perhaps ARE is run by a bunch of borderline competency misogamists. Kinky.
You are exactly the person I will be looking for in the future. I will respect all the hard work you do to make a life and money for others. Thanks in advance for your contributions
I will always listen to new opportunities that arise. Remember though, if you expect someone to do all your work for you, it wont come cheap.
still, you only get around 6% to pass 5 of 7. I really wonder if the decrease in passing scores is due to the fact that the graphic bits are spread across all the tests now.
I dont follow the statistics you are showing. You mean only 6% pass on the first try without a fail? Or ever pass? I think what someone else mentioned where its more and more inexperienced architects are now eligible taking the exams that is lowering the pass rates, not the graphic parts spread out, because as has been mentioned, most of the graphic vignettes are very simple.
I think we might be filtering some leaders out of the profession.
I dont know if they are being filtered out of the profession completely, or if this all just lessens the actual value of the architectural license. I think the leaders of the profession are now more than just architects, maybe in combination with something else. I dont think thats a bad thing either for the profession, but in terms of the arch license, it could be.
To speak to the UK poster - it's hard for us to answer you because it's not quite clear what you're asking! i've read each of your posts & I still don't know what you mean us to respond to. The AREs are not based on school knowledge, or at least, very little of it is. It's really based on issues that come up in practice - heavy on the code knowledge, contractual responsibility, project management, construction detailing, and oversight/integration of consultant's work. None of this is stuff covered more than extremely superficially in most US Arch degree curriculums.
On the contrary-structures for example includes most of my fourth year college structures course and additions for US practice including seismic and wind and all the things one needs to know for building BIG buildings, which we do less in Europe. I realise that US courses are sometimes (but more in the past I think) less focussed which I suppose may be the reason why additionally basics of environmental engineering (air conditioning, lighting etc.) and construction fundamentals are covered at the same time as contractual, business and procedural issues. The point I am trying to make is that if you are all complaining about these exams it may be partly because they are such a catch-all device? That is what I mean by a crude instrument. Additionally this causes huge problems for those coming here from abroad because we separate basic knowledge (college) from professional knowledge (contracts, management, practice), but receive no credit for that under your system. It seems to me a better staged approach because you are accorded some level of respect for what you already know, and assured that you can qualify if you apply yourself. My suspicion is that this is an out of date system which needs investment, not least because we live in a global world now, and its not happening.
Wow! Only a 3-4% chance of passing all the tests on the first try! So either 90+% of architects have proved at least partial incompetency or the tests are designed to fail you.
I failed a test because I had trouble panning and zooming so you know what crowd I'm in. Ha ha!
I think they should give test takers the option of hand drafting the solutions to the graphics portions of the test, but in order ot make it fair the only tools you can have is a screwdriver, a large bar of soap, and a banana (for a straightedge of course) and you have to do it wearing silly glasses with pinholes to see through.
Lets say hypothetically there is no difference between random odds, and collective observed pass rates of individuals.
With that hypothetical scenario you could treat this as a card game at a casino (since you mention casino in your initial post). It is a game where you win a prize if you win 7 hands total. You have a 60% chance of winning each hand (most games in a casino are slightly below 50% so you would WANT to go to this hypothetical casino). The odds of you reaching the end without losing a single hand is low. BUT, thats not the goal of this game... so you could potentially have 100% odds of getting the prize given you have enough resources. So the determination of the player will be based on... the perceived value of the prize compared to the resources.
All that nonsense (which is still more logical than your % numbers, even ignoring the time limit aspect), is to say that I hope you're not rationalizing your decision to not become a licensed architect based on some questionable understanding of the numbers. What I'm also implying is that the perceived value of the "prize" is up to the individual. I don't see how "leaders", entrepreneurs, or those with spines still intact, would give up on the game if they see that the "prize" is worth it (and then bad mouth everyone still on the table as they walk off disgusted). Colloquially, don't hate the playa, hate the game.
And to repeat, the AREs are not for us, and shouldn't be. If you really wanted to affect change to the system, you would have to isolate the exact parts of the system that are disruptive to the participants without any benefit to those it is designed to protect. So isolate those parts, define a better replacement, and communicate it to the right people.
Yes, all the graphics were together in one graphic exam on 3.1. (Or was it two graphic exams? I can't remember.)
Anyway, the argument that the pass rates are dropping because the graphics are spread out is kind of odd, I think -
a) the content of the test hasn't changed *at all* since 3.1 - the vignettes are exactly the same, and the study content is exactly the same. I did all my studying out of 3.1 books and literally nothing had changed for the exam - just the format. Therefore the graphics are no more difficult in terms of content than they used to be.
b) the graphics are by far the easiest part of the test. If you are really failing every exam because you aren't passing the graphics then I'm sorry, you shouldn't be taking the exams at all. You are likely not ready (or way too busy to study)... which brings me back to my thought that if the pass rate has dropped from 3.1 to 4.0, then it's likely because more people who aren't ready are now taking the exams.
That doesn't address your situation, which is admittedly pretty shitty, and I feel for you. But I reject your assertion that everyone's suddenly failing the exams because the vignettes are now spread out. Once you *do* fail - if you make one little fatal error on a vignette, and everything else is fine - I agree you are in a sucky situation, because you have to study all that MC content again and retake all those MC questions just to fix your one fatal error from the vignette. Personally I agree that the vignettes should have stayed together in one exam, but I don't think there would be any increased likelihood of failing the tests just because the vignettes are spread out now.
