I must agree with Jeffery. The test is just mentally and spiritually frustrating. It is nothing more than a bureaucratic hoop jumping experience. By no means does it truly test ones ability as a Landscape Architect. It is not based upon real world experience or typical process. In particular, the Grading and Drainage Section is almost comical. After discovering I failed the section, I paid the money to see the red-line(s) (why I failed), and no exaggeration, but I failed because I drew a pathway that approximately 98 – 99 feet away from the lake, when the setback was 100 feet. That’s it… Yes it was incorrect, but the scale of the drawing was 1″ = 100′, so we are talking about the width of the pencil lead. If that was a ‘real-life’ project, the City or County would have made me make the proper corrections and resubmit. They would not take my license away.
Oh, while on the subject of the Grading Exam, I love the ‘roof run-off and pipe sizing’ calculation problems… as far as my experience, that issue falls under the scope of a Civil Engineer (in California), not a Landscape Architect.
And the Examine sure does not test ones ability to Design… in any true capacity. Unfortunately, because one is licensed, it surely does not mean they produce good, creative. and problem solving design work. The bottom line is that the examine has one of the highest failure rates (particularly the graphic problems) of any profession. Even the Bar Examine passes far more percentage wise…
The strange thing about the exam is that it is not really difficult. It is more of a test of following exact directions under time constraint. I agree with others who say that perhaps they should make the exam more difficult, as long as it is based in reality. I don’t know about other states, but California’s exam certainly is not.
