I received a Masters degree in Architecture in1998, completed IDP years ago, and have taken multiple ARE exams without failure. However, I am still not a registered architect.

My confidence grew as I took and passed my first four ARE sections with ease. However, when I reached the point of taking the general structures and lateral forces exams, sections for which I lacked confidence, I suddenly found many reasons to procrastinate, with the six month waiting period should I fail an exam being paramount among them.

While my situation is not uncommon and I know former classmates who have not yet taken a single exam, my unregistered status makes me uncomfortable. Even worse, friends who became registered under the old system of testing can't understand why today's candidates aren't more aggressive about becoming registered. What these individuals seem to forget however is that fear, whether positive or negative, is an incredible motivator.

We've all heard accounts of architects who didn't have time to study for all of the sections in the old two-day test format but tested anyway. They recount stories of passing sections that they thought they had failed and vice versa. Why would a candidate take a test for which they were not prepared? The answer is fear. Under the old system, missing a test date meant that you would have to delay registration for at least another six months as tests were only administered twice a year. Fear motivated candidates to test. Today, with the scheduling freedom we now have, this same fear motivates candidates to procrastinate. Old exam format or new, people do not want to be forced into putting their dreams on hold for six months.

While I strongly support NCARB's decision to create a five year revolving clock for testing, I believe this change needs to be taken one step forward. The six month waiting period is a significant reason to procrastinate when lacking confidence and a reason to get out of "test taking rhythm" if failure does occur. To lose confidence after setbacks is common and waiting six months to "get back on the horse" can enhance this loss and lead to a slowdown in testing. If a candidate truly can take the same test each day of the week and never see the same question twice then there is no reason for the waiting period. The cost of the exams are such that it is prohibitive for individuals to attempt a failed exam over and over and over again without preparing for the material and with or without the waiting period, a superior level of knowledge and competence will still have to be demonstrated for a passing result to be earned.

The five year revolving clock is a good starting point, but in order to foster more rapid testing, the six month waiting period that follows failed exams should be abolished. Doing so will take away yet another reason for candidates to avoid testing while doing nothing to weaken the ARE.