 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Coach
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 5083 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Architect |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 01:33 am |
|
I haven't seen seen anyone post about getting nailed by the rolling clock, but what in the hell is going to happen if a 3.1 BT expires after 7/1/09?
The simple answer is that 4 sections will need to be repeated!
That's awfully punitive and goes way beyond whatever the intent of the rolling clock was.
I'd bet that NCARB has no answer for this.
Another unintended consequence that would have been avoided if they would just run 3.1 concurrently with 4.0 until all 3.1 candidates give up, pass, or die trying.
|
techman123
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | A R C H I T E C T, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 152 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 01:55 pm |
|
if a 3.1 BT expires after 7/1/09?
The simple answer is that 4 sections will need to be repeated!
I was thinking about that one... They divide up the BT sections into those 4 tests, so, they treat the vignettes in BT as separate entities. If that is so... why would they not look at the sections on 3.1 BT that you did not pass, and ONLY make you retake 4.0 tests that correspond; as opposed to the all or nothing approach.
Another unintended consequence that would have been avoided if they would just run 3.1 concurrently with 4.0 until all 3.1 candidates give up, pass, or die trying.
Completely agree...
Well, I hope no one will get caught in that trap, but I'm sure there may be a few. Before I passed BT (2nd try), my last test, I was really nervous about that situation.
|
jmcarr
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Architect, NCARB, Charlotte, North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 704 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | See architect run. See architect run with x-acto blade. Ouchy! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 02:32 pm |
|
Coach wrote: I haven't seen seen anyone post about getting nailed by the rolling clock, but what in the hell is going to happen if a 3.1 BT expires after 7/1/09?
ummm...rolling clock hit me like a rolling Mac Truck. But some things are better left unspoken! Let me just say this: there is no cause for celebration in passing an exam the second time around. 
|
skyhook
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | CA |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP | | Describes Me: | support where beam or wall not available |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 02:38 pm |
|
techman123 wrote:
if a 3.1 BT expires after 7/1/09?
The simple answer is that 4 sections will need to be repeated!
I was thinking about that one... They divide up the BT sections into those 4 tests, so, they treat the vignettes in BT as separate entities. If that is so... why would they not look at the sections on 3.1 BT that you did not pass, and ONLY make you retake 4.0 tests that correspond; as opposed to the all or nothing approach.
Another unintended consequence that would have been avoided if they would just run 3.1 concurrently with 4.0 until all 3.1 candidates give up, pass, or die trying.
Completely agree...
Well, I hope no one will get caught in that trap, but I'm sure there may be a few. Before I passed BT (2nd try), my last test, I was really nervous about that situation.
now sure of three things...death, taxes and i must pass bt...thanks for the wakeup call
|
techman123
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | A R C H I T E C T, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 152 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 05:02 pm |
|
jmcarr wrote: Coach wrote: I haven't seen seen anyone post about getting nailed by the rolling clock, but what in the hell is going to happen if a 3.1 BT expires after 7/1/09?
... Let me just say this: there is no cause for celebration in passing an exam the second time around.
"there is no cause for celebration in passing an exam the second time around."...
I beg to differ. Especially, if that one is your last! I went 8 for 9 in one shot. BT took me two. Just glad to get it over with!
Good Luck!
Last edited on Tue Aug 12th, 2008 05:03 pm by techman123
|
FinitoCompleto
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 7th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 217 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 05:29 pm |
|
There were a lot of threads about this potentially disastrous interaction between the 4.0 transition and the rolling clock. Many wrote and called NCARB about that issue when it first became apparent a year or so back. This is NCARB's position on it, from their faq:
"How will my Rolling Clock be affected by the implementation of ARE 4.0?
Your Rolling Clock end date will not change. Your five year period is established by the date of your first passed division after January 1, 2006. Your state board may have more restrictive requirements."
So basically they're saying "we're aware of the issue", but they have no plans to make any concessions.
As for dividing up BT and only making you take parts you failed before: they just never do things that way. In the early 90s they reformatted the test to fewer divisions and there was a similar situation with the divisions that got reformatted. A lot of people who tested in the older version had to retake Site Planning because of that.
|
jmcarr
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Architect, NCARB, Charlotte, North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 704 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | See architect run. See architect run with x-acto blade. Ouchy! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 06:07 pm |
|
techman123 wrote: jmcarr wrote: Coach wrote: I haven't seen seen anyone post about getting nailed by the rolling clock, but what in the hell is going to happen if a 3.1 BT expires after 7/1/09?
... Let me just say this: there is no cause for celebration in passing an exam the second time around.
"there is no cause for celebration in passing an exam the second time around."...
I beg to differ. Especially, if that one is your last! I went 8 for 9 in one shot. BT took me two. Just glad to get it over with!
