Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: vanessafong
Age: 28

A canadian architectural license should reflect what you need to know in the canadiam profession. Its great that the ARE is recognized in the US, however, we are tested on the US system, not ours.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: lismin
Age: 35

All of this is kind of annoying for those of us who SLOGGED our way through, no easy outs, no financial benefits in doing so... becoming registered was a true committment - in the complete sense of the word. At this point, having had to do it all myself, I'm not really in the mood to make things easier for those who can't hack it. And I'd take the ARE again rather than a Canadian exam - I want to preserve my right to get a reciprocal license in the States. Not worth the risk.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: andyro
Age: 37

Plus the NCARB materials are hopelessly dated/irrelevant. When is the last time anyone built with gypsum block? Trade/generic names for common construction materials is essential, as are up to date building science principles.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: sarah
Age: 30

Any ExAC should be rigorous enough to be recognized by NCARB, the current ExAC proposal sounds too easy.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: akramer
Age: 30

The exams should be accessible and streamlined into practice. (Available online?) The cost should be included in the internship fee, and online training/ study should be available. The internship program should be above all flexible, and allow architects to pursue different kinds of practices--even part-time, or scholarly, or small independent ones.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: Justin Perdue
Age: 26

This is a good compromise. Those that want reciprocity have the option, while others can focus on materials that are more relevant here.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: Donald
Age: 40

Can we make things any more confusing?

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: Lisa
Age: 38

Exams should still be allowed to be written anytime

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: shope
Age: 40

Since exams are now done on computer, costs should be much lower. I don't think costs have changed since the OAA hosted the exams during exam week.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: POSU
Age: 28

The intangible elements of the ARE exams are what makes them beneficial to those taking them. To streamline the process would be great...but not at the cost of a more 'holistic' knowledge base.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: jtrop
Age: 35

First, when they changed the AREs to allow interns to start taking them immediately, this was a good thing. NCARB is notorious for not being open to reciprocity, and this is something that may never be achieved. If the ExAC exams are accepted, reciprocity with the NCARB should be conditional on their acceptance of this system. Otherwise we will maintain the ability of many american architects to readily register in Canadian jurasdictions, and writers of the ExACs will lose that opportunity. This is significant. The current proposal is that the ExAC exams will be written by hand, in the same manner as the AREs were once written. The change from handwritten to the computer increased the pass rates substantially. There are several reasons for this. Including the ability to write them at any time, which allows focused studying, and the computer system itself is not that bad (the content and the questions are what are generally what is at fault). The best solution may be stronger connections and communication with NCARB rather then inventing a new system, although significant work has already been done in this regard.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: miug
Age: 55

It has been a while since I wrote the ARE. If my memorny serves me correctly, the materials provoke analytical problem solving in general and only dealt with country specific problems such as building codes etc.. I believe the ARE is the way to go. At least, it represnets a set of 'standard' knowledge and problem solving skills that an architect should process.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: ONarch
Age: 50

Inability to meet NCARB equirements are a sure sign of defeat for Ontario interns. With a degree from a foreign university & after having passed all the NCARB exams at the first sitting, I would like to think that this is an an achievable feat for Canadian graduates.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: lend
Age: 35

Does this make any sense? The OAA began with Canadian exams, must've realized that it was limiting their members of obtaining work abroad, and implemented the NCARB system, at no small cost I'm sure, and now they revert back? What next? Put away computers and go back to the T-square, set squares, and dreaded french curves?

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: david
Age: 50

The extent of knowledge required to pass the current ARE exams is not only unrealistic but unnecessary. Who are these super-human architects who can do all the work of the engineers as well as our own? Ditch the ARE and push on with a realistic set of exams. However, re reciprocity, will ExAC create two types of architects (ARE and non-ARE)?

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: smcc
Age: 33

Exams should be allowed to be writeen right after/ during school. This continues to ensure that schools teach and students seriously take note of courses focused on these topics.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: k_clark
Age: 31

You should be able to start the ExAc right away - you can start the ARE right away.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: Chod
Age: 38

A rigorous exam process can be achieved with 4 appropriate practice-based examinations. It is not necessary to go through the 9-exam marathon. I agree that many of the exams cover material taught in architecture school.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: mills
Age: 34

We need to be tested on the proper subjects related to Architecture in Ontario.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: orsachair
Age: 34

Interns should be able to write the ExAC at anytime as with the ARE. Experience may be gained prior to registering officially as an Intern. If they don't pass, then the Intern just does not have enough experience yet. They will have to sit for the exam again as with the ARE.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: Rem Koolhaas
Age: 30

The creation of a regional exam and a regional licence in architecture will not only confuse interns and graduates, but will also confuse the issue of what an architect is with the general public. This is not a step towards "excellence in the profession of architecture".

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: Steve
Age: 34

Less exams, more work experience.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: daniel
Age: 57

Why have two exams - ARE is more than adequate and the Canadian exams are a waste of time/ resources.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: patrick trottie
Age: 43

Please please please be rid of NCARB as the only manner in which to achieve licencing. It is not reflective of the architectural practice, nor of ones complex set of individual skills/talents. It is strictly academic based on memory work. GET RID OF IT!

