Responses to consultation on re-examination

Responses to consultation on re-examination (10/05/2007)

Prescribed Examination ¡V Responses to Consultation (Re-Examination)

At its meeting on 3rd May 2007, the Board noted responses to a consultation it had requested on proposed changes to the Prescribed Examination, for candidates who had previously applied and were not successful.

Set out below in order of the proposed amendments are the responses to the consultation.

Existing Procedure

¡§Re-Examination

1. In the circumstances that a candidate receives notification under section 2.8.2 that they have failed the examination, they may apply to be re-examined at any stage following receipt of the notification. The same procedures for re-examination will apply as for initial examination. No candidate shall be re-examined more than twice, unless the Registrar is satisfied that there is substantial evidence that the candidate¡¦s level of competence has materially improved since the last previous examination.

Proposed Procedure

Re-Examination

1. In the circumstances that a candidate receives notification under section 2.8.2 that they have failed the examination and have satisfied neither a majority of thematic headings nor a majority of criteria, they may apply to be re-examined at any stage following receipt of the notification. No candidate shall be permitted to apply to be re-examined more than twice, unless the Registrar is satisfied that there is substantial evidence that the candidate¡¦s level of competence has materially improved since the last previous examination.

Comments

University of Huddersfield, Richard A Fellows, Head of Department:

¡§The proposals seem straightforward and eminently fair. I would support their implementation.¡¨

University of Liverpool, Professor Robert Kronenbourg, Head of School:

¡§ƒÀ¡¨

RIAS, Maureen Goodfellow, Director of Administration:

¡§The proposals were discussed at the RIAS Education Board at its meeting on 27 March and I have been asked by our Education Convenor, Gordon Smith to confirm that the RIAS is pleased to support the proposals.¡¨

Welsh School of Architecture, Sarah Lupton, Senior Lecturer

¡§We have read the changes proposed and approve¡¨

Andrew Clark, Lead Examiner, ARB

¡§I am happy that the Proposed Procedure is satisfactory with the consideration that the Board review the use of the words ¡¥a majority of¡¦ with a view to replacing it with the word ¡¥ sufficient¡¦.

This change may require the amendment of clause 2.6.2 (b) which may not be the subject of this review.¡¨

Existing Procedure

2. At the discretion of the Registrar, taking into account the report of the examiners, candidates who failed the examination but were deemed by the examiners to satisfy 2.6.2 (b), may only be required to be re-examined with respect to the specific criteria where compliance had not been demonstrated. All other candidates will be required to be re-examined against all the criteria.

Proposed Procedure

Re-sit

2. Where candidates have met a majority of thematic headings and a majority of criteria, yet do not meet the requirements for ¡¥Referral to Lead Examiner¡¦, they will not be required to be re-examined against the criteria in any thematic headings which they have entirely satisfied. Candidates will be required to satisfy (subject to eligibility) at re-sit, all criteria within the one or two thematic headings that were not entirely satisfied. Candidates eligible for re-sit must satisfy the outstanding criteria within 12 months following receipt of the notification of failure.

Comments

University of Huddersfield, Richard A Fellows, Head of Department:

¡§The proposals seem straightforward and eminently fair. I would support their implementation.¡¨

University of Liverpool, Professor Robert Kronenbourg, Head of School:

¡§ƒÀ¡¨

RIAS, Maureen Goodfellow, Director of Administration:

Welsh School of Architecture, Sarah Lupton, Senior Lecturer

¡§We have read the changes proposed and approve¡¨

Andrew Clark, Lead Examiner, ARB

¡§If a candidate meets only a majority of Criteria in ALL of the thematic headings then this must be a re-sit of the whole examination as there the examiners would need to re-examine all thematic areas.¡¨

Existing Procedure

3. No candidate will be re-examined if it is found that they have submitted an Analytical Commentary and/or Supporting Material any part of which is not their own work.¡¨

Proposed Procedure

Referral to Lead Examiner

3. At Part 1 level, where candidates have met 13 or more criteria and failed no more than one criterion in any thematic heading, subject to the decision of the majority of the examiners, the candidate may be offered the opportunity of satisfying the outstanding criteria by referral to the lead examiner, who will consider a single further submission made by the candidate. Where the lead examiner finds that all the criteria have then been met in accordance with 2.6.2(a), he or she will report that finding to the Registrar. Candidates eligible for referral to lead examiner at Part 1 must satisfy the outstanding criteria within 12 months following receipt of the notification of failure.

