AARE common mistakes
AARE · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating the accessibility chapter of the building code as a standalone checklist applied at the end of design, rather than integrating clear-floor-space, reach-range, and route-continuity requirements into the earliest planning and programming decisions.
Candidates often study accessibility as a memorization set (dimensions, slopes, counts) and mentally file it under 'code review,' so during scenario questions they default to layout and program logic first and retrofit compliance afterward, which produces answers that violate route continuity or maneuvering clearance.
What to do instead
When practicing any planning or programming scenario, force a compliance pass at three checkpoints: schematic massing, room-level layout, and finish/detail. At each checkpoint, explicitly trace the accessible route from site arrival through the primary function, and write down the governing clearances and reach ranges from memory before checking them. Build a one-page personal summary of route-continuity and maneuvering-clearance rules and re-derive it weekly.
Answering code and zoning questions by reciting a remembered number (setback, occupancy load factor, egress width) without first identifying the occupancy classification, construction type, and whether the building is sprinklered.
Numbers are easier to memorize than the logic chain that selects them, and exam stems often bury the occupancy or sprinkler status in a subordinate clause, so candidates pattern-match to the last number they drilled and skip the classification step that determines which number applies.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed decision sequence for every code item: classify occupancy, determine construction type and allowable height/area, note sprinkler and other system credits, then compute. Practice by writing the sequence at the top of scratch paper and narrating it aloud on each practice item; if you cannot state the occupancy and sprinkler status, mark the item as a knowledge gap rather than guessing.
Confusing schematic design deliverables with design development deliverables, or answering a project-delivery question with the phase in which an activity 'feels' like it belongs rather than the phase in which the standard scope of services assigns it.
Candidates learn phases from studio experience and marketing narratives rather than from contract language, so they misplace activities such as cost reconciliation, code-compliance confirmation, or specification development, and they conflate owner approvals with architect deliverables.
What to do instead
Build a phase-by-phase matrix from memory (programming, schematic, design development, construction documents, bidding, construction contract administration) with columns for drawings, specifications, cost activities, owner decisions, and consultant input. Reconstruct it from blank paper until stable, then test yourself by placing individual tasks into cells and justifying the placement with the deliverable that evidences it.
Selecting a structural system or framing scheme on span alone, ignoring lateral-force-resisting strategy, story drift, foundation implications, and how the choice interacts with the architectural program and MEP distribution.
Structural content is often studied as isolated member behavior and load types, so candidates answer system-selection questions with a single span rule of thumb and fail to see that the lateral system and drift control frequently govern the choice, especially for tall, slender, or irregular plans.
What to do instead
For each common system (steel moment frame, braced frame, concrete shear wall, flat plate, wood platform frame, composite deck), write a short profile covering economical span range, lateral resistance, drift behavior, foundation demands, floor-to-floor depth, and coordination penalties. Practice by giving each profile a one-line 'when it wins' and 'when it loses' statement, and apply both before choosing in scenario items.
Sizing or evaluating mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems without first establishing the load drivers - envelope performance, internal gains, ventilation requirements, and zoning - and instead reasoning from equipment rules of thumb.
Rules of thumb are memorable and appear in quick-reference material, so candidates reach for them under time pressure and skip the load-and-zoning logic that the exam is actually testing, producing answers that ignore orientation, glazing ratio, occupancy density, or simultaneous heating and cooling.
What to do instead
Practice a load-driver inventory for every HVAC or electrical scenario: envelope and glazing, orientation, internal gains from people, lighting and equipment, ventilation and exhaust, and zoning by exposure and schedule. Answer with the driver that dominates before naming equipment. Maintain a short list of typical load densities and ventilation rates with their units, and verify unit consistency on every calculation.
Reading a contract-administration scenario and answering what the architect should do as a design professional rather than what the contract documents authorize the architect to do, particularly on site observation, payment certification, and authority to stop work.
Candidates import intuition from studio and internship culture, where the architect is assumed to be the owner's agent with broad authority, and they miss that the standard scope limits observation, conditions payment certification on the architect's evaluation, and does not make the architect a guarantor of the contractor's means and methods.
What to do instead
For each administration topic (submittals, RFIs, change orders, payment applications, substantial completion, punch lists), write the architect's authority, the standard of care, and the required documentation as three separate lines. Practice by rewriting each scenario answer to name the contractual basis, and flag any answer that implies supervision, guarantee, or unilateral direction as suspect.
Treating the architect's ethical obligations as a matter of personal judgment or client loyalty, rather than as obligations that can require disclosure, refusal, or withdrawal even against the client's wishes.
Professional-practice content is often skimmed as a list of canons and rules, so candidates answer ethics scenarios by weighing business consequences and client satisfaction, missing that the correct answer frequently involves disclosing a conflict, declining to certify, or reporting an unsafe condition regardless of the effect on the relationship.
What to do instead
For each ethics scenario, apply a fixed three-step test: identify the duty owed and to whom, identify the competing interest, then select the action that preserves public health, safety, and welfare and full disclosure. Practice by writing the disclosure or refusal sentence the architect would actually send, and review the standards governing conflicts of interest, competence, and obligations upon discovering a code violation.
Specifying or comparing materials by generic reputation (durability, sustainability, cost) without tying the choice to the specific exposure, substrate, joint movement, and compatibility conditions of the project, and without distinguishing prescriptive from performance specification language.
Materials are studied as property tables, so candidates answer with the material's headline characteristic and overlook that failure usually comes from incompatible assemblies, unaccommodated movement, or moisture paths, and they confuse a performance requirement with a proprietary product designation.
What to do instead
For each major material family, build an assembly-level note covering substrate, movement accommodation, moisture and vapor control, fastener and sealant compatibility, and fire and acoustic performance. Practice writing one prescriptive and one performance specification clause for the same scope and identifying what shifts to the contractor. On scenario items, name the failure mechanism before naming the material.
Performing site and environmental analysis as a descriptive exercise - listing soils, drainage, solar orientation, and views - instead of converting each finding into a design or planning consequence that constrains the scheme.
Site content is often taught as inventory and mapping, so candidates produce thorough observations but stop short of the inference step, and exam items that ask for the design implication find them with no conclusion drawn.
What to do instead
Practice a two-column format for every site factor: observation and design consequence, with the consequence stated as a decision (building placement, grading strategy, orientation, buffer, foundation type). For each practice site description, force at least one consequence per factor and identify which factor most constrains the program. Also review drainage, slope, and solar geometry calculations with units checked.
Managing the exam by reading the stem once and answering immediately, without budgeting time per item, flagging uncertain items for return, or checking that the selected answer addresses the actual question asked (for example, 'least appropriate' or 'first step').
Under time pressure, candidates default to recognition-based answering, and the exam deliberately uses long stems with distractors that are true statements but do not answer the question, so a true-but-irrelevant option gets selected and review time is never recovered.
What to do instead
Run timed practice sets that mirror the exam's item count and duration, and enforce a fixed protocol: read the stem to the question mark, restate the question in a few words on scratch paper, predict the answer before reading options, then eliminate. Flag any item exceeding a set time threshold and return only after completing the pass. Track your error types (knowledge, misread, calculation) to target study rather than re-reading everything.