Having served as a member of the APELSCIDLA Board for 8 years from '96 through '04, I've heard the arguements from architecture students regarding their readiness to take the exam (ARE), and I have found them to be lacking.  There is a mistaken belief that the ARE tests a students knowledge of what they learned in academia. That is not the case.  While in academia, they were tested and found to be suffieciently educated to receive their B-Arch.   The ARE tests an intern's readiness to practice as an architect and only a thorough understanding of both academics and practice experience can adequately prepare one to successfully complete the exam and practice in that capacity.

"The engineers allow exam taking as soon as gradualtion, so why can't architects do it?", is another argument given in support of this proposed regulatory change.  I ask my fellow architectural practioners to consider how many young licensed engineers they thought had the seasoning to practice without supervision.  Just because they do it, doesn't make it right. 

Furthermore, since cost of the ARE is not an insignificant sum, the resulting failure to pass the exam as soon as graduation from academia, will not only serve to frustrate the premature exam takers, but will impovish them at a time in their life when they can least afford it.

I am against allowing interns to sit for the ARE until they have had at least 3 years experience working for a licensed, practicing architect. However, I do not believe that completion of a structured IDP program should be required prior to taking the exam.  In short, experience is critical but IDP is not. I believe that as long as an intern has worked for three years in a firm (with or without an IDP program) they should be allowed to sit for the exam, even if that time was obtained as a student. Completion of an IDP program could still be required as a prerequisite to licensure.

I am a firm believer in the IDP program as a good tool to measure experience needed for the ARE...BUT there are several portions of the ARE that are better suited to be taken right after graduation.  I recommend these only because in my 13 years of experience I have never relied on my skills alone to run structure calculations for liability reasons.  I also never was asked to know the historical significance an agora.  Portions of the ARE that cover these kind of questions are more apt to be passed when allowed to be taken right after graduation only because it is fresher in your mind and 3 + year have not passed.  All others are application of skills expected to be learned on the job.