Skip to main content

ARE We Done Yet?

By
Thanks, NCARB.

The lateral forces of destiny have continued to make my free time shear torture, as today I took the Structural Systems portion of the Architect Registration Exam (ARE).  Let me get a few allowable loads off my chest.  I had planned to write a witty review of my time studying for this massive and inflexible exam, a review that would have been full of puns about mental strain and bending over backwards to learn this stuff, but I'm just too stressed.  (See what I did there.)  The tension of waiting for my results is practically unbearable.  (The compression isn't great, either.) When I couple the forces of failure with those of success, the net outcome seems... indeterminate, like a beam fixed at both ends.  It's like there's an overturning moment with roughly 1.5 times the dead weight of my emotions, and I can't decide if I'm more angry or more depressed at how it went.

Anyway, as I've been telling myself, Structures is over now for at least the next six months!  (At which point I can take it again if I failed.)  If I passed, it must have been by some miracle, since there were a lot of questions I wasn't sure about.  I'll find out in a week or two.

If I've learned anything from this experience, it's that this process is long, hard, and a serious drag strut.  And those "fatal errors" on the vignettes that everyone likes to talk about?  They're real.  See Exhibit A, below.  I was pretty confident that I passed Site Planning, and it turns out, I basically did pass - except that I must have done something stupid in one of the two vignettes, which I failed, and which caused me to fail the entire exam, even though I passed all the other sections.

Fatal errors: They're dead serious.
What's frustrating about this exam process is that the report, above, is all you get if you fail, and you get no feedback at all if you pass.  What did I do wrong?  I don't know, and all I can do is take the entire test over again and hope for a different result.  There's really no way to know exactly what I did wrong.  I have a few guesses, but the only way to confirm them is re-taking the exam.  And if I fail multiple-choice sections, it's hard to know how much better I need to get, since there is no official standard for how many right answers you need to pass (I've heard theories range from 50% correct to 70-80%).

For anyone else out there studying, resources I used for Structural Systems were Kaplan's Structural Systems book, Ballast's ARE Review Manual (better than Kaplan, I think), and the PPI Sample Questions book.  I also had the Kaplan Questions & Answers book on hand but didn't have time go through the 400+ questions in it.  I also read the "Buildings at Risk" guides from the AIA on seismic and wind design, plus other stuff online about seismic and codes.  Everything I used was available from my office.  I thought the PPI books were easier to understand.  I'll let you know when I get my results back whether this was sufficient prep or not.  I took roughly 2 months to study for this exam, but with dedicated daily studying only for the last two to three weeks (approx 2-3 hours per night plus all day weekends).  I felt fairly well prepared going in, but the actual exam was more challenging than I expected, and I am not confident in how well I did.  I don't think I had any trouble with the vignette, though.

My current inertia is pushing me to finish out the tests with as much velocity as possible, but at the moment, I'm thinking of deflecting the next ones until a later date.  It's not worth the stress/strain (=E).  In any event, I've got a lot more exams to go.  At least this one is over for now.  Better enjoy my weekend while I can, before it's time to start studying for the next one!

Note: I received my score report this week, and amazingly, I passed the exam!  No idea how that happened.  So I guess the moral of this story is, you can feel terrible about the outcome, and still pass.  Good luck.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Voter's Guide: Local Elections 2016

By
I spent a long time researching different local races and some of the ballot measures here in Santa Clara County.  In case you're on the fence or want some further information to guide your voting, I've compiled my thoughts here. Selection Methodology I have three tiers for selecting  candidates. 1. Alignment on Issues:  I will choose the candidate who is most closely aligned with me on the issues I think are important. 2. Experience and Education:  All other things being equal, I will choose the candidate who has the most knowledge of what is required for the position, either through education, previous experience, or active participation in similar positions. 3. Women and Minorities:  All other things being equal (#1 and #2 above), I will choose candidates who are women or minorities in order to increase the diversity of voices of our elected officials.  It's my own personal form of affirmative action. The Issues We're fortunate enough to live in a place
Post a Comment
Read more

Housing Affordability in the Bay Area: An Architectural Perspective

By
The Bay Area's housing crisis has gained a status akin to the weather: We can't help but mention it whenever two or more Bay Area residents are gathered together, and we feel there's equally nothing we can do to change it.  But instead of the general praise given to the area's weather, there is general despair about the state of housing.  At least among the twenty-something set and construction industry professionals who make up my peers and colleagues, there are few answers and much criticism for the way we live here.  It's not dense enough, public transportation is a sham, and housing costs are outrageous.  Many of my peers agree that they would not live here at all except that their spouse/significant other works in the tech industry, without whose salary they could not afford to live here, but whose worth is so valued here that it makes little sense economically to live elsewhere.  Here in the Peninsula it's just as bad as in San Francisco ("the city&
Post a Comment
Read more

Book Review: "Theory and Design in the First Machine Age"

By
Reyner Banham 's Theory and Design in the First Machine Age (1960) is an engaging overview of the important theoretical developments of the early 20th century leading up to the "International Style" of the 1930s-40s.  Banham does a fairly good job, in my opinion, of avoiding excessive editorializing, although he has a clear viewpoint on the Modern Movement and finishes with a strong conclusion.  In opposition to his teacher, Nikolaus Pevsner , whose own history of modernism came out in 1936, Banham dismantled the " form follows function " credo that became the stereotype of modernism, arguing instead that formalism (a preoccupation with style and aesthetics) was an important, if not overriding, concern of Modern architects.  Two sections of the book struck me in particular: his analysis of Le Corbusier's famous book Vers une architecture (Toward a [new] architecture) from 1923, and his Conclusion (chapter 22), where he breaks the link between functionali
1 comment
Read more