Comments

University of Huddersfield, Richard A Fellows, Head of Department:

¡§The proposals seem straightforward and eminently fair. I would support their implementation.¡¨

University of Liverpool, Professor Robert Kronenbourg, Head of School:

¡§Appropriate¡¨

RIAS, Maureen Goodfellow, Director of Administration:

Welsh School of Architecture, Sarah Lupton, Senior Lecturer

¡§We have read the changes proposed and approve¡¨

Andrew Clark, Lead Examiner, ARB

¡§Will 3. require an interview with the lead examiner or will the single further submission be examined without reference or interview of the candidate ?¡¨

Existing Procedure

Nil

Proposed Procedure

4. At Part 2 level, where candidates have met 22 or more criteria and failed no more than one criterion in any thematic heading, subject to the decision of the majority of the examiners the candidate may be offered the opportunity of satisfying the outstanding criteria by referral to the lead examiner, who will consider a single further submission made by the candidate. Where the lead examiner finds that all the criteria have then been met in accordance with 2.6.2(a), he or she will report that finding to the Registrar. Candidates eligible for referral to lead examiner at Part 2 must satisfy the outstanding criteria within 12 months following receipt of the notification of failure.

Comments

University of Huddersfield, Richard A Fellows, Head of Department:

¡§The proposals seem straightforward and eminently fair. I would support their implementation.¡¨

University of Liverpool, Professor Robert Kronenbourg, Head of School:

¡§Appropriate¡¨

RIAS, Maureen Goodfellow, Director of Administration:

Welsh School of Architecture, Sarah Lupton, Senior Lecturer

¡§We have read the changes proposed and approve¡¨

Andrew Clark, Lead Examiner, ARB

¡§Will there be the need for an interview as above ?¡¨

Existing Procedure

Nil

Proposed Procedure

5. Where the lead examiner finds at a referral that the remaining criteria have not been satisfied, he or she will recommend (subject to eligibility) that the candidate be re-examined for all criteria within the remaining thematic heading.

Comments

University of Huddersfield, Richard A Fellows, Head of Department:

¡§The proposals seem straightforward and eminently fair. I would support their implementation.¡¨

University of Liverpool, Professor Robert Kronenbourg, Head of School:

¡§Appropriate¡¨

RIAS, Maureen Goodfellow, Director of Administration:

Welsh School of Architecture, Sarah Lupton, Senior Lecturer

¡§We have read the changes proposed and approve¡¨

Andrew Clark, Lead Examiner, ARB

¡§O.K.¡¨

Existing Procedure

Nil

Proposed Procedure

6. Where time limits are specified in 2, 3 and 4 above, candidates who do not complete satisfy the outstanding criteria within the specified period; either - for reasons of achievement or - by failing to complete the process within the specified time, will be required to make an application for re-examination.

Comments

University of Huddersfield, Richard A Fellows, Head of Department:

¡§The proposals seem straightforward and eminently fair. I would support their implementation.¡¨

University of Liverpool, Professor Robert Kronenbourg, Head of School:

¡§Unclear ¡V within the thematic heading or not?¡¨

RIAS, Maureen Goodfellow, Director of Administration:

Welsh School of Architecture, Sarah Lupton, Senior Lecturer

¡§We have read the changes proposed and approve¡¨

Andrew Clark, Lead Examiner, ARB

¡§O.K.¡¨

Existing Procedure

¡§3. No candidate will be re-examined if it is found that they have submitted an Analytical Commentary and/or Supporting Material any part of which is not their own work.¡¨

Proposed Procedure

7. No candidate will be re-examined if it is found that they have submitted an Analytical Commentary and/or Supporting Material any part of which is not their own work.¡¨

Comments

University of Huddersfield, Richard A Fellows, Head of Department:

¡§The proposals seem straightforward and eminently fair. I would support their implementation.¡¨

University of Liverpool, Professor Robert Kronenbourg, Head of School:

¡§ƒÀ¡¨

RIAS, Maureen Goodfellow, Director of Administration:

Welsh School of Architecture, Sarah Lupton, Senior Lecturer

¡§We have read the changes proposed and approve¡¨

Andrew Clark, Lead Examiner, ARB

¡§O.K.¡¨

[End]