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: viktrix
Age: 34

Quite honestly, this was never about the money for me. One doesn't come out of university $50,000 in debt and care about a thousand dollars for professional exams. I am quite happy, well not happy, but satisfied, to pay a fee which reflects a process that benefits my development as a young architect. The ARE had absolutely NO professional value for me and therefore, it is irritating to have had to pay money for them. From what I understand of the CARE, they seem to be evaluating professional practice. Putting money aside, this is a move in the right direction. If the only draw back is reciprocity, well, let's be honest. The majority of registered architects will likely stay within their registered area. The rest of us will have to deal with the situation as it arises. Revolving an educational program around 'reciprocity happiness' is a complete waste of a young architect's time. [That's easy for me to say though as I have reciprocity...]

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: cahandy
Age: 30

While I am much in favour of the reformation it is important to maintain Can/US reciprocity.

Date:  Mar 17, 2008
User: mazen
Age: 47

the ExAC must recognize the passed part by NCARB "it is recommended by OAA" and should give the opportunity 3 or 4 times a year,

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: vikas
Age: 36

ExAC is good solution. ARE is still open...

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: gigi
Age: 28

It sounds to me the ExaC is not ready and system is outdated. To not have reciprocal recognition in the US and Canada, limit us. What is the real advantage? ARE are already very broad, cost is high but the idea of reducing the number to 7 will already help in this way. There is not enough difference in the two countries to have differences in exams. I think Exac is unneccessary and only confuses and limits us.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: tesark
Age: 34

Having two options could be a good thing, but wouldn't this unofficially create 2 classes of architects? If the designation was equivalent in every way, it would really be two options. If NCARB doesn't recognize it, it's not the best solution.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Joseph Galea
Age: 60

Reciprocity with the US is important and must be maintained. Hopefully, the associations stop fiddling around with the system every few years - just ensure the updating of exam material. I do not believe the exam per se does much to make better professionals.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Tommy
Age: 31

Why are we pulling ourself back? So we are now back to pen & paper exam format? At the mean times you getting rid of Canadian/ US reciprocity? Does this even make any sense? Why are we tampering with the system to limit ourself to start? How is this even benefit Interns and Architects? Fulfilling required hours and passing all exam does not lead to a competent Architect. Let's focus on how to improve our Architects skillset and knowledge.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Manoj Atri
Age: 46

The format is fine, but again you need to have courses streamlined with exams and then the next level. Cost of attending classes then teaching the requirements of these courses and time frames all need to be co-ordinated. Kindly someone have a look at the real estate courses offered by OREA and see they are passing real estate agents by droves - a similar format can help interns turn licensed architects.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: ideate
Age: 38

Choice and flexibilty are good.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Carole
Age: 36

I like the idea that the new exams claim to focus on things useful to practice. I was preparing for the ARE exams, finding it frustrating as they seem to be designed to be the leveling plane for the many levels of education available in the U.S. It seemed primarily a waste of time; everybody prepares for them and forgets them right after; not much of a contribution to their capacity as professionals. We have all already demonstrated that we are good students. Yet another exercise will not help confidence and capability or even knowledge in the practice. One of the issues for me to get on with the intern process was the meaninglessness of the ARE for increasing confidence and capability in the profession.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Maissaa
Age: 38

I think it's good to do exams that makes us licensed internationally -like in north America & Eaurope.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: nomada
Age: 37

This is an ILL conceived idea. In a world where all boundaries are being blurred and societies are developing into a global community, this is a big step backwards as it allienates canadian architects from other architectural associations.It is true some of the ARE material is not up to date, but wouldn't it be easier to update the ARE rather than create a new disident group? I don't know if it is already too late, but this initiative should be dismantled.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: lkasawat
Age: 40

I would like to see these exams on computer AND be taken severaltimes a year, started straight away, AND not be deprived of internship if I failed to take them.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: ginfaxi
Age: 32

Sacrificing the reciprocity of the ARE is lunacy. Having worked internationally, reciprocity is rare, and hard won where it exists. If it is ever to be gained in Europe, it will be through the NCARB. The inconvenience of the ARE and the expense are both worth it to keep reciprocity. Maybe the associations should look at a way to make the ARE cheaper, as it is pricey, though, as its tied tot he US Dollar, much cheaper than it used to be.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Jacqueline
Age: 49

Content is more important than cost. Two sets of exams seems to mean two classes of Architects, one with international qualifications and one without. Seems like a dumb idea. This profession is getting tougher and we need to ensure our professional Architects are as prepared as they can be.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Martin M. Poizn
Age: 73

The ARE was too costly. When it all began, the benefits of NCARB were worth the cost (then) but the costs have grown unreasonably

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Issam A Shukor
Age: 47

I strongly recommend going back to ARE with financial support (or study material made available)by the OAA for eligiable Interns. I find study material for ARE exams expensive but the quality is reasonable. I don't understand what is so special about "Canadian experience" other than dealing with "snow". I also recommend one system for US and Canada.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: J. Denis Seguin
Age: 50

I found the NCARB exams to be quite similar and applicable to our country, plus I learned of other facets of the practice form a more global perspective.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Sander Waxman
Age: 29

not too sure what is best, but I do have a desire to have access to these exams at a fair timeframe, with maximun three months wait time should one fail a part, I am less concerned about cost, more concerned about access.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: mcamp
Age: 27

I think it is very good to offer a choice. Depending on the interns directions and situation in life they can choose the less expensive, time-consuming route.

Date:  Mar 18, 2008
User: Archie
Age: 29

"Canadian Associations have little control over the modification of the ARE..." Get off your heinies and get actively involved with the ARE. I've been to numerous conferences in the States and Canadian participation is dismal at best. (Why is everything looking like a a cash grab with everyone trying to stick their fingers in the pie?)

