5.0 is NOT like real world architecture

[vrcat25]

I've heard this claim made and i can say based on real world experience that 5.0 is NOTHING like real world architecture...I've worked for a firm for over 5 years and the only thing that is remotely similar to real world architecture is the case studies, but that's even questionable. The problem is that it still does not simulate an office environment and the software is very shady. It's kind of like having a vignette with 10 questions in each. At least with 4.0, you found out whether you failed and where. Also, it's very difficult to find practice material for the case studies. Another problem with the case studies is that you're working against the clock. You have to pace yourself so that you have at least 2 hours for case studies. What i did is used the first 2 hours for MC. This seems like a lot of time for 100 questions, but some of the questions take more time than others so i kind of rushed at the end and wasted a bunch of time getting hung up on the many WTF hypothetical and interpretative questions. BTW, there's even MORE WTF questions in 5.0. At least for my test there were. Not to mention, some were missing information. I hope that NCARB makes an honest attempt to review feedback since i will be submitting some.

I'm really not trying to rain on anybody's parade, but i was hopeful when i heard that "it's more like working at an office". I strongly disagree and think 4.0 is even more like working at an office. All they are doing with 5.0 is mixing up a bunch of division questions together. So basically, since the mix questions together, that's suppose to be like working at an office because it's a cluster?? I think the vignette's from 4.0 had more resemblances and core concepts than 5.0 case studies. The only thing like real world architecture would be that you have to reference IBC code or zoning. That's great, but NCARB needs to really take a close look at the feedback because they DEFINITELY have some erroneous questions with missing information. Sorry to say, 5.0 is even more subjective than 4.0 and I regret transitioning. I guess i'll just have to hope that i get lucky and the cut scores are low enough that i somehow got enough of the technical questions correct. As for the 100 multiple choice they are basically the same pick 3 or pick 4 best guess questions that's you would see in 4.0. There are a few questions with illustrations. The graphics were worse than what a first grade child might draw. I hope that NCARB takes a close look at the feedback and pass rates and things improve for this test, but i wouldn't count on it. If i were somebody who hasn't transitioned, I would stick with 4.0.

[Coach]

I tried to tell you guys to be careful what you wished for.

[rwwon]

Hopefully in a few years there will be a reservoir of knowledge for 5.0 like there is for 4.0. that takes you into every nook and cranny of the case studies, similar to the step by step guides you could find for the vignettes. It's going to be a pioneering effort for a while and you are at the forefront.

[vrcat25]

Hopefully in a few years there will be a reservoir of knowledge for 5.0 like there is for 4.0. that takes you into every nook and cranny of the case studies, similar to the step by step guides you could find for the vignettes. It's going to be a pioneering effort for a while and you are at the forefront.

I'm not going to hold my breadth...Speaking of it, has NCARB even released the answers for their own 5.0 practice test case study yet?? My problem isn't with lack of study material. My problem is that PPD is just like PPP was for 4.0 in terms of ambiguity. Let's not forget that PPP is a very ambiguous test with a lower rate of passing than the rest of the test. I'm very curious to see the pass rates that NCARB says will be posted this summer. I have a feeling that are going to be just as low if not lower than PPP. Hopefully, i barely make whatever the cut is or I get a decent set of questions next time so that i can make the cut. NCARB has ruined any chance of a fair test, by having erroneous, subjective and ambiguous questions. It's a BIG problem and i can't imagine how difficult it is for people who aren't speed readers like me. I read MEEB, AHPP, Building Construction Illustrated, Fundamentals of Building Construction and Graphics standards and too many of the hypothetical questions NCARB creates are in none of these sources. ARE 5.0 PPD is nothing but a bad joke. I have absolutely nothing good to say about it. Less than half of the questions were good questions.

[vrcat25]

I tried to tell you guys to be careful what you wished for.

I hear ya Coach and I should have listened to you. My thoughts before transitioning were, "How could 5.0 possibly be worse and anymore unfair than the subjective questions in PPP?" Man was i wrong!

[chrisschumm]

I tried to tell you guys to be careful what you wished for.

I hear ya Coach and I should have listened to you. My thoughts before transitioning were, "How could 5.0 possibly be worse and anymore unfair than the subjective questions in PPP?" Man was i wrong!