All this moaning about the exams is part of the reason why I wish they would integrate the AREs into the professional degree. As you get older, your life gets in the way of taking them. I'm more interested in them being taken while in school so it can weed more people out of the profession. If this was the case, graduates would be worth significantly more as they enter the work force.
I have very little sympathy for people who would put themselves through five years of expensive bs schooling but can't find time to study for a few exams. Not becoming license means you will never work for yourself and makes it less likely to get promoted in most firms.
burningman: i agree - should be just like law school - graduate, then take the damn exam...because its the only way to practice / work at an office
Instead, now we have less arch grads reaching licensure and some consider it the path for pencil pushers / project managers NOT designers. Licensure has been diluted the past few decades (architecture used to be more engineering based and a higher percentage of ppl became licensed).
burningman: "graduates would be worth significantly more as they enter the work force" . I think implementing a higher standard into graduating architects - with being licensed following graduation - would help raise our profession or at least garner some more respect to our somewhat "artistic" career. People however will meet this with resistance as they're fine with photoshop production and model building (so then why the architecture education route? 5-7 years?! silly) ... Here's one fact: my alma mater was a top 10 ranked undergrad school for architecture. All architecture, all the time when I was there - 5 years, 10 studios. Now, they've diluted pre-arch (first year of work before attempting to get selected in) to just a design craze of anything everything goes. Portfolios for getting accepted are now not prescribed architecture projects - instead, graphic t-shirts, jewelry...etc. So, the school went from a steady 7th to 18th and climbing.
and yes - maybe we could earn more coming out of college - instead of ranking even with graphic design (i mean less than) and marketing and communications. This is a profession, it comes with initials following your name. With the great skills and knowledge I've gained and smart people I've worked with - now near 5 years of experience I'm drinking beers and shaking hands with graduating 22 year olds (in business, mkt, software, anything) making what I hope to make in another 5 years. This is the reason we all tell others to not go into architecture no matter how much you love it. Oh - forgot to even mention why we're all 32-35 when we have kids! We don't earn squat until then and finally get licensed by then... wuah wuahh .
Anybody that thinks 9-11 years (after graduation) makes a lot of sense for an architecture license is inflating the gravity of the license.. especially compared to what is at stake for a license to practice medicine.. you can get your GP license one year out of internship. And there is no building department or inspector in that case.. I think the enforcement as it weakens a lot of the argument that licensure is for 'public safety'.. certainly could be for general competence and avoidance of costly mistakes..
Isn't it worth discussing? It just really seems like something is wrong.. we should hold ourselves with the same self-respect as Lawyers and Doctors and not just accept that we are bragging about how hard it is to get licensed as an architect instead of questioning the system. It seems like there is some adjustment in order comparatively.
I think a lot of you are so caught up in the laser beam like mindset you need to pass those exams and get licensed that any questioning of the system is disruptive to that focus so you get all bent out of shape when it happens.
The signal to noise ratio on this thread is getting low... but I am amazed how ppl still defend this system, in comparison to other fields. It's ultimately your life of 9-11 years having to work for someone else because of the system is as it is.. I imagine those numbers will increase after 4.0 has its effect given the pass rates that have show up. Thats a lot of years of a lot of people's lives affected, and the profession's morale is affected as well..
I read a suggestion that the academy needs to adjust, be more like med school or law school and reflect that we are a profession. I would agree, but I can imagine there being opposition - the academy certainly is invested in a LOT of activities that to me don't have a lot to do with the profession of architecture at all. (a lot of those activities are 'fun and cool'...)
And the identity/cadre of those pushing those activities/agenda's doesn't want to be disrupted.. They've built livelyhoods on it.
I think the livelyhoods/indenties of the educators are often in conflict with the career path towards architecture.
I really have no rationalizations happening in regards to my decision to move my career in other directions.. I would love to be able to rationalize the 'I'm not in this for the money' thing, but at this point, my obligations to family and my dignity have become incompatible with that ethic.. I think this is a hard truth that a lot who haven't gotten to owning their own firm or settled into a large firm with good salary by their late 30's hit..
ARE PASS RATES
Just took a look at the pass rates for the ARE. Averages rate across all tests for 4.0 in 2009 is 63%. BUT a more important number, the odds of passing all of them would be much lower... if it were truly random, you have about a 4% chance of passing all those tests.
http://www.ncarb.org/en/ARE/ARE-Pass-Rates/DivisionPR.aspx
Contrast that to pass rates for the BAR.. from my research the numbers appear to be in the high nineties.
After having passed 7 exams except for the graphic one, I don't think I'm playing in this casino anymore.. to retake those I've already passed but with that tedious graphic crap thrown in.
I'm a good designer, I can handle complex projects, I can get clients and manage my business fairly well. But I think we are selecting only for technicians who can pass those tests.
Not as many entrepreneurial types are going to play those odds.
Damn NCARB and the governing bodies of this profession.. they can keep it.
On this note, I'm out. Starting in another line of work. Its like leaving a bad relationship.
