Employment Mentor FAQS

employment-mentor-faq

Employment Mentor FAQs

Here you will find the FAQs for Employment Mentors.

APEAS is a limited liability company with charitable status which was established with the following objectives:

  • To set and conduct the Part 3 Examination in Professional Practice and Management (also called the Part 3 Examination) in Architecture
  • To establish and carry out procedures for assuring and enhancing the quality of the setting and conduct of the Examination
  • To undertake any other tasks that might arise within the scope of furthering the first two objectivesThe Company is managed by a Board of Directors who set policy and objectives. It is administered by the Chief Executive Officer of APEAS (currently Dr Peter Kahan)

In Section 4 of the Architects Act (1997) the Architects Registration Board (ARB) are given statutory responsibility to prescribe the qualifications that are needed to become an architect. 

APEAS was originally prescribed by ARB to manage and administer the Part 3 Examination in Professional Practice and Management in 2003. Subsequently, APEAS has been re-prescribed by ARB in 2007 and 2011.

APEAS is also validated by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA). It was successfully re-validated in 2013.

The Part 3 Examination is the recognised standard for registration with ARB to hold the title of architect and is the gateway to chartered membership of the RIBA and the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland (RIAS).

To be eligible to present for the Part 3 Examination a candidate will normally need to satisfy the following requirements:

  • ARB/RIBA Part 1 passARB/RIBA Part 2 pass
  • Have a minimum of 24 months of authenticated and validated professional experience and (as laid down in the RIBA Professional Experience and Development Record (PEDR).In the United Kingdom many degree programmes in architecture are prescribed by ARB and validated by the RIBA. This means that candidates successfully completing these degree programmes also satisfy either the ARB/RIBA Part 1 or Part 2 criteria. It is very common for United Kingdom candidates to sit two degree courses in architecture so that they can satisfy both the Part 1 and Part 2 criteria.The situation with regard to candidates with non-UK qualifications is more complex and you are advised to go to the ARB website (www.arb.org.uk) for more information.The rules governing professional experience eligibility criteria changed in June 2011. The rules are encapsulated in ARB’s Rule 13 (b) which states the following:‘the candidate has recently completed a minimum of 24 months’ practical experience under the direct supervision of a professional working in the construction industry which should include at least 12 months working in the EEA, Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, under the direct supervision of an architect.’In short, the rule states that candidates must have a minimum of 24 months of logged, signed professional experience which is normally recorded on Professional Experience and Development record sheets. Twelve months of this professional experience must have been gathered within the previous two years of the candidate submitting his documentary submissions to APEAS.For further detailed information on the professional experience eligibility criteria please refer to the PEDR website (www.pedr.co.uk)

Prior to June 2011 only registered architects were allowed to mentor candidates’ professional experience. However, with increasing globalisation of the architectural profession, ARB/RIBA have relaxed, to some extent, this requirement. In the context of ARB’s Rule 13b up to 12 months of a candidate’s professional experience may be mentored by a professional working in the construction industry who is not an architect. ARB provides the following helpful definition regarding a professional working in the construction industry:

‘will be an architect registered in the territory where the experience is being undertaken or a chartered or similarly qualified member of an appropriate professional body. The ‘construction industry’ will include qualified professionals typically involved in the procurement, design and management of the built environment.’

You may, of course, be a registered architect and, as such, be broadly familiar with the Part 3 Examination process. If this is the case you may not require to read the whole of this Guide, but simply read the content of questions where you require clarification or updating on certain issues.

If you are not an architect you may find it helpful to read the whole of the Guide.

Within the Student Section of the RIBA Professional Experience and Development Record website (www.pedr.co.uk) there is a section entitled “Duties and Responsibilities of the Employer”.  Within this section there is a very helpful table which sets out the responsibilities of the mentor. These responsibilities can be summarised as follows in terms of the way that the APEAS examination process works:

