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.