Feels good.
hhh... try studying... its not that hard...
Yeah lletdownl.. Already did that. Now to do it again because of the switch to 4.0? the #'s speak for themselves on pass rates.. 'its not that hard'.. well its apparently gotten harder, and most people studying for these exams are fairly bright to start with.
you come off as a smug little punk.
just finish the tests already .. it's not that hard
just finish the tests you little punk. it's not that hard.
i am a smug little punk! are you spying on me?
and yes, you do have to do it again cause they switched a new test. Now if you'll excuse me, this smug little punk has to go review PPP cause he took the stupid graphics portion for granted and failed
the architect has no real power any longer, we have become a clerk or a gate keeper, better yet a child not allowed at the adults table. the real men have continued the business without us, the developers and contractors of the world. any reasonable client will eventually recognize this 'middle man complex' of a failed model, retain a designer professional/architect for their limited knowledge and have a qualified contractor execute the work. our days are limited, and the AIA has provided little value or protection for our dying craft. in fact, they are only protecting themselves and the wolves have already smelled fear.
BUT a more important number, the odds of passing all of them would be much lower... if it were truly random, you have about a 4% chance of passing all those tests.
if what were truly random? I would think the pass rate is the more important number
I dont follow what you are talking about though. you passed 7 and are just stopping? or do you now have to start over with 4.0 or something?
it's sometimes hard to follow what we are complaining about here
i have 4 out of the way, only 3 to go. its a pain in the butt to try to do while working, and especially now with a new baby, but its really not that terrible. I dont quite see the big deal with it all
passed 7 and have to retake 4 or 5.. because I didn't pass 3.0 graphic exam.
It doesn't work this way, because someone who passes one test may be more likely to pass another, BUT, with the pass rates are around 60ish percent on each test, to get a PASS on ALL would require jumping through 7 hoops with a 60% chance of tripping on each one.. 3% chance of making that total dance a success. 200 bucks a pop. 6 months of time to retake. What's the big deal? I feel I already know what I am doing, and more so than a lot of my peers who are licensed. I don't take a cavalier attitude towards the responsibility we carry, but I feel like the tests are a bit, well, insulting, to the real work of being an architect. There are enough blocks out in the world to success and the tests, especially the graphic ones, are honestly, a joke. If you put up with those tests, I feel you are likely not to have the spine to deal with clients and contractors...
What I struggled with most in practice wasn't the technical stuff that you can look up in a book, but learning how to negotiate with clients that had immense legal, administrative, and financial resources, and contractors often with the same. I think those who have actually been 'in the trenches' might understand.
I am currently gathering bids from lawyers to form a company and draft a contract for a lease. $385/hr. from reputable firms. They all passed the bar.. they hold responsibility.. I guarantee, that if the ABA boards were as ridiculous and in large parts irrelevant as the ARE exams, there would be reform. extra quick.
But, us compliant architects just say 'finish the test'. We take our lumps. Things 'are as they are'. And we accept our little $110/hour wage if we are lucky. Probably a lot of the chumps here are taking $20/hr.
I really have a lot of admiration for those that go the distance. And I certainly learned some good stuff taking those tests.
Best commentary I heard about the ARE: take the tests, and you will be prepared to deal with the rest of the bs that comes along with the career!
Good luck on the exams guys. I'm not zooming in on handrails again in this life! Blech!
If you put up with those tests, I feel you are likely not to have the spine to deal with clients and contractors...
Wow that is quite a blanket statement to make. I would counter that if someone cant deal with a series of simple tests based on what you do every single day, I wonder how you would have the patience and/ or competence to deal with clients or contractors as well
and i will just take your word that you know what you are doing more than your peers, some of whom are licensed. passing the ARE's doesnt make you a good architect, it makes you a legal one. passing the bar exam doesnt make you a good lawyer, it makes you a legal one. Perhaps if you viewed it in that regard, it might not get you so pissed off
For sure. I passed all the tests except for the graphic one. Let's get that straight. I dealt with them once, but not again?
And if what you do as an architect has much in common with that particular test, I'm sorry!
I find often dealing with clients and contractors does require patience, but it also involves saying.. "this isn't right".
That graphic test shouldn't stand between legally being an architect and being a designer. It's a outdated POS and now they have spead its caca all over the rest of the exams.
"That isn't right".
what is your criteria between legally being an architect or being a designer? how should we decide who is and isn't (legally) an architect?
Can I just say that looking at the US system from the outside it seems to me a bit of a blunt instrument. In the UK we do things in stages, academic study on key subjects like environment, structures etc., is dispatched at one level, pre-graduation. Professional experience which follows is tested as just that, without dragging through the previous subject matter, it's almost as though the system wants you to suceed. My feeling is that yes the system is technical testing, yes the odds are not reassuring or likely to promote the career and possibly it does show in the end product.
I passed all the tests except for the graphic one. Let's get that straight. I dealt with them once, but not again?
I don’t follow why you have to retake anything you have already passed.
And if what you do as an architect has much in common with that particular test, I'm sorry!
I don’t know which test you are talking about or what you are talking about at all. The tests cover some very basic broad concepts that every architect should know.
I find often dealing with clients and contractors does require patience, but it also involves saying.. "this isn't right".