  1. Establishing and maintaining an organisational framework within the place of employment which ensures that the candidate has access to a wide range of high quality professional experience.
  2. Overseeing the professional and educational development of the candidate, supervising his/her daily work, and reviewing the candidate’s performance and achievements at 3-monthly intervals using the Professional Experience and Development Record
  3. Discussing with the candidate at the start of each of the 3-monthly periods of professional experience their main work objectives for the next 3 months together with the learning opportunities open to the candidate during that period.
  4. Ensuring that the candidate is not unduly challenged by tasks inappropriate to his/her current level of experience.
  5. Ensuring that a candidate is not given as a matter of routine tasks that are of little or no educational or developmental value to him/her.
  6. Providing opportunities for organised professional training which include first-hand experience of a range of general procedures and tasks as well as training in some procedures and tasks which may be of a more specialist nature.
  7. In addition, depending on how the place of employment is structured the mentor may be responsible for ensuring the following:
  8. Providing the candidate with a contract of employment and job descriptor which include details such as hours of work and the time available for study and opportunities for professional and educational development.
  9. Ensuring that the candidate is supervised at all times including when the mentor is absent from work and that safe working arrangements are in place for the candidate while at work.
  10. Commenting, signing and dating the candidate’s progress and achievements for each 3-monthly period of professional experience in the PEDR record sheets within a reasonable period following the end of each 3 month period.
  11. Ensuring that the candidate is obtaining relevant experience of contractual arrangements and practical procedures to support his/her educational and professional development towards the Part 3 Examination.
  12. Encouraging the candidate to attend one of the Part 3 update courses provided by the five Scottish Higher Education Institutions that deliver degree programmes in architecture.

The challenge for any mentor is to find an appropriate balance of input into their candidate’s professional development. A mentor should reasonably expect his/her candidate to be taking a constructive and proactive interest in their own professional experience. It must be emphasised that it is the candidate who is ultimately responsible for their own professional experience and development. Thus, mentors should not have to ‘spoon feed’ their candidate but rather should concentrate on creating an environment in which the candidate is positively encouraged to explore, examine, question and reflect on a range of issues in architectural practice. Candidates should be allowed to challenge in sensitive but constructive ways current ideas, views and attitudes on, for example, office systems, procedures and practices. Candidates should also be encouraged to express opinions and make judgements about practice issues although such opinions and judgments should be supported by evidence and/or well developed arguments. For example, the candidate may be given a task to assess the benefits versus risks to the employer of taking on a particular project, and based on reasoned analysis, provide a judgement as to whether the employer should undertake the project or not.

Mentors should also actively encourage candidates to learn the importance of accepting constructive advice and criticism about their work, judgements and opinions as this will become part of their professional life when they are a registered architect.

Referring again to the PEDR website, in the section entitled “Duties and Responsibilities of the Student” the responsibilities of students in the mentoring process are clearly set out. These can be summarised as follows in terms of the way that the APEAS examination process operates:

  1. Comply with the codes of professional conduct set out by ARB, RIBA and the RIAS.
  2. Inform your PSA of the name and place of employment of your mentor. Maintain regular dialogue with your PSA.
  3. Take responsibility for your own learning, so that by the end of the period of professional experience you are in a position to accept the role and responsibilities of a registered architect.
  4. Take responsibility for your own work subject to supervision by the mentor.
  5. Be clear what your roles and responsibilities are as an employee. You should not as a matter of routine be expected to undertake tasks which are of little value to your professional or educational development. Likewise, you should not be expected to undertake task for which you have not been adequately prepared.
  6. Complete the 3-monthly Professional Experience and Development Record sheets in a timely, accurate and reflective manner obtaining in advance permission from your employer for the inclusion of materials produced in the place of employment.

All Part 3 candidates are assessed against the jointly agreed ARB/RIBA Criteria at Part 3. These criteria, together with information on how to interpret them, can be found on the APEAS website (Candidate’s section).

The APEAS Part 3 Examination compares with Part 3 examinations offered by other bodies in that all candidates are assessed against the jointly agreed ARB/RIBA Criteria at Part 3. However, in another sense the APEAS Part 3 Examination is unique in that APEAS does not currently offer a course leading to the Part 3 Examination.

In Scotland it has been traditionally held by both the architectural profession and Higher Education institutions offering prescribed and validated degree programmes in architecture that the Part 3 is essentially a ‘worked based’ qualification with candidates acquiring the necessary knowledge, understanding, skills and judgment in architectural practice to sit the Part 3 Examination through employment.

This approach highlights the importance of candidates acquiring a wide range of high quality professional experience and your role in helping candidates to acquire such experience. To support candidates towards the Part 3 Examination the five Higher Education Institutes offering degree programmes in architecture run short update courses for candidates.

