CLARB LARE Scoring

It is annoying that it takes so long.  The reason they do it is so they can evaluate “bad” questions.  For example, for a particular question, if 45% of people choose answer “A” and 45% choose “D”, the question is generally deemed to be poorly worded and the question is thrown out.  They then have to adjust the scores nationally.  Also, as Tosh said, I think they are looking at the pass/fail line which is why no one can tell you precisely how many questions you need to get right in order to pass a section.

That being said, I wish they would tell you your preliminary score (pass/fail/or too close to call) immediately upon completing the exam.  If you got 95% correct, it can be assumed that regardless of the curve, you have passed regardless of how the pass fail line falls (the opposite can be said if you only get 50%).  They could then still do their adjustments and give you an official score later.  Just my 2 cents.

The test is pass/fail only.  If you fail they identify areas you need to work on, but I think they are pretty general like “construction contracts” as your area of weakness.  After taking a LARE prep course, I’m under the impression that the passing percentage is somewhere around 85%.  Depending on the section, I know you need to get at least a certain number of each problem type correct (particularly with section 3 & 4).  Again, they never actually tell you what you need to pass or how you did on the exam beyond pass/fail.

I haven’t taken the LEED-AP exam, but with the GRE the preliminary score was instant and I liked that aspect of it.

Hi Peter- what prep course did you take?  I studied for my last section on my own, and it was painful.  I am in the “still waiting on results’ boat on that one and am feeling the 4-6 week pain…

They’re all set up to gain public trust and ensure some level of consistent ‘minimal knowledge’ across the board.  This is true for all professions (law/medicine/engineering/architecture). 

The LARE process is, in my opinion, easy – in comparison to other related fields.  The tests are straight forward (esp compared to the PE) and as is record of experience (in comparison to IDP for building architects).

Wow. Comparing those scores to the previous format, it appears the new version is (dare I say it?) easier. It seems that candidates are figuring out how to maneuver through section 4, though even the first time test takers scored better on 4 than people did routinely on section E. It would be interesting to hear CLARB’s opinion on the increasing pass rates.

Is the new test perceived as being easier, or harder? Im not sure if there is a “fair” way to answer this. Unless someone took the old test and immediately took the second and then compared the results to see if they were extreme enough to draw a comparison. I have however heard that the computerization of the new test has practically ruled out a lot of the mistakes that people made in the past (drafting error, and calculation) personally not taken either I was only worried about the grading portion and now I don’t seem so worried about it. Has anyone recently taken it that can give me some pointers, or what to expect?

All,

I recently sat for section 3 on the first day offered. This means I am enduring a 7-9 week wait period. I check the scores multiple times daily. I have a high level of confidence in my performance; however, it is still hard to wait this long for results.

I sat for 4 separate tests for the Certified Irrigation Designer tests by the Irrigation Association. Very similar test formats with all electronic questions. The results were instant. I was able to take all 4 sections of 100+ questions in less than a year. While I do not request an immediate result, I do think the wait time was initiated for the original vignette style tests and never got updated. The time it gives you to begin preparing for the next section are concerning.

(Just my vent)