So who have you told that this isnt right? Beyond archinect that is…
Because I would surely love for someone to reform these stupid exams, preferably before I have to take these last couple I have left.
That graphic test shouldn't stand between legally being an architect and being a designer. It's a outdated POS and now they have spead its caca all over the rest of the exams.
I will certainly agree that the graphic portion of the test is the least relevant at all. For CDS, it is a stupid wall section that is more about learning their tricks than anything else. SD is all about following basic mind numbing rules, which I suppose can loosely be tied into following code and ADA requirements, but nothing more. I found that one so incredibly simple though, it was almost an insult to my time to have to sit through. SP was all about learning the tricks of the program for the grading, nothing more. Actually found that one to be more useful though as it involved a skill that architects don’t usually have to get involved with since civil engineers handle that. Good to know I guess, though rarely ever going to be used. Structures graphics is meant to trick you which is very stupid indeed.
Again though, if it gets you this worked up, you should really direct the anger towards those who make the exams and try to get some reform in them. Otherwise its just endless complaining that will go nowhere
Well, I just posted a comment that disappeared that addressed a lot of your questions. I had not passed the graphic exam in 3.1 so I have to take a bunch of tests that I passed already since they spead that one throughout the other tests. Sorry that wasn't clear.
I also liked the grading exam. Learned somethings there.
But if I can recall what I wrote before.. If the ABA exams were changed so that pass rates dropped 20-30%, I am sure that the lawyers would have raised hell.
I get this sense that there is a 'pride in sacrifice and pain' mentality in architecture that starts in school, gets reinforced during internships, and continues through the exams. I think it is creating an obsequious attitude in our profession.
It seems lawyers retain a lot more pride through their education than we do. It feels like we are trod upon by the very governing bodies that are supposed to be supporting us.. its difficult enough when clients and contractors are respecting architects less and less, but the testing system can seem like an additional internal insult. I'm not sure that what you survive makes you stronger in this case. Maybe doctors are going through similar pain with the medical system as it stands.. we aren't entirely alone but I think we are the chumpiest of professions right now!
And I wish you would complain to NCARB as well.. or whoever is in charge. But I don't think I want to bear that cross.. I was recently talking about how it is almost a racket.. for example the CD exam has us study the AIA docs they we must pay for each use of.. it kind of smells as a cabal.. maybe they should test on more general contract information, as a lot of contractors and clients won't get near an AIA contract.
I spoke to the CAB about the situation, especially since I have passed ALL portions of the graphic exam.. but over different testing dates. Before they argued that you have to pass them together, of course, but now they split them up so I'm not sure that argument held water. The official response was.. there is always some 'collateral damage' when rules are changed.
I like intensity, I think the NAVY SEALS have intense overtesting for a reason.. I think architecture should share some of that, but the testing should be relevant, not antiquated, and be more germane to practice as it occurs.
But spending now $200/test on tests I have already paid for and passed, while trying to maintain working and kids etc. It didn't add up.
Personal anecdote.
Casual observation.
Pathos appeal.
Cool story, bro.
i totally agree with you regarding NCARB and the tests...they are an insult, and a racket. absolutely.
however, having made it this far, i would advise you to suck it up and finish. it will buy you some freedom and mobility in the long run...the option to quit a crappy job and take a couple of house-design projects and work on your own time, for example...
it's a bit stupid to admit this, but it helped me to compare the exams to all those bullshit classes i had to take in school to graduate...one year of mandatory high-school typing and 4 years of religion, for example...i still can't type and am a dedicated atheist, but getting the degree was worth it...
my husband is taking the last 2 tests now, and when he asks me for advice, i honestly can't remember anything about those tests...like with childbirth, you forget the pain pretty quickly.
marmkid, it sounds like you are good hoop jumper and rule follower... you'll make a perfect pencil pushing, code crunching robot for the rest of us. i'll look for your resume in the future.
ps has anyone else noticed the similarities between the NCARB graphic programs and the IKEA kitchen planning software??
ok, i missed your second post--thought you only had to retake ONE tes, not 4 or 5...
yeah, i'd quit too. fuck that. good luck to you.
I tried taking the NCARB practice tests but they're apparently built for Windows 3.1 and aren't compatible with 64-bit architecture.
I was curious, so I checked the BAR exam pass rates from the NCBEX website and found them around the same range as the AREs and not in the 90's.
And not to get too technical, but assuming somehow the chances of passing were totally random and it was around 60% each, your 4% pass rate is actually the percent of people that would pass ALL TESTS CONSECUTIVELY WITHOUT FAILING A SINGLE ONE. The truth of the matter is, we don't have to pass all consecutively and have to start over from scratch, so the odds don't work that way. The fact that you had to partly start over due to the transition from 3.1 to 4.0 is a shame, but come on, lets not rationlize your decision making while trivializing all those grudgingly go through the ONLY SYSTEM IN PLACE.
As much as I think its not a perfect system, the time it would take to change the system and the odds of that it would happen are so stacked when compared to just sucking up and going through it, that we <code crunching robots, pencil pushers, spine less, hoop jumpers> have no choice.
I don't trivialize those 'grudgingly going through the 'ONLY SYSTEM IN PLACE' at all.. I find the system to be demoralizing to most of them.. I find that the system might be selecting for obsequiousness..