PPP was bad - but i feel either 4.0/ 5.0 its all the roll of the dice when it comes to the questions... I have another guy in my office doing the 5 test route.. and he is studying his a$$ off for his 5.0 tests and is stressing now that i've wrapped mine up in 4.0 so fast lol...

vrcat25 - you will crush em.... set a goal date to have them all done & plan a vacation or something awesome to reward yourself, you will push yourself through these, persistence will win!

Yew!

[vrcat25]

I tried to tell you guys to be careful what you wished for.

I hear ya Coach and I should have listened to you. My thoughts before transitioning were, "How could 5.0 possibly be worse and anymore unfair than the subjective questions in PPP?" Man was i wrong!

PPP was bad - but i feel either 4.0/ 5.0 its all the roll of the dice when it comes to the questions... I have another guy in my office doing the 5 test route.. and he is studying his a$$ off for his 5.0 tests and is stressing now that i've wrapped mine up in 4.0 so fast lol...

vrcat25 - you will crush em.... set a goal date to have them all done & plan a vacation or something awesome to reward yourself, you will push yourself through these, persistence will win!

Yew!

Thanks chrisschumm! I'm not one to give up easily and nothing has ever come "easy" for me anyway. I've always had to fight tooth and nail for EVERYTHING so, i guess this is how it's suppose to be. If i were to tell you my childhood and even recent events, you wouldn't believe me. I'm not making excuses, but I have had to overcome insurmountable odds to achieve my goals as a child and as an adult. i've had pretty much every obstacle thrown in my way. After having literally thousands of obstacles thrown in my path, i only have two left (PPD and PDD). I'll be damned, if i let those two prevent me from reaching my #1 goal of becoming a licensed architect. Ever since i can remember, even before kindergarten, I wanted to be a part of the building/design process...It's what i was made to do. Either I'll pass those 2 tests, or i'll die trying (knock on wood). Thanks again for your support. Hands down, this forum has been my best resource for the 3 tests i've passed and i'm sure it will be for my last 2. My new goal for being complete is August 15th and my vacation destination is Hawaii. I may get frustrated and vent, but i don't have any "quit" in me.

Yew too!

[corbismyhomeboy]

I feel like the '5.0 is more like real world practice' is NCARB's argument to get people to try to take the test. I'm curious what testing timelines will look like since the material is spread over more exams, not compartmentalized like it is now. For example, are people going to take 6-8 weeks for each exam instead of 1 month? Or bulk study at the beginning then just take a bunch in succession? Seems scary to me. As far as I understood, it was just going to be 4.0 questions all mixed up, and very few new questions were going to be written for 5.0. It sounds like that's correct from what you've said, vrcat.

[tatamin]

I will keep 4.0. I think poeple who are able to pass 4.0 - SS, BDCS, BS can also pass 5.0 - PPD and PDD. I will keep trying SS, BDCS, and BS untill June, 2018. If I couldn't finish with 4.0, then I will transition to 5.0. They are just mixtures of the same questions from old SS, BDCS, BS and SD using different style. In this way, I won't waste my time. Transion or not transion you need to study SS, BDCS, BS and SD anyway.

-tatamin

[arman]

hi guys how does it work if you start with 4.0 then transition to 5.0 , can you go back ? Thanks

[cloudyy]

hi guys how does it work if you start with 4.0 then transition to 5.0 , can you go back ? Thanks

Nope. You're welcome

[vrcat25]

[quote="tatamin"I think poeple who are able to pass 4.0 - SS, BDCS, BS can also pass 5.0 - PPD and PDD.

-tatamin[/quote]

According to what many people are saying in the 5.0 community, this isn't the case...The questions in 5.0 are more obscure than with 4.0, based on what the majority of people are saying. It's ending up to be a real blood bath. Just because there's less structures or systems, doesn't mean it's "easier". I'd do anything to get back to 4.0...You wouldn't believe how ambiguous some of the questions are with 5.0.