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: intern007
Age: 51

this sounds like heading in the right direction, that they should be practiced based exams.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: Kori
Age: 38

There should be a unified North American standard test method that is recognized on both sides of the border. Canada having its own exams which ultimately are not recognized by the U.S. makes no sense on either a business or professional level. NCARB should remain as the common testing standard, although improvements within NCARB can certainly be entertained. Reciprocity between Canada and the U.S. is an important business strategy that opens doors to a broader range of work opportunities.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: TinWolf
Age: 35

The NCARB exams are recognized in 50 states and 2 territories in the US, and it's certification and Council Records are recognized by the AIA and it's many branches around the world. I submit to you that the $1190.00 is not unreasonable fee for such access. Especially because the United States is Canada's largest trading partner and a source for an incredible amount of experence and employment through the Professional exchange sections of NAFTA. Moving to some Local exam system would put our international status greatly in jepardy and muddy the legitimate waters.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: toni2
Age: 29

I'm not sure why reciprocity can't be pursued further... or be partially credited with the US. This aspect is critical, although I appreciate an alternative process that is tailored to Canadians, their economy and their climate.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: erin
Age: 26

If individuals wish to work in the US, they can choose to take the other exams. If they wish to work in Canada, (a country that needs more Architects, not Interns) they should be able to write exams to a canadian standard, in a more condensed format. Perhaps instead of focusing on the United States, this new canadian exam could negotiate recognition from other countries? (Europe, the Commonwealth, etc??) By making agreements with these other countries, perhaps we will gain architects from their systems as well as giving our architects the opportunity to practice abroad as well.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: eleanor
Age: 34

afraid of losing reciprocity with the US, and of unproven value of new exams if an Ontario architect wants to move abroad. Also, interns should be allowed to write the exams immediately.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: catiasplace
Age: 26

Bringing the Cost down would be very helpful. It is also important to keep Canadian/US reciprocity. There is a significant amount of work to be done in the US.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: feedmyego
Age: 26

architecture is a global endevour. to limit oneself to just canadian provinces who chose to align themselves with this new exam in the name of tailored simplification is PROVINCIAL in the worst sense. US/canadian reciprocity is important. why create two kinds of architects when we are taught over and over in school and practice that architecture is a global affair??? the ARE exams are the best option.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: Sean
Age: 33

I have spoken with numerous experienced architects who say they would never pass the exams. A large portion of the material is research based (you research it when needed) or consultant based.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: Alex
Age: 28

Why can't an individual write the exams if he/she could pass them and get them out of the way before two years of experience?!!!!

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: Rose
Age: 24

I think the cost are extravagent and need to be brought down significantly. The ExAC equivalency should be persued as a priority.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: mnsa
Age: 39

Allowing one to commence exams after only two years of experience does not guarantee that those individuals would be prepared to become licensed architects. If the process for the ExAC involves study of material and writing of the exam, this is missing the experience part of the equation, which can only be gained in an positive office environment that fosters its employees experience by giving them opportunities for differing responsibilities.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: RyanK
Age: 28

Reciprocity with the US is important to establish, "should the opportunity arise" is not an encouraging way of discribing this issue. For the ExAC to have any viability, it has to at least have national approval, which at the moment it does not. I like the idea, but it needs more work in terms of 'recognition' before it is put in place.

Date:  Mar 19, 2008
User: alejandro
Age: 24

costs should be lower if the exams are online.

Date:  Mar 20, 2008
User: Rufina
Age: 27

Would countries other than the US recognize the ExAC? Some employers encourage their Interns to take their exams by offering partial/full exam costs, paid study hours, and/or organize study groups/sessions. More employers should provide incentives for younger generations to follow through with their licensing process.

Date:  Mar 20, 2008
User: OlaM
Age: 26

I strongly agree that the examination process needs to be shortened. But it also needs to maintain recognition internationally, in the USA or the UK or the EU. It also seems like creating several options for licensing, simply confuses the process more. The examination process should coincide with the internship year, so that after the year you are fully licensed.

Date:  Mar 20, 2008
User: Nikki
Age: 47

What is it that you are asking me to vote on? A poorly written survey is not going to get accurate results. The new exams narrow opportunities with the US. Not very smart when the rest of the world is heading in the direction of international focus. The ARE should always be a choice. There should be no deadlines.

Date:  Mar 20, 2008
User: intern4ever
Age: 40

This means there is hope. Getting tested on material that was already passed at an accredited university is stupid. If one cannot take the ARE until 3 years of experience are attained, then that means it is about 6-8 years after it was studied in university. If the content of the courses were so valuable for an architect, it would be utilised regularly in practice, and not be a big issue to study--but, when was the last time an architect illegally calculated the strength of a weld? Why be tested on things an architect is not legally allowed to do? Does it really matter to an architect if a drain pipe in a 6 storey office building is 1.5" in diameter or 2"? There are too many things to know as an architect, and we are getting lost in things that we have little control over. I'm praying ExAC will be practical. Can't wait to see the content. If there is too much junk, then I'm out. Ending the dream of being a 3rd generation OAA member.

Date:  Mar 20, 2008
User: Nathalie
Age: 41

Reciprocity with the US is a very useful thing for some. It should be a priority when considering different exams than the ARE. It seems redundant to develop a new exam (these things always seem to take an enormous amount of time and money). Could Canada not consider an "add on" component to the ARE to cover issues they would like dealt with? If cost is the main reason to move away from the ARE, it's questionable whether a savings will be achieved, and individuals wishing to obtain reciprocity in the US will be bearing additional costs anyway.

