the questions on A.R.E. 5.0 are unreasonably subtle. Practice isn't like this - why make things difficult? having to take the same test over and over again just to answer all these trick questions.
Oh this is fun. Here is another one of code's statements from the same thread, "IOW, if you don't want to do what it takes, then get out, this ain't no place for lightweights who don't pack the right gear"
Mar 4, 20 12:13 pm ·
·
OddArchitect
code - architecture is nothing more than a response to unreasonably subtle problems. Read the questions and take them literally. You'll pass.
I actually found the questions in 5.0 to be substantially improved compared to the subtle, tricky, or gotcha-type questions in 4.0. 5.0 questions were much closer to the types of things I deal with in practice every day ... YMOV (your mileage obviously varies).
I remember doing the design portion many moons ago, and was pissed off at a trick item in the program. It asked for (something like) two conference rooms of 700 sf and one of 800 sf. I thought "what the...?" but was able to look up occupant loads in the UBC (we were allowed to bring). The slightly larger room required a 2nd exit, which I provided.
I thought: not today, technocrat bastards! Not today.
citizen, I wouldn't consider that a trick question. I think it's a straightforward and valid question to test your understanding of the occupant loads and egress in the code. Something an architect will need to deal with at some point in their career.
Mar 4, 20 1:37 pm ·
·
citizen
You're right, EA; the question scope is fine, of course. In that particular setting, though-- 12 hours to coherently design to code then document a fairly complex building --the minute 700/800 distinction seems a bit slimy.
I write and give exams on a regular basis, challenging ones. But I toss out questions that are slimy.
Perhaps. I still would view it as a challenging question rather than slimy. But then again, as an intern I moved walls a few inches in plan in order to keep the occupant load in a classroom small enough that a second exit wasn't required.
A better example of a trick question is one where you have to challenge the assumption of the question. This was posted on The ARE Facebook Group yesterday morning:
A vapor retarder is perforated so that ...
A) water may pass through the pores,
B) Water vapor may pass through,
C) Air may pass through,
D) Both air and water vapor may pass through,
E) none of the above.
I don't think this question came from the ARE, more likely it came from a third-party study guide. Even as a study question it's terrible (evidenced by the comments on the facebook group which are full of confusion and little clarification). But this is the type of question that NCARB has been trying to eliminate in the newer versions of the test. My experience with 4.0 and 5.0 has shown they've made progress.
Mar 4, 20 2:24 pm ·
·
OddArchitect
E) none of the above. At least according to current definitions. by the time I hit enter things may have changed. 8-)
Mar 4, 20 2:35 pm ·
·
atelier nobody
EA - So, when did you stop beating your wife?
Mar 4, 20 2:37 pm ·
·
OddArchitect
???????????????
Mar 4, 20 2:39 pm ·
·
citizen
Again, my critique is set in context: a high-pressure exam state in which minutes matter. Of course we should be able to split code hairs as necessary; that's part of the job. But that kind of minute distinction --done on the spot with no turning back --does not mimic what commonly happens in practice. Slimy. Not take-the-examiner-out-and-shoot-them. But, still, slimy.
Mar 4, 20 2:58 pm ·
·
OddArchitect
I don't disagree with you however the knowledge required to pass the exam pales in comparison to what you have to know to be a practicing architect who's building and practice won't fail.
@citizen, you're right that the context matters. The setting for your question was prior to the current version of the test, right?
Assuming that's the case, and this was a portion of the exam that required you to proceed down a process of making additional decisions that were based on your previous decisions wherein one mistake along that process would create a failure overall ... yeah that is slimy. Some of the 4.0 vignettes were this way.
The 5.0 version of the exam gets rid of those types of questions. Each question is standalone and doesn't rely on information that you would have had to get correct in a previous question/step. As a standalone design problem asking about occupant loads and egress from a conference room of 700 sf vs 800 sf, I don't see it as that slimy.