[tom999w]

4.0 and 5.0 are NOT like real world architecture. I've worked in an architecture firm for almost ten years and have no idea where 90% of these test questions are stemming from. I skipped a grade in elementary school, took honors classes in high school, was on the deans list in college, attained several state licenses in other fields, and still can't pass these exams.
In addition, I'm very confident that the 54-78 percent 4.0 passing rates are highly inflated in order to give test takers some degree of hope that they might pass these exams. They also don't list how many failures a person received to attain one pass. I feel this way because I took an extra-curricular ARE study class three years in a row that started out with 75 students, all testing. At the end of each year, only 13 students passed the ARE. That comes out to 17.3% passing rate.
If the ARE was like real world architecture, then we would have a lot more justifiably licensed architects in the world and less people struggling to make sense of tests with absurd questions. I've never even heard the term "Wtf questions" until I've started studying for the ARE; is that a term that should even be associated with this exam? You would think that college, internship and studying would be more than enough to prepare you for any licensing exam.
It's very frustrating to have all these candidates putting their nose to the grindstone for up to nine years and running to the finish line, only to find that they're running into a stone wall. Alot of my architecture friends who couldn't pass the exams have since quit architecture and work in different fields. They too, were honors students in college.
I'm not asking NCARB to make the test easier by any means, but I'm pleading that they make the exams based on experiences found in reality, and not based on what was in the minds of the test creators on the particular day they'd decided to create these questions.

[nickedemus]

I think that if you go into this test expecting that it will simulate a real life experience, you are setting yourself up to fail.

No mere test can possibly replicate the infinite permutations of problems to be solved that real life presents. What constitutes a "real life experience" is different for everyone. Firms function differently. Individual people function differently. Project teams function differently. Stakeholders have different needs. Projects can be similar, but there are always differences.

If you study for these tests by thinking about your experiences and projects, you are probably studying the wrong things, and even hyperfocusing.

What a test can do is focus on fundamental concepts at a high level. You have to identify what the "rules" are and choose the best answer according to that. ARE questions ask, "what does architecture want" and "what are the constraints [cost, life safety, ADA, gravity]", "What are the systems I must work with," and "what are their constraints". Once you have those basic concepts down, the correct answers are easier to identify. Not easy, because they still try to screw you up with the wording, but easier.

One thing that ARE questions never ask is "what do you do all day".

[vrcat25]

4.0 and 5.0 are NOT like real world architecture. I've worked in an architecture firm for almost ten years and have no idea where 90% of these test questions are stemming from. I skipped a grade in elementary school, took honors classes in high school, was on the deans list in college, attained several state licenses in other fields, and still can't pass these exams.
In addition, I'm very confident that the 54-78 percent 4.0 passing rates are highly inflated in order to give test takers some degree of hope that they might pass these exams. They also don't list how many failures a person received to attain one pass. I feel this way because I took an extra-curricular ARE study class three years in a row that started out with 75 students, all testing. At the end of each year, only 13 students passed the ARE. That comes out to 17.3% passing rate.
If the ARE was like real world architecture, then we would have a lot more justifiably licensed architects in the world and less people struggling to make sense of tests with absurd questions. I've never even heard the term "Wtf questions" until I've started studying for the ARE; is that a term that should even be associated with this exam? You would think that college, internship and studying would be more than enough to prepare you for any licensing exam.
It's very frustrating to have all these candidates putting their nose to the grindstone for up to nine years and running to the finish line, only to find that they're running into a stone wall. Alot of my architecture friends who couldn't pass the exams have since quit architecture and work in different fields. They too, were honors students in college.
I'm not asking NCARB to make the test easier by any means, but I'm pleading that they make the exams based on experiences found in reality, and not based on what was in the minds of the test creators on the particular day they'd decided to create these questions.

I couldn't agree more tom999w! I also believe that the test rates are inflated because MANY of the people that pass have taken the test multiple times. The 17.3% is crazy though! Thanks for the confirmation. Some people get lucky enough to pass this test and almost entirely forget about the obscurity of the majority of the questions. I just sent in nearly 30 questions for feedback. There was actually more, but i was able to find some information on the others, although they have nothing to do with architecture so maybe they will come up again and i'll get them right this time. They are still not fair and TERRIBLE questions...The others are impossible to find "correct answers" for because they were too subjective. It boggles my mind how a regulatory test could be so bad. I think it's pretty safe to say that the ARE 5.0 is one of the WORSE regulatory tests and is a complete and utter failure. If you pass, all that proves is that you were either lucky or you think more like the boring minds that create the test. By the way, I had maybe 3 structures questions on my last test so it was by no means a difficult test. The problem is that HALF of the questions were poorly written. When i finally do pass, I'll still never understand how a test can be so poorly written or programmed. I think term "WTF question" was coined by the ARE test takers. Like you i NEVER had trouble with reading and comprehension and I have over 5 years experience in an office. Most of the questions on the ARE 4.0 test and over half of them on the ARE 5.0 test have little or nothing to do with architecture and are just hypothetical questions that will NEVER occur. NCARB needs to stick with more technical or code related questions. Even the vignette's were better than the case studies.