Date:  Mar 21, 2008
User: nbnb
Age: 27

I think the principle focus of this programme should be to get reciprocity with the US. If this is not accomplished, we are only further isolated as architects in canada, 'locked' into our own self referential discourse.

Date:  Mar 21, 2008
User: archipunjabi
Age: 32

ARE should still always be an option so candidates who want to maintain reciprocity with US have a choice unless ExAC is recognized by US

Date:  Mar 23, 2008
User: s z
Age: 35

I do not believe the ExAC is addressing any of the actual shortcomings of the ARE, and it unnecessarily complicates reciprocity for those members who may consider working in the USA.

Date:  Mar 24, 2008
User: filippo
Age: 43

Allow Interns to opt for either Exam. These exams however might be able to be offered through the Schools of Architecture.

Date:  Mar 24, 2008
User: Ron Milne
Age: 74

I don't like the concept of two routes to get to the same destination. Humans, being human, will always seek out the easier route for them, foregoing the quality of the route.

Date:  Mar 25, 2008
User: Torontonian
Age: 27

Credit should be given to people who have passed certain modules of ARE which co-incide with coming Exac.

Date:  Mar 25, 2008
User: D. Cardinal
Age: 34

I do not understand what critical issue the ExAC is addressing, and it unnecessarily complicates reciprocity for those members who may consider working in the USA. The ARE exams are not that difficult. Is the focus of the OAA to try a save a few hundred dollars over the the course of a 25+yr career? All at the risk of lowering the quality of the profession AND muddying reciprocity. It doesn't seem to make sense.

Date:  Mar 25, 2008
User: gilbert
Age: 28

I think Canadian exams can be beneficial, as there is quite a bit of American history, codes, contracts, etc to study and learn to pass the AREs. However, reciprocity is very important. I think there should be a more international system, that includes Canada, US, and Europe. Perhaps it is a matter of general exams, and then additional ones for different climates / conditions (i.e. hot and humid vs cold and dry, etc.)

Date:  Mar 26, 2008
User: r.m.odell
Age: 31

less money, less exams, more canadian. good idea.

Date:  Mar 26, 2008
User: intern
Age: 35

ExAC is really a bad idea. First, it is not recognized by the states boards, and I doubt very much if the states will recognize it in the future. Second, ExAC is by no means cheaper if it is only offered in a fixed time each year. If an intern misses the time, they will have to intern another year just for the exam in order to complete the registration requirement. What the Canadian Associations should have done is being more involved in the ARE system, trying to make the exams more relevant to the Canadian context, rather than giving it up and setting up its own system. As for the concern regarding duplicated materials taught in school, I respectfully disagree. Most if not all the ARE exams are practice based. I don't see how one can pass the exams with absolutely no experience, but I do see the need for making the exams more relevant to the Canadian practice.

Date:  Mar 27, 2008
User: david agro
Age: 44

The exams should not duplicate material covered in university programs.

Date:  Mar 27, 2008
User: Robert
Age: 37

one exam, half oral, half written. i hear lawyers have a similar set up. they seem to call themselves professionals too. with a self governing body as well. hmmm , i wonder... could it be that simple.. who would complain... the architects... government, ahh , maybe the testing centres would be miffed. well. better not upset them..

Date:  Mar 27, 2008
User: alexis
Age: 40

ARE should be maintained as an option until reciprocity is recognized between nations. I personally think that the ARE was a good system and was generic enough to work across the border. Having worked in both the USA and Canada (Ontario and Nova Scotia) I have seen that the basics of architecture are the same. Cultural differences between provinces are as similar as that between states.

Date:  Mar 27, 2008
User: vickybeltrano
Age: 26

It's absolutely necessary to maintain reciprocity given the increase in international work being done by more and more firms.

Date:  Mar 27, 2008
User: Robert
Age: 42

Have only one system that allows reciprocity with the U.S. which is the ARE. Bring down the cost somehow (Sell the O.A.A. building and relocate the headquarters in a rental space along a subway line). Allow people to write the exams anytime and give the test results IMMEDIATELY! Not weeks later. Let people do a re-right at a nominal fee and as soon as a time is available.

Date:  Mar 28, 2008
User: jmcginn24
Age: 28

This new option is shrinking back what is going on in the rest of the world globalization. Their are several firms that work on projects around their countries and the world sor testing needs focus on what is unionis amongst the different test. When you begin working in firm thats where you learn from project to project (experience is what is remembered not some tests over a weekend. Secondly what ever type of testing is agree upon it needs to be more avaliable and frequent. If you want to know why the number of interns in Ontario is diminishing it is because of the difficulty involved with the process, the communication within the process and limited testing is detering interns from finish the programs.

Date:  Mar 28, 2008
User: erin
Age: 25

Although I really do like the idea of the ExAc (and definitely the reduced cost, since as an intern, money can be tight) and the joint licensing between provinces is great, I think it should also be evaluated by the states as soon as possible so that it's accredited there. Having these two types of tests available is rather confusing. There needs to be more clear info on the OAA website. Possibly as an Option A or B format. I also think it's a good idea to be able to start taking tests at the halfway point of internship. I am also aware that I generally feel a little lost as I am approaching the halfway point in the intern program.