Good Luck!
ummm...I'm done (thankfully). Now its on to LEED for me.
|
Meigs9
Architect
| Joined: | Fri Jun 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | ARCHITECT, LEED, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 987 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | I'm done! I'm doing my happy dance now! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 06:12 pm |
|
Coach wrote: I haven't seen seen anyone post about getting nailed by the rolling clock, but what in the hell is going to happen if a 3.1 BT expires after 7/1/09?
The simple answer is that 4 sections will need to be repeated!
That's awfully punitive and goes way beyond whatever the intent of the rolling clock was.
I'd bet that NCARB has no answer for this.
Another unintended consequence that would have been avoided if they would just run 3.1 concurrently with 4.0 until all 3.1 candidates give up, pass, or die trying.
This senario also applies to SP. If you don't pass SP by 7/1/09, and you have already taken and passed PD....then NCARB says...."sorry, retake it".
If I was still taking exams, my priorities would be BT and SP.
http://www.ncarb.org/are/40/transition_chart.html
|
Coach
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 5083 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Architect |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 06:16 pm |
|
FinitoCompleto wrote: There were a lot of threads about this potentially disastrous interaction between the 4.0 transition and the rolling clock. Where? I haven't seen this particular issue brought up. Many wrote and called NCARB about that issue when it first became apparent a year or so back. This is NCARB's position on it, from their faq:
"How will my Rolling Clock be affected by the implementation of ARE 4.0?
Your Rolling Clock end date will not change. Your five year period is established by the date of your first passed division after January 1, 2006. Your state board may have more restrictive requirements." This is obvious, but still not the same issue. The problem now is not having to repeat an exam, it's losing 4 exams because of the format change. Here's a question.. Let's say BT is your oldest pass at 4+ years. Should NCARB allow you to voluntarily re-take it before 3.1 dies? As for dividing up BT and only making you take parts you failed before: they just never do things that way. In the early 90s they reformatted the test to fewer divisions and there was a similar situation with the divisions that got reformatted. A lot of people who tested in the older version had to retake Site Planning because of that. This is not the same issue at all. If someone's BT expires, it's a wholesale take away. That's not transition, that's draconian.
|
Coach
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 5083 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Architect |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 06:20 pm |
|
| Attached Image (viewed 455 times):
|
Meigs9
Architect
| Joined: | Fri Jun 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | ARCHITECT, LEED, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 987 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | I'm done! I'm doing my happy dance now! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 06:30 pm |
|
Coach wrote: FinitoCompleto wrote: There were a lot of threads about this potentially disastrous interaction between the 4.0 transition and the rolling clock. Where? I haven't seen this particular issue brought up.
Not to beat a dead horse or anything but....at one point or another all things related to the transition have been discussed. The Rolling clock issue was there at the beginning of the discussion. There were letters, petitions, phone calls, etc.
Long story short-- NCARB doesn't care.
http://www.areforum.org/forums/view_topic.php?id=22667&forum_id=10&highlight=4.0+petition
|
FinitoCompleto
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 7th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 217 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 06:51 pm |
|
A quick search turned up at least 30 previous threads about this.
This was NCARB's response in last fall's Direct Connections:
Some transition candidates—
candidates who have passed at least one
division of the ARE by May 2008—have
expressed a concern that they don’t have the
full five years of the Rolling Clock to complete
the exam process. This is not true. Whether
the candidate begins the exam process taking
ARE 3.1 or ARE 4.0, they will have five years
from the date they passed their first division to
pass the remaining divisions of the exam.
Candidates who have passed at least one division
of the ARE 3.1 by May 2008 will continue
to take the ARE until June 2009. At that point,
if they have not passed all divisions, they will
be transitioned to ARE 4.0, to complete the
remaining divisions.
|
Coach
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 5083 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Architect |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 06:51 pm |
|
| Different rolling clock issue.
|
Coach
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 5083 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Architect |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 06:58 pm |
|
Now I'm positive NCARB has not considered it since I can't get candidates to understand the point.
Let's hope nobody gets nailed by it.
|
Moto-x-man
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 21 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | Feeling Good |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 07:08 pm |
|
Coach,
I totally agree with you. I forced myself to take my last three exams (graphic) before July 08 so I would have at least 2 more chances to retake before the transition guillotine was dropped. My five year rolling clock was cut to three years+-. If you haven't passed BT, you better get busy and plan your time accordingly. In my mind, if I had to retake 4 exams, I think I would have quit.
|
Meigs9
Architect
| Joined: | Fri Jun 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | ARCHITECT, LEED, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 987 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | I'm done! I'm doing my happy dance now! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 07:20 pm |
|
Coach wrote: Different rolling clock issue.
How is it different? Which one are you refering to?