And my decision isn't 'rationalized' .. like I made up some story before making the decision.. it just made sense for me! Bad luck I guess. major impact.
I looked into the pass rates for the bar, and found numbers around 72%. for '09.. the numbers I saw originally were for 'eventual' passing. would be very interesting to know how many people eventually pass the ARE out of those that start it..
feel like there is minor version of stockholm syndrome active here?
poly - not really sure what you're hoping to accomplish here. You show up out of nowhere, start bitching about the ARE because you f**ked it up, and now want to poison the well and insult those here who are serious about completing the exam. You sound like a major league loser to me.
code crunching robots, pencil pushers, spine less, hoop jumpers
Yeah, that's pretty much what I think of everyone who has passed the ARE. Wait. That's every architect? Yeah, that's pretty much what I think of every architect. Now excuse me while I fork over my $2,000 so I can join the ranks.
Every time I compare this system to that in the UK I am met with silence or ignored. Actually I am having to endure this as well and I think my view is worth some consideration. Why so crude with the exam? BTW Obama administration recently enquired on FB/Twitter what if anything they should be doing for Architects in North America, of course I left it because I'm not one of you.
stockholm syndrome is about right... or we could just say we built the prison and we like living in it. might like to add, commiserating about the treatment of the guards is comfortable and I think the majority of us relish in this misery, like listening to 'the smiths' too often as a youth. I think it is fair to say that licensing provides no more payment or job security than remaining a master educated designer. Considering our educations and continued ARE self whipping it is amazing that anyone goes forward in this profession especially when one considers that the average salary is sitting around 70k (being generous here).
"Not as many entrepreneurial types are going to play those odds."
" If you put up with those tests, I feel you are likely not to have the spine to deal with clients and contractors"
"Probably a lot of the chumps here are taking $20/hr."
" I think we are the chumpiest of professions right now!"
You're right. I knew trivialize was the wrong word when I was writing it. Closer to bad-mouthing?
I must have read your initial post wrong. Sounded like rationalizing with me, with questionalble understanding of statistics.
Trust me, I don't sympathize with the AREs at all. I was talking to co-workers about how it could be better just earlier today. But frankly, its the only way to legally practice architecture right now, without trying to work loopholes the rest of your career. And conversely the only system in place for the protection of the public.
Still being ignored. Why is the professional content in this exam mixed up with the basics?
L1, they force takers of the test to sign a non-disclosure and adherence to copyright law agreement that forbids them to talk about the content of the exam.
There's no real legal way for a third-party to scrutinize the exam unless they're protected by the fair use clause— i.e. educational, journalistic et cetera would be protected. However, to demonstrate the differences, it would require essentially publishing large portions of the exam and the exam process itself could be protected by patent law; neither of which are protected by fair use.
Huh? The non-disclosure thing is just to protect the versions of the actual exam. I'm just trying to find out why the whole thing is so nutty (to me) in the first place? Never mind relations between other nationalities Architects and US (except Canada & maybe south America) seem to have broken down years ago. Sigh, there's always Canada, or back to blighty or just not bother.
And lets clarify... the ARE is not there for our enjoyment. Nor should it be. It really isn't FOR us.
And it really is a shame you were caught in the awkward transition between 3.1 and 4.0 and you have to shell out more money. That really sucks. I would be pissed if I were in that situation. Your emotions could be affecting your reasoning though.
One change I would like to advocate is getting results faster. Some of this is not up to NCARB but the State and possibly Prometric. Since tests are to best of my knowledge scored by computer, one would think it could be possible to get preliminary results (not reviewed by a person yet) faster - which I don't see the harm of getting some preliminary results.
Obviously the practice software should support 64-bit as well. I had to create a 32-bit virtual machine just for this purpose. Oh and the functionality of the practice software. I understand the software has to be neutral, but... really?
L1 - I presume the nature of the state of our registration/licensing system itself partly reflects our litigious culture.
Well, I just posted a comment that disappeared that addressed a lot of your questions. I had not passed the graphic exam in 3.1 so I have to take a bunch of tests that I passed already since they spead that one throughout the other tests. Sorry that wasn't clear.
That is a bit absurd and I would be upset too. I thought there was some sort of grandfathering in for those who already started 3.1. Thankfully I didn’t start until 4.0 so there was none of the confusion that NCARB seems to handle oh so well
I get this sense that there is a 'pride in sacrifice and pain' mentality in architecture that starts in school, gets reinforced during internships, and continues through the exams. I think it is creating an obsequious attitude in our profession.
While that is certainly true, there is also a sort of annoyance at listening to constant complaining that architects are famous for. If everyone who had such major issues with the system would spend half the time they spend complaining online trying to actually fix the problem, perhaps it could get fixed. I will readily admit I am not going to be one going out to try to fix the system, I will muddy my way through it. I admit to not having hit any of the annoying roadblocks you have hit though, and my opinion would be swayed by such a situation
And I wish you would complain to NCARB as well.. or whoever is in charge. But I don't think I want to bear that cross.. I was recently talking about how it is almost a racket.. for example the CD exam has us study the AIA docs they we must pay for each use of.. it kind of smells as a cabal.. maybe they should test on more general contract information, as a lot of contractors and clients won't get near an AIA contract.