Date:  Mar 29, 2008
User: Cory Stechyshyn
Age: 44

I recently completed the NCARB (ARE) exams. They are far too "American" in content, which is evident by the study material and references to American codes and standards, with no comparison to Canadian codes or standards. I strongly encourage the ExAC committee to setup the examinations through a facility such as "Prometric" so that Interns can take the exams throughout Canada and the US, if needed. In addition - I would see that one or two Northwestern Ontario Colleges or Universities establish a Prometric Centre to permit northern Ontario residents to take exams more readily and economically.

Date:  Mar 30, 2008
User: bvokac
Age: 27

Strongly agree that the ExAC is an alternative option and that the option to take the ARE is maintained.

Date:  Mar 30, 2008
User: Kristin S
Age: 30

I disagree with the change in exams partially because the change is not Nation-wide. There is too much secrecy to what the exams are going to be. The other major disadvantage is writing the exams all at one time. I feel that being able to write the exams separately as you go through the process leads to a much better showing at the exams then putting all your eggs in one basket at only one time a year. It will take away from what people will learn from studying and just make it a case of memorization.

Date:  Mar 30, 2008
User: iand
Age: 42

Having two "valid" sets of exams does not make sense, especially if the ExAC is not the equivalent of the ARE for the US or provinces other than Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec. The process is already long enough without requiring interns to re-take the ARE in the event that a previously unanticipated work opportunity in the US arises. Why not include an "appendix" ARE exam for Canadian experience rather than a whole new exam? I strongly disagree with the two year restriction for the ExAC, this is very prejudicial to interns who have extensive work experience prior to signing on as OAA interns.

Date:  Mar 31, 2008
User: anon
Age: 38

More than once the process of exam writing was cancelled for technical reasons. My last exam was cancelled and the process of rescheduling took more than THREE months. I logged countless hours on the phone with the tesing admin. Then it took another THREE months to receive results. How is it we are expected to finish these tasks in timely fashion, when the administration is faultering your efforts. Ridiculous

Date:  Mar 31, 2008
User: holmwood
Age: 39

I disagree with reasoning. As someone who sits on an ARE sub-Committee, developing and reviewing questions, we have taken considerable effort to maintain code or reference equivalents. The content of the ARE is absolutely applicable to Canada- we have joined supply chains, same or similar climates and very similar or same professional standards.

Date:  Apr 01, 2008
User: erin
Age: 24

It is a great idea, provided that the US-compatible option remains recognized. I personally think that the issues in the two countries are not terribly dissimilar.

Date:  Apr 01, 2008
User: ddrussell
Age: 35

There is a defining line between thos that are coming out of the universities able to pass the NACRBS and not able to carry a project from inception to occupancy and those that are not passing have been prcticing for the past 10yrs in some cases successfully are also partners in firms that are not licenced by the NCARB association. The NCARBS do not test for compitency or understanding and the material is extremely contrivercial regarding what to test for and the association has the same problem there as here in Canada - this is why the exam has been changing co much the ast 5 or so years - this sytem is a complete failure to the profession and does nothing to support it. In addition the NCARBS have only made it more difficult and increasingly interns in Canada and the US are choosing not to write thise series of examinations and instead NACRB is now panicing on how to handle so many of its interns. NCARB is not bridging the gap between intern and a licenced practitioner and mentorship it is instead trying to rival other professions with the examination process such as those of the medical practitioners board, bar exam, accountants exam and other like this. We are in fact the only profession that takes a reciprocity approach, none of the other professions have attempted this approach - why is that - if Canada wishes to lead - then we should lead by example and I fully 100% support the revisions to the examination process by implementing the newly designed ExAC. This exam will be successful and rival the US - the NCARB has done notheing to support this process here nor will in the future for the same reasons that the UKL stepped out of the reciprocity a long time ago. All US states do not even recognize the NACRBS as a licencing examination so how are we expected to recieve this exam in Canada as the write approach. There will be many intern sitting for this exam and many will pass making this examination perhaps one of the most historically successful.

Date:  Apr 01, 2008
User: Meshah
Age: 39

ExAC is a great way to Canadianise the membership. ARE’s are too demanding in terms of cost and time, however, there has to be a reciprocity between the ARE’s and ExAC for those who wish to work south of the borders. It could be through additional exams, or additional experience or combination of two.

Date:  Apr 01, 2008
User: jayleb
Age: 27

The ExAC is a great idea but MUST include British Columbia! What is the point if all Canadian jurisdictions are not on board? Why have they not agreed to sign on? Hopefully reciprocity with the US further down the road is also a goal, or the ExAC is doomed to fail by restricting our marketplace...

Date:  Apr 01, 2008
User: Joyce
Age: 26

Either exam should be more realistic: they should be about architecture only and not engineering. The "one" exam that engineers take encompasses very specific material to themselves and that does not include any architecture. Yet the architects have to be the Renaissance humans? Maybe in the 15th century, when the architect truly was the master builder.

Date:  Apr 01, 2008
User: Alena Knizat
Age: 46

I will elimiminate these exams. Experience in an architectural firm and a good portfolio of acomplished work together with the employer's recomendation will be much more objective,then theoretical exams. The education itself (acreditet degree) is a good fundation for an architect to start his/her own practice.

Date:  Apr 02, 2008
User: Denise Lepage
Age: 49

I agree as long as you don't go down the road of making those Canadians who have NCARB exams completed qualify AGAIN by also writing the ExAC. We should be given the choice of method especially since you have not yet achieved reciprocity with US throught the ExAC.