Mar 4, 20 3:40 pm ·
·
citizen
That's correct, EA. This was back when the earth was still cooling and California administered its own exam. It was a four-day crucible that ended with a 12-hour design marathon. BYO food, drawing board, code book, etc. A few people packed up after several hours because they couldn't get a workable parti in time to draw it all up. Muy stressful. I like how it's been partitioned into more reasonable sections-- a positive change.
Mar 4, 20 4:20 pm ·
·
joseffischer
I find this particular example very interesting. I thought everyone got the 749 SF rule baked into them first year out of college, no? That 700 vs 800 SF description would not only stick out like a sore thumb to me, but also be an obvious example of why they wrote the question that way.
People overthink. Just Occam’s razor it instead of allowing paranoia take root and second guessing. Occam’s razor is the answer that requires the fewest assumptions. The example question above is about “vapor barrier”; only B actually deals with vapor and uses that term. So it is the most probable correct answer. Select and move on with life. If you overthink, you will figure out situations where most the others could apply (adding a bunch of assumptions).
Once you start overthinking, A) you are wasting time, B) you are undermining your confidence, and finally C) Unless they’ve changed things, you won’t know what you answered wrong. But if you fail, you’ll sit there second guessing for months what ones tricked you. And you’ll be even more rattled for the next failed attempt…. eventually leading to validating ideas a foil hat will stop the stupid rays given off by cheap fluorescent lighting which have been causing you to fail it because it is really some sort of secret government experiment; you saw those camera’s and that ‘proctor’ right watching and recording your every move? And again, you won’t just hit “B. vapor” and move on because … you are on to them and all these questions are trick questions. I love watching people mind fuck themselves with improbably conspiracies (at least that is unless they are actually in charge of shit and start believing in foil hats).
Mar 4, 20 5:41 pm ·
·
atelier nobody
You would be incorrect on the vapor retarder question.
Minimally competent is all we're shooting for! Good time to plug an old blog post: ARE 5.0 Cut Scores
Mar 4, 20 6:24 pm ·
·
mightyaa
rolf... you are right; between reading the thread and writing the response, I never went back to the question. I was just trying to get across the answer is usually the most obvious and you shouldn't stress or look for tricks. Guess I should have pointed out comprehension of the question being asked is actually pretty critical too... :P Shockingly I passed it (ARE 3.0) first try without studying more than a few hours the day before....
Mar 4, 20 6:50 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
A.R.E. 5.0 - too many subtle questions
the questions on A.R.E. 5.0 are unreasonably subtle. Practice isn't like this - why make things difficult? having to take the same test over and over again just to answer all these trick questions.
So now you want training wheels?
See your own words below:
Comment from: Is NCARB pushing away young Architects from obtaining License?
Discussion Forum | Feb 14, 20 4:51 pm
it's like a Navy SEAL obstacle course and hell week. You can't be SEAL unless you prevail. The same with Architecture and ARE
Oh this is fun. Here is another one of code's statements from the same thread, "IOW, if you don't want to do what it takes, then get out, this ain't no place for lightweights who don't pack the right gear"
code - architecture is nothing more than a response to unreasonably subtle problems. Read the questions and take them literally. You'll pass.
I actually found the questions in 5.0 to be substantially improved compared to the subtle, tricky, or gotcha-type questions in 4.0. 5.0 questions were much closer to the types of things I deal with in practice every day ... YMOV (your mileage obviously varies).
I remember doing the design portion many moons ago, and was pissed off at a trick item in the program. It asked for (something like) two conference rooms of 700 sf and one of 800 sf. I thought "what the...?" but was able to look up occupant loads in the UBC (we were allowed to bring). The slightly larger room required a 2nd exit, which I provided.
I thought: not today, technocrat bastards! Not today.
citizen, I wouldn't consider that a trick question. I think it's a straightforward and valid question to test your understanding of the occupant loads and egress in the code. Something an architect will need to deal with at some point in their career.
You're right, EA; the question scope is fine, of course. In that particular setting, though-- 12 hours to coherently design to code then document a fairly complex building --the minute 700/800 distinction seems a bit slimy.
I write and give exams on a regular basis, challenging ones. But I toss out questions that are slimy.
