The End of an Era – No More ‘Orals’
Submitted by: Ian Merker, Assoc. AIA
The California Supplemental Exam has been administered as an oral exam with a panel of Architects since any living California Architect has applied for licensure. This process is no more. The oral exam has been replaced with a written format.
At the AIACV Associates Social in January, Bob Carter and Marcus Reinhardt of the California Architects Board (CAB) were present for a discussion on this matter. Multiple explanations were given for this transition, including administrative budget constraints, convenience for reciprocity candidates and equity issues. The written exam has been developed in conjunction with a committee to preserve the goals of the CSE and make any necessary modifications to convert the format. That committee has finished their work and the exam launch is anticipated for early February 2011. Bob and Marcus assured our January group that the studying will remain the same, minus the need to practice public speaking.
As of this posting and according to the CAB, all available slots have been filled for the last oral exam. The written exam that replaces the oral format will be available at nationwide testing centers, and the exam will be able to be scheduled anytime, six days a week. The CAB has not announced the name of the testing center, but it will not be administered by Prometric, which is used by NCARB for the Architecture Registration Exams. Candidates who are eligible for the CSE will receive test scheduling information in the mail. The final oral exam will be held November 15-16 in Burlingame.
I have heard mixed comments about this transition, and I would like to hear more. If you are a licensed architect, architectural candidate, or have any unique experiences with the CSE, please post your comments here.
The Oral exam was the most inept and useless part of the licensing process, it took me several tries until I was able to pass it, I am not the best vocal or confrontational person but I am dam good architect.
The oral format with 3 architects interrogating me in a tiny hotel room was very intimidating, I could never relax and I had to be subjected to the personal opinion of individuals who doesn’t know me or know my personal nervousness when faced with this type of situations…I am sure if it was in the written format, I would have passed it from the first try. Now with this change, I feel cheated of few years from being licensed and practicing architecture, and of being always under stress before and after those interrogation sessions.
Recommended by one of the leading AIA types, I participated once as an “examiner”, and once was one time too many.
The trend seems to have been to make a once subjective add-on to the Lien Law test an objective test given by live examiners but scored to some insane standards all cooked up by Sacramento Bureaucrats. The people involved in the oral exam, administrators and architectural examiners, consisted primarily of State Bureaucrats or architects who feed on that type, so obviously results will follow that reflect the attitudes of the apparatchik class.
One candidate answered “money” to one question concerning land/site planning approvals and what would be the clients’ response. Money would be one of the clients’ main concerns but the bureaucracy had failed to consider this response so that answer would have been deemed incorrect according to the instructions issued to the examiners (I gave the guy credit and said to hell with the bureaucrats).
I subsequently registered all my complaints with the Board, the Governor and the head of Consumer Affairs. I also demanded payment for the waste of my time in the squalid atrium type hotel in South San Francisco. Life is too short to deal with fools.
Why California has their own tests is beyond me but that’s the way it was 1977 and it appears the bureaucracy has not changed.
Cal Berkeley used to have excellent classes through the School of Engineering. Both Lateral and Timber Analysis were covered in separate classes that Architects were encouraged to attend but the classes were pricey. The State Board has moved in the correct direction concerning accessible continuing education but other fields of study are sadly lacking. The AIA does not help matters concerning their “continuing education” requirements, most of which are a joke.
Good luck
Chuck
charles desler architect
916 3374876
http://home.pacbell.net/dogcosmo
864 oak terrace
placerville, ca 95667
Wow, why don’t we just have applicants respond to a email and take the written on their cell phone.
My experience with the oral exam is that the makeup of the panel had a tremendous affect on fairness of the exam. The first time I took it I think it was everyone’s first time, because when I didn’t understand a question they felt it would be cheating to restate the question. They simply repeated it again and again, more S L O W L Y. That was NOT very helpful. At one point I simply had to say to them – “I’m positive I know the answer, unfortunately I find the wording of the question vague and so I cannt figure out what you want to hear.” I did not pass.
The second time I took it the people had no qualms about elaborating on the question if they felt I was on the right track but may have misunderstood the question. I walked out of there positive I had passed.
In spite of this experience I compare it with the other parts of the exam and I think – hey – at least it was a challenge! I have found that (generally) the younger architects do not have a thorough grasp of 3-dimensionality. The graphic portions of the test have been so simplified that you don’t need ANY architectural training to pass it. It is a VERY badly designed test. I completed the Site Planning portion in 15 minutes, and I think the allotted time for the exam is 2 hours.
I think that in general the caliber of the profession is degrading – too many architects are becoming licensed and the field is more competitive, and wages are decreasing because of it. On top of our wages decreasing, society losing respect for the profession because there are so many “bad” architects out there. The profession has o choice but to evolve..