It is important to note that your candidate can also obtain information, advice and support from his/her Professional Studies Advisor (PSA). The PSA is normally a member of staff in a Scottish school of architecture who has responsibilities for supporting and advising Part 3 candidates. Among their duties PSAs have responsibility for commenting on and counter-signing candidate’s 3-monthly PEDR record sheets once you have commented and signed them. Candidates can also seek their PSA’s advice on the appropriateness of their Experience Based Analysis title and synopsis.

There are three components in the APEAS Part 3 Examination. These three components are as follows:

  • Experience
  • Experience Based Analysis
  • Practice Paper

The Experience component consists of two documents: a Record of Experience and an Evaluation of Experience. The vast majority of candidates record their professional experience in a RIBA Professional Experience and Development Record (PEDR). One of your tasks as a mentor is to review your candidate’s PEDR record sheets on a 3-monthly basis and then comment on the candidate’s progress and achievements and sign and date the record sheets in the appropriate place. For information on the professional experience eligibility criteria see Q.4.

The Evaluation of Experience comprises of a 2000 word report in which candidates critically evaluate their professional experience. It is accompanied by a one page CV.

Although there are two separate documents these are assessed together for the Experience component based on the breadth, depth and quality of their experience.

The Experience Based Analysis consists of a 6000 word report plus appendices in which the candidate examines either a building project or a theme from contemporary architectural practice. As the name implies, the emphasis in the report is on taking a building project or theme that is directly relevant to the candidate’s own professional experience and which contains a significant level of critical analysis of the subject area.

This component is open ended in the sense that the candidate chooses his/her own subject and can start the investigation when he/she likes. Traditionally this component comprised essentially of a ‘diary of the job’ but such a submission would not be acceptable nowadays. Examiners are looking for candidates to undertake critical evaluation leading to them exercising their professional judgment. The candidate’s judgments (including conclusions and recommendations) are often the subject of discussion at oral interview.

The Practice Paper is a two-day, open-book, in-office examination based on a scenario of a hypothetical architectural practice. To make the examination as realistic as possible to real life, candidates are allowed to consult with construction professionals both within and outside the office providing they cite such consultations in their answers. The examination paper itself usually consists of 10 questions which require candidates to produce memos, prepare letters, write short reports etc. Questions are designed as far as possible to assess candidates’ judgment on a range of architectural practice issues.

APEAS maintains a pool of practice examiners. To become a practice examiner a person must be:

  • a registered architect who is an experienced and active practitioner; and
  • normally has a minimum of seven years appropriate post-registration experience.A person applying to be a practice examiner is interviewed by the Convenor of the Examination Committee and Senior Examiner of the Practice Examiners Committee. The person applying has to satisfy the Convenor and Senior Examiner that they have a wide enough range of architectural practice experience and a genuine commitment to the Part 3 Examination before they are allowed entry into the pool of examiners.

Candidates sit the Practice Paper towards the end of November, normally on a Tuesday and Wednesday. Following the sitting of the Practice Paper candidates’ submit their documentary submissions comprising their Record of Experience/ Evaluation of Experience, Experience Based Analysis report and Practice Paper answers to APEAS by noon on the Friday following the completion of the Practice Paper. APEAS undertakes a check of candidates Records of Experience to ensure they meet the minimum requirements for such experience (i.e. a minimum of 2 years’ experience of which 12 months is within 2 years of submitting their documentary submission) before sending candidate documents out to practice examiners.

APEAS arranges for each candidate to be assigned to two practice examiners.  At this stage in the examination process, examiners work independently of each other when assessing candidate work. For each candidate one examiner initially assesses the Experience and Experience Based Analysis components while the other examiner assesses the Practice Paper component. Both examiners receive a copy of the Evaluation of Experience so that even though the examiner assessing the Practice Paper component is not assessing the Evaluation of Experience he/she will gain some background on the candidate’s professional experience.

Examiners initially grade candidate documents using the following grading scale:

Grade Class
A Excellent
B Good
C Satisfactory
D Fail
E Clear fail

 

It must be stressed that APEAS uses grades for internal assessment and quality assurance purposes only. Grades are not given to candidates, but they are simply notified whether they have passed or failed the Part 3 Examination, and if they have failed which components they have to re-sit.

These initial grades are submitted to the APEAS Chief Executive Officer at the end of January/early February so that he can initiate the sampling of candidate documents by the external examiners.

After the initial grades have been submitted and before the Oral Examinations, examiners can confer with each other regarding their candidates and should exchange and cross-mark all component submissions that have failed or are, in the view of the initial marker, only a marginal pass.