[nickedemus]

If you pass, all that proves is that you were either lucky or you think more like the boring minds that create the test.

That's a pretty lousy thing to say.

[vrcat25]

If you pass, all that proves is that you were either lucky or you think more like the boring minds that create the test.

That's a pretty lousy thing to say.

Nickdemus, it's no offense to you. As I mentioned, much of these tests are luck because there's a large pool of questions so that no two tests are the same. Therefore, I may get a test with a better pool of questions. I can tell you based on my experience with PPP and having to take it 4 times. I was no more prepared the 4th time around than i was the second. Admittedly, the first time I took it, i had only read caroline's notes. However, the 2nd time, i'd read 10 different sources and truly believe there was NOTHING i could have done or any way to study the hypothetical type question or the WTF.

As far as the "boring" comment, that was derived from a comment by a rep at ncrab in the ARE 5.0 community and how these questions are made in cold hotel lobbies...Sounds pretty boring to me... After taking 8 different tests i can say that the majority of the questions lack creativity and/or common sense. I'm sorry, but either the people who write these questions have no idea what they are doing or simply don't care. There should never be such obscure questions on a test and it's very disappointing that our licensure depends on such incompetence. The silver lining with 5.0 is that they accept feedback. Let's hope they actually read the feedback and have better quality control. It seems with 4.0 there was no quality control and bad questions kept reappearing. I don't like what i see so far with 5.0, but maybe it will change in the near future. All we can do is hope.

[nickedemus]

(deleted duplicate post)

[nickedemus]

I'm sorry, but either the people who write these questions have no idea what they are doing or simply don't care. There should never be such obscure questions on a test and it's very disappointing that our licensure depends on such incompetence.

The questions are actually written by practicing architects.

https://www.ncarb.org/blog/who-develops-are

Each year, around 100 architects from across the country—plus a handful of specialty consultants such as engineers, code experts, and legal professionals—write questions for the exam and monitor the performance of current questions. Committee workgroups are structured to include volunteers with various levels of experience and backgrounds. Most of these volunteers tend to serve on their state board, but NCARB also invites recently licensed architects and other specialists to work on each of the divisions. In addition, recently licensed architects volunteer to test new graphic vignettes to help determine if they should be included in the future.

[vrcat25]

The questions are actually written by practicing architects.

https://www.ncarb.org/blog/who-develops-are

I don't doubt that...In fact, that's probably the problem...It sounds like they should stick with architecture instead of making test questions...Also, it seems as though that architects may complicate things sometimes and make a test question or test WAY more complicated than it needs to be.

That link is obviously an outdated explanation and poor excuse, since the vignette's are being discontinued...

Besides the architects, who are these "specialty consultants" and "code experts"?? I fault the architects more than anybody. They had to take these tests and at least they should know better. I know plenty of architects that have ZERO common sense though and a few that are disgruntled. It's ironic that they are probably the ones traveling to these work groups and making our test...

It's nice that you're happy with these tests Nick. You are one of the only ones...We are all different though. On the other hand, i know numerous people that did great in school, made all A's, did great with tests, made honors, worked at a practicing firm and they keep failing these tests. There's an obvious pattern of lack of quality control and objectivity for many of the questions. Something needs to be done to make these test more fair. It's as simple as that.

[nickedemus]

It's nice that you're happy with these tests Nick.

I think the tests are over-designed, redundant, and inefficient. But they do address important concepts, however inefficiently. And they are passable, even by unlucky interesting people.

[vrcat25]

I think the tests are over-designed, redundant, and inefficient. But they do address important concepts, however inefficiently. And they are passable, even by unlucky interesting people.

HAHAHA! I REALLY appreciate your insights AND especially your sense of humor!

