Exam Format Issues

I feel like most of us acknowledge that the ARE exams are heavily flawed, yet NCARB doesn’t listen to critical feedback and even doubles down on the inconvenience of it all. A few random points, in no particular order:

- The hotspot questions need to have the hotpot range display on the screen as you’re moving the cursor around. I got one question that had me select which item in a line report of a change order needed to be revised, and even though I absolutely knew the answer I didn’t, don’t, and will never know if i was supposed to click on the item name in the left column or the associated dollar amount in the right column. A long, rectangular hotspot floating with the cursor and covering the entirety of the line item would be reassuring. Another one asked me to click on something in a section detail, and again I didn’t know whether to click the actual item in the drawing or the associated name callout.

- Not having actual humans review the exams. They charge you basically $250 a pop for these things but they don’t even have an actual person give it a once over to make sure the computer scored it correctly. What if, like with the hotspot gripe above, the computer scored it wrong but a living set of eyes would easily recognize that the right answer was given? They want an extra $100 for a staff review, but do we have data about how often the scores are reversed? seems like we should have the right to know how often the computer is wrong and is improperly giving out failing scores

- You don’t get to review the questions for yourself. Seems like common sense that when you take an exams, you then get it back with your score and a markup of which answers you got right and which you got wrong. That’s the way every test works from Kindergarten through college. Yet, somehow NCARB “cannot provide that information”. Why? If you’re trying to build up the next generation of Architects, wouldn’t you want them to actually know what they got wrong so that 1) they can learn from their mistakes and 2) they don’t go about the rest of their careers doing something wrong but not knowing it because they ultimately got a passing score? Seems like they just don’t want you to correct your mistakes because then you are more likely to pass next time, which means less $$ for them for re-tests

- Paying full price for a re test. It’s hugely discouraging when you fail an exam. Most of that feeling comes from knowing you have to shell out another $250 to re take it. There should be a progressive cutback with each subsequent re take. Remember, the goal is to encourage and inspire new Architects…or so they say.

- The whiteboard tool. Almost got into a verbal altercation with my PSI proctor the other day because she said I wasn’t allowed a pencil or paper, even though i had them for the previous two exams. Turns out she was right and NCARB for some reason decided to disallow them. Well, the cite “security” and “fairness to people taking the exams at home”, but that’s a load of BS. The whiteboard tool is absolutely awful. It’s like trying to use Microsoft Paint…in 1999. Totally inadequate for the level of visual problem solving we need to do. Having us take exams to become Architects, but not letting us use paper or pencils…oh the irony!

- In general, the tests look and feel like early 2000s software. boxy looking and very glitchy. takes like 5 seconds for a case study drawing to zoom in or out. we’re in 2024 now, this is absurd

- No partial credit for “check all that apply”. There’s ALWAYS one choice that is borderline. Yet, even if you know for a fact that 3/4, or 6/7 or whatever are absolutely correct, you will get no credit whatsoever if you miss that one borderline. It’s ridiculous, and doesn’t exactly help to discredit the idea that they want you to fail.

Anyway, if you read through all that, thanks for listening to my rant. There’s more that I can go on about, but I think we all feel the same way. In a few decades, when we’re the heavy hitter in the industry, can we please all work together to change this absurd exam process? It’s not designed to help us, it’s not designed to help the profession, and it’s actively deterring hard working, intelligent architects from jumping that final hurdle of attaining licensure.