What Are We Trying To Do?

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1176 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2010 - 06:53 am:    100421 WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO DO ? by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Cincinnati, OH Just exactly what are we trying to do through the various certification programs? Are they right-of-passage exercises? Are they initiations? Are they attempts to ascertain level of understanding? Are they efforts to determine if a good, sound general understanding is in place? Are we trying to make the exam better and more valuable than the one offered 10 years ago [where many who took it then, say they could not pass today]? Aren’t we trying to determine the same things about one’s understanding, abilities and knowledge in a general manner? When I took the architectural registration exam in Ohio in 1963, it was a 5-day marathon with design problems, history, mechanical equipment, practice, and oh yes, that topic dear to all hearts-- structural. This exam was then given twice a year and we found out that just prior to our iteration the structural exam included the design calculations for a two-way flat slab, including a bar placement diagram! Oh, sure every young architect facing that prospect is going to be accomplished enough to do that, in lieu of farming it out to a real structural engineer who could “whip” it out in minutes. Flatly, unrealistic examination-- but then the whole exam often was referred to as a method aimed "unionizing" the profession [i.e., keep the unsavory out!]. Then, too, the 12-hour design problem traditionally was a project that one of the Examiners had run through his or her office, so there was a pre-conceived solution you had to somehow match! And lastly, the real hook-- of the 7 sections you had to pass all 7 with 70 and have an “accum” of 75. Now tell me how many people got 70 plus on the design, but never could get to the 75--- a method meant to subjectively give thumbs-up or thumbs down without challenge. Know of a prof at a big school that took this exam 8 times before passing, and also another fellow took it twice a year for 7 straight years. What’s this all about? It is about examining applicants to a proper level and with reasonable chance for success with decent preparation. Any exam can be written to “bust out” the majority, simply by digging into the remote near-minutia details of the topic [the places a few may go into their experience, but very much off the main trail of practice and work]. What is accomplished there or with that-- pride in writing a tough exam? Is it proper to evaluate on a basis and level that relies on fringe, remote and highly unusual aspects of topics or quirks in lieu of clear, incisive questions? Is it proper to evaluate to all aspects of a standard that is not universally used? Even when 5-years experience is required, this may not be fulltime specifications writing [for example] and may be confined to one type of document because of the direction of the practice. But it is perfectly reasonable to establish a level of general understanding of specifications writing for example, that truly examines one’s ability and knowledge and is not steeped in minutia and quirkiness that will trip up the best. And not that we should resort to the World War II training method known as “G-2” [distinct but unauthorized identification of information that would be on the exam] there is need to provide fairly extensive, pertinent and easily assimilated reference and study material. We may be great spec writers and absolute failures at writing technical texts or imaginative novels. The reference material needs careful preening and creation to make the point in-- guess what?-- clear, concise, complete and correct ways. Why confound, befuddle or “trick” applicants with such a malaise of information that studying becomes a nightmare? And in some respects this is also true in the formatting of the exam questions. Sound policy, it would seem, is to test to a rigorous, but reasonable level, with educationally sound questions written by testing professionals, clear, straight-forward and in a highly assimilated format. And with lasting evenness so versions test and are valued equally. It is true that many dedicated souls pass the first time, but more than likely their proprieties of life and their ability to study [time, effort, etc.] are quite different from others. We need not accede to the “weaker” with conflicting or other things in their lives, but we should be able to assess the abilities of all in more moderate, straight-forward, trick-free and less strenuous terms-- but still to a good professional level. And without undue smugness in effort. Here “professional” does not mean “know-it-all-done-it-all” but rather capable of doing in a sound and timely manner, in regard to circumstances at hand. Maybe we need to look around at some things.