[nickedemus]

[tom999w]

I agree with VRcat. Are the people that passed these exams more superior and smarter than the ones who've taken them four times and failed? I highly doubt it. I think it's just as much luck as it is being able to delve into the minds of the test creators to deconstruct their sense of logic as to how they've come up with these strange questions. What I can say with confidence though, is that these tests were NOT composed by Joe architect working in an everyday architecture firm designing buildings. I'm sure most ARE testers can agree on this. Is that fair to the candidates who have put in their time learning things in college and internships that are totally unrelated to what's on the exams? Hell no.... Most college education and internship experience goes out the window when taking these exams. It's very frustrating to the point of quitting the field.

More importantly than the ARE passing rates posted by NCARB, I wish they'd post the percentage of ARE candidates who put in their hard work of going to college and completing their internship who quit architecture because of the exams. The hardness of these exams is actually hurting the industry by turning away great potential architects as well as giving future ARE candidates false hope, not knowing that only 17% of them will actually become licensed architects.

[nickedemus]

Are the people that passed these exams more superior and smarter than the ones who've taken them four times and failed? I highly doubt it.

Nobody said that. I said that those who passed are not less intelligent (merely lucky) or less interesting than those who failed.

More importantly than the ARE passing rates posted by NCARB, I wish they'd post the percentage of ARE candidates who put in their hard work of going to college and completing their internship who quit architecture because of the exams.

I agree that there should be better stats on failure. I think NCARB makes a lot of money on retakes. The wording of the questions on this test is often absurd, and I've said myself that it's more like a reading comprehension/critical thinking test than anything else.

Not only that, but it costs $1420 minimum to become a licensed architect, whereas it costs only around $500 total for the EIT & PE and the pay is better!

[rwwon]

Lol this thread... smh...

To anyone reading this thread, the worst thing you can do is develop an attitude of blaming everything else under the sun, but yourself. Listen to yourselves lol. "The exams too hard, the questions are dumb or poorly written. this isn't real, its rigged, only the lucky pass, study materials are bad, the exams are chasing good talent away, its too expensive, industry professionals dont know how to write real world questions" etc. etc. etc. As if you have nothing to learn from this experience of taking the exams.

A good book comes to mind, its called "extreme ownership". Highly suggest reading it if you want to get out of this sort of mentality, otherwise, keep kicking the can around.

[nickedemus]

Hear, hear!

[corbismyhomeboy]

I see vrcat's frustration - the test does have a lot of terribly worded, outdated questions. That being said, at least with 4.0, there are study materials out there that talk you through how to solve these things. Yeah, I took BDCS and got some true WTF questions. But a lot of that was due to the fact that I hadn't taken any of the other exams. A lot of the questions I didn't know were about plantings (from SPD), diagrams of systems where you had to label the parts (BS), lateral forces (SS), and practice (CDS). Once I went back and took 4 others, the questions on BDCS seemed to make more sense.

Personally, I think the transition plan is terrible; grouping PPP with SPD and CDS?! I mean if you've only taken and passed SPD and CDS, yeah PPP is going to be a beast, because you haven't studied any of the other material for any of the other exams! A friend of mine planned out his tests, all in 4.0, and passed all on the first try. Partly because he is smart and had a good study group to help him stay on track, but also because he took PPP and BDCS last based on feedback about all of the WTF questions. So NCARB allowing candidates to group SPD and CDS with PPP sounds utterly like a good rip off scheme to me. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it just sounds extremely difficult.

All of this to say, yes people get chased out of the industry because of these exams, but a lot of people work as Project Managers or Designers without ever being licensed. So if the exam is chasing someone out, I'm skeptical of how much they wanted to be here in the first place.

[vrcat25]

A good book comes to mind, its called "extreme ownership". Highly suggest reading it if you want to get out of this sort of mentality, otherwise, keep kicking the can around.

