Skip to main content

ARE We Done Yet? - Yes.

I knew this day would come eventually...  And last Thursday was it:  the day I finally finished the ARE.  NCARB even sent me a congratulatory e-mail!  My official test time:  March 15, 2014 to March 21, 2015 (date of my first and last exams).  Just over one year to complete.



And now I've started thinking about what the new exam will be like for everyone beginning testing now.

In reading about the exam transition to ARE 5.0, it appears to me (and I am not in any way involved with the new exam design, so this is just based on the information that NCARB has made public) that the new exam will be significantly easier.  The new exam will be in 6 sections, instead of 7, which by itself, means little.  What indicates to me that the new sections will be easier is that 3 of the current 7 exams grant you credit for 4 of the new exams, while the remaining 4 current exams (which includes the three most difficult ones, in my opinion) are consolidated into two new exams.  I can't imagine that the two new exams will be anywhere near the combined level of difficulty of the four current exams - that would be insane.  So the two new exams must be easier, and significantly reduce the amount of content that is in the four current exams.  (Pro tip: this means that you can pass the ARE in 2016 by taking only 5 exams, if you take 3 of the current ones and 2 of the new ones.  Check out the credit transfer scheme for yourself.)

And you know what?  I think that's great.  The current exams cover a lot of material that simply isn't needed for the protection of the health & welfare of the public, and certainly isn't useful for day-to-day architectural practice.  I spent weeks studying for the Structural Systems exam, learning about coefficients for the flexural design of wood, and I think it was a waste of time.  I simply don't need to know most of that stuff; it's the province of structural engineers, and I will never, ever feel comfortable designing structural members for a project on my own, no matter what I learned for the ARE.  Good for the test designers if they're updating the exams to what architects truly need to know, not what we "ideally" or "sometimes" need.  In an unusual case, we're going to look it up anyway, not design buildings based on what we vaguely remember studying years ago.

I think it's great that the new exams are going to follow the standard format of project management phases, from programming to design development to construction, instead of the subject-matter tests.  I'm happy that there will be fewer exams, because seven is just so many.  I think they could probably cut it down to five, but no one asked me.

What worries me is that there will be a backlash, although hopefully a short one, against new architects who get licensed under the revised scheme.  Older architects may feel upset that newcomers get this "easier" track to licensure.  NCARB needs to be open and honest about the new content and its difficulty.  If it's actually easier, just say so, and explain why the changes were needed. I don't think it does anyone good to pretend that the new exams are "comparable" to the old ones, if in fact they are not.  In a couple of years, no one will care anymore anyway.  The old exams are long, overly difficult, contain a lot of irrelevant information, and are based mostly on rote memorization; I agree with NCARB that it's time to move on.  And please, in the name of all that's good, ditch the 1990s pseudo-CAD vignette software!  Just please don't replace it with something equally horrible.  I think we've suffered enough.


Comments

  1. If you want to complete the AREs in five exams, check out this helpful website from NCARB: http://www.ncarb.org/en/ARE/ARE5/ARE5-CreditModel.aspx

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Vertical Bike Rack

The work of our hands!


A little backstory:  We bought two bikes as soon as we could after moving here, so we could both bike to work.  After a few uneventful months of chaining up our bikes next to our car in the carport of our apartment building, Justin's bike was stolen.  (Mine was mysteriously left behind, together with Justin's pannier, which the thieves helpfully folded up and placed on top of my bike.  My only guess is that the chain holding my bike was harder to cut than the chain on Justin's.)  Since then, we've kept our bikes inside, hauling them up and down two flights of stairs to our third-floor apartment every time we take them out, which is usually a few times a week.  Ugh.  Better than buying a new bike every few months, though.

We needed a rack that would keep the bikes off the floor, off the walls, and in as small a footprint as possible, without requiring us to drill into or otherwise damage the walls (or floor or ceiling).  This proved a challenge t…

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

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 functionalism and …

LEED Green Associate

Today I am pleased to report that I have passed the LEED® Green Associate exam, so I am now officially a LEED-accredited professional.  I have a few thoughts on this process that might be helpful for others looking into getting their own LEED Green Associate credential.  While I'm certainly in support of sustainable building practices, which is why I went to the trouble to get the credential in the first place, I don't think it's inappropriate to take a critical stance toward the whole enterprise in order to challenge the profession (and the industry) to be more self-aware.

The preparation: I passed the exam by using only resources that were freely available to me through my school library, including an e-book version of the LEED Green Associate study guide by Michelle Cottrell and the USGBC LEED Core Concepts Guide.  (Although I asked the library to obtain a new copy of the official USGBC LEED Green Associate Study Guide since the one they had was lost, they still haven&…