Many of us in the beginning of the transition petitioned to complete our exams under 3.1 until our rolling clocks expired, rather than being transitioned to 4.0. This point was brought up to NCARB many times. They didn't care. At that time, their answer was 'you have 5 years to complete the exam, 2 years under 3.1 and 3 years until 4.0.' They have never changed their "tough sh*t" position.
|
Nomadica
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 27th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 325 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 07:40 pm |
|
Coach: I understand your point. But NCARB is lumping together the scenario where people whose 3.1 tests "expire" before they finish the whole exam could be forced to retake as many as 4 tests in 4.1 WITH all the other rolling clock issues.
This specific issue was discussed in the annual NCARB meeting, because candidates had raised it with their boards, and NCARB reiterated that they're sticking by this policy.
The BT and SP situations were specifically used as examples by many who brought this to their state boards' agendas. But it is similar to when some people lost credit for their site exams and had to take the equivalent of 2 exams over again when the test divisions changed then.
You can try to spell it out for NCARB and see what they tell you, but I'd be surprised if it's any different than what they told everybody else over the past year and a half.Last edited on Tue Aug 12th, 2008 07:58 pm by Nomadica
|
Coach
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 5083 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Architect |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 08:14 pm |
|
Nomadica wrote: Coach: I understand your point. But NCARB is lumping together the scenario where people whose 3.1 tests "expire" before they finish the whole exam could be forced to retake as many as 4 tests in 4.1 WITH all the other rolling clock issues.
This specific issue was discussed in the annual NCARB meeting, because candidates had raised it with their boards, and NCARB reiterated that they're sticking by this policy. That's the distinction I was looking for. The BT and SP situations were specifically used as examples by many who brought this to their state boards' agendas. But it is similar to when some people lost credit for their site exams and had to take the equivalent of 2 exams over again when the test divisions changed then. And this is the other, commonly discussed issue. The difference is transition credit vs a section expiration. To me, they are completely different situations. You can try to spell it out for NCARB and see what they tell you, but I'd be surprised if it's any different than what they told everybody else over the past year and a half. I've got no reason to bother with NCARB. Maybe when I'm a fat, old, AIA member I'll play nice long enough to get on the inside and then unleash the demons on the unsuspecting bureaucrats. For now, I just want to make sure that everyone in the middle of this stays on top of their progress. If your BT has any significant age on it, you need to get moving! If it's critical, you may want to see if you can voluntarily take it again in 3.1 to re-set the clock. Did that option ever come up?
|
Nomadica
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 27th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 325 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 08:28 pm |
|
Voluntarily retaking BT preemptively is an interesting option...
I think that would cause mammoth NCARB & Prometric confusion and that they probably won't allow it without state permission.
The only time something similar has come up that I'm aware of is with people who've tested early - before completion of IDP - and then tried to get initial registration in Oregon. Oregon steadfastly refuses to grant initial registration in that case, and gives the options of either getting registered somewhere else and then applying for reciprocity, or retesting after completion of IDP. But trying to get authorization to retake already-passed sections for that purpose seems to send NCARB into a tizzy, and can't be done without much intervention from the Oregon board.
So I'd expect this to be similar: if you could convince someone on your state board to help you get a new authorization to retake an already-passed exam then it might be possible - otherwise don't count on it.
|
juice95m3
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | Cleveland, Ohio |
| Posts: | 39 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, CD, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, CD | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 08:30 pm |
|
| I am hoping to take BT & SP in Oct & Nov. respectively with enough time remaining to retake if I fail. What I am not going to do is take LF & GS until 4.0 since they have been combined into 1.
|
jmcarr
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Architect, NCARB, Charlotte, North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 704 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | See architect run. See architect run with x-acto blade. Ouchy! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 09:05 pm |
|
Coach wrote: If it's critical, you may want to see if you can voluntarily take it again in 3.1 to re-set the clock. Did that option ever come up?
In my opinion, NCARB would not allow candidates to voluntarily retake exams, because that defeats the purpose of NCARB's rolling clock. The rolling clock was instituted to encourage candidates to pass their exams expeditiously. Retaking a passed exam (prior to expiration) in order to reset the clock would provide an extension of time, which defeats the rolling clock's purpose. Granted, the 4.0 transition muddies the waters. But, in NCARB's view, they have sufficiently provided candidates with warnings and transition periods to course correct their exam schedules, as needed. So, I would not expect NCARB to grandfather 3.1 passes...the rolling clock tower does not toll for thee.Last edited on Tue Aug 12th, 2008 09:12 pm by jmcarr
|
skyhook
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | CA |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP | | Describes Me: | support where beam or wall not available |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 10:07 pm |
|
what is harder for ncarb ? grandfathering registered building designers to architects (as ca. did a few years ago)... or grandfathering us humble 3.1 version sluggards.?
i can wish.