Thanks, but no thanks...I've had everybody under the sun trying to sell me books and I highly doubt another book will help with these tests...I've read MEEB, AHPP, Fundamentals of buildings design, much of graphics standards, building construction illustrated, Architects companion, heating, cooling and lighting, ballast are review manual and countless other sources. The LAST thing i need is another practice test or book....I'd rather spend my time kicking the can for another 2 months since no amount of studying will prepare me for the baseless questions on these tests. Have you ever thought for a second that maybe some of the questions are missing information or incorrect Rwwon? Do you think nothing should be done about it? For me, it's frustrating when $210 and countless hours of studying turn out to be a waste because MANY of the questions on the test are hypothetical and IMPOSSIBLE to study for or missing information. I'm not the only one that's complained, but nothing has ever been done to correct bad questions that i can find. Even after i pass the last 2 of these test (PPD and PDD), i will NEVER be proud of this process. In fact, i'm disgusted at the poor level of quality control for these tests. I'm not the first either. I know many people that are in the same position as me or others that have never had a problem with tests until getting hung up on NCARB's ARE. I also know many that have struggled and passed and still think these tests are a joke.

You made some good points corb, but the MC questions and case studies in 5.0 aren't outdated. They are brand stinking knew, but even MORE subjective than in 4.0... The problem isn't with study material either. Most of the sources i references have way too much overlap and the last thing i need is more study material. I PROMISE you...it's not due to lack of study material. It really seems like ncarb's only concern is the bottom dollar. If they really cared whether some of the questions were bad or not, why is there absolutely no record that i can find of a successful appeal of a question? I sent an email with numerous questions and all i received back was an auto reply. I'm almost certain that NCARB has never made a mistake and had a bad question. If so, there's no record anywhere on the web.

[Coach]

The ARE is far from perfect (and Lord knows that 5.0 is a big step backward) but it's not much different than most standardized tests. No doubt most of you have forgotten what the SAT was like.

[rwwon]

Thanks, but no thanks...I've had everybody under the sun trying to sell me books and I highly doubt another book will help with these tests...I've read MEEB, AHPP, Fundamentals of buildings design, much of graphics standards, building construction illustrated, Architects companion, heating, cooling and lighting, ballast are review manual and countless other sources. The LAST thing i need is another practice test or book....I'd rather spend my time kicking the can for another 2 months since no amount of studying will prepare me for the baseless questions on these tests.

The book has nothing to do with the exams. Its a suggestion in stepping away from the exams, and re-evaluating your outlook on where you assert blame in life, which can sometimes have more bearing on your success then studying for the exams themselves. I know, crazy idea.

Have you ever thought for a second that maybe some of the questions are missing information or incorrect Rwwon?

Of course I have! I ran into some questions that I thought were worded poorly, or that I felt didn't fit into the content area of the specific exam. However, I don't believe there were enough of those questions to have true impact on my passing or failing an exam. If I didn't pass, its because I didn't know the content. On the flip side, do you believe there is no vetting and evaluating of questions? Do you believe a bunch of clowns with no experience are just writing inane questions. We as humans tend to overly exaggerate the process through a distorted lens of our own bias. Lets be honest here, the process isn't perfect, but have a little faith. People do pass these exams, and its not just luck.

Do you think nothing should be done about it? For me, it's frustrating when $210 and countless hours of studying turn out to be a waste because MANY of the questions on the test are hypothetical and IMPOSSIBLE to study for or missing information.

The time you have spent is not wasted. The problem is your are looking for a direct, 1 on 1 correlation with the material you studied and the questions you will be asked, which is rarely the case. You get some questions that are simple memorize and recall, but you mainly get what I call an application and synthesis of knowledge questions. These questions aren't a direct one to one, regurgitation of wrote, memorized information, but rather they take a subject you may not be familiar with and ask you to make a judgement call on what is good, better, and best based on related topics you have studied. It requires a deeper level of understanding across many subjects. You might call this guessing, I call it reasoning.

I'm not the only one that's complained, but nothing has ever been done to correct bad questions that i can find.

That's because people like to commiserate. I've done it myself on here plenty of times. However, if you truly feel nothing has ever been done to correct bad questions that you find (think about that statement) then that's a whole other issue.

Even after i pass the last 2 of these test (PPD and PDD), i will NEVER be proud of this process. In fact, i'm disgusted at the poor level of quality control for these tests. I'm not the first either. I know many people that are in the same position as me or others that have never had a problem with tests until getting hung up on NCARB's ARE. I also know many that have struggled and passed and still think these tests are a joke.

I guess you can spend your time arguing questions, belittling the process, calling bs to it all, but does that get you any closer to passing the exams?