Perhaps. I still would view it as a challenging question rather than slimy. But then again, as an intern I moved walls a few inches in plan in order to keep the occupant load in a classroom small enough that a second exit wasn't required.
A better example of a trick question is one where you have to challenge the assumption of the question. This was posted on The ARE Facebook Group yesterday morning:
A vapor retarder is perforated so that ...
I don't think this question came from the ARE, more likely it came from a third-party study guide. Even as a study question it's terrible (evidenced by the comments on the facebook group which are full of confusion and little clarification). But this is the type of question that NCARB has been trying to eliminate in the newer versions of the test. My experience with 4.0 and 5.0 has shown they've made progress.
E) none of the above. At least according to current definitions. by the time I hit enter things may have changed. 8-)
EA - So, when did you stop beating your wife?
???????????????
Again, my critique is set in context: a high-pressure exam state in which minutes matter. Of course we should be able to split code hairs as necessary; that's part of the job. But that kind of minute distinction --done on the spot with no turning back --does not mimic what commonly happens in practice. Slimy. Not take-the-examiner-out-and-shoot-them. But, still, slimy.
I don't disagree with you however the knowledge required to pass the exam pales in comparison to what you have to know to be a practicing architect who's building and practice won't fail.
@atelier ... exactly
@citizen, you're right that the context matters. The setting for your question was prior to the current version of the test, right?
Assuming that's the case, and this was a portion of the exam that required you to proceed down a process of making additional decisions that were based on your previous decisions wherein one mistake along that process would create a failure overall ... yeah that is slimy. Some of the 4.0 vignettes were this way.
The 5.0 version of the exam gets rid of those types of questions. Each question is standalone and doesn't rely on information that you would have had to get correct in a previous question/step. As a standalone design problem asking about occupant loads and egress from a conference room of 700 sf vs 800 sf, I don't see it as that slimy.
That's correct, EA. This was back when the earth was still cooling and California administered its own exam. It was a four-day crucible that ended with a 12-hour design marathon. BYO food, drawing board, code book, etc. A few people packed up after several hours because they couldn't get a workable parti in time to draw it all up. Muy stressful. I like how it's been partitioned into more reasonable sections-- a positive change.
I find this particular example very interesting. I thought everyone got the 749 SF rule baked into them first year out of college, no? That 700 vs 800 SF description would not only stick out like a sore thumb to me, but also be an obvious example of why they wrote the question that way.
People overthink. Just Occam’s razor it instead of allowing paranoia take root and second guessing. Occam’s razor is the answer that requires the fewest assumptions. The example question above is about “vapor barrier”; only B actually deals with vapor and uses that term. So it is the most probable correct answer. Select and move on with life. If you overthink, you will figure out situations where most the others could apply (adding a bunch of assumptions).
Once you start overthinking, A) you are wasting time, B) you are undermining your confidence, and finally C) Unless they’ve changed things, you won’t know what you answered wrong. But if you fail, you’ll sit there second guessing for months what ones tricked you. And you’ll be even more rattled for the next failed attempt…. eventually leading to validating ideas a foil hat will stop the stupid rays given off by cheap fluorescent lighting which have been causing you to fail it because it is really some sort of secret government experiment; you saw those camera’s and that ‘proctor’ right watching and recording your every move? And again, you won’t just hit “B. vapor” and move on because … you are on to them and all these questions are trick questions. I love watching people mind fuck themselves with improbably conspiracies (at least that is unless they are actually in charge of shit and start believing in foil hats).
You would be incorrect on the vapor retarder question.
+1 to atelier nobody. I didn't know if there was a way to be the most incorrect about the vapor retarder question, but mightyaa found it.
good news is you only have to get about 60% of the questions right and you pass!
Minimally competent is all we're shooting for! Good time to plug an old blog post: ARE 5.0 Cut Scores
rolf... you are right; between reading the thread and writing the response, I never went back to the question. I was just trying to get across the answer is usually the most obvious and you shouldn't stress or look for tricks. Guess I should have pointed out comprehension of the question being asked is actually pretty critical too... :P Shockingly I passed it (ARE 3.0) first try without studying more than a few hours the day before....
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.