Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

REgo Exam part 3

edited April 2008 in architecture
Can anyone explain what happens in the rego exam part 3? what is asked, the format, how you can study etc etc. anythign at all would be helpful.



  • edited 9:29PM
    I believe there will be a requirement to construct a clear sentence and to be able to put capitals and punctuation in the correct places. Being able to speak English will be considered as a future requirement.
  • edited 9:29PM
    Here Here.
  • edited May 2008
    Did you know that a lot of problems encountered in architectural and design practises are due to poor grammer, punctuation and diction. It was simply neanderthal until section 28 turned it into litigation as well.
  • cece
    edited 9:29PM
    Ironic. I think you'll find it's spelt "Hear, hear".
  • edited June 2008
    The irony is you posted a comment without providing any useful input ........and it was your first ever post. What a waste.

    "Remove the iPod and get back to work".
  • edited 9:29PM
    Yes Ce. Thank you for correcting me. The irony was intentional.
  • edited 9:29PM
    christ its boomer hour again!
  • edited 9:29PM
    Boomer? Please explain. Is that some sort of alchoholic drink or is it the induced state?
  • edited 9:29PM
    didnt know nsw was pregnant?
  • edited 9:29PM
    Didn't know pregnant was a noun!
  • edited 9:29PM
    What is the rego exam part 3 anyway? Do they differ from state - I can only remember the one here in Victoria having the oral and written parts... and the hand in of the log book.
  • edited June 2008
    brilliant, mark. thank you so much for the 'useful input'. what a clown.

    peter, part 3 is the oral exam, after the log book (pt 1) and written (pt 2).

    in case anyone comes across this forum and actually wants the information, i'll gladly answer my own question.

    part 3 seems to be executed in at least 3 different styles - a step by step question and answer about the ABIC contract, from cover to cover; a step by step scenario in which the examiner acts as a client asking to be walked through a project from first meeting to defaults and liabilties; or a general conversation about what you have experienced and what you have done.

    once again the architecture community shows itself up to be a bunch of muppets stumbling blindly in the dark in search of any scrap of relevance society and the economy throw their way. how about next time a young architect or graduate attempts to use this forum to get a straight answer, you offer one up and skip all the wanking and back-slapping?

    cheers y'all
  • edited 9:29PM
    I hope this forum is only useless when people start throwing things and forgetting what the topic is.
    If it is useless all the time then why post on it? If you post a misspelt and confusing question and don't check back for an answer for two months, you shouldn't expect too many buckets of respect.
  • edited 9:29PM
    apologies peter. got too hot under the collar. edited it out. yes, the forum is only 'useless' when people go off topic, which is what happens so often. i post here in the hope that i get decent discussions.

    misspellings should never be a reason for a reply, in my opinion. every single person who has complained about my spelling has misspelt in other posts. mark melb misspells in his 2nd post here. complainig about punctuation and spelling is a waste of everyones' time. and i checked back every hour for a week in hope of a last minute reply, to no avail. and still no-one has offered an answer. this exam happens every 6 months for all the graduates who wish to go on to become architects and yet no-one is up for helping.

    apologies again, to peter. thanks for this service.
  • edited 9:29PM
    Well dav, I appreciate your frustration and peter's as well, but to the point. you asked a question and got a lot of rot. I often pose a question and get a lot of trot. That seems to be our lot, but wouldn't it be a little bit more awful if all peter's hard work never existed. Thank you to peter and all.

    I posted a thingo about client professioanl relationships (which peter very kindly removed from where ever the heck I had put it) which I think might answer a little bit what you might have to expect from a part three exam. I say that only going by what you above describe the format to be and my own shivering horror henceforth for the role playing of client professional relationships I was inducted into the other day.
    I hope that is not what it is but I have a feeling that you should not go into the dark night expecting to be greeted as an old friend. Expect a mugging and then you should be pleasantly surprised.