Date:  Apr 02, 2008
User: A Gaus
Age: 27

The prospect of 7 additional exams upon graduation is very discouraging for many students.

Date:  Apr 02, 2008
User: Jason
Age: 34

I hate the NCARB exams with all my passion. The Canadian exams SEEM like they will be based more on reality. However, the concept of reciprocity with the US is non-restrictive. So, what to do? There are pros and cons for both, and in the end, the best way to go will be to write the shitty NCARB exams so you have the reciprocity. Some people might not care, but if something in the future comes up, you will be out of luck.

Date:  Apr 04, 2008
User: intern
Age: 37

I view the ARE with duplicated contents from University studies as a good thing. By the time a candidate prepares for the ARE it will be a review, rather than all new concepts. Besides, isn't University education suppose to prepare interns of what's out there in the work place?

Date:  Apr 04, 2008
User: internarchitect
Age: 28

ExAC needs to have equal reciprocity with US for it to be a viable option.

Date:  Apr 04, 2008
User: Michaela
Age: 39

How can anyone respect a Canadian Architect that has gone through the ARE exams when are not even aware that they structural theories studied for these US based exams are not used in Canada?

Date:  Apr 05, 2008
User: 1hk1
Age: 37

I learned a little bit in each ARE exam but not enough to justify the time/cost commitment. The 9 exams took me three years while working full time and still having some sort of a life. Though it is a hoop that you go through it strengthens your commitment to the profession. I am working in the US so the exams were easier for me to understand. If I lived in Ontario, I would question their relevance. Please do not implement anything similar to the California Oral Exam - that is the most stressful exam I have ever taken! The oral is the ultimate "hoop" and really is not needed.

Date:  Apr 06, 2008
User: kite
Age: 40

Other Professional Associations give the opportunity to students to review the results of their exams. You can learn a lot from your mistakes! The currently system does not allow the student to know what he/she did right or wrong. It is just a guessing game!

Date:  Apr 06, 2008
User: stephanie
Age: 27

At this point, unless the ExAC is significantly more economical than the ARE, I would still take the ARE because of reciprocity and recognition. The ExAC should be accepted in every province across Canada before it is implemented and significant efforts should be made for reciprocity with the US. Until then, I'd prefer to write the ARE to keep my options open.

Date:  Apr 07, 2008
User: __ap
Age: 28

I'm concerned that this is an artificial way of boosting 'licensed' numbers. Selfishly, I'm one exam away from submitting for my license and I really couldn't care less how much 'easier' this new system might appear. The truth is, anyone with enough money and time could 'buy' a license--we all know that. Any changes made should be about making the process produce a 'better architect'. I imagine a good architect wouldn't wait around to take advantage of an 'easier' system. The good architects just 'do the work'. Small changes to the current system might give Interns a bit more incentive to complete the current licensing requirements. My suggestions for what might have made my life (and the lives of a few good friends) a bit easier: The OAA could turn around intern logs in a timely manner The OAA could propose reducing the 'waiting' period for re-writing failed exams The OAA could propose the ARE multiple choice exams be graded and results distributed in a timely manner (ie: LEED results are given after completion of the exam) The OAA could reduce the cost of exams The OAA could reduce the cost of retaking unsuccessful exams or perhaps only rewrite the failed 'sections' of the exam.

Date:  Apr 08, 2008
User: Chintan Virani
Age: 46

Re-taking of 1 failed exam after 6 months kills the momemtum for persons like me, who will prefer to finish it when it is fresh. 2 months should be sufficient for a person to re-read everything and retake the exam. why any restrictions in time frame to retake the exam when it is computer based.

Date:  Apr 09, 2008
User: gejb
Age: 39

I would agree with this proposal ONLY if reciprocity as it exists is not compromised in any degree. ARE exams do not present a reasonable challenge to interns as much of the material is obscure and very distantly related to architecture. (A colleague just wrote an exam that had 6 questions on detailing of a manhole - shouldn't this be a civil engineering matter??, Another colleague was prented with a fuzzy photo of some strange Air handling unit with an arrow pointed to some hidden knob, and was asked to describe this control - Are mech'l eng. interns asked about handrail diameters in their exams??) Relevant exams with reciprocity with all bodies should be the goal!!!

Date:  Apr 10, 2008
User: marc
Age: 36

In my experience, the ARE's do not duplicate any material I encountered in my education. Rather, with the exception of CD&S, they are a tedious, agonizingly irrelevant hurdle, with occasional moments of interest. Their cost is a much less significant factor than the time it takes to study for them. A better solution would be the inclusion of all material relevant to the practice of architecture in our education.

Date:  Apr 10, 2008
User: deanna
Age: 28

The option to take either ARE or ExAC should be maintained, not all interns are interested in working in the US, but may want the cost savings of the new exams. Also, it makes no sense to keep the May 2008 cut off date for the ARE when the ExAC has not been fully figured out. This cut off date, should a cut off be necessary at all, should at least coincide with the implementation of the ExAC.

Date:  Apr 11, 2008
User: jlhr
Age: 27

I think this is a good step but that reciprocity should still be a goal.

Date:  Apr 11, 2008
User: jsbaker
Age: 35

I strongly applaud the creation of the ExAC and plan to write them on the first offering

Date:  Apr 14, 2008
User: Amy Huddleston
Age: 29

The ARE is very costly, and 9 exams is overwhelming for interns (especially those who have very demanding postitions in their firms). Cutting down the costs and lessening the workload, I believe, would encourage us to take the final steps to completion of the internship.