Maybe I should be more suspicious and skeptical with it all... Who knows. For now, I will be optimistic and trust people, institutions, and processes since it has rarely steered me wrong, All I know is try not to major in minor things, make mountains out of mole hills, or spend 99% of your time focused on 1% of the problem. I've got a billion of these platitudes if you want to hear them haha.

[tom999w]

I knew it was just a matter time before someone harped in saying that we, the testers, are the ones to blame. So in other words, the tests are infallible and 83% of the people who are failing them are stupid pity seekers.... So if that's the case, then where's the cutoff as to where you say, "Hmmm, 83% of people are failing these exams? Something just doesn't seem right here... maybe there IS something wrong with the test and it should be revised."

To illustrate my point, I'd like to see a statistic of people who passed all divisions of 4.0 or 5.0 on the first try. I'm willing to bet that number is very, very low. You can't blame the alarming amount of people who are failing even one exam for being the stupid ones. Admit it to yourself, this test is broken.

Rwwon, I'll bet you're a popular person in ARE candidate circles; almost all of them have probably failed at least one test....

[rwwon]

I'm still a little fuzzy on your statistic here. Out of 75 people from your class, only 17% passed the ARE. Are you saying only 17% finished all the AREs, or that 17% passed every exam the first time' or what exactly? You keep bringing the statistic up, but saying only 17% passed the ARE, as if it's one exam , isn't making sense.

[nickedemus]

I knew it was just a matter time before someone harped in saying that we, the testers, are the ones to blame. So in other words, the tests are infallible and 83% of the people who are failing them are stupid pity seekers.

Nobody said that.

It's just that there's an approach that works, and I think rwwon said it very well here:

These questions aren't a direct one to one, regurgitation of wrote, memorized information, but rather they take a subject you may not be familiar with and ask you to make a judgement call on what is good, better, and best based on related topics you have studied.

[vrcat25]

Do you believe a bunch of clowns with no experience are just writing inane questions.

Clowns? Yeah, it sure seems like it sometimes. As mentioned, there are many people who did great in school, all A's, passed every test they ever took and get hung up on these stupid tests. I'm sure there's many intelligent people who are great with math calculations, reading, reasoning, comprehensions, etc. but these tests have very little to do with any. In fact, it's probably the only test where the term WTF or "best guess" type questions are used so broadly.

If you want to pat yourselves on the back and play the circle game all day we can do that, but how can we improve these tests? Is there a way. Should the people who have an obvious problem with these questions just take in on the chin or elsewhere and have their lives ruined by such a terrible system where they don't even read your feedback? I called and spoke to some ghetto operator who had NO CLUE about architecture or these tests and she insulted me as if i'm the problem. The folks at NCARB and some of you people that think you're so great for passing these tests need to get your head out of the clouds and take a look at the obvious pattern of bad questions. I have ZERO confidence in the vetting system and since NCARB will not release the first time pass rates or do quality control on question feedback, i guess we will never know and should just move on. SMH. You guys are totally missing the point.

I totally understand tom999w's post. He simply stated that he took a prep course and less than 20% of people passed...What's so difficult to understand about that?? It's a basic statistic based on the number of people that took that class. I don't think that number would have changed whether somebody took an ARE test prep course. Could it be possible that the problem with these tests is the vetting process? I think that's EXACTLY the problem. They don't say what the "range" is and NCARB has always been very secretive since it's a "regulatory test". Since it's a regulatory test, they need to do a better job with quality control and the vetting process. Just because people passed this test, doesn't make them a good architect or vice versa. As i said before, i know a few architects that work at walmart or mcdonalds that have zero common since. Maybe those guys are making the test. Whatever the case may be, ARE 5.0 is a sad joke of a test and is not an accurate gauge of what anybody knows about architecture. ARE 4.0 wasn't much better, but at least the vignette's were possible to answer and not so subjective with missing information.

[vrcat25]

These questions aren't a direct one to one, regurgitation of wrote, memorized information, but rather they take a subject you may not be familiar with and ask you to make a judgement call on what is good, better, and best based on related topics you have studied.

That's laughable because that's EXACTLY what some of them are. I have numerous ones that were taken directly from code, MEEB diagrams or building construction illustrated...Most people don't have a problem with those type of questions because at least they aren't so subjective. i have more of an issue with the impossible "pick 3-4" or "best" questions. I mean, it sounds like a first grader wrote these. Any knowledgeable architect wouldn't be so subjective.