I don’t have the same outrage to the system that you do, and frankly, don’t feel like fixing the problem for everyone who just spend their time complaining about it online and waiting for others to fix it for them.
When I took the CDS exam, while there were certainly a few questions specifically about AIA contracts, those were the easy questions if you spent 10 minutes learning the basics. I would say 80-90% of the questions dealing with contract info was about general contract and job situations, not specific contracts. I would hardly think it focused on AIA contracts, but then again, that may have just been the version of the test I took.
I like intensity, I think the NAVY SEALS have intense overtesting for a reason.. I think architecture should share some of that, but the testing should be relevant, not antiquated, and be more germane to practice as it occurs.
I agree completely on this. I recently was speaking with one of the partners in my firm about the testing, and he told me about when he took it and it was all done at once in one day of testing. I think this is probably much more effective overall, as each test is probably watered down a bit in its usefulness just because there are so many.
But spending now $200/test on tests I have already paid for and passed, while trying to maintain working and kids etc. It didn’t add up.
I hear you on this one. I didn’t understand your original situation at first. I wouldn’t bother at this point either, especially, when in reality, you can get by without one
marmkid, it sounds like you are good hoop jumper and rule follower... you'll make a perfect pencil pushing, code crunching robot for the rest of us. i'll look for your resume in the future.
Those who cant follow simple rules are easy to spot and the fact that that is all you think I will do in my career just shows your own ignorance. It’s clear that the OP is not someone just looking for an easy way out, but just got stuck in the “well oiled” machine that is NCARB. You on the other hand, sound like someone who will look for others to do his own work for them. If I am sending my resume out any time in the future, I will be sure to avoid sending it your way, considering you read 2 words and then make a snap judgment. Let me go ahead and gracefully decline any offer you are planning
I love how anyone who doesn’t instantly jump on the “I hate NCARB” bandwagon instantly gets lumped into a mindless drone who can do nothing in his career except be a CAD monkey. And architects seriously wonder why our profession is in the state its in.
Obviously the practice software should support 64-bit as well. I had to create a 32-bit virtual machine just for this purpose. Oh and the functionality of the practice software. I understand the software has to be neutral, but... really?
This really annoyed me too. It seems the vignette portion of the tests are 90% practicing the software.
There is some way to convert it for a 64-bit machine, i just did it when studying a couple months ago. I dont remember it off hand, been on a break from studying with a baby at home. The ARE forumn though is where i got how to fix it. So if anyone is in that same boat, do a quick search there
I get they want to stay away from AutoCAD or any other drafting program, but it is a bit ridiculous how much it is dependent on learning their program, And the lack of info on how they grade it is ridiculous. I swear most of the errors they come up with are due to the program, and not the actual solution
You on the other hand, sound like someone who will look for others to do his own work for them. If I am sending my resume out any time in the future, I will be sure to avoid sending it your way, considering you read 2 words and then make a snap judgment. Let me go ahead and gracefully decline any offer you are planning.
You are exactly the person I will be looking for in the future. I will respect all the hard work you do to make a life and money for others. Thanks in advance for your contributions.
I had to literally borrow other people's computers here and there to practice for the graphics portions, because the software doesn't work on a mac, and literally that is the only kind of computer that every one of my family members and all of my friends own. I remember for one exam I had to use my sister's work computer from 5pm-7pm one night. As a result I was only able to ever study for the graphics portions 1x through... was fine though, they are so absurdly easy you really only need to do them 1x for practice and you're good to go.
I feel for the OP - I would be really frustrated in his/her position as well. I don't think NCARB is the devil but I certainly think the tests could be better. On the other hand, I don't think they're as bad as some people make them out to be, either. I found them to be pretty applicable to real-world experience, in that, I feel that the more experience one has, the better one is likely to do on the exam.
Which brings me to the point on pass rates... I wonder if that's being affected by increasing numbers of applicants who are allowed to take the exams concurrent with IDP? (a new thing in the last 2 years or so). I know that of the people I ran into while studying at the AIA, 100% of the ones who were struggling with the exams (had failed more than 1x) were fresh out of school & hadn't completed IDP.
To speak to the UK poster - it's hard for us to answer you because it's not quite clear what you're asking! i've read each of your posts & I still don't know what you mean us to respond to. The AREs are not based on school knowledge, or at least, very little of it is. It's really based on issues that come up in practice - heavy on the code knowledge, contractual responsibility, project management, construction detailing, and oversight/integration of consultant's work. None of this is stuff covered more than extremely superficially in most US Arch degree curriculums.
Philarch.. first off I have a strong understanding of statistics.. I just wasn't clear in my writing that the 3% chance was to pass all the tests.. obviously I am familiar enough with the tests to know that failing one doesn't mean I take them all again?
still, you only get around 6% to pass 5 of 7. I really wonder if the decrease in passing scores is due to the fact that the graphic bits are spread across all the tests now.
In regards to the chumpy part.. what I am getting at is that there is such a disconnect between those graphic tests and real practice that it is the 'third insult' after the IDP rodeo and before that an educational system that is run by mostly non-practicioners (my experience, other's may have had different experience). I think the current system is going to select for technocrats and not leaders in the field. And I think that is a change from the past.