    AS FAR AS ROLE PLAYING. If the senario involves someone pretending to be a client, then expect a lot of questions as to the cost of building a structure and none what so ever on the artistic merit.
    So, make sure who have a budget worked out or that you are at least fully cognicant of how to go about gathering together the nessecary information to construct a budget. That's where I really flunked it. I knew it came in well under budget but I had forgotten all the figures, and it was not a good feeling.
    Next forget style and energy conservation and even future cost analysis in favour of knowing your fire regulations and BCA codes and types.
    Does the foundation work and is it cheap. Is the roof waterproof and is it cheap, etc.
    Good luck and best wishes if you need no luck.
  • edited 9:29PM
    Condem me for a useful observation! I might be a client (or senior) making that observation someday.
  • edited June 2008
    thanks simon. i asked the question a few days before the exam; my description of the 3 styles is based on what i and others experienced. i passed, by the way.

    and mark, picking up spelling and grammatical errors is never a useful observation. it's the internet, it's a forum. people are typing fast and getting on with other things. the message is clear, even if it's misspelled.
  • edited 9:29PM
    S'alright Dav.
    Now that I know what Part 3 is I am able to recall my own experience, well only one piece of it. People had told me before that a good answer was "I would ring my insurer". We all seemed to get the same sort of questions then (in 2000), basically, "what would you do if a client rang you in the middle of a rainy night and said their roof had fallen in, killing the cat and pinning their 8 year old under a beam. "Ring my insurer". One question was something about relating a cost increase to a client, always a touchy subject. The full time academic who asked me said, "so say the value of the extension had jumped up to, I don't know, $10,000.." upon which I and the other examiner looked at her with incredulity. She picked this up and continued, "or whatever". I don't know if it was a deliberate trap or not! So my advice would be that they're not looking for an einstein, they just want to know that you have a general awareness of how things work in the day to day situations thrown up in any architect's office in the land.
    I do remember spending much time looking at the notes from the Deakin BPA course, an A4 folder full of alarming situations and what you should do in them. It was quite useful for covering the gaps in my knowledge.
  • edited July 2008
    The attached link by Norman Blogster may be of interest.
    The students' guide to st.architecture
  • edited 9:29PM
    Dav, good on you for passing. I was talking with my wife about a recent job interview she underwent in which the "client/consultant' relationship i underwent was replayed almost to the letter. I then went and did a quick peer review and similar stories of surprise shafting in job interviews as I had experianced in my competition interview came up as well. It seems to be a pattern. Make the subject ,'moi', as uncomfortable as possible and then grill them a little longer and then reveal that we're all actually chums, but I wont say how you went till your told later.
    It is all about tearing you down in relation to the fact that these, 'elders', are feeling the pressure of future competition and so they think they are better placed if they rip your foundations out from under you. I said to my wife that I couldn't understand that the interviewers didn't look at the merits and inovations of my design, but instead concentrated on making me verbally justify aspects of the design which i had already addressed structuraly and visually. That is, is it BCA complient here, here and here? Well yeah, there it is in the design. Well what about the budget? . Well yeah, I wouldn't have come up with this if you hadn't told me two million bucks was the limit.
    Of course I designed within the brief. What I didn't expect was that I would have to justify myself as if I hadn't designed within the brief.  I was asked a load of questioned that concentrated on confirming what was already, in my opinion, obvious to any scrutinous observor.
    INSTEAD, they could have asked me what is it that makes your building diffferant, or, what is it that you like most about your design, or what is it that we as clients should be most impressed by, or what design features will save us the most money, or how have you intergrated the ESDesign functions and how many multifunction features have you included?
    No, the game is to ignore all that might make a differance and instead attack as if there is nothing differant from the usual budget, BCA compliance or what ever that might make it run of the mill. If you acknowlege a differance then you acknowlege a threat. That's my asumption anyway, for the pathological refusal to treat innovation with the respect of acknowlegement.
    Do you feel like talking about it? Tell, if you will, what you went through?
    And Mark, quite so about pickiness being merely pickiness. A most unattractive habit.
Sign In or Register to comment.