Monday November 30, 2009
Blaming the system is simply work of the lazy I WAS amazed to read the comments of some people who were preparing for a career in architecture and their disdain for the system in which everyone has to go through to get to the top stage. That only 9% of about 300 candidates passed is a shameful indication of how prepared our future acrchitects would be. Architects not only need to have the knowledge of statutory regulations and law but also artistic talent and social responsibility. Surely the professional exam is a test of their full range of knowledge, including these. I am a practising architect who has gone through the mill just like everyone else. I got through in my first attempt because I worked hard to prepare for the exams. It is unfair to blame the system or the seemingly “stringent” exam for the failure of those who did not pass. For the information of those interested, we were informed at a workshop before the exam that firstly there was no quota for the number of candidates passing, and secondly that the pass mark for each paper was just 50%. We were also told that we would be allowed to read our questions for 15 minutes before starting to answer, and that our papers would be marked by two examiners. In case of disagreement between the two, a third examiner would re-mark the paper. Perhaps the candidates who did not pass did not bother to listen to what was said at the workshops. As far as I know, no other professional exam, such as the CLP for the legal profession or the accountant’s licensing exams, divulges marks or reasons for a candidate not passing. LAM allows one to resit as many times as is required to pass. Are some so spoilt that they expect everything to be given to them on a platter? Are they saying that we may have colluded to get a pass from the “few individuals who decide our fate”? It is an insult to all those who have worked hard and who understand what being a professional is all about. AR.I PASSED, Subang Jaya.