I think the 'chumpiness' is a natural condition that arises out of putting up with monkey business like IDP as it stands and then the tests as they exist. I think we are going to get more obsequious architects out of 4.0. I think we might be filtering some leaders out of the profession. So partly a selection bias, and partly I think the system might be molding us into 'chumps'. I think the profession owes its journeymen a more DIGNIFIED process. I mean, imagine being an expert at BIM and then having to fiddle with that ARE graphic mess. . I may have just be unlucky with the graphics, the concepts are really simple, but I still have no idea what i did wrong... another part of the frustration!
Time to get licensed has gone up immensely in the last few years, but I can't find the article to support that right now.. maybe someone else can?
"Those who barely survive hazing rituals end up being the most vocal proponents for the hazings to be more painful, deadly in the future." Barbara Bush
Perhaps ARE is run by a bunch of borderline competency misogamists. Kinky.
Meow!
You are exactly the person I will be looking for in the future. I will respect all the hard work you do to make a life and money for others. Thanks in advance for your contributions
I will always listen to new opportunities that arise. Remember though, if you expect someone to do all your work for you, it wont come cheap.
still, you only get around 6% to pass 5 of 7. I really wonder if the decrease in passing scores is due to the fact that the graphic bits are spread across all the tests now.
I dont follow the statistics you are showing. You mean only 6% pass on the first try without a fail? Or ever pass? I think what someone else mentioned where its more and more inexperienced architects are now eligible taking the exams that is lowering the pass rates, not the graphic parts spread out, because as has been mentioned, most of the graphic vignettes are very simple.
I think we might be filtering some leaders out of the profession.
I dont know if they are being filtered out of the profession completely, or if this all just lessens the actual value of the architectural license. I think the leaders of the profession are now more than just architects, maybe in combination with something else. I dont think thats a bad thing either for the profession, but in terms of the arch license, it could be.
To speak to the UK poster - it's hard for us to answer you because it's not quite clear what you're asking! i've read each of your posts & I still don't know what you mean us to respond to. The AREs are not based on school knowledge, or at least, very little of it is. It's really based on issues that come up in practice - heavy on the code knowledge, contractual responsibility, project management, construction detailing, and oversight/integration of consultant's work. None of this is stuff covered more than extremely superficially in most US Arch degree curriculums.
On the contrary-structures for example includes most of my fourth year college structures course and additions for US practice including seismic and wind and all the things one needs to know for building BIG buildings, which we do less in Europe. I realise that US courses are sometimes (but more in the past I think) less focussed which I suppose may be the reason why additionally basics of environmental engineering (air conditioning, lighting etc.) and construction fundamentals are covered at the same time as contractual, business and procedural issues. The point I am trying to make is that if you are all complaining about these exams it may be partly because they are such a catch-all device? That is what I mean by a crude instrument. Additionally this causes huge problems for those coming here from abroad because we separate basic knowledge (college) from professional knowledge (contracts, management, practice), but receive no credit for that under your system. It seems to me a better staged approach because you are accorded some level of respect for what you already know, and assured that you can qualify if you apply yourself. My suspicion is that this is an out of date system which needs investment, not least because we live in a global world now, and its not happening.
Wow! Only a 3-4% chance of passing all the tests on the first try! So either 90+% of architects have proved at least partial incompetency or the tests are designed to fail you.
I failed a test because I had trouble panning and zooming so you know what crowd I'm in. Ha ha!
I think they should give test takers the option of hand drafting the solutions to the graphics portions of the test, but in order ot make it fair the only tools you can have is a screwdriver, a large bar of soap, and a banana (for a straightedge of course) and you have to do it wearing silly glasses with pinholes to see through.
And if unicorn can draw that for me, that would be great.
did version 3.1 only have 1 test with graphic portions?
Lets say hypothetically there is no difference between random odds, and collective observed pass rates of individuals.
With that hypothetical scenario you could treat this as a card game at a casino (since you mention casino in your initial post). It is a game where you win a prize if you win 7 hands total. You have a 60% chance of winning each hand (most games in a casino are slightly below 50% so you would WANT to go to this hypothetical casino). The odds of you reaching the end without losing a single hand is low. BUT, thats not the goal of this game... so you could potentially have 100% odds of getting the prize given you have enough resources. So the determination of the player will be based on... the perceived value of the prize compared to the resources.
All that nonsense (which is still more logical than your % numbers, even ignoring the time limit aspect), is to say that I hope you're not rationalizing your decision to not become a licensed architect based on some questionable understanding of the numbers. What I'm also implying is that the perceived value of the "prize" is up to the individual. I don't see how "leaders", entrepreneurs, or those with spines still intact, would give up on the game if they see that the "prize" is worth it (and then bad mouth everyone still on the table as they walk off disgusted). Colloquially, don't hate the playa, hate the game.
And to repeat, the AREs are not for us, and shouldn't be. If you really wanted to affect change to the system, you would have to isolate the exact parts of the system that are disruptive to the participants without any benefit to those it is designed to protect. So isolate those parts, define a better replacement, and communicate it to the right people.
Yes, all the graphics were together in one graphic exam on 3.1. (Or was it two graphic exams? I can't remember.)