|
Coach
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 5083 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Architect |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 11:08 pm |
|
skyhook wrote: what is harder for ncarb ? grandfathering registered building designers to architects (as ca. did a few years ago)... More like 22 years ago. But I guess that's a few to Yosemite Sam.
|
Coach
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 5083 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Architect |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 11:32 pm |
|
jmcarr wrote: In my opinion, NCARB would not allow candidates to voluntarily retake exams, because that defeats the purpose of NCARB's rolling clock. The rolling clock was instituted to encourage candidates to pass their exams expeditiously. Retaking a passed exam (prior to expiration) in order to reset the clock would provide an extension of time, which defeats the rolling clock's purpose. That's not why they did it. From the horse's (hag's) mouth: Background
NCARB's Procedures & Documents Committee, under the leadership of Kevin Monson, AIA, recommended a rolling clock after extensively studying the issue. By establishing this standard, NCARB Member Boards recognize that the practice of architecture changes over time. Likewise, ARE content, its format, and its administration can change over time as well.
In its statement of support, the P&D Committee noted, "Requiring that all divisions be passed within a reasonable period will better assure that the ARE remains a valid measure of the level of competence necessary to independently practice architecture. While some changes may occur within any five-year period, there is a lower likelihood that applicants will be tested under different forms of administration and methodologies than is the case currently with applicants having unlimited time in which to pass all divisions." So, it seems to me that voluntarily taking BT again would support, rather than defeat the purpose.
Granted, the 4.0 transition muddies the waters. But, in NCARB's view, they have sufficiently provided candidates with warnings and transition periods to course correct their exam schedules, as needed. Yeah, yeah, I've gotten on people over the BT issue and losing credit for passed sections. But this is a completely different situation. This is not a case of having to retake sections because the new format has merged content. It's a matter of losing credit for multiple sections that have been passed completely when only one section expires. In reviewing the rolling clock rules, I see it was not effective until 1/1/2006, so it will be a while before some candidates start waking up to this nightmare -- not unlike the BT crunch right now. But let's say it's 2010 you have passed everything but BP and BT was passed 1/2006. When February gets here and BP is still incomplete, having to repeat 4 sections to allegedly maintain currency with 6 vignettes is insanely punitive. I strongly believe that NCARB must make an accomodation. Perhaps they will, they have a couple of years to prepare. So, I would not expect NCARB to grandfather 3.1 passes. Never said they should. But I do believe they should keep 3.1 BT available, or, if the 4.0 vignettes change (like ME) create a special BT currency exam made up of the 6 vignettes. ..the rolling clock tower does not toll for thee. Never did. I'm exempt. Not that it matters anymore.
Last edited on Tue Aug 12th, 2008 11:33 pm by Coach
|
jmcarr
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Architect, NCARB, Charlotte, North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 704 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | See architect run. See architect run with x-acto blade. Ouchy! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 12:14 am |
|
Coach wrote:
In its statement of support, the P&D Committee noted, "Requiring that all divisions be passed within a reasonable period ....
That's exactly what I said...my "expeditiously" equals NCARB's "reasonable period."  Actually, I like the word expeditiously more...it intonates with much more dignity than NCARB's staccato, compu-speak drivel.
But, I like your idealism. There will be some unfortunates who must re-take four exams for one. Why do you think NCARB restructured the BP exam in this way?
|
alomu
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 575 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 12:29 am |
|
Coach, I agree with your thoughts on this matter.
IMO: Ncarb should let folks "slide" or come up with a alternate plan or exception to those, especially when they have passed a MC exam that relates to the new 4.0 and the 3.1 BT exam. I think it a shame that a candidate would loose four previously passed MC exams due to one graphic exam. Something about it just does not sit right in my mind. (but hey, Ncarb rules....)
IMO: Ncarb has probably played this scenario in their meetings; but I suspect the the main Ncarb reason would be due to logistic of enforcing the exam. Too much paperwork, files, and chance for confusion. Ncarb simply wants to eliminate the current exam process and "to hell with the folks caught" in the line of fire. Ncarb is making a clean administrative sweep.
|
Coach
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 5083 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Architect |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 01:51 am |
|
jmcarr wrote: Coach wrote:
In its statement of support, the P&D Committee noted, "Requiring that all divisions be passed within a reasonable period ....
That's exactly what I said...my "expeditiously" equals NCARB's "reasonable period." Actually, I like the word expeditiously more...it intonates with much more dignity than NCARB's staccato, compu-speak drivel.
Come on! I know your comprehension abilities are better than that. You hacked off the the important part of the quote -- the entire point. Jeez! But, I like your idealism. There will be some unfortunates who must re-take four exams for one. Why do you think NCARB restructured the BP exam in this way? You mean BT? I can only guess. The excuse they gave was to combine like material which also had the byproduct of fewer sections.
|
Coach
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 5083 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Architect |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 01:55 am |
| | |