Candidates attend for oral examination towards the end of February. They are examined by the same practice examiners who initially graded their component documentary submissions. Oral examinations normally last between 45 minutes and 1 hour although in the case of a re-sit candidate where only one or two components are being assessed, the oral examination may be as short as 30 minutes if the practice examiners have completed their questioning.

The main purpose of the oral examination is to allow practice examiners to question candidates on their documentary submissions and the ARB/RIBA Part 3 criteria with a view to confirming, or otherwise, the initial grades they have awarded their candidates. As a result of the oral interview examiners have scope to move one or more of a candidate’s initial grades up or down. For example, in the case of a candidate who moves from a fail to a pass as a result of oral examination practice examiners have satisfied themselves that the candidate has provided sufficient evidence in terms of the ARB/RIBA Part 3 criteria to confirm he/she is competent and safe to practice as an architect. In the case of a candidate who moves from a pass to a fail as a result of his/her performance at oral interview the oral interview often reveals that the candidate has a fundamental lack of awareness, knowledge, understanding or judgment in critical areas of architectural practice. The scope practice examiners have to change grades at oral examination represents the principal part of the APEAS moderation process.

After the oral examinations are concluded a Practice Examiners Committee meeting is held. At the start of this meeting each pair of practice examiners is invited to read out whether each of the candidates they have examined has passed or failed the Part 3 Examination. Following this, each pair of practice examiners provides a brief explanation of the reasons candidates failed a particular component or components of the Part 3 Examination. Based on these explanations, and as the last stage of moderation, practice examiners are allowed another short period of time to reflect on whether they wish to change any of their grades. Following this short period of time any changes are notified to the APEAS Administrator who finalises the results for the Examination Committee which follows directly after the Practice Examiners Committee meeting.  At the Examination Committee meeting the views of the external examiners are carefully considered before the results are finalised by the Convenor of the Examination Committee and the external examiners signing the results sheets

The APEAS Examination Committee has debated at some length whether it is appropriate to inform candidates of the grades they achieved in the Part 3 Examination. At its meeting on 25th June 2009 the Committee finally agreed the following, ‘that pre and post-oral grades were only for APEAS internal quality assurance purposes and PSAs and the CEO should not reveal grades to candidates.’ The Committee came to the view that the overwhelming requirement of the Part 3 Examination was for candidates to demonstrate that they meet the Part 3 criteria or not (i.e. Pass or Fail the Part 3 Examination). The grading structure is to be used by APEAS practice examiners for internal assessment and quality assurance purposes only.

In simple terms a candidate must achieve a minimum of three Grade C passes in the Part 3 Examination

Yes they can. The candidate must resubmit documents for the component, or components, he/she failed and then attend another oral examination.

Yes there is. Candidates are allowed up to two re-sit attempts in three years of first sitting the Part 3 Examination. If they fail both re-sit attempts they must sit all three components again. A candidate who does not attempt to re-sit a failed component, or components, in three years of first sitting the Part 3 Examination will have to sit all three components again.

APEAS guarantees to inform candidates whether they have passed or failed the Part 3 Examination (and if they have failed which component or components they have failed) within in a week of the end of the Oral Examinations. In reality the APEAS CEO and Administrator endeavour to get the results to candidates within two or three days of the Oral Examinations.

Yes he/she can. The APEAS Appeals Procedure can be found on the website

At the Oral Examinations where a candidate has failed a component, or components, of the Part 3 Examination the pair of practice examiner will meet with the candidate’s PSA to explain the reasons for failure. The PSA will then write to the candidate explaining what the candidate has to do in order to pass the Part 3 Examination next time.

APEAS employs external examiners to ensures that rigorous quality assurance standards and arrangements are applied to its Part 3 Examination process. External examiners are independent minded, highly professional people who have normally examined at Part 3 level and work in the architectural profession and/or in independent institutions offering the Part 3 Examination. The external examiners report goes directly to the APEAS Board which prepares an action plan in response to recommendations made in the report.

For more details of the APEAS external examination arrangements please see the Examiners section of the APEAS website

Yes they can. Candidates with a medical condition, and/or a specific learning difficulty, such as dyslexia, are invited to inform APEAS on their registration form if they have a medical condition or specific learning difficulty which might affect their performance in the Part 3 Examination.