Date:  Apr 14, 2008
User: Michelle
Age: 26

It would be more economical for Interns if the required courses to prepare for the exams could be taken during our architecture degree. Doesn't it make sense to gear our education toward achieving that goal? Why not offer these courses during our actual schooling, that way everyone graduating from accredited schools in Canada are on the same page upon matriculation.

Date:  Apr 15, 2008
User: darchitect
Age: 37

the current ARE exams, while having some flaws, are still a bench mark standard. developing a seperate but equal set of exams is the first step towards everyone doing their own thing with no reciprocity between US/Canada or interprovincial....what is next is that some provice will decide they want an extra exam to test something special and unique to their province (Quebec comes to mind...so much for reciprocity). The exams are not terribly difficult but do require a good practice base, knowledge, some studying and skill. if you can't hack it, then don't bother whining about it.

Date:  Apr 15, 2008
User: Nancy
Age: 28

It is great to have Canada-specific exams that take place over a shorter duration. However, reciprocity is really important. If the Canadian exam could achieve reciprocity and be recognized by NCARB, that would be best.

Date:  Apr 15, 2008
User: TomK
Age: 32

If I had the option I would always do the ARE's. The one saving grace is that they are recognized across North America. The Exac exams are helping to further fragment this profession. I would rather have seen the Canadian associations pool their efforts to modify the ARE's. The ARE's should have been incorporated into our education as standardised exams for 9 or 7 different classes. If the engineers can do this why can't the architects. I feel that the exams are the greatest obstacle to licensure for interns. The cost is not the issue, but the time required.

Date:  Apr 15, 2008
User: typern
Age: 35

The implications are confusing.

Date:  Apr 15, 2008
User: dc arch
Age: 30

Why has this process not been transparent? It has been so difficult to find facts regarding this transition. There have been rumours about having to take the National Building code portion of ExAC if you want to write ARE 4.0. Why is has this information been withheld????

Date:  Apr 15, 2008
User: markazi
Age: 54

WHEN A GRADUTE BECOMES AN INTERN MAINS SHE OR HE LOVES TO LIVE WITH ARCHITECTURE ALL THE WAY BUT MONEY TALKS

Date:  Apr 15, 2008
User: evelyn
Age: 33

I agree there are much in the exams that apply to USA conditions. But it is also helpful to have reciprocity for those interested.

Date:  Apr 24, 2008
User: ravk
Age: 32

the Ncarb / Are gives a better scope as it is recognized within US/ Canada. it is difficult ot compare the two exam as the format or the scope covered for the Canadian exams is not very clear. If the course covered for the exams is already covered int eh universities and is easy , how come some people have taken years to comlete the exams?

Date:  Apr 24, 2008
User: arch_intern78
Age: 29

It is difficult to compare these exams: 1. the new ExAC exam has not been held yet, neither is study material available yet, so we don't yet know if it reduces the amount of duplicated testing, and we cannot compare the price of the ExAC to the ARE. 2. Canadian/US reciprocity has not been retained, so it is somewhat an unfair comparison

Date:  Apr 25, 2008
User: D. Watson
Age: 34

Seems like a lot of time, planning, and expense to develop the ExAC for very little benefit. The American system is not Canadian, but does that mean it is not a good system? I haven't heard any evidence that the American exam fails to perform well. Perhaps the funds and time can be put towards a more productive cause.

Date:  Apr 26, 2008
User: Chris
Age: 38

I would imagine that Can-US reciprocity is not a critical issue for most interns. It is for me, so I plan to continue with the ARE. In this way, I believe that it is a step forward to provide a (potentially) more relevant and less onerous set of exams. I would also be curious as to how many firms provide financial help with the costs of the tests. My firm pays for all of this - and I have to believe that many workplaces view this as a critical piece of professional development and succession planning. The costs of the tests is not really an issue from my perspective. The time required to prepare for & write the tests is, however, the critical issue. The format and content of the ARE is divorced from the real-life practice of the profession - so a well-rounded intern with significant experience cannot simply undertake the tests with a reasonable liklihood of passing without a lot of prep. As you note, the average age of interns is 39. I am 38, I fufill the role of project architect on many projects (simultaneously) plus internal management and promotions work - which I barely accomplish with fairly long hours. I am married and have a family . It is a tough task to fit in the needed prep. That said, I cannot offer a better method that also meets a test of reasonableness. I urge you to develop a good, sitution-based test where it is not a race against the clock to finish. The test should address knowledge and judgement. The results should be statistically correlated against ARE scoring to make a case to NCARB on the validity of the examination.

Date:  Apr 26, 2008
User: senior
Age: 53

Somewhat agree if ExAC is recognised in U.S. similar to ARE to maintain reciprocity bothway's.

Date:  Apr 28, 2008
User: rima
Age: 41

Since Canadian architectural schools are already certified by CACB, it stands to logic to set up a different assessment process for these graduates, since the ARE is a system designed for evaluating basic level of architectural knowledge. However, the choice for writing the ARE can be maintained possibly as another means for achieving the CACB accreditation, esp. for internationally trained architects, as it is designed to test basic architecural knowledge. Whereas, the ExAC seems like a test of experience level that is specific within Canada, that establishes entry level for lisencure. Since this is a test that is meant to establish competency, cost factor should not be a main factor. ExAC should be computerized and offered anytime/anywhere like most professional tests these days.