[nickedemus]

That's laughable because that's EXACTLY what some of them are.

I think you missed where rwwon stated that:

You get some questions that are simple memorize and recall, but you mainly get what I call an application and synthesis of knowledge questions.

_______________________________

I mean, it sounds like a first grader wrote these. Any knowledgeable architect wouldn't be so subjective.

I think you're misidentifying the non-direct questions, to be frank. As long as you continue to dismiss them as stupid and resist what they actually are (critical thinking problems), you'll continue to have a hard time because you won't be addressing the actual problem.

Whatever your opinion, consensus and law makes this test necessary for a person to take on the full responsibilities of architecture.

And even though I'm not a huge fan of the way that NCARB handles things, I do think that as an architect you must be able to think critically. So I don't totally disagree with that aspect of the test.

[vrcat25]

I think you're missing the point. Here's the question i propose to you and rwwon since you have admitted that some of the questions are bad, ambiguous and poorly written. "Is there any way to provide useful feedback to NCARB so that they may take a closer look at some questions that may be bad?

[rwwon]

This thread reminds me of a LEED class I took in college. We would take practice exams in that class that were ministered by the teacher, but the questions came from a website that generated LEED study guide materials and test questions. Talk about an invaluable lesson on criticizing something you truly don't know.

I remember after taking a particularly hard practice exam, the teacher went through every question, and had written explanations for each one, provided by that website. It was interesting because on almost half the questions, a lot of people were grumbling or saying aloud "This question is stupid, none of the answers are right" or "this is poorly written, it makes no sense" similar to what we have here on the forum. The teacher would take the descriptions given to him by the accompanying study guide and we would dissect each question. At the end of almost every single question, the concerns were resolved and people were going "oh, that makes sense... Wow, I guess I didn't really understand the question, or think through it long enough" or "Wow, you really have to pick the best option out of those." or "You really have to understand each available option to no which ones are wrong, and which is the least wrong". We spent a lot of time in that class, not only on LEED information itself, but on taking exams and strategizing our way through questions.

Unfortunately, here on this forum, we do not have the luxury of discussing the questions directly here, especially with any direct feedback from NCARB on the nature, purpose and summary of each question. What is a dumb question to one person, might have been be perfectly clear to another, and visa versa. The funny thing is, we could all have our on "WTF" questions, yet they may not even be the same for each person because in reality there aren't that many "WTF" questions, we just each have a different knowledge going into these exams.

I've done a lot of standardized testing, and pursued many certificates, and all of these exams behave very similar to each other. I didn't find the ARE's to be particularly different, other than the subject matter.

Complaining about it on the ARE forums, although fun to commiserate, does little to change the exams. You guys talk a big talk about the necessity of questioning everything, and what if it IS wrong and we are just all blindly following, yet here you are complaining about it on some random forum. If you truly want to contest something, there are avenues to doing so that are explained in the exam guides. Get on google + and ask. Call NCARB, March on NCARB D.C....

The truth of it is though, and I'm sure many of you will and already have attacked me for this, is if you went through that whole process for a certain question, chances are if you got an explanation, you'd probably be satisfied and realize you just didn't know the question.

One other thought, and maybe I am mixing up exams, but doesn't NCARB put questions into these exams that aren't weighted in your score, but they are put in there to test how good of a question they are, then if they get enough of a good spread of right and wrong, they put that question into the actual exam rotation and have it count as part of your score? If the question is bad, they throw it out and never work it into the actual exam rotation? Maybe thats just LEED...

At this point, I'm not here to convince you guys posting of my point of view - your'e already set in what you believe. I'm just here to balance out the discussion and let other people who will read this know that there are other possibilities, other than "the exam is wrong, you won't pass it unless you are lucky" which is a prolific sentiment throughout these forums, because the disgruntled ones always seem to be the vocal ones.

[vrcat25]

I think you're missing the point. Here's the question i propose to you and rwwon since you have admitted that some of the questions are bad, ambiguous and poorly written. "Is there any way to provide useful feedback to NCARB so that they may take a closer look at some questions that may be bad?

And STILL no answer, LOL! I read your response and i guess your answer is no?