Anyway, the argument that the pass rates are dropping because the graphics are spread out is kind of odd, I think -
a) the content of the test hasn't changed *at all* since 3.1 - the vignettes are exactly the same, and the study content is exactly the same. I did all my studying out of 3.1 books and literally nothing had changed for the exam - just the format. Therefore the graphics are no more difficult in terms of content than they used to be.
b) the graphics are by far the easiest part of the test. If you are really failing every exam because you aren't passing the graphics then I'm sorry, you shouldn't be taking the exams at all. You are likely not ready (or way too busy to study)... which brings me back to my thought that if the pass rate has dropped from 3.1 to 4.0, then it's likely because more people who aren't ready are now taking the exams.
That doesn't address your situation, which is admittedly pretty shitty, and I feel for you. But I reject your assertion that everyone's suddenly failing the exams because the vignettes are now spread out. Once you *do* fail - if you make one little fatal error on a vignette, and everything else is fine - I agree you are in a sucky situation, because you have to study all that MC content again and retake all those MC questions just to fix your one fatal error from the vignette. Personally I agree that the vignettes should have stayed together in one exam, but I don't think there would be any increased likelihood of failing the tests just because the vignettes are spread out now.
All this moaning about the exams is part of the reason why I wish they would integrate the AREs into the professional degree. As you get older, your life gets in the way of taking them. I'm more interested in them being taken while in school so it can weed more people out of the profession. If this was the case, graduates would be worth significantly more as they enter the work force.
I have very little sympathy for people who would put themselves through five years of expensive bs schooling but can't find time to study for a few exams. Not becoming license means you will never work for yourself and makes it less likely to get promoted in most firms.
burningman: i agree - should be just like law school - graduate, then take the damn exam...because its the only way to practice / work at an office
Instead, now we have less arch grads reaching licensure and some consider it the path for pencil pushers / project managers NOT designers. Licensure has been diluted the past few decades (architecture used to be more engineering based and a higher percentage of ppl became licensed).
burningman: "graduates would be worth significantly more as they enter the work force" . I think implementing a higher standard into graduating architects - with being licensed following graduation - would help raise our profession or at least garner some more respect to our somewhat "artistic" career. People however will meet this with resistance as they're fine with photoshop production and model building (so then why the architecture education route? 5-7 years?! silly) ... Here's one fact: my alma mater was a top 10 ranked undergrad school for architecture. All architecture, all the time when I was there - 5 years, 10 studios. Now, they've diluted pre-arch (first year of work before attempting to get selected in) to just a design craze of anything everything goes. Portfolios for getting accepted are now not prescribed architecture projects - instead, graphic t-shirts, jewelry...etc. So, the school went from a steady 7th to 18th and climbing.
and yes - maybe we could earn more coming out of college - instead of ranking even with graphic design (i mean less than) and marketing and communications. This is a profession, it comes with initials following your name. With the great skills and knowledge I've gained and smart people I've worked with - now near 5 years of experience I'm drinking beers and shaking hands with graduating 22 year olds (in business, mkt, software, anything) making what I hope to make in another 5 years. This is the reason we all tell others to not go into architecture no matter how much you love it. Oh - forgot to even mention why we're all 32-35 when we have kids! We don't earn squat until then and finally get licensed by then... wuah wuahh .
Some good information here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51132717/Concerning-Licensure
Anybody that thinks 9-11 years (after graduation) makes a lot of sense for an architecture license is inflating the gravity of the license.. especially compared to what is at stake for a license to practice medicine.. you can get your GP license one year out of internship. And there is no building department or inspector in that case.. I think the enforcement as it weakens a lot of the argument that licensure is for 'public safety'.. certainly could be for general competence and avoidance of costly mistakes..
Isn't it worth discussing? It just really seems like something is wrong.. we should hold ourselves with the same self-respect as Lawyers and Doctors and not just accept that we are bragging about how hard it is to get licensed as an architect instead of questioning the system. It seems like there is some adjustment in order comparatively.
I think a lot of you are so caught up in the laser beam like mindset you need to pass those exams and get licensed that any questioning of the system is disruptive to that focus so you get all bent out of shape when it happens.
The signal to noise ratio on this thread is getting low... but I am amazed how ppl still defend this system, in comparison to other fields. It's ultimately your life of 9-11 years having to work for someone else because of the system is as it is.. I imagine those numbers will increase after 4.0 has its effect given the pass rates that have show up. Thats a lot of years of a lot of people's lives affected, and the profession's morale is affected as well..
I read a suggestion that the academy needs to adjust, be more like med school or law school and reflect that we are a profession. I would agree, but I can imagine there being opposition - the academy certainly is invested in a LOT of activities that to me don't have a lot to do with the profession of architecture at all. (a lot of those activities are 'fun and cool'...)
And the identity/cadre of those pushing those activities/agenda's doesn't want to be disrupted.. They've built livelyhoods on it.
I think the livelyhoods/indenties of the educators are often in conflict with the career path towards architecture.
I really have no rationalizations happening in regards to my decision to move my career in other directions.. I would love to be able to rationalize the 'I'm not in this for the money' thing, but at this point, my obligations to family and my dignity have become incompatible with that ethic.. I think this is a hard truth that a lot who haven't gotten to owning their own firm or settled into a large firm with good salary by their late 30's hit..
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.