Date:  May 02, 2008
User: cvriend
Age: 39

An option for Canadian architects that reflects Canadian requirements seems advantageous, especially if it would reduce time and costs, but moving backwards in having the exams offered only once a year seems unfortunate.

Date:  May 03, 2008
User: Dacad
Age: 58

what is difference US or CAN? Regarding architecture and a way of building of course?

Date:  May 06, 2008
User: Tmac
Age: 37

The ARE are a joke. What's the Flatiron bldg clad in? is that important? What is flemish bond brick coursing? Terminology is different in the US and Can and from locale to locale. University exams are harder and more comprehensive. We passed those what is the point of these. I think they just discourage a lot of very talented people from sticking with the profession. Fed up after 6 years of school, years of experience and still no real professional title until passing 9 irrelevant exams!

Date:  May 07, 2008
User: joey
Age: 43

IMO the whole architectural exam process has been blown way out of proportion. What did the OAA do pre-Ncarb? It wasn't that long ago, was it? Why not just go back to the process we had pre-Ncarb days and forget the word ARE. The level of education at Canadian schools is probably the same since way back then, so why do we need to invent something new? Please lets be careful not to get into making another NCARB process here.

Date:  May 15, 2008
User: S.B.G.
Age: 25

I agree that the ARE is costly, a duplication of material already tested in university, outdated, and not reflective of (specifically/exclusively) Canadian practice. However, the lack of reciprocity is a huge concern. I believe interns would be better served by negotiating options with the NCARB. Perhaps an optional test on top of the ExAC to cover material required to meet the standards of the NCARB. That way, those who wish to (or later decide to) practice outside the provinces that recognize the ExAC can upgrade their exam. Another option is to negotiate exemptions for Canadian students based on the material included in the accredited programs or include the tests in the programs directly. The PEO has developed means of incorporating the standardized exams in university programs so that their applicants are automatically given credit.

Date:  May 15, 2008
User: Shirley Ting
Age: 32

Canada wants to be even more distinctive and detach itself from the US, that's fine, but a lot of our building structure and the way we do things are inherently similar to what the US does, this makes our architects freer to practice in either country. As well, there are other countries where the system and way things are done are similiar to the US. I think trying to be super distinct will hinder the possibility of more Canadians branching out and expanding their experience.

Date:  May 23, 2008
User: eddyson
Age: 54

An intern who is unemployed in an Architectural firm may find it extremely difficult to pay for and commence the exams in the first place.

Date:  May 30, 2008
User: H.H.
Age: 33

The current number of exams is onerous and expensive, and the content is obviously geared towards Americans. Hopefully ExAC will streamline the process and introduce Canadian (or local Provincial) material as a priority to make this component of internship more relevant to the profession in Canada. Reciprocity of the made-in-Canada solution with the US does not seem to be a big issue for the vast majority of architects in Canada, but the change should not unduly make it more difficult for Canadian architects to register in the US (and vice versa). Consultation with NCARB and/or AIA should be ongoing, not after the fact.

Date:  Jun 02, 2008
User: SK_C
Age: 38

Mutiple ARE attempts that once a year Canadian exams. What if I fall sick?

Date:  Jun 11, 2008
User: leadfoot
Age: 40

I like knowing I am at the same licencing qualifications as the US.

Date:  Jun 13, 2008
User: djanssen
Age: 36

The AREs should be simplified and any new scheme should ensure reciprocity.

Date:  Jun 17, 2008
User: tinac
Age: 31

ExAC are great and once undertaken they are out of the way. OAA should not be worrying about enabling brain drain to the US and worrying about reciprocity. Those that want to move to the US and practice there should register with their governing associations. It is not canada's job to provide the States with qualified professionals. Also, even if Canadians write the ARE, they are not gauranteed reciprocity in all the US states...there are a LOT of loopholes.

Date:  Jul 20, 2008
User: edcuhaci
Age: 78

This should be free for the first time. If the intern fails then there should be a charge not exceeding $400 the second time and $100 each additional...

Date:  Sep 28, 2008
User: Poet of Bithyni
Age: 33

EXAC should not have to be "commenced after 2 years of experience." If an improvement is made, then the process should not be a touhger one that is presented than before; i.e Why is it that ARE Exams may be written anytime and now with this proposal EXAC may not? This is absurd.

Date:  Oct 06, 2008
User: joelb
Age: 34

Having just completed the ARE program, I have mixed feelings. Much of the material tested is material that already covered (to some degree) in school. Therefore, the new testing should reflect more of what an architect experiences day to day in the real world. Leave the statics equations back in school. That's what consultants are for. I think the University programs need to look at this problem in conjunction with the associations to streamline the education process. I support having both options (ExAC or ARE).

Date:  Nov 04, 2008
User: andrew-toronto
Age: 32

NCARB stress and make you study for elements and topics that have little to no place in our climate / environment while not focussing on topics unique to ontario.

Date:  Mar 22, 2009
User: jimes
Age: 32

Many firms I know reimburse for exam costs. ARE does duplicate some material taught in universities, but serves as a consistent means for individuals to be examined on this material. Universities don't do this - their evaluations are based on a mixture of assignments, individual and group projects, and reports and what not. AREs take a lot of time, but I personally don't mind and would rather get it for reciprocity now, than have to do them again later.