Dr Kahan, the APEAS CEO, will contact candidates who have indicated they have a medical condition and/or specific learning difficulty to explain what arrangements are available to support them while sitting their Part 3 Examination.

It is important to emphasise that the APEAS Part 3 Examination is a United Kingdom based examination and, as such, a candidate sitting the Part 3 Examination must be able to communicate effectively in the English language when speaking and writing. To expand on this a little the nature of the written and oral responses candidates will have to give throughout the Part 3 Examination process will involve them at times in communicating complex information, understanding and argument about architectural practice.

It is important that the candidate possesses the necessary listening, reading, writing and speaking skills in English to be able to do this. APEAS strongly recommends that a candidate does not undertake the Part 3 Examination unless he/she has an International English Language Testing System (IELTS) score of at least 6 in each of the four individual components of Listening, Reading, Writing and Speaking, and an overall band score of 6.5 (or the equivalent under any other English language testing system). A candidate who is concerned about their ability to communicate effectively in English should contact their Professional Studies Advisor for advice.

In theory yes, but it is not advised. The RIBA Professional Experience and Development Record (PEDR) is an electronic recording system specifically designed to provide practice examiners with a clear and consistently recorded statement of experience, which allows the examiners to evaluate candidates experience effectively.  For this reason, practice examiners prefer that candidates use this electronic system for recording their experience.  Any other recording method that a candidate decides to adopt runs the risk of failing to provide information in a form that allows consistent and effective evaluation by the examiners, and may prove ineffective in persuading examiners of the range, depth and quality of the candidate’s experience.

In making any judgment on whether your candidate is getting a sufficient range and depth of professional experience you should be guided by the ARB/RIBA Criteria at Part 3 which sets out the total range of subjects a candidate can be assessed on at Part 3.

Candidates are also required in the PEDR system to record the time spent on each project against the stages in the RIBA Plan of Work. These hours can be identified in terms of the candidate being a participant or simply an observer. Reviewing the sheets containing this information should also help the candidate and you to identify any significant gaps in experience.

Architecture is a very wide ranging discipline and it is simply not possible for a candidate to know everything about it before he/she sits the Part 3 Examination. Candidates should not try to deceive their examiners into thinking they know about a subject when they do not.

What practice examiners look for is that the candidate has a sufficiently broad range and depth of high quality professional experience by the time he/she sits the Part 3 Examination. Where significant gaps exist in the candidate’s experience the examiners will want to know what steps he/she has taken to address these gaps.

In answering this question it is perhaps helpful to consider who will read your comments. First, and foremost, the candidate will read your comments, followed by the candidate’s PSA and finally the practice examiners. From the candidate’s perspective he/she should be looking for an honest, fair appraisal of progress and achievements in each 3-month period.

By all means give praise where it is due, but do not be frighten to identify areas for improvement where you have identified these. From the PSA’s point of view he/she will want to be assured that the candidate is getting a sufficiently broad range of high quality professional experience to prepare the candidate for the Part 3 Examination. Thus, a brief description of what the candidate has done during each of the 3-month periods would be helpful. It would also be helpful, especially towards the end of the period of professional experience, to include details of how the candidate and you intend to address any significant gaps in the candidate’s experience. From the practice examiners perspective they are most interested to see how the candidate has developed professionally as a result of gathering their architectural practice experience.

Thus, your comments with regard to candidate performance and achievements are likely to be most informative in assessing this. Where you have identified areas for improvement at various stages during the period of professional experience it would be most helpful to the practice examiners if you could provide an opinion on whether the candidate has improved in these areas or not.

RIBA have produced on the PEDR website in the Employer’s Section a very helpful Word document entitled template for recording comments designed to allow you to record comments on your candidate’s 3-monthly record sheets. This document includes a suggested agenda for a 3-monthly review meeting which you may find helpful. Using this agenda, or one similar to it, should help to inform the comments you write into the Mentor’s box in the candidate record sheet.

The RIBA Certificate of Professional Experience provides an alternative route for a candidate to record his/her professional experience where the candidate has substantial architectural experience. The Certificate is now available as an online recording format on the PEDR website.  In order to use a Certificate of Professional Experience a candidate must satisfy the following conditions:

  • they must have the permission of their PSA to use the Certificate of Professional Experience route
  • they must have a minimum of six years’ experience which must meet the ARB/RIBA professional experience eligibility criteria
  • they are working at a sufficient level to take responsibility for small jobs or acting as a team leader in charge of a number of assistants involved in either a large project or a range of smaller projectsFor more details on the Certificate of Professional Experience please see the PEDR website (www.pedr.co.uk)

The APEAS Part 3 Practice Paper is an open book examination sat in the candidate’s office over a period of 48-hours. Prior to sitting the Practice Paper candidates have a week to read the main Scenario in preparation for sitting the Practice Paper. Studying the main Scenario, and background information to questions which is included with the main Scenario, carefully will allow candidates to gather the relevant documents to be best prepared for sitting the Practice Paper.

With regard to sitting the Practice Paper, APEAS recognises that a sometimes busy office is not an examination hall. However, it would clearly be advantageous for the candidate if they sat the Practice Paper in a quiet area free from outside distractions. Candidates should have adequate table space to work on, a comfortable chair, good lighting and be able to use a personal computer with printer, the internet and a phone during the 48-hours they are sitting the Practice Paper.  Candidates should also have ready access to necessary contracts, appointments, standards, codes of practice etc. while sitting the Practice Paper.

With your agreement secretarial support may be provided to the candidate if required. This would normally involve the typing up of answers. APEAS has no problem with this as long as the typist adheres strictly to typing up what the candidate has written and does not start to edit the prose with a view to improving the English.

It is a good idea to advice colleagues that your candidate is sitting his/her Part 3 Examination on such and such dates, and that as a consequence they may be approached to give their views on a range of architectural practice issues.

During the 48-hours a candidate sits the Practice Paper he/she is involved in a great deal of intense intellectual activity. Candidates are advised to manage their time appropriately during the 48-hours so that they can provide answers to all the ten questions normally contained in the Practice Paper. In addition, such time management must include adequate periods of rest and time for meals to avoid the candidate exhausting himself/herself. While you are not responsible for the candidate managing his/her time during the 48-hours, you may, nevertheless, just want to keep an eye on the candidate to ensure that he/she is not pushing himself/herself so hard that their performance in the examination or even their health begins to suffer.

At the end of the 48-hours candidates have a short period of time to format, print and bind their Practice Paper answers to the same professional standard as the Experience Based Analysis report and the Record of Experience/Evaluation of Experience. It is important to emphasise that candidates should not change their answers in anyway during this short period of time before submitting their documentary submissions to APEAS. Candidates are required to submit an electronic copy of their answers to APEAS at the end of the 48-hours so that APEAS can check if any changes have been made to answers.

On a few occasions candidates have been unable to sit, or are late starting, the Practice Paper in their office due to adverse weather conditions. Where such circumstances arise you are asked to contact the APEAS office without delay so that the APEAS Chief Executive Officer can discuss with you possible alternative arrangements to allow the candidate to sit the Practice Paper.

It is not uncommon for this situation to arise. APEAS does not expect a mentor, or someone else assigned by the mentor, to supervise the candidates for the full 48-hours they are sitting the Practice Paper. This would simply be impractical and unrealistic. There has to be an assumption that the candidates should be professional enough to work on their own and not to collude with each other. However, it is entirely appropriate for a mentor to drop in unannounced on the candidates, say, on three or four occasions while the candidates are sitting the Practice Paper just to assure himself/herself that the examination is being conducted properly.

As far as is practicable, mentors are asked to arrange that candidates have a quiet area(s) to work in with sufficient space between the candidates so that they cannot see each other’s work.

When answering Practice Paper questions candidates are likely to seek the views of colleagues within the office. It can be somewhat annoying if two or three candidates go and see a person in the office at different times requiring repetition of the answer previously given. However, APEAS would ask that during the time the candidates are sitting the Practice Paper that those consulted by the candidates show patience in repeating their answers to individual candidates. It is important to appreciate that all candidates should be working on their own and while some candidates may consult a person for an opinion on a certain question another candidate may not. APEAS does not believe it appropriate that a person consulted by a candidate gives a single response to all the candidates as this may give unreasonable help to the other candidates.

This is a situation that arises quite frequently due to work commitments or personal circumstances. APEAS would ask that if this situation arises that you arrange for a fellow construction professional within the office to take on the role of mentor while the candidate sits the Practice Paper. You should advise your colleague that he/she will have to sign, along with the candidate, a declaration that the candidate has not colluded with others or plagiarised material while sitting the Practice Paper. You should notify APEAS before the candidate sits the Practice Paper of this change in mentoring arrangement.